The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

While most people in the newsweek poll are of the opinion that the Catholic church frequently abuses children, I think our soldiers as part of the UN behaved very well and are a credit to our country. Not many would think they are "one of the biggest abusers of women and children in the world "

It wasn't a Newsweek poll - it was a poll quoted by Newsweek regarding the perceptions of the public. The thrust of the article -- a blatantly obvious thrust that you seem to have missed -- is that these public perceptions in this instance are wrong. The title "Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males" should be clue enough.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I am not happy enough to let anyone off the hook for abuse. However this thread is about "clerical child abuse". That is what is discussed here.

No it isnt! And you have been specifically shown that the thread is not restricted to only referring to clerics. You have been shown a moderators decision stating that.
But you continue to have a go at the church stirring up others to do so by ignoring the actual facts. You refuse to acknowledge you are lying about the stats. Stats which you didn't research and I in fact supplied!

The survey by newsweek showed that most people thought the RCC "frequenty" abused children. Peoples experience is such that most people do not think ordinary schools or McDonalds "frequently" abuse children.

Having stated this is only about "clerical" abuse you now move on to claiming that "most people believe" rather than the actual facts! You already earlier presented the Newsweek story as if it were fact and not opinion. the reason people might believe in shuch stroies is because people like you go around promoting myths like the idea that 5.8 per cent of RC clerics abuse pre pubescent kids.

Are the Irish army not part of the UN peacekeeping forces ?

The UN is not a single institution under a leader. there are general assemblies, HCR, rights, Security council etc. Even peacekeeping missions differ for one to another. The UN peacekeepers have no enforcement rights.

gigino wrote: »

Nobody said or alleged that, and certainly not me. I did say that the SAVI report found 5.8% of all boys who were abused sexually say it was by clergy / religous. Its there in the SAVI report, those exact words, page 88 + page 89.

Where?

You are claiming that the SAVI report says " 5.8% of all boys who were abused sexually say it was by clergy / religous. " It does not! You know it does not! That is a lie!

What does it say on pages 88-89 which says " 5.8% of all boys who were abused sexually say it was by clergy / religous." how is this result valid? How many cases does it concern? Of what population? Are they Roman catholic clergy? What do you mean by "boy"?

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It wasn't a Newsweek poll - it was a poll quoted by Newsweek regarding the perceptions of the public. The thrust of the article -- a blatantly obvious thrust that you seem to have missed -- is that these public perceptions in this instance are wrong. The title "Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males" should be clue enough.

The title "Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males except Sexual Abuse" should also be clue enough.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

You are claiming that the SAVI report says " 5.8% of all boys who were abused sexually say it was by clergy / religous. " It does not! You know it does not! That is a lie!

What does it say on pages 88-89 which says " 5.8% of all boys who were abused sexually say it was by clergy / religous." how is this result valid?

You have a remarkable ability for contradicting yourself. Both quotes above are the same. I quoted from the report and yet you claim - in the above post and in other posts - that I lie. I know I did not lie about what the savi report found, because I quoted from the Savi report. You remind me of a Priest intimdating a child , and telling the child he lied , when he did not lie. You cannot bully me, old chap.

ISAW wrote:

The UN is not a single institution under a leader. there are general assemblies, HCR, rights, Security council etc. Even peacekeeping missions differ for one to another. The UN peacekeepers have no enforcement rights.

Thats not the answer to the question asked, which you tried to answer. The question was "Are the Irish army not part of the UN peacekeeping forces ?" Festus claims the UN is "one of the biggest abusers of women and children in the world " and " is almost as bad as the Russian army for rape and pillage " !!!!

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

The title "Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males except Sexual Abuse" should also be clue enough.

The "abuse" referred to in the title of the article is sexual abuse. Have you actually read it? Beacuse I can see absolutely no reason to tack on a contradictory statement to the end of it unless you have not read it. You may as well be arguing that black is white.

If you want to challenge the findings of the article then fine. However, please do so without misrepresenting its findings.

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Have you actually read it?

Yes, and I have quoted from it and explained it many times.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you want to challenge the findings of the article then fine.

