The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

thats not true

Fair enough.

gigino wrote: »

...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 ).

It would mean that all sexual abuse is under-reported. If one could actually produce accurate statistics then presumably all sexual abuse numbers would rise. There is no reason to suppose that the proportions of abuse amongst authority figures would increase for religious teachers (18.2% of males abused) but not, for example, babysitters (19.7% of males abused) unless you are committed to idea that religious people are more likely to abuse. And you are committed to this idea - totally and utterly.

Statistics are funny things, no? For instance, you are fond of putting 18.2% (religious teachers) and 9.1% (religious ministers) together. But that is only half the story because you are only reporting abuse perpetrated against males by authority figures. When one actually looks at the collated data for both sexes you will note that category of babysitters topped the table in terms of reported sexual abuse instances.

In real terms, the amount of people reporting abuse at the hands of babysitters was 33 people (male and female). Compare this to the 24 people (male and female) who suffered abuse at the hands of religious ministers and religious teachers - that's two different categories, btw. Given the dislocated nature of babysitting (my impression is that it is largely unregulated and fairly casual work entrusted to friends and family compared to an organisation like the RCC), I wouldn't be surprised if the figures grew given the same focus the RCC justifiably receives.

I'll say this for anyone who isn't clear. I'm not in any way defending the RCC or those who act as apologists for the cover-up that ensued. Abuse is wrong and so is any apologetic or attempts to shift the blame away from an organisation who tells us it is the moral guardian of society.

My beef lies with gigino and his inability to use the data correctly and his refusal to consider any other counterpoint even in the face the date he quotes. I'll repeat it again, the sad fact is that sexual abuse is prevalent throughout our society. Priests apparently abuse at the same rates as the rest of society. That's not an excuse, just the facts.

gimmebroadband

I myself was abused as a child by 2 seperate people, one being a family member! I never said anything for years until I was an adult, when my parents found out, they went through hell - I also found out that 3 of my other siblings were abused as well, I thought I was the only one! Many victims would probably never tell because of the shame and the hurt that revealing the abuse would cause. I now wish that my parents didn't have to go through that terrible anguish, the abuser had been dead for years by then!

Clerics are people, just like anybody else. Just because they are Priests, doesn't mean they are immune from temptations. They did not abuse in the name of religion or the Church, they abused because they were bad people!!

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Priests apparently abuse at the same rates as the rest of society. That's not an excuse, just the facts.

No its not. You were clearly very wrong with your statement earlier today that " the abuse is generally carried out by an authority figure ", and you are very wrong with the above as well. Even the newsweek poll says that 4% of abuse was committed by Priests, yet Priests make up only a fraction of a percentage of the population.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Just because they are Priests, doesn't mean they are immune from temptations. They did not abuse in the name of religion or the Church, they abused because they were bad people!!

Of course they were bad people - and they were bad people who protected them. Can you explain why an abnormally high percentage amount of Priests / religous abuse boys ? The SAVI report found that religous ministers and religous teachers are 27.3 % ( 9.1% plus 18.2% ) of the authority figues who abuse. ( ref : table 4.11, SAVI report ). People have speculated its because of the hierarchy of the church , celibacy ( which is alien to most if not all species and was not in place in the earely dcenturies of the christian church ), emotional + sexual frustration etc.

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

the amount of people reporting abuse at the hands of babysitters was 33 people (male and female). Compare this to the 24 people (male and female) who suffered abuse at the hands of religious ministers and religious teachers

but decades ago people who were abused by the Priest simply did not complain. They were told they were against the Catholic church if they did, and who would believe their word over that of a priest anyway ... and they were going to hell if they complained. If they persisted and persisted the RCC sometimes got them to sign a secrecy statement. Shame on them.

gimmebroadband

Who knows why, perhaps they joined the priesthood for all the wrong reasons!! Other denominations have there own fair share of abuse and coverups, so it's not just a RCC thing, just that the media highlights the RCC more than others!!

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

No its not. You were clearly very wrong with your statement earlier today that " the abuse is generally carried out by an authority figure "

I've already admitted that my remark was wrong. It's a shame that you seemingly don't possess the same ability to correct yourself.

gigino wrote: »

and you are very wrong with the above as well. Even the newsweek poll says that 4% of abuse was committed by Priests, yet Priests make up only a fraction of a percentage of the population.

