The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

ISAW

the source from the A&A thread is

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0415/1224294728557.html

in this we find
a sample 46 out of 102 accused priests who came within the remit of the Murphy commission and against whom such allegations were made between January 1st, 1975, and April 30th, 2004.

So we are restricted to that period ,in terms of the evidence offered by robinch.

Later on it says:
Ninety-three of the archdiocese’s priests have faced allegations of child sex abuse going back to 1940, with suspicions raised over a further 11.

that is about 100 allegations dating to 1940.

Actually thy add in priests from other diocese and or religious congregations.
This brings it up to 177 over the 70 years from 1940 to 2010

then they say

Ten priests or former priests in Dublin have been convicted or face conviction. Two non-diocesan priests who served in Dublin have also been convicted.

Ten priests or former priests in Dublin have been convicted or face conviction. Two non-diocesan priests who served in Dublin have also been convicted.

that is a conviction rate of 12 in 177 or about 7%
Now i would argue the toss about 2,800 priests working from 1940 to 2010 as it does not include religious congregations or visiting priests from other diocese as the stat for abusers does.

but in any case 177 is 6.5% of 2,800
But only 6.5% of these 177 were convicted! thats 6.5% of 6.5% i.e 0.42% of priests NOT 6.5%

so we are still UNDER 1% even with these figures!

ISAW

i PMed robinch to come to this thread and show me where he got the 6.5% figure.
in his reply he suggested i go to
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055853778

but as i sate above the only mention of 6.5% in that thread is a single post by Robinch.
I have asked him to post the source in this thread.

the A&A thread is 54 pages long; it mstly seems to be based on neswpaper articles many of which seem misreported and incomplete wikipedia references.
for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country

is referred to which if you begin to read rfers to false allegations.
then smething likt the Phillipnes is quoted as 200 abusers. reference 19
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2116154.stm

But even in that source we see 76 million people
and the 200 are not child abusere. They include adult women having affairs with priests and vice versa.
It mentions a popolation of 7000 priests. If 70 of the 200 are child abusers (and i have no reason to think it is any higher in fact i believe it is lower but as yet have not seen any evidence ) that is 1%

and as usual Ill compare to non clerical abuse in the Philipnes
Research studies conducted in schools show that for every 3 Filipino children, one child experiences abuse. During the first semester of 1999 alone, there were 2,393 children who fell prey to rape, attempted rape, incest, acts of lasciviousness and prostitution
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Philippines
http://www.childprotection.org.ph/factsfigures/index.html

thats 4456 in 1999 (of which 16% are physical only but over 80% are sexual) compared to what possibly 70 over 20 years?
Less than 4 a year compared to over 4400 a year.

Now even one a year is terribly wrong. But concentrating on the less than 0.1% 4 clerical when there are over 4000 non clerical is a bit of a biased presentation don't you think?

as125634do

Watever about ur stats. A 4 year old is not the same as a 14 year old. Wat kind of imagination possesses you to think that. A 14 year old is more an adult than a child and I hardly take any of this abuse stuff seriously calling all children under 18 cant be a pedo if u have sex with 14 years plus. Fact.

ISAW

as125634do wrote: »

Watever about ur stats. A 4 year old is not the same as a 14 year old. Wat kind of imagination possesses you to think that. A 14 year old is more an adult than a child and I hardly take any of this abuse stuff seriously calling all children under 18 cant be a pedo if u have sex with 14 years plus. Fact.

i refer you to the person who actually prosecutes these cases. she quite clearly distinguished between pictures on a computer which constitute child porn for example. It is quite clear to her whether an image of a fourteen or fifteen year old is not child porn and whether an image of a ten year old is.

the medical field also distinguishes between pedophilia and ephebophilia. Indeed we had a Presidential candidate associated with ephebophilia and I would never suggest he is a pedophile.

It isnt my imagination it is medical and legal precedent.
We also have discussed homosexual tendencies and whether they exist.
Sociologically as i have indicated all this is important because they may all be different in severity of crime and they also may require different solutions.

gimmebroadband

Report: Vatican set to change Church in Ireland.

