You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 03:52:31 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Religious Adoption Agency Will Shut Down Instead of Letting Gay Couples Adopt  (Read 5778 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
I think the sticking point here for me is that the place, from what I gather, is receiving funds from the state. This is nothing new as far as state operations, I'm led to believe, and that's fine. But when an organization is receiving taxpayer funds, then the same services should go to all qualifying tax payers. This includes gays.

If you want to be able to operate based on your moral or religious code, then that's fine, but you shouldn't be taking public monies to do it. Especially not to the tune of 3.5 million dollars. If this organization were funded completely by private donors, then it would still be reprehensible to me, but not necessarily objectionable to the taxpayers.

Offline Will

I think the sticking point here for me is that the place, from what I gather, is receiving funds from the state. This is nothing new as far as state operations, I'm led to believe, and that's fine. But when an organization is receiving taxpayer funds, then the same services should go to all qualifying tax payers. This includes gays.

If you want to be able to operate based on your moral or religious code, then that's fine, but you shouldn't be taking public monies to do it. Especially not to the tune of 3.5 million dollars. If this organization were funded completely by private donors, then it would still be reprehensible to me, but not necessarily objectionable to the taxpayers.

I am in total agreement with this.  I think this turn of events will actually be a good thing, in the long term, because the money can now (hopefully) go to an organization not motivated by an exclusionary theological doctrine. 

Offline Brandon

One could argue that refusing to adopt children out to gay couples without first running a background check as to whether or not they're acting on that impulse (which you say is what they actually have a problem with) is more indicative of bigotry.

I could also argue that United states culture prevents such a thing from taking place while still helping these children find a home. Sit down and think about it, if you and your husband/girlfriend were to go in to try and adopt a kid and you were asked questions relating to your sex life how would you feel? Our culture is drowning in sexual innuendo and thought but the actual approach of it is almost always taboo with the exception of looking for sex with the person. Even then its usually taboo to just come out with it rather then dance around the issue for days/weeks/months (thats more a rant about dating and sex though)

The idea of 'living in sin' in regards to homosexuality seems a bit of a lame excuse to me. You can't undo a divorce, you live with that always. Are they monitoring in the long-term for parents who cheat on their spouse? Do they take the child away if the couple gets a divorce? What if it's their second divorce? Surely the parents are going to lie at some point in the future -- multiple times, in fact; what are they doing for those people since they are obviously unapologetic? And if they take the Lord's name in vain a few times after they adopt? In the same vein that homosexuality was called an abomination, we also see that God's not a fan of polyester, shrimp, or tattoos. How are they tackling these pressing issues, and is it with the same fervor that they oppose homosexuality?

I'm not saying they don't have a right to discriminate as they see fit -- if they want to exclude Mexicans and people who are left-handed, by all means, it's their exclusive club and they don't have to invite me, but the arguments that their special stance on homosexuality isn't bigotry...well, it's not terribly convincing.

Unfortunately I am not qualified to answer these questions and the only ones who might be are people in the catholic heirarchy at the Bishop and higher levels (it is possible that your average priest might be able to answer them but I have my doubts). The first problem is approaching the issue with this kind of hostility will immediately put them on the defensive since it is often the prelude to some kind of social attack against their beliefs. The second problem is you're bible thumping here and as I have said many many many times bible thumping is nothing but a trap. As a culture all churches are far more complex then their doctrines. So much so that social observation of the group as a whole is pretty much impossible or anyone not a part of it. I cant be sure but my instincts tell me that this particular issue has been decided from a mix of holy text, history, tradition, and reflection


Offline Noelle

I could also argue that United states culture prevents such a thing from taking place while still helping these children find a home. Sit down and think about it, if you and your husband/girlfriend were to go in to try and adopt a kid and you were asked questions relating to your sex life how would you feel? Our culture is drowning in sexual innuendo and thought but the actual approach of it is almost always taboo with the exception of looking for sex with the person. Even then its usually taboo to just come out with it rather then dance around the issue for days/weeks/months (thats more a rant about dating and sex though)

Oh, okay...Sooooo. It's okay for the Church to get involved with gay people's sex lives and dictate that they can't put it up each other's ass and whatnot, but asking me about my sex life is drastically more uncomfortable and that should be protected.

