|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 22, 2010 11:15:48 GMT -5
Why does it have to come from workers? Can't we be accountable for our own homes and our own children? It's so easy to play pass it. Our meeting is a hug meeting. Does that mean I can't have enough control over myself to have wrong thoughts. Come on be real. We aren't to be a bunch of puritans.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 22, 2010 11:25:54 GMT -5
Why does it have to come from workers? Can't we be accountable for our own homes and our own children? It's so easy to play pass it. Our meeting is a hug meeting. Does that mean I can't have enough control over myself to have wrong thoughts. Come on be real. We aren't to be a bunch of puritans. Lin, this is about teaching innocent, ignorant young children proper behaviour to BE SURE they're never putting themself into the arms of a perpatrator since it is hard for said children to know who those are! Yes, adults should be accountable, but as long as there are groups of people anywhere, there is the chance one of the perpatrators who manipulate things to their own satisfaction will be within that group of people. The complaint has been the parents are NOT teaching their children how to protect themselves and until children get old enough to KNOW HOW TO DO SO, they're going to have to have the "hands off" taught, don't you think? Our society has become quite loose with their physical expressions of love and to some extent that IS THE PROBLEM when it comes to children being able to protect themselves. Children need to know being caught alone by someone they "think" is okay, is the thing they must learn to question! |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 22, 2010 11:54:43 GMT -5
I agree Sharon. I don't think though some parents are up to speed. This is 2010 and it's a whole different time. Things our parents never told us,we do have to make our children aware of. Even our schools are failing our young society.
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 22, 2010 15:27:26 GMT -5
... Our meeting is a hug meeting. Does that mean I can't have enough control over myself to have wrong thoughts. Come on be real. We aren't to be a bunch of puritans. It's wonderful when meetings have this closeness. Good for you, Lin. I hope you have not been intimidated to feel uncomfortable giving the children, if there are any, hugs - as long as they like it. As a person who teaches occasionally, I am saddened that teachers are strongly discouraged from giving little children hugs or even pats on the back. Neither can they take a student gently by the arm or hand and lead them where they need to be. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 22, 2010 16:20:06 GMT -5
... Our meeting is a hug meeting. Does that mean I can't have enough control over myself to have wrong thoughts. Come on be real. We aren't to be a bunch of puritans. It's wonderful when meetings have this closeness. Good for you, Lin. I hope you have not been intimidated to feel uncomfortable giving the children, if there are any, hugs - as long as they like it. As a person who teaches occasionally, I am saddened that teachers are strongly discouraged from giving little children hugs or even pats on the back. Neither can they take a student gently by the arm or hand and lead them where they need to be. Emy, this is all because of the wrong interpretation children can get from such familiarity! It is the same within the medical society these days...one can never be too careful. I agree with Lin, that many parents are not up to speed on how to teach their children self awareness, the children are having to learn this all by themselves through rough experiences! Sincere affection really can be given without the physical touching and it is that kind of world we live in today! So the hugging among people that are not closely related really needs to stop because IF children are watching this IS where the children pickup on behaviours and I'm talking about little children, little children mimic grownups and older children...they think IF it's alright for the adults and the older children then it is alright for them and that's when they get into the situations where a manipulative perpatrator who appears to be just another normal person, nails them. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 22, 2010 17:12:27 GMT -5
Lin, this is about teaching innocent, ignorant young children proper behaviour to BE SURE they're never putting themself into the arms of a perpatrator since it is hard for said children to know who those are! Why do you think the children are ignorant? What does innocence have to do with learning the way their bodies function and who should and should not have access to what specific parts? If children know the rules of engagement, so to speak, they can judge the character of people they encounter by that person's actions. A child over the age of 5 certainly should know that being asked to touch another's penis, for example, is wrong and should be immediately reported to their parents. If children cannot make that distinction they should not ever be left alone with anyone. If they do not know the parts of their body to be able to clearly express what is going on they need to be protected by their parents at all times. Telling them that people shouldn't touch them "down there" leaves too much undefined. The lack of specificity leaves just enough of an area of ambiguity for a person to take advantage of the child. This has been and will always be the case. I think there is appropriate and inappropriate touching and children are much more discerning that most give them credit for, as long as they are properly taught. I don't believe this is correct. As I said, there is appropriate and inappropriate behavior. I have seen people behaving in an inappropriate way with children (I believe it was innocent but just over the line) and the parents sat, uncomfortable, silently without saying anything. So neither the children nor the other person was able to learn. I am against teaching children to fear people they do not know. When parents are being responsible for their children there is no time when that would be alone with someone without the parent's knowledge. Again, with education regarding what is and is not appropriate, along with the secure knowledge that, as children, they can bring anything (really - anything) to their parents without fear of punishment. And before that that is possible, the children need to know exactly what is and is not OK. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 22, 2010 17:22:06 GMT -5
