French clergy sexually abused over 200,000 children since 1950, report finds

I left the Catholic church because in the church I attended, one of the priests molested 3 boys. The church quickly shuffled him off to a more rural church. We all wondered why the priest left so suddenly and found out why about 6 months later.

The Catholic church needs to revisit their policy about women priests and marriage for the clergy

 

Delete

 

Disagree this is a fundamental pillar of the Catholic clergy. It is a child molester cult it was designed that way by the Roman empire who were notorious child molesters.

This is a core fundamental of the clergy it's by design. They've recruited pedophiles for hundreds of years I don't think letting them get married would make them not be pedophiles. There are probably loads of willing adult men and women around that they could get busy with all they want.

I left the Catholic Church because the pedophile cult that runs it are hypocrites of the highest order.

Most churches cover up their clergy's misdeeds.

 

Blaming homosexuals for the church promoting child molestation for centuries is like blaming firearms for mass shootings.

If you're a homosexual priest and you have to have sex there's probably plenty of adult men willing to get busy with you. You join the clergy so you can molest children and get away with it because there is a state [the Vatican] that will protect you from prosecution.

 

they have to try something different but perhaps as you say, it's now endemic

 

I don't think now is any different than the day it was created. It has always been a pedophile culture it was created by a pedophile culture.

It's not a cancerous tumor growing inside of an organism it is the heart.

And if you think your religion is any different you are mistaken. Even secular organizations do this. The boy scouts for example have been hiding pedophiles since 1965

Every organization wants to be reputable and safe but they're not.

 

Doesn't RICO involve crime for profit?

 

If the Church is covering for the the priests then yes, that is indeed the Church's fault. The "undeniable" link between homosexuals and child molesters IS nonexistent in actual fact and simply a distraction to defend your beloved church

https://lgbpsychology.org/html/facts_molestation.html

 

I don't remember, but there was the case of a bishop who got sentenced a few years ago : knowing the acts of a child molesting priest, he just moved him away rather punishing him. The most well known is Philippe Barbarin, but there was other cases.

 

Oh you no, it's the French. I'm more surprised people are surprised by this

 

It's quite clear that all organisations have a duty of care towards their members, employees, congregations etc, and that includes religious bodies as well as sports bodies etc. The RCC did not exercise that duty of care, in fact they deliberately made it worse by not listening to complaints, covering up the abuse, and moving priests so they could carry on the abuse.
All these bodies should be audited every year to ensure that abuse of vulnerable people can't take place. Measures should include ensuring that young people are never alone with one person, with monitoring of contacts with adults, that complaints are investigated promptly by an independant person, that the suspect is suspended immediately, that the police are called if there is enough evidence. Full disclosure to be made of all investigations, and charges to made against all the officers/officials responsible for not enforcing these measures. Full damages to be awarded to all the victims.
Ensure this stops once and for all.

 

It's been very common in the Church for a very long time. I think it's at the point where a Papal Council is called for and some major reforms made.

Priests should be married, (yes, gays too) and women should be priests. Also the abortion ban has to end. Otherwise I don't think the Church will survive this century as an influential institution.

 

It's almost dead in France, even if more than the half of the population consider itself catholic, it's a minority among young people, and even fewer are something else beyond cultural catholics. It's why I'm quite scornfull of people who attack catholicism too much in France : I find it pathetic to attack a dead, teethless lion, we're not in 1780 anymore.
I'm not catholic, so I don't care really of what their dogm is, even if I have some affection for the cultural and artistic legacy linked to catholicism.

I doubt that them becoming progressive would change anything, people don't take a religion just because it fit for their believes.
Even If I'm rather for abortion rights, I don't see how the catholic church could without hypocrisy change their stance : they believe that life start at the conception of the egg. You can't change a religious dogm like that. Furthermore, I'm not sure the anglican church is going far better despite being more progressive.

