This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Girls Beaten and Raped? Or The Catholic Church? Who are the victims?

Girls Beaten and Raped? Or The Catholic Church? Who are the victims? - Comments

bewlay_brother's Avatar Comment 1 by bewlay_brother

If the RCC is not spending the tax dollars on contraception/ abortion/ sexual health for these victims, where has the money gone up till now?

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:34:03 UTC | #890839

A. R's Avatar Comment 2 by A. R

Whenever I see an article on RDnet with "Catholic" in the title, my first thought is "What did the f*cking Catholics do now?" Most of the time reading the article leads to multiple facepalms...

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:45:25 UTC | #890840

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 3 by Ivan The Not So Bad

More on this here in Secular News Daily, telling it like it is.

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:55:00 UTC | #890841

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Comment 4 by Rich Wiltshir

The rcc strategies on birth control of any hue fuel the only recruitment tool they've got.

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:25:20 UTC | #890848

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 5 by SomersetJohn

I think it might be worthwhile separating those who are truly guilty, the church royalty, and the followers of the RCC. I'm not defending the beliefs of the followers, but the vast majority of believers are not the problem. It is the tiny group the princes of the church who are the problem, the cardinals, and their elected king. They live in an insulated fantasy world entirely divorced from reality. They should be targeted for exposure of their anti-human outpourings and any wrongdoing they are guilty of. When they lie, expose the lies. When they are wrong, expose why and how they are wrong.When they are stupid, show how and why.

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:26:25 UTC | #890851

FeministWhore's Avatar Comment 6 by FeministWhore

Please don't call out the bad while re-inforcing the "sex slavery" frame that the religionist Rescue Industry has put on this issue. And "whorehouses"? I can't even.

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:30:37 UTC | #890854

green and dying's Avatar Comment 7 by green and dying

Comment 5 by SomersetJohn :

I think it might be worthwhile separating those who are truly guilty, the church royalty, and the followers of the RCC. I'm not defending the beliefs of the followers, but the vast majority of believers are not the problem.

Don't their followers legitimise their existence? People can easily be Christians without being Catholic.

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:43:19 UTC | #890856

colluvial's Avatar Comment 8 by colluvial

"I think it might be worthwhile separating those who are truly guilty, the church royalty, and the followers of the RCC. I'm not defending the beliefs of the followers, but the vast majority of believers are not the problem."

Unfortunately, the believers are the problem. Do you think that American politicians would otherwise care about offending some religious despot and his cronies? It's the same old issue of the religious moderates providing cover and tacit support for the crimes against humanity perpetrated by extremist religious elements. Although it's likely that most catholics have a more liberal view than the catholic hierarchy, few of them would ever be openly critical about what church leaders have to say.

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:54:29 UTC | #890859

sanban's Avatar Comment 9 by sanban

Oh, but you can! Tell us the reason trafficked sex workers shouldn't be referred to as "sex slaves" and the places of sexual exploitation not be "whorehouses?"

Comment 6 by FeministWhore :
Please don't call out the bad while re-inforcing the "sex slavery" frame that the religionist Rescue Industry has put on this issue. And "whorehouses"? I can't even.

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:04:18 UTC | #890863

Odalrich's Avatar Comment 10 by Odalrich

Once again the Roman Catholic Church is back with more scandals and it seems, I fear, that we’ll read more about it in the future. I think the RCC is becoming the second source of problems after the Muslims. At this rate it could soon be on a par with Muslims as far as scandals, shamelessness and hypocrisy are concerned. If this organization receives millions of taxpayer money, the authorities should inspect these facilities to ensure that these young girls are being properly taken care of.You cannot leave at its own devices an organization that has been accumulating scandal after scandal for years. Whenever there is a scandal that affects the RCC the first reaction on the part of this organization is to declare itself a victim of persecution forgetting who the real victims are.

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:07:46 UTC | #890864

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 11 by Neodarwinian

As usual with churches, governments and people in general ideology not only trumps good sense it is morally reprehensible.

