The untold story: The Catholic Church is the safest place for children today.
In a newly released annual audit of abuse by independent experts, it was reported that there were only ten contemporaneous abuse allegations made against priests even deemed "credible" in all of 2013 (out of some 40,000 active priests) and that the "fewest allegations and victims" ever were tabulated since annual reports were first compiled in 2004.
This is obviously good news. But predictably, the mainstream media is notably silent about this very positive report, even though in years past when the numbers were less encouraging, the media fell over themselves to breathlessly report any unflattering statistics which they could dig up.
A search of news coverage about the Church's new annual report found that not a single secular news outlet (e.g., the New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune etc.) reported on the study.
The facts which the mainstream media won't tell you about
Here are the simple facts about the Catholic Church abuse story you will not see reported anywhere in the mainstream media and which once again only underscore that the abuse story is no longer really "news" but merely a media obsession borne of animus for an institution which the media so dislikes:
• 40% of all identified priests who were accused in 2013 were already long deceased;
• 78% of all identified priests who were accused in 2013 are either already deceased, already removed from ministry, already laicized, or simply missing; and
• 90% of all abuse accusations last year allege incidents from at least 25 years ago.
The facts are the facts: Bogus accusations abound
And a closer look at the study further uncovers another issue that the mainstream media adamantly refuses to report: that bogus accusations against Catholic priests are rampant, and the vast bulk of accusations are either demonstrably untrue or simply unprovable.
According to this year's numbers, a staggering 80% of the 2013 cases in which an investigation had been completed fell into the categories of either "unable to be proven" or "unsubstantiated." Only a mere 14.6% of all 2013 cases were even deemed "substantiated" by the liberal standards of review boards.
Indeed, we have long reported on the pervasiveness of false accusations against priests, but no one in the mainstream media has the courage to pursue a counter-narrative story. The time is long overdue.
May I seek the hospitality of this forum to refer readers to my Research Study entitled HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL IN THE PRIESTLY BREAST – Procedural Justice for Priests – Diocesan and Religious. Published by iUniverse, it is available in both soft and hard covers. The sole purpose is to ensure that the dictates of truth and justice are meticulously honoured in ensuring the best outcomes for all concerned. The fundamental principle at all times is: "A person is innocent until proven guilty." The Catholic Church has firmly and unreservedly determined not only to eradicate the evil of the sexual abuse of minors, but to ensure the safest and most secure environments for one and all, and the results have been markedly and globally evident. May truth and justice prevail!
No shock here.
Allegations at the lowest rate ever–most of them bogus at that–but the media won't report the story.
And the beat goes on….
In a supposedly celibate church, there should be NO child rapes to report.
The vast majority of the sex crimes of clerics are committed agianst adolescent males, not children. Most of those sex crimes are committed by sodomites.
The vast majoriity of sexual crimes against childen are committed by those who have never taken a vow of chastity
Yeah, Medusa Knows Nothing- and there should be no fathers raping their infant daughters so violently that the baby dies from her injuries and there should be no fathers honor-killing their daughters and no brothers, uncles and cousins selling their family's children into the sex-slave trade or marrying their 6 year old daughters off to 90 year old men, as they do the across the world.
Welcome to the real world where sinfulness abounds. But, at least, as proven by actual data, the Catholic Church is the safest of places for all our children. Once Pope Francis finishes the dirty job, that Pope Benedict started, of flushing out the homosexual deviant sewage that infiltrated and infects the Church, we'll finally be fully rid of the plague of these sodomites.
Sodomites are simply incapable of adhering to the character of chastity or promise of celibacy – they worship the material, sinful things of this world, at great cost to our society, culture and our children.
You are confusing celibacy with chastity. Priests are called to remain celibate, single, in their ministry. EVERYONE is called to chastity according to their state in life. By that standard, there shouldnt be any molestation of any child by anyone. It ain't a celibate priest issue. The highest occurence of perpetrators are married men.
What kind of headlines would you like?
Catholic Clergy not raping as many altar boys and girls?
Here's a headline for you bigots: "AntiCatholic Bigots and their Media Lackeys Complicit in Slimey Political Persecution of Catholic Church for a Manufactured Minor Sexual Abuse 'Crisis' that Isn't and Likely Never Was".
Normal, honest people would be happy to hear the good news that minors are safer, anywhere. But, dishonest political hacks/activists and their equally grotesque tortie-partners see their golden goose slipping out of their grubby, greasy hands and protest and reject the good news.
Honk, honk – Adios, Bigots.
Isabel, Right on!
The media simply does not report good news in general. What if they had headlines: " no armed robberies in the Bronx today". It would be weird…yet that's what the lead essay is asking them to do about not the Bronx…but the Church. Isabel is correct.
Gee, that's odd, because Road to Recovery has spoken to at least a half dozen more victim/survivors just this week.
Maybe the fix is in Robert.
Myself I never trust professional victims as they make money from being a victim.
Hey Hoatson- by the time RtR is done counting victims you'll have managed to claim the entire worlds' population among 'victims of priests' dating back to the Apostles.
Go retire already, you're played out.
Tim, people who have been injured should be after money if none is offered, it's really all you have to give since concern for the victims is never seen.. You wiped us out emotionally; spiritually; physically. Juries know what damage you've done even if you don't.
Delphin has all the love a normal christian would show? "Hey Hoatson"!!!! What is this clown doing hailing a cab? If you don't know how to speak to people respectfully; you shouldn't be here? Why is all this hatred being dumped here by you. No one sent out for hate did they?
Gee, Bil Bannon- why doesn't the media publish bad news about the actual, current and extensive rapes occurring everywhere but in the Catholic Church – how about the abundance of ongoing rapes in the public school system -maybe they can start in LAUSD?
They won't publish bad news about their 'own', Bannon- who are you trying to kid here?
The low rate of victim reporting could very well be due to the fact many if not most Dioceses have returned to their old means….reports go directly to Chancery and Chancery staff decide which case get reported and sent to Review Boards!!
'Adolescent' v. 'child' is a distinction without a difference in the sexual abuse discussion. If you do not know that, then you are the poorer for it.
