The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

ISAW

Snip!

Please address moderating queries to the moderator concerned by PM.

Bob Cratchet

ISAW wrote: »

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

Gigino's 4 point plan. Even Enda could manage a 5 point plan.

ISAW

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.

And your source for that is?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Message 1174

Oh I realise gigino was making the claim. But it was not repeated in his reference.

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.

What surprises me is gigino's inability to distinguish between "4% of abuse cases were committed by priests" and "4% of priests committed abuse". It instantly makes me suspicious of his arguments.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

You claimed celibacy causes sexual abuse.

I said it was a contributory factor in some sex abuse cases. Not all. There are many celibate Priests who do not abuse others. I am sure many of your colleagues do not abuse.

"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"

ISAW wrote: »

And your source for that is?

According to the newsweek article I quoted there were "110,000 priests active during those years" in the USA between 1950 + 1992. I then used Wiki for the population of the states in that period, with an allowance for people immigrating / emmigrating, dying + coming of age etc. Its a ballpark figure.

Morbert wrote: »

What surprises me is gigino's inability to distinguish between "4% of abuse cases were committed by priests" and "4% of priests committed abuse". It instantly makes me suspicious of his arguments.

Its actually 5.8% of abuse ( of boys who reported sexual abuse ) which was committed by religous ministers ( Priests etc ) and religous teachers (brothers etc), in Ireland, according to the SAVI report. There was a seperate category for non-religous teachers. 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.

The 4% figure is the percentage of Roman Vatholic Priests in the USA who were accused of child abuse between the years 1950 and 1992. As people are less afraid of the church nowadays / more likely to complain, and because of better education and more media etc, the % figure if the figures were compiled now would , in all likelyhood, be much higher.
Quote : "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".[url]
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html[/url].

I am trying to find any other organisation which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children.

n.b. You can hardly say the John Jay study was biased against the RCC, as it was authorised and paid for by the RCC. Well, someone had to decide which were "plausible" accusations, and what year to stop the study at.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I said it was a contributory factor in some sex abuse cases.

And the evidence that celibacy causes sexual abuse in some cases is?
If say 100 black men commit murder. Would you conclude that the reason some of them committed murder was because they were black and therefore being black causes murder? how then can you conclude that because of your unproven claim that of all the priests some celibate priests commit crimes that the crime is because of celibacy? If all priests were white or spoke English or Latin would you also deem these as a causal factor?

Not all. There are many celibate Priests who do not abuse others.

How then can you claim it is a causal factor?

"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"

Where is the source for this? How do you know it is true?

According to the newsweek article I quoted there were "110,000 priests active during those years" in the USA between 1950 + 1992.

where did they get this figure?
As far as I know it is from this report:
http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf

By where in that report?

You do know it says on page 3?

Less than 5 percent of the priests with allegations of
abuse exhibited behavior consistent with a diagnosis
of pedophilia (a psychiatric disorder that is characterized
by recurrent fantasies, urges, and behaviors about
prepubescent children). Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to
abusers as “pedophile priests.”

I then used Wiki for the population of the states in that period,

What does it give for the population from 1950-1992?

with an allowance for people immigrating / emmigrating, dying + coming of age etc. Its a ballpark figure.

Why is "coming of age " significant and what do you mean by it?

Its actually 5.8% of abuse ( of boys who reported sexual abuse ) which was committed by religous ministers ( Priests etc ) and religous teachers (brothers etc), in Ireland, according to the SAVI report.

NO! It isnt! it is 1.9 per cetn ( which I consider an overreporting anyway) of CLERGY!

I mean according to SAVI it is 20% of clergy and other authority figures. so what? that says nothing about clergy on their own does it?

There was a seperate category for non-religous teachers. In Ireland the church professionals ( Clergy and religous teachers )

Where do you got this idea of "church professionals"? It isn't in SAVI and they themselves made up the grouping. REligious teachers are NOT clergy! DO you understand that? NOT clergy! Not clergy! Religious teachers are NOT clergy!

are the single biggest group of abusers among authority figures, responsible for 27.3% of boys abused by authority figures. Thats the SAVI figure.

It is NOT the SAVI figure for clergy! So how can you claim it is relevant the clerical abuse?

The 4% figure is the percentage of Roman Vatholic Priests in the USA who were accused of child abuse between the years 1950 and 1992.

so what? Accusations is not conviction!

As people are less afraid of the church nowadays / more likely to complain, and because of better education and more media etc, the % figure if the figures were compiled now would , in all likelyhood, be much higher.

As people are moe likely to speak out against authority the level of abusew is more likely to be LOWER! Why are you suggesting it is higher? You are suggesting clerical child abuse ( and clerics in SAVI were less than ten percent of authority figures) should be at a much higher level and was historically under reported but the other 90 percent of authority figures were all over reported and should be lower in comparison to the less than ten per cent clergy? On what basis do you make this claim?

Quote : "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".[url]
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html[/url].

Where is it in the John Jay report?

You didn't read it did you>? No you are just rehashing second and third hand Newsweek opinion aren't you?

I am trying to find any other organisation which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children.

And that is relevant because?
Tell you what - try searching under "Kincora Boys Home"

n.b. You can hardly say the John Jay study was biased against the RCC, as it was authorised and paid for by the RCC. Well, someone had to decide which were "plausible" accusations, and what year to stop the study at.

Did they? and what criterion did they use for "plausible"?
You didn't read it did you?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

REligious teachers are NOT clergy! DO you understand that? NOT clergy! Not clergy! Religious teachers are NOT clergy!

Nobody said religous teachers were clergy. Religous teachers / teachers ( religous) are people like Brothers.( 3rd line down). Clergy are in the group called religous ministers.( 2nd line down). Together they groups of "religous professionals" make up the 5.8%.
According to the SAVI statistics, in the Republic of Ireland these religous people ( religous ministers and religous teachers) make up the single biggest group of abusers among authority figures, responsible for 27.3% of boys abused by authority figures.

Ordinary "teachers, non-religous" are lay person teachers and are a completely different group ( 4th line down ).

Did you never study charts or tables at the seminary ? Or do you pretend to not understand findings you do not like ? Below is the extract from the SAVI report, which was explained to you before.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

No you are just rehashing second and third hand Newsweek opinion aren't you?

I quoted directly from the newsweek article, which you yourself had no problem quoting from as well when you wanted to."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".http://<br /> http://www.newsweek.co.../mean-men.html.

You do not like what it says so you are now accusing of "rehashing second and third hand Newsweek opinion" lol

gigino

I am trying to find any other organisation which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children.

ISAW wrote: »

And that is relevant because?
Tell you what - try searching under "Kincora Boys Home"

Its relevant because its interesting to compare abuse in the RCC with other large organisations - be they churches, corporations, McDonalds, Burgerking, Disneyland or whoever deals with hundreds of thousands / millions of children.
I looked up Kincora boys home and guess what ; a relatively small care home and three members of staff. Interesting, but 3 people are not really relevant for statistical purposes, when we are comparing it to the 4400 Roman Catholic priests accused in the states of child abuse beteween 1950 and 1992. Source : newsweek magazine, link quoted already.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Nobody said religous teachers were clergy. Religous teachers / teachers ( religous) are people like Brothers.( 3rd line down).

Where is there any evidence of this?
How for example can't they be just people who teach religion? catechists?

Here is the religious teachers of Ireland homepage and their national executive:
http://www.d1052170-34.cp.blacknight.com/rtai/
http://www.d1052170-34.cp.blacknight.com/rtai/?cat=24

Some of them may well be but how many of them do you think are brothers or nuns?

You are basically claiming that "religious teachers" are "monks". Where is there any evidence for this? It isn't in the SAVI report is it?

