It's About Time! - Law is out!

[ad rian]

RE: Curious Silence from the Catholic-bashers

 

>Perhaps the only other denomination in which there is the

>potential for this kind of organizational crime is a few of

>the various sects of Hasidic Jews, which are also hierarchical

>and secretive. But they are tiny organizations compared to

>the Catholic Church so the potential for abuse on the same

>large scale just doesn't exist there.

 

That just does not follow. If the incidence is the same across denominations, the fact that one sect is smaller than another simply mean that the absolute numbers will be greater in the bigger sect than the smaller sect. What I don't understand why that is used as a rationale to shield the same incidence in the smaller sect than that in the bigger sect. Are the victims of abbuse in the smaller sect less worthy of our sympathy and empathy? Go back and read the post above where I extracted the quotes from the articles above. Don't you agree that you could have replaced "Jewish" for "Catholic" in each one of those posts.

 

My point is that we need to fight abuse not engage in witch hunts which have as their purpose or effect to distract from the social justice mission of the RC church, the opposition to an unjust war in Iraq, and to an inhuman practice of capital punishment. I wish we would see equal time here excoriating those other sects that do not take such principled moral stances.

[woodlawn]

RE: Curious Silence from the Catholic-bashers

 

>But they are tiny organizations compared

>to

>>the Catholic Church so the potential for abuse on the same

>>large scale just doesn't exist there.

>

>That just does not follow. If the incidence is the same

>across denominations, the fact that one sect is smaller than

>another simply mean that the absolute numbers will be greater

>in the bigger sect than the smaller sect.

 

That's what I just got through saying. The Hasidic sects of Judaism are tiny compared to the Catholic Church and so the number of people in those sects who are involved in committing and covering up sexual abuse is going to be far, far smaller.

 

>What I don't

>understand why that is used as a rationale to shield the same

>incidence in the smaller sect than that in the bigger sect.

>Are the victims of abbuse in the smaller sect less worthy of

>our sympathy and empathy?

 

I don't know of anyone who is trying to shield clergy in other religions.

 

Go back and read the post above

>where I extracted the quotes from the articles above. Don't

>you agree that you could have replaced "Jewish" for "Catholic"

>in each one of those posts.

 

No I don't.

 

>My point is that we need to fight abuse not engage in witch

>hunts which have as their purpose or effect to distract from

>the social justice mission of the RC church,

 

People who accuse the leaders of the Catholic Church of concealing the sex crimes of their clergy and discouraging their parishioners from going to the police are not engaging in a witch hunt, because those accusations are indisputably true. Cardinal Law and several other prelates of the Church have already admitted to such actions in sworn depositions which have been made public. That's why Law had to resign.

[ad rian]

RE: Curious Silence from the Catholic-bashers

 

>That's what I just got through saying. The Hasidic sects of

>Judaism are tiny compared to the Catholic Church and so the

>number of people in those sects who are involved in committing

>and covering up sexual abuse is going to be far, far

>smaller.

 

Yes, but only small in absolute terms not relative terms. That's what makes the disproporionate attention to the RC abuse absurd at best and suspect at worst.

 

>I don't know of anyone who is trying to shield clergy in

>other religions.

 

Then, why don't we see the same moral outrage to abuse in other sects. For a fairly typical instsance, has anyone else other than me even raised that issue here?

 

>Go back and read the post above

>>where I extracted the quotes from the articles above.

>Don't

>>you agree that you could have replaced "Jewish" for

>"Catholic"

>>in each one of those posts.

>

>No I don't.

 

Hmmh, that's very revealing because the quotes all relate to: the reasons for hiding cases of abuse among orthodox rabbis; the movement of abusive rabbis to other localities; etc. If you can't see the evident parallels them I think this is just wilful blindness on your part.

 

>People who accuse the leaders of the Catholic Church of

>concealing the sex crimes of their clergy and discouraging

>their parishioners from going to the police are not engaging

>in a witch hunt, because those accusations are indisputably

>true.