Explain your dubious age "distinction" in any courtroom USA, Oh Learned Counsel, where such distinctions are made regularly, according to law vs. charge/complaint.
No one [sane] has problems outside of the confines of the current corrupt legal (what have lawyers touched that they haven't totally sullied?) system distinguishing between a 17 year old predatory adolescent and a 4 year old innocent child. And, if you can't make that clear distinction, you are worse off than being "poorer" for it.
Preztel-logic should be served up with a cold brew- you buying?
OK, Isabel, what percentage of the abuse claims are about priests who raped altar boys and girls? Or do you not know what you're talking about? That would be no surprise.
In regard to the “Road to Recovery” comment of the 2nd at 831AM: would this be the UK alcohol and drug rehab group by that name? Or some US sub-set of that group? Or is this some other group altogether? A link with supporting material might be very helpful here. It’s odd that this didn’t occur to the writer in the first place.
On the 2nd at 908AM we are breathlessly informed that “the low rate of victim reporting” … “could very well be due to the fact” that Dioceses have “returned to their old means”, and everything is kept in-house.
This scenario is rather very-less-than-plausible in 2014 (as opposed to 1994 or 1984 or (go back as far as you like here). First, the Report indicates clearly that there is now a Church-mandate to report allegations to local authorities. Second, it is certainly a stretch that in 2014 persons wishing to make allegations would not also or as an alternative to the Diocese go to some other venue, such as police, local DA, media, tort attorney, or some victim-group. Or that they would tell absolutely nobody else who might themselves then go to either the Diocese or any of the just-mentioned venues.
To suggest that the reason there are declining numbers of allegants in this era is that the Church has turned back the entire national and social clock to 1994 or 1984 or (go back as far as you like here) borders on the fantastical.
Then on the 2nd at 1017AM the point is made that the distinction between ‘adolescent’ and ‘child’ is actually “a distinction without a difference in the sexual abuse discussion”. In what way is this so? Psychologically? Developmentally? It is true only legally (which should have occurred to an elite-educated philosophical and formally legally-trained mind such as LDB has reported himself to possess): for the purposes of sexual-abuse focused legislation, a “minor” or “child” is defined as being under 18 years of age.
But then, a ‘child’ within that spectrum might be in diapers or driving a motor vehicle. Or might be in a stroller or might have already signed-up for military service (to commence when the age of 18 is reached). Or might be playing with blocks or has already learned (legally in some States) to use a firearm. Or might be still sitting in front of ‘Baby Einstein’ videos or might be on an early-acceptance track at an elite university on the basis of high performance and achievement.
The comment concludes – as we have so often seen with this commenter – with some sort of a Parthian-shot pronunciamento (which appears a favorite pastime for him), which itself then suffers from the lack of chops in the material upon which it was based.
I just pressed my learned finger on the name, 'Robert Hoatson' attached to his post, and I was linked directly to the Road to Recovery (in NJ not UK)Website. What more could Bob give regarding some people that contacted his organization last or this week? Wrong again, Publion of April 2nd. Oh well.
Delphin says, on April 2, 2014 at 12:02 pm, some incoherent things in an attempt to disparage me and then describes, "a 17 year old predatory adolescent and a 4 year old innocent child."
'Predatory'? Delphin, you sound like that faded elderly monk from NY, Father Groeschel, who talked in an interview in 2012 about the problem of teens/adolescents 'seducing' susceptible priests. Perhaps, you can blame your advanced age and poor health for your disturbingly irresponsible statements, as Groschel's representatives later did for his. Oh, and buy your own 'brew,' if that is your drug of choice. Or, perhaps, you were just using metaphor?
You did a lot of dancing around the response to your ignorant statement, LDB/LC/whoever- but, you didn't deflect nearly as well as you think you did.
Yep, I am a 55 YO nun (per one resident claimed vic), an elderly monk (per another resident claimed vic) and a priest (per yet another resident claimed vic). All you resident claimants have these things in common: all fibbers and fakers of the first order, lousy at dodge ball and really, really bad at assessing your opposition.
Delphin, what ever you are, be it priest /nun/ brother. You are also a BULLY. a Bill Donahue wanna be (if not Donahue himself). [edited by moderator]
You victim-claimants are those trying to ruin and imprison potentially innocent priests, solely because of your bigotry – so, who's the bully?
I guess when you've worn paper-thin the racist, homophobic, Islamophobic label to the point of absolute ineffectiveness, you are then labelled a bully.
I am a gender-bending ninja nun/priest/monk, have it your way.
What any commenter could provide is an identified link and then some sort of supportive material (presuming any actually exists). I don’t go looking for commenters’ backgrounds since it’s the quality of their material that is my only concern.
“Bob” has presented us here with a claim that a) has not been supported, b) may not be able to be supported (i.e. how could we possibly get any information that would help us judge the veracity of the claim since phone records are not extant?), and c) the claim comes from someone who – if memory serves from comment exchanges on this site or Big Trial – is reasonably classified as an ‘activist’ in the pro-Stampede cause and therefore a bit of strict-scrutiny would be in order.
So LDB has actually hit a nail on the head here: “What more could Bob give … ?” What indeed. He has put forth a functionally non-falsifiable and non-assessable claim.
About what, then, in my original comment (the 2nd, 452PM) was I “wrong” and on top of that, “wrong again”?
This is welcome news, and I am glad to find it reported here, if not in the NYT. I do take issue, however, with the eagerness the author and some commentors display in categorizing old and/or unproveable claims of abuse as "bogus." There is no more warrant for assuming such allegations false than for assuming them true.
Proof of sexual abuse is hard to establish. Sadly, that produces the environment where people can so easily get away with it, and also where unjust accusations can gain a hearing. There are many cases where the truth will be known only to God, and to the two people immediately involved. And actually, the human capacity for delusion and confusion is such that even those two may be in sincere error as to what did or did not happen.
Also, it is rather normal for allegations to emerge long after the event(s) in question. A delay in reporting abuse makes proving it harder, but is not in itself a sign that the abuse did not happen. This may contradict what you or I think we would do if we were assaulted tomorrow, and may seem incredible for that reason, but an actual study of the strategies of abuse, and the range of consequences abuse has on its victims, would cure that incredulity.