Sincere affection really can be given without the physical touching and it is that kind of world we live in today! So the hugging among people that are not closely related really needs to stop because IF children are watching this IS where the children pickup on behaviours and I'm talking about little children, little children mimic grownups and older children...they think IF it's alright for the adults and the older children then it is alright for them and that's when they get into the situations where a manipulative perpatrator who appears to be just another normal person, nails them. Hugging is not sexual abuse. It does not lead to sexual abuse. If it has not been made clear to a child that hugging is appropriate behavior there is something amiss with the child's education. The point is that the child needs to be empowered to tell anyone (and that does mean anyone - even parents) to stop any behavior they do not feel comfortable with. And then there are the other prohibitions that are inviolate. Putting a child in a plastic bubble and making them fearful of strangers does not address the issue. Children are looking for attention, affection, approval, love, etc. If they do not get it from their parents they become very vulnerable to anyone who will give them what they need. If you want to see this from a victim's retrospective view, read Jean's account of her abuse on W.I.N.G.S. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 22, 2010 18:21:39 GMT -5
Even our schools are failing our young society. Schools (teachers) are put into a tough position. In most school districts they are prevented from teaching any form of sex education to the children that need it - those just entering middle school. And, at least in much of the US, parents are not open to talk to their children about sexual issues. Suggest that schools teach safe-sex and provide condoms to the students who request them and you have a full scale revolution on your hands. And then the parents wondering about the rise in STDs and claiming schools are not doing their job. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Storebo on Jul 22, 2010 18:29:35 GMT -5
Is horrific abuse more common among professing people than among people who are members of other denominations?
|
|
|
|
Post by mod4 on Jul 22, 2010 22:58:50 GMT -5
Is horrific abuse more common among professing people than among people who are members of other denominations? Maybe it's got something to do with the (non-biblical) 'enforcement' of a celibate ministry. Enforcement is not the right word, because as many workers and many friends know, that standard is broken often by some workers. |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 23, 2010 6:36:20 GMT -5
How many is many?
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 23, 2010 6:42:41 GMT -5
Would 50% be many ? That is not a number I throw out there for fun. |
|
|
|
Post by mod4 on Jul 23, 2010 6:44:12 GMT -5
Fair point, many is considerably more than 1, some is more than 1  |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 23, 2010 7:17:12 GMT -5
how many denotes a behavior pattern that qualifies for all?
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 23, 2010 7:28:55 GMT -5
Would 50% be many ? That is not a number I throw out there for fun. It would be interesting to know why you did throw it out. Why not 75% or 25%? You cannot provide support for one guess any more than another so it is just more speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 23, 2010 7:28:55 GMT -5
Even our schools are failing our young society. Schools (teachers) are put into a tough position. In most school districts they are prevented from teaching any form of sex education to the children that need it - those just entering middle school. And, at least in much of the US, parents are not open to talk to their children about sexual issues. Suggest that schools teach safe-sex and provide condoms to the students who request them and you have a full scale revolution on your hands. And then the parents wondering about the rise in STDs and claiming schools are not doing their job. Again, this looks like lack of parenting skills....in this area parents are screaming up the halls that teachers are not teaching their children any self-discipline....but then the parents do not look at the lawsuits the teachers face if they even raise their voices at the children much less a hand! What is it with American's? Parents are the ones who are to teach the child in which way to go so that when he is adult he will not forget it...according to the Bible! I think perhaps preteens need to start parenting classes and I say that since early teens are having babies! Start their knowledge before the begetting begins begotting! |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 23, 2010 7:42:18 GMT -5
Is horrific abuse more common among professing people than among people who are members of other denominations? Maybe it's got something to do with the (non-biblical) 'enforcement' of a celibate ministry. Enforcement is not the right word, because as many workers and many friends know, that standard is broken often by some workers. I wonder why this myth continues to be perpetrated. Celibacy has not been shown to increase sex crimes. This couples with past posts about divorced women who are easy targets because they are under the control of their raging hormones! It is the same mindset that makes people think that an increase in pornography somehow increases sex crimes. Studies of the subject have found that as the use of porn increases, the rate of sex crimes goes down. |
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 23, 2010 7:43:23 GMT -5
I believe you are seeing my point Sharon and I'm not being smart.So much goes to our home teaching and home atmosphere. We have a lot of homeless children that live in houses because it's not a home. Parents have to listen to their children and the children have to be free to speak.Remember the old saying "children are to be seen and not heard", does that attitude set a pattern?
