Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
But the FOUR percent were only alleged! If you look into the report the allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests - less than TWO per cent.Priests are a tiny minority 1% or less of pedophile abusers.Priests are less than 0.01% of child abusers.
Will you make up your mind?
n.b. Priests in the Republic of Ireland never made up 1% of the population. As said earlier, even if we accept your 1% figure, I think it disturbing. You do not find 1% of doctors or 1% of football players or 1% of carpenters or 1% of golfers have been found guilty of sexually abusing young children. And do not forget historically the church have been expert at hiding abuses (don’t ask for examples – just look at the Brendan Smyth episode, Cloyne etc ). How many priests who were abusers here in Ireland were transfered to hush things up?0 -
-
Other studies show it was 4%.
NO! they dont!Especially if you add in religous brothers to your priests figure of 1%.
not "especially" but "only" and only in the SAVI report which
1 isnt a conviction record buit a telep^hone poll
2 does not state the abuser was irish or the abuse happened in ireland
I have been over this again and again and you still havent even read the report!
Particularly the pages stating the above which I pointed out to you!Even if we accept your 1% figure, I think it disturbing.
Less than 1%; And anythoing more than ZERO is disturbing!
You do not find 1% of doctors or 1% of football players or 1% of carpenters or 1% of golfers have been found guilty of sexually abusing young children.
Actually one might find we do but where is your evidence we dont? I supplied arguments as to why tis might be in any case
golfers are public sports which dont involve kids and dont involve large numbers of kids being indoors overnight alone with adult golfers in charge of them
It is unlikely pedophiles would gravitate into such occupations wheree they dont have lone access to children. which is why sports coaches or childcare workers have higher rates. It isnt that such jobs turn people bad just that bad people exploit such occupations.So much went on over the years without the Vatican stamping it out. Historically the church have been expert at hiding abuses (don’t ask for examples – just look at the Brendan Smyth episode, Cloyne etc ). How many priests who were abusers here in Ireland were transfered to hush things up?
i dont know. do tell us?200 kids killed in car accidents etc over 10 years is not unexpected considering the number of kids in the country over 10 years.
dont be silly it is 200 in stqte cqre qnd not 200 in car accidents. The HSE themselves say two thirds of the deaths were not natural causes. Will you make up your mind?
n.b. Priests in the Republic of Ireland never made up 1% of the population.
So they were lying in the 1951 census when they made up MORE than 1%?How many priests who were abusers here in Ireland were transfered to hush things up?
I don,t know - how many?0 -
Priests never said on the 1951 census they were more than 1%. 5101 Priests is not more than 1%. Unless you think the population of Ireland was less than 510,100.So they were lying in the 1951 census when they made up MORE than 1%?
Maybe a brush up on percentages may be in order for you?
In relation to the clerical child abuse, you once said "TWO per cent." Then:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW
Priests are a tiny minority 1% or less of pedophile abusers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW
Priests are less than 0.01% of child abusers
There is a big difference between 2.00%, 1.00% and less than 0.01% !0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Your premise is in error but the conclucion does follow from the evidence that they mostly
they mostly abused pubescent male [/q] and NOT pre-pubescent children (mostly male), which seems to me that there is high probability that they may have been homosexual. the minority of abuse was pre-pubescent i.e pedophile in nature. It was ephebophile more related to the thing senator Norris was accuse of supporting.
Thanks ISAW, fixed it.....brain not working this morning, took my morning coffee now....all's well! 0 -
-
No but this thread is about clerical child abuse. It does not matter if a Priest abuses a 4 year old or a 14 year old : both are despicable.gimmebroadband wrote: »One cannot assume that all priest abusers were paeodophiles
Interestingly, ISAW wrote
"Priests are a tiny minority 1% or less of pedophile abusers.
and in another post he wrote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW
"Priests are less than 0.01% of child abusers"
Other studies have found the figure to be 2% and 4%, but even if we take Isaws figure of Priests being 1% of pedophile abusers ( even though ISAW admits more than 1% of boys who were abused were abused by Priests ), then to claim in a different post that "Priests are less than 0.01% of child abusers" show how confused ISAW is. Child abusers cannot be a hundreth of the number of pedophiles in the Church.0 -
No but this thread is about clerical child abuse. It does not matter if a Priest abuses a 4 year old or a 14 year old : both are despicable.
Interestingly, ISAW wrote
"Priests are a tiny minority 1% or less of pedophile abusers.
and in another post he wroteQuote:
Originally Posted by ISAW
"Priests are less than 0.01% of child abusers"
I find this disingenuous
In the same message i wrote
2. Priests are less than 0.01% of child abusers - the one percent level refers to when priests were MORE THAN one per cent of the population. you have been given the 1951 census data on this. Roughly over 3000 priests in over roughly 3 million people. so the level of abuse is over ten times less than the current level of priests! As it happens it could statistically be less than a million times less since it is zero
To be more exact for the 1951 1% years :
And I have since gone into more exact figures showing priests and religious at about 0.75% of population in 1951
I was very clear that the less than 0.1% or as i suggest probably less than 0.0001% refers to today!
It is still around 1% of population historically and 1% of abusers historically.
Other studies have found the figure to be 2% and 4%, but even if we take Isaws figure of Priests being 1% of pedophile abusers ( even though ISAW admits more than 1% of boys who were abused were abused by Priests ), then to claim in a different post that "Priests are less than 0.01% of child abusers" show how confused ISAW is. Child abusers cannot be a hundreth of the number of pedophiles in the Church.
Yes other studies including non catholics nd rabbis and outside Ireland and only teenage boys bring it up to anything from, 2 to 4%
And below i supply some additinal research not posted here before. i will keep adding to the literature and not cherrypicking out a point and misinterpreting it!
currently child abiuse stats are of the order of thousands per decade in Ireland and the numbr of Catholic priests at zero but let us say less than 1. One per 10000 is 0.01%
If you take it over the last decade
RC Priests are male
http://www.psihq.ie/IJP%2029%20V3%20master.pdf#page=109
makes some interesting points
Denov, M.S. (2001). Culture of denial: Exploring professional perspectives on femalep. 104
The problem of female perpetrators of sexual abuse has been alluded to in the literature
for over 25 years However, it was widely perceived as a rarefied and marginal problem
in forensic practice (Denov, 2001), and, as such, it is only within the last decade that
researchers have begun to systematically question the assumption that females should
always be viewed as the victims rather than the perpetrators of sexual abuse (e.g.,
Vandiver & Walker, 2002).
sex offending. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43, 303-329
Vandiver, D.M., & Walker, J.T. (2002). Female sex offenders: An overview and analysis
of 40 cases. Criminal Justice Review, 27, 284-300.
I suggest you go down the library and read thise papers but given yu dont read any other reports which you have been spoon fed and only cherry pick quotes from them i would be surprised if you did so. Please surprise me.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
How old does an 'older' teenager have to be for it not to be paedophile abuse
You can't be referring to 18 and 19yr olds, who I am sure you are aware are adults, so can't be referred to as 'older' teenagers.
Okay then "teenager" if you prefer. A thirteen year old might however not have begun puberty.
abuyse of an eighteen year old is still abuse.
And even though they are considering giving the vote to sixteen year olds I would consider a most 21 year olds immature.
Im going by astandard adopted by the person who actually looks at child porn to determine if it is child porn and who says so in court. According to her it is very simple to determine whether it is or not. Secondary sexual features such as breasts or hair may not be present. i dont think it is necessary to go into this forensically. Do you?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement