>catholics need a flowchart to know when they're allowed to have sex with their wife
So glad I wasn't raised catholic
>catholics need a flowchart to know when they're allowed to have sex with their wife
>catholics need a flowchart to know when they're allowed to have sex with their wife
So glad I wasn't raised catholic
>Feeling Randy?
>Yes
>Is it a prepubescent boy?
>Yes
>Go Ahead! But be careful: nah frick this, do whatever you want
Homosexuals in the general population and public school teachers are much more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than homosexual priests.
The public school teacher thing is just morons pulling raw numbers and thinking that means they're statistically more likely. Catholic priests are rarer so of course you'll get less in terms of raw numbers, but proportionally to their abundance its probably more.
COPE harder, predditor
>we're only 50% as likely to molest your kids as someone who has significantly more exposure to them y-you fedora
Predditors come up with the most pathetic copes ever lmao
>Source: my ass
Take a shower, predditor. You reek up the place.
How is asking for a source "source: my ass"? The image provides no source, he doesn't need to provide a source for there being no source you moronic spic
He made a claim of his own, you moronic predditor. Learn to read.
Yeah, and he cited it. You didn't. Where does the "only 200 kids are raped by Catholic priests per year" figure come from, predditor?
11000 divided by 50
The figure for "Clergy" is uncited in your image, and it's clearly false as over 400 children were molested by Catholic priests in Michigan alone in 2023.
I'm the one who originally did the math on this back in 2014. I never saw anyone post about this before I did. Yes, I originally adjusted per capita because I'm educated.
The public school system is indeed worse than Catholic priests. But that's not saying much, priests are proportionally less likely to be predators than the entire general population.
Not just teachers. The problem is not their likeliness to be predators, it's the fact that some *bishops* colluded to protect and relocate offenders to other parishes.
The institutional corruption is the true problem. The predators link up and cover for one another.
I don’t pay any money to the Catholic Church or have to send my children there. The same can’t be said for public schools.
I demand more accountability from public schools.
>I don’t pay any money to the Catholic Church or have to send my children there.
And you can thank the Protestant Reformation for that.
No, this is false, Catholic Priests are far more likely to engage in pederasty than public school teachers or homosexuals in the general population. Public school teachers and homosexuals in the general population commit more pederasty in aggregate but the percentage of pederastic (as in actually engaging in the act) homosexuals in the general population and public school teachers is miniscule compared to the percentage of pederastic Catholic priests.
You're the only liar here.
Well, the number of children molested by Catholic priests per year divided by the number of Catholic clergy in the US confirms that what you said in 2014 is a lie. If you feel like backing up the lie you told in 2014, just cite where the "Clergy" figures come from.
I should have specified that I'm a different anon than the one who posted the chart.
That "clergy" phrase could easily include Protestant ministers.
Anyways, what I found in 2014 was that Catholic priests were less likely to be predators than specifically public school teachers by a statistically significant amount. The trend should hold true for the general population, considering the public school system draws from it.
I used a few different sources to get the numbers, but it's long enough now that I can't recall where exactly. It took about an hour IIRC.
>That "clergy" phrase could easily include Protestant ministers.
That's entirely possible given that the data is clearly fake as none of the sources mention the figure.
>what I found in 2014 was that Catholic priests were less likely to be predators than specifically public school teachers
Again, this is not the case, Catholic priests are orders of magnitude more likely to be predators than public school teachers. While public school teachers commit more offenses in aggregate the percentage of offending public school teachers is far lower.
>Again, this is not the case, Catholic priests are orders of magnitude more likely to be predators than public school teachers. While public school teachers commit more offenses in aggregate the percentage of offending public school teachers is far lower.
You're the one asking for source, but I haven't seen you post yours. How can you substantiate this claim?
Tell you what, keep this thread bumped until I get home and I'll see if I can dredge up some numbers that are newer than what was available in 2014.
Keep in mind, the numbers for both the general population and the clergy represent a minimum floor value, not the true scale of the problem. Because the predators who get caught aren't the only ones.
For the record, I intend to examine the last 50 years just in the United States.
Finding international numbers would be functionally possible, but prohibitively difficult.
>You're the one asking for source, but I haven't seen you post yours.
I literally just told you, the number of abuse cases divided by the number of clergy. Like, come the frick on dude this is a widely discussed topic, Wikipedia even has an article about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States
Pennsylvania alone at minimum 8% of Catholic clerics were engaged in sexual abuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury_investigation_of_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_in_Pennsylvania). That's a minimum. There's 50,000 (a simplification that includes deacons from https://www.usccb.org/offices/public-affairs/clergy-and-religious) Catholic clerics in the use, if we assume that 8% is the minimum that means 4,000 abusers. There's roughly FOUR MILLION public school teachers. Even if only 0.8% of public school teachers are abuser that's still 32,000 abusers.