For what it's worth, I have personal experience with a few aspects of this issue. I was raped by a man at fifteen, and didn't speak of it for many years. He was a stranger, and when I spoke of it, there was no thought or hope of retribution or justice. It was a necessary step in pursute of healing. On the other side of this equation, while in my early twenties, I was working in an after-school program with children. There were two sisters that wanted to dance on a table, and when I told them they had to get down, they threatened to say that I had molested them, if I didn't let them do as they pleased. Frightening. This was in the mid-eighties. I really don't think they understood the gravity of what they proposed doing. I insisted they get down, and told my supervisor about the exchange when she got back. She talked to the mother, and the two of them talked to the girls. The whole thing was handled gracefully, with no damage done, but that sense of terrifying vulnerability to a wilful and mischievious child made an impression, believe me. However, I would be a simpleton if I derived from that experience a rule that the allegations of abuse victims were to be disbelieved.
I wonder what I might do, if the man that raped me became known to me now, thirty seven years later. What if I recognized him in a newspaper, being celebrated for his work with youth? In some ways, it has been simpler for me, not knowing who he was. There has been no possibility of pusuing justice, or trying to keep him from doing to others what he did to me. Or what if he was in the newspaper because someone else had accused him of a similar crime? I suspect I would feel obliged to offer my story, if it could be of any use to another victim. It would certainly be more prudent not to do so, the statute of limitations being long past, and there being no way to prove what he did to me. But I'm pretty sure I would feel it as a moral obligation, nonetheless.
To say that my allegations are unproveable is one thing. Sadly, they probably are. But to say that they are bogus is quite another thing. The fact that someone else's claim of abuse has been proven false does not make my unproveable claim of abuse false.
Sorry to go on at such length. Practically, I supose I am suggesting that in breaking down the statistics, you add an additional category, "unknown," to the categories "proven" and "bogus."
I can't seem to find any comment here where old claims of abuse are disregarded or rejected based upon their 'age' alone?
It would seem to me that the victim-claimant's character, the setting of the claim (feasibility/believability) and the intention of the victim (money, bigotry, or concern/protection of others) should factor into any treatment of an old claim.
Who rejects victim- claimants out of hand here?
Sexual child abuse in the home is 27% - I ave been working with the victims for 12 years: they were all abused at home and not one of them was abused by a priest. The claim married priests would solve the problem of priest abuse is ridiculous – those with this sinful disposition would do it to their own children too. Paedephilia is mainly, but not exclusively. caused by a deep trauma in the paedephiliac's childhood which severs the emotional growth even though everything else matures normally and they can only fall in love or be sexually stimulated by a chld of that age at which they were themselves traumatised whether as a baby or a 5 or 6 year old.
Publion asked on April 3, 2014 @10:31PM where else l thought/claimed he was wrong in his original comment of April 2nd, 452PM. Well, I think that the age or developmental and psycological progress of the teeager/adoescent in the sex abuse matter is irrelevant and not worth discussing.
"It [That the age of the minor complaintant is a distinction witout a difference.] is true only legally (which should have occurred to an elite-educated philosophical and formally legally-trained mind such as LDB has reported himself to possess): for the purposes of sexual-abuse focused legislation, a “minor” or “child” is defined as being under 18 years of age." – Publion of April 2
That did occurr to me. Thank you.
Publion's usual snarkiness aside, isn't he making my point here? 'Only legally'? Well, yes, only legally. The legal forum is all that matters here. Afteral, we are talking about crimes. Sexual assault and battery on a child and statutory rape are the crimes.
Statutory rape, for example: Massachusetts General Laws Section 23 Rape and Abuse of Child. Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction. A prosecution commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.
So 'diapers' or 'driving,' do not matter in MA (and similarly in other states) when considering whether a crime has been committed by the person sexually engaging the legal minor of less than 16. No room for discussion on this or that circumstance or impression or consent or age – if under 16. So why raise 4 v.14 or 'blocks' v. 'firearms' as an issue?
Well, perhaps, you want to argue for a change in the law and for a lower age of legal consent to sexual activity. But this does not seem like a very catholic position for you to take. What are you arguing for on this issue of adolescents/teenagers right to consent to sexual activity?
On the 4th at 114PM ‘Hank’ raises some interesting points.
In the matter of there being “no more warrant for assuming such allegations false than for assuming them true”: this point does not arise in a pure conceptual vacuum; instead, it arises in a cultural and legal milieu some decades old, wherein one might a) introduce claims in criminal or civil court b) for which there is little if any reliable corroborating evidence reviewable by disinterested third parties (juries, the public), c) on the basis of which large monetary gains might be made (civil) or highly-publicized ‘heroic’ status accorded one by the media (criminal), d) in a jurispraxial milieu where one cannot easily or deeply be questioned and a popular milieu wherein the mere claim of being a ‘victim’ endows one with a certain status and – more functionally important – immunity from skepticism (let alone suspicion) as to one’s veracity.
As has been said before in comments on this site, in the ‘spectral evidence’ situation wherein nobody but the accuser can see or know the evidence, then the public (in the public forum) or juries (in the legal forum) must perforce rely on formulating the best possible judgments as to i) the credibility of the allegant and ii) the probability of the allegation’s having happened.
So it isn’t sufficient to imagine that there are merely two or three purely and simply conceptual categories (proven, bogus, unknown) – because this is not a static and purely conceptual situation. And thus I would have to suggest a far more dynamic category to capture this complexity: ‘improbable’, perhaps further refined into ‘somewhat’, ‘highly’, and ‘utterly’.
“Proof of sexual abuse is hard to establish” – yes indeed. And we have seen, both in what I would call the Playbook and also in the Michigan Manual, just how that confounding irritant is handled in sex-abuse legal theory.
I have always said here that the only solution to an alleged crime for which no or very little evidence can be provided is to avoid the criminal/legal forum simply because any attempt to use that forum’s authority to attempt any sort of desired outcome would simply but surely derange the integrity of the forum’s authority. But the Victimist approach has been – instead – to a) weaken the integrity of the forum’s principles and practices while simultaneously b) claiming that such weakening was merely some type of enlightened reform. And thus Victimism sought to bend the legitimacy and integrity of the legal forum toward using its authority to confirm Victimism’s agenda and yet also getting far too many people – lay and professional – to delude themselves that it is all good.
