Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
What about Cardinals Sodano, Bertone and Law ???
Look them up, they make very intresting reading.0 -
In the Republic of Ireland you would be rpressed to name much more than ten offending Clergy who abused pre pubescent kids.
What evidencfe shows thousands of clergy abused pre pubescenbt children?
I didn't say 1000s of priests. 1000s of cases. Many priests abused many children.
What you sasid:10 cases. NO, 1000s of cases and I have produced evidence
There are not thousands of cases of priests abusing children.
We are talking specifically of adults sexually abusing per pubescent kids.
Priests represent less than a per cent of such abusers.
Less than a tenth of a per cent of priests are abusers.
In particular when it comes to Roman Catholic Priests the cases are in the dozens and not current.
where is your evidence that
Message 1844It's like saying 1000s of people got food poisoning in one restaurant in Ireland but in the grand scheme of things, it's not so bad, becase worldwide there have been many more cases of food poisoning in many restaurants.
Where are the thousangs of victimns of sexual abuse by opriests when they were kids? At most there are hundreds of such victims.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72698336&postcount=1012Thats about 380 sex abuse cases in 25,000 children ~ about 1.5 per cent of the children.
An acceptable level would be zero but it is not thousands. And that 380 includes non clergy!
Now the managers of the religious Institution are basically Bishops. In the last fifty years ther have been I dont know 5-10,000 Bishops. How many have been involved in covering up abuse
5? 10 ? not 100 surely ? 100 would be about one per cent. Now if you have a corrupt institution wher the management know about and collude in what is going on ( for example other manager or Bishoips who know about abuse and decide not to act or speak out) what level of management do you think you need to have it "widesporead" or "institutionalised" 5? 10? 50 ?
Surely not one per cent? You are back repeating gigino's "endemic" assertion!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72704490&postcount=1020
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72757895&postcount=1087peadophila is something that is happening all over. It's highly ignorant and biased to believe that it's Catholic Church centric only. Ignorance like that leads to intolerance and hatred, and it's astoundingly unfair and completely telling if somebody doesn't even want to hear any truth. You begin to wonder if protection is on their mind and empowering children, or if hatred dominates and blinds.You are pleading to a conspiracy theory mindset which is like "we don't have any evidence but that proves there must be a cover up"
I am sorry but just not good enough! We do not assume guilt we prove it based on evidence.
You have produced no evidence of widespread corruption or coverups.
Suppose I said "the invisible unicorns are behind it all"?
Go back over the thread where we discussed category one to five.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73238720&postcount=1394[from sources]
over the period from 1936 to 1970, a total of 170,000 children and young persons (involving about 1.2% of the age cohort) entered the gates of the 50 or so industrial schools. In the same period approximately 2,000 to 3,000 children and young persons spent time in a reformatory.
As well as Industrial Schools and Reformatories the Ryan Report covered “161 services, schools, hospitals and other facilities most of which continue in existance.
The redress board awarded 13,000 cases which vary from inadequate bedding to rape.
The thing is though that when it comes to severe cases (rated four and five on a one to five scale and the physical abuse I suffered would come under that as a four ) the numbers thin out. When it comes to sexual abuse
i.e from Sexual kissing; indecent touching of private parts over clothing all the way upo to rape it is a five
Of the of the over 170,000 children there are 31 cases at this level!
[/end source references]
31 Cases not 1000s!
Where is the evidence for widespread collusion in the RC Church?
What is the claim about Cardinal Brady doing anything against church or moral or any other law, especially since his appointment as Primate?
Where is the evidence the Church has failed to react or that the level of abuse has grown?
Where is the evidence for widespread abuse of children ( expecially pedophile targets) in the church?
Where is the evidence for clerics outside Catholicism?
How does it compare to non clergy abusers?
That is the case that is being made.
This whole "pedophile priests" case being a huge societal problem is a myth spread by people some of which have openly admitted in this thread that they hate the Church and want to attack the orginisation of the Church.
If one looks at the evidence that is the rational conclusion you will come to.not to mention the word of hundreds of victims in these cases & priests who knew and reported it and found that nothing was done
Again a media myth. The redredd board report above
17,000 children
13,000 complaints awarded compensation
31 cases were of the sexual nature you assert
and all these cases were not necessarily sexual misconduct by clergy!0 -
What about Cardinals Sodano, Bertone and Law ???
Look them up, they make very intresting reading.
I will, thanks.
I am only dealing with Brady here as that is the issue.
