The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Festus

gigino wrote: »

Who else used to say that? ...oh yeah, Gerry Adams. Maybe the church authorities should have engaged in the "politics of condemnation" more, instead of covering up / silencing the victims like in the Brendan Smyth case, or moving the abuser to a different Parish ? Perhaps in other organisations there was a lower tolerance for child sex abusers, which may be partly why other large or similar size organisations do not have 0.4%, never mind 4% of its professional employees actually accused of child sex abuse?

The directive is "judge not lest ye be judged". Condemnation is a judgement. There are many cases where people have been accused of child abuse and rape only to be exhonerated later.
Report to the authorities by all means. Condemnation is a different matter.

There was a time in England when being a terrorist and being Irish were considered "endemic". Why? Because of the politics of condemnation. Guilty without trial. Guilt by association. Where did that get us?

Child abuse is wrong and it is not tolerated. The Church has learned and there are to be no more cover ups. Anyone accused is to be handed over to the authoritites.
If any Catholic organisation breaks with that they are disobeying the Pope.

It's up to you if you want to maintain your anti-Catholic position.

gigino

I am no expert but I would say penetrative sex is a type of abuse. I thought it went without saying that all types of sexual abuse are abuse and all adult who abuse children should be condemned. I cannot understand why ISAW said he did not condemn an abuser he once knew.

Festus wrote: »

Because of the politics of condemnation. Guilty without trial. Guilt by association.

Nobody mentioned "guilty without trial". If you read back a number of pages you will see that ISAW knew the abuser was an abuser.

Maybe forgiving an abuser is a Christian thing to do. I know if anyone abused me or my family I would have condemned them + have reported them to the authorities.

Festus

gigino wrote: »

I am no expert but I would say penetrative sex is a type of abuse. I thought it went without saying that all types of sexual abuse are abuse and all adult who abuse children should be condemned. I cannot understand why ISAW said he did not condemn an abuser he once knew.

Nobody mentioned "guilty without trial". If you read back a number of pages you will see that ISAW knew the abuser was an abuser.

Maybe forgiving an abuser is a Christian thing to do. I know if anyone abused me or my family I would have condemned them + have reported them to the authorities.

If you are no expert them become one and learn the difference between rape and abuse. Like it or not the law does make distinctions. Penetrative sex may be a form of abuse but the law calls it rape. Abuse without penetrative sex is not rape.

I thought it went without saying that innocent until proven guilty is the maxim of the this state and until proven guilty there can be no condemnation.

I am not dicussing what ISAW knew or did not know. The Christian position is not to condemn as that is a judgement. If you think condemnation is right you are not a Christian.

Forgiving all sinners is a Christian thing. There is no "maybe" about it. "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who tresspass against us" - part of the Our Father. If you cannot forgive them their sins how can you expect to be forgiven yours.

By all means report them to the authorities. That is the right thing to do.
Condemnation is a different matter.

gigino

Festus wrote: »

Penetrative sex may be a form of abuse but the law calls it rape. Abuse without penetrative sex is not rape.

They are still both forms of abuse. If an adult molests a child it is abuse. You said "Abuse, rape, two different matters."

Festus wrote: »

I thought it went without saying that innocent until proven guilty is the maxim of the this state and until proven guilty there can be no condemnation.
.

Of course everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. However in the case of the ten year old who knew his abuser, he should have condemned him and pointed him out to the authorities. No silence or softness because the abuser was a brother, or because the abuse may not have been full penetrative sex. If you look up a dictionary e.g.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/condemn

you will see the definition of "condemn" is as follows :

express complete disapproval of; censure:
most leaders roundly condemned the attack
the plan was condemned by campaigners

Festus wrote: »

If you think condemnation is right you are not a Christian.

The Christian thing to do is to condemn all child abuse, condemn ( as in the dictionary definition " express complete disapproval of" the abusers and report the abusers to the authorities.
Even people employed by the RCC should "express complete disapproval of" child abusers. That is the Christian thing to do. It could have helped prevent further abuse had that happened.

Have you been able to find any other organisations in the world which have had 4% of their 120,000 employees accused of child sex abuse ( like the 120,000 Roman Catholic Priests in the USA between 1950 and 1992 alone ) ?

ISAW

CiaranMT wrote: »

Both are sizeable corporations which have access to children.

Mcdonalds or Burgerking does not and never had access to children in seclusion or alone or at night to the level teachers or dormitory supervisors or swimming coaches or tutors had.

None of the articles you posted involved sexual abuse.

Look again!

Festus

gigino wrote: »

They are still both forms of abuse. If an adult molests a child it is abuse. You said "Abuse, rape, two different matters."

So is telling a person where to get off but it doesn't carry a gaol sentence.

gigino wrote: »

Of course everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. However in the case of the ten year old who knew his abuser, he should have condemned him and pointed him out to the authorities. No silence or softness because the abuser was a brother, or because the abuse may not have been full penetrative sex. If you look up a dictionary e.g.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/condemn

you will see the definition of "condemn" is as follows :

express complete disapproval of; censure:
most leaders roundly condemned the attack
the plan was condemned by campaigners

The Christian thing to do is to condemn all child abuse, condemn ( as in the dictionary definition " express complete disapproval of" the abusers and report the abusers to the authorities.
Even people employed by the RCC should "express complete disapproval of" child abusers. That is the Christian thing to do. It could have helped prevent further abuse had that happened.

Do you have an example of the use of "condemn" where it is used in relation to a person?