Pope to axe Irish bishops who covered up for priests accused of sex abuse against minors.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/irlanda-ireland-vaticano-vaticano-13673/

ISAW

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Report: Vatican set to change Church in Ireland.

Pope to axe Irish bishops who covered up for priests accused of sex abuse against minors.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/irlanda-ireland-vaticano-vaticano-13673/

And of the several hundred bishop ranked people relating to diocese in Ireland or to orders under them in Ireland, how many would that be? Or what percentage? One ? two? Five? Hardly an indication of a Churchwide cover up conspiracy> And good riddance to them. Even though none of them ever participated in pedophilia. Of course all the Pope can do is remove them from office. It is for civil authorities to prosecute any cases. I doubt there are any criminal cases which hold water. there may be civil cases however But if prelates are to be prosecuted then those accused in the wrong should also be awarded damages.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

And of the several hundred bishop ranked people relating to diocese in Ireland or to orders under them in Ireland, how many would that be? Or what percentage? One ? two? Five? Hardly an indication of a Churchwide cover up conspiracy> And good riddance to them. Even though none of them ever participated in pedophilia. Of course all the Pope can do is remove them from office. It is for civil authorities to prosecute any cases. I doubt there are any criminal cases which hold water. there may be civil cases however But if prelates are to be prosecuted then those accused in the wrong should also be awarded damages.

There are lies and stats ISAW, the real question is what percentage of those bishopes were serving at the same time . There are how many dioceses in Ireland again ? So how many of those bishops for the period in question have been implicated in this mess ?

You refuse to accept any argument unless a ''smoking gun'' is produced. Taking the nature of society and the organisation in question that is unreasonable.

Using your methodology Bertie, P.Flynn et al are whiter than white , but every dog in the street knows this is not so.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

There are lies and stats ISAW, the real question is what percentage of those bishopes were serving at the same time .

so Im lying now am I?
Incidentally i toddled over to A&A to ask about the 6.5% of pedo abusers beinf priests and robindch has not come up with a source yet. But plenty of people are complaining about my posting style for not letting him off the hook on that one. As usual rather than address the actual claim it is my posting style they are attacking. If you ever get any evidence to support this stat please post it here would you?

There are how many dioceses in Ireland again ? So how many of those bishops for the period in question have been implicated in this mess ?

Tricky question. secular diocese ?
http://www.catholicireland.net/church-in-ireland/dioceses
Twenty six

Raphoe a small diocese has had three bishops since th 1920s
dublin a big one has six current bishops and six additional vicars (who have episcopal level powers) and even an additional female vicar for religious (sort of like an abbess]thg is also a vicar general and usually a vicar forane who are bishops in rank. Thats fifteen wh would wield bishop level powers at some point.
Oh and another sixteen Deanaries over which the Monsignor deputizes for the bishop.

there could be up to a hundred at this level i guess at any current time in ireland.

then you have the orders. Each order has a leader e.g an Abbot or a head friar r provincial
thirty seven of these
http://www.dublindiocese.ie/houses_of_religious/priests
ten for brothers
http://www.dublindiocese.ie/houses_of_religious/brothers
A good eighty or so for the sisters
http://www.dublindiocese.ie/houses_of_religious/sisters

Thats 127 just for dublin We are well into the 200 already. and ther are people in Rome or Geneva or other places to which orders and other groups answer.

i think it was worked out here before showing over 900 currently. and in the past ther probably were more!

but about 30 secular diocesean bishops at any one time just in ireland if you restrict it to that. thats about 100 over three generations. How many of those bishops were involved
in corruption or bad judgement again? Was it five. that in itself is a totally unacceptable level but it is hardly evidence of a churchwide coverup or conspiracy is it?

You refuse to accept any argument unless a ''smoking gun'' is produced. Taking the nature of society and the organisation in question that is unreasonable.

Oh so you want a world where we assume guilt and dont have to prove it based on evidence? get the rope theres gonna be a lynchin.

Using your methodology Bertie, P.Flynn et al are whiter than white , but every dog in the street knows this is not so.