I'm quite prepared to accept Sodano, Bertone and Law may have done things which should have resulted in them losing their position. I know a bit about Law. I don't know if in every case that teh aboive three were related to sexual abuse by clergy. I also accept some Irish bishops did things which should have and did result in their dismissal e.g. misusing funds . For example Casey was dismissed for this. The reason he did it was because he had had a son many years before and he diverted funds to the Mother. I also think hiding having a child was wrong but that would not be a reason for his dismissal as Bishop since he did it before he was a Bishop and he accepted it was wrong.
but to return to Sodano and Bertone I don't know the cases so I just can't say. But they are still a tiny per centage of the hierarchy and I am not aware of any Bishops themselves who practiced sexual abuse of Children either before or after becoming a Bishop.0 -
This old strawman again. Nobody is claiming the numbers were widespread. It is well known that these cases involve a minority of the clergy.
The media promulgate the widespread myth. But I am I'm glad you honestly admit RC clergy a tiny proportion of child sex abusers ( less than a per cent). Thanks for that.What you cannot deny is the cover-up of such cases by the Vatican (well you could, but that'd just be sticking your fingers in your ears).
Really?
What evidence do you have the Vatican knew of cases of child sexual abuse and actively moved to cover any of them up? That the Pope or anyone else from the hierarchy in rome formulated a policy to deny or cover up abuse? Or that any Bishop had such a policy and discussed it or tried to spread it to groups of Bishops and get them to implement this policy?0 -
As for my 'not liking Catholics '. That is rubbish. I know and am related to many Catholics. I am bewildered and saddened by their continuing support of the church but I do like and in some cases even love them!
a bit like saying you hate Fianna Fail and all their policies but not anyone who supports them, contributes to them, makes their policy, or votes for them.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
fair play smokingman, you just ripped the soul out of isaws argument, the amount of apologists on here sickens me.0
-
I will, thanks.
they are still a tiny per centage of the hierarchy
Unfortunately, together, they effectively control the Vatican and all its business.
It is very important that all Catholics research them carefully
Sodano, is the current Dean of the College of Cardinals, and the former Vatican Secretary of State, he will be in charge of electing the next pope.
Bertone, is the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Camerlengo. That means he is both in charge of the political and diplomatic activities of the Holy See, and is the administrator of all the property and revenues of the Holy See.0 -
-
ISAW I'm assuming that your figure of 31 is from http://www.rirb.ie/annualReport.asp If so this is the number of victims that have received the highest compensation category. This has no bearing on how many children were actually abused or how many people inflicted the abuse.There are not thousands of cases of priests abusing children.
We are talking specifically of adults sexually abusing per pubescent kids.
Priests represent less than a per cent of such abusers.
Less than a tenth of a per cent of priests are abusers.
In particular when it comes to Roman Catholic Priests the cases are in the dozens and not current.
where is your evidence that
Message 1844
Where are the thousangs of victimns of sexual abuse by opriests when they were kids? At most there are hundreds of such victims.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72698336&postcount=1012
Thats about 380 sex abuse cases in 25,000 children ~ about 1.5 per cent of the children.
An acceptable level would be zero but it is not thousands. And that 380 includes non clergy!
Now the managers of the religious Institution are basically Bishops. In the last fifty years ther have been I dont know 5-10,000 Bishops. How many have been involved in covering up abuse
5? 10 ? not 100 surely ? 100 would be about one per cent. Now if you have a corrupt institution wher the management know about and collude in what is going on ( for example other manager or Bishoips who know about abuse and decide not to act or speak out) what level of management do you think you need to have it "widesporead" or "institutionalised" 5? 10? 50 ?
Surely not one per cent? You are back repeating gigino's "endemic" assertion!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72704490&postcount=1020
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72757895&postcount=1087
Go back over the thread where we discussed category one to five.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73238720&postcount=1394
31 Cases not 1000s!
Where is the evidence for widespread collusion in the RC Church?
What is the claim about Cardinal Brady doing anything against church or moral or any other law, especially since his appointment as Primate?
Where is the evidence the Church has failed to react or that the level of abuse has grown?
Where is the evidence for widespread abuse of children ( expecially pedophile targets) in the church?
Where is the evidence for clerics outside Catholicism?
How does it compare to non clergy abusers?
That is the case that is being made.
This whole "pedophile priests" case being a huge societal problem is a myth spread by people some of which have openly admitted in this thread that they hate the Church and want to attack the orginisation of the Church.
If one looks at the evidence that is the rational conclusion you will come to.