Of course child abuse is condemned but you are asking a ten year old to put "condemn" into a sentence and have it followed by whoever abused him.
There is a big difference between condemning the abuse and condemning the abuser.

But you don't see that do you. You want the abusers condemned, which by the way also means damned.

The Christian thing is to condemn the sin, not the sinner. Were you never taught that or can you not understand that?

Festus

gigino wrote: »

Have you been able to find any other organisations in the world which have had 4% of their 120,000 employees accused of child sex abuse ( like the 120,000 Roman Catholic Priests in the USA between 1950 and 1992 alone ) ?

Organisation?

Let's go one better and try an entire country or possibly an entire religion

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008626697_apmlsaudichildbrides.html

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I wrote " Newsweek magazine found that 4 % of the 110,000 Priests in the USA between 1950 and 1992 alone, were accused of child sex abuse. Are there any other similar size organisation in the world with ZERO point 4% of its professional full time employees accused of such abuse, never mind 4%"




but none are similar size organisations to the stastical sample above.

You fail to realise two statistical issues.

1. when discussing percentages the samples dont thave to be the same size. Of course the smaller the sample is that is taken form the overall the population the more likely the error. which is why i douby the 1.9 per cent level for Ministers in SAVI ~ they are 6 cases in a sample of over 3,000 people.

2. You have been asked what orginisations are of similar Size tothe RCC i.e. have over a billion members. You failed to supply any. But the point is about precentages so if the RCC has several hundred sexually abusing clergy abusing young kids per billion members that is
less than one thousand per over a thousand million i.e. less than one in a million or less than 0.0001 %

As you point out 4% of RC priests are accused but this says nothing about the actual level of abuse . In fact it says more about what people think the level is or the media hysteria developed about "pedophile priests".

( based on 120,000 employees ). You mention 2 or 3 employees of fast food businesses....which is almost nothing out of millions of workers in that industry.

there are not millions of workers in Burgerking!
http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC.Enhanced/SecCapsule.aspx?c=87140&fid=7105569

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
38,840 employees in 2010 and two thirds of the outlets in the US i.e. about 26,000 employees. 0.4 percent is about 100 cases. I would think there are more than 100 criminal cases against Burger king employees although not all for sex abuse. One however has to consider how many cases over say the last five years and multiply this by ten to get a nominal "fifty year" figure.
In spite of not having access to children in the way that teachers and others had I think that you would still find more than the order of 0.1 to 1% of employees being accused of crimes let alone being actually convicted .

You mention the scouts...but I cannot see what the percentage of professional scout association employees have been accused of child sex abuse. Do you know ?

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

There have been more than 2,000 US cases of abuse within the Boy Scouts of America prior to 1994 by Scout leaders, yet abuse is still occurring as evidenced by one abuse case as recently as 2005 to 2006

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

4.5 million youth members in its age-related division

2,000 cases per 4.5 million members.
comparing Ireland with what ten or maybe twenty pedophile priests per 4.5 million population.

Link ? I did see "Scouting was among the first national youth organizations to address the issue of sexual abuse of its members and in the 1980s developed its Youth Protection program, to educate youth, leaders and parents about the problem as a whole, and to introduce barriers to pedophiles using the Scout program to reach victims."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_response_to_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
The ecclesiastical response to Catholic sex abuse cases is a major aspect of the academic literature surrounding the pederastic priest scandal that first rose to U.S. national attention in 1985.

It seems extremely few if any organisations in the world have had 4% of their 120,000 employees accused of child sex abuse between 1950 and 1992 alone, like the RCC in the USA had.

Probably true. And the significance of that is???

ISAW

CiaranMT wrote: »

Just to jump in on this point... 1951? Really? You couldn't have tried 2006?

Yes. and the level of sexual abuse by clergy of children in 2006 was???

So, gigino may have been off by about ~1,000, but your figure of 25,000, taken from a 60 year old census, is ridiculous, to say the least.

I have pointed out several times gigino takes a figure of the level of clergy per capita from current times when there are way way LESS clergy i.e they have a tiny per centage of population and then compares it to his stats of abusers from a time fifty years ago when such abuse was at a much higher level ( inside and outside the church) but the number of clergy was also much larger.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

If an adult commits a crime as serious as child abuse, I think they should be condemned and reported to the authorities.

1. who is going to report them. Historically the parents didn't want to or the victim never told anyone.
2. you presuppose the crime happened. A court can't condemn anything until AFTER the jury decides the abuse happened.
3. Having authorities didn't seem to prevent abuse. If anything it assisted it. And ~I am not referring to Church authorities but to state ones as well.
4. I have given you links to police journals which indicate an increase in false accusations.

ISAW

CiaranMT wrote: »

Our, as in society's? Yes it bloody well is. It's f**kin child rape.

This was dealt with early in the thread. the law isn't about what you think the law is. Rape involves penetration. There was no crime of raping a male in the 1970s it only existed for females.

gigino wrote: »

Who else used to say that ( use that phrase "refuse to engage in the politics of condemnation" in relation to another matter )? ...oh yeah, Gerry Adams.

Who also came from a family with an abuser - his own father.

Maybe the church authorities should have engaged in the "politics of condemnation" more, instead of covering up / silencing the victims like in the Brendan Smyth case, or moving the abuser to a different Parish ?

I would not say "maybe". I would also say the State should have acted . But upi have to understand the political climate Catholics did not trust the RUC and cross border extradition didn't exist then either.

Perhaps in other organisations there was a lower tolerance for child sex abusers, which may be partly why other large or similar size organisations do not have 0.4%, never mind 4% of its professional employees actually accused of child sex abuse?

