disturbing statistics from FFRF

[robtex]

From the Freedom from Religion foundation:

http://www.ffrf.org/timely/epidstudy.php

If you read example after example it isn't just the catholic church, but many other Chrsitian groups.

Should members of religious organizations be held to higher standards than the general public when it comes to child safetly and when pedophillies are found in the clergy that were hidden by the church should the church be held for civil liablities?

 

[Aqualung]

There's a Freedom From Religion Group?!

 

[robtex]

As a footnote to the article it is really hard to find any groups that openly publish on the net (other than non-theist ones) findings of sexual abuses in churches. I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the churches throw money at the major news organizations prompting them to not openly publish it--or at least be really gun-shy about publishing damaging info on them. I spent quite a bit of time looking for anything about this. I did find one that really really bothered me here:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-05-2001/0001566613&EDATE

It is an old case but if the allegations are true that is gotta be one of the worst cases I have ever read about.

 

[Sunstone]

Should members of religious organizations be held to higher standards than the general public when it comes to child safetly and when pedophillies are found in the clergy that were hidden by the church should the church be held for civil liablities?

There's an insurance company based in a town just South of me that insures Protestant pastors against sexual abuse suits and which, I've heard, averages eight claims per week. So, this is wide spread.

Of course anyone in a position of trust must be held to a higher standard than someone who is not in a position of trust, IMO.

Again, suing the folks who raped you is a right, not a privilege.

 

[robtex]

Of course anyone in a position of trust must be held to a higher standard than someone who is not in a position of trust, IMO.

Phil, I concur with your statement. I further think if a church is involved in a cover-up, even if it is only a cover-up lasting a week..by not calling the crime in after they are aware of it, that they should permanently lose their tax-exempt status. I find it unacceptable that they generate tax liabilities by promoting crime while in the same breath avoid taxes.

I wish there was a way to push for legistation that would put clergy who are convicted of violent crimes on a sliding scale where they are indexed on punishment at higher levels for the same crime and that churches harboring such crimminals were automatically prosecuted by the DA on civil grounds to help finance a portion of the tax liablity that they created with their harborment of crimminal activites and or knowledge of crimminal activities.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I believe they should. People usually tend to put their trust into religious organizations beyond what they would in other organizations- even their childrens' school, sometimes. As part of that sacred trust, I think that religions that have people in positions of power should hold themselves to higher standards than the general public and they should be expected to.

As for any organization... well, actually, anyone, I think that anyone who's aware of child abuse behavior and does nothing to stop it, or worse does something to hide it,
should be held for civil liabilities. Any group of people knowingly doing so should be held to even higher ones.

 

[Smoke]

It's not even a question of being help to a higher standard. The church authorities were grossly negligent and more than that, they were to all intents and purposes active accomplices.

Phil, I concur with your statement. I further think if a church is involved in a cover-up, even if it is only a cover-up lasting a week..by not calling the crime in after they are aware of it, that they should permanently lose their tax-exempt status.

I think they should all lose their tax-exempt status. I've been threatening for years to get in on the religion racket by getting together with a few friends and incorporating as a religious brotherhood, but I think it would be better just to eliminate what is, really, a subsidy paid by the rest of us.

 

[Quiddity]

From the Freedom from Religion foundation:

http://www.ffrf.org/timely/epidstudy.php

If you read example after example it isn't just the catholic church, but many other Chrsitian groups.

Should members of religious organizations be held to higher standards than the general public when it comes to child safetly and when pedophillies are found in the clergy that were hidden by the church should the church be held for civil liablities?

Absolutely they should. As a catholic I hold absolutely no excuses for them. If they are found guilty, they should be held accountable. Everything to help the victims and further safety should be looked into and followed through. I teach high school students and make it a point to never talk to any of them by myself. I didn't even like doing it before all this happened, let alone now.

