Erasmus put this in his 1514 dialogue “Julius Excluded From Heaven” (Julius II is being examined by St Peter at the gates):
PETER: […] hope it won’t be too tiresome for you to answer a few clumsy questions about the details. Who, for example, are these little curly-headed striplings?
JULIUS: I brought them up for my diversion.
We found out about it because those people are still alive. The Catholic church has been at this for centuries
Well, priests aren’t supposed to get married or have kids. I guess they found a loophole to “still get into heaven”, or something. Who knows. It’s all fucked up.
Thousand plus years.
I don’t know exactly when sneaky catholic scribes changed up the wording to make being gay bad except when they’re being gay with children. But it’s definitely their doing.
Catholics did not write the scripture that says being gay is bad; that’s from the Torah - the Old Testament. Christianity came after Judaism and believes in both the old and new testaments.
You could look up the exact text for it easily. It’s basically “he who lies with a man as with a woman…” and something about him being an abomination and should be put to death or something like that.
Pretty sure there isn’t a single Catholic among them that would tell you such actions weren’t sinning…
Totally. You think they parade around at NAMBLA marches or something?
They would if they were honest.
But don’t worry. Catholics don’t have a monopoly on child abuse. Evangelical youth pastors are gunning for the crown. (They’ll never get close. But they’re trying)
Who cares if it’s a sin if you can confess and wipe the state clean or get an indulgence beforehand. And everybody sins, so don’t cast the first stone, etc etc. They’ll come up with some way to excuse, sweep under the rug, whatever.
Some might argue that’s the point of the church.
Ive honestly thought that there is a distinct possiblity that hundreds of years ago the church was the unspoken way to dispose of your children who had no interest in breeding and furthering the family line. They are your kids, and you love them but if they arent carrying their weight in the family…
So off to the dark building full of shadowy alcoves, loose fitting clothing and lots of secrecy full of other men “cut of a similar cloth”.
There was a pretty good episode of Always Sunny where Mac wants to become a priest because he is trying to hide him being gay. Their priest that is trying to convince Mac to join turns out to be a pedophile.
As someone who is stationed close to a catholic church should i be weary?
You’re too old for them.
I think we’re all a little bit weary to be honest with you.
You should not give them your kids
Kind of given considering the nature of the job. I heard a radio show where they talked about this with someone in the church who explained that the church offers forgiveness for sins to people who are willing to commit to God. I don’t think to many pedophiles want to be attracted to kids and see themselves as evil. It’s around the same age that the priesthood is calling that young guys start to realize these attractions. The church is a place for these people to go celabete and purge themselves of their evil but reality is the church can’t do that. Instead their ranks fill with these pedophiles same as it gets filled with our types of people who see themselves as sinners; ex drug users and wall street bankers. The whole radio show made me feel like the church could be a victim in all this as well. But then they fuck up by hiding these people and shuffling them around instead of bringing them to justice.
Well you have nearly the complete story. Church is about control: if you help someone hide his crimes, they have acess to repeated rape and you have control over them because you can always expose them. It might even build loyalty. Case and point marriage and celebacy: probably the only thing threatening the churches control-by-faith is the drive to protect your spouse and children. So they are not allowed to have them. Bonus round: why is there a concept of “sin” and “confession”? Because this helps the church know all the dirty secrets of powerful people and their loved ones. The rest is history (blackmail).
Case in point
Ask here to get bandwagon responses and memes. If you really want an actual answer, go look up the Wikipedia article on the topic at the very least.
Records from the 11th century but almost certainly longer.
Hundreds and hundreds of years.
Appropriate username
Give people power, and they will seek transgression as proof of that power. What’s the point of being supreme earthly authority over people if you have to just sit there and follow the rules? Rules are for little people, are you calling me a little person? Watch me prove my status by committing abominations and not getting punished!
This is especially the case when you load up the stakes with anxieties and resentments and jockeying for power with others and cognitive dissonance and all that jazz. Now they don’t just want to prove their made-man status, they need to. And that’s not even including malignant narcissism in the mix.
And the thing is, there’s a whole category of people who are legitimately impressed by this, who see rule-following as a hallmark of losers, and rule-flouting as a hallmark of winners.
See also: trump voters, cart narcs, anti-maskers, karens etc etc.
The priesthood is an absolute magnet for these kinds of people - and also a magnet for people struggling with shame, hoping to overcome it by being all holy-like, for instance, existing pedophiles.
And on top of that, corrupt power structures like this very often have a culture of mutually-assured destruction: people end up required to do something horribly incriminating themselves so they can’t blow the whistle on others - and once they start down that road, the justifications start piling up. See also David Cameron and the pig, and police in general.