I think the literature to which I have referred you indicates that it is not about tolerance of abuse so much as anti Catholic media bias and hate speech.

gigino wrote: »

I am no expert but I would say penetrative sex is a type of abuse.

Unsolicited penetrative sex is rape.

I cannot understand why ISAW said he did not condemn an abuser he once knew.

Blame the victim now is it? The literature is quite clear and you have already been shown reasons why people were not accused.

Nobody mentioned "guilty without trial". If you read back a number of pages you will see that ISAW knew the abuser was an abuser.

Well given I actually suffered the abuse at ten years of age I would wonder whether I considered it abuse. I would also have thought there is no way the abuser would be disciplined. today I can only say I don't hate the guy and forgive him for what he did.

I am reminded of an Truth and Reconciliation case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3AAlls6Ow

http://www.heureka.clara.net/books/tutu-sermon.htm

A policeman called van de Broek told of how he and his fellow officers shot an 18-year-old youth, then burnt the body. Eight years later they went back, took the father, and forced his wife to watch as he was incinerated. She was in court to hear this confession and was asked by the judge what she wanted. She said she wanted van de Broek to go to the place where they burned her husband’s body and gather up the dust so she could give him a decent burial, van de Broek agreed. She then added a further request, “Mr. van de Broek took all my family away from me, and I still have a lot of love to give. Twice a month, I would like for him to come to the ghetto and spend a day with me so I can be a mother to him. And I would like Mr. van de Broek to know that he is forgiven by God, and that I forgive him too. I would like to embrace him so he can know my forgiveness is real.” Spontaneously, some in the courtroom began singing Amazing Grace as the elderly woman made her way to the witness stand, but van de Broek did not hear the hymn, he had fainted, overwhelmed.

Justice was not done in South Africa that day, nor in the entire country during months of agonizing procedures by the TRC. Something beyond justice took place. “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good,” said Paul. Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu understood that when evil is done, one response alone can overcome the evil. Revenge perpetuates the evil. Justice punishes it. Evil is overcome by good only if the injured party absorbs it, refusing to allow it to go any further. And that is the pattern of otherworldly grace that Jesus showed in his life and death.

Maybe forgiving an abuser is a Christian thing to do. I know if anyone abused me or my family I would have condemned them + have reported them to the authorities.

So you would have happily roasted them on a spit? and you would have felt or done humanity no better for it believe me.

gigino wrote: »

They are still both forms of abuse. If an adult molests a child it is abuse. You said "Abuse, rape, two different matters."

Legally yes.

Of course everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. However in the case of the ten year old who knew his abuser, he should have condemned him and pointed him out to the authorities.

I have already indicated I didn't. I don't have to justify that to you.

No silence or softness because the abuser was a brother, or because the abuse may not have been full penetrative sex. If you look up a dictionary e.g.

I feel no need no meaning in and no resolution to be gained by roasting an abuser on a spit.

express complete disapproval of

I completely disapprove of the act the brother did on me.

Even people employed by the RCC should "express complete disapproval of" child abusers. That is the Christian thing to do. It could have helped prevent further abuse had that happened.

Rubbish! A ten year old in some institutions might well have brought more abuse on themselves. Or nothing might have been done.

Have you been able to find any other organisations in the world which have had 4% of their 120,000 employees accused of child sex abuse ( like the 120,000 Roman Catholic Priests in the USA between 1950 and 1992 alone ) ?

And the level of accusations is significant because???

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

There was no crime of raping a male in the 1970s it only existed for females.

It was still a crime to rape a boy. In everyones eyes. You that are a cleric in the RCC may disagree of course.

An adult man, brother or not, raping a boy is not just a crime but a very serious one. It is abuse. It does not matter if it happened at 5 or 10 or 14 years of age - a certain age does not make it less so.

ISAW wrote: »

Well given I actually suffered the abuse at ten years of age I would wonder whether I considered it abuse. I would also have thought there is no way the abuser would be disciplined. today I can only say I don't hate the guy and forgive him for what he did.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Of course the church and brother told you it was not abuse. And there was no point in complaining because wthat was an anti-catholic thing to do and what would be the point of roasting the brother on the spit, as you yourself said ?

ISAW wrote: »

But upi have to understand the political climate Catholics did not trust the RUC and cross border extradition didn't exist then either.

I assume you're referring to the Brendan Smyth case. Catholic complained to the church and they were silenced. They would have been better off going to the police. Some Catholics did trust the police ; some were even in the police despite great intimidation from some members of their own religous community.

ISAW wrote: »

I feel no need no meaning in and no resolution to be gained by roasting an abuser on a spit.

so better not to complain about the brother / Priest, according to you ?
No abuser is literally " roasted on a spit", but they should face the law and be in the statistics. Not according to you .... Sickening.

ISAW wrote: »

I completely disapprove of the act the brother did on me.

but you should have "expressed complete disapproval of" him( the dictionary definition of "condemned" . If there was less of a culture of silence / cover up in the RCC people and society would have been better off - do you not understand that ?

ISAW wrote: »

Rubbish! A ten year old in some institutions might well have brought more abuse on themselves. Or nothing might have been done.

so you continue to condone the silence and cover-ups

two wrongs do not make a right.
I suppose seeing as you work for the "institutions might well have brought more abuse", what else would you say.

ISAW wrote: »

And the level of accusations is significant because?