 

[Quiddity]

Phil, I concur with your statement. I further think if a church is involved in a cover-up

I do want to note that some Bishops did a better job at cooperating then others. So I can understand how easy it is for people to just say "The Catholic Church covered up" rather then some Bishops, priests, and staff members covered up. We are a religious institution with 1.2 billion people. Do people really want to lump us all together like that? Do they actually buy that the Pope whispered into the ears of all the Bishops and told them to keep quiet?

 

[Quiddity]

I think they should all lose their tax-exempt status.

And what do you plan to accomplish with this? Hundreds of provinces weren't even involved. Would you still have them ALL go down for it?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Absolutely they should. As a catholic I hold absolutely no excuses for them. If they are found guilty, they should be held accountable. Everything to help the victims and further safety should be looked into and followed through. I teach high school students and make it a point to never talk to any of them by myself. I didn't even like doing it before all this happened, let alone now.

I think that this is one especially sad aspect of the situation, that because of the actions of a few, the many (pretty much any adult that works with children or young adults) have to be cautious, even if there's absolutely no chance that they'd be abusers themselves.

 

[robtex]

Absolutely they should. As a catholic I hold absolutely no excuses for them.

Vic that means a lot to me that you are not a part of the religious bandwagon who feels they should be shielded. I think there is a lot of denial that happens in congregations when a religious leader is uncovered as a sex offender. I would note that the sterotype is that it is a catholic problem in the USA when actually, it is more of a general religious problem.

 

[robtex]

I do want to note that some Bishops did a better job at cooperating then others. So I can understand how easy it is for people to just say "The Catholic Church covered up" rather then some Bishops, priests, and staff members covered up. We are a religious institution with 1.2 billion people. Do people really want to lump us all together like that? Do they actually buy that the Pope whispered into the ears of all the Bishops and told them to keep quiet?

That is certainly true. When I mean the organization should be accountable I am thinking more in terms of the church were it occured. For instance if XYZ church in little town Texas, whom is under the umbrella of XYZ mega church based out of megacity USA is found to have covered up an abuse I think that xyz littletown should be responsible.....all the staff known to have concealed the info but not xyz megacity USA unless they were aware of it and hid the information.

There is speculation in the case of the Catholic church that there is a larger cover-up links here:
1) http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html
2) http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/extras/coverups_archive.htm
3) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

Here is another footnote of interest regarding the catholic church.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/specialtopics/transfers/Picardi-2003-05-04-AR-TroubledPasts.htm

 

[robtex]

I think they should all lose their tax-exempt status. I've been threatening for years to get in on the religion racket by getting together with a few friends and incorporating as a religious brotherhood, but I think it would be better just to eliminate what is, really, a subsidy paid by the rest of us.

I would concur with that idea under regimented constraints. For instance if the cover-up was at a local level with no attachment to the larger orgainzation than I would only be for the repeal of the tax exempt status of the satalite institute until the number of total seperate cases for the entire orgainzation apexed three in any one decade. Once they lost tax-exempt I would advocate that be a permanent status.

 

[robtex]

And what do you plan to accomplish with this? Hundreds of provinces weren't even involved. Would you still have them ALL go down for it?

Two things would be accomplished:

1) The organization would be held responsible as a whole for the clergy they employ. They would be required to screen more and be more aggressive in promoting a non-cover-up envirorment. IE if their bottom line is attached to compliance of non-sexoffenses they are gonna make it a bigger priorty than many of them have made in the past.

2) The church which is spending tax dollars they are not paying for (ie sex offense use tax dollars of social workers), would be forced to assist in financially in the social burdern their institutions have created. To be honest with you, it is a slap in the face of the social field the tax payers and the victims for churches to create the financial burdon and than gleefully avoid any financial responsiblity due to a tax free status. It is metaphorically a smack on both sides of the cheek. One creating the burdon and two avoiding finacial responsiblity.

 

[Smoke]

And what do you plan to accomplish with this? Hundreds of provinces weren't even involved. Would you still have them ALL go down for it?