Clergy are in the group called religous ministers.( 2nd line down). Together they groups of "religous professionals" make up the 5.8%.

What line does it say "religious professionals"? All I can see is "Ministers" and teachers which for some reason were divided into two groups religious teachers and non religious teachers. where is the evidence that "religious teachers" are "teachers who are in religious orders" and not just simply teachers of religion or cathecists?

According to the SAVI statistics, in the Republic of Ireland these religous people ( religous ministers and religous teachers) make up the single biggest group of abusers among authority figures, responsible for 27.3% of boys abused by authority figures.

But the definition "Authority figures" themselves are arbitrary by SAVI. and they make up about 20 per cetn of abusers in SAVI. what about the other 80 % of abusers.
Also if half a per cent of "ministers" are Roman Cahtolic clergy and 1.5. per cent are non roman Catholic clergy you can just as easily say "25% of the group making up clergy were roman Catholic priests" and ignore the fact that the rest of the people are 98% of the population!

If teachers are likely to offend just because they are in the presence of children and in professions where pedophiles will gravitate towards it is all the more likely that schools in Ireland most of which have a religious ethos will have teachers of religion in those schools isn't it? so the arbitrary/artificial category of "religious" will no doubt have a small precentage which when added to "clergy" yielded a small percentage but capable of being slightly greater than "babysitter" . And by the way this works statistically only for males!
It is a pointless statistic and says nothing about clerical abuse.

Ordinary "teachers, non-religous" are lay person teachers and are a completely different group ( 4th line down ).

But "religious teachers" ARE lay people - that is my point! they are NOT clergy! In what way are you claiming "religious teachers" are extraordinary as opposed to your words ordinary?

Below is the extract from the SAVI report, which was explained to you before.

[/quote]

I originally supplied the SAVI source . I do not believe you read the report. You just lifted out stats you though would agree with your argument. You have supplied no confirming statistics. You have ignored over 99 per cent of abusers in order to level all your criticism on the less than one percent roman Catholic clergy. why is that?
Why are you only interest in roman Catholic clergy and not other clergy?
Why are you not interested at all in the 98 per cent plus non clerical abusers?
Why can't you supply ANY actual data yourself?
You lift other peoples data and you cut and paste other peoples graphics and you show no competence in understanding statistics and what they mean.
No doubt you will respond by changing the issue to something else only to came back later with your tired misreporting of SAVI as if it says something about clerical abuse.
It doesnt! Over 99 per cent are NOT Roman Catholic clergy!

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I am trying to find any other organisation which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children.

So you are jumping back to the tabloid understanding of "accusation equals conviction"
Look all you are doing in highlighting the numbers of Roman Catholic Clergy accused of abuse or claims made about them or coverage given to them is adding to the argument of the overhyping of Roman Catholics.
Clearly the evidence shown to you is that
1. non Roman Catholic clergy have higher numbers of abusers even though they are a tiny per centage of Christians compared to Roman Catholics and
2. Both Catholic and non Catholic clergy added together still make up less than 2 per cent of sexual oiffenders the other 98 per cent are non clergy!
3. Even then most clerical offences are of teenagers who have some sexual development and not pre pubescent children s they are not pedophiles.

Its relevant because its interesting to compare abuse in the RCC with other large organisations - be they churches, corporations, McDonalds, Burgerking, Disneyland or whoever deals with hundreds of thousands / millions of children.
I looked up Kincora boys home and guess what ; a relatively small care home and three members of staff.

There were more than three staff.
three members of staff at the home, William McGrath, Raymond Semple and Joseph Mains, were charged with a number of offences and later convicted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys%27_Home

This inquiry reported many years before abuse on an extensive scale was uncovered in care homes in the Irish Republic and Britain.

Nothing to do with any RC Church coverup!
McGrath was also the leader of an extremist Protestant paramilitary organization.

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2008/03/child-abuse-at-kincora-boys-home.html

Sexual perversion is also a disturbing undercurrent in Northern Ireland’s paramilitary netherworld... William McGrath, a leading loyalist, was imprisoned after sexually molesting children for years with the knowledge of British intelligence – to whom he was giving information – in the Kincora Boy’s Home. John McKeague, founder of the Red Hand Commando, was also a feared pederast

Interesting, but 3 people are not really relevant for statistical purposes,

that is funny. considering it IS relevant for SAVI! In the case of SAVI you have 6 clergy in a population of over 3,000 people but you draw attention to these 6. Yet you want to ignore 3 in a population of say 30 working at a home?

when we are comparing it to the 4400 Roman Catholic priests accused in the states of child abuse beteween 1950 and 1992. Source : newsweek magazine, link quoted already.

And if people wrongly assume most priests were child molesters ( same source) is it any wonder they would accuse them? Accusation is NOT evidence of abuse!

You seem not to have researched the subject at all! You have concluded that if a large percentage is claimed then it must mean a large percentage of offenders are clergy! have you considered the fact that people who hype up the figures and make out that clergy are a huge percentage of offenders ( although at best even with twisted statistics they reach maybe four or 5 per cent) actually create the media frenzy which highlights Catholic clergy and ignores other clergy and even more importantly the other 98 per cent or so of non clergy?

Quite clearly you are not interested in child abuse but in attacking the roman Catholic Church and in inventing any story to keep the pot stirring. You would prefer to dwell in willfull ignorance than accept the extermely low levels of clerical offenders because it might mean actually admitting that non clerical and non Roman Catholic priests are doing the vast majority ( over 99 percent) of child abuse and particularly of pedophile abuse.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

Where is there any evidence of this?
How for example can't they be just people who teach religion? catechists?

Teachers (religous) , compared to teachers ( non-religous) , can be whatever you want them to be. I am calling them religous / church professionals, along with the clergy.
The group of church/religous 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. Non religous teachers are a seperate group.

ISAW wrote: »

You are basically claiming that "religious teachers" are "monks".

Rubbish. Where did I say that ?

ISAW wrote: »

What line does it say "religious professionals"?

The 2 lines I showed you ( Clergy and religous teachers ) are religous professionals. The other lines ( babysitter etc ) are not religous professionals. Even you a Priest should be able to comprehend that ?

ISAW wrote: »

Also if half a per cent of "ministers" are Roman Cahtolic clergy ...

If , if, if. The vast majority of the clergy / people full time in religous orders in this country are Roman Catholic. They are also resposnible for virtually all of the clerical abuse cases in this country. Most of the other ministers in the country are happily married people.

ISAW wrote: »

I originally supplied the SAVI source . I do not believe you read the report.

I read the SAVI report long before it was supplied by you in this thread. Not that that is of real relevance.

ISAW wrote: »

You just lifted out stats you though would agree with your argument.

I quoted the relevant stats.

ISAW wrote: »

You have supplied no confirming statistics.

I showed you over the course of the thread numerous confirming stats.
eg in the States "Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers ( which was authorised + paid for by the RCC ! ) reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children"

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


As pointed out to you before, its worth bearing in mind , the RCC funded John Jay researchers decided which were plausible accusations + which were not, and 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 approximately 00.03 % of the people who lived at some stage in the USA between 1950 and 1992.

ISAW wrote: »

Why are you only interest in roman Catholic clergy and not other clergy?

I deplore clerical abuse by all denominations. However in Ireland the vast majority of clergy are RCC clergy, and the vast amount of clerical abuse cases involve RCC clergy. In the States there is a lot of controversy about the RCC too ; according to the newsweek survey 2/3 of Americans think the Catholic church "frequently" abuses children. People in the States do not think the same of other churches, institutions, businesses or groups of celibate men.
You can dismiss peoples experience and opinions in the worlds largest democracy if you like. Put them in a darkened room and tell them they were not abused and eventually they will believe you.