I think its you that is challenging it. The report said - and I quote : "a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children."
Thats what people thought - presumably taking in to account their experiences of the RCC church, and the experiences of their relatives and friends.


If you want hard data, it says ( and I underline the important bit ) :
" The only hard data that has been made public by any denomination comes from John Jay College's study of Catholic priests, which was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops following the public outcry over the 2002 scandals. Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that....." Would you trust data on Jews "authorised and paid for " by the Nazi party ? I'd trust the experiences of the general public, and indeed the Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll which is in agreement with same, before any study " authorized and paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops "...knowing how the RCC covered up and abused peoples trust before.

However, even if we were to believe the John Jay ( RC funded / authorised report ) ,"John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years ( the report was limited to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992 ) had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children." Pity the report did not study the crisis after 1992, when people felt less intimidated about complaining about the behaviour of their priest.

Dean Roche

The sickening thing about it the Irish race made up most of the paedophile priests…not just in Ireland but around the world!!!paedophilia is a noticeable negative Irish trait. Ireland has the highest rates of child abuse in Europe as well

Fanny Cradock

What people think is an irrelevance to the actual facts. Groups of people can be mistaken, you know. I happen to think that there is a bunch of them over in the A&A forum, they think the same about folks here. The Newsweek article states clearly that the public perception that priests "frequently" abused children is wrong when compared to sexual abuse rates throughout the American male population. The point of the article is that public perception is wrong.

It's no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.

Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all.

The sad fact appears to be that sexual abuse in religious organisations such as the RCC is similar to American national abuse rates by male members of the public. That reads to me as a corporate indictment on our species.

If you want to challenge these statistics then you obviously need to investigate the statistics for the claim. Repeating the results of a public perception poll doesn't begin your challenge. It's like insisting that "black box" flight recorders are black (they are actually normally orange) because most people think they are black.

If you want to denounce the hierarchy of the RCC for their cover-up and criticise the shameful apologetics and finger pointing that some people play, I would - as a user - support your position. What I don't support is you cherry-picking an opinion poll from an article that says exactly the opposite and passing it off as hard data.

A "black box" is orange irrespective of how many people say otherwise.

Fanny Cradock

Dean Roche wrote: »

The sickening thing about it the Irish race made up most of the paedophile priests…not just in Ireland but around the world!!!paedophilia is a noticeable negative Irish trait. Ireland has the highest rates of child abuse in Europe as well

To you care to back that up?


::Edit::

I've looked at your past history and I see you have form when it comes to odd statements like above. You don't get the benefit of doubt, I'm afraid.

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A "black box" is orange irrespective of how many people say otherwise.

Nearly everyone knows an airplane black box is orange because hi visibility orange is the easiest colour to find / the least easy to camoflage ...and whenever you see one being recovered its always orange.
Many Catholics if they were not abused themselves had a relative or friend who was...hence they draw on this knowledge / experience when answering the newsweek poll. Newsweek does say the John Jay ( RC funded / authorised report ) report admits that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years ( the report was limited to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992 ) had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children." As said before pity the report did not study the crisis after 1992, when people felt less intimidated about complaining about the behaviour of their priest. The 4% figure of priests sounds suspiciously low to most people...but then the report would be like allowing Nazis do a report on Jews ( who made "pllausable " accusations ! ) during a period chosen by the Nazis. Thats the danger of statistics. Only 4 per cent are Priests !!!
However even if that is true, bear in mind the percentage of victims who were abused by Priests would almost certainly be larger than that percentage, due to multiple abuses etc.

Bob Cratchet

gigino wrote: »

Nearly everyone knows an airplane black box is orange because hi visibility orange is the easiest colour to find / the least easy to camoflage ...and whenever you see one being recovered its always orange.
Many Catholics if they were not abused themselves had a relative or friend who was...hence they draw on this knowledge / experience when answering the newsweek poll. Newsweek does say the John Jay ( RC funded / authorised report ) report admits that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years ( the report was limited to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992 ) had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children." As said before pity the report did not study the crisis after 1992, when people felt less intimidated about complaining about the behaviour of their priest. The 4% figure of priests sounds suspiciously low to most people...but then the report would be like allowing Nazis do a report on Jews ( who made "pllausable " accusations ! ) during a period chosen by the Nazis. Thats the danger of statistics. Only 4 per cent are Priests !!!
However even if that is true, bear in mind the percentage of victims who were abused by Priests would almost certainly be larger than that percentage, due to multiple abuses etc.