 

Well if the incidence is the same across all sects (a point which you earlier conceded) but we have selective attention to abuse in one sect, that indisputably fits my defintion of a witch hunt. Why do you resist a global approach to addressing all abuse by religious sects?

[BewareofNick]

RE: Curious Silence from the Catholic-bashers

 

>I try (although occasionally fail - must be my Catholic

>upbringing) not to read anything you post so don't wait for me

>to comment. I also resent Nick for baiting you on a thread

>that has nothing to do with Jewish history or culture, of

>which you have already proven yourself to be ignorant.

 

Resent me? Resent me?? What have I ever done to you? Here I am slaving day in and day out investigating shady escorts and this is the thanks I get? Damn you, Erica Kane!!

[BewareofNick]

RE: Curious Silence from the Catholic-bashers

 

And who am I supposed to have baited again? Seems to me I caught more than just one fish.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way

[woodlawn]

RE: Curious Silence from the Catholic-bashers

 

>Yes, but only small in absolute terms not relative terms.

>That's what makes the disproporionate attention to the RC

>abuse absurd at best and suspect at worst.

 

Nothing absurd or suspect about it. The reason for the disproportionate attention to the sex crimes of Catholic clergy is the large scale on which these crimes were committed, for one thing, and the way the leaders of the Church reacted to the crimes, for another. If Church leaders had put a stop to it in each case as soon as they learned of it and turned the offenders over to the cops, no one would be blaming the Church now. But that is not what they did. As we now know.

 

>Then, why don't we see the same moral outrage to abuse in

>other sects.

 

Like I said, in the Catholic Church there seems to have been not just a huge number of sex crimes by individual members of the clergy but also a pretty consistent institutional policy of covering the crimes up whenever possible.

 

>Well if the incidence is the same across all sects (a point

>which you earlier conceded) but we have selective attention to

>abuse in one sect, that indisputably fits my defintion of a

>witch hunt. Why do you resist a global approach to addressing

>all abuse by religious sects?

 

Your definition of a witch hunt is a lot different from the common definition, which is a search for something that doesn't really exist. No one can deny that the search for complicity among the top leaders of the American Catholic Church has turned up lots and lots of genuine examples of complicity, so there is no witch hunt here.

 

I don't see anyone discussing this issue who is saying that clergy in other religions who commit or cover up sex crimes should be treated more leniently than Catholic clergy who do that, so I don't see what you have to complain about. You can't deny the terrible record of the Catholic leadership in this area, so instead you respond by saying 'Well other people did it too,' as if that makes what the Catholic leaders did less reprehensible. But it doesn't.

[ad rian]

RE: Curious Silence from the Catholic-bashers

 

>Nothing absurd or suspect about it. The reason for the

>disproportionate attention to the sex crimes of Catholic

>clergy is the large scale on which these crimes were

>committed, for one thing, and the way the leaders of the

>Church reacted to the crimes, for another.

 

But I have given you articles suggesting similar cover ups among orthodox Jewish sects. Why no similar outrage?

 

>Like I said, in the Catholic Church there seems to have been

>not just a huge number of sex crimes by individual members of

>the clergy but also a pretty consistent institutional policy

>of covering the crimes up whenever possible.

 

Again, I point you to the articles above. Did you read them at all?

 

>You

>can't deny the terrible record of the Catholic leadership in

>this area, so instead you respond by saying 'Well other people

>did it too,' as if that makes what the Catholic leaders did

>less reprehensible. But it doesn't.

 

Nobody is denying the RC record. I am just trying to understand the selective outrage? If the issue is the abuse. Why not go after it all? If the issue is attacking a progresive force for peace and social justice, then I suppose selective outrage has both a purpose and effect.

[woodlawn]

RE: Curious Silence from the Catholic-bashers

 

>But I have given you articles suggesting similar cover ups

>among orthodox Jewish sects. Why no similar outrage?

