The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Bob Cratchet

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.

They might have know it was coming, but they did not know the form, and it's far from over yet. People should never ever underestimate the complex cunning of Satan. Far too many people, including those in the Church do. The only way mortal man can ever hope to avoid someone as cunning as Satan, is to avoid the seven deadly sins, keep the ten commandments, and actively seek the graces God provides.

himnextdoor

gigino wrote: »

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.

I wonder if there is an official figure to show what percentage of all child-abuse offences were committed by that 4% of 00.03% of the population.

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

would you anyone trust a study on Jews done by the Nazis ?

That is a false analogy that betrays your prejudice. Being Catholic is not the same as being a Nazi. A report on sexual abuse from a Catholic organisation is not automatically wrong because it comes from a Catholic organisation.

gigino wrote: »

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.

You are happy to include females in that statistic but refuse to acknowledge them in the SAVI report because they skewed your argument.

Morbert

gigino wrote: »

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.

I am not seeing any claim that 4% of abuse was committed by priests.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

I am not seeing any claim that 4% of abuse was committed by priests.

That's the thing. We can all agree that the abuse and cover-up was wrong on so many levels, and we don't require the statistical obfuscation that gignio engages in to know this.

Bob Cratchet

gigino wrote: »

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 ?

gigino wrote: »

Even the newsweek poll says that 4% of abuse was committed by Priests

ISAW

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.

A term I used how many times (in caps) in this whole discussion?
I'm not going to get into that debate because it is currently being discussed elsewhere.

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

so what. he was convicted in a court and dies in prison. It was not an error in the Church that prevented his prosecution but a delaty in the State solicitors office.

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.

Maire Gaeoghan Quinn was Minister of Justice at the time. Labour pulled out of governmnet based on when she knew about the Smyth case. In retrospect it turns out she told the truth.

Both organisations played politics and brought upon themselves the wrath of the population.

MGQ didn't "play politics". she knew when she knew and others might have played politics but if you are accusing her she is still active in politics and you are taking her good name if you are suggesting she did anything to cover up or even prevent Smyth coming to trial.
Are you suggesting that because if you are you had better climb down rapidly. I have never used my personal identity on boards but now you are using the personal identity of a European commissioner and suggesting she hid something.

Just to be clear (because the record is there for all to see) are you saying the FF Minister of the day MGQ was trying to slow up, prevent or subvert the course of justice with regard to Brendan Smyth? When you say "No" I'm sure we can continue. If you don't say no you are making allegations against a current well known and respected figure and you had better have your evidence ready.

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!

and your evidence that the Minister of Justice did not cvo operate in apprehending Smyth is?
And your evidence the Church did so in 1975 is?

Are you a Catholic Priest ISAW?

What has that to do with anything? When you can't win the debate do you always resort to attacking the person?

And why is it okay for you to misrepresent the facts whilst calling people 'LIAR!'

That is currently under discussion elsewhe3re I cant possibly comment on the "LIAR" thing until such a discussion is finished.

for interpreting statistical data correctly?

What statistical data are you suggesting was interpreted correctly. You have just walked into a mine field of gigino's comments where the same stats originally suppl;ied by me are interpreted in several different ways usually to suggest the clergy of the roman church are involved in pedophilia to a level way more than what is claimned by gigino to be "normal"

Remember, if it weren't for the actions of the church, Smyth could have gone to jail in 1975;

I dispute that. What crime would he have gone to jail for?

It was precisely because of church policy that dozens of children were raped and buggered and humiliated and tortured by Smyth

Your evidence is?

and I understand that at least one victim has committed suicide for some unknown reason;

that is a contradiction! If it is because of Smyth how are you claiming it is for an unknown reason?

the church made it happen. Don't you get it?

I get you make a lot of claims and supply no evidence.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

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"

I highlight for you
had been accused of
Which is not as you claimed "4% of abuse was committed by Priests"?


If 90 per cent of Jews had been accused of being criminals does that mean the Nazis were correct ? Or does it mean hate based accusations ( the sort of thing you keep rehearsing) are not actually FACT but are you unsupported hate filled opinion?

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 ?

So you are saying your own source is untrustworthy?

(b) they decided which were plausible accusations + which were not

Try highlighting accusations and not plausible eh?
and while you are at it how many convictions?
You ignore a basic point of criminal law i.e. accusation does not constitute conviction!

