Re: well said...

Posted by Donna on March 10, 2004 at 05:48:48:

In Reply to: Re: well said... posted by Mike J. on March 09, 2004 at 18:35:34:

No one should find anything soothing or comforting in the idea of doing an actual statistical analysis. Setting up a valid protocol would go a long way towards coming up with long term and effective solutions.

The numbers as they are given right now are pretty meaningless. You could use these same numbers to tell me that 80% of abusive priests were found to have brown hair and draw the same conclusions - eliminate all brown haired priests and there will be fewer incidents of abuse. I guess there would be as there would be fewer priests to start with.

Go back and look for statistics on sexual abuse in the general population. Go and look for statistics on sexual abuse in the Protestant clergy. Try to even find statistics on sexual abuse by evangelical and non-Christian ministers. If you can find that in each of those categories the incidents of sexual abuse by homosexuals was higher than their heterosexual counterparts, then you can make a case for homosexuality being a significant risk factor.

Until then, you're just flapping your yap and running scared.

BTW, do you think there's a difference between male homosexuality and female homosexuality in terms of tendency to abuse? Has anybody looked into sexual abuse by homosexual nuns, or are we to assume that there aren't any homosexual nuns? Do they have a better screening process? Maybe the priesthood should adopt their methods.

Replies:

• Re: well said... Mike J. 18:28:47 3/10/04 (6)
  • Re: well said... Donna 21:31:47 3/10/04 (5)
    • Re: well said... Mike J. 00:02:23 3/11/04 (4)
      • Mikey, consider this test Wag 14:43:58 3/13/04 (0)
      • Re: well said... Donna 08:08:00 3/11/04 (2)
        • Re: well said... Mike J. 18:29:31 3/11/04 (1)
          • Re: well said... Donna 20:27:40 3/11/04 (0)

Post a Reply

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: No one should find anything soothing or comforting in the idea of doing an actual statistical analysis. Setting up a valid protocol would go a long way towards coming up with long term and effective solutions. : The numbers as they are given right now are pretty meaningless. You could use these same numbers to tell me that 80% of abusive priests were found to have brown hair and draw the same conclusions - eliminate all brown haired priests and there will be fewer incidents of abuse. I guess there would be as there would be fewer priests to start with. : Go back and look for statistics on sexual abuse in the general population. Go and look for statistics on sexual abuse in the Protestant clergy. Try to even find statistics on sexual abuse by evangelical and non-Christian ministers. If you can find that in each of those categories the incidents of sexual abuse by homosexuals was higher than their heterosexual counterparts, then you can make a case for homosexuality being a significant risk factor. : Until then, you're just flapping your yap and running scared. : BTW, do you think there's a difference between male homosexuality and female homosexuality in terms of tendency to abuse? Has anybody looked into sexual abuse by homosexual nuns, or are we to assume that there aren't any homosexual nuns? Do they have a better screening process? Maybe the priesthood should adopt their methods.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

---

---

Home | About Resource Publications | Contact us
What's New on This Site | Site Guide
Copyright © 1995–2006 Resource Publications
160 E. Virginia Street #290, San Jose, CA 95112-5876 
E-mail: info@rpinet.com
Toll Free: 888-273-7782,  Phone: 408-286-8505,  Fax: 408-287-8748