ISAW wrote: »

Over 99 per cent are NOT Roman Catholic clergy!

I am still trying to find any other organisation which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children. And nobody has found anywhere where there was such cover up as in the RCC hierarchy eg Brendan Smyth case.


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

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?

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Teachers (religous) , compared to teachers ( non-religous) , can be whatever you want them to be. I am calling them religous / church professionals, along with the clergy.

Exactly! You are bringing them in as a statistic and linking them to clerical abuse!
you are trying to paint the whole abuse tissue as a Church thing when in fact:
1. clerics are a tiny minority of offenders
2. Roman Catholic clerics even though a large majority of clerics are a minority of 1
3. Pedophile abusers constitute another small minority of 2
4. non clerics constitute 98 per cent or more of sexual offenders.


You have to pout in 2along with the clergy" in your stats because "clergy" would be tiny and "Roman Catholic clergy " would be vanishingly small - less than one per cent of offenders! At best you use a not very definitive opinion survey - the SAVI Report which lumps clergy in with other groups and which includes offences up to the age of eighteen -
and even then only by using the figures for males do you come up with even five percent!

The group of church/religous professionals ( Clergy and religous teachers )

How do you know "babysitters" are not church people? Or coaches? Or others?

are the single biggest group of abusers among authority figures,

No they are NOT!
Others are the biggest group ( n=57) followed by babysitters ( n=33) . Even if one only considers boys (why one would I have to guess since it does not necessarily prove anything about clergy) others are n=23 babysitters are n=13 religious teachers are n=12 and clergy are n=6 . In fact the three remaining groups teachers, boss( one assumes boss relates also to people of sixteen or seventeen years of age) and coach, n=12 which is twice that of clergy.
If you consider girls and use your groupings clergy + religious teacher = 1.4 % although religious teachers constitute ZERO in this case and I wonder why one would want to include them anyway. And again there are SIX Ministers ( although how many are roman Catholic is not known) but babysitter and others constitute n=54! Clergy hardly jump out in the stats as significant do they? Particularly since these numbers six for boys and six for girls are out of about 600 cases?

responsible for 27.3% of boys abused by authority figures. Thats the SAVI figure. Non religous teachers are a seperate group.

But what was the percentage of boys under the authority of Clergy and religious as opposed to the other groups?

Rubbish. Where did I say that ?

When you said "brothers." Brothers are monks.
Well if they are not clergy i.e priests What do you claim "religious professionals" are . why is it significant to include them with clergy in stats and why pick only male abuse?

And remember message 1174 where you claimed...?

4% of abuse was committed by Priests, yet Priests make up only a fraction of a percentage of the population.

The 2 lines I showed you ( Clergy and religous teachers ) are religous professionals.

How? How are teachers and coaches and boss for example not religious professionals?

The other lines ( babysitter etc ) are not religous professionals.

Why aren't they? what is a "religious professional" and please dont supply a circular definition that the survey says "teachers plus Ministers" and you just call that "religious professionals". Why is that stat significant to the subject of child abuse clerical or not?

If , if, if. The vast majority of the clergy / people full time in religous orders in this country

Now you are back to monks/friars/brothers who are not Priests. Priests are people in Holy Orders that can say Mass and Hear Confessions. You have no idea of "Ministers" refers to Roman Catholic priests but we do know that all the other groupings do not refer to priests.

are Roman Catholic. They are also resposnible for virtually all of the clerical abuse cases in this country.

And the evidence for that bizzare claim is? As I have told you in spite of Roman catholic clergy being the majority of clergy the evidence in Irland and elsewhere suggests that RToman Catholic clergy are publicised and accused but constitute a minority of clerical abuse especially of pre pubescent chjildren. I suggesdt you consult the Jenkins reference I supplied. You can find it in any library.

But the broader issue is clerical abuse even including non catholic clergy is about two per cent of abusers and Catholics less than then one per cent. Why is the other 98 per cent ignored.

Most of the other ministers in the country are happily married people.

Where do you get that idea? There are plenty of unmarried non Catholic ministers. How do you know over fifty per cent are married?

I read the SAVI report long before it was supplied by you in this thread. Not that that is of real relevance.

When did you read it? the truth is I can show when I supplied it but you can't show you read it since you seem not to be aware of other parts of it. Nor do I think you have read the John Jay Report. It is normal practice to go and read the primary source. Frequently the media and others like yourself pick out parts and explode them out of all proportion and throw in comments about corruption or Nazis or Laundries run by nuns and work them all into a big ball of spittle with which they attack the Church. When you go and find the original details they are usually misquoted or out of context or overemphasised as was done in your case.

I quoted the relevant stats.

You quoted irrelevant stats!
"Teachers of the subject of religion" have nothing to do with clergy abusing anyone!

I showed you over the course of the thread numerous confirming stats.

No you didn't! You rely on TWO stats which you keep repeating!

1. an opinion poll of public opinion which is showing OPINION and not actual crimes committed! this opinion is a secondary source from Newsweek and I dont believe yu read the original source the John Jay Report. Opinion that the Sun orbits the Earth is just opinion. Measurements of the Earth going round the Sun is different just as actual statistics showing how many Roman Catholic are convicted of abuse is a fact. This poll was is in AMERICA.

2. An opinion survey done of over 3000 or so Irish people over the phone. Of these people when it comes to boys under seventeen SIX claimed to have been abused by Ministers. We could also assume at least half of these six Ministers were Roman Catholic. "Abuse" if you read the SAVI report includes propositioning or watching material and in a minority of cases includes actual contact.

eg in the States "Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers[/B] ( which was authorised + paid for by the RCC !

So what the pro feminist rape Crisis centre paid for the SAVI Report but I have no objection if the methodology is sound. It is sound but limited in scope.

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

And you find that necessary to put in bold? Why? If sixty per cent wrongly believe priests are abusers ( due to people like you preaching against the Church) then is it any wonder
the number of false accusations is not higher. Again go and read Jenkins.

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

See 1 above as regards opinion.

As pointed out to you before, its worth bearing in mind , the RCC funded John Jay researchers

so what? The Rape Crisis Centre funded SAVI Report. so what who funded the research?

decided which were plausible accusations + which were not, and they limited their study to pre-1992.

Just as the DPP decides which are plausible cases. But the fact cases go to trial or are worth investigating still does not mean any abuse occurred does it?


Plausable means - it might be true we cant say no abuse happened. that isnt saying abuse did happen. You seem to think we should assume clerics are guilty and not assume they are innocent.

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.

If so great. But you are back to the conspiracy theory now and assertion of "coverup" when you can't actually produce any evidence of any great numbers of Roman Catholic pedophile priests abusing kids. It could be the invisible unicorns hushed it all up. You fallaciously assume abuse happened based on the lack of evidence you have. In other words because there is no evidence you assert that proves a coverup. True maybe the whole thing was covered up. Or maybe the abuse just didn't happen at the level you would want people to believe?

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

so you are saying 110,000 priests and how many people lived in the USA over that period?
330 million?

in Ireland the vast majority of clergy are RCC clergy, and the vast amount of clerical abuse cases involve RCC clergy.

In Ireland Ill accept the majority of clergy are roman Catholic but I would prefer if you supplied stats. Do you refer to The whole Island or just the Republic?
What I don't accept is that the vast majority of clerical abusers were Roman Catholic clergy. Where is you stats to support this claim?
i.e. how many clerical abusers and what proportion were Roman Catholic?
What is "vast majority" two thirds; three quarters; ninety per cent?