This is on top of the real issue which is that the American public school system doesn't consider itself a massive pederasty operation and doesn't protect members who engaged in these acts from prosecution and discovery.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury_investigation_of_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_in_Pennsylvania)
This is information that I would not have had in 2014, I'll try and take it and others into consideration.
Just like there are abuse hotspots in the general population, it would also make sense for the distribution of predators to be different from parish to parish. Because like attracts like.
You can't take this one example and extrapolate it onto the entire church. Doesn't work like that, it could easily just be an outlier.
Classic predditor cope and projection
>It should be noted that while childhood sexual abuse by Catholic clergy has received extensive media coverage, childhood sexual abuse by teachers and others is also a serious problem. Charol Shakeshaft, who has done extensive research on the problem of sexual abuse of students by teachers, recognizes the difficulty of collecting solid data on sexual abuse; but using available studies, she estimates that “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than one hundred times the abuse by priests.” According to Shakeshaft's research, even when abuse was reported to school officials the offenders were not reported to the police. In her study of 225 cases in New York, “none of the abusers were reported to authorities and only 1 percent lost their license to teach.” A recent article in The New York Times documented abuse—including sexual abuse—of the developmentally disabled in group homes. Even when abuse was uncovered, perpetrators were allowed to continue working at other facilities.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026962/
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/sexual-abuse-by-educators-is-scrutinized/2004/03
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/17/child-sexual-abuse-in-schools-often-an-open-secret-says-inquiry
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21392345
https://www.nj.com/education/2017/12/teachers_accused_of_sexual_misconduct_keep_getting.html
https://childrenstreatmentcenter.com/sexual-abuse-teachers/
You are just ignoring the fundamental problem.
The problem is not that Catholic priests are all predisposed to molesting children. The problem is that that the Catholic Church ignored and covered up allegations of children being abused and shuffled around priests to different parishes, rather than kicking them out of the clergy and giving evidence of abuse over to the proper authorities.
That happens in the public school system, too. See
:
>According to Shakeshaft's research, even when abuse was reported to school officials the offenders were not reported to the police. In her study of 225 cases in New York, “none of the abusers were reported to authorities and only 1 percent lost their license to teach.” A recent article in The New York Times documented abuse—including sexual abuse—of the developmentally disabled in group homes. Even when abuse was uncovered, perpetrators were allowed to continue working at other facilities.
If the public school system has systemic issues of abuse, we should address those as well. I am not anti-Catholic Church, I just think organizations that allow abuse to continue, cover it up, and refuse to be accountable for it should be held accountable for facilitating these crimes.
However, that the Catholic Church pretends to be a moral arbiter for all of humanity makes these abuses all the more hypocritical and egregious.
>Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
>we should address those as well
Well we don't, which is why my cousin is being homeschooled now
Yeah.
Bruh, trust me I know what you mean.
But when you're justifying this by comparing the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church with the public education system, and have lost the plot.
The church is supposed to be better than the public education system.
you'll never have sex anyway, so what's the difference?
Projecting much, pablo?
These "repressive rules" worked just fine for almost 1500 years. People had no problem having happy marriages and fulfilling lives. Not my fault your mind's been completely poisoned by artificial modernism.
They were so happy the minute the church lost its ability to impose them physically everyone ditched them.
Literally no one but autists and nobles would bother to follow this.
Peasants fricked like rats
>and nobles
Doubtful, only in public company.
>These "repressive rules" worked just fine for almost 1500 years
Ehh, most Catholics never followed these rules at OP's level unless they were intentionally focusing on piety. Peasants would be doing their own things and be making sure the followed the main rules their local Priest told them
So first I'll determine the average US population size between 1980 and 2020, then subtract the average number of children.
Then I will determine the average number of US Catholic priests in the same time period, and subtract that from the aformentioned figure. So as not to confound the variables, seeing as priests are part of the general population.
Then I will average together the total reported cases of child sex abuse year on year for the general population, doing the same for priests. I'll have to rely on reports rather than convictions. After I have a total for both, I will check their ratios.
This will give us a rough estimate, but it's better than nothing.
Try and keep in mind that a small minority of priests are responsible for the majority of abuse cases, just as a small portion of the general population is.
