The Blue Cross,

I just looked at your first link. However it made me immediately curious. Are you jumping on Proxy's bandwagon?

I'll bite. Most of the paedophile crisis involved post pubescent male victims. So there is a fact that has been extrapolated into the homosexual molestor argument but what if the explanation is simply overrepresentation of homosexuals in the priesthood skewing things?

Proxy,

It does sound like you are venting something regarding homosexuals. You may be claiming that homosexual/paedophile are interchangeable and at the least seem to be claiming that homosexuals are more prone to paedophilia. Any association with paedophilia is obviously insulting to homosexuals. If instead you simply point to one of the media misrepresentations regarding the Catholic clerical paedophile crisis it might attract less claims that you are getting off the thread. In fairness many of the apparent tangents that you pursue are responsive to the comments of others eg. your historical discussion of the APA premature change in DSM specifically to change the situation for homosexuals.

Many cases of homosexuals abusing their clerical position were reported as part of the "paedophile crisis" by mass media. This misrepresented many situations for those who don't go much past the title. It overinflated the perception of extent of the paedophilia that used to occur. If I recall correctly I responded in olo to contributors' alegations that Cardinal Pell failed to appropriately assist a victim of paedophilia by noting that the 'paedophile victim' was aged 29(?) at the time of the alleged incident (I note that most victims weren't that old).

Rather than wield the situation against homosexuals you could simply raise awareness of a further level of misrepresentation by mass media if that is the point you are trying to make. I recall Peter Jensen's investigation resulted in him commenting in his book Paedophiles and Priests that, of the 57 accused priests in Chicago, only one involved paedophilia being a priest uncle molesting his 6 year old nieces. He pointed out that without that priest the "paedophile crisis" in Chicago would have lacked paedophiles.

No, I have no idea what Proxy has said, and I have not found a 'proxy' in the more recent posts.

My concern is that churches profess to believe in certain values, but neither the organisations nor individuals within them seem to live by these values.

But of course, neither does anyone else.

And nation-states are the worst offenders, always sidling up to the most disgusting nations and pretending they are our 'natural allies' while condoning all the aspects 'we' abhor.

But churches hold an exalted position, above that of sovereign states, so some believe, which is why I find it very odd that any person professing to be 'of the faith' would ever tolerate any hint of backsliding...as in... the latitude many posters here give to the Pope/Archbishops/Bishops/priests and so on...and from well beyond the Vatican crew of no-hopers.

It is because the followers tolerate wrong behaviour, all the time, and make excuses for it, that it continues.

But while it continue, I see no reason to allow any church to be placed above the expected behaviour of the rest of us.

Should the pope be...

Held accountable for the cover-up, both current and historic, of child abuse?

Absolutely.

Would not a Scoutmaster who turned a blind eye to his/her subordinates behaviour be held to account?

Absolutely.

A school Principal?

Then please explain:

Why do religious people expect exemption for religion from behaviours that are either immoral or outright illegal?

Blue Cross,

My apologies Proxy is in the other of two threads concerning this and I got them mixed up.

The old saying is that there is good and bad in every race. The same is true for many things as you said believers and non-believers.

...I find it very odd that any person professing to be 'of the faith' would ever tolerate any hint of backsliding..."

Perhaps read the posts more closely. It isn't tolerance of backsliding but correcting false allegations.

Unlike Hollywood celebrities noone argues on behalf of paedophiles.

Shadow Minister, the pope should be definitely banned from coming to Australia. Here we have laws agsinst obstruction of justice. If the government has in the past denied entry to men who have form then it must be consistent and apply the same criteria to everyone, be it a mad hate-crazed imam or the pope himself.
No,keep the pope away.

socratease

Why do religious people expect exemption for religion from behaviours that are either immoral or outright illegal? [Severin]

Q: Who are these 'religious people' in general you are referring to Severin?

All of the catholic family, friends and colleagues I communicate with regarding paedophilia in the catholic church do not expect exemption for religion in relation to paedophilia.

Are you and others only using the internet/media articles or do you mix and converse with practicing catholics? Of the people you communicate with during your life, how many are practicing catholics you know well [enough] to raise the subject of paedophilia in the catholic church?

A great deal of news/media items are available on this dreadful crime and issue, please be aware that a few peoples viewpoints on the net is not to be taken as the opinions of practicing catholics around Australia.