 

 

Who says that people are not just as outraged about that? Do you have any polling data that says they aren't, or are you basing your complaint on the remarks of a tiny handful of gay men on a message board about prostitution? That doesn't seen like a very reliable indicator to me.

 

>Again, I point you to the articles above. Did you read them

>at all?

 

 

You are not my teacher and you do not have a right to reprove me for failing to take notice of materials that you think I should read. This thread is for people who want to discuss issues related to the resignation of Law. I think you can probably tell that if you read the title. If you want to start a thread to discuss what is going on in American Judaism no one is stopping you from doing that. Go ahead.

 

 

>Nobody is denying the RC record. I am just trying to

>understand the selective outrage? If the issue is the abuse.

>Why not go after it all? If the issue is attacking a

>progresive force for peace and social justice, then I suppose

>selective outrage has both a purpose and effect.

 

I don't know of any evidence that people find sex crimes by other clergy less outrageous than the ones by Catholic clergy. If you have any, let's see it. If not, you should stop acting as though you do.

 

If what you are complaining about is that the media are paying more attention to the Catholic scandals than to others, that is a different issue. One reason for it may be the undeniable fact that the crimes and cover-ups by Catholics are on a much larger scale. I don't doubt that if Bundy or Dahmer had killed only one person the media would have paid much less attention to them. I see nothing sinister about that, just human nature.

[ad rian]

RE: Curious Silence from the Catholic-bashers

 

>Who says that people are not just as outraged about that? Do

>you have any polling data that says they aren't, or are you

>basing your complaint on the remarks of a tiny handful of gay

>men on a message board about prostitution? That doesn't seen

>like a very reliable indicator to me.

 

No it seems typical to me. It is rare to see anything in the mainstream media or on Boards like these that does not focus on the RC church as well. Given that you conceded earlier that there is no greater incidence of abuse in the RC church that focus seems odd to me.

 

>You are not my teacher and you do not have a right to reprove

>me for failing to take notice of materials that you think I

>should read. This thread is for people who want to discuss

>issues related to the resignation of Law.

 

And likewise, you have no right to dictate the direction that a thread will take. What interests me about the Cardinal Law story is the hypocrisy that exists when it comes to abuse in other religions, and I reserve the right to point that out each time this issue is raised. It is still a little amusing to me that even when presented with articles from Jewish periodicals describing abuse in the orthodox tradition, so many here prefer to put on their rose-colored glasses and pretend that this is only or primarilly an RC problem. Sorry, there is no evidence of that, and just blindly asserting it, does not prove that point.

 

>I don't know of any evidence that people find sex crimes by

>other clergy less outrageous than the ones by Catholic clergy.

> If you have any, let's see it. If not, you should stop

>acting as though you do.

 

I have, but when I asked if you read the articles above, you told me I have no right to tell you what to read, and informed me that I was not your teacher. As far as I can see is that the evidence suggests a greater focus on, but no greater incidence of, abuse by RC priests. That's what confounds me about these threads, and suggests that the object and purpose here is more directed at the RC church itself, its social justice mision, its principled opposition to an unjust war, and to its opposition to capital punishment than any real interest in abuse per se.

 

>One reason for it may be the

>undeniable fact that the crimes and cover-ups by Catholics are

>on a much larger scale.

 

Where is the evidence of that. I see the cover-ups get greater attention, but if you had read the articles I posted about abuse by orthodox Jewish rabbis, you would have seen that the cover-up there has taken precisely the same form. Does that not give you pause?

[woodlawn]

RE: Curious Silence from the Catholic-bashers

 

>No it seems typical to me.

 

So that is the way it seems to you. That is not exactly a scientific sample of opinion. Let me know if you ever find one.

 

>And likewise, you have no right to dictate the direction that

>a thread will take.

 

On this and other message boards it's considered 'hijacking' a thread to insist on talking about something other than the subject brought up by the thread author. That's what you are doing.