(c) they limited their study to pre-1992.

A bit like how you take your figures for percent of abuse from the 1950s but use the percent of clergy in society based on 2001 figures?

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.

Which if anything would suggest the number of cases would have been larger when things were not spoken about than when they were!

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.

Your source for that is?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

I am not seeing any claim that 4% of abuse was committed by priests.

Message 1174

Even the newsweek poll says that 4% of abuse was committed by Priests,

Just wait around gigino frequently does this sort of thing and when challenged moves on to blaming celibacy for pedophilia ( no evidence again) and when challenged on that balme a church coverup ( no evidence again) and when challenged back to extra normal levels of Roman Catholic clergy. and on the cycle goes spreading hate at every rotation.

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is a false analogy that betrays your prejudice. Being Catholic is not the same as being a Nazi.

Not to gigino who is happy to claim Hitler was the leader of the current Pope.

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Being Catholic is not the same as being a Nazi..

Of course not, and I never said it was.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A report on sexual abuse from a Catholic organisation is not automatically wrong because it comes from a Catholic organisation. .

No, but there is reason to believe that a report on child sex abuse which was paid for + authorised by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, can indeed be skewed in favour of the same Bishops. You do'nt have to look very far to see how figures can be mainpulated eg only "plausible" accusations made between 1950 and 1992 were accepted etc. Even so, it still found about "4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children". If 4% of the people who lived in the states in that period had been accused of
sexual misconduct involving children, you would be talking about an eight digit amount of people ( well over 10 million people ).

While the figures from even the RC funded and authorised point to child sexual abuse being endemic in the RCC in the USA, I would prefer to look at figures from a more independent study, if one was available. Look at the track record of the RCC here in Ireland, how it was involved in cover up.

"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]

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are happy to include females in that statistic but refuse to acknowledge them in the SAVI report because they skewed your argument.

In the Savi report I quoted the amount of abused boys who were abused by Clergy / religous ( 5.8% ). Because Priests had not the same access to girls, not as many girls were abused. Or maybe some of the type of people drawn to a life of celibacy in seminaries etc had more homosexual tendencies that the general population....who knows for certain until an independent widespread study is done on the RCC .

ISAW wrote: »

Not to gigino who is happy to claim Hitler was the leader of the current Pope.

Actually I am saddened at the truth of the matter, which as I said is that Mr. Ratzinger once wore the Swastika on his sleeve - and was a member of the Hitler youth - when millions of his fellow countrymen were herding millions of people ( jews, gypsies, communists, disabled etc ) to the gas chambers. He was not a conscientous objector.

himnextdoor wrote: »

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?

I have been called a liar by ISAW as well on many occassions, and I too would like to know why Priests have the arrogance to misrepresent the facts whilst calling people 'LIAR!' for interpreting statistical data correctly?

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

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

"Babysittter" as definied by the SAVI report is different. Most of them were grown men.

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.

Not true1 What evidence do you have that people are more reluctant to report clerical abuse then to report abuse by say their own parent or sibling or uncle?

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.

What has suspecting a teacher got to do with cannon law?
And WHAT canon law makes the reporting of child abuse discretionary?
Can you CITE the particular canon you claim?

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'.

Again you are fiddling!
The stats are there or all to see.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72964420&postcount=1177


"Other" is the biggest group (57) followed by babysitter (33) followed by teacher in a religious school or of religion (12 ) followed by "Minister" (12 which are not necessarily Roman Catholic) . Minister by the way in numbers (12) are comparable to the three smaller cases of the non religious teachers ( 9) boss ( 8) and coach (6).

as i stated it is a telephone poll and almost no one falls into "clergy" and whatever into "babysitter" because of all the people in the sample of 3000 people twelve stated that they had been "abused" (abused = including non sexual contact and verbal suggestions made to them up to the age of eighteen and not necessarily as pre pubescent kids) by Ministers but 33 by babysitters.

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

LOL! More fiddling! Actually you didn't read the report did you? As I stated I have problems with the sample and the reporting -for example grouping "Minister" with teacher. but the report mentions two clergy were also family members. Why don't you go and read it before you go off on the wild goose chase trying to fiddle stats to make them support what you want then to say rather than use objective analysis?

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.

REally? How do the statistics show 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.?

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

How? do you even read the report?

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

In the Savi report I quoted the amount of abused boys who were abused by Clergy / religous ( 5.8% ).

