The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

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.

the church does not need to respond to public opinion from the Nazi Party the Communist Party or anywhere else. It needs to respond to morally wrong actions.

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.

And I am saying gigino is one of these anti Catholic hate mongers who believes in this bigoted opinion in spite of the evidence presented to him. I am also saying it is not in the main the Churches fault but the fault of the media broadcasting the hate filled message of such people. Their "think of the children" message was absent a hundred years ago when they used them for cleaning chimneys and it was Christians who campaigned for childrens rights.
The atheistic "holier than thou" agenda is quite prevalent with their new found interest in children's rights.

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.

Already dealt with that issue earlier.

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.

One would think the Vatican is trying to move away from Authoritarian pronouncements but you seem to believe they should be taking it out of the local area and dealing with it in Rome where about 700 clerics administer 1.2 billion Catholics? Even in the US the total administration of about a million civil servants in Washington DC has been unable to deal with a problem of non clerical sexual abuse - a hundred times greater than the level of clerical abuse.

As it happens ( also referred to earlier in the thread) every parish has a Child Protection Policy and the church is ahead of other organisations in this regard.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

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

How many people were imprisioned or executed for it? We all know about Wilde who got two years in goal. Who else?

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

i oppose hate speech and anti catholicism just as I oppose anti semitism and neo naziism. I have nothing to apologise for in that and do nothing wrong in opposing it.

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

I think one should have a basis for belief and not a bigoted attitude based on constantly regurgitating and twisting the scant evidence to portray what one wants to believe.

You seem to apply a cold analytical approach

I try not to let my subjective opinion influence objective statistics.

to argument whereas gigino is led by a sense of right and wrong in his approach.

i.e. he is always right and everyone else always wrong. It is clear that he is not prepared to learn about the evidence and has a preconception that the church is the main problem and he wants to project this opinion onto the evidence.

You speak in terms of how the law is and gigino speaks in terms of how the law should be.

I have no problem in changing the criminal law but one can not make it retroactive.
I also accept that sin existed before any law was written.

People like you apply law and people like gigino cause legislation to be made that can be applied by people like you.

I pass no moral judgement on any abuser. If the law was left up to hate mongers to make there would be witchunts and pogroms and show trials as there were for the atheistic
regimes that wiped out hundreds of millions of people.

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.

Let him say that then. Im sure he doesn't need you to mediate or interpret for him. It is also quite clear that he has a personal agenda for me associated with his vendetta against the RCC. so much so he makes the idea of me being a priest into an accusation.

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;

I never condoned or approved of any abuse and you are a liar if you claim I did!

if an abuser isn't condemned, he is free to continue abusing.

That isn't true either! One might not be condemned but also be restricted even if innocent. for exam,ple child protection policies might not allow an adult to be alone in a room with a child.

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

The South African case cited was not like that though was it? so it is not esentially true iof the counter example exists.

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.

As in all law. And you therefore suggest we should have no law at all?

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.

People can chose to do evil acts yes. They can also be coerced. But the idea that the RCC is indulged in a coverup and a conspiracy with respect to pedophiles is nonsense for which you have no actual evidence. At best there are isolated cases of individual priests. there were also some groups in some non clerical orders in some countries ( not worldwide) maybe 30 years ago. Ther were no Bishops who abused and out of ten thousand or so Bishops who had the local control over the church maybe ten worldwide resigned because they moved a priest elsewhere or didnt react soon enough to abuse. In ever case they did not conspire with other Bishops but acted alone.

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.

Absolute nonsense. You have been reading to much Dan Brown! Ther are no cases of Cardinals or Bishops involved in a conspiracy to cover up child abuse because of blackmail!

It happens all the time.

What does ?
that People allege a conspiracy?
Yes Ill agree with that.

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

Decrease if true forgiveness was based on true contrition and true compassion and the contrition involved changing so that the offender didn't sin again.

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

Statistically recidivism suggests that punishment alone actually promotes crime rather than prevents it. Just as the death penalty does not prevent murderers.

gigino

himnextdoor wrote: »

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.
.

himnextdoor wrote: »

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.

Well put. Covering up / remaining silent on child abuse does not help to stop it. If ISAW had informed on the brother who abused him, he may have saved other children the ordeal. Unfortunately years ago many children were afraid to complain / condemn the abuser.

gimmebroadband

gigino wrote: »

If ISAW had informed on the brother who abused him, he may have saved other children the ordeal. Unfortunately years ago many children were afraid to complain / condemn the abuser.

OTOH, Isn't it possible that ISAW wasn't the first one to be physically abused by the Brother, so if other's spoke up against the Brother ISAW would have been spared the ordeal!!

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

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.