Specific complaints were made against 4800 Roman Catholic priests in the USA between 1950 and 1992 alone...and you do not think that level of accusations is anything for your employers, the RCC to be worried about ? As pointed out before, RC Priests account for less than a twenthieth of one per cent ( approx 00.04% ) of the people who lived in the USA between 1950 and 1992. Despite attempts to silence and cover-up, newseek found 4% of priests in those years were accused of child sexual abuse. You do not think that is significant. That says it all.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

It was still a crime to rape a boy. In everyones eyes. You that are a cleric in the RCC may disagree of course.

I don't have any idea what being a cleric or not has to do with it not with your fascination with accusing me of being one has to do with anything. What do you mean by suggesting "a cleric in the RCC may disagree of course that child rape is wrong"?

I find it objectionable that you suggest that Roman Catholic clerics should ever regard sex with children by anyone as acceptable.

The point is it was NOT a crime under law in the 1970s when the Smyth victims gave their statements.

An adult man, brother or not, raping a boy is not just a crime but a very serious one.

It was not the crime of rape then because the law said only females could be raped.

It is abuse. It does not matter if it happened at 5 or 10 or 14 years of age - a certain age does not make it less so.

But the church as always regarded it as wrong. The point is the Irish Law for raping a male didn't exist then so an abuser of a male ( and you kept referring to male only abuse victims) could not be charged with rape.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Of course the church and brother told you it was not abuse.

The Church or the Brother never said anything about it.

And there was no point in complaining because wthat was an anti-catholic thing to do and what would be the point of roasting the brother on the spit, as you yourself said ?

Yes if I could punish or damage the abuser I would not bother now and would view that as a negative thing to do. But I doubt I could have done so then or that anyone then would believe I could.

I assume you're referring to the Brendan Smyth case. Catholic complained to the church and they were silenced.

No they weren't! It is in the thread. Two boys gave testimony. The Parents didnt take a criminal case to the police. The Church has no locus standi to do so.

They would have been better off going to the police.

They might not have been. The B specials and RUC were also abusing Catholics in other ways. But as it happens they didn't go to the police. The church didnt prevent them for going however.

Some Catholics did trust the police ; some were even in the police despite great intimidation from some members of their own religous community.

Indeed. And the victims families obviously were not of that group of Catholics trusting the police were they?

so better not to complain about the brother / Priest, according to you ?

No. Pointless to complain for one and I can't be blamed for not reporting abuse against me or not claiming for it today.

No abuser is literally " roasted on a spit", but they should face the law and be in the statistics. Not according to you .... Sickening.

But they are in the statistics. And you already admitted that people were doing what we would call rape today when there was no law to accuse them of rape. But you will continue to blame victims for not hurting their abusers. It is like asking black people to kill white people who kept them in slavery. Why should they if they don't want to kill their former owners? You have no moral authority over me or over them. Take you Lynch Law and hate speech elsewhere.

but you should have "expressed complete disapproval of" him

I completely disapprove of the acts he did yes. At the same time he wasn't a bad teacher so I can't say I disapprove of his teaching.

If there was less of a culture of silence / cover up in the RCC people and society would have been better off - do you not understand that ?

If there was less outside the RCC too. I also accept if there was less slavery things would also have been better for society. Am I supposed to believe that is the slaves' fault?

so you continue to condone the silence and cover-ups

Never have and never would but you again assume there was widespread conspiracy. There were several Bishops resigned maybe four or five of a population of at least thousands. they didn't all conspire to cover up. Some did ~ of the order of less than one per cent.

I suppose seeing as you work for the "institutions might well have brought more abuse", what else would you say.

LOL! Here you go again!
1. Claiming without any evidence that I am a priest or work for the church or am a shill for them!
2. claiming priests are today involved in covering up abuse !

You just have no evidence to support any conspiracy theory of yours do you?

Specific complaints were made against 4800 Roman Catholic priests in the USA between 1950 and 1992 alone...

Back to the 1950s! and how many actual convictions????

and you do not think that level of accusations is anything for your employers, the RCC to be worried about ?

Where do you get the idea that I am "employed" by the RCC?
and no the reason for the level of accusations is because of people like you who spread hate speech and make unsupported claims about conspiracies. Just as the Nazis and Neo Nazis did about Jews and some did about the Irish and others did about homosexuals and you are now doing about Catholics and especially Roman Catholic Clergy.

As pointed out before, RC Priests account for less than a twenthieth of one per cent ( approx 00.04% ) of the people who lived in the USA between 1950 and 1992.

Source?
By the way that is a twenty fifth of a per cent

Despite attempts to silence and cover-up, newseek found 4% of priests in those years were accused of child sexual abuse. You do not think that is significant. That says it all.

Source?
Here you go again with this misquote! You were shown how Newsweek in the actual article you quote actually says it is OPINION and how no experts do NOT agree with it. But that wont stop you claiming it proves something about the level of abuse.

It just does NOT!

And you throw in the "coverup" claim when it shows noting of the sort!

What it actually supports is the idea that people accuse priests of abuse at a hundred times the level one would expect if priests abused at the same level as other people. In fact what we find is that of abusers particularly of undeveloped children priests are
less than one abuser in a hundred probably less than one in a thousand.
so it says that people believe 4 in a hundred priests abuse when there are 4 in ten thousand living in the society. That is all you source says.

As I have shown you the level of priests among abusers are less than one in a hundred probably of the order of one in a thousand when it comes to pedophiles. and htis is among abusers! When it comes to the general population abusers themselves are a tiny percentage. Of your 0.04% of population being priests less tan 0.000004 % of the population are pedophile priests! But people believe 0.016 per cent of the population are abusive priests.

CiaranMT

@ISAW, you seem to have replied twice to one of my posts on the previous pages.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

This was dealt with early in the thread. the law isn't about what you think the law is. Rape involves penetration. There was no crime of raping a male in the 1970s it only existed for females.

But there was a law against buggery.

I went and looked up some info about this and it took me down the avenue of the history of the law as far as homosexuality is concerned and this led me to think that there is an argument that supports the claim that the church provided a place of safety for people with homosexual tendencies.

The law was very hard on homosexuality and up to about one-hundred and fifty years ago a man could be, as many were, executed. Even attempted sodomy could get you an hour in the pillory, which was often a near fatal experience, and then made to serve six-months in prison. Little wonder then that people with such tendencies would want to hide their 'condition' especially when there was a board in operation specifically to police sexual behaviour.

It is natural therefore that the priesthood would attract members who simply want to avoid scrutiny by the small-minded communities that they lived in. Would you accept this? Bear in mind that it was illegal to be a homosexual in Ireland up to the nineties; that's the nineteen-nineties.

I think it is well documented that some people became priests in order not to disappoint their families by not marrying like a 'normal' son would.

Now, I am speaking purely from the perspective of the decent, respectable men of integrity who happen to be attracted to men and joined the church as a career-choice, men probably of great faith and religosity whose sexuality puts them, in some cases, in peril of their lives.

I think that these men, in the bosom of the church are vulnerable targets for people with more sinister motives.

People who might possibly resort to blackmail in order to take advantage of the church?

Is it possible?

It seems that Canon-law works in a similar way to 'attorney-client privelige'; it affords a kind of protection for any member who falls foul of state-law; it tries to deal with its own problems in secret so as not to undermine the credibility of the church, which you can understand to a point.

The thing is that 'evil' has a grasp on the church; it's not just dust that can be swept out. The problem that the church has is that the source of the 'evil' has got someone important by the balls and an in-depth investigation would expose all sorts of other, possibly more serious, problems with the higher ranking members of the clergy.

Otherwise, why didn't the Pope simply declare that he was going to war on paedophila? That would have appeased more people than the position he actually took which, if you remember, he remedies with prayer and fasting.

Festus

Some interesting, if disturbing reading, on Protestant child abuse in the US

http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/article07/child_sex_abuse_by_protestant_clergy.html

http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/protestant-clergy-abuse-equals-or-exceeds-catholic-clergy-abuse/

Festus

gigino wrote: »

Have you been able to find any other organisations in the world which have had 4% of their 120,000 employees accused of child sex abuse ( like the 120,000 Roman Catholic Priests in the USA between 1950 and 1992 alone ) ?

Yes. The American public school organisation.

According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education – the most in-depth investigation to date – nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students have been targeted with unwanted sexual attention by school employees.

Comparing the incidence of sexual misconduct in schools with the Catholic Church scandal, Shakeshaft notes that a recent study by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops concluded 10,667 young people were sexually mistreated by priests between 1950 and 2002.

In contrast, she extrapolates from a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49389

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

But there was a law against buggery.

Which law?
Not in the 1935 Criminal Law Ammendment Act
to which the 2006 Act refers as being repealed ( sections1 and 2)
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0015/print.html
the 1993 act refers to Buggery
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0020/sec0003.html

Which has a penalty of two years for 15-17 year olds and life for anyone under 15.
But to what law before 1993 does it refer?

Section 15 says: The Criminal Law Amendment Acts, 1885 to 1935, and this Act may be cited together as the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Acts, 1885 to 1993.

The only repeal subsequently cited from these is is
48 & 49 Vict., c. 69 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 Section 11.

Also cited for repeal is

2 & 3 Geo. 5, c. 20 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912 Sections 3 and 7.
and
The Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c.100)

has something in section 61

61. Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable Crime of Buggery, committed either with Mankind or with any Animal, shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be kept in Penal Servitude for Life or for any Term not less than Ten Years.

But this was repealed in the UK. The definition of "buggery" was not specified in these or any statute.As with the crime of rape, buggery required that penetration must have occurred.
so now you are back to what if penetration didn't occur or what if it did and you can't prove it did? What do you charge the abuser with in 1978 in the Republic of Ireland? If the Act was committed in Northern Ireland does criminal Juristiction apply? do you think the perpetrator would or could be extradited? You do remember the government fell over matters relating to the subsequent extradition warrant in relation to Brendan Smyth fifteen years after this? It isn't as simple as one might think.

I went and looked up some info about this and it took me down the avenue of the history of the law as far as homosexuality is concerned and this led me to think that there is an argument that supports the claim that the church provided a place of safety for people with homosexual tendencies.

There is no crime in being a homosexual. Actions based on homosexuality were criminalised. Even today being a pedophile is not a crime. It is the actions based on it that are.

The law was very hard on homosexuality and up to about one-hundred and fifty years ago a man could be, as many were, executed.

I don't believe you.
How many people were executed for homosexual acts 150 years ago? Say from 1810-1860?

Even attempted sodomy could get you an hour in the pillory, which was often a near fatal experience, and then made to serve six-months in prison. Little wonder then that people with such tendencies would want to hide their 'condition' especially when there was a board in operation specifically to police sexual behaviour.

Which board? Where? When?

It is natural therefore that the priesthood would attract members who simply want to avoid scrutiny by the small-minded communities that they lived in. Would you accept this? Bear in mind that it was illegal to be a homosexual in Ireland up to the nineties; that's the nineteen-nineties.

No it wasn't! Certain acts were illegal.