Quote
Unfortunately I am not qualified to answer these questions and the only ones who might be are people in the catholic heirarchy at the Bishop and higher levels (it is possible that your average priest might be able to answer them but I have my doubts). The first problem is approaching the issue with this kind of hostility will immediately put them on the defensive since it is often the prelude to some kind of social attack against their beliefs.

Questioning the inconsistencies of religion is not necessarily hostile. If you'd like to present yourself as the moral authority and enjoy privileged status in your country and then fail to live up to it, I'd expect you should be able to take some questions about your modus operandi, but I could be wrong about that.

Quote
The second problem is you're bible thumping here and as I have said many many many times bible thumping is nothing but a trap. As a culture all churches are far more complex then their doctrines. So much so that social observation of the group as a whole is pretty much impossible or anyone not a part of it. I cant be sure but my instincts tell me that this particular issue has been decided from a mix of holy text, history, tradition, and reflection

Let me just go back a few posts where you were defending the Catholic church's traditional stance on homosexuality. Those stances are corroborated from from the Bible, Brandon. I am making references to the same book you are. It's not Bible-thumping, it's you cherry picking what is and isn't acceptable to bring up. You're using special pleading and it's not terribly convincing. If you're not qualified to answer my questions, then I'm not sure why you feel qualified to explain the intricacies of how there are so many different churches using so many different doctrines that I can't possibly classify them or make a general statement such as their interest in a holy book central to the religion.

Offline Foxy Oni

Meh, I can't really applaud CCR for sticking to their guns about their beliefs because in their press release they say the state is trying to define their religious teaching. That's disingenuous.  The state of Illinois isn't saying what they can or can not believe in or teach. It just says the agency can not discriminate against any legally recognized couple and still receive state funding. Freedom of religion doesn't include the right to get a big fat check from the government.  Besides, if this agency was anything like the Catholic agency my dad and stepmom used to adopt my sister, they're hitting up adoptive parents for ten grand or more to just play go-between between them and the biological mother. That's what they do, they don't run orphanages staffed by kindly nuns. Maybe also file some paperwork any lawyer can handle for a couple hundred bucks tops. So between that, money from the church itself, and outside donations they want even more money from the government. I gotta call shenanigans. I'm thinking there are some fat salaries involved and this "shutdown" is a plea for more money from other sources to keep the gravy train running. Cynical, maybe. But I can't really imagine what they need so much money for to play middlemen in a fairly simple legal process.

Offline Brandon

Let me be clear on something. I am here to try and educate people with legitimate questions and I do not have all the answers. I have never pretended to have all the answers but I am trying to field questions and give as informed answers as I can. I am not here to be verbally berrated with accusations and snide remarks while whispering "thank you ma'am may I have another"

I said you were bible thumping because you took on the usual stance of everything in the bible must be followed if one thing is. That is false and it has been false since the birth of the catholic church, maybe even before that. The difference between your bible thumping and my own comments regarding the bible is I said from the start that there was more to it then just a few lines in the bible and included both written and unwritten rules of catholic doctrine.

If I misunderstood your position then ok, you can clarify it but I will not be accused of cherry picking while trying to explain someone else's point of view. I do not agree with them when it comes to gays but I do understand where they are coming from

To be sure I say this, its not questioning that is the problem. Its your approach thats the problem. I said that from the start




Offline Anjasa

I think this is very sad, and a very difficult thing for the children caught in the middle.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 06:49:19 PM by Anjasa »

Offline Noelle

Something tells me that changing my tone to your liking probably wouldn't suddenly make you stop writing my points off and demanding that I listen to you in return, but that's okay. Let's move on to another subject.