I know I shouldn't, but when I’m bored I like to reply to your troll posts to amuse myself. Everyone that could be bothered really should have a look at your user stats. Out of your 900+ posts, 95% of them are just one big long troll game.

How many of the people questioned by Newsweek's quoted poll were Catholic or knew Catholics ? How many of the people were basing their view on the number of hysterical media reports ? How many of them were basing it on what they new as a Catholic, or friends of Catholics ? I'm a Catholic in my 40's, apart from the court cases and convictions I have read in the papers, I have personally never known any abuser priest any victim of same, or heard about any abuse in my own parish or any neighbouring ones. Not surprising seeing at its peak the offence rate was approx. 4 priests out of every 100. The very same as the general adult male population. Now that 4 too many, but it also means the other 96% are entitled to their good name.

Many Catholics if they were not abused themselves had a relative or friend who was..

Now please provide us with proof of this, post your sources and stats for this claim.

himnextdoor

The public perception of the RCC, correct or incorrect, is due entirely to the Church's disastrous PR policy.

The fact that more teachers than priests abuse children does not add up to mitigation.

gigino

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

How many of the people questioned by Newsweek's quoted poll were Catholic or knew Catholics ?

Not really relevant. Besides, everyone knows Catholics, even in America.

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Not surprising seeing at its peak the offence rate was approx. 4 priests out of every 100.

at its peak ? What proof do you have that child abuse was at its peak during the limited time frame ( from 1950 up to 1992) of the study ?

himnextdoor wrote: »

The public perception of the RCC, correct or incorrect, is due entirely to the Church's disastrous PR policy.

lol. The public perception of the Magdalene Laundries is due entirely to the RC disastrous PR policy, and not due to the abuses which took place in the 4 RC institutions involved ?

himnextdoor wrote: »

The fact that more teachers than priests abuse children does not add up to mitigation.

Priests currently number about 3000 in the whole country, a figure which continues to decline. Thats about 00.06% of the population. Teachers make up far far greater numbers.

himnextdoor

gigino wrote: »

lol. The public perception of the Magdalene Laundries is due entirely to the RC disastrous PR policy, and not due to the abuses which took place in the 4 RC institutions involved ?

I think you misunderstand.

There are people who view the RCC as a state-sanctioned peadophile ring. As far as I know, noone views schools as such. Why is that?

gigino

himnextdoor wrote: »

There are people who view the RCC as a state-sanctioned peadophile ring. As far as I know, noone views schools as such. Why is that?

Because many of us growing up, if we were lucky enough not to be abused ourselves, had relations or friends who were abused. Remember the rumours of Fr. such + such at school....and the reputation of other certain religous ? You did not dare complain. And in them days you were told you were against the church and you dd not know what you were talking about and you were going straight to hell if you dared complain! And the cover ups, and the transfer of clergy elsewhere, and the finger to the lips to keep quiet as it was best for everyone. And most people kept quiet and the Priest went overseas or wherever and people moved on with their lives, and people died off. The fact that 5.8% of boys abused say it was by clergy / religous, and the fact that Priests currently make up 00.06% of the population, is a pointer. All of the people who abused in the Magdalene Laundries were celibate religous too. But its important to say not all religous were abusers. Maybe the rotten mix would not have been as bad had celibacy not being introduced by the Roman Catholic church between the years 400 - 1100 AD ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church)

himnextdoor

gigino wrote: »