We dont judge things by dogs in the street or any other throwaway comment. clearly Flynner made comments which showed himl up and tribunals hae made comments on him. Bertie has questions to answer and tribunals also say he avoid answering but im not aware he broke any laws. nor did CJ Haughey or even Garret Fitzgerald for whats it worth but they all had got money and bank debt writeoffs etc.

The thing is they (politiicans) didnt break the law but they would be breaking it today. Likewise some abusers didnt break some laws. for exapple no law existed about raping males -it only applied to females. standards were intorduced about money. they were not introduced as much or as quickly about children. The church introduced their own standards in advance of others; in fact one in four only brought in mandatory reporting of child abuse last year when the church has it for a decade.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

so Im lying now am I?
Incidentally i toddled over to A&A to ask about the 6.5% of pedo abusers beinf priests and robindch has not come up with a source yet. But plenty of people are complaining about my posting style for not letting him off the hook on that one. As usual rather than address the actual claim it is my posting style they are attacking. If you ever get any evidence to support this stat please post it here would you?


Tricky question. secular diocese ?
http://www.catholicireland.net/church-in-ireland/dioceses
Twenty six

Raphoe a small diocese has had three bishops since th 1920s
dublin a big one has six current bishops and six additional vicars (who have episcopal level powers) and even an additional female vicar for religious (sort of like an abbess]thg is also a vicar general and usually a vicar forane who are bishops in rank. Thats fifteen wh would wield bishop level powers at some point.
Oh and another sixteen Deanaries over which the Monsignor deputizes for the bishop.

there could be up to a hundred at this level i guess at any current time in ireland.

then you have the orders. Each order has a leader e.g an Abbot or a head friar r provincial
thirty seven of these
http://www.dublindiocese.ie/houses_of_religious/priests
ten for brothers
http://www.dublindiocese.ie/houses_of_religious/brothers
A good eighty or so for the sisters
http://www.dublindiocese.ie/houses_of_religious/sisters

Thats 127 just for dublin We are well into the 200 already. and ther are people in Rome or Geneva or other places to which orders and other groups answer.

i think it was worked out here before showing over 900 currently. and in the past ther probably were more!

but about 30 secular diocesean bishops at any one time just in ireland if you restrict it to that. thats about 100 over three generations. How many of those bishops were involved
in corruption or bad judgement again? Was it five. that in itself is a totally unacceptable level but it is hardly evidence of a churchwide coverup or conspiracy is it?



Oh so you want a world where we assume guilt and dont have to prove it based on evidence? get the rope theres gonna be a lynchin.



We dont judge things by dogs in the street or any other throwaway comment. clearly Flynner made comments which showed himl up and tribunals hae made comments on him. Bertie has questions to answer and tribunals also say he avoid answering but im not aware he broke any laws. nor did CJ Haughey or even Garret Fitzgerald for whats it worth but they all had got money and bank debt writeoffs etc.

The thing is they (politiicans) didnt break the law but they would be breaking it today. Likewise some abusers didnt break some laws. for exapple no law existed about raping males -it only applied to females. standards were intorduced about money. they were not introduced as much or as quickly about children. The church introduced their own standards in advance of others; in fact one in four only brought in mandatory reporting of child abuse last year when the church has it for a decade.

No I am not saying your lying ISAW, I would never doubt your sincerity. I just feel you have no objectivity on the matter so it is really pointless trying to have a discussion with you.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

No I am not saying your lying ISAW, I would never doubt your sincerity. I just feel you have no objectivity on the matter so it is really pointless trying to have a discussion with you.

i supply published figures and that is not objective?

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

i supply published figures and that is not objective?

No ISAW you use stats to shut down discussion, to set the terms of reference, to protect specific interests.

The discussion should be about a bit more that published figures ISAW , but you continuously frustrate any attempt to move beyond that.

Something went seriously amiss in this little state of ours and that should be the real discussion , not who was worse.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

No ISAW you use stats to shut down discussion, to set the terms of reference, to protect specific interests.

Wrong! your personal attack wont win you anything.
stats are objective.
Im not protecting any interests or put up to this by anyone.
Im just giving my own view of what i believe to be the christian position.