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:13:39 UTC | #890867

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 12 by drumdaddy

Did Mr. Gerson discuss the money that the Catholic Church gets through adoptions of many of the unwanted children of abuse victims and sex slaves?

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:00:14 UTC | #890894

brighterstill's Avatar Comment 13 by brighterstill

This just in, Catholic Church recommends abstinence-only sex-slavery to avoid unwanted pregnancy and the transmission of HIV.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:11:01 UTC | #890898

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 14 by Red Dog

Comment 5 by SomersetJohn :

I think it might be worthwhile separating those who are truly guilty, the church royalty, and the followers of the RCC. I'm not defending the beliefs of the followers, but the vast majority of believers are not the problem.

Others have said it but I think its so important that its worth repeating. If it weren't for the followers who put money in the collection plates every Sunday the Church royalty would be bankrupt. If it weren't for the followers who still often vote the way the royalty tell them to the royalty would have no political power.

If anything, it seems to me the followers are the ones who need to be targeted. The royalty are the small percentage of greedy, immoral people who will do whatever they can to further their power. To paraphrase JC they will always be with us. The followers are the ones who should and often do know better but still support the royalty. They are the enablers.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:21:41 UTC | #890907

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 15 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 14 by Red Dog

Yip....Generals are somewhat impotent without soldiers.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:31:19 UTC | #890911

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 16 by Vorlund

@ 14 & 15

Agreed, the Poop, cardinals and priesthood are nobody without the followers, it is supposedly on their behalf that they rule.

Comment 15 by Ignorant Amos :

Comment 14 by Red Dog Yip....Generals are somewhat impotent without soldiers.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 06:58:32 UTC | #890962

RDfan's Avatar Comment 17 by RDfan

Reading about the Catholic Church is like being trapped in some kind of twilight zone (apologies to the fans of the original TV series by the same name). Seriously though, when will this nightmare end?! It's like they cannot see the tree of humanity from within the forest of beliefs that envelop their eyes, hearts and minds.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:21:01 UTC | #890978

emastro's Avatar Comment 18 by emastro

Comment 5 by SomersetJohn :

I think it might be worthwhile separating those who are truly guilty, the church royalty, and the followers of the RCC. I'm not defending the beliefs of the followers, but the vast majority of believers are not the problem. It is the tiny group the princes of the church who are the problem, the cardinals, and their elected king.

No, I'm sorry but that's too easy. Those bishops and cardinals and their elected king would have exactly NO power if those hundreds of millions of "innocent and misguided" followers weren't ready to do their bidding, to vote, in the majority, as they are told - for candidates who toe Mother Church's line; if they weren't ready to join huge "family day" demonstrations (as was the case in my country of origin, Italy) against civil unions, abortion, secular education, you name it.

They cannot and should not be separated from the guilty because it is thanks to them that the guilty cause damage. The bishops and cardinals may be the generals, but they are the - very willing - soldiers. Even those who buy condoms for themselves - because in the end they will vote for the regional governor who tries to deny the day-after pill to women - for example in Milan, where in most RCC-managed hospitals it is, in effect, unavailable and even where it isn't, 90% of doctors have a right to "conscientious objection" and won't prescribe it, with the blessing of the local government and of the majority of Catholics who elect it.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:54:43 UTC | #890980

Carlinlives's Avatar Comment 19 by Carlinlives

Comment 10 by Odalrich :

. I think the RCC is becoming the second source of problems after the Muslims. At this rate it could soon be on a par with Muslims as far as scandals, shamelessness and hypocrisy are concerned.

Hmmm tough call. I think the US evangelicals are worse as they tend to stick their noses into secular and political life - creationism in public schools, bashing gays, belittling atheists, hating science, blindly supporting Israel (just to fulfill a prophecy in which the Jews will all be damned anyway!), being Tea Baggers -- much more than Catholics. But I can do without all of them.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:24:18 UTC | #890988

MarkOnTheRiver's Avatar Comment 20 by MarkOnTheRiver

Comment 7 by green and dying :

People can easily be Christians without being Catholic.