That's not what I meant. Of course I'm not saying that all religious groups should be punished for the crimes of a few. I'm saying they should never have had tax-exempt status in the first place.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

My sister and I were molested and/or raped by our grandfather, who was the deacon in a Baptist Church. I have come to realize that this was not a unique case of grotesque behavior. When I found out how many children were victimized by leaders in the community and/or by their own family members, I was dumbfounded, because I knew for every case that was public, there were at least 10 that went unreported.

This is not a new phenomena, this has been going on for thousands of years. The only way to stop it is to bring it out in the open, and hold people responsible for their actions. What the churches are doing is that same as saying "Uncle Fred didn't mean to, he was just drunk. . . " We cannot make excuses for this kind of behavior, I think this is a good place for public humiliation.

 

[Quiddity]

That is certainly true. When I mean the organization should be accountable I am thinking more in terms of the church were it occured. For instance if XYZ church in little town Texas, whom is under the umbrella of XYZ mega church based out of megacity USA is found to have covered up an abuse I think that xyz littletown should be responsible.....all the staff known to have concealed the info but not xyz megacity USA unless they were aware of it and hid the information.

There is speculation in the case of the Catholic church that there is a larger cover-up links here:
1) http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html
2) http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/extras/coverups_archive.htm
3) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

Here is another footnote of interest regarding the catholic church.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/specialtopics/transfers/Picardi-2003-05-04-AR-TroubledPasts.htm

I don't understand why you felt the need to give me all these links after having opened up as I did? I'm willing to put blame as high as the Vatican if that is the case. The document written by the Italian Cardinal is 39 pages long. Full of Catholic terms and like ancient documents like the Unam Sanctum are easily misunderstood by those not familiar with Church teaching and Canon Law. It's rather beefy. But it is certainly a great eye catcher to say "stored in the secret archives". Just understand that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have adressed the issue at hand.

Peace be with you,
~Victor

 

[robtex]

I don't understand why you felt the need to give me all these links after having opened up as I did? I'm willing to put blame as high as the Vatican if that is the case. The document written by the Italian Cardinal is 39 pages long. Full of Catholic terms and like ancient documents like the Unam Sanctum are easily misunderstood by those not familiar with Church teaching and Canon Law. It's rather beefy. But it is certainly a great eye catcher to say "stored in the secret archives". Just understand that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have adressed the issue at hand.

Peace be with you,
~Victor

Vic, I hope you realize I don't lump you in with sex offenders or catholic sex offenders in any way shape or form. I also have great confidence that if you came across such information about any clergyman you knew about, espcially as a devoted father, you would act on it rather than conceal it. I posted the links because you said the Vatican or higher-ups may not be aware of much of it. I found researchers who speculated on how much they knew, found it relevant to the topic and posted it.

What did the US Conference of Catholic Bishops doe after they addressed it? What was the end result of the address?

 

[Quiddity]

1) The organization would be held responsible as a whole for the clergy they employ. They would be required to screen more and be more aggressive in promoting a non-cover-up envirorment. IE if their bottom line is attached to compliance of non-sexoffenses they are gonna make it a bigger priorty than many of them have made in the past.

And this can't be done while being tax-exempt?

2) The church which is spending tax dollars they are not paying for (ie sex offense use tax dollars of social workers), would be forced to assist in financially in the social burdern their institutions have created. To be honest with you, it is a slap in the face of the social field the tax payers and the victims for churches to create the financial burdon and than gleefully avoid any financial responsiblity due to a tax free status. It is metaphorically a smack on both sides of the cheek. One creating the burdon and two avoiding finacial responsiblity.

I can't speak of my diocese only Rob. And I can tell you respectfully that you are misinformed. Our diocese releases all their financial data (my friend is the accounting director for the diocese) and has specifically started programs to help the families affected. It's cost millions of dollars and beuracracies only come in and audit and check up on them. The diocese contracts outside companies to do handle the programs. I was actually quite impressed with all the precautions and programs they had. Granted it's different in every diocese, but I honestly don't think it's as bad as you may imagine.