The Catholic Catechism, considered the official teaching text of the Catholic Church has this to say about homosexuals:

Quote
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

(Emphasis mine.)

Am I on the right track here? I figured a document marked as an official Catholic authoritative document might have some bearing, but if the Bible can be tossed aside, I suppose this is fair game, too. I'm open to correction, of course.

If you'd like to make the "living in sin" argument, I'd just like to pre-emptively ask how many single gay parents (who presumably wouldn't be engaging in homosexual behavior...since, you know, they're single) they've adopted out to.

I digress:

Quote
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

So what I get is that saying bad things about God, lying under oath, and adultery is never okay, and yet this organization is presumably not screening for any of those three. I'd say "gravely illicit" is pretty serious business.

Aaaand, for the finale:

Quote
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I'm not really sure how to say this gently, but calling for chastity hasn't really been working out for them in the last decade or two.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Noelle, I think probably it's not only unwise, but off topic to tackle the subject of Catholicism as a whole. This is one specific adoption agency, in one specific instance. It might be less aggravating to address that.

Your arguments with Brandon have been continually futile and I can only guess at the reason why they continue if they aggravate you so much. ^^ My money is on masochism. However, if you want to continue with Brandon specifically, might I suggest a dialogue?

Offline Brandon

Noelle, I think probably it's not only unwise, but off topic to tackle the subject of Catholicism as a whole. This is one specific adoption agency, in one specific instance. It might be less aggravating to address that.

Your arguments with Brandon have been continually futile and I can only guess at the reason why they continue if they aggravate you so much. ^^ My money is on masochism. However, if you want to continue with Brandon specifically, might I suggest a dialogue?

Unfortunately thats an idea that I have to veto. I find her personal behavoir abhorrent most of the time because her posts are often riddled with personal attacks and what seems to be a "Gotcha!" mentality. I often try to give her time to edit those attacks out as a personal courtesy before I hit the report button but as for a one on one dialogue, no. There isnt a chance in hell of that happening

That said, i will digress myself. There were originally two topics in this thread. The obvious one being the church's withdrawl and other more sinsister one being the accusation of bigotry. Ive said my peace on the latter and hope that people choose their words more wisely next time

As to the former, I believe the church is well within its legal rights to do what it did and I commend them for standing by their beliefs. I just wish, as Im sure they do, that it didnt need to come to this outcome

Offline Noelle

I don't think that was your moment to step in and bring your personal issues with me out in the open.

Offline Brandon

Just because I dont like you doesnt mean that I think you are wrong by virtue of being you. When I think you're wrong its because youre just wrong

Offline Noelle

I'm sorry you feel that way. Have a great weekend.

Offline Brandon

Actually no, I need to take that back. It is not you as a person but the behavoir that I have a problem with. Calling me ignorant, telling my Im white knighting, telling me Im horrible for defending a point of view that is not my own. Thats what I have a problem with. The fact is I dont know who you are outside this forum, weve never talked and never played together and it is unfair of me to asscoiate behavoir with a person

Im sorry for acting like such a jerk there

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
I see that subtlety has failed. Ahem.

Stop bickering and stay on topic. If you wish to continue taking potshots at each other, do it in PM and stop hijacking threads.

Thank you.



Moving along (and I do hope we can move along, here), I noticed in the press release from the OP that the church appears to be condemning both married (or civil unionized, whatevs) same sex couples and "unmarried cohabitation between couples of the same sex", so it would be interesting to see what their record is for placing their charges in just these situations.

Online Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
If the bickering continues the thread will be locked until such time it can resume without the need for personal attacks against one another. 

Offline Pointless DigressionTopic starter

In a single angle, though, the acts of the Church should be applauded - and before people start jumping on me, hear me out.  The fact that they have the conviction to say "No, we've got a deeply held belief about homosexuality and gay marriage, and we're not going to compromise on it, even if it means discontinuing adoption."  That sort of act isn't very nice, I know, but they should be commended for the fact that they're willing to stand up for what they believe in rather than compromise.

