Are there any militant secularists on this forum?

[d000hg]

Why did priests who are supposed to be abstinent and believe sex outside marriage and homosexuality to be sins abuse young boys?

Because people are still people?

Have their been any studies which look at what % of priests are pedos, compared to the general population?

I have no great support for the Roman Catholics but it seems they are a target in the same way MPs are - they should be setting a high standard so that makes them a great target for the press. I would imagine the vast majority of priests are kind, caring people.

[AtW]

Have their been any studies which look at what % of priests are pedos, compared to the general population?

It would be more appropriate to ask what %-tage of pedos in general population got covered it all up with the help of their bosses surely?

[d000hg]

No, then you want to compare % of catholics who have covered for a pedo, compared to % nationally of people who have.

Probably hard to measure accurately...

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Since the definition of "miltant secularist" appears to anyone who just wants to be free of imposition by religion, having to sit through prayers at official meetings, having the law decided by Bishops or Shariah, having to make special arrangements in their businesses to cater for various beliefs etc, then count me in.

+1 here and add "wants his taxes to go to a decently funded education system free from divisive sectarian fairytale mumbo-jumbo"

[xoggoth]

Well, this is the nearest I could find from an impartial source, ie the Catholic Church:

There's absolutely no evidence that priests are more likely to abuse children than are other groups of men

Which rather proves my point, if religion had any significant effect in improving behaviour they should be significantly less likely to abuse children than other men.

10 Myths about Priestly Pedophilia

Your arguments are a bit contradictory do000000gh, you appear to imply in previous posts that religion is an improver of mankind and society, then castigate others for expecting the devout to be better.

[xoggoth]

Ah yes priests are not pedophiles they are ephebophiles according to that link. That's ok then.

Pedophilia is a particular type of compulsive sexual disorder in which an adult (man or woman) abuses prepubescent children. The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent — comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests).

Whatever you want to call it, it is the same as among married men. Again, no sign of religion improving behaviour.

[KimberleyChris]

The British 'wing' of the Roman Catholic church is semi-autonomous, and is not as 'slavish' to Vatican dogma than places in - say - South America.

There is a strong faction for change, especially in the field of celibacy of the clergy.

At the moment. of course, it is impossible for a Priest to be married (unless, of course he is a married man who becomes a Priest), but a large percentage of the church would prefer that the clergy are drawn from 'family men' like CofE clergy.

This will probably happen first, but we will need a welcome change of Pope first. Female clergy will take much much longer though. The wheels turn slowly in Rome.

[d000hg]

Your arguments are a bit contradictory do000000gh, you appear to imply in previous posts that religion is an improver of mankind and society, then castigate others for expecting the devout to be better.

Expecting that ALL believers will NEVER sin is totally unrealistic, not to mention unbiblical, but indeed how believers act is supposed to be as much (or more) a part of how we show God's love to the world than what we say; someone mentioned the Salvation Army the other day.

For a priest/vicar to abuse the position they are placed in is unacceptable, and the bible makes it clear leaders are responsible for those who they lead.

That many see the church as disinterested, judgemental, etc, is frankly a huge kick up the backside to do better. As in Jesus' time, institutionalised religion and those with a vested interest in power are big roadblocks to what should be happening.

[EternalOptimist]

surely the idea is that you can do what you like, as long as you grovel afterwards ?

In the olden days it was even better, you could pre-grovel by getting an indulgence.
Those were the days
'I'll take two choir boys, half a bottle of holy wine, two tugs and look through miss Devonshires knicker drawer please bishop.thank you'

[xoggoth]

expecting the devout to be better

Expecting that ALL believers will NEVER sin

Spot the difference.

You are arguing with a point that I never made. I do not expect the religious to be perfect but, if the argument by you and others that religion is positive for our society is valid , then they should at least be better in those areas of behaviour which are governed by the major tenets of their faith.

If they are merely the same, then what does religion do for us? We are much better off with principles that are based on what works. Society is a complex issue and secular ideas often don't work any better but at least we are free to change things when they go wrong without waiting centuries for clerics to reinterpret obscure scriptures.