I showed you the chart if you go back a number of posts. According to the SAVI report, for boys who were sexually abused, it is clear that 2% of boys abused in the Rep of Ireland were by "religous ministers"/ clerics, and 4% ( in round figures) were by " religous teachers". Ordinary non-religous teachers were a seperate category. You cannot say " almost six per cent of ABUSERS were teachers and clergy" when teachers was broken down in to 2 categories, religous ( brothers etc etc ) + non-religous.

gigino

gimmebroadband wrote: »

OTOH, Isn't it possible that ISAW wasn't the first one to be physically abused by the Brother, so if other's spoke up against the Brother ISAW would have been spared the ordeal!!

precisely, and great we agree on something.

gimmebroadband

There were many lay teachers that physically abused pupils also, my husband was the recipient of being punished with the leg of a chair!! :eek:

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Well put. Covering up / remaining silent on child abuse does not help to stop it. If ISAW had informed on the brother who abused him, he may have saved other children the ordeal.

There you go again - blaming the victim!
I do not have to answer to you as to why I should or should not have done anything about abuse that happened to me. I think it is regrettable that you suggest victims of abuse could have saved others and didn't as if they did something wrong!

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I showed you the chart if you go back a number of posts. According to the SAVI report, for boys who were sexually abused, it is clear that 2% of boys abused in the Rep of Ireland were by "religous ministers"/ clerics,

That isnt clear at all!
First of all SAVI is a telephone poll.
Second the point is that less than two per cent of abusers were Ministers i.e. six Ministers in seven hundred abusers. If you are saying that six cases of abuse were by ministers and the other 694 were by non clergy then it could well be only ONE Minister was involved in all six cases. But what SAVI says I believe is that six different Ministers were involved.
In other words it is about the per centage of abusers who are clergy and not the per centage of victims abused by clergy which might well be a higher percentage.

and 4% ( in round figures) were by " religous teachers". Ordinary non-religous teachers were a seperate category. You cannot say " almost six per cent of ABUSERS were teachers and clergy" when teachers was broken down in to 2 categories, religous ( brothers etc etc ) + non-religous.

I have no idea if "religious teacher" means "brothers and nuns" or "catechists" whjo were lay teachers. The thing is "Ministers" even in this not very detailed survey is a little over one per cent. Non clerical abusers were well over 99 per cent and for pre pubescent kids by Pedophile RC priests probably over 99.9 per cent. How then is it such a crisis as you try to make out? what about the other 99 per cent of abusers? Surely you think we should be doing something about them?

ISAW

gimmebroadband wrote: »

OTOH, Isn't it possible that ISAW wasn't the first one to be physically abused by the Brother, so if other's spoke up against the Brother ISAW would have been spared the ordeal!!

Yes and Jews were money lenders in Europe and practiced usury against Christians. Does this mean they deserved the Holocaust? Can we blame the victim for things that their predecessors did? Can we say that Germans today are similarly terrible people because they abused Jews? Can we blame the Germans for not preventing the Holocaust? I really think such lines of arguments are not getting anywhere in a hurry.

gimmebroadband

ISAW wrote: »

Yes and Jews were money lenders in Europe and practiced usury against Christians. Does this mean they deserved the Holocaust? Can we blame the victim for things that their predecessors did? Can we say that Germans today are similarly terrible people because they abused Jews? Can we blame the Germans for not preventing the Holocaust? I really think such lines of arguments are not getting anywhere in a hurry.

I was trying to help you ISAW by using gigino's argument against him as I saw he was blaming you for future abuse of others!!

Festus

gimmebroadband wrote: »

There were many lay teachers that physically abused pupils also, my husband was the recipient of being punished with the leg of a chair!! :eek:

Seconded. I received far more physical abuse at the hands of the lay teachers than I ever got from priests or brothers. My ear still rings from the clatter one long haired hippy the CBS hired gave me when I was 8

ISAW

Festus wrote: »

Seconded. I received far more physical abuse at the hands of the lay teachers than I ever got from priests or brothers. My ear still rings from the clatter one long haired hippy the CBS hired gave me when I was 8

Indeed the abuse I witnessed from lay teachers far outstripped any from brothers. This is not just opinion. report after report has agreed with it. And it is also true of sexual abuse. In the Irish case the number of peoole under the patronage of brothers or nuns was higher than elsewhere but the Shakeshaft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charol_Shakeshaft and other evidence given above shows the abuse was higher outside of clergy or nuns or brothers.

. the physical sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by [Catholic] priests.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

other evidence given above shows the abuse was higher outside of clergy or nuns or brothers.

Shakeshaft done her study in the states, which is not a Roman Catholic country and most of the clergy / people in authority are not Roman Catholics. We already know that 4% of the RC clergy in the states between 1950 and 1992 alone ( when some people thought they risked excommunication and hell if they complained ! )were accused of child sex abuse. A very high figure, I think you will agree. Where have you figures for other sections of society - be they churches, organisations, large businesses - where is your "other evidence given above shows the abuse was higher outside of clergy or nuns or brothers" you talk of ?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

I do not have to answer to you as to why I should or should not have done anything about abuse that happened to me.

As someone else correctly said "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". The dictionary definition of condemn, as shown earlier , is " express complete disapproval of ".



I also condemn the cover ups and other manipulation that happened by the RCC, as in the Brendan Smyth/ church hierarchy case for example.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/chris-moore-club-protecting-monster-went-all-the-way-to-top-2100001.html

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Shakeshaft done her study in the states, which is not a Roman Catholic country and most of the clergy / people in authority are not Roman Catholics.

But from which you keep parroting excerpts from a Newsweek story while you ignore the rest of that same article? You are given hard evidence from proper research but it wont stop you parroting part of an article wiothout reference to the rest of it.

We already know that 4% of the RC clergy in the states between 1950 and 1992 alone ( when some people thought they risked excommunication and hell if they complained ! )were accused of child sex abuse.

You added in the bit in brackets which contradicts your eariler point. If the Us is not a Catholic country then how is the idea of excommunication so prevalent there as you claim? Basiscally you are claiming the level is higher but the fear of reporting mitigated against people speaking out. But the level you report is ion fact not due to reporting but due to hysteria driven by media and by people like you who leave out the other parts of the Newsweek source which says to paraphrase "of course no actual experts agree with this 4% opinion as in any way indicating level of abuse"

A very high figure, I think you will agree.

Not really. I'm sure even in spite of hysteria ther are huge numbers of non Roman Catholic accusations of child abuse. what is certain in spite of all the accusations is there are hundreds of times more actual convicted abusers who are not Roman Catholic clergy.
and when it comes to pedophiles ( and not for example housekeepers having children for Priests which is an entirely different matter and also rather rare ) the levels are thousands to one!

Where have you figures for other sections of society - be they churches, organisations, large businesses - where is your "other evidence given above shows the abuse was higher outside of clergy or nuns or brothers" you talk of ?

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,

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Jenkins
"[his] research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination—or indeed, than non-clergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Anti-Catholicism:_The_Last_Acceptable_Prejudice


Try reading some of the evidence before parroting twisted interpretations of SAVI or Newsweek.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

As someone else correctly said "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".

You keep trying this one claiming that I am condoning abuse! I am not and never have!

The dictionary definition of condemn, as shown earlier , is " express complete disapproval of ".

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73115739&postcount=1302
Which you seemed to have ignored!

I have to laugh. At one level you try to link the level of accusations with the actual level of abuse when they are not related and at another you claim that a victim not reporting clerical abuse is akin to causing more abuse.

I also condemn the cover ups and other manipulation that happened by the RCC, as in the Brendan Smyth/ church hierarchy case for example.

But not cover ups of any of the other 99 per cent of abusers? You focus only on the less than one per cent of pedophiles were Roman Catholic Clergy. Why is that I wonder?

PDN

I've no dog in this hunt at all, but ......

ISAW wrote: »

You added in the bit in brackets which contradicts your eariler point. If the Us is not a Catholic country then how is the idea of excommunication so prevalent there as you claim?

It doesn't actually contradict it at all. Whether Catholics were a majority or a minority in a country has no bearing whatsoever on how prevalent the fear of excommunication was among Catholics.

To be honest, this is only one example of how the longer you and gigino keep picking at each other, the less credible your respective positions become. Neither of you are coming across as being in any way objective.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

You keep trying this one claiming that I am condoning abuse!

ISAW wrote: »

But not cover ups of any of the other 99 per cent of abusers? You focus only on the less than one per cent of pedophiles were Roman Catholic Clergy. Why is that I wonder?

Workers in the RCC church ( Priests, brothers etc ) account for much more than 1% of abuse ; SAVI said of abuse to boys 6% ( in round figures ) was by clergy / religous teachers.
This thread is about " Clerical Child Abuse". I condemn all abusers. This thread is about clerical abuse, which to me means abuse by those who professionally work in or for the churches. In this country most if not all the clerical abuse cases seem to involve the RCC.

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.

Why would you " wonder whether you considered it abuse "...was abuse by the brothers that commonplace ? And by you keeping silent, do you not think most other kids who were abused also kept silent, and hence a lot more abuse went on in the church that ever surfaced in statistics ? And when you admitted that you would " have thought there is no way the abuser would be disciplined" is'nt that a sad inditement of the brothers contempories in the RCC. An extension of the coverup as evidenced in the Brendan Symth affair?

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

It doesn't actually contradict it at all. Whether Catholics were a majority or a minority in a country has no bearing whatsoever on how prevalent the fear of excommunication was among Catholics.

If they are a minority it has a bearing on the level of abuse in the country! Yes it might be less reported just as it might be among Mormons, Amish or Jehovas Witnessess for example
who are even more "clannish" than the most Authoritarian Catholics. But the numbers of JW and Mormons would be so low as to not have such a large effect statistically as a national religion.

You see on one hand when it suits him gigino is using the idea of the RCC being so large and influencial over the state that you cant compare anything to it and on another it suddenly becomes a minority religion where it isn't controlling the state. But in the case where it isn't he alleges accusations are high ( presumably because the RCC has not such a hold on society) but also alledges that the RCC has such a hold on society that they are suppressing the actual figures.

You PDN come in with the argument ( pandering to gigino's link with the Newsweek article where he tries to link accusations to the actual level of abuse) that it is plausable that society is speaking out more about the level of abuse in the RCC and the conspiracy theory that the RCC is covering it up and pressurising Catholics not to report abuse.

I don't find this conspiracy theory in any way convincing or plausible! I find it just more of the same anti Catholic argument.