I think it is well documented that some people became priests in order not to disappoint their families by not marrying like a 'normal' son would.

I don't.

Now, I am speaking purely from the perspective of the decent, respectable men of integrity who happen to be attracted to men and joined the church as a career-choice, men probably of great faith and religosity whose sexuality puts them, in some cases, in peril of their lives.

I don't believe you. What laws executed homosexuals in Ireland?
By the way the idea that pedophilia is based in a homosexual tendency isn't something I have been debating here.

I think that these men, in the bosom of the church are vulnerable targets for people with more sinister motives.

Ill agree with that.There are people who are obviously only intersted in attacking the Church and spreading hate and have little or no interest in the victims of child abuse. In fact gigino has even said victims of abuse are to blame for not reporting religious abusers. However he has no interest in the 99 percent plus of non clerical abusers and whether they should have been reported.

It seems that Canon-law works in a similar way to 'attorney-client privelige'; it affords a kind of protection for any member who falls foul of state-law; it tries to deal with its own problems in secret so as not to undermine the credibility of the church, which you can understand to a point.

It also serves to protect the secrecy of confession and dignity of the victim of abuse.

The thing is that 'evil' has a grasp on the church; it's not just dust that can be swept out. The problem that the church has is that the source of the 'evil' has got someone important by the balls and an in-depth investigation would expose all sorts of other, possibly more serious, problems with the higher ranking members of the clergy.

More Conspiracy theory!

Otherwise, why didn't the Pope simply declare that he was going to war on paedophila? That would have appeased more people than the position he actually took which, if you remember, he remedies with prayer and fasting.

Not only with prayer and fasting but to answer you first question we already know the "war on drugs/evil etc." that the US undertook were a sham. Also the point I made about the story from the Truth and reconciliation commission in forgiveness as opposed to punishment might hint at the idea that "auto de fe" responses and witchunts are not necessarily useful.

Festus wrote: »

Some interesting, if disturbing reading, on Protestant child abuse in the US

http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/article07/child_sex_abuse_by_protestant_clergy.html

http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/protestant-clergy-abuse-equals-or-exceeds-catholic-clergy-abuse/

I have made similar points. But while it shows roman Catholic clergy are low by comparison I think pointing out other clerical abuse draws attention from the 98 per cent plus of non clerical abusers.

Festus wrote: »

Yes. The American public school organisation.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49389

Actually i was aware of the shakeshaft study and didnt recall it. thanks for that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charol_Shakeshaft
Hofstra University professor noted for her studies on school staff sexually abusing students. She has co-authored a four-year study on sexual abuse at school, which first appeared in March 1995, in the educational journal Phi Delta Kappan.

Shakeshaft has also been commissioned by the Department of Education to review the available literature on sexual misconduct against students by public school employees, and published her findings in 2004
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf

CiaranMT wrote: »

@ISAW, you seem to have replied twice to one of my posts on the previous pages.

Where? ill delete it.

gigino

Festus wrote: »

Some interesting, if disturbing reading, on Protestant child abuse in the US

http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/article07/child_sex_abuse_by_protestant_clergy.html

Nobody said only child sex abuse occured only in the Roman Catholic cgurch ; however given that your link above concerns itself with ( quote ) " 224,000 churches across the country could be listed as Protestant.", where does it say or insinuate that child sex abuse is even 10% as bad in the Protestant churches there as in the RCC church there ?

The report in Newsweek found 4% of RC priests in the USA between 1950 and 1992 alone were accused of child sex abuse. What % of Proyestant clergy were you able to find?

And newsweek magazine found 2/3 of the public in the states are of the opinion the RCC " frequently" abuses children. What is the figure for peoples experiences of the Protestant churches, in that quite religous country ?

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

And newsweek magazine found 2/3 of the public in the states are of the opinion the RCC " frequently" abuses children.

And I warned you if you keep posting the same statistics out of context you'll get infracted.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Nobody said only child sex abuse occured only in the Roman Catholic cgurch ;

In fact you have been shown all clergy are a tiny per centage maybe around 2 but RC clergy are less than one and for pre pubescent kids probably less than 0.1%

But you seem not to care about the other 99 % and only care about restating rubbish about what people think is true or want to believe. and they think it is true because people like you and other posters in this thread spread hatred for the church and clergy.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

Which law?
Not in the 1935 Criminal Law Ammendment Act
to which the 2006 Act refers as being repealed ( sections1 and 2)
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0015/print.html
the 1993 act refers to Buggery
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0020/sec0003.html

Which has a penalty of two years for 15-17 year olds and life for anyone under 15.
But to what law before 1993 does it refer?

Section 15 says: The Criminal Law Amendment Acts, 1885 to 1935, and this Act may be cited together as the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Acts, 1885 to 1993.

The only repeal subsequently cited from these is is
48 & 49 Vict., c. 69 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 Section 11.

Also cited for repeal is

2 & 3 Geo. 5, c. 20 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912 Sections 3 and 7.
and
The Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c.100)

has something in section 61


But this was repealed in the UK. The definition of "buggery" was not specified in these or any statute.As with the crime of rape, buggery required that penetration must have occurred.
so now you are back to what if penetration didn't occur or what if it did and you can't prove it did? What do you charge the abuser with in 1978 in the Republic of Ireland? If the Act was committed in Northern Ireland does criminal Juristiction apply? do you think the perpetrator would or could be extradited? You do remember the government fell over matters relating to the subsequent extradition warrant in relation to Brendan Smyth fifteen years after this? It isn't as simple as one might think.

