[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Someone who had sex even once before marriage may not (ever) become a priest.
If a priest jerks off on a few separate occasions after being ordained he is to be defrocked.
If a priest’s wife cheats on him he must either leave her or leave the clergy…[/quote]
Where do you get this from?
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
[quote]Yes, let’s be mature and honest with outselves, you can broaden that term as being 3 out of 5 people have some problem like OCD, alcoholism, obsession with pornography. 50 percent of Church going Christians (it’s actually higher in other congregations than it is in the Catholic Church) have an addiction to pornography.
What happened to Priests being held to a higher standard. I appreciate though that you are not calling me a liar. [/quote]
Someone who had sex even once before marriage may not (ever) become a priest.
If a priest jerks off on a few separate occasions after being ordained he is to be defrocked.
If a priest’s wife cheats on him he must either leave her or leave the clergy…
[/quote]
All true, and I’ve seen all applied at least once. These are all in the Apostolic Constitution which the RC church used to hold to. If a man is anally raped he is impeded from the priesthood. [/quote]
Bull. Shit.
Sources. Please.
EDIT: Refers to both the above quotes.[/quote]
The Apostolic Constitutions is a standard text in Roman Catholic seminaries. I’ve read it all in hard copy and no Roman Catholic theologian would reject any of the statements made above. I’ll try to find oyu an online text.
her is some.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/apostolic_constitutions/book_1-VI.htm
Its like 8 volumes and was the guidelines that the Church used before the time of the Councils. In fact, the Ecumenical councils “rules” were patterned after AC.
I will ask a couple of early church scholars tomorrow.[/quote]
Yeah, I’d like to hear what they have to say, too.
I quote, “The Church seems never to have regarded this work as of undoubted Apostolic authority. The Trullan Council in 692 rejected the work on account of the interpolations of heretics. Only that portion of it to which has been given the name “Apostolic Canons” was received; but even the fifty of these canons which had then been accepted by the Western Church were not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin.”
So basically like Cortes said, Bull Shit!
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Anyway, it’s still very bad, because the number of Catholic clergy is not equal to that of lay persons, or even male lay persons.
[/quote]
No, it’s not. Good point, however let’s look at the data.
Catholic priests have the least percentage wise of the total victims (2%). And, compared to other clergyman, they have comparable numbers, but are the least among clergy man at 1.5%. Compared to the male population (in general, not just looking at the groups like family members or fathers specifically) to the Catholic Priests: the male population has double the percentage of pedophiles within it’s population than Catholic Priests.
And, as you said the Catholic Church’s clergy is not equal to the male lay persons, not in the Church and especially not including those who are not in the Church.
Meaning out of all the groups of perpetrators, Catholic Priests have the least in their ranks percentage wise. To those in their ranks that are pedophiles, the pedophiles have the least amount of victims percentage wise of the 39 million victims.
So, it’s interesting that such a small group of people, with relatively small numbers of pedophiles in its rank, and with such a small number of victims gets so much news as if they were the king pin of all the pedophiles across the world.[/quote]
If less than .1% of the population commits 2% of the crimes, and, say,30% commit 60% of them… 10:1… did I get it wrong?
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Anyway, it’s still very bad, because the number of Catholic clergy is not equal to that of lay persons, or even male lay persons.
[/quote]
No, it’s not. Good point, however let’s look at the data.
Catholic priests have the least percentage wise of the total victims (2%). And, compared to other clergyman, they have comparable numbers, but are the least among clergy man at 1.5%. Compared to the male population (in general, not just looking at the groups like family members or fathers specifically) to the Catholic Priests: the male population has double the percentage of pedophiles within it’s population than Catholic Priests.
And, as you said the Catholic Church’s clergy is not equal to the male lay persons, not in the Church and especially not including those who are not in the Church.
Meaning out of all the groups of perpetrators, Catholic Priests have the least in their ranks percentage wise. To those in their ranks that are pedophiles, the pedophiles have the least amount of victims percentage wise of the 39 million victims.
So, it’s interesting that such a small group of people, with relatively small numbers of pedophiles in its rank, and with such a small number of victims gets so much news as if they were the king pin of all the pedophiles across the world.[/quote]
If less than .01% of the population commits 2% of the crimes, and, say,30% commit 60% of them… 100:1… did I get it wrong?
[/quote]
You’re trying to do math as it were a snap shot with numbers that cover 50 years (and the those that are alive. Not going to work. What you’re trying to do is this 39,000,000*.02=780000/50=15,600 victims per year. 41,406*1.5=621. 15,600/621 = 25 victims per priest per year. These numbers would be even worse, when we realise that recently there has only been a handful of credible allegations, but not a lot of charges. So, it would be insane numbers, basically priests wouldn’t have time to do anything else besides molest 16 and 17 year olds all day at 25-40 victims a year per priest. I think someone would notice.
No, there is 39,000,000 victims of Child molestation in America. The statistic is talking about people that are alive. The 2% is the past 50 years, I’m guessing there is some people older than 50 in America. As well, I think the number of alleged victims is 11000 against 4,500 priests or something in 50 years. You can read the rest of the stats here:
Oh and by the way, some reports are saying that most of the cases are with people below the age of consent, aka 16-17 and sometimes older.
http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20020303edjenk03p6.asp
If the Catholic clergy (.1% of the population) is responsible for 2% of the total cases of pedophilia (what you said), while fathers (say 30% of the population) are responsible for 60%, it means that for every “father” who is a pedo there are ten priests who are pedos. So the rate of pedophilia is 10x among Catholic clergy than among laymen.
I’m just doing the math, based on the statistics you gave.
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
If the Catholic clergy (.1% of the population) is responsible for 2% of the total cases of pedophilia (what you said), while fathers (say 30% of the population) are responsible for 60%, it means that for every “father” who is a pedo there are ten priests who are pedos. So the rate of pedophilia is 10x among Catholic clergy than among laymen.
I’m just doing the math, based on the statistics you gave.[/quote]
Lol, no. You’re confusing different studies with each other.
30% of the population is 90m, .01% is ~41,000. There is 2195 fathers for every priest. Of the 104,000 priests in the last 50 years, 1.5% have been charged. 1560 child molesters in the last 50 years, the article said double for the general male pop (higher for fathers though) to clergy, so clergy averaged 5%, so 10% for 90m, is 9,000,000:1560. So for fathers who have molested their children compares to a priest is 5769 fathers to every priest the past 50 years.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Anyway, it’s still very bad, because the number of Catholic clergy is not equal to that of lay persons, or even male lay persons.
[/quote]
No, it’s not. Good point, however let’s look at the data.
Catholic priests have the least percentage wise of the total victims (2%). And, compared to other clergyman, they have comparable numbers, but are the least among clergy man at 1.5%. Compared to the male population (in general, not just looking at the groups like family members or fathers specifically) to the Catholic Priests: the male population has double the percentage of pedophiles within it’s population than Catholic Priests.
And, as you said the Catholic Church’s clergy is not equal to the male lay persons, not in the Church and especially not including those who are not in the Church.
Meaning out of all the groups of perpetrators, Catholic Priests have the least in their ranks percentage wise. To those in their ranks that are pedophiles, the pedophiles have the least amount of victims percentage wise of the 39 million victims.
So, it’s interesting that such a small group of people, with relatively small numbers of pedophiles in its rank, and with such a small number of victims gets so much news as if they were the king pin of all the pedophiles across the world.[/quote]
Source of data?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Anyway, it’s still very bad, because the number of Catholic clergy is not equal to that of lay persons, or even male lay persons.
[/quote]
No, it’s not. Good point, however let’s look at the data.
Catholic priests have the least percentage wise of the total victims (2%). And, compared to other clergyman, they have comparable numbers, but are the least among clergy man at 1.5%. Compared to the male population (in general, not just looking at the groups like family members or fathers specifically) to the Catholic Priests: the male population has double the percentage of pedophiles within it’s population than Catholic Priests.
And, as you said the Catholic Church’s clergy is not equal to the male lay persons, not in the Church and especially not including those who are not in the Church.