The Newsweek article clearly states that member of religious orders abuse at the same rates as the rest of the population. You have doggedly ignored the central thesis of the article.

gigino wrote: »

Of course they were bad people - and they were bad people who protected them. Can you explain why an abnormally high percentage amount of Priests / religous abuse boys ? The SAVI report found that religous ministers and religous teachers are 27.3 % ( 9.1% plus 18.2% ) of the authority figues who abuse. ( ref : table 4.11, SAVI report ). People have speculated its because of the hierarchy of the church , celibacy ( which is alien to most if not all species and was not in place in the earely dcenturies of the christian church ), emotional + sexual frustration etc.

The games you play to make your point are unnecessary. The report shows that of the males and females abused, babysitters were the most prevalent authority figure abusers out there. (I'm ignoring the "Other authority figures" category because it isn't specific enough). You are cherry picking the statistics to prove a point that is not supported by the evidence.

Even when you lump religious ministers together with religious teachers the only way for you to assert that these are the chief abusers is if you ignore all females, which happen to account for the majority of those who suffered abused in the survey (66 males as opposed to 71 females). Why ignore them? Why introduce spurious claims that celibacy leads to paedophilia?

I've got no idea what your personal experiences are with respect to child abuse - if something happened to you I can only offer my condolences - but there is no reason to cherry pick the evidence to provide a false picture. We aren't actually on different sides of this debate. We both know that priests abused and that the RCC (at whatever levels) tried to hide this.

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

but decades ago people who were abused by the Priest simply did not complain. They were told they were against the Catholic church if they did, and who would believe their word over that of a priest anyway ... and they were going to hell if they complained. If they persisted and persisted the RCC sometimes got them to sign a secrecy statement. Shame on them.

Yes, shame on them. But you miss the point. All abusers will try to use methods to silence the victims. A priest saying "If you tell you will go to hell" is no different from a cousin saying "If you tell they will take you away from your parents". gimmebroadband shared his (?) own experience of this.

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

All abusers will try to use methods to silence the victims. A priest saying "If you tell you will go to hell" is no different from a cousin saying "If you tell they will take you away from your parents".

Because of the power the Priest had, most people would not complain against him. who would believe their word over that of a priest anyway ... and they were going to hell if they complained. The priest , being the priest, could also threaten "If you tell they will take you away from your parents". A cousin's threats could not have the same level of gravity as the threats from the all powerful man of the church, who knew and advised of the consequences of going against the church. Who would believe a lying child to the word of the Priest ?

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Statistics are funny things, no? For instance, you are fond of putting 18.2% (religious teachers) and 9.1% (religious ministers) together. But that is only half the story because you are only reporting abuse perpetrated against males by authority figures. When one actually looks at the collated data for both sexes you will note that category of babysitters topped the table in terms of reported sexual abuse instances.

In real terms, the amount of people reporting abuse at the hands of babysitters was 33 people (male and female). Compare this to the 24 people (male and female) who suffered abuse at the hands of religious ministers and religious teachers - that's two different categories, btw. Given the dislocated nature of babysitting (my impression is that it is largely unregulated and fairly casual work entrusted to friends and family compared to an organisation like the RCC), I wouldn't be surprised if the figures grew given the same focus the RCC justifiably receives.

I'll say this for anyone who isn't clear. I'm not in any way defending the RCC or those who act as apologists for the cover-up that ensued. Abuse is wrong and so is any apologetic or attempts to shift the blame away from an organisation who tells us it is the moral guardian of society.

But of the babysitters, it is likely that there are more cases of abuse reported than there are cases of abuse at the hands of religious ministers and religious teachers.

I think opportunity correlates with frequency and where child-protection through state-law is inhibited by Canon law, opportunity exists.

Also, 33 babysitters out of a million babysitters is a tiny proportion compared to 24 out of what? A few thousand? Maybe ten thousandish? Going by that kind of measurement, babysitters are far more trustworthy than religious ministers and religious teachers.

Robert ninja

Leave your kid with a professional babysitter... or leave your kid with a professional priest/clergy member. Choices choices...

Ultimately, babysitters don't know each other and don't have a hierarchy. It's a mostly free-lance business. Members of the church have each other, and a couple of million euro, and political protection... all of which is utilised to the fullest to protect themselves and not others. They do naught of what they teach about selflessness and sacrafice. The RCC is a disgusting faction.

Bob Cratchet

Robert ninja wrote: »

Leave your kid with a professional babysitter... or leave your kid with a professional priest/clergy member. Choices choices...

Ultimately, babysitters don't know each other and don't have a hierarchy. It's a mostly free-lance business. Members of the church have each other, and a couple of million euro, and political protection... all of which is utilised to the fullest to protect themselves and not others. They do naught of what they teach about selflessness and sacrafice. The RCC is a disgusting faction.

Please don't feed the troll

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

I think opportunity correlates with frequency

Exactly.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Also, 33 babysitters out of a million babysitters is a tiny proportion compared to 24 out of what? A few thousand? Maybe ten thousandish? Going by that kind of measurement, babysitters are far more trustworthy than religious ministers and religious teachers.

You are just making figures up now, aren't you? It also flies in the face of the brief sense you made above. A pervert priest had access to far more children than a babysitter because of the nature of his position in a organisation that was entrusted with the safety of children across the nation. (I don't deny this or seek to defend the RCC.) We know about many of these cases because the RCC has a structure that can be scrutinised. You can't examine babysitters because they have no organisation.

If somebody can provide me with evidence that members of religious organisations are more likely to abuse than a member of the public then I'll hold my hands up and say gignio was correct. We must then all I've seen so far is the flagrant twisting of the evidence and half reported statistics to support a conclusion.

And what of the repeated claim that celibacy leads to child molestation! Are people actually suggesting that an otherwise normal man becomes so twisted inside by his lack of sexual intercourse that his sexual predilections are turned on their heads? Mercy! We should be watching out for all those members of the public who haven't had sex in years. They could turn at any moment.

The obvious course for a priest wanting to break his vows (vows I don't agree should be compulsory, btw) would be to sleep with an adult, not invert their sexuality and then break their vows. There is no evidence that celibacy turns people into paedophiles. It is a fantasy.

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is no evidence that celibacy turns people into paedophiles.

It does not turn all people in to cheats or child abusers, but its well known the sexual and emotional frustration increases the incidence of such behaviour. How else can you explain how religous "professionals" ( clergy and teachers of religion) are the largest group of the authority figues who abuse ( 27.3 % .... 9.1% plus 18.2% ).

Celibacy is not natural, and was not obligatory in the RCC in the early centuries of the church, like it is now. No other species takes vows of celibacy or has enforced celibacy. Hundreds of people were involved in running the Magdalene laundries ( now being investigated after the UN committee on torture ordered a statutory investigation by the govt ). - all were supposed to be celibate. Compare that to the track record of laundries run by non-celibates.;)

Robert ninja

You've got a guy with a bad case of blue balls who can never have sex with an adult because it would get out, constantly around children... and he thinks everyone is a sinner... and he thinks god is on his side.

Are people actually suggesting that an otherwise normal man becomes so twisted inside by his lack of sexual intercourse that his sexual predilections are turned on their heads?

Bingo! As gigino said, it's very unnaural and can lead to deep mental problems and aberrant behaviour. I wouldn't say it's a one way ticket to becoming pedo, tho. In fact, most people who actually go through with the sexual abuse of a child are not pedo in the sense that they're sexually aroused by children... it usually comes from deeer mental n' sexual problems... children are just easy prey is all. Will believe most things an adult says and often think it's their fault if they get abused... and priests have no other skill other than telling people how sinful they are and the priest can 'help' them with that.

gigino

Robert ninja wrote: »

and priests have no other skill other than telling people how sinful they are and the priest can 'help' them with that.

and warning them that they go to hell if they tell anyone, and how wrong it would be and anti-catholic to complain about a priest...and if they did complain, they were told they should move on and the best way of dealing with it was by telling nobody + maybe moving the priest elsewhere... it was not Gods will to be public about it , and the victim should think of the embarrasment it would cause to everyone if it went public... .and if that did not work the RCC was not beyond getting people to sign that they would not tell anyone.

Quote "But this is exactly what Cardinal Brady did in 1975.

He heard the heart-rending story of pain suffered by two children.

They described to Cardinal Brady just what happened to them. When he reads Siobhan's words above, maybe Cardinal Brady will be transported back to the day he heard what happened to them.

He got them to sign away their freedom of speech.

Excommunication if they didn't?"

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

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Exactly.

And priests have more opportunity.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are just making figures up now, aren't you? It also flies in the face of the brief sense you made above. A pervert priest had access to far more children than a babysitter because of the nature of his position in a organisation that was entrusted with the safety of children across the nation. (I don't deny this or seek to defend the RCC.) We know about many of these cases because the RCC has a structure that can be scrutinised. You can't examine babysitters because they have no organisation.