That isnt true!

"Boys" means males under "eighteen" and not pedophile targets i.e. pre pubescent pre teens.
"Religious" means teachers and not clergy!

SAVI is a survey on the telephone and one can not show it to be representative of the population. Other research has the figures in and around the same figure with Clergy being one per cent or less of abusers and Roman Catholic clergy being one of the smallest of all clergy in spite of the fact that Roman Catholic clergy outnumber other clergy by a factor of tens to hundreds to one.

Because Priests had not the same access to girls, not as many girls were abused.

And your evidence for that is?

Or maybe some of the type of people drawn to a life of celibacy in seminaries etc had more homosexual tendencies that the general population.

There is some evidence to support this claim and it has been shown in this thread. But this is homosexual attraction to sexually developed boys and not to per developed pre teen boys so it isn't pedophilia.

actually I am saddened at the truth of the matter, which as I said is that Mr. Ratzinger once wore the swastika on his sleeve

And your evidence of that is?

- and was a member of the Hitler youth

By law all boys in Germany were members of the Hitler Youth. Ratzinger or his family never supported the Nazis. There is no evidence they did and much to the contrary.

- when millions of his fellow countrymen were herding millions of people ( jews, gypsies, communists, disabled etc ) to the gas chambers.

Millions of Germans were not doing that. Of the Nazis even only a small minority of them worked in the extermination camps and gangs. Of the general population Catholics didn't vote for Hitler.

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

No, but there is reason to believe that a report on child sex abuse which was paid for + authorised by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, can indeed be skewed in favour of the same Bishops.

What evidence do you have to counter the findings of the report? So far you have only presented suspicions and accusations but nothing of substance.

gigino wrote: »

You do'nt have to look very far to see how figures can be mainpulated

Indeed, your use of statistics springs to mind.

gigino wrote: »

eg only "plausible" accusations made between 1950 and 1992 were accepted etc.

Do you have a specific charge you wish to make? Or are you just presenting your suspicions in hopes that they pass as something more substantial?

gigino wrote: »

Even so, it still found about "4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children".

If that is what the report says. That's what it says! I have no reason to doubt it merely because the CCB commissioned an independent college to compile the report.

gigino wrote: »

If 4% of the people who lived in the states in that period had been accused of
sexual misconduct involving children, you would be talking about an eight digit amount of people ( well over 10 million people ).

But the whole point is that a figure of 4% reflects child molestation rates amongst the US population as a whole (male and female perpetrates). Studies have placed the range of molestation between 3% and 9% of the US population. This is exactly the point of the Newsweek article. A point that escapes you.

To be sure there are additional layers of crime involved when we consider the bigger picture. For example, the betrayal in the form of a sustained cover-up by an organisation that was supposed to be an exemplar of morality, and subsequent (and continuing) lack of contrition by some. But the simple fact is that the percentage of paedophiles within the RCC is approximately the same as the percentage of paedophiles outside it. It's no defence for the RCC to say, "we molest at the same rate as everyone else" but it appears to be the case.

gigino wrote: »

While the figures from even the RC funded and authorised point to child sexual abuse being endemic in the RCC in the USA, I would prefer to look at figures from a more independent study, if one was available.

Then it also points to child molestation being endemic with US society. I'm guessing that it might be the same in other nations.

gigino wrote: »

In the Savi report I quoted the amount of abused boys who were abused by Clergy / religous ( 5.8% ). Because Priests had not the same access to girls, not as many girls were abused. Or maybe some of the type of people drawn to a life of celibacy in seminaries etc had more homosexual tendencies that the general population.

Firstly, you ignore over half the respondents of the phone survey who reported being molested by authority figures. There is absolutely no reason for this unless you want to present statistics in such a way that they tell your side of the debate.

Secondly, what have homosexual tendencies and celibacy got to do with being a paedophile? If you are a homosexual you are attracted to other adult members of the same sex. If you are celibate you don't engage in sexual intercourse. Either present evidence that homosexuality and celibacy can be causally linked to paedophilia or stop making the same flimsy accusation.

Thirdly, let's not conflate the "4%" statistic (those who did the abusing) with the 5.8% (boys who suffered abuse). I feel I have to point this out because of your slipshod use of figures.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

"Religious" means teachers and not clergy!

You are wrong again ISAW. See the table below . As pointed out to you before the percentage of abused boys who say the abuser was a member of the clergy ( ie religous minister ) or religous teacher , was 5.8%.

This combined group of "Religous professionals" ( Priests, brothers etc ) is, according to the SAVI statistics, the single biggest group of abusers among authority figures, responsible for 27.3% of boys abused by authority figures. Only Priests could try to claim that is not in the SAVI report and call people who quote the SAVI report liars !.

ISAW wrote: »

Other research has the figures in and around the same figure with Clergy being one per cent or less of abusers and Roman Catholic clergy being one of the smallest of all clergy in spite of the fact that Roman Catholic clergy outnumber other clergy by a factor of tens to hundreds to one.
.

lol. And your evidence for that is?

ISAW wrote: »

There is some evidence to support this claim and it has been shown in this thread. But this is homosexual attraction to sexually developed boys and not to per developed pre teen boys so it isn't pedophilia.

All abuse of children is extremely bad , and you should not be attempting to cloud the issue by insinuating abuse to 13 or 14 year olds is less serious than to a 12 year old.

ISAW wrote: »

By law all boys in Germany were members of the Hitler Youth. Ratzinger or his family never supported the Nazis.

His family do not come in to the discussion. Ratzinger himself was in the Hitler Youth. He was not a conscientous objector.

ISAW wrote: »

Millions of Germans were not doing that. Of the Nazis even only a small minority of them worked in the extermination camps and gangs.

Millions of Germans were Nazis and while millions of germans did not literally work in the concentration camps, or in the forces which rounded up the Jews etc, or on the railways which transported them to the camps, they were part of the state aparatus which exterminated Jews etc.

ISAW wrote: »

Of the general population Catholics didn't vote for Hitler.

Hitler was born and reared a Roman Catholic, like most of his fellow countrymen. ( He was born in Germanys ally, Austria ). Hitler initially got his support in Bavaria, the RC part of Germany. Many of Hitlers top men were catholics. Hitler got his support from the general population, he did not differentiate between the Christian denominations in Germany. All were part of the master race as far as he was concerned. ( except the Jews, gypsies, etc etc )

Fanny Cradock

This thread is not about Hitler.

Any further comments about this will be deleted.

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Studies have placed the range of molestation between 3% and 9% of the US population.

Would you have a link for that please ?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's no defence for the RCC to say, "we molest at the same rate as everyone else" but it appears to be the case.

If that was the case tens of millions of Americans would have had plausible accusations of child sexual abuse made against them, for the period between 1950 and 1992. I would find it difficult to believe that was the case.

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

Would you have a link for that please ?

I messed up the link in the last post - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Prevalence_and_child_molestation. It ties in with the Newsweek article.

gigino wrote: »

If that was the case tens of millions of Americans would have had plausible accusations of child sexual abuse made against them, for the period between 1950 and 1992. I would find it difficult to believe that was the case.

At an estimate of 4% it would work out at about 8,000,000 adults out of an adult population (15-65) of 200,000,000 who have engaged in some form of child sexual abuse. An incredible figure! What constitutes abuse probably doesn't bear thinking about but the John Jay report lists quite a number of categories.

By way of comparison, let's look at domestic violence (which encompass many forms of violence, including sexual, verbal, physical etc.). The US department of Justice found that 25% of women and 8% of men suffer from some forms of domestic violence/ rape from their spouce. That works out at a very rough figure of about 66,000,000 people or 1/3rd of the population who have suffered abuse. I can only imagine that the number of abusers is less than this as some probably continue to abuse other spouses. However, they may still number in the 10 of millions. Again, another incredible statistic!

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

At an estimate of 4% it would work out at about 8,000,000 adults out of an adult population (15-65) of 200,000,000 who have engaged in some form of child sexual abuse.

And your source for the number of adult who at some stage lived in the States sometime between the years 1950 to 1992 being only 200 million is ..... ???


Thank you for the link. It comes up with such gems as "
The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known,[3][61]...."

I would find it difficult to believe tens of millions of Americans would have had plausible accusations of child sexual abuse made against them, for the period between 1950 and 1992. Do not forget 2/3rds of Amercians think, according to the newsweek survey, that the Roman Catholic church " frequently" abuses children. Now, Amercians do not think McDonalds or Burgerking, or other churches or the Disney Corporation or other groups which have frequent contact with children "frequently" abuse children. Of course the Priests answer to that is that the people are wrong and that there is no endemic problem in the church. Sad.