 

Oh, so you quote a homosexual activist site to claim that homosexuals don't really molest boys.

Maybe that's hitting a bit close to home(o) for you?

 

No, I quote actual facts and research instead of homophobic maunderings

 

Maybe, but you should remember that no less an authority than Augustine was for abortion until the Church realized that stance treated women as actual human beings and was therefore just too much for the cultural milieu of the time. (I often wondered why the Greeks didn't go whole hog and raise women for the table; as meat) God can insert the soul into the fetus whenever he pleases and most people believed that took place at the moment of birth, not conception (that's why the baby cries)

Gay married priests will be a real trip at Easter time. It's coming.

 

post deleted

 

Giving a pedo the option to copulate a female does not remove the pedophilia.

 

I was a little bit surprized by your statement, and so I searched further. I found a history paper made in 2007, but it is fully written in french (save the introduction).
https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhpr_0035-2403_2007_num_87_1_1236

Augustine wasn't for abortion. Apparently, he said that he was ignorant if the foetus had a soul or if he had not.
He had the same opinion that many (even pagan) roman writters that just said "it's impossible to determine when the soul come", modern science hasn't anything that can be compared to the soul, but we can determine when conciouscness.
It's a lot of work to translate all, but apparently he made a difference between the fact the embryo was shaped or not, and not seeing the same seriousness of the matter for both things. So he was very far to be pro abortion, but more nuanced.

We could absolutly be criticfull of how the church considered women, but I'm not sure that's on the matter of abortion it's valid. Nobody denied on the matter of abortion that women were actual human beings.
Furthermore, it has to be remembered that when they spoke of abortion in ancient time, it included also the abortion of fully formed foetus, something that excepted for a few extremist is considered still shocking today.

 

Ya that's disgusting.

 

The Ancients, particularly the Greeks seemed to actually HATE women at times. They gave lip service to a view of her as graceful, beautiful and morally developed but only if she kept her place

The important thing about Augustine's position is that he admitted to not knowing whether the fetus has a soiul. Moderns have no such limitation.

 

If we associate soul with consciousness, yes. Furthermore, the catholic church has a strange position that they can't be wrong from a religious matter, so they can't countersay what was said in a previous manner. It mean that everything a pope said "ex cathedra", can't be really countersayed (yes, it's completely crazy if you're not catholic).

Unfortunately, misogyny was quite common around the world. In a global manner, I noticed that most militaristic societies tend to be the most misogynistic. Muhammad, Paul, judaism don't give a great place to women.
The biggest counter example I know is sikhism, and there is also noticeable cases in Mahayana buddhism.

Part of that misogyny was pure and simple ignorance and illusion, but it's also hard to judge ancient on their women-men relationship as they was much more dependant of each other at that time. Our societies vastly changed. In traditionnal societies (that are also often the poortest one), women are often considered as a minor somewhere between a child and a adult men, but they're also considered as people who should be protected.

It's where I suppose it require a lot of nuance, neither denying the obvious misogyny, neither being too arrogant to judge things from all the comfort technological progress has brought us. And tending to favor a materialistic way of considering the world, I consider that some kind of ideas or societal models can only appear, survive in some specific materialistic conditions.

 

CORRECTION:

French homosexuals and/or deviant perverts pretending to be clergy sexually abused over 200,000 children since 1950, report finds.

If they were genuinely faithful to their chosen religions they could never abuse anyone, much less a child.

 

It's just not the core of the problem. The issue is also that a number of high ranking clergy members just did everything to cover up the stories to protect the reputation of the catholic church. They ended to loose both.
Because it's not only the fact there was child molesters among the church that gave that bad of reputation to the catholic church, it's the fact they just tried to protect their reputation rather helping the victims, it's maybe there that the biggest issue is.

 

That only means there are LOTS of deviant scum that are attracted to religious organizations for some wired reason - but it is a lie to condemn religions, that factually teach the opposite of what those scumbags do.