To be honest, this is only one example of how the longer you and gigino keep picking at each other,

I am picking at a clearly anti Catholic agenda.

the less credible your respective positions become.

If you don't believe what I am posting care to point out what you think is unbelievable?

Neither of you are coming across as being in any way objective.

Really? care to point out where I am not being objective?

I am not the one saying anyone else is condoning abuse am I ?
I have not posted comments about hating the church or any other person.

What subjective comment have I posted?

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Workers in the RCC church ( Priests, brothers etc ) account for much more than 1% of abuse ;

You are doing it again! back to SAVI. the comment was about CLERGY not clergy plus teachers. You have been shown updates to SAVI and other reports but you keep repeating the figure which at best says 1.5% clergy!

SAVI said of abuse to boys 6% ( in round figures ) was by clergy / religous teachers.

And also says 1.5% by clergy which I dispute for reasons given

1. SAVI was a phone poll
2. SAVI was up to eighteen years of age ie not only "children" and not pre pubescent children i.e. victims of pedophiles
3. "abuse" is defined in broad terms and included non contact abuse

This thread is about " Clerical Child Abuse".

There you go again!
We have been over this before as well!
It does not exclude non clerical abuse and any discussion of non clerical abuse anywhere else will be directed to this thread.

I condemn all abusers. This thread is about clerical abuse, which to me means abuse by those who professionally work in or for the churches. In this country most if not all the clerical abuse cases involve the RCC.

the is a moderators decision on this and we have discussed this before!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65674224&postcount=928



PLEASE READ: CLERICAL CHILD ABUSE THREADS
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65076556&postcount=1

In order to save yuo going off on this tangent,
might i also remind you of my earlier comments in relation to that poster:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65686206&postcount=932

You didn't claim you were posting only what you wanted you claimed the entire thread was only about clerical abuse. We then entered into a discussion on what your thought the thread was about and you quite clearly stated (having been shown by me that it was not) that it was only about clerical child abuse. It subsequently transpired that you revealed an additional hidden agenda in that you wanted to discuss not only child abuse but how the hierarchy dealt with it!

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Why would you " wonder whether you considered it abuse "...was abuse by the brothers that commonplace ?

corporal punishment was commonplace yes. Abuse by lay teachers was much more common than by brothers.

And by you keeping silent, do you not think most other kids who were abused also kept silent,

No actually I don't! I don't think I caused others to avoid taking criminal charges. such ideas didn't enter my or anyone else's head. In fact members of my family were at that time in the Special Branch and Northern Ireland was at its worst part of the troubles. the Gardaí were probably more concerned about Brothers leaving and going North as some in my school did. You are looking from you present day perspective and have no basis or understanding from your bigoted stance on which to pass judgement on me.

and hence a lot more abuse went on in the church that ever surfaced in statistics ?

No I don't believe that either! Statistically anyway such a bias would also affect the figure for the non clerical 99 per cent of abusers. i don't believe there is evidence to support this. In some reports within orders it is true however that the order protected members from prosecution more than lay teachers but there is no evidence the level of abuse reported either by clergy or by brothers/nuns was under reported and that of not clergy over reported. Also the SAVI evidence is really weak as i boys it is six cases involving clergy in 700 or so cases of abuse.

And when you admitted that you would " have thought there is no way the abuser would be disciplined" is'nt that a sad inditement of the brothers contempories in the RCC.

No. Had the abuser being a lay teacher I would have thought the same. come to think of it I would have had several cases of that. In some cases lay teachers were timid or didn't like discipline using corporal punishment and relied on sending people to brothers to discipline. Actually the year befoer that brother another boy had mentioned homework when the teacher forgot. several of us picked on him after but I dont think anyone hit him hard. Thump on the shoulder kind of thing. But he did go home to his mother and complain.
Six of us were singled out as "ringleaders". I was one of them. the Head Brother interrogated us and looking back I would think he has a bias against one or two of us as "ringleaders" of the six for whatever reason. Those one or two got leathered more than the other four. But the point is the guy was an outcast after that. Nobody really wanted to know him. There was a stigma against telling on people. It was not necessarily introduced by the brothers. Maybe it was more to do with "informers" in Irish history. You just didn't "rat people out". Fear of excommunication didn't enter into it.

An extension of the coverup as evidenced in the Brendan Symth affair?

There was no widespread cover up by the clergy in that case. Again it is earlier in the thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65028474&postcount=451
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65028025&postcount=444
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64996858&postcount=292
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65008809&postcount=337
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65018973&postcount=365
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65022125&postcount=408

So many priests haven't been convicted! care to list them? They run to ten or maybe twenty. The one not involving girls or not involving cases after the law was changed? If they were convicted they were not convicted of rape. They to my knowledge number from 1977 for a sentence like rape - six years - made against boys is zero . The whole point being made about 1977 is that charges were not taken because and if they were people believed they would not stick. The law and culture changed since then. But again going by what we now know most of the abuse was not by priests.