 

 

>What interests me about the Cardinal Law

>story is the hypocrisy that exists when it comes to abuse in

>other religions,

 

You keep saying that, but I don't see anyone saying or implying that there is anything less immoral about abuse by other clergy than by Catholic clergy, so there is nothing to back up a charge of hypocrisy. The fact that more people are talking about the scandals in the Catholic Church than about other scandals doesn't make them hypocrites.

 

>so

>many here prefer to put on their rose-colored glasses and

>pretend that this is only or primarilly an RC problem. Sorry,

>there is no evidence of that, and just blindly asserting it,

>does not prove that point.

 

I haven't noticed anyone saying that except for you.

 

 

>I have, but when I asked if you read the articles above, you

>told me I have no right to tell you what to read, and informed

>me that I was not your teacher. As far as I can see is that

>the evidence suggests a greater focus on, but no greater

>incidence of, abuse by RC priests.

 

You keep focusing on the 'incidence' but you keep ignoring the fact that there are a lot more abuse victims of Catholic clergy than of other clergy. It's only natural that more public attention is drawn to the Catholic scandal when large numbers of people come forward to say they were abused by Catholic clergy while relatively few say that about other clergy. You want to make this into some sort of anti-Catholic conspiracy, but that is all that's really happening here.

 

It just seems to me that instead of blaming the people who committed the crimes that caused the Catholic scandal you want to find someone else to blame. The truth is that all the ramifications of a crime should be laid at the door of the people who committed it, and you shouldn't try to blame other people who are doing no more than talking about it. But you are.

[ad rian]

RE: Curious Silence from the Catholic-bashers

 

>On this and other message boards it's considered 'hijacking'

>a thread to insist on talking about something other than the

>subject brought up by the thread author. That's what you are

>doing.

 

If you don't like what I write, you are free to ignore it. This is not just a site for gay Jews like you. On other threads, you have asserted that it is hijacking a thread about terrorism or the war in Iraq to talk about Israel. Now you assert that it is hijacking a thread about RC abuse to point out the inconsistent reaction to abuse among orthodox Jews. I say again, you have two choices. Ignore what you disagree with or respond, but you don't get to shape the perameters of the thread just because it strikes to close to your own home or to your own pet causes.

 

>You keep saying that, but I don't see anyone saying or

>implying that there is anything less immoral about abuse by

>other clergy than by Catholic clergy, so there is nothing to

>back up a charge of hypocrisy.

 

Well if you only want to talk about abuse in one religous sect, but not another when you grant the incidence is the same, there mustr be some explanation. One explanation is that you implicitly seem to think one is more immoral the other. If not, why not discuss both?

 

>The fact that more people are

>talking about the scandals in the Catholic Church than about

>other scandals doesn't make them hypocrites.

 

What does it make them then?

 

>You keep focusing on the 'incidence' but you keep ignoring

>the fact that there are a lot more abuse victims of Catholic

>clergy than of other clergy. It's only natural that more

>public attention is drawn to the Catholic scandal when large

>numbers of people come forward to say they were abused by

>Catholic clergy while relatively few say that about other

>clergy. You want to make this into some sort of anti-Catholic

>conspiracy, but that is all that's really happening here.

 

That's the crux of the problem. Given that there are significantly more Catholics than Jews in the general population, if the incidence of abuse is the same, there will always be more Catholic victims coming forward although perhaps not as a percentage of all American Catholics. That is why I point you again to the orthodox abuse stories and invite you to care about all victims of abuse.

 

> The truth is that all the

>ramifications of a crime should be laid at the door of the

>people who committed it, and you shouldn't try to blame other

>people who are doing no more than talking about it. But you

>are.

 

Agreed, and I would add as a corollary that you also should not try to cover up the epidemic of abuse among orthodox Jewish rabbis by focussing exclusively on abuse by some Catholic priests. You should not try to denigrate people for exposing abuse in your own religious tradition just because it makes you uncomfortable.