iata cum din prisosul inimii graieste gura....

Va scapa niste diferente:

1. Cati preoti sunt la un episcop?
Statistic vorbind, pornind de la premiza egalitatii de risc ca sa zic asa, care este incidenta absoluta a cazurilor nefaste cand vorbim de 100 oameni si care este cand vorbim de 10.000?

2. Episcopul prin natura activatii este mai mult calugar decat preot mirean.

Calugaria este una, sa traiesti in mijlocul lumii in regim celibtar, comporta riscuri substantiale dupa cum preotul catolic a demonstrat-o, din pacate, din plin.

Ce parere aveti despre:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

The 2004 John Jay Report[14] was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.

The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period:
Around 81% of these victims were male.

22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.[15][16][17]
A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.
9,281 victim surveys had information about an investigation. In 6,696 (72%) cases, an investigation of the allegation was carried out. Of these, 4,570 (80%) were substantiated; 1,028 (18%) were unsubstantiated; 83 (1.5%) were found to be false. In 56 cases, priests were reported to deny the allegations.
More than 10 percent of these allegations were characterized as not substantiated. (This does not mean that the allegation was false; it means only that the diocese or order could not determine whether the alleged abuse actually took place.)
For approximately 20 percent of the allegations, the priest was deceased or inactive at the time of the receipt of the allegation and typically no investigation was conducted in these circumstances.
In 38.4% of allegations, the abuse is alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.

The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time. Of these 4,392, approximately:
56 percent had one reported allegation against them; 27 percent had two or three allegations against them; nearly 14 percent had four to nine allegations against them; 3 percent (149 priests) had 10 or more allegations against them. These 149 priests were responsible for almost 3,000 victims, or 27 percent of the allegations.[15]

The allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests and unsubstantiated for 824 priests. They were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests. 298 priests and deacons who had been completely exonerated are not included in the study.
50 percent were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse.[15]
Almost 70 percent were ordained before 1970.[15]
Fewer than 7 percent were reported to have themselves been victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19 percent had alcohol or substance abuse problems, 9 percent were reported to have been using drugs or alcohol during the instances of abuse.[15]

Many of the reported acts of sexual abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse. There was also a large number of allegations of forced acts of oral sex and intercourse. Detailed information on the nature of the abuse was not reported for 26.6% of the reported allegations. 27.3% of the allegations involved the cleric performing oral sex on the victim. 25.1% of the allegations involved penile penetration or attempted penetration.

Although there were reported acts of sexual abuse of minors in every year, the incidence of reported abuse increased by several orders of magnitude in the 1960s and 1970s. There was, for example, a more than sixfold increase in the number of reported acts of abuse of males aged 11 to 17 between the 1950s and the 1970s. After peaking in the 1970s, the number of incidents decreased through the 1980s and 1990s even more sharply than the incidence rate had increased in the 1960s and 1970s.

Eu am parerea ca e minciuna exagerata si gogonata.

dar daca e adevarat, atunci ce ne facem?

Dumneavoastra, eventual, ati putea sa va rugati pentru acei oameni.

Referitor la adevar, faceti un calcul simplu: "studiul" sustine ca ar fi fost 10667 victime din 5 tari. Asta inseamna cam 2000 victime pe tara. Considerind studiul facut pe o perioada de 10 ani, asta inseamna cam 200 victime pe an. Adica la mai putin de 2 zile aparea o noua victima si nimeni nu a spus nimic timp de 10 ani, cind deodata toti au inceput sa vorbeasca....

O medie de 84 de preoti ar fi comis abuzuri/ an. (hai 100 daca-s recidivisti) Daca raportam la tot numarul de clerici din lumea catolica, procentul e infim. Tot ce-i posibil. E oricum rusinos; parca prea multe cazuri de abuz sexual la catolici fata de ceilalti, care nu-s lipsiti de acte reprobabile, dar nu atat de abuz sexual.

si ca sa fiu ontopic:

Mi-a placut acest citat postat pe crestinortodox.ro:

"Auzi vuietul copacului cand il dobori, dar padurea n-o auzi cum creste".

Dumnezeu sa ne ajute sa luptam cu patmile noastre mai mari si mai mici.

Iar cand privim spre patimile altora, sa uram pacatul si atat. Daca uram pacatul in general, nu putem face concesii si nu putem acoperi sub pres pacatele mari care se fac in lume pentru a le descoperi pe cele ale preotilor. Pacatul e pacat indiferent cine l-ar savarsi.

Este irelevant. Problema în discuţie este dacă este sau nu legitim, dacă este sau nu înţelept să "impui" unor oameni celibatul. Indiferent că e vorba de sute, mii sau zeci de mii.

Din câte ştiu, episcopii ortodocşi trăiesc în mijlocul lumii în regim celibatar. Ba chiar în mijlocul oraşelor, în palatele lor episcopale. Iată că se aseamnănă mai mult "prin natura activităţii" cu preoţii mireni decât cu călugării. În mod fundamental, episcopul face ce face orice preot, în plus hirotoneşte. Episcopul ESTE preot (ba chiar culmea preoţiei), în schimb episcopul NU ESTE călugăr. Este sacerdot, nu eremit. Dacă a fost din rândul călugărilor, când este intronizat episcop modul lui de viaţă devine cu totul altul, mult mai asemenea preoţilor mireni care sunt văduvi decât călugărilor. Nu mai are corvoada călugărescă, nici datoria ascultării de stareţ, nici nu mai e ţinut să facă Ceasurile, nici nu mănâncă la trapeză cu fraţii săi, etc.