The discussion should be about a bit more that published figures ISAW , but you continuously frustrate any attempt to move beyond that.

Because people come here with claims of "large percventages of priests are widespread abusers" and "Vatican cover up" and so on. so where is the evidence? How do you measure coverup or abuse levels?

what do you claim is beyoined published figures.
Im quite happy to go anywhere.

Something went seriously amiss in this little state of ours and that should be the real discussion , not who was worse.

But you are harping on about the church worldwide and not the state.

And when you say "i feel you have no objectivity" you are making a subjective "feeling" come to bear on the issue; the whole point of stats are that they are not about what you feel or i feel; they are empirical measurements and are what they are no matter how we feel about it.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Wrong! your personal attack wont win you anything.
stats are objective.
Im not protecting any interests or put up to this by anyone.
Im just giving my own view of what i believe to be the christian position.



Because people come here with claims of "large percventages of priests are widespread abusers" and "Vatican cover up" and so on. so where is the evidence? How do you measure coverup or abuse levels?

what do you claim is beyoined published figures.
Im quite happy to go anywhere.



But you are harping on about the church worldwide and not the state.

And when you say "i feel you have no objectivity" you are making a subjective "feeling" come to bear on the issue; the whole point of stats are that they are not about what you feel or i feel; they are empirical measurements and are what they are no matter how we feel about it.

As I say pointless having a discussion with you. time to unfollow the thread again.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

As I say pointless having a discussion with you. time to unfollow the thread again.

and skip over top the atheism thread wher you are contrarily asking people to be objective and not act on feeling?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77768069&postcount=3598

Guitar_Monkey

marienbad wrote: »

As I say pointless having a discussion with you. time to unfollow the thread again.

You're wasting your time ISAW. People want to come on here and bitch about the church. They don't like it when you spoil the party by pointing out actual facts. You should leave them to it.

Darith

Why hasn't any Irish Bishop been prosecuted over the alleged cover up of child
abuse by certain priests? Why hasn't the Pope of Rome been arrested? Until the
truth is known will all Irish Catholics simply dismiss all Bishops and
importantly will it mean a lack of belief in the Irish Catholic church which
would be decremental to everybody. This Island needs a church that people can
trust. At the moment i do not simply trust the Bishops in Ireland or
anywhere else with dubious history on this subject?! If the Vatican is
complicit and the Pope is a head a state, then are we in a semi official
state of war with the "The Vatican" on this issue?

ISAW

Darith wrote: »

Why hasn't any Irish Bishop been prosecuted over the alleged cover up of child
abuse by certain priests?

good question.
Have you considered the fact that no bishop actually broke any laws?
which Irish bishop in particular do you think broke a law inb relation to child abuse?
And which law did they break?

Why hasn't the Pope of Rome been arrested?

by whom? for what?
what actual crime in what state are you alledging the current Pope committed.

By the way even if you could find a crime he might have immunity from prosecution.

Until the
truth is known will all Irish Catholics simply dismiss all Bishops and
importantly will it mean a lack of belief in the Irish Catholic church which
would be decremental to everybody.

So basically your solution to any problem is
1. assume guilt of anyone you might have read about in the tabloid press e.g Jews Muslims Immigrants or Priests.

2. Remove any people suspected of "crimes against the state" from office.

I suppose you believe you and your "Big Brother" are a better moral guide than the people that the vast majority of people in Ireland accept.

i dont think Stalinist show trials that assume guilt achieve anything.

This Island needs a church that people can
trust. At the moment i do not simply trust the Bishops in Ireland or
anywhere else with dubious history on this subject?!

Ah but is your scepticism and your conscience informed?
On what basis do you not trust?
Do you apply the same mistrust to everything else?

If the Vatican is
complicit and the Pope is a head a state, then are we in a semi official
state of war with the "The Vatican" on this issue?

And your evidence the Vatican is operating a conspiracy involving child sex abuse is???