Because many of us growing up, if we were lucky enough not to be abused ourselves, had relations or friends who were abused. Remember the rumours of Fr. such + such at school....and the reputation of other certain religous ? You did not dare complain. And in them days you were told you were against the church and you dd not know what you were talking about and you were going straight to hell if you dared complain! And the cover ups, and the transfer of clergy elsewhere, and the finger to the lips to keep quiet as it was best for everyone. And most people kept quiet and the Priest went overseas or wherever and people moved on with their lives, and people died off. The fact that 5.8% of boys abused say it was by clergy / religous, and the fact that Priests currently make up 00.06% of the population, is a pointer. All of the people who abused in the Magdalene Laundries were celibate religous too. But its important to say not all religous were abusers. Maybe the rotten mix would not have been as bad had celibacy not being introduced by the Roman Catholic church between the years 400 - 1100 AD ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church)

All of which indicates bad PR.

Bob Cratchet

himnextdoor wrote: »

The public perception of the RCC, correct or incorrect, is due entirely to the Church's disastrous PR policy.

Partly, but if you carefully study any media story, its mostly due to the press never reporting the full facts, just hyperbole and selected out of context misquotes. But I suppose anything less than total hysteria about Catholics would not sell any papers.

Proper, accurate, in depth investigative journalism and analysis seems to be a thing of the past.

Penn

gigino wrote: »

Because many of us growing up, if we were lucky enough not to be abused ourselves, had relations or friends who were abused. Remember the rumours of Fr. such + such at school....and the reputation of other certain religous ? You did not dare complain. And in them days you were told you were against the church and you dd not know what you were talking about and you were going straight to hell if you dared complain! And the cover ups, and the transfer of clergy elsewhere, and the finger to the lips to keep quiet as it was best for everyone. And most people kept quiet and the Priest went overseas or wherever and people moved on with their lives, and people died off. The fact that 5.8% of boys abused say it was by clergy / religous, and the fact that Priests currently make up 00.06% of the population, is a pointer. All of the people who abused in the Magdalene Laundries were celibate religous too. But its important to say not all religous were abusers. Maybe the rotten mix would not have been as bad had celibacy not being introduced by the Roman Catholic church between the years 400 - 1100 AD ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church)

Gigino, while I largely agree with you, that 5.8% statistic is wrong. The SAVI report says that out of boys abused by Authority Figures, 5.8% were abused by Priests/Ministers/Religious Teachers, with Authority Figures referring to people like priests, teachers, guards, babysitters etc (ie. Excluding family members and strangers). If taking all boys abused into consideration, the figure is 1.9%.

That being said, that's still 1.9% too much for people who are meant to be Men of God

Bob Cratchet

Barrington wrote: »

That being said, that's still 1.9% too much for people who are meant to be Men of God

The 1.9% are no more men of God than Judas was.

himnextdoor

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

The 1.9% are no more men of God than Judas was.

That's unfair on Judas who actually caused the fulfillment of the Messiah prophecy; he really was doing God's work.

lmaopml

Barrington wrote: »

Gigino, while I largely agree with you, that 5.8% statistic is wrong. The SAVI report says that out of boys abused by Authority Figures, 5.8% were abused by Priests/Ministers/Religious Teachers, with Authority Figures referring to people like priests, teachers, guards, babysitters etc (ie. Excluding family members and strangers). If taking all boys abused into consideration, the figure is 1.9%.

That being said, that's still 1.9% too much for people who are meant to be Men of God

Thankyou Barrington for looking more closely, and being less biased, and from an alternate perspective too . Yes 1.9% is far too much imo. We've been working on that, this new generation that knows more, we're working really hard on that.

Bob Cratchet

himnextdoor wrote: »

That's unfair on Judas who actually caused the fulfillment of the Messiah prophecy; he really was doing God's work.

Hardly. Jesus was going to be arrested with or without Judas.
Judas just thought he'd save his own neck and make a few bob at the same time.
He was the most Irish of the apostles.

gigino

Barrington wrote: »

Gigino, while I largely agree with you, that 5.8% statistic is wrong. The SAVI report says that out of boys abused by Authority Figures, 5.8% were abused by Priests/Ministers/Religious Teachers, with Authority Figures referring to people like priests, teachers, guards, babysitters etc (ie. Excluding family members and strangers). If taking all boys abused into consideration, the figure is 1.9%.

Thank you for agreeing with some of what I say anyway.
However, with respect, I disagree with you on the rest of your post, and I think the 5.8% is correct. Open up the SAVI report and read carefully.

If you look at table 4.10 of the SAVI report, it says 22.1 % of abusers known to abused boys were authority figures. OK so far?

Go to table 4.11, for boys who were abused it gives the following figures : it says religous ministers and religous teachers are 27.3 % ( 9.1 plus 18.2% ) of authority figues. As a "proportion of all abusers " of boys it says religous ministers and religous teachers are 5.8% ( 1.9 and 3.9% ).
Its there in black and white on page 88.

lmaopml

gigino, you have been pretty much saying that 'clergy' are responsible for such a percentage abuse of boys...blah blah blah based on a telephone survey. And you read every article with rose withered glasses...

You failed to give detail. You 'soap boxed' it for the last ages along with other 'theories' of yours that all Catholics know somebody that is abused out of the entire global population, which you fail to substantiate.

You make 'insinuations' about Nazis etc. and you are only short of saying the Pope is the antichrist in revelations who is doing a boogie in his red shoes in Rome - Please! What kind of silly is that?

There must be a place where hatred ends and honesty starts. WE are taking on board and pushing our Clergy to take on board with the help of many the need to 'protect' children and empower them, because we own our Church every one of us - you however, are firmly blinded by bias and gross generalisation and sensationalism that can't see the wood for the trees. Not even beyond your nose and agenda, as far as your 'concern' for children. Or else you are just bought and paid for..I don't know. I don't mind that the Church will be used as an example to empower children, some of the members did ugly things - but some perspective illuminates too.

himnextdoor

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Hardly. Jesus was going to be arrested with or without Judas.
Judas just thought he'd save his own neck and make a few bob at the same time.
He was the most Irish of the apostles.

No, Judas led the authorities to Jesus' 'bolthole' where the disciples were supposed to be keeping watch; the fell asleep. In that respect, Judas wasn't the only one to 'let Jesus down'.

Apart from that, Jesus' arrest was timed to almost coincide with Passover and His death by crucifixion and the reclaiming of His body took only a few hours. The quickness of Jesus' death caused Pilate to make a comment about it. These 'facts' were vital to the fulfillment of prophecy.

If Judas had not betrayed Jesus as prophecied then the prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

Have a read, it's true. (Albeit slightly off topic.)

himnextdoor

lmaopml wrote: »

gigino, you have been pretty much saying that 'clergy' are responsible for such a percentage abuse of boys...blah blah blah based on a telephone survey. And you read every article with rose withered glasses...

You failed to give detail. You 'soap boxed' it for the last ages along with other 'theories' of yours that all Catholics know somebody that is abused out of the entire global population, which you fail to substantiate.

You make 'insinuations' about Nazis etc. and you are only short of saying the Pope is the antichrist in revelations who is doing a boogie in his red shoes in Rome - Please! What kind of silly is that?

There must be a place where hatred ends and honesty starts. WE are taking on board and pushing our Clergy to take on board with the help of many the need to 'protect' children and empower them, because we own our Church every one of us - you however, are firmly blinded by bias and gross generalisation and sensationalism that can't see the wood for the trees. Not even beyond your nose and agenda, as far as your 'concern' for children. Or else you are just bought and paid for..I don't know. I don't mind that the Church will be used as an example to empower children, some of the members did ugly things - but some perspective illuminates too.

Do you deny that there are people who were abused sexually as children by priests who are entitled to feel that they were let down by the church when their abuse came to light?

Do you mean that kind of bias?

Let's suppose that Brendan Smyth was the only paedophile priest who ever lived. In 1975 Cardinal Brady witnessed two children signing oaths of silence that prevented them from reporting their abuse to the police. Do those two people have any entitlement to believe that Canon law and the Church let them down?

What about Brendan Smyth's later victims; is it not reasonable for them to feel than Cardinal Brady and all the others who attended those 1975 meetings are partly culpable for the abuse they suffered?