Well, have you ever baby-sat children? Almost every adult babysits at some time or another. Statistically, almost none of people who babysit abuse children.

Also, the 33 abuse cases committed by babysitters probably involve 33 babysitters whereas the 24 cases of abuse carried out by religious teachers and ministers probably involve just a few individuals.

There is another thing that your statistical analysis fails to consider. The benefits package that the RCC provides to paedophiles would motivate paedophiles into choosing a career in the Church. And one paedophile priest can be equivalent to many dozens of paedophile babysitters over their career.

If you want to find a paedophile, look to where the children are.

It seems stupid to me to suppose that there is not a higher incidence of abusers within churches and schools; that's where the children are!

I mean, if you wanted a pizza, you wouldn't go to a furniture shop, would you?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If somebody can provide me with evidence that members of religious organisations are more likely to abuse than a member of the public then I'll hold my hands up and say gignio was correct. We must then all I've seen so far is the flagrant twisting of the evidence and half reported statistics to support a conclusion.

So, protection of Canon law and unfettered access to children doesn't provide a rich pasture for paedophiles? And this shouldn't cause concern?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And what of the repeated claim that celibacy leads to child molestation! Are people actually suggesting that an otherwise normal man becomes so twisted inside by his lack of sexual intercourse that his sexual predilections are turned on their heads? Mercy! We should be watching out for all those members of the public who haven't had sex in years. They could turn at any moment.

And sometimes they do!

I recall once accusing you of being naive and your last statement proves definitively that you are. (That is if you believe what you have just said which I find difficult to believe in itself.)

Yes! That's exactly what people are suggesting. This is one of the strongest arguments in favour of legalising prostitution.

Unreleased sexual tension can, and does, have devastating effects.

There is a minority who can lose the run of themselves through sexual frustration and there is naturally a higher incidence of sex-crime within that particular minority.

Now, as far as statistics is concerned, that minority is evenly distributed accross the population in the same way that psychopaths are but a subgroup of that minority are paedophiles and will gravitate toward careers in schools and churches. Therefore it is reasonable to say that there is a higher incidence of child abuser in churches and schools than in other groups of society.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The obvious course for a priest wanting to break his vows (vows I don't agree should be compulsory, btw) would be to sleep with an adult, not invert their sexuality and then break their vows. There is no evidence that celibacy turns people into paedophiles. It is a fantasy.

And it happens; priests have 'housekeepers', companions, each other...

Celibacy causes sexual frustration, sexual frustration causes paedophiles to abuse children.

It really is that simple.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, shame on them. But you miss the point. All abusers will try to use methods to silence the victims. A priest saying "If you tell you will go to hell" is no different from a cousin saying "If you tell they will take you away from your parents". gimmebroadband shared his (?) own experience of this.

Good point. I referred to this earlier in the context of what Cardinal Brady was party to in 1975; breaking an oath of silence can result in excommunication. Isn't that the same as being damned to hell?

Imagine being the child in a dimly-lit room, an authorative priest standing over you and saying, 'Don't tell or you will be damned to hell' and smiling gently at you. And he reaches accross the desk.

What must that have been like?

Then the priest hands you a pen and says, 'Sign here', as other officious looking men stare at you sternly.

You'd probably wish that you'd kept your mouth shut and said nothing about Brendan Smyth.

gimmebroadband

Mark Mallet has posted an interesting blog about the fall of some of the clergy!!

wolfsbane

I heard this guy interviewed this morning. He named his son after the priest, so close a friend he was.

He was my priest and my friend. Then I found out he was a paedophile
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/19/kit-cunningham-child-abuse


***********************************************************************************
Revelation 18:20 “Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you holy apostles and prophets, for God has avenged you on her!”

himnextdoor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Mark Mallet has posted an interesting blog about the fall of some of the clergy!!

The fact that paedophilia within the Church was prophecised makes matters worse. Should the Church allow Satan into their midst simply because prophecy is being fulfilled? Shouldn't such prophecies be avoided rather than invited?

Priests are supposed to fight evil, not break bread with it.

gimmebroadband

himnextdoor wrote: »

The fact that paedophilia within the Church was prophecised makes matters worse. Should the Church allow Satan into their midst simply because prophecy is being fulfilled? Shouldn't such prophecies be avoided rather than invited?