And thus in light of that, then “sadly” is in this matter is simply a stance that – while accurate insofar as it goes – can’t actually carry the weight of the problems that have been now set in motion. Rueful and mature regret is simply insufficient as a serious response to the situation as it has now developed in this country (with unhappy historical precedents that reach back to some of the darkest chapters of 20th century history, as we have discussed in prior comments on this site).
If the “truth will be known only to God” – an acutely relevant thought with deep precedents in Western history – then such evidence-less matters must be left to the ‘divine justice forum’ and not dragged, like plague-laden rodents, aboard the legal forum – where they have now worked their inevitable and hardly-unpredictable damage and detriment.
Nor do I deny the possibility of “sincere error” on either side of this type of case or claim or allegation.
But I would have to refine the statement that “it is rather normal for allegations to emerge long after the event(s) in question”. This is not “normal” for the reporting of alleged crimes, such as the “assault” example that ‘Hank’ mentions; it is “normal” only in universe of sex-abuse legal-theory (buttressed by sex-abuse psychological theorizing).
‘Hank’ himself begins then to deploy the type of tropes we have already seen in the Michigan Manual: just because it might seem “incredible” is no reason not to believe it; “incredible” things are the ‘norm’ in sex-abuse affairs; don’t trust your common-sense but rather accept that ‘traditional’ human maxims and principles are not suitable for humans who are assessing sex-abuse allegations; the more ‘incredible’ allegations seem, the more probable their veracity. And so forth and so on (as the text of the Manual reveals).
And I have mentioned – as the conclusion to various extended discussions here on this site recently – that ‘studies’ in this area have to be looked at very carefully, because various types of ‘advocacy science’ have been developed to try to do in the scientific arena what has been accomplished – unhappily and ominously – in the legal forum: create sufficient derangements in the integrity of the process so as to get what you want while simultaneously asserting that the results of those derangements must be accorded the full status of that forum’s original professional integrity and authority and legitimacy.
But as classic (and hard-won) principles of Western justice have been deranged, so have formal principles of Scientific Method in so many of the ‘studies’.
Perhaps ‘Hank’ would want to put up links to the texts (not just ‘reports’ about the texts) of a particular study or two.
And as for the “range of consequences abuse has on its victims”: I have said before that an examination of actual studies, conducted by professionals, will almost invariably reveal a hedging of bets in its conclusions by the use of the subjunctive (i.e. ‘may’ or ‘might’ or ‘can’ cause such consequences) as well as a fundamental procedural misstep at the very outset of the research by simply accepting as baseline the claims and reports of study-subjects without actually corroborating their veracity, or in the mere acceptance of ‘survey’ results as sufficient baseline material.
We saw the beginnings of this derangement almost 40 years ago with the explosion of popular self-help books – by non-professionals – as to the various dynamics and consequences putatively assigned to this or that outrageous and epidemic problem, along with lists of ‘symptoms’ which any reader might apply to her/himself to ‘prove’ that s/he indeed had been somehow ‘abused’ and had never known it (until they bought the book).
I would not recommend, therefore, abandoning any such contemporary “incredulity” vis-à-vis this ‘science’ and indeed would urge not only more incredulity but also as much careful, prudent and informed skepticism as a reader might be able to muster.
I also notice the theory that taking legal action is theorized as simply being “a necessary step” for “healing”. This theorization is convenient but I’m not sure if the resort to the legal-forum is actually psychologically necessary or whether this bit of theory serves simply as window-dressing for the already dubious seeking of a lawsuit (or, more rarely, a criminal prosecution): i.e. it’s not that X wants to bring a lawsuit or criminal allegation, it’s just that his/her therapist insisted it’s necessary-for-healing.
And as I have said before, it’s not so much – and cannot be – a question of a) believing or disbelieving allegations at the outset; that simply reduces matters to what I have called a ‘belief-bout’. Rather, it’s a matter of b) assessing the credibility and probability. But of course, in order to do (b) one has to conduct an objective analysis of whatever evidence or whatever material relevant to establishing probability might be available. And that is precisely what the Playbook works so hard to prevent by whatever means necessary and possible.
‘Hank’ is certainly within his rights to “offer [his] story, if it could be of use to another victim”. And I don’t doubt the possibility that there may be a moral element to that. But it’s one thing to do such ‘offering’ on a victim site and another thing (which I am not saying ‘Hank’ has done) to insist that such a story is and must-be-accepted-as evidentiary grade material, to be presumed without doubt or question, in the legal forum and in a legal action. Nor do I agree with any mainstream media tendency or policy to repeat such stories as if they were indisputably true or clearly demonstrated and established as having happened.
And I agree with ‘Hank’ that a story’s inability to demonstrate proof does not per se justify a conclusion that the story is therefore “bogus”. However, as I said, there is the far more realistic and complex matter of probability, which every reader or hearer must assess on his/her own.
Thus my suggestion to add the category of ‘probability’ with its further refinements of modifiers as noted above.
In this regard, I also note the latest BigTrial article which just went up today and is of relevance to this discussion. Readers may consider it as they will.
Then on the 4th at 432PM LDB continues his return to the arena – perhaps in the hope that nobody remembers his prior online incarnations and profferings.
He resolves the problems of “developmental and psycological” [sic] concern and the issue of the “progress of the teenager/adoescent” [sic] by simply proclaiming them “irrelevant and not worth discussing”. Neat.
But insufficient. Contemplating an abuse allegation of an infant or pre-rational ‘child’ is one thing, and contemplating such an allegation involving somebody who drives a motor vehicle, is about to enter college or the military, or is otherwise on the very cusp of legal adulthood is something else again. And it was the legal genius of the Victimist ‘reforms’ that they lumped this entire broad spectrum together into one legal category and then used the term “child” to identify that category. So that to the inattentive ear or eye one hears ‘child sex abuse’ and thinks, not illogically, of an actual psychological and emotional and developmental “child” and not the legal fiction called “child” which is actually a far more maturationally evolved entity on the cusp of the various life-possibilities I described above.