What about the families, friends, spouses of those victims; do they have the right to be disappointed by the Church's handling of this affair?

Even if Brendan Smyth was the only paedophile ever, there are a lot of people who feel that they have the right and the duty to say that they were let down by the church; that the church put its own interests ahead of child-protection.

The church authorities were or are willing to threaten vulnerable children with the wrath of hell but were unwilling to put a stop to Smyth.

God works in mysterious ways.

The public perception and outrage at the RCC is totally justified but should be extended to the state that also let down those children.

Even if Smyth was the only one, the state should have passed legislation that forces all reports of abuse to the church to be passed to the law-enforcement agencies. The Church's handling of Smyth was an epic fail and the whole system should have tumbled because of it.

And that's if there was only one paedophile priest ever!

Tell These People That God Loves Us All

Penn

gigino wrote: »

Thank you for agreeing with some of what I say anyway.
However, with respect, I disagree with you on the rest of your post, and I think the 5.8% is correct. Open up the SAVI report and read carefully.

If you look at table 4.10 of the SAVI report, it says 22.1 % of abusers known to abused boys were authority figures. OK so far?

Go to table 4.11, for boys who were abused it gives the following figures : it says religous ministers and religous teachers are 27.3 % ( 9.1 plus 18.2% ) of authority figues. As a "proportion of all abusers " of boys it says religous ministers and religous teachers are 5.8% ( 1.9 and 3.9% ).
Its there in black and white on page 88.

Actually, you're right. Apologies. 1.9% by religious ministers and 3.9% by religious teachers.

gigino

lmaopml wrote: »

gigino, you have been pretty much saying that 'clergy' are responsible for such a percentage abuse of boys....

No I have not. Its different surveys which say that, which I quote from eg

• the SAVI survey, which states 5.8% of boys sexually abused were abused by religous ministers / teachers of religion.
• the newsweek survey, where in the States 4% of priests were abusers.
  

There are statistics, and there are statistics of course. Many went unreported. Its a bit like the incidence rate of suicides in Ireland decades ago. I know of at lots of suicides which were not recorded as suicides. More than a few suicides years ago were recorded as accidental drownings, single car crashes, accidental shootings with guns etc. ...for a variety of reasons.
Yet if you were to look at statistics of suicide in Ireland in say the sixties or seventies you would think relatively few committed suicide then.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/chris-moore-club-protecting-monster-went-all-the-way-to-top-2100001.html is an interesting article.

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

No I have not. Its different surveys which say that, which I quote from eg

• the SAVI survey, which states 5.8% of boys sexually abused were abused by religous ministers / teachers of religion.
• the newsweek survey, where in the States 4% of priests were abusers.
  

There are statistics, and there are statistics of course. Many went unreported. Its a bit like the incidence rate of suicides in Ireland decades ago. I know of at lots of suicides which were not recorded as suicides. More than a few suicides years ago were recorded as accidental drownings, single car crashes, accidental shootings with guns etc. ...for a variety of reasons.
Yet if you were to look at statistics of suicide in Ireland in say the sixties or seventies you would think relatively few committed suicide then.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/chris-moore-club-protecting-monster-went-all-the-way-to-top-2100001.html is an interesting article.

Are you suggesting that rates of reporting sexual abuse crimes are lower when perpetrated by members of the clergy? I can't see any other reason for mentioning it.

The Newsweek article states that the crime of sexual abuse is the most under-reported crime irrespective of who the victim is and who is committing it. This is not surprising when one considers the stigma associated with the crime and that the victim often feels as if they have nowhere to turn because the abuse is generally carried out by an authority figure.

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

because the abuse is generally carried out by an authority figure.

thats not true, but if it was, it would mean an even higher percentage of abusers would be clergy / religous, as the SAVI report found that religous ministers and religous teachers are 27.3 % ( 9.1% plus 18.2% ) of authority figues. ( ref : table 4.11, SAVI report ).

Decades ago you did not squeal against the Priest ; you were going to hell if you did , and nobody believed your word over that of the all-powerful clergy. See the link in the last post to see what sometimes happened.