Priests are supposed to fight evil, not break bread with it.

The abusers were so adept at hiding it that the majority of Priests didn't know it was happening, when it became public, they were as surprised as anyone else. It was the abusers that were 'breaking bread' with satan, not the innocent Priests! Late as it is, it is now being dealt with by the Church, the same can't be said of other denominations or establishments!!!

CiaranMT

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The abusers were so adept at hiding it that the majority of Priests didn't know it was happening, when it became public, they were as surprised as anyone else. It was the abusers that were 'breaking bread' with satan, not the innocent Priests! Late as it is, it is now being dealt with by the Church, the same can't be said of other denominations or establishments!!!

The priests never know, but the hierarchy have long known of the problem. Hence why the Church had rules governing this behaviour from the Dark Ages.

And if you call what the RCC has done so far as 'dealing with it', then they have pulled the wool over your eyes. Those who committed these crimes (remember, we're talking about child rape) should have been offered up to the national authorities in the countries they lived in. Has the RCC done this? Anywhere?

himnextdoor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The abusers were so adept at hiding it that the majority of Priests didn't know it was happening, when it became public, they were as surprised as anyone else. It was the abusers that were 'breaking bread' with satan, not the innocent Priests! Late as it is, it is now being dealt with by the Church, the same can't be said of other denominations or establishments!!!

I'm not saying that all priests are evil any more than I am saying that all teachers and babysitters are evil but I think that it is fair to say that Cardinal Brady, for one, broke bread with evil.

My problem with the current stance of the Church on this issue is that it seems to say 'Don't worry guys, it's all part of the plan but we can beat this evil by praying and fasting.'

Well, I'm sorry, we don't live in Harry Potter land, it's down to us, you and me, to deal with evil where we find it and in this the Church has failed utterly. They first tried to hide the problem, then they played it down, then they admitted there was a problem and now they want us to pray and fast in order to solve the problem.

At every stage the Church has done the smallest amount possible when addressing this issue; at every stage appearing to be contrite.

Oh, and they have asked unknown paedophiles to hand themselves in to the authorities.

I think the question of change should be taken out of the hands of the Church and implemented by the state but the state has failed to act in the interests of child-protection too. It is ridiculous that Canon law should supercede state law.

What the Church needs now is to be infiltrated by 'good'.

gigino

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The abusers were so adept at hiding it that the majority of Priests didn't know it was happening, when it became public, they were as surprised as anyone else.

Are you speaking for "the majority of Priests" ???
And did they really not know abuse was happening in the RC church, when everyone else did ? Maybe the Priests did not look on it as abuse, only a little bit of release of their sexual and emotional frustration due to encouraged lifetime celibacy ? I remember many many years ago , before the media had the neck to talk about scandals in the then-church dominated society, and when the subject of confession coming up, people asking what do you get from the Priest for a ****, and some lads answering you got a twix and a few bags of tayto. Abuse was well known to be happening by most ordinary people, but people were afraid to speak out, as they did not want to go to hell. If someone was so audacious to complain about it enough , the person was warned to keep quiet, and the priest was moved on. And you say the " majority of Priests didn't know it was happening "? Do you think the majorirty of bishops also did not know abuse in the church was happening, when the likes of "Cardinal Brady got them ( the victims of abuse ) to sign away their freedom of speech.....Excommunication if they didn't"

And you, gimmebroadband, still have not answered "Those who committed these crimes (remember, we're talking about child rape) should have been offered up to the national authorities in the countries they lived in. Has the RCC done this? Anywhere? "

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Even the newsweek poll says that 4% of abuse was committed by Priests, yet Priests make up only a fraction of a percentage of the population.

No it does not!
Where does Newsweek say "4% of abuse was committed by Priests"?
Where does it say
"Priests make up only a fraction of a percentage of the population"?

what is the link between the rate of abuse committed 50 years ago and the proportion clergy are today? why are you ignoring the level of percentage of population clergy were when the abuse was recorded?

On top of making up stats you are repeatedly making unfounded claims. the fraction of population that priests constitute today has no statistical link to the offence rate at a different time when priests and monks and religious order members constituted a much higher proportion of the population.

You have been given such statistics before but you ignored them and then later when pressed on other issues for evidence you switch to the issue you ignored. No doubt when pressed on this you will revert to making another different claim and when pressed on that revert to this one.