US general population 2020: 330 million
... 1980: 226 million
Average: 278 million
US children within general population 2020: 73 million
... 1980: 63 million
Average: 68 million
Average US general population minus average number of children 1980-2020: 210 million
US priests 2020: 35,513
... 1980: 58,398
Average: 46,955
210 million minus 46,955, effectively insignificant so we'll just skip this step. Frick it.
Now that's the easy part. Next step is the difficult one, that will take some time because I need to use multiple sources.
>According to the National Children’s Alliance, there were over 65,000 reports of child sexual abuse in 2019 alone.
If I were lazy, I would say that the average number of children in the US not changing that much over 50 years means that we could use this figure as a representative average.
65,000 goes into 210 million 3230 times. This is per annum.
At this rate, it would take 1000 years for 68 million children to be abused.
>Children and Teens: Statistics - RAINN
>One in 9 girls and 1 in 20 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault.
Well, that means out of an average of 34 million boys and girls, there are 3.4 million girls who have been abused, and 1.7 million boys. Making 5 million more or less.
5 million goes into 210 million 42 times.
>The 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys statistic came from a study published by the Centers for Disease Control over 15 years ago. A more current, accurate statistic was needed. Darkness to Light researched and published a paper in 2013 outlining a new estimate for the prevalence of child sexual abuse, which determined through a review of child sexual abuse studies that the prevalence numbers are closer to 1 in 10 children.
Okay, now I'm starting to see a pattern here. Nobody can seem to agree on the statistics, to the degree that one paper says it's 1 in 5 and another says 1 in 10. A 100 percent difference.
6.8 million goes into 210 million 30 times.
If two of these sources are in agreement that roughly one in ten children in the US will face sexual abuse at least once then I can use that figure to compare with. But the problem is, it's not per annum.
This task is harder than it was in 2014, because relevant search engine has become useless since then.
cont
>Pew Research
>The United States is home to about 7% of all Catholics in the world. As of 2010, an estimated 23% of U.S. adults and 24% of the total U.S. population (adults and children) are Catholic.
So Catholic children make up about a quarter of children in the US. Who knows how many go to church regularly? Hard to say, but lets go ahead and say that there are 17 million Catholic kids in the US.
>(USCCB) commissioned the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2002 to conduct a comprehensive study based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The product of the study, titled the John Jay Report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the priests who had served during the period covered by the survey (1950–2002).
>81% were male, and 19% were female
This right here demonstrates that the phenomonon of child sex abuse is qualitatively different between the general population and Catholic priests. While most victims of child sex abuse are female, most the victims of abuse by Catholic priests are male.
So, 2002 is not a great year considering I previously committed to covering all 50 years. But since the rates of child sex abuse have been declining overall since the 80's and most incidents took place in the 20th century, I'll say we can use the number 11,000 with some confidence.
11,000 is a lot less than 10 percent of 17 million. That's not counting the Grand Jury findings in Pennsylvania.
Still, the figure of 4400 priests facing accusation out of 47,000 is quite high, even if it is roughly in line with the number of predators in the general population if we take the "1 in 10 children face abuse" statistic at face value.
Man, it's been a long time since I tried math. Where did I frick this up? Could any other resources shed light on this problem?
I think I'm done posting about this for now, at least till I get a reply back.
Keep going man
>Man, it's been a long time since I tried math. Where did I frick this up?
Your "problem" comes from assuming that in a population of Catholic children, every child that was raped ought to have been raped by a Catholic priest.
See
>11,000 is a lot less than 10 percent of 17 million.
Yeah no shit. If the number were 10 percent of 17 million, it would mean that 4% of catholic priests serving between 1950 and 2002 would have managed to rape 1.7 million children, or in other words almost 400(!) rapes per priest.
If this is how the math was done for the whole "catholic priests rape less than school teachers" thing, then it's complete nonsense lol.
>Your "problem" comes from assuming that in a population of Catholic children, every child that was raped ought to have been raped by a Catholic priest.
No, that's not my assumption at all. And these aren't the sources I originally used 10 years ago, it's more of a struggle getting information now. Maybe I just got dumber.
Most of the cases covered by the Jay report happened before 1980 anyways.
This is all you need to see to know their religion isn't from God
>But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by the hypocrisy of liars, who have been seared in their own conscience, who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God created to be shared in with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
>Let the marriage bed be held in honor among all
>1 corinthians 7
Sex is about procreation.
Problem? Ask Paul about it.
You didn't read that chapter.
I practice it.