ISAW

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_risposta-gilmore_20110903_en.html

The Holy See wishes to state once again that it shares the deep concern and anxiety expressed by the Irish authorities, by Irish citizens in general and by the Bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful of Ireland with regard to the criminal and sinful acts of sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy and religious. It also recognizes the understandable anger, disappointment and sense of betrayal of those affected – particularly the victims and their families – by these vile and deplorable acts and by the way in which they were sometimes handled by Church authorities, and for all of this it wishes to reiterate its sorrow for what happened.

F12

ISAW wrote: »

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_risposta-gilmore_20110903_en.html

The Holy See wishes to state once again that it shares the deep concern and anxiety expressed by the Irish authorities, by Irish citizens in general and by the Bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful of Ireland with regard to the criminal and sinful acts of sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy and religious. It also recognizes the understandable anger, disappointment and sense of betrayal of those affected – particularly the victims and their families – by these vile and deplorable acts and by the way in which they were sometimes handled by Church authorities, and for all of this it wishes to reiterate its sorrow for what happened.

So they will now do the right thing, and make sure that the liability to compensation caused by members of their religious institutions is paid in full, as agreed, without delay and without being dragged into discussion with those who are trying to do the right thing?
Will they not rest until all collective liability has been fully paid to those who rightly seek and are due it, and will make sure that the citizens of this country are not unjustly burdened by their onerous debt to the society upon which they perpetrated the most evil and abominable of offences - child rape, brutality and mental torture? In other words, will they do the right and supposedly Christian thing, without any further delay and avoidance?
Expressions of concern and the wringing of hands is of no use to anyone, without backing it up with correct and just remedy to those injured. Talk is talk, and action is action, and what we are seeing so far is basically more talk about talk with little action being done to resolve the issues, along with adding further insults to the injured due to the exacerbative seeking of legalistic avenues of avoidance. Is this the way Jesus would have done things? If they don't do the right and just thing, then the outcome proves the point that it's all just talk.

ISAW

F12 wrote: »

So they will now do the right thing, and make sure that the liability to compensation caused by members of their religious institutions is paid in full, as agreed, without delay and without being dragged into discussion with those who are trying to do the right thing?

Please pay attention.
it has already showh theat the church in Ireland paid compensation in excess of other states e.g; UK Australia and paid it without the legal requirements ot standards oif prof required there

Will they not rest until all collective liability has been fully paid to those who rightly seek and are due it, and will make sure that the citizens of this country are not unjustly burdened by their onerous debt to the society

like payments of bank bailouts and bond holders that isnt for the church to decide.

upon which they perpetrated the most evil and abominable of offences - child rape, brutality and mental torture?

That was not a church policy it was done in a climate where the church and state trusted clerics and a tiny minority of priests abused that trust. just as a minority of gardai social workers teachers etc. did. I was never a church or state policy to rape children.

In other words, will they do the right and supposedly Christian thing, without any further delay and avoidance?
Expressions of concern and the wringing of hands is of no use to anyone, without backing it up with correct and just remedy to those injured. Talk is talk, and action is action, and what we are seeing so far is basically more talk about talk with little action being done to resolve the issues, along with adding further insults to the injured due to the

It has been shown her already how the church acted in advance of the state and paid out compensation in excess of other states and brought in policies to prevent abuse.

ISAW

elsewhere in an endeavor to support an erroneous 6.5% claim

Deleted by Mod.

We do not discuss what goes on in other Fora here, or allow this to become the overspill if you get banned from somewhere else.

ISAW

Backseat modding deleted

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

elsewhere in an endeavor to support an erroneous 6.5% claim

Deleted by Mod.

We do not discuss what goes on in other Fora here, or allow this to become the overspill if you get banned from somewhere else.

I apologise for referencing other fora
If I did so I do so because i provide references to claims whether false or not.

I 6.5% claim was originally brought up in the Christianity forum where i attempted to keep it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77619733&postcount=39

You (moderator) locked the thread in which it was brought up and suggested it be discuss in this thread.

The 6.5% claim is a lie as far as I can say.
Usually people misquote it it mix it up with other figures but people bringing it up and saying it is supported when they have actually trawled through the sources they claim and failed to back it up are lying.

I have on several occasions pointed out that there isn't any support for this figure.