Smith do not forget was not convicted in the Republic of Ireland! fortune was awaiting trial but.The Mc Coy report, Galway, which was begun in 1999 and made public in December 2007, found that eleven brothers and seven other staff members were alleged to have abused 21 intellectually-disabled children in residential care in the period 1965–1998. By 2007, two members of staff were convicted of abuse, eight had died and the rest had retired. ill bet the two convictions were not of males and were from laws AFTER the legal changes. And again these were not clergy! It doesn't make it acceptable but they were not clergy and probably not charged for what they did to boys.

I wont go into a long list of abusers the reason the point is valid is that we know from the most widespread investigation so far (the Irish Child Abuse Commission 2009) of thousands of children over 70 years was published on 20 May 2009. The report drew on the testimony of nearly 2,000 witnesses, men and women who attended more than 200 Catholic-run schools from the 1930s until the 1990s.

As per 2002 agreement between the victims on one side and the Catholic brothers and Irish government on other side, all those who accepted the state/Brothers settlements, had to waive their right to sue both the church and the government. Their abusers' identities are also kept secret.

See how legal rights to damages crept in there?

the point again as I stated is that MOST institutional abuse was of boys according to that report.

Given rape of boys didn't exist then that therefore means that most institutional abusers
will never face the sentences they would face today.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

If they are a minority it has a bearing on the level of abuse in the country!

And that has nothing to do witrh what I posted,does it?

Nobody disputes that being a minority has a bearing on the level of abuse in a country. That is a red herring and an evasion of my point. Being a minority does not increase or lessen the levels of fear of excommunication withion that minority group.

You PDN come in with the argument ( pandering to gigino's link with the Newsweek article where he tries to link accusations to the actual level of abuse) that it is plausable that society is speaking out more about the level of abuse in the RCC and the conspiracy theory that the RCC is covering it up and pressurising Catholics not to report abuse.

I don't find this conspiracy theory in any way convincing or plausible! I find it just more of the same anti Catholic argument.

No, I pointed out a logical error that you made. Accusing me of pandering to anyone or of propagating conspiracy theories might inject a bit more hysteria and drama into the thread, but it doesn't address the point I made at all.

I am picking at a clearly anti Catholic agenda.

Perhaps, but that doesn't make you any more credible than those who pick at a pro-Catholic agenda.

If you don't believe what I am posting care to point out what you think is unbelievable?

Your continual picking at minutae and introduction of irrelevant data undermines your credibility.

For example, when someone mentions the idea of a high percentage of employees of fast food outlets being accused of child abuse, what do you do? You google a few negative stories about bad things that have happened in Burger king or MacDonald's - most of which have nothing to do with child abuse, and none of which address the issue of whether a given percentage of employeees have been the subject of allegations. Such poorly constructed smokescreens give the impression that you would rather swamp the reader with red herrings rather than address substantive points.

Really? care to point out where I am not being objective?

I am not the one saying anyone else is condoning abuse am I ?
I have not posted comments about hating the church or any other person.

What subjective comment have I posted?

Your comments about me were certainly not objective. My disagreeing with you and pointing out a logical error does not mean I am part of some anti-Catholic agenda or conspiracy, or that I am pandering to anyone

You are subjective in the way you try to evade the issue at hand by going on about child abuse elsewhere in society when that is not the subject of this thread. The fact that abuse occurs elsewhere does not excuse the cover-ups and the problems addressed in this thread. "Everyone else was doing it anyway!" is not an acceptable response for a Christian organisation.

I'm certainly not taking sides here - I find both your arguments and those of gigfino to be equally selective and unconvincing. And, as a poster rather than a moderator, I'm as entitled as you are to critique what others post.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

corporal punishment was commonplace yes. Abuse by lay teachers was much more common than by brothers.

but it was not abuse - as in corporal punishment that was being referred to, it was sexual abuse. The SAVI statistics show that abuse by Religous Professionals ( Priests, brothers, religous teachers ) was much more common than by non-religous teachers. Fact.
As you kept silent on your abuser , do you not think most other kids who were abused also kept silent ? Especially when the abuse was by a Brother ( as in your case) or by a Priest, as the religous connection frightened many young boys that age ( 10 years old ) in to thinking it was wrong to "inform" ( to use your word ) on a Catholic Brother or Priest ? You may go to hell if you did. It was not the done thing to inform to RCC professionals ( Brothers/Priests etc ) , as you yourself admit. Yet these same people had access to many other boys. As another poster said, better than I could, "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".

ISAW wrote: »

In fact members of my family were at that time in the Special Branch and Northern Ireland was at its worst part of the troubles. the Gardaí were probably more concerned about Brothers leaving and going North as some in my school did.

What makes you think " the Gardaí were probably more concerned about Brothers leaving and going North as some in my school did." Did you ever ask the Gardai if they were " more concerned about Brothers leaving and going North ", instead of investigating serious crimes against children here ? And if some Brothers did "go North some in your school did", why would that be of utmost / prime concern to the Gardai, instead of serious crime committed in their own jurisdiction ? Were the Brothers involved in paramilitary activity in the North for example ( was not a priest suspected in the Claudy bomb , but involvement of Brothers ?? ). Do you think the Gardai were frightened of accusing Priests / Brothers of child rape / sex abuse because it was anti-catholic to question RCC professionals in such a way, and you risked excommunication / going to hell if you did ??