Meaning out of all the groups of perpetrators, Catholic Priests have the least in their ranks percentage wise. To those in their ranks that are pedophiles, the pedophiles have the least amount of victims percentage wise of the 39 million victims.
So, it’s interesting that such a small group of people, with relatively small numbers of pedophiles in its rank, and with such a small number of victims gets so much news as if they were the king pin of all the pedophiles across the world.[/quote]
What is the source of the data (percentages) given above?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< There is 2195 fathers for every priest. >>>[/quote]How many of these fathers claimed the direct divine authority of almighty God by virtue of their communion with Christ Himself through the priesthood handed to Peter the first pope of the “one true most holy and apostolic church”? Or what percentage claimed Christ at all? What percentage had friends and family in full knowledge cover it up and send them to another household with children? This is a false comparison. Whether someone is claiming Christ is absolutely central to this issue.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
[quote]Yes, let’s be mature and honest with outselves, you can broaden that term as being 3 out of 5 people have some problem like OCD, alcoholism, obsession with pornography. 50 percent of Church going Christians (it’s actually higher in other congregations than it is in the Catholic Church) have an addiction to pornography.
What happened to Priests being held to a higher standard. I appreciate though that you are not calling me a liar. [/quote]
Someone who had sex even once before marriage may not (ever) become a priest.
If a priest jerks off on a few separate occasions after being ordained he is to be defrocked.
If a priest’s wife cheats on him he must either leave her or leave the clergy…
[/quote]
All true, and I’ve seen all applied at least once. These are all in the Apostolic Constitution which the RC church used to hold to. If a man is anally raped he is impeded from the priesthood. [/quote]
Bull. Shit.
Sources. Please.
EDIT: Refers to both the above quotes.[/quote]
The Apostolic Constitutions is a standard text in Roman Catholic seminaries. I’ve read it all in hard copy and no Roman Catholic theologian would reject any of the statements made above. I’ll try to find oyu an online text.
her is some.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/apostolic_constitutions/book_1-VI.htm
Its like 8 volumes and was the guidelines that the Church used before the time of the Councils. In fact, the Ecumenical councils “rules” were patterned after AC.
I will ask a couple of early church scholars tomorrow.[/quote]
Yeah, I’d like to hear what they have to say, too.
I quote, “The Church seems never to have regarded this work as of undoubted Apostolic authority. The Trullan Council in 692 rejected the work on account of the interpolations of heretics. Only that portion of it to which has been given the name “Apostolic Canons” was received; but even the fifty of these canons which had then been accepted by the Western Church were not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin.”
So basically like Cortes said, Bull Shit![/quote]
Yes, but the exact same phaseology was incorporated into the canons of the Ecumenical councils. Actually I’ll get the ancient source for impediments to the priesthood tomorrow. It doesn’t matter for you because the Pope has rolled back the rules for priests, fasting, consistency of the Liturgy etc, and he’s the ultimate authority in the Roman church above any ancient text or council.
I am interested to know what you think are the theological barriers between the Orthodox church and the Roman church.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
[quote]Yes, let’s be mature and honest with outselves, you can broaden that term as being 3 out of 5 people have some problem like OCD, alcoholism, obsession with pornography. 50 percent of Church going Christians (it’s actually higher in other congregations than it is in the Catholic Church) have an addiction to pornography.
What happened to Priests being held to a higher standard. I appreciate though that you are not calling me a liar. [/quote]
Someone who had sex even once before marriage may not (ever) become a priest.
If a priest jerks off on a few separate occasions after being ordained he is to be defrocked.
If a priest’s wife cheats on him he must either leave her or leave the clergy…
[/quote]
All true, and I’ve seen all applied at least once. These are all in the Apostolic Constitution which the RC church used to hold to. If a man is anally raped he is impeded from the priesthood. [/quote]
Bull. Shit.
Sources. Please.