The 4% figure is frequently mixed up by twisting a figure of "4% of victims of abuse are victims of clerical abuse" (which isn't necessarily pedophile abuse nor restricted wholly to RC Priests AFAIK) into "4% of pedophiles are RC priests"

There is ample evidence of this in this thread.

One poster repeated it for maybe a year and would have continued supporting this
false witness if he had not been continually challenged on it.

I have yet to see any support for the 6.5% figure and like WMD in Iraq there are loads of claims but when you actually look at the data it isnt there.

It is a smear on clergy and promotes hate against them.

EDIT When John Jay was discussed in this thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76990881&postcount=2964

I am sticking upi for equal standards. I dont see why people like you are making false claims about abusing priests which dont currently exist and which at their height were in the dozens of 25,000 clergy ( well say 5000 priests plus brothers and nuns) in Ireland.
I dont see why you are hyping this when it is currently zero and hundreds DIED in HSE care and hundreds of kids are sexually abused every year when there are ZERO abused by priests!

Here is an example
http://ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/secret-sex-celibate-system?page=2

The 2004 John Jay Report concluded from a survey of church files that 6.5 percent of priests ordained between 1960 and 1984 were involved in sex abuse of minors.

Where does the John Jay Report say anything of the sort?
But people will quote this misrepresentation and believe it?

The Nature and Scope of the Problem
of Sexual Abuse of Minors
by Catholic Priests and Deacons
in the United States
A Research Study Conducted by the
John Jay College of Criminal Justice

http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp

what section 2.2 says is

When dioceses are grouped by the fourteen geographical regions of the Church, the average percent of all incardinated priests in that region’s dioceses to have
been accused of sexual abuse is consistent: all regions averaged between 3% and
6% of priests accused.

i dont know how or why liars repeat lies but the top end of 6% may have been taken and "accuses of" turned into "convicted of"

In fact n the next page after going through different sampling techniques we gt

approximately 4% of Catholic priests and deacons in active ministry between 1950 and 2002 have been accused of the sexual abuse of a child under the age of 18.

which is no doubt an origin of the 4% lie

Also John Jay refers to minors up to the age of eighteen and not just pedophile abuse which is a small minority of sexual abuse . About 10-20% up to ten years of age see table 3.55 and 3.56 on page 43.

Over 75% were 11-17 year olds Table 3.54

The single age with the
greatest proportion of sexual assault victims among all victims reported to law enforcement was age 14.
quoted later in John Jay source: Patrick A. Langan and Caroline Wolf Harlow, C. W., Child Rape Victims, 1992, (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992, Washington, D.C.),


Not only that on page 40

In a sample of 4,023 adolescents ages 12 to 17 across racial
and ethnic groups, the lifetime prevalence for sexual assault is 8.1%

so the picture is totally misreported as "6.5% of priests are pedophiles"

what it really says is about 4% of priests were accused of abusing people under 18
and of those people about a quarter were pre teens.

which is about 1% of US priests accused of pedophile abuse.

NB this is ACCUSED and not convicted.

Look at page 47

A report to the police resulted in an investigation in almost all cases (see Tables 3.7.1 and 3.7.2).
Only 217 (5.4%) of the more than 4,000 priests and deacons were criminally charged (see Table 3.6.3).

3.1% (138) of all priests were convicted of some type of criminal
offense

now dont forget these 138 convictions EDIT 128 are likely about 20% pedophile i.e 28 actual priests

Edit
http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/_pdffiles/cleric7.pdf
Table 3.7.5 CRIMINAL PENALTIES

Of those who were convicted (128 priests),... Three men were sentenced
to spend the rest of their lives in prison, and two others were required to
register as sex offenders.

I dont know if that means the two offenders were not sentenced and all 128 were registered but I think not.

You can also see Table 3.7.6 of the 226 cases charged only five of them have more than ten victims. One had 131 charges. this agrees with the claim that even among abusing priests only a tiny minority are responsible for a huge number probably the majority of abuse. In this case these five for 237 counts and the other 98% of those convicted for about 300 counts. And don't forget the others also include non pedophile sex related convictions non rape eg suggestive language or inapropriate touching etc.

so when the media report over 4000 priests the actual number of pedophile convictions in the same sample is in the twenties. And this is over a half century.