There was legislation against homosexual behaviour and buggery law was used mainly as a weapon against homosexuality. The law could have treated the sexual assault of boys in the same way as it did with girls; charge the abuser with committing or attempting to commit an act of homosexuality. It seems fairly simple to me.

It is probably worth mentioning that older abuse law regarding children applied only to females and this was to deal with the problems caused by incest.

Child-protection for the sake of the children is a fairly recent phenomenon. Until fairly recently, in historical terms, there was no will or inclination from those in power to protect children in general. Sex-crime legislation was a morality driven cause rather than being motivated by the plight of tens of thousands of children in workhouses, prisons, up chimneys, etc. People didn't really care; that was God's job.

It turned out that God didn't care either and more and more children got screwed up by the depavity of men, and women, and so society, being made up of mums and dads who generation by generation want more for their children, applied pressure to the ruling elite who appeased them by introducing child-protection legislation.

It is simple. Laws are made and repealed all the time. What is lacking is will and motivation; why is that? Why aren't the authorities taking a more pro-active role in dealing with child-abuse which, whether it be inside the church or outside it, is a serious societal problem. It almost seems like child-abuse is actually acceptable to the authorities; it is as if the authorities feel that they have the right to indulge their depravity, to wield their power. I believe that the state and church authorities have taken too tentative an approach to this problem to be credible leaders in the fight against child-abuse.

Remeber too that the church led from the front in the stigmatisation of homosexuals.

ISAW wrote: »

I don't believe you.
How many people were executed for homosexual acts 150 years ago? Say from 1810-1860?

I don't know.

ISAW wrote: »

Which board? Where? When?

No it wasn't! Certain acts were illegal.



I don't.


I don't believe you. What laws executed homosexuals in Ireland?
By the way the idea that pedophilia is based in a homosexual tendency isn't something I have been debating here.

To be honest, I find it very difficult to get information on this subject relating to Ireland and getting information about law is also challenging. I mostly refer to the English models which are thought by some to have been adopted by Ireland. Henry's 'Buggery Act' for example; sodomy was a hanging offence in Scotland up to the 1880's.

The point that I was making is that it was very dangerous to be a practicing homosexual in Ireland once upon a time.

ISAW wrote: »

Ill agree with that.There are people who are obviously only intersted in attacking the Church and spreading hate and have little or no interest in the victims of child abuse. In fact gigino has even said victims of abuse are to blame for not reporting religious abusers. However he has no interest in the 99 percent plus of non clerical abusers and whether they should have been reported.

In truth, the animosity between you and gigino is obvious and slightly saddening.

I think the conflict between logic and emotion is the issue between you rather than an idealogical difference.

You seem to apply a cold analytical approach to argument whereas gigino is led by a sense of right and wrong in his approach. You speak in terms of how the law is and gigino speaks in terms of how the law should be. People like you apply law and people like gigino cause legislation to be made that can be applied by people like you.

I think gigino could have phrased his comment a little better but I imagine he is saying that victims of abuse should, if it is possible, actively assist in the fight against child-abuse. Whilst forgiveness is divine and all that, failure to condemn the abuser can appear, albeit erroneously, as tacit condonement and gives rise to the free-bite syndrome; if an abuser isn't condemned, he is free to continue abusing. Is it the duty of children to forgive child-abusers?

If push comes to shove, a victim can condemn and then forgive.

ISAW wrote: »

It also serves to protect the secrecy of confession and dignity of the victim of abuse.

I'm not saying that there is no good whatsoever in Canon-law but there are 'loop-holes' that have been shown to benefit the lowest scum in humanity.

ISAW wrote: »

More Conspiracy theory!

Why do you say that? It happens all the time. There are countless cases of people being coerced into doing something by means of blackmail; they've been blackmailed into paying money, stealing, murder, silence, aiding and abetting crime, you name it. And if you were a priest at a certain time, in a certain place with a certain sexual orientation then exposure could ruin you and possibly your family too. I can't understand how you can't see how men of great integrity could be forced to make a pact with Satan for temporal reasons.

Some blackmail victims may have gone on to become Cardinals and Bishops and now the blackmailers have influence at the top. Good men held over a barrel by evil men.

It happens all the time.

ISAW wrote: »

Not only with prayer and fasting but to answer you first question we already know the "war on drugs/evil etc." that the US undertook were a sham. Also the point I made about the story from the Truth and reconciliation commission in forgiveness as opposed to punishment might hint at the idea that "auto de fe" responses and witchunts are not necessarily useful.

Nor is praying, fasting or forgiveness.

I wonder, do you think that if forgiveness was the punishment for child abuse, child-abuse would increase or decrease?

The fact that they could go to jail actually stops some people from carrying out abuse.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

In fact you have been shown all clergy are a tiny per centage maybe around 2 but RC clergy are less than one and for pre pubescent kids probably less than 0.1%

But you seem not to care about the other 99 % and only care about restating rubbish about what people think is true or want to believe. and they think it is true because people like you and other posters in this thread spread hatred for the church and clergy.

The media were perhaps instrumental in fermenting public opinion but it was the RCC's inadequate response to, and its, and the state's involvement, in a cover-up of a serious issue of child-abuse that fueled it.

All gigino is saying is that many people, rightly or wrongly, think that the RCC is a state-sanctioned paedophile ring and that it is the Church's fault that people think that way.

They should have grabbed the bull by the horns but instead decided to hide and wait in the shadows before glibly offering prayer and fasting as a solution.