As a subtle form of PR manipulation, this bit of linguistic legerdemain is quite nifty – and sly.
I would be surprised to imagine that LDB had thought of all that.
Thus too then I am not making LDB’s point here. Rather I am pointing out, as I have been for quite some time, my own long-standing point that the legal forum itself has been deranged by such ‘reforms’ as the one discussed above as well as the very many other such ‘reforms’ that have been introduced to lubricate this regression into the era of ‘spectral evidence’.
That is to say: from the point of view of legal philosophy the Victimist reforms are themselves part of the problem. And as such have played more than a small role in lubricating the Stampede.
Thus to quote from any State’s statutes is accurate, as far as that goes, but does not reach the far more profound problem of the statute itself reflecting the legislative derangements that have thus served to derange the judicial and legal forum.
And the conceptual difficulties are reflected in the fact that State laws vary rather widely on whether ‘statutory rape’ is charged as a felony or a misdemeanor. Readers may wish to consult this table or some similar table: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm
Thus my response to the question as to why the age within the “child” categorization is of relevance.
As to LDB’s then moving into the theological arena, and speculating on what I “perhaps … want” to do, this is the construction of a straw-man that is more convenient to lubricating his usual conclusory snarky bits.
What I am “arguing for” – although I have not actually been “arguing for” anything in comments on this thread, so the characterization itself is already inaccurate – is on a level of analysis deeper than LDB has apparently noticed: that the very course of legislative and juridical praxis has been deranged and has to be considered as being fundamentally deranged in the very presumptions that have driven and fueled the ‘reforms’ such as they have been.
Why do you keep saying passive aggressive banalities like: "Readers may consider that as they will" ? You think adults need your sly mocking and then your permission to think about what I and other victims have to say about our rapes? Who the Fword do you think you are?
Actually, what matters when an adult has sex with a child is that he gets an Academy Award ("Oscar") for his 'great contribution' to leftist cultural and political Americana, ala Polanski and Allen, and way too many more to list here. You've no problem in a legal system hijacked by socialists and other like-mided misfits so long as your abuser is one of them.
Harry Hay, a notorious admitted child abuser was a 'very, very good friend' of one of our resident vic-claimants; just ask him about the obvious double-standard in culture and in the courtroom, he owns it.
Harry Hay a child abuser????? You have proof? Harry Hay's name is enscribed on the local library wall in Silverlake, as a hero , the father of the Gay movement in America. He was a friend, not a particularly close friend; but If you have proof he molested children. I'll get his name off that library wall.
Woody Allen has been found guilty of nothing. Polanski was. So what's that got to do with your rape enabling monarchs? And since when do you give a shit about child abuse? Real victims are treated like dung by you.
[edited by moderator]
Well said, Hank.
Harry Hay and NAMBLA, perfect together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hay#Anti-assimilation
I'll give you a leg-up with a quick-n-easy wiki lead – do your own research from now on, lazy-
Busy, old Harry-
http://nambla.org/hay2002.html
Oh my: “passive aggressive banalities” – that’s a remarkably uncharacteristic mouthful, and properly spelled to boot.
But I am not “saying passive aggressive banalities” – I am pointing out politely that the differences are now for the readers to decide because I am not trying to force or manipulate readers to accept (or ‘believe’) my assertions or see things my way; I am merely putting forward my conclusions or questions and the thoughts that have led me to whatever conclusions or questions I have formulated.
And that makes all the difference.
If that's true. Why say the passive aggressive banality,"Readers may consider that as they will" at all?
Why address the readership at all?
They can read what you write and will come to their own conclussions. Your condesention is a manipulation, actually a vain attempt at a manipulation. You imply that "intelligent" readers like "yourself" can see through my "playbook" strategems and will know everything I say or what any other victim who's posted here has said is "less than". That's passive aggressive and bullshit.
Passive-aggressive is a 16-17 YO male permitting an adult to 'abuse' him and then whining about it for the next 50 years by going on a politically-driven witch hunt under the guise of 'protecting' victims.
That isn't how a man handles such affairs-
If I've been on a "witch hunt". Mission accomplished I found you.
I've read what you linked and I appreciate the info. Even if it comes from you. Thank you. I disagree completely as did the vast majority of the gay community with Harry Hay on the NAMBLA issue. Obviously. But I also can not ignore his contribution to gay history.; outside of the NAMBLA issues.
You sound like you're coming from a very vengence based background, what would you reccomend a "man" do, commit murder? I was only "man" enough to serve my country. Big BOY. While you hide behind nome de plumes, princess.
Publion of April 5 at 9:04 has an issue then with the law not with my view. The law of almost every united state says that a person must be greater than 16 years in age in order to rightly/legally consent to sexual activity. Publion disagrees. The notion of the young teens' incompetency in this area is 'deranged'. Judiciously, publion says a four year old is not eligible to sexual advances but. If a youngster can take the bus by themselves or take driver's ed., then they are fair game for adults with a predeliction for the intimate company of ninth grader. I do not think that it is the law that is deranged.
This comment is not a duplicate. Publion of April 5 at 9:04 has an issue then with the law not with my view. The law of almost every united state says that a person must be greater than 16 years in age in order to rightly/legally consent to sexual activity. Publion disagrees. The notion of the young teens' incompetency in this area is 'deranged'. Judiciously, publion says a four year old is not eligible to sexual advances but. If a youngster can take the bus by themselves or take driver's ed., then they are fair game for adults with a predeliction for the intimate company of ninth grader. I do not think that it is the law that is deranged.
Yet, much younger are charged with murder- so, the 'law' believes 'some' children are capable of such discernment at a mature level? US (and world) history is replete with examples of minors and children being held accountable for their behavior (crimes).
As Obama says and practices; no need to abide by those laws that you just don't like.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/nyregion/brooklyn-bus-shooting.html?_r=0
So, is the raging bigot, Dennis Ecker, posting under a different name now? Jim Robertson, You have every right to post your opinions on here, as way out there as they are sometimes. And I have every right to give the church $1 for every on of your comments, which I am doing, and it makes me feel very good to make good out of bad.
