N.J. priests arrested in Canadian sex case

[AllDaySucker]

>>Ad, you're simply in a state-of-denial.

>

>Oh well, if you are right, than what can one say of the

>denial of the Jews and Protestants who choose to attack the

>abuse of a few catholic priests rather than tham that of

>their own. This whole debate is laughable. I don't excuse

>a few incidents of catholic infedelity, but I think t it is

>truly amusing that so few have the courage to confront abuse

>by jewish rabbis and other forms of protestants. Perhaps,

>it is simply too close to your own homes? I have always

>wondered what percentage of gays where abused. When I read

>these anti-catholic diatribes, I come to suspect that much

>more abuse has taken place, and that for not a few of you it

>is easier to strike out at a priest than your own rabbis.

>How sad, but I will pray for you nonetheless.

 

I have been a lurker here for a while and have not been participating at all in the Message Center. I have been following the sad discussions dealing with this subject and restraining myself from getting into them. I don't want to get drawn in now either, but I can't keep from expressing the reaction that I have to many of Ad rian's comments. Ad rian, you won't like it, but it is precisely what I feel when I read many of your remarks. You will probably lash out at me, and if you do you will have the last word, because I am not going to respond or get drawn in any further now. But if you can get beyond an understandably defensive reaction, you ought to think about this some, because this is how it appears to at least one person who is not emotionally involved with any of the groups concerned. And it may be hard to believe, but I am not saying this to criticize you, but rather to try to help you see what may be too close for you to see clearly by yourself.

 

I'm not a Catholic, and I'm not a Jew, so I don't think that my reaction is based on any defensiveness or on the fact that either side of the matter strikes home. When I read many of your remarks the first thing that occurs to me is that they express a lot of repressed, or maybe not so repressed, hostility towards Jews and anti-Semitism. Your responses in this thread and in others dealing with the same topic often confirm that impression: not the facts that you point out (that's okay), but the way in which you do it, the constant harping on rabbis and Jews, and the implications that you draw or suggest. Why just rabbis? What about Protestant ministers? And imams? And other kinds of clergy or non-clergy? Are they all beyond being abusers? I think you ought to reflect on that.

 

Beyond that reaction, which is all I originally intended to say, since I am here I guess I will also say how the general argument here strikes me. You say you are a lawyer, so you must be reasonably well-educated. I find it hard to imagine how a well-educated person in this day and age, particularly a person who is trained to look at the facts and understand what they mean, can harbor the kind of attitude that I see in your comments and can ignore or obfuscate obvious truths. This is not an advocacy argument in which one chooses the points which support one's position and passes over others which don't.

 

A cluster of cases of abuse has come to light in one group. That's news no matter what the group is, and that is why it is being reported. Several years ago it was dentists (feeling up female patients under gas). Next month it might be nurses. Or redheads. Or Lutherans. Or, yes, rabbis. The fact that abuse may or may not also exist in other groups does not excuse or justify the abuse in the first group. Neither does the fact that the total number of abusers may or may not be only a small percentage of the group. When someone is diagnosed with leukemia it doesn't make the news and doesn't get reported. When 16 children in one small town in Nevada are diagnosed with leukemia it is news and gets reported.

 

Abuse was found among priests. That's news. Priests are supposed to be trusted leaders and role models. Leaders, role models and other prominent persons are in a different category from the anonymous citizen. When a homeless person is arrested for shoplifting it doesn't make the news and doesn't get reported. When Winona Ryder or Bess Myerson was arrested for shoplifting it was news and got reported. When a mayor or a senator gets caught doing something it is news and gets reported. When you or I get a blowjob it is not news and does not get reported. When Bill Clinton got a blowjob it was news and got reported.

 

The current ferment over abuse by priests is not because of an attack on the Catholic Church, it is because of a violation of trust and ethics by various _representatives_ of the Church, both the transgressors and the higher-ups who have been shielding them and turning a blind eye. Don't confuse the individual representative with the institution. Nobody thinks that the Winona Ryder affair, or the Robert Blake affair, or the Darryl Strawberry affair, or the myriad other recent drug, domestic violence, etc., arrests of various actors and sports figures is an attack on actors or professional sports. Nobody thought that the arrest of Bess Myerson was an attack on Jews or the Miss America pageant.

 

Please try to get a little distance from this issue and reflect on it, for your own benefit more than anyone else's.

[ad rian]

>Why just rabbis? What about

>Protestant ministers? And imams? And other kinds of clergy

>or non-clergy? Are they all beyond being abusers? I think

>you ought to reflect on that.

 

That is precisely my point. Have you not read my posts? I am the guy saying, let's address abuse across all denominations, and the guy who provided links (thus far unrefuted) to demonstrate that targeting RC priests is simply not rational, but rather counterproductive. I purposefully drew the jewish example to show the hypocrisy of many who now focus on the RC problem, but if you read my posts you will see that I have gone after hypocrisy among other forms of protestants as well.

 

>A cluster of cases of abuse has come to light in one group.

>That's news no matter what the group is, and that is why it

>is being reported.

 

Did you not read my links (from jewish sources) about the cluster of abuse among orthodox rabbis. If it is clusters that justifies targeting particular denominations then let's ses some equal time in the media. If not, I think it is fair to ask why not. I point you too to my Post 79 on the other thread where I address the point that pointing to concentrations of particular ethnicities in any business or profession is necessarilly racist or anti-anything, including anti-semitic.

 

>The current ferment over abuse by priests is not because of

>an attack on the Catholic Church, it is because of a

>violation of trust and ethics by various _representatives_

>of the Church, both the transgressors and the higher-ups who

>have been shielding them and turning a blind eye.

 

Again, my point is that the evidence does not suggest that these moral lapses are particular to RC priests. That being the case, the focus on one to the exclusion of the other invites more a more serious response than "please let me be free to hold my baseless views in peace."

 

>Please try to get a little distance from this issue and

>reflect on it, for your own benefit more than anyone else's.

 

It is amusing to me how people debate phantoms on this board. You know noting of my religious beliefs, yet you assume I have some personal stake in the debate. Sorry, I just don't like witch hunts. I know that is not a fashionable rage in the times of Ashcroft, but somebody must dare to dissent. I do so proudly.