Can you explain why an abnormally high percentage amount of Priests / religous abuse boys ?

No because you made up the statistic . what for example is abnormally high?

The SAVI report found that religous ministers and religous teachers are 27.3 % ( 9.1% plus 18.2% ) of the authority figues who abuse. ( ref : table 4.11, SAVI report ).

Of which "priests" ( which are "ministers" not necessarily Catholic Priests by the way) constitute 9.1% (SIX people in total of a population of about 700). the fact that 60 people were "Authority" and about 300 people were "abusers" would suggest every fourth person is an abuser.

You have had all the SAVI problems pointed out to you.
The SAVI report was based on a telephone survey of around 3000 people
It refers to abuse in a very broad way - e.g. as suggestive remarks, watching porn in others presence, sexual harassment including of adults.
The report is a survey of people who had experiences up to eighteen years of age
It is not of prepubescent children.
Other reports suggest most clerical abuse was of teenage and not undeveloped children.
You have been shown links to these also.

People have speculated its because of the hierarchy of the church , celibacy ( which is alien to most if not all species and was not in place in the earely dcenturies of the christian church ), emotional + sexual frustration etc.

Which people? You mean you and a few others who admitted they hate the Church?
Can you produce any actual evidence from people who are either church members or authentic researchers who have "speculated" celebacy or constancy is a causal factor in pedophilia?

I suggest you can't and you raise this issue of celibacy when you are asked to support you figures on the rate of abuse. then when challenged on celibacy you will no doubt claim it is a conspiracy in the church and when asked for evedence on that you are back to the level of abuse being "abnormally high"

Why don't you try just supporting the arguments you are making instead of hopping off into another issue?

himnextdoor wrote: »

But of the babysitters, it is likely that there are more cases of abuse reported than there are cases of abuse at the hands of religious ministers and religious teachers.

And you evidence for that assertion is?

I think opportunity correlates with frequency and where child-protection through state-law is inhibited by Canon law, opportunity exists.

You think this because??? And how does Canon Law current inhibit State law?

Also, 33 babysitters out of a million babysitters is a tiny proportion compared to 24 out of what?

You are fiddling the statistics!. Read the report! 33 babysitters out of 700 abusers out of 3000 people!
24 by the way is NOT "Clergy" TWELVE are clergy. And out of the same 700 and same 3000!

A few thousand? Maybe ten thousandish? Going by that kind of measurement, babysitters are far more trustworthy than religious ministers and religious teachers.

No going by that rate which is "normalised" for the same population babysitters are five times less trustworthy than Ministers. But "others" constitute the biggest group of all.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Ultimately, babysitters don't know each other and don't have a hierarchy. It's a mostly free-lance business.

Again read the report! Some of the babysitters were family members as were some of the "ministers" . Babysitting in today's terms is totally different from babysitting in the 40s 50s 60s and 70s.

Abusing clergy did not have a hierarchy! i am not aware of any evidence of an organisation being involved. They were ALL free-lance! And none were Bishops.

Members of the church have each other, and a couple of million euro, and political protection... all of which is utilised to the fullest to protect themselves and not others.

This is not true either and not supported by evidence. Again the Reposts have been supplied in this thread. While ther is some evidence that in religious orders lay abusers were exposed more and order members protected more there is no evidence outside orders and even within orders it was not a case of "fullest protection" of members and no protection of non members.

They do naught of what they teach about selflessness and sacrafice. The RCC is a disgusting faction.

Well that exposes you real beliefs! That you hate the Roman Church and their clergy.

gigino wrote: »

It does not turn all people in to cheats or child abusers, but its well known the sexual and emotional frustration increases the incidence of such behaviour.

how is this "well known"? Bald assertion is not evidence!

How else can you explain how religous "professionals" ( clergy and teachers of religion) are the largest group of the authority figues who abuse ( 27.3 % .... 9.1% plus 18.2% ).

They aren't! You have been shown they arent. the survey is only opinion by phone but taking it even to be roughly accurate Clergy are one of the smallest groups. Only by adding in teachers of religion could they get it bigger than "babysitter" ( by one single offender) and even than "others" are a larger group. And this applies only to boys! And you have no idea iof the boys were teenage boys but in fact other evidence ( already supplied in the thread) suggests they were older boys in their mid to late teens. Still not fight but still not pedophilia!

Celibacy is not natural, and was not obligatory in the RCC in the early centuries of the church, like it is now.