The Vatican is very arrogant and insensitive and is doing as little as it can get away with in order to 'get around' this problem which they see as 'their' problem rather than as a problem for children connected to the church.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

In fact you have been shown all clergy are a tiny per centage maybe around 2 but RC clergy are less than one and for pre pubescent kids probably less than 0.1%

Rubbish. The SAVI figure shows that religous ( including Priests, Brothers, clergy, religois teachers ) account for ( in round figures ) 6% of boys abused. That survey was in the Republic of Ireland. As a professional in the RC church you may not like those figures ( given that nearly all of the religous professionals in Ireland are R.C., but thats no reason for you to make up figures e.g. trying to claim that half the clerical abuse in Rep. of Ireland is committed by clergy who are not Catholic ....a bit ridiculous when you consider how nearly all (95 or 98 per cent?) of the population + clergy in the country are Catholic.....and have you failed to notice how most clerical sex abuse scandals seem to have involved celibate men ( Priests, Brothers, Religous teachers )

prinz

himnextdoor wrote: »

All gigino is saying is that many people, rightly or wrongly, think that the RCC is a state-sanctioned paedophile ring and that it is the Church's fault that people think that way..

That's not what gigino has been saying. gigino has been saying that many people (wrongly as the evidence shows) believe that abuse by RCC clegy is widespread........ therefore it must really be as widespread as they claim (even though no findings have backed this up). Akin to saying that if 60% of people believe that brain eating zombies are sending mind control waves through your computer monitor, even though there is no evidence to suggest it's true, it must be if 60% of people believe it to be. Massive difference.

gigino

prinz wrote: »

That's not what gigino has been saying. gigino has been saying that many people (wrongly as the evidence shows) believe that abuse by RCC clegy is widespread........ therefore is must really be as widespread as they claim (even though no findings have backed this up).

"no findings have backed this up" ? rubbish, the SAVI report. As said before, the SAVI figure shows that religous ( including Priests, Brothers, clergy, religous teachers ) in the Rep. of Ireland account for ( in round figures ) 6% of boys abused.

People generally do not need statistics to know of problems. Most catholics if they have not been abused thenselves know of a relative or friend(s) who have been. While all the evidence is there that the RCC tried to silence / cover up "scandals" ( eg the Brendan Symth case ) , people do sometimes talk and not everyone has been bullied in to silence.

prinz

gigino wrote: »

Most catholics if they have not been abused thenselves know of a relative or friend(s) who have been..

Link for this amazing finding please?

wolfsbane

Festus wrote: »

Some interesting, if disturbing reading, on Protestant child abuse in the US

http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/article07/child_sex_abuse_by_protestant_clergy.html

http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/protestant-clergy-abuse-equals-or-exceeds-catholic-clergy-abuse/

Still, said Patrick Moreland of Church Mutual, churches are particularly vulnerable to abusers.
“By their nature, congregations are the most trusting of organizations, so that makes them attractive targets for predators,” he said. “If you’re a predator, where do you go? You go to a congregation that will welcome you.”
Yes, sex-abuse happens in any place where trust and power enable it, even in places where getting caught is almost certain. But it is more likely in institutions that intimidate the victim and protect the perpetrator.

And that is the BIG issue. Not just that priests or pastors or youth workers abuse children - for sin is always in the world - but that the church concerned should cover it up. Cover it up by intimidating the child and its parents and protecting - or even facilitating - the offender.

********************************************************************
Romans 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Nobody said only child sex abuse occured only in the Roman Catholic cgurch

Rubbish1 you follow this with

4% of RC priests in the USA between 1950 and 1992 alone were accused of child sex abuse. What % of Proyestant clergy were you able to find

specifically singling out RC clergy as the main abusers when in fact all clergy comprise about 2 %!
and

2/3 of the public in the states are of the opinion the RCC " frequently" abuses children. What is the figure for peoples experiences of the Protestant churches, in that quite religous country ?

Ditto! You just keep contradicting yourself. Your agenda is to attack the RC church and you ignore other denominations or downgrade them. But even including the other denominations where the abuse is at a higher percentage still isn't dealing withg the other 98 per cent!

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

"no findings have backed this up" ? rubbish, the SAVI report. As said before, the SAVI figure shows that religous ( including Priests, Brothers, clergy, religous teachers ) in the Rep. of Ireland account for ( in round figures ) 6% of boys abused.

It does NOT say that at all! it says almost six per cent of ABUSERS were teachers and clergy ( and about one per cent by clergy) not that six percent of those abused were by clegy.
In fact for teachers and clergy because of their access they had multiple victims so the per centage of victims abused by clergy might well be much higher (but not approaching as high as ten per cent I would guess). In fact a few clerics would account for the majority of victims of the few dozen cases worldwide I would guess.

Dont forget "abuse" as defined by SAVI isnt necessarily sex or rape or with under developed children. It is also with teenagers and may not include contact of any kind.

People generally do not need statistics to know of problems. Most catholics if they have not been abused thenselves know of a relative or friend(s) who have been. While all the evidence is there that the RCC tried to silence / cover up "scandals" ( eg the Brendan Symth case ) , people do sometimes talk and not everyone has been bullied in to silence.

Alegorical tales are not helpful to the issue. I'm sure the Nazis told people that Jews ate Aryans. Really stats do help. You obviously don't have the stats but want to believe the problem is huge among RC clerics when in fact it is less than one percent of all offenders and is at least a hundred times bigger outside the RC church and more than a thousand times when it comes to pre pubescent children. but that won't stop you accusing "pedo Preists" of being endemic to the RCC will it?