In the States there is a lot of controversy about the RCC too ; according to the newsweek survey 2/3 of Americans think the Catholic church "frequently" abuses children.

back to the opinion poll you googled huh? Why is that significant? According to toer survys I showed you people believe the 4th of July is the day the declaration of Independence was signed. It wasn't!

People in the States do not think the same of other churches, institutions, businesses or groups of celibate men.

No wonder if it has more people like you spreading hate against the church and claiming celibacy caused pedophilia clerics are a large proportion of sex offenders etc.

You can dismiss peoples experience and opinions in the worlds largest democracy if you like.

No matter how many people believe the Sun goes round the Earth it isn't going to change a fact! Please look up "argument ad populum" under "logical fallacy"

Put them in a darkened room and tell them they were not abused and eventually they will believe you.

Please look upi "shifting the burden" i dont have to prove no abuse happened. It is assumed . It is for you who claim it did happen to prove it. Suggesting there is a conspiracy theory hiding the high number of Roman Catholic pedophile priests is another fallacy which appeals to ignorance as I have pointed out above.

Before you mention the 4% figure let me point you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Statistics_on_offenders_and_victims

The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately four percent of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time. Of these 4,392, approximately:

That is your 4%

50 percent were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse

The allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests and unsubstantiated for 824 priests. They were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests. 298 priests and deacons who had been completely exonerated are not included in the study.

So of the 1,671 credible cases about half were people under 35 not old men
Still not a conviction and still not pre teen pedophiles ~ about 800 in 110,000
that is less than one per cent of the roman Catholic clergy of the US not 4 per cent!
And that is an over estimate based on the John Jay report.

I am still trying to find any other organisation which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children.

that is odd because I referred to several. Kincora Boys home. You didnt seem to look it up. and I supplied a list of non Catholic abusers who were linked to religions. and to Jenkins book. you didnt seem to read it. But you cant really deny they exist so have ycan you claim something like that which is patently not true. You have been shown organisation with more than 0.4% not only accused but convicted.

But you may be right in one sence. Non roman Catholics have a higher level of abuses and the convistions prove this but non roman Catholics have a much lower level of people mentioning their higher rate because people like you hype it as a Roman Catholic thing. In fact it quite clearly is a non religious thing whether Catholic or not and around 98 per cent of abusers are not clerics of any religions it would seem.
But you really would rather ignore the actual facts it seems? Why is it you are so bent on ignoring the facts and pointing at the Roman Catholic Church all the time?

And nobody has found anywhere where there was such cover up as in the RCC hierarchy eg Brendan Smyth case.

the Smyth case did not only involve the Church and it was cross border.


You have been cited several cases. Kincora. Others in the US.

The Guardian (29 April 2010): ‘The Boy Scouts of America has been accused of covering up decades of child abuse in order to protect their reputation of what is now a billion dollar organization.’

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes: ‘All of the three boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affection for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety.’ Dawkins does not suggest that they were forced out and handed over to the police for any criminal behaviour.

People with learning disabilities were abused in institutions for decades, leading to the Ely Hospital inquiry (1968-9), the Longcare inquiry (1998) and the recent Cornwall inquiry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_sexual_assault_trial_of_2004

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

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

you have be rumbled on this before!
Trying to jump away from my poiunt that
Over 99 per cent are NOT Roman Catholic clergy!

You jump off into the conspiracy story! The Brady case is dealt with aarlier and nothing to do with the 99 per cent not being clergy.

He got them to sign away their freedom of speech.

No he didnt and you know it!

Excommunication if they didn't?

You have nothing to support this baseless accusation have you?
One thing is similar if you accuse or suggest the figures are high or there is a coverup or conspiracy people might believe it.
But you have no actual evidence. just hate speech blind conjecture and bald assertion.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

You jump off into the conspiracy story! The Brady case is dealt with aarlier ..

"No he didnt and you know it!"

"You have nothing to support this baseless accusation have you?"
.

Yes the Catholic church did and its not a conspiracy story. If you cannot read the book mentioned I suggest you read http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/chris-moore-club-protecting-monster-went-all-the-way-to-top-2100001.html


You cannot deny in the SAVI report that in the Republic of Ireland it found the group of church/religous 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. Its in black and white. Do not confuse the issue by suggesting most of the clerical child abuse in the Republic was caused by non-Catholic clerics, because your antics make even Chemical Ali look hilarious !
The SAVI report is in Ireland , and I showed you the figures for the States, where " between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers ( which was authorised + paid for by the RCC ! ) reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children".

No other organisation in the world ( of a reasonable size, say employing at least hundreds or thousands ) has such a track record of abuse and cover up as the RCC. If the best you can do is point to a house in belfast where there were 3 accused, that does not compare statistically to the track record of the RCC.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Yes the Catholic church did and its not a conspiracy story.

Brady didn't do as you claimed and it was dealt with earlier in the thread. You are only trying to change into a conspiracy story to avoid answering the question.

Trying to jump away from my point that
Over 99 per cent are NOT Roman Catholic clergy!
You know that now don't you?
But you avoid the rest of my post and try to switch to the Brady issue you added at the end.

You cannot deny in the SAVI report that in the Republic of Ireland it found the group of church/religous professionals ( Clergy and religous teachers )

Yes i can! the SAVI report does not mention "religious professionals". clergy plus religious teachers are an artificial grouping made up after they had the survey done. In the case of boys they added together were one more than babysitter, in the case of girls they weren't.
Adding them together had no significance at all with respect to claims about clerical abuse.

are the single biggest group of abusers among authority figures,

they are not a single group. And "authority figures" are an arbitary SAVI construct but still only account for about 20 per cent of abusers. If you take twenty percent and then take a cohort of ten per cent of these you are taking ten per cent of twenty i.e. two percent of the original group of abusers. which is at or near the level one might expect given the broad definition of "abuse" and "underage".

the main point is SAVI in no way shows any extraordinary level of clerical abuse.
It has nothing to show on roman Catholic clerical abuse and it mentions nothing at all about Pedophile priests.

All you harping on about "boys" and "clergy" won't actually change these stats!
The figures of SAVI shows that even of all the clergy in it were Roman Catholic they would be near 2 per cent. But they are probably less than one since the survey just says "Ministers" and not RC Ministers.

Do not confuse the issue by suggesting most of the clerical child abuse in the Republic was caused by non-Catholic clerics, because your antics make even Chemical Ali look hilarious !

If you have evidence of Catholic Clericial abuse of children ( and I mean pre pubescent kids) being higher than one per cent where is it? suggesting I am lying isn't really halping your empty claim is it?
You simply have no evidence!

The SAVI report is in Ireland ,

It is tho only stat you have produced with respect to Ireland. It is not based on actual recorded cases but on telephone polls of people. It does not say whether the Ministers were Roman Catholic or not. But even if they were they are under two per cent of abusers at most. Nor does it say the abuse was of a pedophile nature.

and I showed you the figures for the States, where " between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers ( which was authorised + paid for by the RCC ! )

so what? SAVI was paid by the pro feminist Rape Crisis Centre. Is that significant?

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

Almost 100 per cent of Jews were accused of being criminals. Does that mean they were?
Travellers are accused of being dirty criminals. Does that mean they are?
Black people are accused of being dole fraudsters.
Homosexuals are accused of corrupting minors.

What all these groups have in common is that people who promote racial religious, homophobic or religious hatred say they must be guilty because people accuse them. Just as you use the amount of clergy accused to suggest that they are guilty of something.

No other organisation in the world ( of a reasonable size, say employing at least hundreds or thousands )

I like how you added in of a reasonable size, say employing at least hundreds or thousands when you were shown the organisations.

Ever heard of the "only true scotsman" fallacy! add that to your count of specious reasons!

You were WRONG about "no other orginisation in the world" and now you try to add modifiers.

Can you name another orginisation in the world with hundreds of thousands of clergy?
Can you name one with hundreds of thousands even of non clergy which was concerned with looking after children?
How about the Boy Scouts? Did you look up the reference on them?

has such a track record of abuse and cover up as the RCC.

But you have produced no such record of abuse nor supplied any list of comparable organisations!

If the best you can do is point to a house in belfast where there were 3 accused, that does not compare statistically to the track record of the RCC.

It has three convicted not just accused!

And your SAVI report has six reported form a much larger population 3,000 in the case of SAVI compared to say a few hundred boys in the case of Kincora and say 30 or less staff.

And it is not the olny case I listed . I listed several organisations and supplied a 80 plus page on abuse by Protestant and Jewish clergy for example. You seem to have ignored all of the data presented.

What have you to say about them?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

Brady didn't do as you claimed

What I claimed was backed up by the link I provided. What aspect of the "claim" about Cardinal Brady do you not agree with ...and why do you not take it up with the newspaper concerned ? Thats your job is'nt it http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/chris-moore-club-protecting-monster-went-all-the-way-to-top-2100001.html

ISAW wrote: »

Over 99 per cent are NOT Roman Catholic clergy!

99% of what ? Over 99.9% of the population are not Catholic clergy in Ireland. Correct. Yet in the Savi report almost 2% of boys sexually abused said it was by religous ministers, and a further almost 4% of abuse was committed by teachers (religous ) ...as opposed to teachers,non-religous, which was a different category. As the vast majority of clergy ( religous ministers-call them what you want ) and religous teachers ( which would include Brothers etc ) in the Rep. of Ireland are RC, and as virtually all of the clerical abuse cases here which have come to light were also committed by RC, it is fair to assume the savi findings are in the same proportion of denominations.

ISAW wrote: »

the SAVI report does not mention "religious professionals". clergy plus religious teachers are an artificial grouping made up after they had the survey done.

Still they make up for almost 6% of the abuse to boys. Shame on them. I condemn that, do you ?

ISAW wrote: »

the main point is SAVI in no way shows any extraordinary level of clerical abuse.

I think the above, especially when you bear in mind the cover-ups as exposed in the Cardinal Brady case etc, do show an extraordinary level of clerical abuse. Bear in mind, the Irish government in its 2009 report on clerical church abuse, - after widespread concern about child abuse in this institution - found such abuse in the Irish RCC "endemic". Check the word in the dictionary . I explained it to you earlier. eg Malaria is endemic in certain tropical regions. If malaria was equally widespread throughout the world it would not be said to be endemic in the tropical regions.

ISAW wrote: »

If you have evidence of Catholic Clericial abuse of children ( and I mean pre pubescent kids) being higher than one per cent where is it?

You seem to have a thing about only counting "pre pubescent kids".
Have you something to hide there in relation to older kids?
I think abuse of any kids any age is detestable - it does not matter if they are 5 or 15.

ISAW wrote: »

Almost 100 per cent of Jews were accused of being criminals.

Who said that ? I did not. Nobody in their right minds would believe such a thing. And what relevance does it have to the discussion?

ISAW wrote: »

........ compared to say a few hundred boys in the case of Kincora and say 30 or less staff.

You do not know how many staff or boys were in Kincora, do you ?
I do not either, and its not relevant. It would be like saying in a creche, the worst creche in the world, there were 3 people convicted of child abuse. Very sad, but I would be more interested in seeing the figure for child sex abuse in all the creches in the country. 4% of Roman Catholic priests in the USA were accused of child sex abuse between the years 1950 to 1992 alone. Were 4% of creche workers, or 4% of any other professionals eg McDonalds workers ? Or did the management of McDonalds or the creches cover up like Cardinal Brady ?

ISAW wrote: »

And it is not the olny case I listed . I listed several organisations and supplied a 80 plus page on abuse by Protestant and Jewish clergy for example.

Sure you get abuse in all denoiminations, but it seems to be endemic ( to use the Irish governments own word ) in the RCC. If there had been married women in the hierachy of the church, or happily married people, its unlikely the mix in the RCC would have got as rotten. Why else would two-thirds of the people in the States think the RCC "frequently" abuses children? People do talk....and think. I remember many years ago hearing stories about certain priests from my friends about confession. ( what do ye get for a w**k - Taytos + a few twix's etc ). People were too scared to officially complain though, most moved on and forgot about it.
I feel sorry for most priests and brothers ( religous teachers, call them what you want ). Many were / are decent enough sorts and did not allow sexual or emmotional lonlieness / frustration get the better of them.

lmaopml

They most likely believe or 'think' anything because of people like 'you' Gigino who keep Soap boxing and don't really care about any actual facts, or don't want to even know them, just what you 'surmise' personally, the sensational etc. - what a tragedy really?

Especially for the children who you claim to represent in the now ( my children, which really makes me mad ) and those who you brandish with no regard whatsoever, with your self righteousness. If you were abused, I'm sorry, I don't know anything about that, but I will not go down idle gossip path either.....

Both homosexual priest and heterosexual priests, the mere idea that you believe that 'chastity' leads normal men to any kind of ugliness is weird really, that men are some kind of ugly monsters unless they get married and can have a sexual outlet, especially homosexuals - that's a horrible view imo. It's not even worth discussing with to a person who is not upfront themselves, but is a shadowy figure that posts vitriol only.

I'll not respond to you after this, until you are honest. You can just soap box away and blow suds and bubbles with your much loved hatred.

So, anyway, are you going to tell us what your beliefs are? It would be really nice to know? You being a regular and all? I know most of the Atheists/Agnostics who frequent the forum and they are up front and honest.

You don't have to of course, tell anybody who you are, what your beliefs are, you haven't thus far etc., you can continue soap boxing and doing your mad mathematics, and very personal take on statistics and news articles if you like, but don't blame people getting bored either. Except the random boardsie who reads your post and latches on - good look with that untruthful and speculative style..'Christianity' ?? you are engaged in.

gigino

lmaopml wrote: »

the mere idea that you believe that 'chastity' leads normal men to any kind of ugliness is weird really, that men are some kind of ugly monsters unless they get married and can have a sexual outlet, especially homosexuals - that's a horrible view imo.

Rubbish . I never said that. Thats a horrible thing to say. I never said all celibate men let sexual or emmotional lonlieness / frustration get the better of them.

lmaopml wrote: »

So, anyway, are you going to tell us what your beliefs are? It would be really nice to know? You being a regular and all? I know most of the Atheists/Agnostics who frequent the forum and they are up front and honest.

I did already, on another thread here in Christianity. yawn. I am only one of over 6500000000 people on the planet. This thread is about clerical abuse, not me. I am a catholic, but I am not a cleric and I am certainly not an abuser. I also have said that evidence shows most clerics were not abusers. However, as our govt said about clerical abuse + cover up in the Irish church, it is ( or at least was ) endemic.

gimmebroadband

gigino wrote: »

Rubbish . However, as our govt said about clerical abuse + cover up in the Irish church, it is ( or at least was ) endemic.

I wouldn't be quick to put the government on a pedestal where morals and ethics are concerned!

gigino

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I wouldn't be quick to put the government on a pedestal where morals and ethics are concerned!

at least the government is not an organisation with 4% of its members accused of child abuse between 1950 and 1992 alone "Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers ( which was authorised + paid for by the RCC ) reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children"

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


At least 2/3 of people do not think the government "frequently " abuses childrem.( according to the newsweek survey 2/3 of Americans think the Catholic church "frequently" abuses children. People in the States do not think the same of other churches, institutions, businesses or groups of celibate men. ).


Any luck trying to find any other sizeable organisation ( say employing at least hundreds or thousands of people ) which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children ? And any luck trying to find anywhere else in the world where there was such cover up as in the RCC hierarchy eg Cardinal Brady / Brendan Smyth case.http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/chris-moore-club-protecting-monster-went-all-the-way-to-top-2100001.html

Fanny Cradock

If you are just going to repeat the same "facts" again and again I don't see how you are contributing to this thread at all. You are getting perilously close to soap-boxing.

prinz

gigino wrote: »

At least 2/3 of people do not think the government "frequently " abuses childrem.( according to the newsweek survey 2/3 of Americans think the Catholic church "frequently" abuses children. People in the States do not think the same of other churches, institutions, businesses or groups of celibate men. ).

Why do you insist on using this argument when the same article goes on to explain how there is no real evidence to back up what 2/3 of Americans in the poll believed? Maybe two thirds believe it because there are people like you out there with a broken record?

gigino wrote: »

Any luck trying to find any other sizeable organisation ( say employing at least hundreds or thousands of people ) which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children ? And any luck trying to find anywhere else in the world where there was such cover up as in the RCC hierarchy eg Cardinal Brady / Brendan Smyth case.http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/chris-moore-club-protecting-monster-went-all-the-way-to-top-2100001.html

The Boy Scouts Association of America is in the middle of it's own scandal. Swim Ireland or whatever name it went by back over the last few decades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Amateur_Swimming_Association also had a long string of convicted people for sexual misconduct (I'd suggest the percentage of people involved would be a lot higher in that case), and yes in that case allegations were covered up/ignored/ and people who tried to publicise the issue were ostracised.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

What I claimed was backed up by the link I provided. What aspect of the "claim" about Cardinal Brady do you not agree with ...

I'll tell you that but first...
You brought it up as an off topic reply to the point I made about 99 per cent or more abusers especially of pre pubescent children not being Roman Catholic priests i.e. less than one per cent were RC Priests you are aware of that are you not?

As regards Brady all extensively dealt with earlier but you keep coming up with new bizzare claims for example
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73052813&postcount=1243
where you claim

the vast majority of clergy are RCC clergy, and the vast amount of clerical abuse cases involve RCC clergy

and you then employ your usual shell game where you switch from defending claims about the level of abuse to suggesting a widespread conspiracy in the Church not just rivaling but dwarfing any other conspiracy in any similar organisation.

nobody has found anywhere where there was such cover up as in the RCC hierarchy

and in relation to Brady

this is exactly what Cardinal Brady did in 1975.

i.e. conspired in a coverup. Earlier in the thread it is quite clear Brady was not a member of the hierarchy in 1975
you also add

He got them to sign away their freedom of speech.
Excommunication if they didn't

But you supply no evidence of any documents signed about freedom of speech or about excommunication or threats of excommunication.

and why do you not take it up with the newspaper concerned ? Thats your job is'nt it

where do you get that idea that it is my job? And even if it was it has nothing to do with you supporting your own claims! Please look up "shifting the burden" under logical fallacy. If you make a claim it is for you to support it. Otherwise you could say the invisible unicorns are responsible for child abuse and ask me to take it up with them. If you claim unicorns then you have to prove unicorns.

I would also remind you the difference between news and opinion.

99% of what ?

clearly stated of sexual offenders of pre pubscent children i.e. pedophiles. Less than one per cent are NOT RC priests. If you include teenagers the figure may approach one per cent. In some places and at certain times you might get just under two per cent. But even you by twisting figures and using hyperbole can only reach around 5% (which is a figure I wholly disagree with anyway) and it included all clergy of all religion and also people who teach religion. It says noting directly about RC clergy but it does show ther are 95 per cent of other offenders you don't seem to care about at all. why is that?

Over 99.9% of the population are not Catholic clergy in Ireland. Correct.

when? Today? where are you stats.
what was the percentage of religious orders and clergy in 1951?
Come on I gave you the stats for that don't you remember?

Also pedophiles gravitate to jobs where children are. People in teaching, coaching babysitting etc.

Yet in the Savi report almost 2% of boys sexually abused said it was by religous ministers,

Yes under two per cent correct. "minister" not RC Minister. SIX cases of people claiming this in 300 cases of abuse. I have no reason to doubt this number is true. But what age were these people? Was it pedophilia or was it by a catholic priest? We just don't know.

and a further almost 4% of abuse was committed by teachers (religous ) ...as opposed to teachers,non-religous, which was a different category.

You are assuming "religious teachers " means monks i.e. Christian Brothers etc. Thisis plausible given Christian Brothers taught boys and not girls and the figure for girls is ZERO. But while plausible it is pure conjecture! And if true it says something about christian Brothers and not about clergy or other monks e.g. brother nuns friars etc. It is a really weak line of reasoning. You could contact the authors of the report and ask them what "religious teacher" means.

As the vast majority of clergy ( religous ministers-call them what you want ) and religous teachers ( which would include Brothers etc ) in the Rep. of Ireland are RC,

Well that isn't true at all. Catechists today are not brothers or nuns or priests . They are predominantly lay people. some are even agnostic. I would agree in the past it probably was different but you would have to accept that the population of priests and brothers and nuns was much higher then ~ of the order of tens of thousands maybe.

and as virtually all of the clerical abuse cases here which have come to light were also committed by RC,

But you supply NO evidence of this! How many clerical abuse cases of children (in referring to pedophiles here) have there been in Ireland? Five? Ten? fifteen? I think you would be hard pressed to list even ten and that is in a population of tens of thousands of priests and brothers or of thousands of priests maybe ten thousand over the last fifty years.

There are no cases of a Bishop that I am aware of. Are you?

it is fair to assume the savi findings are in the same proportion of denominations.

Yes that proportion being less than one per cent of population and less than one per cent of priests.

Still they make up for almost 6% of the abuse to boys.

But RC clergy don't! You are ware they make up less than one per cent of abusers. when you add in other clergy and add in teachers of religion which may have been monks ONE report puts the abuse to boys at just under six per cent of abusers. Not of pre pubescent children but of boys seventeen and under and not by contact but including suggestive remarks. This says nothing about RC clergy which even by that SAVI report are under 1% it is reasonable to assume!

Shame on them. I condemn that, do you ?

In the broad scale I don't condemn the brother who physically abused me when I was ten. I condemn the abuse. When it comes to anyone priest or not (and less than one pre cent are priests) it is a greviously wrong thing to do. I do however think the motivation for someone being attracted to a seventeen year old schoolgirl and acting on that while also unacceptable is totally different to a pedophile acting against a pre pubescent child.

I think the above, especially when you bear in mind the cover-ups as exposed in the Cardinal Brady case etc,

Brady didn't cover up anything at the time or take part in any conspiracy and was not a Cardinal, and that is not addressing the "less than one per cent" issue.

do show an extraordinary level of clerical abuse.

No it does not! Brady was involved in the Smyth case. Probably the worst case of a pedophile! You can't take one extreme case on claim it is typical. You can't cherry pick out the less than one per cent of pedophiles who happen to be priests and claim that is widespread for all offenders! It isn't! the level is still less than one per cent! Picking ou a single offender wont increase that level! and Ill bet of the thousands of cases gone to trial you couldn't list ten priests!

Bear in mind, the Irish government in its 2009 report on clerical church abuse,

Source?

- after widespread concern about child abuse in this institution - found such abuse in the Irish RCC "endemic". Check the word in the dictionary . I explained it to you earlier. eg Malaria is endemic in certain tropical regions. If malaria was equally widespread throughout the world it would not be said to be endemic in the tropical regions.