EDIT: Refers to both the above quotes.[/quote]
The Apostolic Constitutions is a standard text in Roman Catholic seminaries. I’ve read it all in hard copy and no Roman Catholic theologian would reject any of the statements made above. I’ll try to find oyu an online text.
her is some.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/apostolic_constitutions/book_1-VI.htm
Its like 8 volumes and was the guidelines that the Church used before the time of the Councils. In fact, the Ecumenical councils “rules” were patterned after AC.
I will ask a couple of early church scholars tomorrow.[/quote]
Yeah, I’d like to hear what they have to say, too.
I quote, “The Church seems never to have regarded this work as of undoubted Apostolic authority. The Trullan Council in 692 rejected the work on account of the interpolations of heretics. Only that portion of it to which has been given the name “Apostolic Canons” was received; but even the fifty of these canons which had then been accepted by the Western Church were not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin.”
So basically like Cortes said, Bull Shit![/quote]
From your source: Where known, however, the Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation.
They are today of the highest value as an historical document, revealing the moral and religious conditions and the liturgical observances of the third and fourth centuries.
Its easy to start disregarding the standard guiding texts of early Christianity when the Pope becomes superior to councils in the 11th century.
Plus who cares about the Trullian council.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
[quote]Yes, let’s be mature and honest with outselves, you can broaden that term as being 3 out of 5 people have some problem like OCD, alcoholism, obsession with pornography. 50 percent of Church going Christians (it’s actually higher in other congregations than it is in the Catholic Church) have an addiction to pornography.
What happened to Priests being held to a higher standard. I appreciate though that you are not calling me a liar. [/quote]
Someone who had sex even once before marriage may not (ever) become a priest.
If a priest jerks off on a few separate occasions after being ordained he is to be defrocked.
If a priest’s wife cheats on him he must either leave her or leave the clergy…
[/quote]
All true, and I’ve seen all applied at least once. These are all in the Apostolic Constitution which the RC church used to hold to. If a man is anally raped he is impeded from the priesthood. [/quote]
Bull. Shit.
Sources. Please.
EDIT: Refers to both the above quotes.[/quote]
The Apostolic Constitutions is a standard text in Roman Catholic seminaries. I’ve read it all in hard copy and no Roman Catholic theologian would reject any of the statements made above. I’ll try to find oyu an online text.
her is some.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/apostolic_constitutions/book_1-VI.htm
Its like 8 volumes and was the guidelines that the Church used before the time of the Councils. In fact, the Ecumenical councils “rules” were patterned after AC.
I will ask a couple of early church scholars tomorrow.[/quote]
Yeah, I’d like to hear what they have to say, too.
I quote, “The Church seems never to have regarded this work as of undoubted Apostolic authority. The Trullan Council in 692 rejected the work on account of the interpolations of heretics. Only that portion of it to which has been given the name “Apostolic Canons” was received; but even the fifty of these canons which had then been accepted by the Western Church were not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin.”
So basically like Cortes said, Bull Shit![/quote]
From your source: Where known, however, the Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation.
They are today of the highest value as an historical document, revealing the moral and religious conditions and the liturgical observances of the third and fourth centuries.
Its easy to start disregarding the standard guiding texts of early Christianity when the Pope becomes superior to councils in the 11th century.
Plus who cares about the Trullian council.
[/quote]
Putting aside for a second the contested authenticity of the source material…what exactly, is your point?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Putting aside for a second the contested authenticity of the source material…what exactly, is your point?
[/quote]
That the Church had very strict standards for the priesthood in the first few centuries, such as a priest could not have had premarital sex, participated in anal sex, been under a certain age, have shed blood.
That’s what you called BS.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Putting aside for a second the contested authenticity of the source material…what exactly, is your point?
[/quote]
That the Church had very strict standards for the priesthood in the first few centuries, such as a priest could not have had premarital sex, participated in anal sex, been under a certain age, have shed blood.
That’s what you called BS.[/quote]
I believe the original point was worded in the present tense (perhaps not your followup, but the original post by the other guy), but it still does not answer what I’m really trying to get at: What was the point in bringing this up in the first place?
EDIT: Nope, I see your post was worded in the present tense and included the support of anecdotal evidence.