Commitment to ideological purity is not a virtue in and of itself. Insert your own favorite sexual/ethinic/religious prejudice here. Just because a person was committed to it and willing to stand up for their belief doesn't entitle them to commendation for the fact that they stick to it.

Hypothetical scenario: let's say that this organization stuck to the "Jews as Christ-killers" prejudice that was historically present in the Catholic church, and declined to adopt children to Jewish couples because of that belief. If the Illinois state legislature was on the verge of passing a bill forbidding religious discrimination as a factor in placing children in adopted households, this organization might well choose to fold rather than being forced to place children with Jewish couples. Would you admire their ideological purity in that case?

Clarification: I am not saying that this organization or the Catholic Church are exhibiting antisemitism. I'm making an analogy to express my point that ideological commitment is not a virtue in and of itself.

That part comes in the fact that homosexuality being a sin is rooted within the Bible - Old and New Testaments.  I don't recall anywhere where it says being a single parent is a sin - that's more Catholic tradition rather than Biblical principle - and certain instances of divorce aren't sins, either.

The Bible also says that it's an abomination to eat shellfish, have tattoos, or wear a shirt made of both wool and linen fibers.

Unless the Church was similarly making sure that no adopted parents eat lobster rolls, have tattoos, or wear blended fabrics, it's a case of cherry picking which biblical prohibitions they'll get their collective panties in a bunch over.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 09:02:42 PM by Pointless Digression »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
I'm not actually certain that it's cherry-picking so much as rallying under the Protect the Children banner that has rallied so many other causes (anti-abortion, anti-HPV vaccine, abstinence education in schools, censorship of movies in the form of the MPAA, etc).

Offline Callie Del Noire

I am not surprised by their action. From the agency's point of view, the writing was on the wall. There are, I'm sorry to say, folks out there looking to start trouble over religion (such as the guy who went around suing about the the ten commandments in court houses and such).

The people running the agency knew that sooner or later they would be in conflict with that law and rather than risk legal issues took the expedient step of shutting down. Financially this allows them to put church money into less regulated areas they feel than can help out.

It's a bummer, but at least they did it before the court cases started.


Offline Jude

The religious discern between biblical tenets that are in their mind important (rules against homosexuality for example) and those that serve no clear purpose (prohibitions against shellfish).  In that way they are definitely cherry picking, it's just that they are employing a schema to do so ("the protect the children" mantra in this instance); so I think both Trieste and Pointless Digression are right.  Truthfully though, I'm glad they cherry pick.  It's much better to have a populace made up of faithful people who think for themselves (even if they're not always right) than having a nation full of absolute literalists.  This is really an example of the religious recognizing the shortcomings of the text (the fact that it was written by men and translated many times) while still searching for what rings true to them within it.

As far as the "is this bigotry" debate goes, I don't know if the Catholic Church is bigoted or not (that's a subjective question that is also rather meaningless given that bigotry is a spectrum not a binary proposition), but I do find their stance on homosexuality to be extremely unfair.  They expect a life of celibacy from homosexuals then punish them when they do not live up to that (in subtle ways, such as recognizing them as a immoral, denying them communion in some instances, or not letting them adopt).  And if you take the totality of their position on homosexuality into account it seems especially Draconian really.  They believe the following according to their own stated dogma in their Catechism:

1)  That people are born gay
2)  That homosexual actions are sinful
3)  That through faith in god it is possible to live without indulging in that sin

You would think that of all organizations, the Catholic Church would be the one to shy away from damning sexual relations between consenting homosexuals in the aftermath of their non-consensual pedophile priest scandals, but I guess this is beyond my understanding.  Somehow it's okay to expect more of laypeople than their own practitioners?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 11:57:21 PM by Jude »

Offline Callie Del Noire


You would think that of all organizations, the Catholic Church would be the one to shy away from damning sexual relations between consenting homosexuals in the aftermath of their non-consensual pedophile priest scandals, but I guess this is beyond my understanding.  Somehow it's okay to expect more of laypeople than their own practitioners?