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

And that has nothing to do witrh what I posted,does it?

Nobody disputes that being a minority has a bearing on the level of abuse in a country. That is a red herring and an evasion of my point. Being a minority does not increase or lessen the levels of fear of excommunication withion that minority group.

But the whole point was that underreporting was reducing the actual level of abuse by RC clergy as reported! In other words the level of reporting in the RCC is suppressing ( due to for example threaths of excommunication) the "real" level of abuse.
If it is a minority the real per capita level of abuse for the whole population is lower than in 90 per cent plus Catholic Ireland.
and to take on your point directly - where have you any evidence that the level of abuse by RC clergy is
1. Actually higher than reported
and
2. This difference between reported abuse and the "real" level is due to a conspiracy of suppression by the clergy who threaten those who might expose it with excommunication!

your comment about "fear of excommunication withion that minority group" i.e. within roman Catholicism is just pandering to this conspiracy theory that the RCC is covering up abuse, particularly sexual abuse of pre pubescent children.

No, I pointed out a logical error that you made. Accusing me of pandering to anyone or of propagating conspiracy theories might inject a bit more hysteria and drama into the thread, but it doesn't address the point I made at all.

It directly addresses the point: your words suggesting "fear of excommunication within that minority group" as directly having an effect on reported levels of abuse. You have no evidence with which to back up such an idea of cover up or that the levels of abuse by RC clergy in the Us or anywhere else is actually higher than reported and that it is being suppressed due to a fear campaign!

Perhaps, but that doesn't make you any more credible than those who pick at a pro-Catholic agenda.

It isn't a question of "balance" here. I am being accused personally of causing abuse. The Catholic church is being accused of assisting child abusers and conspiring to cover it up. It is not for the accused to have to produce proof of innocence! It is for thoise accusing them to produce the evidence. the burden of proof is on those making the accusations and making the claims of conspiracy!
and you somehow think that this claim you produce evidence is serving a pro catholic agenda which seeks to cover up child abuse by instilling fear in those who might otherwise expose it?
Nonsense!

Your continual picking at minutae and introduction of irrelevant data undermines your credibility.

I'm not the one continually bringing up the Newsweek poll or the SAVI report. Every time it is brought up i am the one showing how it is not strong evidence of anything!

For example, when someone mentions the idea of a high percentage of employees of fast food outlets being accused of child abuse, what do you do? You google a few negative stories about bad things that have happened in Burger king or MacDonald's

Burger King and Mc Donald's were the actual places mentioned by gigino!

- most of which have nothing to do with child abuse,

to do with criminality sex crime and civerups. But if you look again
"the topic being " Imagine the outcry if 0.4%, never mind 4% of McDonalds employees were accused ..."

Which I then refined following your comment to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73110169&postcount=1280

suit filed against a Florida McDonald's after an employee exposed himself to a young female customer

Sex crime and young
[/quote]
the assistant manager Donna Jean Summers asked her boyfriend to take over. Ogborn was convinced to perform sex acts on herself and the boyfriend,
[/quote]
sex crime organised by staff on teenager

sexual assault of two children,

By a staff member at Burger King.

So? "nothing to do with child abuse"???

and none of which address the issue of whether a given percentage of employees have been the subject of allegations.

No it deals with the heart of the issue. Convictions! Not allegations. the point was made several times by gigino that one does not hear about similar offences committed in Mc Donalds. I was pointing out that criminal activities and indeed sexual assaults including on children do occur in such places but that people like gigino prefer to ignore them and hype the few Catholic pedophile priests instead.
I'm sure I can supply a rate since I think I gave the percentage of employees and the percentage of them working in the US but Ill leave that as an exercise.

Your comments about me were certainly not objective.

How so?

My disagreeing with you and pointing out a logical error does not mean I am part of some anti-Catholic agenda or conspiracy, or that I am pandering to anyone

I fail to see the logical error. How is it illogical to say your comment about "fear of excommunication within Roman Catholicism is just pandering to this conspiracy theory that the RCC is covering up abuse, particularly sexual abuse of pre pubescent children?

By suggesting it is logical to assume that the level of reporting is lower because of RC control over their flock through fear is supporting such an argument. Just as saying it might be logical to assume that 99 per cent of abuse victims were lying when asked where they abused by priests. Of course it is if all the people or most were lying it is logical to conclude almost all abuse is committed by clergy. But it is based on an irrational assumption i.e. that most people lied in the survey just as it is not rational that most RC people suppress abuse by RC clergy due to fear of excommunication!

You are subjective in the way you try to evade the issue at hand by going on about child abuse elsewhere in society when that is not the subject of this thread.

I refer you to your own moderating decision
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65076556&postcount=1
UPDATE: 27/3/10
All child abuse threads are now merged into one Clerical Child Abuse


When anyone discussed child abuse clerical or not they were moved to this thread!
Indeed a discussion of that ensued at a later date and it was decided that non clerical child abuse relates to clerical child abuse specifically in showing the level of clerical child abuse.