Hah! Try telling them that. The old joke about the high wall in heaven, which keeps the catholics away from the followers of every other faith because, "They like to think they are the only ones in here." is very much not a joke to the conservative rcc hierarchy and its clique of "traditional catholic" followers. These are the ones who see the pope as, "a dangerous left wing liberal, possibly in league with satan."

Their mantra of "contraception and / or abortion is the murdering of innocent children", is repeated with the monotony of a looped tape, and equally difficult to argue with.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:40:31 UTC | #890995

Ben.Brown's Avatar Comment 21 by Ben.Brown

I just wanted to reply to this message from SomersetJohn, as I believe it points out one of the flaws of people who are too left wing (I am a lefty myself, but I find too many people are too accepting and forgiving in some cases).

First, this is the comment I am replying to,

"SomersetJohn I think it might be worthwhile separating those who are truly guilty, the church royalty, and the followers of the RCC. I'm not defending the beliefs of the followers, but the vast majority of believers are not the problem. It is the tiny group the princes of the church who are the problem, the cardinals, and their elected king. They live in an insulated fantasy world entirely divorced from reality. They should be targeted for exposure of their anti-human outpourings and any wrongdoing they are guilty of. When they lie, expose the lies. When they are wrong, expose why and how they are wrong.When they are stupid, show how and why."

While I agree that the believers themselves are not involved directly with all the problems within the Catholic Church, they still allow it to go on by not speaking out against it effectively. It is the same with the moderate Muslims. They do not accept the root causes of the problems stemming from their own book and they make claims of Islamaphobia, even when an intelligent person actually has a point.

Catholics however, still revere the pope and the system in which the church operates. They still do not accept that their missionaries who they donate money to (as they believe they are only doing good) are actually causing more problems in the countries they are supposed to be helping. Africa is the main one that sprouts to mind. Every time a follower of Catholicism attends a Catholic Church and gives money to the Catholic cause, they are allowing for all these evils to go on. Do I expect them to boycott or demand a new system, no, because their minds are closed shut and taught to accept their "divine" dictators, who have about as much intelligence and life experience as a wet sock.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:37:43 UTC | #891008

existance's Avatar Comment 22 by existance

Hmmm, what a pity that so many people are so deluded. The RCC leadership is one problem. Irrational (non logical) thought tied to religion in general is another. The third is the people who actually traffic and/or use people forced into slavery, who aren't the focus of this article but lets be clear, the criminality starts there. It just so happens that the RCC, far from helping the victims, appears to be caught in a system which severely exacerbates the suffering of the victim. What a thoroughly depressing situation.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:45:34 UTC | #891011

Ben.Brown's Avatar Comment 23 by Ben.Brown

Before anyone points out my mistake, I would like to openly admit that I am an idiot for saying Countries then Africa as an example. I know what I was thinking, and I certainly made a fool of myself. I meant to say Countries within Africa.

Apologies for my brain fart!

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:10:12 UTC | #891017

Katana's Avatar Comment 24 by Katana

On the rape and abortion thing, if this news is shocking to anyone, then you are not good at following your opponents' logic.

If: Embryo = human
And: killing a human = murder
Then: Rape <> excuse to kill an embryo

It wouldn't make any sense to allow what they consider to be murder just because the embryo's father is a rapist. Can we also kill living children if their father was a rapist? That sounds like a ridiculous comparison to people who don't think that an embryo is worth as much as a 10-year old, but a lot of the abortion opponents DO believe that. To them, asking for "exemptions" is as sick as standing by and doing nothing while a living child is beaten to death. That's the logical equivalent of the religious "moderation" which we all recognize as lunacy on other issues.

If you want to oppose these nuts, you have to start at the foundation of the problem: Embryos have no brain, no "soul", no thoughts or feelings, and are not to be treated as full humans.

This is a statement from another user on this site from ages ago, so credit to whoever that was.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:13:20 UTC | #891020

NickD's Avatar Comment 25 by NickD

Comment 23 by Ben.Brown :

Before anyone points out my mistake, I would like to openly admit that I am an idiot for saying Countries then Africa as an example. I know what I was thinking, and I certainly made a fool of myself. I meant to say Countries within Africa. Apologies for my brain fart!