Julie, spend the money on a sex abuse therapist. please. You do not deserve to go through life bearing the burden of your abuse. Donate to your church as you wish but therapy helped me (I await the mockery) and you deserve to be treated well. imho.
Giving money to the church makes me feel good. The church saved my life. And, it is a great way to make good out of evil. I've had earlier therapy. And I take medication. No way would I get on to web sites and bash and hurl ugly insults like you do. You can get so caught up in that, and if it were ultimately satisfying for you, you wouldn't feel such a desperate need to do it over and over again, in such an unproductive way. I can count your comments, give $$ to the church, and think well, there is always a way to make good out of ugliness and pain.
You see me how you see me.I can't change that. I accept that.
What i don't understand; is how you can notice my "ugliness" and yet go right along with the ugly step sisters: D and P? Drucella and Prunilla. If your dishonest; ugly; mean; injust for Jesus then that makes it o.k.?
Jim, I consider lies to be ugly.
So do I Julie. That's why I don't tell them.
[edited by moderator] [D]oing things like calling abused children "your raped," pretending that we are all complicit or even offenders. Wallowing in that kind of evil isn't going to do you any good mentally. Take it from me.
In regard to the comment of the 5th at 815PM:
It is amazing how LDB – trained, we are told, in both philosophy and law – can so easily he has something right when he doesn’t. Yes, I am concerned for the law – my concern is at that fundamental a level. But: No, I have not discussed the matter of a minimum age of consent in any way at all. What I had noted – to repeat – was the sly PR legerdemain by which ‘child abuse’ laws are made to cover a spectrum that ranges from infants to already-accepted military recruits or high-school seniors.
So what we see here is the Abusenik attempt to a) avoid an issue they’d rather not discuss, by b) creating an issue that they think they would like to play-with even though their interlocutor had not raised it at all. Nor does the conclusion or presumption that I am arguing for a lowering of the age of consent flow logically and unilaterally from what I actually did write. Rather, LDB’s drawing of his own conclusion here simply reflects the fact that he really had hoped to get something going on the age-of-consent issue, and since he only brought a hammer to the session, then he has to find a nail. That sort of thing.
Thus “Publion disagrees” is inaccurate.
What is “deranged” is not “young teens’s incompetency” – which I never discussed – but rather the fundamental legal principles that the Stampede has deformed. And if 17 and 18 year-olds are “young teens” then that leaves very little room for ‘older’ teens, does it not?
And if LDB can quote (accurately) where in my comment – or any comment I ever made – I said that anybody at any age is “fair game for adults with a predilection [correction supplied]” for sex with youngsters … then let him put that quotation up. But he can’t because it doesn’t exist. And if he cares to put up the reasoning by which he arrived at this gross misconception of my material then that would at least help to get a grasp on where his reading or thinking chops are deficient (or – if one prefers – “deranged”).
Then ditto and more of the same at 821PM: LDB is again correct that I have “an issue with the law” – as I rather clearly said in the original comment. But since LDB’s approach presumes that since the law (as it has now been deranged) is now to be accepted (with all the derangements that I have commented about so extensively on this site) then my fundamental “issue with” that derangement is also going to lead to my having “an issue” with his positivist view of law (which, however, is not the same “issue” as my allegedly wanting to change the age of consent – but that ‘changing of the age of consent is the only tune to which LDB is prepared to dance and so he’s gone and tried to conflate the two issues).
Thus – yet again – LDB remains utterly incorrect to assert that “Publion disagrees” with the age of consent as spelled out in “the law of almost every united state” [sic]. (If he has an accurate quote of mine that demonstrates that he is correct or at least leads him to think that he is correct, he is welcome to put it up here.)
And LDB remains utterly incorrect in his assertions about my material in regard to those “fair game” bits, whether between a “four year old” and an “adult” (with that “predilection”) or a “ninth grader”.
And he apparently tries to plaster-over the inconvenient reality that I did not actually say any such thing as he asserts by further saying that I made the point “judiciously” – in other words: I did make the point but I did it so carefully that – what? Only he can see it … ? If it is the case that only he can see it, then an alternative explanation to i) my having actually said it is that ii) what he thinks he sees is merely the result of his personal misconception or mis-reading of what I actually wrote.
And most certainly I would not make the usage-error of saying “eligible to”: the preposition accompanying this adjective would be ‘for’, not ‘to’, and would require a verb-form and not the noun (i.e. “sexual advances”; the better adjectival phrasing here would be ‘liable to’ or possibly ‘susceptible to’) – but in any case, LDB has created here a position (convenient to his own agenda) that I did not take in my original comment.
Thus, in regard to his final sentence: I most certainly do think that it is the law that is deranged, but I also see clear evidence here that LDB’s reading and thinking chops are deficient, as well as his language skills. Was there no emphasis on any of this either in a Harvard Philosophy-major education or in law-school?
And I have discussed the profound and fundamental ways in which the law has been deranged in the service of the Stampede at great and frequent length in comments on this site, many of which comments were specifically addressed to LDB (or one of his prior screen incarnations)in regard to all this.
But perhaps – goes to reading comprehension – LDB thinks that my concerns for “the law” revolve around the age-of-consent law rather than, as I said, around the fundamental and primary principles of law and evidence and jurispraxis.
But it is not the age-of-consent law with which I am taking issue, nor have I ever taken issue with it. It is with those fundamental principles. Although I did note in my original comment here on this thread that there is – evidenced by that link to the various State laws – a difference of opinion as to what constitutes statutory rape, and the listings also indicate some differences in age-of-consent. All of which merely demonstrates that these matters are not so crystal-clear and obvious that State legislatures are in agreement even on these points.
Statutory "rape" laws were developed to protect young (weaker and vulnerable) females from older (stronger, predatory) males. Since those illicit and unethical unions could be productive, adverse lifelong effects to the female and her offspring were/are likely. Overall, society is also adversely affected.
These laws require revision to account for the lifestyle that defines homosexuality, as currenly practiced in western civilation. None of the above outcomes to the female or to society apply.