Your link also states "A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is commonly assumed to be and referred to as a pedophile; however, there may be other motivations for the crime[50] (such as stress, marital problems, or the unavailability of an adult partner)." I do not think marital problems would be a cause for an adult to suddenly decide to switch his sexual preferences. People can and do get other partners, go to Prostitutes / escorts etc if they wanted sexual relations outside their marriage. "Unavailability of an adult partner" on the other hand is a problem made worse by enforced celibacy. Do not forget celibacy in not a natural occurance, and was not enforced in the early centuries of the Christian church. The RCC changed the rules for its Priests as it went along. Sad.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

You are wrong again ISAW.

That is not true! And you know it is not true! because i have shown you . But you keep trolloing out the 5.8% figure as if it is roman catholic clergy. It isn't!

"Religious" means teachers and not clergy!
The table says teacher - religious
On another column it say teacher non religious
On another it says religious minister

One ONE of these is clergy - religious minister!

See the table below . As pointed out to you before the percentage of abused boys who say the abuser was a member of the clergy ( ie religous minister ) or religous teacher , was 5.8%.

And I pointed out the word "OR" means not just clergy
Isn't that true?
By the way what does "religious teacher" mean by your reckoning?
It certainly does not mean "clergy" does it?

Look! you just cant say things like "a HUGE per centage of Roman Catholic clergy abused people " and then when asked for evidence say "a report found that the number of priests plus the number of non priests grouped together in the same group constituted x per cent and X is really high"

Well you can say it but it would not be true. i.e. it would not be showing a high percentage of Roman Catholic priests are abusers as you claimed.

Secondly the survey id a opinion poll!

Thirdly you didnt even read the report and you originally got is as a source from ME! You haven't done any research at all and just trawl out the same unsupported comments again and again!

This combined group of "Religous professionals" ( Priests, brothers etc ) is, according to the SAVI statistics,

Where does SAVI mention "religious professionals" and put them together in a group.

http://www.drcc.ie/about/SAVI_Report.pdf
page 5

A relatively small percentage of perpetrators fitted the current
stereotype of abusers of children: strangers were in the minority -
over 80% of children were abused by those known to them.
Fathers constituted 2.5% of all abusers, with uncles (6.2%),
cousins (4.4%), babystitters (4.4%), and brothers (3.7%) among
the most common other perpetrators. Clerical/religious ministers
or clerical/religious teachers constituted 3.2% of abusers, and
non-religious/clerical teachers (1.2%).

the single biggest group of abusers among authority figures, responsible for 27.3% of boys abused by authority figures. Only Priests could try to claim that is not in the SAVI report and call people who quote the SAVI report liars !.

LOL! Your old red herring of "you are a priest" eh? what i am or am not is nothing to do with it. There are FIVE groups of authority groups bigger than the " clergy+religious teachers" composite group and only one smaller .

"other" isn't included in those fiver and constitutes the biggest group of all
which only agrees with the SAVI update which in the same paragraph says:

A relatively small percentage of perpetrators fitted the current
stereotype of abusers of children:...
This profile made clear that
apart from the broad conclusion that perpetrators of childhood
sexual abuse are most likely to be known to the child and to be
male, there are few other clues to identify likely abusers.

so you can drop the empty "priests are a bunch of abusers and defenders of abuse" claim.

lol. And your evidence for that is?

Already supplied ad nausuiam the thread.

Tell me- Why is it the people so concerned about clerical abuse in the 1970s seem little concerned about the 99 percent non clerical abuse?

All abuse of children is extremely bad , and you should not be attempting to cloud the issue by insinuating abuse to 13 or 14 year olds is less serious than to a 12 year old.

so then if all abuse is bad why are you only concerned with less than one per cent of it?

the point is that pedophilia is a specific thing - undeveloped children under 12 and not teenagers. Child pornography is the same. the people who do such things are emotionally arrested and different to those who offend against teenagers. It is important to understand this if you really care about dealing with the issue.

Fanny Cradock

It is pointless talking to you. I believe you to be incapable of listening to anyone else. But I can't resist signing off with a clarification.

gigino wrote: »

And your source for the number of adult who at some stage lived in the States sometime between the years 1950 to 1992 being only 200 million is ..... ???