Any guesses who made that decision?

The fact that abuse occurs elsewhere does not excuse the cover-ups and the problems addressed in this thread. "Everyone else was doing it anyway!" is not an acceptable response for a Christian organisation.

Which particular cover ups?
I believe I have above referred to the Smyth and fortune cases. Now how many others do you want to go into and we can examine each and see if the procedures adopted by the church address these particular cases happening again.

I'm certainly not taking sides here - I find both your arguments and those of gigfino to be equally selective and unconvincing. And, as a poster rather than a moderator, I'm as entitled as you are to critique what others post.

Critique away! But you accusations that I am not in line with your own moderating decisions or that I am not being objective -when my arguments are based on cited decisions in law and on moderation in reports and statistics ( to which I constantly add and not re hash a twisted position on a weak stat) are unfounded.
Furthermore I accept you may not be consciously aware that you are pandering to the anti catholic bias and the hate mongers position. But I submit that saying it is logical to assume that the level of reporting is lower because of RC control over their flock through fear is
pandering to this conspiracy theory that the RCC is covering up abuse, particularly sexual abuse of pre pubescent children.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

but it was not abuse - as in corporal punishment that was being referred to, it was sexual abuse.

Yes it was in my case!
But to clarify Not by me either in this instance you quote . Corporal punishment as i stated was commonplace but if not done by the teacher present it was done by a brother to which they were sent. Physical abuse however ( I can recall cases of a child on the ground being kicked across the hall by a particular teacher who did this at least twice a year when he "lost it" ) happened much much more by lay teachers. In fact he greatest disciplinarian I ever experienced swas a broither who shouted a lot but never once use any physical force whether corporal punishment or not and was the person who got me speaking Irish.


[qupte
The SAVI statistics show that abuse by Religous Professionals ( Priests, brothers, religous teachers )
[/quote]
It does not say "religious professionals" at all and in spite of asking you several times you have been unable to supply what is meant by "religious teachers"!

was much more common than by non-religous teachers. Fact.

This isn't true either. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72964420&postcount=1177

Look at the table in the case of girls. Five cases of non religious ZERO of religious. Infinitely higher! But again the numbers are so low (5 cases in 700 "abusers") to make a call. not alone that 700 "abusers" in 3000 population seems extraordinarily high to me. It is literally saying one in four people were sexually abused which i find hard to believe. But even if true one in four hundred were sexually abused by priests ( and abuse includes non contact in these cases).

As you kept silent on your abuser

It was not necessarily a conscious effort on my part. I didn't actually think "I am being abused but I'm not going to say anything"

Do you not think most other kids who were abused also kept silent ?

If corporal punishment was "abuse" then yes. again they would not have thought it so.

Especially when the abuse was by a Brother ( as in your case) or by a Priest, as the religous connection frightened many young boys that age ( 10 years old ) in to thinking it was wrong to "inform" ( to use your word ) on a Catholic Brother or Priest ?

No that would be totally incorrect! As i stated they would have thought the same of lay teachers.

You may go to hell if you did.

No the idea never crossed my mind and I would think never crossed anyone elses. It just didnt arise that people were thinking "this is abuse but I'm not going to tell"
That may have happened in the few isolated cases of sexual abuse by clergy but such cases are very rare and it isn't really valid to apply them to all sexual abuse as they don't account for 99 per cent of abusers.

It was not the done thing to inform to RCC professionals ( Brothers/Priests etc ) , as you yourself admit.

NO! I didn't state that! I stated it was not the done think to inform on ANYONE! the IRA; someone who stole something; people who let of fireworks in the class; who hit whom; etc. People were not "tell tales"

Yet these same people had access to many other boys.

Yes teachers and coaches as well as clergy. frequently one brother had us all "help out" after school and ironically gave us sweets from the tuck shop for doing it. i never winnessed or heard of any sexual abuse stories from him or any other brother. some of them used to play with the boys in the secondary school and wrestle with them. You have to remember some of these brothers were in their teens or twenties themselves. It wouldn't be allowed today but it was not abuse.

As another poster said, better than I could, "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"

This is out of context
1. You try to hide behind another posters comment now
Are you or are you not saying I condone sexual or any other form of abuse in any way

2. I replied to that comment and directly addressed the context and you ignored my reply TWICE now.

What makes you think " the Gardaí were probably more concerned about Brothers leaving and going North as some in my school did." Did you ever ask the Gardai if they were "

I just told you i had family in the special Branch. where i lived half the place was Gardai and a lot of the other half were active Sinn Fein.

more concerned about Brothers leaving and going North ", instead of investigating serious crimes against children here ?

Yep! and rape against boys didn't exist and proving it would have been even harder. And most people didn't think it happened anyway. and it does not and never has happened to a large degree anyway.

And if some Brothers did "go North some in your school did", why would that be of utmost / prime concern to the Gardai, instead of serious crime committed in their own jurisdiction ? Were the Brothers involved in paramilitary activity in the North for example ( was not a priest suspected in the Claudy bomb , but involvement of Brothers ?? ).

