> I don't think you are being realistic about the number of > abuse cases in our area (Boston).
I'm in Boston as well... But what I see is a small number of repeat offenders allowed (wrongfully) to continue over many years, not a propensity for priests to abuse. > The number of priests _we know about_ so far is about the > same percentage wise with the general population, but the > number of abused, and the _help_ they received is what sets > these cases apart from the norm. I agree completely with the latter - that the church assistance is what sets the cases apart and that it is truly criminal act. However I've seen nothing to indicate that priests are any more, or any less likely, in general to be abusers. > If a basketball coach was accused of molesting boys, very few > would be told, "Hey, I know you have a problem. But that's > not important now. Want to coach the boys swim team? Just > troubled boys with no other parental supervision? Want to live in?" I agree that there is a problem -a large, nasty, need-to-be-dealt-with problem. However I also feel that results have crossed the line of rational thinking in many cases. > This is more along the lines of what went on up here. > > As for the "summer of the shark", it would be like tying pork > chops to swimmers, and throwing them into known breeding > grounds. And then denying that anyone went swimming at all. Candygram. Honestly I have no idea what that means... I must be missing something... > There is more than enough fire under all this smoke, IMHO. There IS - I AM NOT ARGUING THAT. I am arguing that the case at hand, a systemmatic cover-up by certain members of the clergy has been expanded, by the media, to the general belief that priests are more likely to be abusers. The media is not about information any longer, it's about fear. While murders, for example, have decreased in the past few years the number of murders reported has risen by upwards of 600%. The evening news ALWAYS has something to fear as it's "tease" story (the story used to get people to watch later). These are typical of the teasers (all true): "Escalators. Are you safe?" "Pet Groomers. Is your pet safe?" "Dangerous Dog Food?" "Backover accidents. Driveways Dangers." My point is only that the news media would rather scare you into watching than tell you the facts. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