For what purpose? The key statistic is 4%. Unless you can challenge this (and the various 3% - 9% reports) then 4% of the population remains 4% irrespective of the population size. I would have hoped that this was obvious. But if you want to go back to the census data for that time period and work out the mean population statistic, please knock yourself out.

gigino wrote: »

Thank you for the link. It comes up with such gems as "
The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known,[3][61]...."

You purposely neglected to quote the rest. The full sentence reads as follows.

"The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known, but is estimated to be lower than 5% based on several smaller studies with prevalence rates between 3% and 9%."

It then links to two studies that you can read up on. I'm sure there are more out there if you look.

gigino wrote: »

Do not forget 2/3rds of Amercians think, according to the newsweek survey, that the Roman Catholic church " frequently" abuses children.

If you quote this statistic one more time then I will infract you. You have repeatedly ignored the context of how this was presented in the Newsweek article. The article suggests that public perception is wrong (remember the "black box" analogy) insofar as priests seemingly molest at the same rates as the general population. This has been explained to you on multiple occasions but you lack the ability to acknowledge it.

gigino wrote: »

Of course the Priests answer to that is that the people are wrong and that there is no endemic problem in the church. Sad.

Some probably still ignore the problem, but not all.








Your link also states "A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is commonly assumed to be and referred to as a pedophile; however, there may be other motivations for the crime[50] (such as stress, marital problems, or the unavailability of an adult partner)." I do not think marital problems would be a cause for an adult to suddenly decide to switch his sexual preferences. People can and do get other partners, go to Prostitutes / escorts etc if they wanted sexual relations outside their marriage.[/QUOTE]

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

A
I would find it difficult to believe tens of millions of Americans would have had plausible accusations of child sexual abuse made against them, for the period between 1950 and 1992.

millions of Jews had accusations made against them.
You are making accusations against roman Catholic priests as if more than one per cent of sexual offenders against young kids ( say under twelve) were RC priests. You seem not to care about the other 99 per cent of abusers. I wonder why?

Do not forget 2/3rds of Amercians think, according to the newsweek survey, that the Roman Catholic church " frequently" abuses children. Now, Amercians do not think McDonalds or Burgerking, or other churches or the Disney Corporation or other groups which have frequent contact with children "frequently" abuse children.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx

Americans were asked if they could identify the specific historical event celebrated on July 4th. Fifty-five percent say it commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence (this is a common misconception,
...
identify the country from which America gained its independence, 76% correctly name Great Britain. i.e. 25 per cent are wrong or don't know!
only 69% of women know that America's freedom was won from England
only 54% of blacks answered correctly
...
"As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?" In the new poll, about four out of five Americans (79%) correctly respond that the earth revolves around the sun, while 18% say it is the other way around.

That's opinion polls for you!

Of course the Priests answer to that is that the people are wrong and that there is no endemic problem in the church. Sad.

Yes the Earth goes round the Sun and the US became independent from Britain.

Do not forget celibacy in not a natural occurance, and was not enforced in the early centuries of the Christian church.

Red herring and also WRONG! You know you are wrong as you have been told celibacy always existed even in the early days. It also existed in non christian religions such as Buddhism. You have also been shown restriction of a "natural" urge can be usefull for society e.g. wearing clothes or not eating meat.

The RCC changed the rules for its Priests as it went along. Sad.

LOL! You think all rules should last forever? The Church already had the rules for monks and applied them to other secular priests. You are not a member of the Church so it isn't up to you to advise them on their own internal rules. Not to advise the Deli Lama.

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It is pointless talking to you.

lol. This morning you wrote in post no. 1217 " This thread is not about Hitler.
Any further comments about this will be deleted."

Then ISAW makes a number of comments about Hitler and instead of reprimanding him or deleting his posts you ignore him and immediately attack me !
And you call yourself a mod ?

Fanny Cradock

ISAW wrote: »

Ratzinger was not an underling of Hitler or a Nazi as you claim.

ISAW, you ignored my warning. This is not a good idea.

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

lol. This morning you wrote in post no. 1217 " This thread is not about Hitler.
Any further comments about this will be deleted."

Then ISAW makes a number of comments about Hitler and instead of reprimanding him or deleting his posts you ignore him and immediately attack me !
And you call yourself a mod ?