|
|
|
|
Post by mod4 on Jul 23, 2010 7:56:26 GMT -5
Celibacy has not been shown to increase sex crimes. Please provide references to studies that support your contention. Can you provide statistics for the rate of sexual abuse amongst the celibate Catholic priesthood, compared to the rate amongst the general population? Thank you in advance. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 23, 2010 8:44:12 GMT -5
Celibacy has not been shown to increase sex crimes. Please provide references to studies that support your contention. Can you provide statistics for the rate of sexual abuse amongst the celibate Catholic priesthood, compared to the rate amongst the general population? Thank you in advance. That is almost the way this works. You are making the claim that celibacy is a cause of increased sex crimes. I am stating there is no research to show there is that claimed connection. Now it is up to you, the person making the claim, to provide the material on which you based your claim. You could have claimed that blue-eyed people commit more sex crimes. I would say there is no research to support your claim. Of course, I would not be able to provide you with such non-existing data. It is up to you, the person making the claim to provide the proof. And once you have established your claim we can move on to the thorny problems of sorting out the available data regarding abuse by priests as compared to the general population and the myriad problems associated with this. |
|
|
|
Post by mod4 on Jul 23, 2010 9:39:10 GMT -5
It's you rational who is ducking and weaving. You have little or no data to support your various contentions that seek to minimize the incidence and impact of child sexual abuse within religious groups with enforced celibate ministries like the fellowship and Catholic priesthood. There are statistics but its hard to not be comparing apples with oranges. I know of several studies and undoubtedly there are many more that I would have to search out. - Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former priest, has studied celibacy and sexuality in the priesthood for four decades. He has authored three books on the topic. By extrapolating from his 25 years of interviews of 1,500 priests and others, he estimates that 6% of priests abuse. Of these, 4% abuse teens, aged 13 to 17; 2% abuse pre-pubertal children.
- A. W. Richard Sipe, "Sex, Priests and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis," Brunner/Mazel, (1995).
- Priests abuse at a per-capita rate that is much greater than for the general population. This is probably true, even if for no other reason that all Roman Catholic priests are currently male, and adult males have a much higher abuse rate than females.
- Priests have freer access to many children than does the average male. His position of authority and trust can facilitate abuse. Thus the number of abused young people per abusive priest may well be larger than for the average molester.
- The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a survey of Roman Catholic church records of abusive clergy, to be completed by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
- Percentage of abusive priests: 4.0% (John Jay report)
- Factors contributing to the abuse problem, as stated by the report:
- Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem.
- Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal.
- Use of unqualified treatment centers.
- Misguided willingness to forgive.
- Insufficient accountability.
- The John Jay report suffers from what public-health workers call "reporting bias." Some details of the 11,000 cases of alleged abuse are known. But there exists another "pool of victims of unknown size...outside of their accounting..." They might never come to light.
If you want to compare these data with a per capita rate, it is probably most meaningful to compare against the data for male non-related child abusers. On the other hand, priests (like workers) have greater opportunity due to their position of trust. The grooming process is largely automatic for them by virtue of their roles. So celibacy is not the only factor that might influence the rate. As for impacts, because priests and workers are largely seen as servants of God, as well as sexual abuse their victims also often suffer spiritually. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 23, 2010 10:06:47 GMT -5
If we want to honestly look at the big picture we must also note that parents and relatives are the closest to children and yet commit the largest percentage of CSA. That's a statistical fact there's no way around. Celibate ministries are a tangent in comparison. Overall it's educating the primary lines of defense, not blaming specific segments of the stastics, that's going to solve the problem. Sharon you're hitting the nail on the head - educating the child is the best way to prevent CSA. The first line of defense is the one around each individual child and then those lines of defense radiate out from there. Those closest to the individual child would naturally be the most effective at helping the child build its line of defense, if they are not the abusers. It's not safe for a child to be 0% responsible, because all adults are not 100% virtuous 100% of the time. Pretending they are would be expecting perfection which is simply not a rational thing to do. The first line of defense is where education comes in, education is what instructs the child about real life, that they cannot assume all adults will be 100% 100% of the time, and since that is real life they should equip themselves with the tools they will need when they run into adults that are not at 100%. It's tough though because kids naturally trust adults, so the only way to get them to take up the defensive tools and weapons they will need to use when dealing with adults not at 100% is tell them about real life - about adults that were not at 100%. It's even tougher when those closest to the child are the abusers (a majority as statistics show). That's where educated teachers, doctors, neighbors, friends and clergy can help. Anti-CSA tools and weapons; Click -> darkness2light.org (highly recommended by a worker) Click -> ministrysafe.com (many workers have taken this training) Click -> childluresprevention.com Click -> childwelfare.gov Click -> False accusers get sued for 25 million. Click -> Excerpt of a letter written by a young Sister Worker to Tharold Sylvester  |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 23, 2010 12:02:08 GMT -5
It's you rational who is ducking and weaving. You have little or no data to support your various contentions that seek to minimize the incidence and impact of child sexual abuse within religious groups with enforced celibate ministries like the fellowship and Catholic priesthood. My contention was that enforced celibacy was not the cause of the child abuse. Allowing the workers and/or priests to marry will not change the incidence of abuse but could lower the rate because more people may elect to join the priesthood is they were allowed to marry. Do any of these references state the root of the problem is celibacy? Or that it is even a factor? I have seen what you have posted. The missing part is what does the general population look like. If indeed celibacy is the issue why is the incidence rate among clergy in non-celibate religions as high (at least from the very incomplete data than is available)? Your statement "...celibacy is not the only factor that might influence the rate." may or may not be accurate but celibacy is the factor that is under discussion. Does celibacy increase the incidence of sexual crimes, and more specifically, against young children? The 4% determined by Catholic Bishops does seem to be a number that most can live with. Here is an article looking at the many factors: www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex8.htmHowever, I have yet to see any study pointing out that celibacy is the cause of any increase in sex crimes any more than there is a study that shows that divorced women are any more likely to sleep around because they get horny. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 23, 2010 13:39:44 GMT -5
If 4% of a celibate ministry are shown to be abusers...then if there are 2000 celibate ministers of a particular group that equals 80 abusers and then multiply How many victims PER abusers? Pretty high figures there! Too high, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 23, 2010 14:57:57 GMT -5
If 4% of a celibate ministry are shown to be abusers...then if there are 2000 celibate ministers of a particular group that equals 80 abusers and then multiply How many victims PER abusers? Pretty high figures there! Too high, IMO. For this discussion the number of victims is not a factor. While your math is correct, the discussion was: Does being celibate increase the rate of sexual child abuse? |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 23, 2010 18:12:47 GMT -5
If 4% of a celibate ministry are shown to be abusers...then if there are 2000 celibate ministers of a particular group that equals 80 abusers and then multiply How many victims PER abusers? Pretty high figures there! Too high, IMO. For this discussion the number of victims is not a factor. While your math is correct, the discussion was: Does being celibate increase the rate of sexual child abuse? Rat, I was going by the "lowest" percentile the statistics that were provided showed....one of them said 6% the other one said 4% "Percentage of abusive priests: 4.0% (John Jay report)" I don't think it is the celibacy that causes the problems, but it is the celibate, powered life or culture that draws those who want to do such things, IMO Otherwords, those who want to do such things see that the power of such a life enables them to manipulate their victims to their own satisfaction. And perhaps less apt to get discovered and taken down for it?  |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 23, 2010 18:25:55 GMT -5
Would 50% be many ? That is not a number I throw out there for fun. It would be interesting to know why you did throw it out. Why not 75% or 25%? You cannot provide support for one guess any more than another so it is just more speculation. Really? At one stage half of the men in the ministry in my state had been known to have been involved in this behaviour. Some are still in the work and don't seem to have re-offended. Today there are quite a few young workers so there is a different demographic. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 23, 2010 18:45:24 GMT -5
It would be interesting to know why you did throw it out. Why not 75% or 25%? You cannot provide support for one guess any more than another so it is just more speculation. Really? At one stage half of the men in the ministry in my state had been known to have been involved in this behaviour. Some are still in the work and don't seem to have re-offended. Today there are quite a few young workers so there is a different demographic. And if you let an offender borrow your car you could have said 100% of the people in that car. I guess I was thinking in a global situation and you were thinking of a very limited number of people in a very limited geographic area. Depending on where you drew your lines you could get almost any percentage you wished. So I guess I should throw out the fact that 0% of the workers I met in the last 6 months are known offenders. |
|