Sadly the leadership might be following the old adage: 'Do as I say not as I do." And let's be realistic, only a small portion of the Church is involved those actions. Either doing or covering.

Offline Jude

This is absolutely true.  Last I heard, the amount of actual priests guilty of pedophilia is comparable to the incidence in the population at large even if the number of cases per pedophile is exaggerated due to the ineffectual way that the church leadership handled it.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Commitment to ideological purity is not a virtue in and of itself. Insert your own favorite sexual/ethinic/religious prejudice here. Just because a person was committed to it and willing to stand up for their belief doesn't entitle them to commendation for the fact that they stick to it.

Hypothetical scenario: let's say that this organization stuck to the "Jews as Christ-killers" prejudice that was historically present in the Catholic church, and declined to adopt children to Jewish couples because of that belief. If the Illinois state legislature was on the verge of passing a bill forbidding religious discrimination as a factor in placing children in adopted households, this organization might well choose to fold rather than being forced to place children with Jewish couples. Would you admire their ideological purity in that case?

Clarification: I am not saying that this organization or the Catholic Church are exhibiting antisemitism. I'm making an analogy to express my point that ideological commitment is not a virtue in and of itself.

Yes.  I would.  I would find their ideology evil and abhorrent, something to be shunned rather than praised, but I would find their commitment to it to not be something negative.  We get a lot of people these days who are willing to compromise on their beliefs, which can be good in the short term but horrendous in the long term.

Allow me to utilize a historical example: slavery.  The Founding Fathers knew way back when that slavery was an issue, and a few members of that Congress (most notably Ben Franklin) tried to get the Constitution to say something about slavery.  Problem was, there were bigger issues at stake - the Southern states refused to ratify the Constitution if anything about slavery was said, and the Northern states refused if nothing about it was said.

What resulted?  The Three-Fifths Compromise, in which a slave counted as three-fifths of a person for both population and property tax.

What might surprise you is that everyone - Southerners included - knew that eventually slavery would have to go.  Problem was, the South's economy was built upon it, and no one could come up with a solution for the issue - no one conceived of a system to replace slavery.

Over the years, two more compromises - the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 - were done to prevent conflict from breaking out over slavery.  And even that didn't work, because part of the Missouri Compromise was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which allowed for the Lecompton Constitution - the allowance of Kansas to come in as a slave state.  But if I know my history - and I do - it wasn't much long after that that radical abolitionist ministers from New England supported a man who used violent and illegal means to overthrow Lecompton, and bring Kansas back to being a free state - this was Bleeding Kansas.

Compromising like this wasn't working, but no one was willing to go to conflict to resolved it.  And it wasn't until another man who had stood up and said, "No.  No more," and was elected, that the issue of slavery really got resolved.

To sum up: One's conviction and willingness to stand by their own ideologies is not inherently wrong.  It's the ideology that's wrong.

The Bible also says that it's an abomination to eat shellfish, have tattoos, or wear a shirt made of both wool and linen fibers.

Unless the Church was similarly making sure that no adopted parents eat lobster rolls, have tattoos, or wear blended fabrics, it's a case of cherry picking which biblical prohibitions they'll get their collective panties in a bunch over.
(Emphasis mine.)

No, it's not.  All those rules you quoted from the Old Testament?  Part of the old covenant that Moses and the Israelites made with God on Mt. Sinai.  Except no one could live up to the old covenant, because the purpose of it - now as it was then - was to remind us that we are fallen, and that we can't repair our relationship with God on our own - we need His help to do that.

But in the New Testament, Jesus tells the disciples that He is the new covenant, the old way of things is gone, the new has come, at the cost of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.  Therefore, we are no longer under the law of Moses (another way to refer to the Old Testament covenant), but under the laws of truth and grace, as stated by the apostle Paul.