No man is resistant to sin. Do we not all sin. Yes priests are held to higher standard, yet even they are weak to sin just as all of you are. Look at the plank in your own eye before the speck in your brothers.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Putting aside for a second the contested authenticity of the source material…what exactly, is your point?
[/quote]
That the Church had very strict standards for the priesthood in the first few centuries, such as a priest could not have had premarital sex, participated in anal sex, been under a certain age, have shed blood.
That’s what you called BS.[/quote]
I believe the original point was worded in the present tense (perhaps not your followup, but the original post by the other guy), but it still does not answer what I’m really trying to get at: What was the point in bringing this up in the first place?
EDIT: Nope, I see your post was worded in the present tense and included the support of anecdotal evidence.
[/quote]
Here is what he wrote:
Someone who had sex even once before marriage may not (ever) become a priest.
If a priest jerks off on a few separate occasions after being ordained he is to be defrocked.
If a priest’s wife cheats on him he must either leave her or leave the clergy…
That is what the Canons of the early church read today. Not just the Apostolic Constitutions, but Didiscalia and the canons prescribed in each of the ecumenical councils. They are not follwed by every Bishop in every diocese today, but they have all been used to remove Priests or disqualify priests in cases that I know of.
His point was, I think, that even a less than normal rate of molestation by Priests would be real bad. We should expect priests to have a much lower rate of sexual molestation than the general public.
[quote]GLOCKTHNP wrote:
No man is resistant to sin. Do we not all sin. Yes priests are held to higher standard, yet even they are weak to sin just as all of you are. Look at the plank in your own eye before the speck in your brothers.[/quote]Read the 5th chapter of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. It ends like this: [quote]9-I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10-I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11-But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-not even to eat with such a one. 12-For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13-But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.[/quote]Emphasis indicates a quote from the Old Testament as per the NASB translators.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< We should expect priests to have a much lower rate of sexual molestation than the general public. >>>[/quote]We should expect no one in whom dwells the Holy Spirit of God to sexually molest children at all. Can that happen? Yes. And those to whom the offender is accountable should then, themselves being indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, deal with him scripturally which would involve the civil authorities and instant suspension of ministerial responsibilities at the absolute very least for a first time offender. Anything other than full unbridled repentance and full time open accountability to men of responsibility should also bring excommunication and treatment as an infidel until such repentance is forthcoming. This is for the good of everybody involved including the offender himself.
Anywhere that regularly fails to function cannot be viewed as a church of the holy living Christ.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Anyway, it’s still very bad, because the number of Catholic clergy is not equal to that of lay persons, or even male lay persons.
[/quote]
No, it’s not. Good point, however let’s look at the data.
Catholic priests have the least percentage wise of the total victims (2%). And, compared to other clergyman, they have comparable numbers, but are the least among clergy man at 1.5%. Compared to the male population (in general, not just looking at the groups like family members or fathers specifically) to the Catholic Priests: the male population has double the percentage of pedophiles within it’s population than Catholic Priests.
And, as you said the Catholic Church’s clergy is not equal to the male lay persons, not in the Church and especially not including those who are not in the Church.
Meaning out of all the groups of perpetrators, Catholic Priests have the least in their ranks percentage wise. To those in their ranks that are pedophiles, the pedophiles have the least amount of victims percentage wise of the 39 million victims.
So, it’s interesting that such a small group of people, with relatively small numbers of pedophiles in its rank, and with such a small number of victims gets so much news as if they were the king pin of all the pedophiles across the world.[/quote]
Source of data?
[/quote]
I posted it above. I don’t have it off hand, so you’ll have to find it yourself or wait until I get home from door-to-door evangelizing.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Where do we claim this? If it was by virtue of their communion with Christ himself, it would include me because I am in communion with Christ himself.
That’s not the name of the Catholic Church, Tirib. One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Get it right and stop quoting yourself.
What’s your point? My point is the misrepresentation of the Catholic Church in the media in a country that hates Catholics.
Actually it’s not, it’s the fact that even though Catholic clergy represent such a small percentage of the problem they exclusively get air time. Compared to say the large busts in the public school systems.