So you'd reject Christ's own Church simply to satisfy the impulses of a five-inch, at best, section of meat? And you take this for a win instead of the self-own that it really is since it only serves to prove the Church's own wisdom concerning sexuality, that it is a powerful enough drive to derange any mind and make any man an enemy of God? One look at our society, its infanticides, its marital suicides, its trampling upon helpless children, is all one would need.
larp
Did all three inches make this post, or did the attachment play any part?
I talked to Jesus himself and He said he never appointed your church as his representative. In fact, your church contradicts his teachings on many points.
>In fact, your church contradicts his teachings on many points.
Considering the New Testament is itself a Catholic work, I'll leave it for the Church to decide how to properly interpret its contents and not an anoymous 21st-century modern.
The Gospels predate the Catholic Church, so no. That's a moronic claim.
Also, I talked to Jesus Himself. Are you saying the Catholic Church supercedes Jesus?
The Catholic Church, meaning the Apostles, composed the Gospels. And the claim that Jesus would contradict His own word (John 17:20-26) does not warrant a serious reply.
>So you'd reject Christ's own Church simply to satisfy the impulses of a five-inch, at best, section of meat?
Why are you trying this own when you're so cucked you're not even allowed to frick your own wife? Or divorce her if she cheats on you? Catholics aren't in any position to make fun of anyone.
Marriage isn't an institution in service to self. I would like to share the following:
>What does all this mean practically? How can we concretely practice a selfless and sacrificial love? Well, the first step is to stop thinking about our faith, our religion, and our lives as Catholics as if it was just about us. We have to keep in mind that our number-one purpose in life is to serve God, to please Him. So we must not evaluate our spiritual life based on whether we get anything out of it. Many people do this; they quit praying, or going to confession, or going to mass, because they "don't get anything out of it." That's an indication that they are lacking the virtue of charity, that their relationship with God is fundamentally selfish.
>Perhaps one of the most important applications of the virtue of charity to daily life regards the institution of marriage. Charity demands that if we get married, we continue to love and serve our spouses even if we feel like we can't stand them another second. It is a shame that in today's society, marriage, like religion, is so often treated as something a person sticks with "as long as it works for him." Then, when the relationship between spouses becomes unpleasant, the standard response is simply to quit. The Catholic understanding of marriage, by contrast, is one whereby the spouses learn the art of charity through service and sacrifice. The husband should not think about how the wife should be satisfying him, but how he should be laying down his life for her. The same goes for the wife. And of course, this will involve great pain and difficulty. Remember, marriage is founded on the model of Christ's love for the Church, and Christ showed that love by undergoing excruciating torment and death for the sake of His Spouse. Consequently, to think of a marriage apart from sacrifice is like thinking of Christ apart from the Cross. Such a relationship will be empty, and will lack an enduring foundation of charity.
>Charity demands that if we get married, we continue to love and serve our spouses even if we feel like we can't stand them another second.
Not going to be getting much love if you bankrupt yourself with too many kids. I've noticed that catholics seems to inhabit the financial extremes a lot. They're either incredibly rich and thus can comfortably afford lots of kids, or permanently broke with marriages kept together only by the divorce prohibition where both people absolutely despise each other as poverty strains it to death.
Mere material poverty is nothing, moral squalor being the only form of poverty. Only an unconverted heart could find fault with not being able to live an Instagram life. No one goes hungry also in the first-world, which for me counts as the only actual measure of material deprivation.
This is one of those flowery things that sounds nice as a facebook quote but falls apart when reality hits.
God loves trampling on helpless children, though.
>So you'd reject Christ's own Church
Rome is not a Church of Jesus Christ, but a synagogue of Satan, being heretical and apostate.
>Around 1995, an undercover detective discovered there were 1,100 people on the organization's rolls.
Yes truly this is a much bigger issue than Catholic priests, who have 37,000 members in the US alone.
>While the church in the United States claims to have addressed the issue, some disagree. Mark Honigsbaum of The Guardian wrote in 2006 that, "despite the National Review Board's own estimates that there have been some 5,000 abusive priests in the US, to date 150 have been successfully prosecuted." Some critics of the church, such as Patrick Wall, attribute this to a lack of cooperation from the church. In California, for example, the archdiocese[clarification needed] has sought to block the disclosure of confidential counseling records on two priests, arguing that such action would violate their First Amendment right on religious protection.[103] Paul Lakeland claims Church leaders who enabled abuse were too frequently careless about their own accountability and the accountability of perpetrators.[104]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases#Major_cases
nambla has never had any serious presence anywhere, it's not even remotely comparable to a religion adhered to by billions.
>NAMBLA was founded by a leftist homosexual atheist
>and the catholic church defends members of its organization that are part of NAMBLA
what a fricking joke of a religion holy shit lmfao