Child abuse is most rampant in schools, and mostly done by teachers than any other vocation. Priests don't molest kids any more than the average man, so I don't know why they carry the stereotype.

I'm not saying this to excuse their behavior or to say it is any less horrific (I'm sorry that it happens. I apologize on their behalf). But what I am saying is that I often see it talked about like it's something unique to Catholic churches and that it happens there more than any where else where adults deal closely with children. It doesn't at all.

But that's beside the point. I don't understand why we *always* need to bring up wrongdoings of Catholic clergy or other Christians or people from 1000 year ago or even Americans in threads about a radical Islamic terrorist attack. It happens every time and I don't understand why. A radical Islamist blows people up and immediately people here start: "Well the Crusades this and that," "Catholic priests this and that," "Christians this and that," "Americans this and that." I mean, come on already. Why use horrible tragedies to make a point about another group of people when those people had nothing to do with it? Why not just acknowledge and discuss the evil at hand that just happened rather than creating diversions?

There are plenty of threads about Catholicism and Catholic priests here made entirely for the purpose to talking about how horrible they/we/our beliefs are. I don't understand why every thread about some Radical Islamic mother fucker blowing people up has to become about Catholic priests.

(May 23, 2017 at 4:19 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(May 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: And for the record, the difference between an Islamic terrorist and a Catholic pedophile is that the terrorist is religiously motivated to commit those crimes. The priest who rapes kids is not motivated by his religion to do so.

Depends on how you count motivation. Denying priests from ever having an open, normal sexual relationship with anyone, forcing them to go against human nature, could be construed as motivation.

Id say covering it up for decades. And holding priests immune to secular law and not kicking them out.  Just to maintain the churches image is religiously motivated

(May 23, 2017 at 4:19 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(May 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: And for the record, the difference between an Islamic terrorist and a Catholic pedophile is that the terrorist is religiously motivated to commit those crimes. The priest who rapes kids is not motivated by his religion to do so.

Depends on how you count motivation. Denying priests from ever having an open, normal sexual relationship with anyone, forcing them to go against human nature, could be construed as motivation.

That's ridiculous. People don't become attracted to children because they aren't married. 

The number of pedophiles in the catholic church is irrelevant (thou I question how many there have been considering we know we can't trust the church on the matter) The consorted and extravagant efforts to hide the truth is.

(May 23, 2017 at 4:33 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(May 23, 2017 at 4:19 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Depends on how you count motivation. Denying priests from ever having an open, normal sexual relationship with anyone, forcing them to go against human nature, could be construed as motivation.

Id say covering it up for decades. And holding priests immune to secular law and not kicking them out.  Just to maintain the churches image is religiously motivated

Wrong. The motivation to cover it up is all about saving face and preventing scandal. It has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine.

But it does have to do with maintaining the churches imagine

(May 23, 2017 at 4:33 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Id say covering it up for decades. And holding priests immune to secular law and not kicking them out.  Just to maintain the churches image is religiously motivated

Don't forget that the church identifies priests as adhering to and representing a higher moral standard.

(May 23, 2017 at 4:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Child abuse is most rampant in schools, and mostly done by teachers than any other vocation. Priests don't molest kids any more than the average man, so I don't know why they carry the stereotype.  

This statistic is where the problem lies.
The priesthood, with its claims of moral superiority, should present a lower adherence of amoral behavior than the average man.
If the priests are truly in spiritual contact with the moral lawgiver, then they should not.... not one of them... they should not have any amoral behavior. They should all, with no exception, follow the morality code instilled by their highest boss.

However... we know very well that the reality is different from this ideal state.

Which automatically hints at a lack of actual contact between the priesthood and the ultimate lawgiver... most likely, I'd say, because no such lawgiver is within any spiritual neighborhood... but I'm sure you disagree.

(May 23, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 23, 2017 at 4:19 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Depends on how you count motivation. Denying priests from ever having an open, normal sexual relationship with anyone, forcing them to go against human nature, could be construed as motivation.

That's ridiculous. People don't become attracted to children because they aren't married. 

You miss the point, so I'll be blunt. People put their dicks where they shouldn't go when "normal" outlets for them are blocked. Your church requires that they give up any remotely normal relationships then protects them when they cross these lines.

Yep, let's keep talking about Catholics and Catholic priests in a thread about a suicide bombing done by a radical Islamist who killed dozens of people. Because the handful of threads already dedicated to that aren't enough, and because somehow... all people of faith (especially Christians) hold some blame over what some nut job Islamist does.

I'm outta here.