Now not a single case is justified but dont you think it is a bit of a media focus on tens of priests over decades when there are millions of cases of rape happening in the US and RC clerical abuse is currently at so low a level that single cases are extraordinary?

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

I am sticking upi for equal standards. I dont see why people like you are making false claims about abusing priests which dont currently exist and which at their height were in the dozens of 25,000 clergy ( well say 5000 priests plus brothers and nuns) in Ireland.
I dont see why you are hyping this when it is currently zero and hundreds DIED in HSE care and hundreds of kids are sexually abused every year when there are ZERO abused by priests!

I'm really hoping that you've cut and pasted this from something else you wrote to someone else?

You start this thread of with a quote from me, and then you seem to be addressing me as if I've made some kind of claim about priests or am hyping something?

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

I'm really hoping that you've cut and pasted this from something else you wrote to someone else?

You start this thread of with a quote from me, and then you seem to be addressing me as if I've made some kind of claim about priests or am hyping something?

Yes sorry about that. i have entered in the reference .

I was avoiding putting in references for the obvious reason that the message prior was deleted when I did so.
i hope you understand my reesons for posting in that format/
It is a quote from me last time the John Jay report was discussed in this thread by me.
I am speculating on the source of the 4% and 6.5% figure since no real actual figure exists.

Any suggestion that you made the 6.5% or 4% claim is not intended and not true. I honestly apologies if anyone in any way thought you were made such a false claim. I know how it feels when you stand up for the truth and others twist or exploit honesty.

I am also aware that over a million people died in Iraq because all the media trumpeted the WMD message.
i opposed it then as I oppose the "6.5% or 4% of priests are pedophiles" claim.
It is a false vile and utterly nonsensical claim but like the "WMD in Iraq" it would not be the first false claims to whip up opposition and hate against a target.

And i want to be quite clear I am not saying you made such a false claim. In fact i believe you never made that false claim about 6.5% of priests being pedophiles. Any suggestion you did even if not made and just implied is totally wrong.

hotmail.com

The thread on Cardinal Brady was closed. Censorship yet again by the CC.

Anyway, he said he isn't resigning. He has no credibility.

If someone was selling condoms in the 1970s, he would have contacted the Gardai immediately. He kept the sexual abuse of children a secret.

Shame on him.

marty1985

hotmail.com wrote: »

The thread on Cardinal Brady was closed. Censorship yet again by the CC.

Anyway, he said he isn't resigning. He has no credibility.

If someone was selling condoms in the 1970s, he would have contacted the Gardai immediately. He kept the sexual abuse of children a secret.

Shame on him.

Shame on him. But not just him.

Remember thousands of kids were put into state funded prisons commonly known (deceptively) as Industrial Schools, which had the illegal support of the state, backed by the secular courts, the police, the judiciary, the NSPCC, while the rest of Irish society followed a shameful instinct to say nothing. Cardinal Brady was not the only one who knew of abuse and in retrospect did not enough.

hotmail.com

marty1985 wrote: »

Shame on him. But not just him.

Remember thousands of kids were put into state funded prisons commonly known (deceptively) as Industrial Schools, which had the illegal support of the state, backed by the secular courts, the police, the judiciary, the NSPCC, while the rest of Irish society followed a shameful instinct to say nothing. Cardinal Brady was not the only one who knew of abuse and in retrospect did not enough.

But that's a separate issue.

We're talking only about Cardinal Brady and his responsibility.

eviltwin

hotmail.com wrote: »

The thread on Cardinal Brady was closed. Censorship yet again by the CC.

Anyway, he said he isn't resigning. He has no credibility.

If someone was selling condoms in the 1970s, he would have contacted the Gardai immediately. He kept the sexual abuse of children a secret.

Shame on him.

And people will still go to mass on Sunday and listen to the bs the priests come out with and do nothing...shame on them too.

eviltwin

I've amended that post now PDN, can you respond in kind and remove my warning?