You are Sarah Palin and I claim my £5.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:22:41 UTC | #891026

JohnnyO's Avatar Comment 26 by JohnnyO

Comment 9 by sanban :

Oh, but you can! Tell us the reason trafficked sex workers shouldn't be referred to as "sex slaves" and the places of sexual exploitation not be "whorehouses?"

Comment 6 by FeministWhore :Please don't call out the bad while re-inforcing the "sex slavery" frame that the religionist Rescue Industry has put on this issue. And "whorehouses"? I can't even.

I think the term "sex slaves" is a valid one, but "whorehouseses", to me implies that the women inside are whores, i.e. doing it by choice, for profit, not as the aforementioned "sex slaves", who have no choice and see none of the money that changes hands.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:27:30 UTC | #891029

Ben.Brown's Avatar Comment 27 by Ben.Brown

Comment 25 by NickD :

Comment 23 by Ben.Brown :

Before anyone points out my mistake, I would like to openly admit that I am an idiot for saying Countries then Africa as an example. I know what I was thinking, and I certainly made a fool of myself. I meant to say Countries within Africa. Apologies for my brain fart!

You are Sarah Palin and I claim my £5.

DAMN YOU FOUND ME OUT, YOU ATHEISTS AND YOUR LOGIC!

But seriously, I couldn't be Sarah Palin, I admit I made a mistake.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:40:00 UTC | #891032

brighterstill's Avatar Comment 28 by brighterstill

@Comment 24,

I like to use Bill Maher's explanation of embryos: "Except it's not a baby. You know how I know? You know what they do with it? They freeze it. They put it in the freezer. ...You can't do that with a baby. I don't know a lot about babies - I've never even touched a baby, but I know you can't put one in a freezer. You know how I know this? Because if Americans could do that... oh, they would."

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:37:28 UTC | #891046

sandman67's Avatar Comment 29 by sandman67

Before we Brits wade in with criticism, and believe me Im one of the first to apply the old Dr Martens Boot to the face of yanks for allowing their political and judcial systems to be turned into a theocratic whorehouse, bear in mind that under the Conservatives the UK is becoming ever more theocratcally influenced.

The Cons, increasingly the party that allows evangelcals and other noisy religious batshit crazies a voice, has allowed a pack of anti-abortionist evangelcals a seat at the table on womens health boards. Despite denying it they are allowing the faith academies to subvert educatonal standards and inject theocratc fantasy into our kiddies heads.

The song of christian persecuton is one sung both sides of the Atlantic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/10/christian-mp-inquiry-religious-discrimination?INTCMP=SRCH

This is the peril of allowing the faith deluded to have any part in secular societies, and for any secular society that allows or excuses any form of religious bigotry.

The answer is of course relatvely simple. Exclude ALL faith groups from any role in secular society....and you can include endng all tax breaks and exemptions in that. Separate churches from government totally, or contnue suffering from their influence on society. There is no real middle ground.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:49:35 UTC | #891051

Starcrash's Avatar Comment 30 by Starcrash

The Catholic hierarchy, on the other hand, the outfit taking in millions in tax revenue, claims that they are the victims in this controversy. They claim that, unless they get our tax money for these practices, they are having their religious liberty violated. Yes. You read that right. According to the Catholic Church hierarchy, THEY are the victims.

It sounds like you're suggesting mutual exclusion, as though both victims of rape and the Catholic Church can't both be victims, and implying that the Catholics aren't acknowledging these girls are being victims, too.

But I agree with your main point. The Catholic Church shouldn't get any money for these services if they can't do it non-religiously. Naturally, they're trying yet again to break the Establishment Claus of the First Amendment... they've been commanded by a holy book to do so. They can't "proclaim the gospel" and act in a secular fashion at the same time. It's fair enough to exclude the Church right off the bat - even if they promise to keep their religion out of it - because you know it's always going to come to this, based on precedent.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:22:55 UTC | #891056