LOL! "Natural Law" now? Eating raw meat is not natural is it? Should it be against the law? Striking other people when you are angry is natural is it? So should people not control themselves or should smacking children also be against the law?
You don't even like the church and are not a member so please don't lecture on what you think their rules should be. Do you really also hate the Deli Lama or Bhudist monks who also are celibate and vegetarian? NO! It seems your hatred is reserved for Roman Catholic only.

No other species takes vows of celibacy or has enforced celibacy.

Some swans do? there are I am sure other examples.
Maybe other species have funerals and weddings. Are they therefore "unnatural"?

Hundreds of people were involved in running the Magdalene laundries ( now being investigated after the UN committee on torture ordered a statutory investigation by the govt ).

Changing tack again when cornered on another issue?

- all were supposed to be celibate. Compare that to the track record of laundries run by non-celibates.;)

Compare the track record of regimes run by atheists!
Mao 50 million dead
Stalin - 50 million dead
Pol Pot- millions including maybe 10,000 priests. You would probably be glad if they were
Catholics but as it happens most were Buddhists.

gigino wrote: »

and warning them that they go to hell if they tell anyone, and how wrong it would be and anti-catholic to complain about a priest...and if they did complain, they were told they should move on and the best way of dealing with it was by telling nobody + maybe moving the priest elsewhere... it was not Gods will to be public about it , and the victim should think of the embarrasment it would cause to everyone if it went public... .and if that did not work the RCC was not beyond getting people to sign that they would not tell anyone.

You have been shown documents from the Early christian Church in this thread which contradict that! But as usual you are changing tack! Now you deflect the criticism of supplying evidence to support the claims of celibacy by introducing the conspiracy theory.

Quote "But this is exactly what Cardinal Brady did in 1975.

He heard the heart-rending story of pain suffered by two children.

They described to Cardinal Brady just what happened to them. When he reads Siobhan's words above, maybe Cardinal Brady will be transported back to the day he heard what happened to them.

He got them to sign away their freedom of speech.

Excommunication if they didn't?"

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

[/quote]


the above source is OPINION. the Brady issue was already dealt with in this thread a year ago and you have also been shown the evidence of that. Can you show any of that evidence to be wrong? Brady did not instigate such a policy or threaten excommunication and you have no such evidence! But you will also ignore this and move back to another unsupported claim!

himnextdoor wrote: »

Good point. I referred to this earlier in the context of what Cardinal Brady was party to in 1975; breaking an oath of silence can result in excommunication. Isn't that the same as being damned to hell?

Evidence? This is all dealt with in the thread. When did Brady damn anyone to hell or threaten to?

Imagine being the child in a dimly-lit room, an authorative priest standing over you and saying, 'Don't tell or you will be damned to hell' and smiling gently at you. And he reaches accross the desk.

What must that have been like?

You are making it up! Brady didn't do that and you have no evidence he did!

Then the priest hands you a pen and says, 'Sign here', as other officious looking men stare at you sternly.

You'd probably wish that you'd kept your mouth shut and said nothing about Brendan Smyth.

You are making it up!

gigino wrote: »

Are you speaking for "the majority of Priests" ???
And did they really not know abuse was happening in the RC church, when everyone else did ?

And your evidence everyone else did is? an opinion poll where people believe 60 per cent of priests are abusers? give us a break! LOL!

Maybe the Priests did not look on it as abuse, only a little bit of release of their sexual and emotional frustration due to encouraged lifetime celibacy ?

And you have no evidence for this do you? But you keep saying it!
It isn't true! And you can't show it to be true.

Abuse was well known to be happening by most ordinary people, but people were afraid to speak out, as they did not want to go to hell.

Again you have no evidence for this!

If someone was so audacious to complain about it enough , the person was warned to keep quiet, and the priest was moved on. And you say the " majority of Priests didn't know it was happening "?

Correct! Wher is your counter evidence?

Do you think the majorirty of bishops also did not know abuse in the church was happening,

Yes. Wher is your evience that the majority of Bishops did know or even that one per cent of the Bishops knew?

when the likes of "Cardinal Brady got them ( the victims of abuse ) to sign away their freedom of speech.....Excommunication if they didn't"

NO he didnt!

1. He didnt threathen them with excommunication!
2. He was not a Cardinalk or a Bishop at the time!
3. the only case he was involved in was in taking a statement of two people who were abused by smyth. Both signed their statement as is normal.