Layer on a teaching that the reputation of the organisation must be protected even at the cost of people’s own children, and yeah, perfect storm.
No way in hell has this only been happening for the last few decades; it’s only in that timeframe that the church’s power has diminished enough for word to get out.
Interesting theory, but can you back it up with any credible evidence? Because amongst priests, approx 4% appears to commit child abuse. This compares to 5-7% for public school teachers for example (source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction). It seems the priesthood doesn’t really attract more pedophiles than other jobs do (surveys suggest approx. 5% of the population is a pedophile).
Perhaps their offense rate is higher given the opportunities they have, but I can’t quickly find good statistics on that.
The issue is the coverups and deliberate efforts of the organisation to protect the people doing it and keep them in business.
5% of the general populace with the tendency isn’t nearly the same kind of problem as 5% of a group that has extended access to children, the power to blackmail both the victims and the parents, and the knowledge that they’ll get safely moved on to pastures greener if their stomping ground starts getting risky.
Weird guy on the corner is a risk.
Person you’re forced to spend entire days with unsupervised, and who claims the ability to have your entire family tortured forever if there’s any trouble, and has an entire global organisation watching his back, rather a lot more of one.
How about scout leaders, church youth group leaders, etc.?
There’s a possible self-selection.
In Germany there has been a court ruling that it is allowed to call the catholic church a “Kinderfickersekte” which translates to “child raping cult”.
It was only a lower court and the church choose to not object against it probably because they were smart enough to fear the additional publicity this would get if a higher court would confirm it. https://taz.de/Gotteslaesterung-ist-kein-Problem/!5067953/?t
Germans really need permits for everything.
Here we don’t need to be allowed to call them that, we just can.
With allowed it doesn’t literally mean allowed. It means being able to publicly call them that without the church being able to sue for defamation.
Free speech is a thing in Germany, you can say pretty much what you want. But if you go around and accusing people of fucking kids, there’s going to be consequences.
I think in most countries the church would hit you with a cease and desist notice if you called them a child raping cult.
That’s not exclusively German.
They could try to get cease and desist all they want, there’s a constitutional right in most countries that protects such speech.
By “most countries” I’m pretty sure you mean “the United States”, and your constitutional right does not protect you from civil slander or libel cases.
Most countries don’t have a “the church”
If there’s “a” church then there’s “the” church.
It doesn’t need to be an international organisation headquartered in the vatican city. It could be equivalent to your local knitting club. If you say mean things about an organisation you can expect them to take legal action to stop you.
If they don’t like being called that they could always… stop raping children.
We say in Germany everything that is not explicitly allowed is forbidden. And this is just a little bit exaggerated, but not much.
I mean that’s completely wrong as far as laws go. Socially that’s pretty much true
There was a gigantic scandal where I grew up in Boston in the 90s/00s… it brought a lot of claims out of the woodwork and it turns out that priests diddle a lot of young kids and it’s fucking awful.
Historically, it’s been alleged that some ‘celibate’ Catholic bishops fucked women. When the resulting bastard children grew up, they were rewarded with coveted Church appointments. If anyone noticed the apparent favoritism, they blamed the adultery on their brother, saying the appointee was a nephew (it: nipote) rather than the priest’s own illegitimate son. Thus the origin of the term nepotism.
Probably some of them had different tastes and realized that fucking boys leaves less evidence.
I think people haven’t changed that much in their nature, what changed is the culture and since a few decades people have been more open and daring to talk about it in spite of any stigmas.
I could swear I’ve read Marquis de Sade saying priests very often hide all sorts of dirty secrets about boys. That was a couple centuries ago…
I can only speak for my lifetime and that of my parents, but in my country the church has been revealed to be a child trafficking, child abusing, money laundering, woman enslaving organisation. It has a veneer of pseudo-wholesomeness.
It’s important to recognise that while people rightly expose the church for this, they usually operate with the assistance of the local communities. In Ireland people in the community would report woman who were “impure” in some way, which the church could justify for enslaving them and selling their children if those women gave birth. This is all within the last several decades and I’m sure even before then.
That’s not just your country. That’s organized religion in every country.
I think that’s generally accepted. I wanted to qualify what I’m saying a bit more by mentioning the lived experience here and the complicity of wider society.
I don’t understand how the organization doesn’t collapse. It shows how, like so many things in society, people are inhuman scum, that they keep oppressive systems and organizations alive despite mountains of evidence of its harmfulness.