The old laws are a poor fit for the new western sexual paradigm.
JR has (or has been given) a new toy and he will be playing with it for awhile. This time it’s the psychological term “passive aggressive” (the 6th, 138PM).
I don’t think he is clear on the definition of “passive aggressive” but he is welcome to demonstrate the contrary by i) explaining it and ii) demonstrating how he thinks my material exemplifies it.
I address the readership to remind everyone involved that the problem has been stated by both sides as best they might do, and now it’s for the readership to decide … because this is a site where the readership has to actively engage in making judgments and decisions about the Stampede material. Because this is precisely what hasn’t happened very often in the wider world and is thus a great part of the reason that the Stampede has gone on as long as it has. For far too long, Abuseniks have simply tossed up their stuff, and far too many have simply accepted it as accurate, veracious, and coherent and rational and credible.
Thus I want to politely emphasize that there is no room for mere spectators in this Matter.
And since Abuseniks insist on being ‘believed’ simply on the basis of their self-asserted believability, then I also want to remind them that their material actually will be assessed for that credibility and this site is not simply another ‘good old days’ site where they could run riot with their stuff and that would be that.
Then yet another lovely example of the infantile Playbook I’m Not/You Are gambit, this time with JR claiming that it is I and not the Abuseniks who engage in “manipulation” (or, rather, in yet another uncharacteristic flourish, “a vain attempt at manipulation”).
If JR can demonstrate the actual quotation of mine where I refer to “intelligent” and “yourself” (or myself), he can put it up here. But this is actually just another instance of creating a straw-man in order to make a convenient target, for lack of any more acute material.
But while he may well not grasp the concept of “passive aggressive” and/or how my material qualifies under that rubric, he does know how to toss in a snappy concluding adolescent scatological bit. Very impressive. Or at least very revealing.
But then but then but then but then: on the 6th at 142PM, in a truly marvelous example of “passive aggressive”, JR himself smarmily directs ‘Julie’ to “spend some money on a sex abuse therapist, please”. In other words – and in fine passive-aggressive style: under the linguistic appearance of wishing to be respectfully supportive and helpful, JR is actually conveying that ‘Julie’ is so screwed-up she should see a shrink (and thus also that any of her disagreements with any particular Abusenik bits are merely the result of her being in dire need of therapy).
So you see – and courtesy of JR – precisely how “passive-aggressive” works in action.
He then burnishes the camouflage of this “passive-aggressive” gambit by sharing a personal bit: that “therapy has helped me”. (Thus, perhaps, it can ‘help’ poor ‘Julie’ – and maybe even to the extent of getting her to see the ontological and eternal rightness of the Abusenik stuff so she’ll stop getting in their way.)
But then – neatly, and almost uncharacteristically so – JR foresees at least some small bit of what he has exposed himself to by deploying this gambit, and quickly tosses in a pre-emptive bit” : he doth “await the mockery”. Well, if what we have been seeing here demonstrates the results of (a little, some, a lot of) “therapy”, then readers may contemplate that as they will.
There are many different schools or stances among ‘therapists’, and this – as you may well imagine – is even more so in the matter of ‘sex abuse therapists’: what are their qualifications; are they licensed practitioners; do they seek to merely intensify the sense of victimhood or do they attempt to move the patient through and beyond the experiences; do they even seek to verify (rather than merely ‘validate’) the experience that the patient claims/reports … these and other questions are all relevant when it comes to the matter of either i) assessing and selecting a therapist for oneself or b) simply trying to get a conceptual grasp of the therapy phenomenon.
At the bottom of this comment is a link to an article from the Washington Times today, discussing the problems with recent assertions in D.C. and the media about the extent of sexual-assault in the military.
Those who read it will notice a number of the familiar problems and issues that have been discussed on this site about ‘reporting’ and about ‘studies’.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/6/doubts-on-militarys-sex-assault-stats-as-numbers-f/
Dave, with all due respect for you and your work, I disagree.
My opinion is that for us to give the media nothing to talk about on the subject is a good thing, no? Wouldn't you rather they attack us on our views of birth control, abortion, same sex marriage, etc? I would.
Delphin lives in an imaginary world where all women are weaker than men and all men are stronger than women. And where complete cultural shock i.e. the raping of a minor by his/her cleric, should be handeled old school as it were. What era would you like us to go back to D?
When's that perfect moment in history you'd call home?
That perfect moment in history is when a male would rather die defending himself than allow himself to be 'raped' by another male. Or, when parents were paying enough attention to their kids to know that they're being brutalized. Or, when men were proud of their country and their service to their country. Or, when men were proud to be attracted to women, and all work for a living rather than wait for the government to steal from the workers to buy the votes of sponges. Or, when you earn you way into the world utilizing your unique gifts, rather than relying on your skin color or sexuality.
You know, when the propagation of the fittest of the species, via natural male-female reproduction, was assured.
All moments, that we still can find in America, but that are totally foreign to you.
LOL!!!! Really? " I'm laughing so hard! "Fitness of the species"!!! LOL! LOL! LOL!
"When men were proud"? Of what going to illegal wars, Viet Nam, Iraq; Afganistan etc. etc.? Of killing innocent men; women; and children in their homes ?
What did you skip Jesus and Justice in these big 'proud" personally non serving "moment"s of yours?
The "species" is in danger? LOL! i did not know that. Alert the media! Gay people are destroying the "species'! LOL!
As if the planet's ecology isn't already overburdened by our over populated "species".
At the bottom of this article is a link to a just-published article from the Guardian newspaper in the UK.
The article is by an author, Oliver James, who is also a clinical psychologist whose major interest is in the role of early-childhood experiences as they impact the adult personality. He has a book coming out soon on the subject that he deals with here in the article.
His primary point is that “the evidence for the role of maltreatment in causing emotional distress in general” and for “emotional abuse and neglect in particular” in the causation of that adult emotional distress “has become overwhelming”. And this would be true both for “the extreme disturbance of psychosis (mostly schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) as to more common problems such as depression and anxiety”.