Yes they went north to get involved in the republican struggle. to be honest, having been taught history by some of the "less Republican" element of the Brothers that remained I probably would have been keen on joining the IRA at the time.

Do you think the Gardai were frightened of accusing Priests / Brothers of child rape / sex abuse because it was anti-catholic to question RCC professionals in such a way, and you risked excommunication / going to hell if you did ??

I think they would have trusted local clergy more on moral matters but maybe less on political ones. I think they would have been wary of church influence and indeed many of their Superiors in the Gardai or Dept of Justice might well bury such cases. But I do not in any way believe they would do it because of fear of hell or Excommunication.
I really don't think you understand the culture of the day at all.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Whether Catholics were a majority or a minority in a country has no bearing whatsoever on how prevalent the fear of excommunication was among Catholics.
Neither of you are coming across as being in any way objective.

So Im not objective?
How about this guy:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72962322&postcount=1172

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

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

Actually if anything the facts are they abuse at a way lower level than others.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

I refer you to your own moderating decision
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65076556&postcount=1
UPDATE: 27/3/10
All child abuse threads are now merged into one Clerical Child Abuse


When anyone discussed child abuse clerical or not they were moved to this thread!
Indeed a discussion of that ensued at a later date and it was decided that non clerical child abuse relates to clerical child abuse specifically in showing the level of clerical child abuse.

Any guesses who made that decision?

Without getting involved in increasingly convoluted discussions on all the other points ....

This thread was set up for discussion of "Child Abuse and the Catholic Church". Not child abuse in general. Child abuse as it specifically relates to the RCC. So it covers clerical abuse. It covers abuse perpetrated by employees such as teachers (clerics, brothers or lay people) who were acting as the employees of, or agents of, Catholic institutions.

Discussion of child abuse in general is for other fora.

crucamim

ISAW wrote: »

Abuse by lay teachers was much more common than by brothers.

If by "abuse" you mean "physical abuse of a non-sexual nature", I agree with you - totally.

If by "abuse" you mean "sexual abuse", I am not sure that I can agree with you. Yes, there have been examples of lay teachers sexually abusing their students - especially in Protestant controlled secondary schools - but most of the sexual abuse in Catholic controlled schools seems to have been by members of religious orders.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

It does not say "religious professionals" at all and in spite of asking you several times you have been unable to supply what is meant by "religious teachers"!

I have explained it to you many times. The SAVI group mentions " religous ministers" and " religous teachers". These 2 groups put together are religous professionals, and account for 6% of the sex abuse to boys in Ireland, according to the SAVI findings.

ISAW wrote: »

NO! I didn't state that! I stated it was not the done think to inform on ANYONE! the IRA; someone who stole something; people who let of fireworks in the class; who hit whom; etc. People were not "tell tales"

but in society is is the case to report to the police theft, terrorism, and most of all child sex abuse.

You are saying it was not the done thing, and you did not do it yourself , to "inform" on child sex abusers. You said nothing would have been done about it, and people may not have believed you etc.

Your language + attitude say it all....many people nowadays ( who do not work for the RC church like you ) generally think that people who inform the authorities on Clerical sex abusers are doing the correct thing and are not "informers".

ISAW wrote: »

I just told you i had family in the special Branch. where i lived half the place was Gardai and a lot of the other half were active Sinn Fein.

I have lived in different parts of the Rep. of Ireland and I never found a place where " half the place was Gardai and a lot of the other half were active Sinn Fein"

ISAW wrote: »

Yep! and rape against boys didn't exist and proving it would have been even harder. And most people didn't think it happened anyway.

But rape against boys did exist, as you well know. The RC church hierarchy did not want people knowing about it, as for example shown in the Brendan Smyth scandal.

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

If people like you did not think it was better to keep quiet about it, then more people would have been aware of it.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes they went north to get involved in the republican struggle.

Brothers went north to "get involved in the republican struggle". Given that you said earlier this was of more concern than child sex abuse, do you think terrorism was a very Christian thing for the Brothers to be involved in ?

If you knew about them, did you notify the Gardai ? I suppose when you did not "inform" on a child sex abusers who happened to be a Brother, you would not have "informed" on suspected terrorists.

ISAW wrote: »

to be honest, having been taught history by some of the "less Republican" element of the Brothers that remained I probably would have been keen on joining the IRA at the time.

So you admit the RC Brothers were very sectarian / sympathetic to the PIRA. We all had teachers like that or were aware of them, nothing new there.

ISAW wrote: »

I think they would have been wary of church influence and indeed many of their Superiors in the Gardai or Dept of Justice might well bury such cases. But I do not in any way believe they would do it because of fear of hell or Excommunication.

So it was collusion between the State and the RC church to prevent justice being done, you say. The pressure that the RCC put on people to be silent and the cover-ups did not extend to pressure being put on Gardai not to force charges. What about just subtle pressure...being told it was anti-catholic to accuse a Priest / Brother of child sex abuse etc.
l

ISAW wrote: »

I really don't think you understand the culture of the day at all.

I lived in the day too, you would be surprised what I understand.;)