We posted at the same time - 11:11AM. I've just noticed the post now (before you wrote the above post) and I'm now going to take action. And, yes, I call myself a mod because that is my position.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

LOL! You think all rules should last forever? The Church already had the rules for monks and applied them to other secular priests. .

The issue of whither rules should last forever or not is a different issue, but the fact is the RCC has changed the rules on celibacy. Quote : "While scripture does not address celibacy of priests directly, it was clearly not in practice in the earliest years of the church" "The earliest textual evidence of the forbidding of marriage to clerics and the duty of those already married to abstain from sexual contact with their wives is in the fourth-century decrees of the Council of Elvira and the later Council of Carthage"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church)#Historical_origins

Lifetime Celibacy is not natural in the animal kingdom, and how do you think the sexual and emotional needs of humans should be met ?
I certainly do not think they should be met by abusing childrem, and the history of RCC coverup as in the Brendan Smyth case among others is shameful.

ISAW wrote: »

You are not a member of the Church so it isn't up to you to advise them on their own internal rules. Not to advise the Deli Lama.

I never mentioned the Deli Lama, I am a catholic and like most people in Ireland do not really know very much - or care - about the Deli Lama. If you are a priest, you should get your own house in order first.;)

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

You are making accusations against roman Catholic priests as if more than one per cent of sexual offenders against young kids ( say under twelve) were RC priests.

Thats because the SAVI report in the Republic of Ireland found the percentage of abused boys who say the abuser was a member of the clergy ( ie religous minister ) or religous teacher , was 5.8%.
In the USA 4% of RC priests were actually accused of child abuse in years 1950 to 1992. I do not believe 4% of workers in McDonalds or Burkerking or Tesco or Walmarts or the Jewish church were accused of that , in that period.

ISAW wrote: »

You seem not to care about the other 99 per cent of abusers. I wonder why?

In Ireland the church professionals ( Clergy and religous teachers ) are the single biggest group of abusers among authority figures, responsible for 27.3% of boys abused by authority figures. Thats the SAVI figure. Of course I am corncerned about all child abuse, but this thread is specifically about "clerical child abuse" - thats in the title of the thread.

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

ISAW, you ignored my warning. This is not a good idea.

No i did not! I wrote about Ratzinger not being a follower of Nazi Germany.
I have elsewhere referred to the Hitler/catholic debate and have no intention of going into it here and I specifically state that.
The point made was is Ratzinger was not a Nazi supporter and such comparisons are ridiculous hate speech. Such comments are usually linked in with the idea of the church covering up something in a conspiracy. that links directly to the roundabout way gigino works.

1. Make a comment about the level of abuse. base it on someone else's stats which you have massaged.
2. when challenged switch to abuse being because of celibacy
3. when challenged on that mention a coverup or compare the church or its leaders to Nazis or similar
4. when challenged on that return to the original claim in one only this time make an even more exaggerated claim

Fanny Cradock

ISAW wrote: »

No i did not! I wrote about Ratzinger not being a follower of Nazi Germany.
I have elsewhere referred to the Hitler/catholic debate and have no intention of going into it here and I specifically state that.
The point made was is Ratzinger was not a Nazi supporter and such comparisons are ridiculous hate speech. Such comments are usually linked in with the idea of the church covering up something in a conspiracy. that links directly to the roundabout way gigino works.

1. Make a comment about the level of abuse. base it on someone else's stats which you have massaged.
2. when challenged switch to abuse being because of celibacy
3. when challenged on that mention a coverup or compare the church or its leaders to Nazis or similar
4. when challenged on that return to the original claim in one only this time make an even more exaggerated claim

I know how gignio works. But this thread is about clerical child abuse. If you want to set people straight on the whole Hitler youth thing then start another thread. Off topic posts get the chop.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

The issue of whither rules should last forever or not is a different issue,

So if it is not a different issue should rules last forever?

but the fact is the RCC has changed the rules on celibacy. Quote : "While scripture does not address celibacy of priests directly, it was clearly not in practice in the earliest years of the church" "The earliest textual evidence of the forbidding of marriage to clerics and the duty of those already married to abstain from sexual contact with their wives is in the fourth-century decrees of the

And the fourth century is about the time we get the development of orders of monks who were celibate and continued that tradition!

There were always celibates who were admired with esteem inside and outside the Church. Even in other cultures.

Lifetime Celibacy is not natural in the animal kingdom, and how do you think the sexual and emotional needs of humans should be met ?