He is working against a general-genetic explanation for adult psychological and emotional dysfunction; this type of g-g explanation seeks the causes of such adult difficulties primarily in genetics rather than in the quality and mode of earliest-life parental care and attention.
He refers to what is called a ‘mega-study’ – which is a study of studies that have already been done; the objective is to pull out any threads or themes in the various findings of the individual research studies. In this case he makes reference to a 2012 mega-study that examined 41 of the best individual studies in this area.
What is of special interest for the concerns of the TMR site is that the mega-study examined the differential roles of “different kinds of maltreatment”.
He then defines the terms of most interest: “emotional abuse” means “exposure to behaviour such as harshness and name-calling from parents”; “emotional neglect” means “lack of love and responsiveness”.
Among other observations, the mega-study discovered that “Overall, in order of impact, emotional abuse increased the risk of psychosis the most (by 3.4 times, physical abuse and emotional neglect did so by 2.9, sexual abuse and bullying by peers by 2.4)”.
Further that one study “found that the emotionally abused were 12 times more likely to be schizophrenic than the general population (compared with six times for the physically abused and twice as likely for the sexually abused)”.
The setting for all of this abuse is earliest childhood experience, and the sustained and consistent or intermittent patterns established from the earliest days between the child and parent.
We can see that in what James sees as a most fundamental and vital period in the person’s life – the earliest bonding pattern-setting beginning in the neo-natal stage – the most significant potential for serious lasting damage can be put on the path to actualization. For matters relevant to the Abuse Matter, I would note that in this stage we see the least possibility for one’s priest to be involved (unless the priest were also a close family relative); the key players here are the family or parents or adult care-givers.
We can also see from James and the mega-study that sexual-abuse – even in any sustained and consistent pattern laid down so early in life by the earliest care-givers – runs well behind ‘emotional abuse’ and ‘physical abuse’ in its capacity to induce later adult emotional dysfunctions and in some ways is more akin in its later-life consequences to “bullying by peers”.
Another study – which followed adolescents for 15 years – found that if both parents were “hostile, critical and intrusive” then over a third of the adolescents went on to become schizophrenic, whereas if only one of if neither parent displayed those attitudes then none of the adolescents went on to develop the problem.
And James makes reference to John Read’s book Models of Madness (Read is a clinical psychologist at Liverpool University): Read looked at ten studies that examined the matter specifically and discovered that “the more extreme the childhood adversity, the greater the risk of adult psychosis”. We note there that they are talking about sustained patterns established in the most powerfully and fundamentally intimate of human relationships, that between parent and infant.
The specific relevance to all of this for the Catholic Abuse Matter strikes me as this: there is here significant serious research that has revealed both i) the crucially focal role of earliest-childhood experiences, i.e. between the infant and the parental care-givers and ii) sexual-abuse (however defined along the spectrum) seems to be one of the lesser catalysts of adult dysfunction when compared to other types of abuse.
Whereas, the conventional ‘narrative’ (or ‘script’, if you wish) developed for the Abuse Matter and the Stampede is that even a single instance of sexual-abuse by a cleric (in a post-infancy or school-age period) would be sufficient to account for either a) claims of serious and multi-faceted later-adult dysfunction or b) for demonstrated symptoms of such adult-dysfunction. Nor would a claim of ‘serial’ abuse in that later period (and there are few allegations of that, especially – I would say – claiming as consistent and frequent a level of such abuse as that which could occur in a family-setting from neo-nate period onward into pre-school) do much to bolster the Stampede (and tortie-convenient) ‘narrative’ in this regard.
The James material strongly suggests that by the time an individual is of school-age then some crucial and fundamental dysfunctional patterns have been laid down, if they were to be laid down at all. And that compared to the damage-causing potential of that crucial and fundamental early-period, a particular (and usually single) instance of sex-abuse by an adult later on is significantly less likely to be the actual cause of various types of adult distress (whose origins lie, rather, in those very early infancy and pre-school years).
None of this, I would say, establishes that no-damage is actually caused by an incident of school-years sexual abuse. But the James material does establish grounds for treating with substantial skepticism the so-often-seen claim or trope – enshrined in the ‘narrative’ of the Stampede – that utterly well-functioning individuals were suddenly and in some cases profoundly and globally as well as permanently deranged by an instance of sexual-abuse in that later period.
And in light of all this, it remains an open question whether such early-period derangements might in some or many cases be the cause of allegations rather than the consequences of any allegated-actions.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/31/emotional-child-abuse-banned-government-love-adult-psychosis
Without a doubt, this site is a breath of fresh air. Even though I got it as a link from spirit daily, which seems to take a particular liking of highlighting "abuse" cases. There truly are inconsistencies all over when it comes to these things. First of all this notion of survivors "coming forward" is off the rails. Like they are lingering, devastated in the darkness somewhere. Barbara Blaine the director of snap was sexually involved with a priest throughout her High School Years. And then, "came forward" . When I was 13 a guy tried to molest me. At 13 I pushed him and ran away. Now, at 16 (and this was in the 80's) everybody knew what was up with sex. These queer or slutty little temptresses are simply on a money grab or need someone to blame because they are losers. So if someone has sex with a "minor" in florida – (18 age of consent) that person is branded a predator and a sex criminal. . And if the same act is committed in 2/3rds of the United States as well as in all of Europe – its as legal as breathing the air? This is a witch hunt pure and simple, the same spirit as the overzealous inquisitors of centuries ago. these bishops that do not protect their priests are deeply shameful, they throw them to the mob and wash their hands of it like Pilate.
Well Joe, you paint quite the picture. I didn't push my teacher away he had my arm twisted behinfd my back and he was rubbing away. This was a man I had liked as a teacher. This man was probably till that year my favorite teacher. I was groomed to obey any religious, period. That was my mindset then. And was I religious? Oh yes I was. Deeply so. I could not believe what was happening to me. I didn't think anyone would believe me if I told but gratefully they did. That's why, probably I come here. You are what I expected to get and what I got when I told, a whole bunch of negativity but the right people believed me.
I'm trying to find the sane people here. I'm most likely trying to repeat the abuse, only this time fighting back even harder by attempting to deal with you, the church as oppresor, where this time I'd win. just by telling the truth.