Yes and we discussed you faux "endemic" concerns earlier. In Ireland or the USA the countries you claim to have "endemic" abuse you still have produced no stats showing sexual abuse of pre pubecent children i.e. pedophile priests constituted more than one per cent of child sex offenders.

You seem to have a thing about only counting "pre pubescent kids".

As pedophiles yes. I told you why. that have a different motivation. If you want you can
lump them in with others but then we are into legal and statistical problems.

for example the forty year old man who met a sixteen year old at a bar in a nightclub and had sex with her. according to the law this was rape and he was charged with Statutory Rape but he argued the constitution entitled him to a defense which such a law removed. He won his case. so having sex with an underage person is not necessarily rape or against the law. While I don't agree forty year old men should be picking up young women I agree with the legal decision. Others have tried this same defense and failed by the way.

Also we have the problem that rape didn't exist say in the 1970 for males.

Also if you take the person responsible for identifying pedophile porn they will tell you it is quite simple to identify. Identifying whether someone is seventeen eighteen or nineteen in a photograph however is not possible.

Have you something to hide there in relation to older kids?

What do you mean? What are you suggesting?

I think abuse of any kids any age is detestable - it does not matter if they are 5 or 15.

I think any form of rape murder or fraud is detestable. But if we are discussing derivatives or bankers lending to construction developers or child rape or genocide then bringing in unrelated stats does not help.

By the way it was you and others tried to exclude abuse of kids by 99 per cent of the abusers and restrict it only to abuse committed by clergy. If you are now saying you are admitting the other 99 per cent plus of abuse matters then I am all for discussing that.

Who said that ? I did not. Nobody in their right minds would believe such a thing. And what relevance does it have to the discussion?

What relevance does the level of Jews accused have to the discussion? Well the Jews were innocent and had not done anything wrong but had a high level of accusations against them didn't they? Maybe less than a per cent of them were criminals but public opinion was they should be rounded up into ghettos and concentration camps. . And the result was they were almost all wiped out. and the continual hate speech against them helped this process. You continually say "two thirds of people believe priests are abusers" . Priests are innocent and have not done anything wrong but have a high level of accusations against them as you claim don't they? do you see the relevance now?

You do not know how many staff or boys were in Kincora, do you ?

I haven't read the report yet but I know there were at least three convictions.

I do not either, and its not relevant.

But it is relevant since you stated you were not aware of any non Catholic institutions having more than 0.4% let alone four per cent abusers.
If there were more than 750 staff in Kincora boys home then the level would be over 0.4 %
You don't really believe there were more than 750 staff there do you?

It would be like saying in a creche, the worst creche in the world, there were 3 people convicted of child abuse. Very sad, but I would be more interested in seeing the figure for child sex abuse in all the creches in the country.

But you are arguing from ignorance now. You don't actually know the level outside the church but claim it is lower without knowing. You claimed you were not aware of one institution with less than 0.4%. You were shown more than 0.4. per cent and you SWITCH to claiming "but that is only one place" . you claimied only one place
and ignored it when shown one!
Your words:

I am trying to find any other organisation [outside the RC church] which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children.

Not alone that you were shown whole large organisations.
in message 1244:

The Guardian (29 April 2010): ‘The Boy Scouts of America has been accused of covering up decades of child abuse in order to protect their reputation of what is now a billion dollar organization.’

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes: ‘All of the three boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affection for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety.’ Dawkins does not suggest that they were forced out and handed over to the police for any criminal behaviour.

People with learning disabilities were abused in institutions for decades, leading to the Ely Hospital inquiry (1968-9), the Longcare inquiry (1998) and the recent Cornwall inquiry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcair..._trial_of_2004


the above cover orders, medical institutions, national orginisations and indeed whole countries/colonies/dependencies in the case of Pitcairn

Why do you ignore them and say it is only true of Roman Catholics when you now know differently?

4% of Roman Catholic priests in the USA were accused of child sex abuse between the years 1950 to 1992 alone. Were 4% of creche workers, or 4% of any other professionals eg McDonalds workers ?

Mc donalds work is done in the open public but maybe creche workers were. I dont know. You claim they weren't. You however have been shown other examples of non Roman catholic institutions hospitals, colonies, boy scouts,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hugh_McGregor_Ellis#Other_creche_workers_implicated
found guilty on 16 counts of sexual offences involving children in his care at the Christchurch Civic Creche and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
...
Four female co-workers of Ellis were arrested on October 1, 1992. At depositions they faced 15 charges that included sexual violation, indecent assault and one charge of performing an indecent act in a public place.


Charged on two counts of the rape of a child under 13, namely a child under the age of two or three years between Jan 1, 2009 and July 30, 2010.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344630/Little-Stars-Nursery-Nechells-child-abuse-worker-picture.html#ixzz1QqjkK15n

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/06/nursery-worker-arrested-suspicion-child-abuse
Birmingham police who arrested a 20-year-old male nursery worker on suspicion of child abuse

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-11682161
A Plymouth nursery where a worker sexually abused children "provided an ideal environment" for her to abuse, an inquiry has found

Many of the accusations are false:
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume5/j5_4_3.htm

Allegations of children being sexually abused by workers in child care centers are now becoming common throughout the Western world
...Although the initial allegation may be unfounded the investigation will gather momentum and result in many people convinced in the truth of the children's "disclosures," public outrage, and long, expensive trials which are traumatic to all concerned.

Or did the management of McDonalds or the creches cover up like Cardinal Brady ?

Or did your suggestion that it never happened outside the catholic church just collapse and you revert to the false accusations of a conspiracy involving the current Primate who was not even a Bishop at the time and took part in no meetings with any hierarchy at the time to cover up anything?

Sure you get abuse in all denoiminations,

But the point is you get about a hundred times more abusers OUTSIDE the denominations!

but it seems to be endemic ( to use the Irish governments own word ) in the RCC.

and you have been asked to explain what you meant by that and above your suggestions have been utterly destroyed and so you suggest a cover up. and when that fails you will progress to claiming celibacy is a causal factor and when that fails back to the false claim of it being widespread or a large per centage.

If there had been married women in the hierachy of the church, or happily married people, its unlikely the mix in the RCC would have got as rotten.

There you go again! Wher is your proof celibacy is a causal factor in sexual abuse?

Why else would two-thirds of the people in the States think the RCC "frequently" abuses children? People do talk....and think.

Why else did people think Jews were dirty and criminal ? ...Maybe because people like you spread hate speech about them and created rumours that there was widespread sexual abuse in the Roman Ratholic clergy and denied and ignored the fact that more than 99 per cent of abusers were not roman Catholic Clergy and that of the Clergy who did abuse only a tiny miniority were pedophiles. People didnt stop spreading hate against all Jews however and people like you when confronted don't seem to stop spreading hate and fake stats about Roman Catholic priests!

I remember many years ago hearing stories about certain priests

Fake stories you made up don't constitute evidence of anything no more than "Jews eat christian babies" constitute reasons to hate Jews.

I feel sorry for most priests and brothers ( religous teachers, call them what you want ).

I feel sorry that they have to suffer the fake stats and claims people spread about them blaming celibacy and conspiracy and exaggerating the levels of abuse among Roman Catholic clergy. It causes people to hate them when they have done nothing wrong. But it wont stop those accusing them from claiming they are covering up abuse.

Many were / are decent enough sorts and did not allow sexual or emmotional lonlieness / frustration get the better of them.