It is in swans. But do you think people should go around behaving like dogs in the streets?
Or do you think culture regulates animal urges?

I certainly do not think they should be met by abusing childrem,

But this is a "circular argument". where is your evidence that sexual urges are being met by abusing children is caused by celibacy?

and the history of RCC coverup as in the Brendan Smyth case among others is shameful.

What others? How many people have been abuysed in the world in the last 50 years? How many were by clergy and how many of them were covered up? there are millions of people who were sexually abused. Ill bet you cant list even ten cases of clerical abuse that was covered up let alone 100,000 cases which is about the one percent level!

I never mentioned the Deli Lama,

Which exposes your hatred of Roman catholic clergy. You specifically stated that celibacy is a cause of child sexual abuse because it caused pent upi sexual frustration. Can you explain how come it only does that in catholic Priests and not in non Catholics like the Deli Lama then?

I am a catholic and like most people in Ireland do not really know very much - or care - about the Deli Lama. If you are a priest, you should get your own house in order first.;)

Deal with the issue you raised! You claimed celibacy causes sexual abuse. How come if it causes it you don't see it elsewhere?

gigino wrote: »

Thats because the SAVI report in the Republic of Ireland found the percentage of abused boys who say the abuser was a member of the clergy ( ie religous minister ) or religous teacher , was 5.8%.

A religious teacher is NOT am member of the clergy!

The fact that clergy PLUS teachers in a survey makes up x per cent has no bearing on the level of clerical abuse!

the percentage of abused people who say the abuser was a member of the clergy or not a member of the clergy is 100%. what does that say about clerical abuse? Nothing!

In the USA 4% of RC priests were actually accused of child abuse in years 1950 to 1992.

I don't accept that is true either but even if such a number were accused that again says nothing about the actual level of abuse at that time!

I do not believe 4% of workers in McDonalds or Burkerking or Tesco or Walmarts or the Jewish church were accused of that , in that period.

Well you were shown figures which say otherwise.
Here is a list claiming recent Protestant and Jewish abuse
70 pages of them in the last few yesrs and nt back to 1950
http://home.catholicweb.com/olguadalupeprolife/files/Protestant_Pastor_Sexual_Abuse_Cases,_December_2010.pdf
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html

Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. This figure, cited in the book Pedophiles and Priests by non-Catholic scholar, Philip Jenkins, is from the most comprehensive study to date, which found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children.

http://www.jknirp.com/jenkins3.htm

"You name me a denomination and I'll give you a case," Philip Jenkins told The Catholic Standard & Times, Philadelphia archdiocesan newspaper. "Some (denominations) with huge problems include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Jews, Baptists, Pentecostals, Episcopalians -- you name them."

One of the most extreme cases of clergy sex abuse in U.S. history involved a Pentecostal minister named Tony Leyva, who molested several hundred boys in the 1980s, Jenkins said. But few Americans have heard of Leyva, he added, while some molesters who are former Catholic priests have become household names.

But all of these even being way more then the roman Catholic clergy are at best a few percent of abusers. The other 95 per cent plus are not clergy of any church!

Jenkins argues convincingly, not only that clergy sex abuse is far less widespread than the headlines suggest, but that there is nothing at all particularly Roman Catholic about the problem.

PEDOPHILES AND PRIESTS: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis
by Philip Jenkins (Oxford University Press, 2001, 214pp)

In Ireland the church professionals ( Clergy and religous teachers ) are the single biggest group of abusers among authority figures,

No they are NOT! Teachers and clergy added together are way smaller than other groupings added together. They are also smaller than other teachers and babysitters! They are smaller than eachers and others and they are smaller than babysitter s and others. They are larger than babysitter by ONE person. If you remove the teachers the clergy on their own are smaller than all the others. What is the point in adding babysitter or teacher to clergy if you are making a point about clergy alone. Sure you could just say clegy and all other authority figures are 100 per cent of abusers among authority figures.

Or you could say "excluding clergy yyou are left with 98.1 % of authority figures who are not clergy!

responsible for 27.3% of boys abused by authority figures. Thats the SAVI figure. Of course I am corncerned about all child abuse, but this thread is specifically about "clerical child abuse" - thats in the title of the thread.

so why dont you actually deal with "Clerical" on tis own and admit that clergy constituted 8.8.% of authority figures and not have to add in some random other non clergy percentage?