Furthermore, the lobster thing?  In the books of Acts, Peter goes to a town called Caesarea, and while he is staying in someone's house, he sees a vision sent by God, in which a sheet containing all sort of 'unclean' animals from the Old Testament were contained.  Jesus then calls to Peter, telling him to 'Get up.  Kill and eat.'  To which Peter responds that he has never eaten anything unclean - and Jesus replies by telling him to not call anything unclean that God has made clean.  This happened three times, and then the vision ended.

So no, the church is not cherry picking things when they ignore stuff like that, because Christians A: are no longer under the covenant of the Old Testament, and B: the ultimate purpose of that covenant is to remind us of our fallen nature, not to just provide a set of guidelines to live by.

Offline Pointless DigressionTopic starter

Last I heard, the amount of actual priests guilty of pedophilia is comparable to the incidence in the population at large...

Ooooh! That sounds like a factual claim. Let's evaluate it. Stand back everyone, I'm going to try...MATH!!!

Okay, let's assess that claim. In America there are around 600,000 sex offenders, and of those around half of all sex crimes involved children under the age of 18. Crunch the numbers and around 0.08% of Americans are pedophilic sex offenders.

Let's start with the assumption that Catholic priests are no better than the average person when it comes to commiting sex crimes against children. First of all, whenever I hear that, my kneejerk response is:


But I digress. If Catholic priests are no better than the public at large, we would expect to find around that about 0.08% of them would be child rapists. Of course, since the Church has been systematically covering up cases of child rape, we can't know for sure what the percentage is. We can, however, take the Catholic Churches own figures, using a report commissioned by the Church and authorised for publication by the Catholic Church. The report only includes Catholic Priests serving in the US between 1950 and 2002, only includes reports made to the Catholic Church (not reports made directly to police), and only includes those reports which were entered into official Church documents (and we know that many reports were never officially recorded).

The headline figure was that 4% of Catholic priests had allegations of sexual abuse reported against them. However, the figure is actually much worse than the headline, since it is artificially decreased by priests entering or leaving the order around the cut-off dates (EG, a Priest ordained in 2001 counts in the total number of priests, but they only have a fraction of their career to count in the total number of sex offenses). If you take priests who served their full career during the reporting period, IE those ordained in 1970 so that the entire 30 years of normal service is included within the reporting period, 10% of Catholic priests had allegations of child sexual abuse reported against them.

Of course an allegation does not mean that a crime was actually committed. The Church reported only a tiny fraction of allegations to police - even priests with ten or more allegations were transferred to a new ministry 96% of the time, and only reported to police 4% of the time. So once again, we have to rely on the Church's own investigation. As reported by official Church documents, 82% of cases were noted at the time of the report to be "credible". 72% of cases were investigated, and of those 80% were found (by the Church) to be "substantiated" and only 1.5% of cases were found to be "false". When you crunch these numbers along with the 10% accusation rate, the Church's own official reports (which can be considered a bare minimum) demonstrate that 8.2-9.9% of Catholic Priests were child sex offenders.

So in other words, a Catholic priest is about 100 times more likely than a member of the public to be a pedophilic sex offender.

Offline Pointless DigressionTopic starter

Reiji,

In my analogy to antisemitism, I finished with the line: "I'm making an analogy to express my point that ideological commitment is not a virtue in and of itself."

On the same subject, you ended with the quote, "To sum up: One's conviction and willingness to stand by their own ideologies is not inherently wrong.  It's the ideology that's wrong.

So as far as that goes, we're in agreement. But you still expressed admiration that the Church was willing to stick by their commitment, and I'm approaching it from the angle that if a person's beliefs result in demonstrable harm to another person, I don't give them any bonus points for sticking to them. Especially not in this case, as the people being harmed by the Church's commitment to its beliefs are desperately needful children.

Thank you for the history and theology lesson. I don't really want to go down that path, since it's a tangent to the original post, so we can either pick it up in a new thread or in messages if you want to hear my response.