There you go again! Blame it in celibacy! You are claiming just being a priest is a cause of child abuse. Shame on you!

gigino

prinz wrote: »

The Boy Scouts Association of America is in the middle of it's own scandal. Swim Ireland or whatever name it went by back over the last few decades

I asked " Any luck trying to find any other sizeable organisation ( say employing at least hundreds or thousands of people ) which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children ?"
If the best you can come up with are The boy scounts and Swim Ireland ...lol...neither of these are , to the best of my knowledge, really sizeable organisations ( say employing at least hundreds or thousands of people ). THE RCC in the USA was a professionally run organisation, employing 110,000 priests, and according to the report findings about 4 percent of those active during those years alone ( 1950 to 1992 ) had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

when? Today? any stats?

yes. I wrote in the present tense. That means today.
"The number of priests in England, Wales and Scotland is currently hovering around the 4,400 mark – the equivalent of one priest for every 1,140 churchgoing Catholic, close to Ireland’s figure of one priest for every 1,200 church goers. In places like Brazil, the priest per capita level is 1:20,000. "

"Unless Ireland finds a way to begin recruiting young men, the number of priests is expected to fall from 4,700 to just 1,500 by 2028.
The biggest problem the church faces is the lack of new recruits to replace older priests that die or retire. The average age for a priest in Ireland in currently 63 whilst clergymen over the age of 70 currently outnumber those under 40 by ten to one.
The true extent of the crisis was laid bare in 2008 when the Irish church admitted that 160 priests had died that year with only nine new ordinations.
Figures for nuns were even more dramatic, with the deaths of 228 nuns and only two taking final vows for service in religious life. "

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/irelands-sons-turn-their-backs-on-the-priesthood-2063257.html

ISAW wrote: »

But the point is you get about a hundred times more abusers OUTSIDE the denominations!

Not according to the SAVI report, which found religous ministers and religous teachers ( eg brothers ) accounted for almost 6% of the abuse to boys who said they were sexually abused.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

I don't condemn the brother who physically abused me when I was ten.

Its a pity you do not / did not complain, as had you spoken out you may have saved other ten year olds from similar abuse. Evil thrives / repeats itself when good men do nothing.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I asked " Any luck trying to find any other sizeable organisation ( say employing at least hundreds or thousands of people ) which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children ?"

This is not true!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73052813&postcount=1243
You asked

I am still trying to find any other organisation which had 0.4 %, never mind 4% of its members accused of sexual misconduct involving children.

the bolding was yours! You did not have "employing hundreds of thousands" in it!
You were explained what an "only true scotsman" fallacy was and you ignored it!
You were shown other organisations with hundreds of thousands of members who are noty Roman Catholic and who are involved in abuse scandals and you ignored it?
You will no doubt keep rarefying the examples until you come to "comparable" Organisations which are made up entirely of Roman Catholic clergy because every time you add another constraint you are yet again proven wring!

If the best you can come up with are The boy scounts and Swim Ireland ...lol...neither of these are , to the best of my knowledge, really sizeable organisations

You didnt have "sizeable organisations" in your original question. But as it happens they are sizeable organisations.

( say employing at least hundreds or thousands of people ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is one of the largest youth organizations in the United States, with over 4.5 million youth members in its age-related divisions. Since its founding in 1910 as part of the international Scout Movement, more than 110 million Americans have been members of the BSA.

You original argument was about PERCENTAGE of offenders. Now it is about the size of the orginisation!!
The Roman Catholic church is one of the largest organisations in the world involving billions of people. Of course there are very few organisations of similar size. How is that in any way significant as to your suggestions about widespread sexual abuse of minors, cover ups or celibacy?

THE RCC in the USA was a professionally run organisation, employing 110,000 priests, and according to the report findings about 4 percent of those active during those years alone ( 1950 to 1992 ) had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children.

And the significance of that statistic is????
Other organisations both of smaller size, and of hundreds of thousands or millions or more had larger percentages accused and larger percentages convicted in spite of your claim to not be aware of ANY with more than 0.4%!

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Its a pity you do not / did not complain, as had you spoken out you may have saved other ten year olds from similar abuse. Evil thrives / repeats itself when good men do nothing.

so that is another of your tactics is it? Blame the victim! That's another personal slight you have made coming on top of your avoiding answering why you asked me in 1247 if I have anything to hide in relation to teenagers who were abused.

You seem to have a thing about only counting "pre pubescent kids".
Have you something to hide there in relation to older kids?

whatever did you mean by such a question? I predict you are no doubt going to avoid answering.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

yes. I wrote in the present tense. That means today.
"The number of priests in England, Wales and Scotland is currently hovering around the 4,400 mark – the equivalent of one priest for every 1,140 churchgoing Catholic, close to Ireland’s figure of one priest for every 1,200 church goers. In places like Brazil, the priest per capita level is 1:20,000. "

But how does this support your claims about priests per head of population in Ireland?
Especially in the past in Ireland?

The figures are discussed in another thread. Projections into the future are meaningless and off topic. all that matters here is your claims about percentages of abusers and per centages of priests and or brothers and nuns per capita. You were given the 1951 census statistics in that regard . Don't you remember?

Not according to the SAVI report, which found religous ministers and religous teachers ( eg brothers ) accounted for almost 6% of the abuse to boys who said they were sexually abused.

Where does the SAVI report say these were ALL in denominations?
and what does it say for boys and girls as opposed to just boys?

The only one we know for sure were in denominations are clergy or "ministers" . the SAVI figure for these are 1.9 per cent for boys and 1.4 for girls and we even then can't say they are Roman Catholic.

Festus

or rather the abuse of "endemic"

gigino wrote: »

Bear in mind, the Irish government in its 2009 report on clerical church abuse, - after widespread concern about child abuse in this institution - found such abuse in the Irish RCC "endemic". Check the word in the dictionary . I explained it to you earlier. eg Malaria is endemic in certain tropical regions. If malaria was equally widespread throughout the world it would not be said to be endemic in the tropical regions.

gigino wrote: »

Sure you get abuse in all denoiminations, but it seems to be endemic ( to use the Irish governments own word ) in the RCC.

For a start you should look up the meaning of "endemic". I would have thought that by now taking the word of any government source without reaching for the salt was a risky business. Given this is an Irish government document it would seem that they are as enthusiastic about their abuse of the English language as you are in your abuse of Catholics in general and the priesthood in particular. Oh, and your abuse of statistics. Are you a rag top journalist by any chance?

en·dem·ic

   /COLOR][COLOR=#333333]en-[COLOR=#333333]dem[/COLOR]-ik[/COLOR][COLOR=#333333 Show IPA
–adjective Also, en·dem·i·cal.1.natural to or characteristic of a specific people or place;native; indigenous: endemic folkways; countries where high unemployment is endemic.

2.belonging exclusively or confined to a particular place: a fever endemic to the tropics.


–noun3.an endemic disease.

That priests have a preference for black socks over really really really really really dark navy could be described as being endemic to priests.

That child abuse and pedophila happens outside of the clergy is enough to negate the governments statement you so love to refer to as the reality is that child abuse is not endemic anywhere. Except in Belgium where it seems it is endemic to the judiciary, the police force and men of wealth with access to large quantities of chocolates. In the UK it appears to be endemic to social workers.
Both of the latter statements constructed using the governments definition of "endemic".

gigino wrote: »

If there had been married women in the hierachy of the church, or happily married people, its unlikely the mix in the RCC would have got as rotten.

So married men don't abuse children? Get real.

There are sufficiently high levels of child abuse within families in Ireland to be able to say, using the government's understanding of the use of the word "endemic" and their general understanding of english, that child abuse is endemic in Irish families, if we are to believe all the reports and the media. So much so that there are Child Protection agencies in most counties.
It is also reasonable to say that ebephilia is particularly endemic in families while ephebophilia is more endemic in the teaching and coaching community, but again only while using an Irish government dictionary.