And you, gimmebroadband, still have not answered "Those who committed these crimes (remember, we're talking about child rape) should have been offered up to the national authorities in the countries they lived in. Has the RCC done this? Anywhere? "

YES! Case in point. - Brendan Smyth died in prison!

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

YES! Case in point. - Brendan Smyth died in prison!

It is because you are so fond of brandishing the term 'LIAR!' about that I will address your last point first and seperately.

I find it incredible that you characterise Brendan Smyth's arrest as 'being handed up to the authorities'.

Both this state and the church disgraced themselves in the Brendan-gate affair. It cost Fianna Fail their place in government and the church housed and protected Smyth from the authorities. Both organisations played politics and brought upon themselves the wrath of the population.

Neither the state nor the church cooperated in the apprehending of Smyth and in fact did all they could to avoid putting Smyth into the hands of justice just as the church did in 1975!

Are you a Catholic Priest ISAW? And why is it okay for you to misrepresent the facts whilst calling people 'LIAR!' for interpreting statistical data correctly?

Remember, if it weren't for the actions of the church, Smyth could have gone to jail in 1975; the church would have protected dozens of victims against evil and would have broken their duck.

It was precisely because of church policy that dozens of children were raped and buggered and humiliated and tortured by Smyth and I understand that at least one victim has committed suicide for some unknown reason; the church made it happen. Don't you get it?

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

It is because you are so fond of brandishing the term 'LIAR!' about that I will address your last point first and seperately.

That has been dealt with. I strongly suggest you drop it.

gigino

Even as far back as 1993, in the United States , where Roman Catholicism is a minority religion and before the recent waves of scandals hit the RCC there, most clerical abuse cases involved the RCC.

http://www.newsweek.com/1993/08/15/priests-and-abuse.html


"Indeed, the Cranston, R.I.-based Survivor Connections group has tallied reports of 508 cases of alleged clerical abuse of youngsters. While most involve Catholic priests, their records include charges lodged against Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist and Greek Orthodox clergy. But in at least one sense, there may be an unexpected connection between celibacy and child abuse, according to Dr. James Gill, a Jesuit and psychiatrist at the Institute of Living in Hartford, Conn.... "
"...some young people deep down fear their sexual inclinations and think the ambience and lifestyle of the priesthood will protect them from acting out their sexual urges."

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

And you evidence for that assertion is?

Babysitters generally show respect to the parents of their charges. Children would have more confidence reporting abuse because of that.

However, abused children know that their parents are just as afraid of the Priests as they are and so would be more reluctant to report abuse.

Common sense should prevail too.

ISAW wrote: »

You think this because??? And how does Canon Law current inhibit State law?

Oh dear.

Who'd suspect a Priest? Or a teacher for that matter.

Canon law make the reporting of child-abuse discretionary. That is wrong and against the spirit of child-protection.

Common sense should prevail too.

ISAW wrote: »

You are fiddling the statistics!. Read the report! 33 babysitters out of 700 abusers out of 3000 people!
24 by the way is NOT "Clergy" TWELVE are clergy. And out of the same 700 and same 3000!

That's a red-herring; I'm fiddling nothing. It is the statistics that are fiddling. Almost everyone falls into the set of 'babysitters' and almost noone falls into the set of 'clergy'.

Aren't these groups part of a Venn diagram? How many clergy committed child-abuse in the role of babysitter or family member.

What the statistics do show is that there is a disproportionate amount of abusers contained within in a small number of small groups of the population and that there needs to be better monitoring of those groups.

ISAW wrote: »

No going by that rate which is "normalised" for the same population babysitters are five times less trustworthy than Ministers. But "others" constitute the biggest group of all.

No because almost everyone among the three-thousand falls into the babysitter set.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

No it does not!
Where does Newsweek say "4% of abuse was committed by Priests"?

Below is the extract from the magazine, word for word. I highlight the important bits for you.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

"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 about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children"

Bear in mind
(a) the study was paid for + authorised by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops - would you anyone trust a study on Jews done by the Nazis ?
(b) they decided which were plausible accusations + which were not
(c) they limited their study to pre-1992. Since then people are perhaps less afaid to speak out about their local priest, and are less likely to be silenced / covered up / hushed up.

To put things in context , the total number of Roman Catholic priests between 1950 and 1992 account for 00.03 % of the people who lived in the USA in that period.