Again a media myth. The redredd board report above
17,000 children
13,000 complaints awarded compensation
31 cases were of the sexual nature you assert
and all these cases were not necessarily sexual misconduct by clergy!
As i understand it based on the Ryan report the number of perpetrators was 151 religious identified by male victims and 31 by identified female victims.http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-07.php Table 24 7.138
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-09.php 9.1020 -
Advertisement
-
What you cannot deny is the cover-up of such cases by the Vatican (well you could, but that'd just be sticking your fingers in your ears).
CiaranMT,
If knowledge of the abuse "cannot" be denied. Then please advise who knew what and when they obtained that knowledge. Also, advise your source.
Such matters as this are never as clear cut as you make them out to be.0 -
what? a bit like saying I have Fianna Fail??
My mistake "hate" FF not have FF. thanks for pointing the spelling error out.
It is a bit like saying you hate Fianna Fail and all their policies but not anyone who supports them, contributes to them, makes their policy, or votes for them.0 -
fair play smokingman, you just ripped the soul out of isaws argument, the amount of apologists on here sickens me.
You find me sickening do you? Smokingman referred to a strawman of "a tiny amount of Priests are abusers" which is true but what I actually stated was "a tiny amount of abusers ( less than one per cent ) of abusers of pre pubescent kids are priests"
Given that is true why all the concern about priests abuseing kids and not about the other 99 per cent plus of abusers?
I also stated there was no widespread coverup by the Vatican of Child abuse. That was claimed and the only "evidence" produced was a Vatican policy document from the 1920s about procedures for acting if a priest is accused of soliciting during confession.
1. The in camera rule in this case is no different from in camera rules for other similar family cases and is not unique to the Church
2. It affords privacy to the victim and their family
3. It protects the victim and enables the prosecution by perventing a defence plea of interference by external sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationisThe defendant did not lose the right that all members of the Church have to ask that their cases, at any level, be submitted to the Holy See; but once the trial had begun, such a recourse did not suspend the jurisdiction of the local judge, unless he learned that the Holy See had actually accepted the recourse
...
This constituted an exception to the normal procedure whereby appeals against a first-level sentence are made to a designated second-level tribunal, with the case going to Rome only if the first two tribunals give discordant verdicts.
Fasttracking isn't coverup!
4. It was not issued in "secret" or covered up from any sources external to the Church.
It was issued by popes in the last century in the 1920s and 1960s -
the latest being during Pope John XXIII's papacy. Neither Ratzinger ( Benedict) or Wotyla
( John Paul II) were in the Vatican then.
Any other "evidence" of church coverup? Or are you going to stick with personal allegations that people are sickening and back patting of those who say so without actually producing any evidence?0 -
ISAW I'm assuming that your figure of 31 is from http://www.rirb.ie/annualReport.asp
The reference is given in my message. it is from the redress board yes.If so this is the number of victims that have received the highest compensation category.
Which is also referred to in my post category 4 and 5 of five categories.
Category 5 is all sexual abuse from kissing to rape as I stated in my post:The thing is though that when it comes to severe cases (rated four and five on a one to five scale and the physical abuse I suffered would come under that as a four ) the numbers thin out. When it comes to sexual abuse
i.e from Sexual kissing; indecent touching of private parts over clothing all the way upo to rape it is a five
There were 31 cases at 4 and 5!
The source is given by me in
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73238720&postcount=1394
as
Sources:
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-06.php
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/r...A-VOL5-08A.pdf
Vol 8a covers England and Portugal. It also mentions Canada and Australia.
Child abuse was comparable there and the church had less Authority or control for various different reasons. So one can't say it is church centric worldwide. Yes in Ireland the church had control and influence over institutions but that does not prove the claims of "worldwide systematic church led child abuse and cover up"
As for the first source the redress board
http://www.rirb.ie/annualReport.asp
On page 4 of the 2009 ( latest ) report
You will find 248 cases outstanding of 651 submissions which I assume were awarded compensation
That is out of a population of 170,000 people in institutions.
page 14The total awards made to 31st December 2009 amounts to €817.3million. The average value of awards is approximately €63,000, the largest award being €300,500.
Legal costs page 15To date costs have been finalised in 36 applications. €331,862.19 has been paid in respect of applications to the Board. €92,310.18 has been paid in respect of related High Court proceedings making a total of €424,172.37.
Now here is the important statistic for this issue on page 22
Sexual abuse of any kind is rated 5 on a one to five scale
Number of awards at level 5 = SIX people awarded
And the applicants live in fifteen different countries.This has no bearing on how many children were actually abused or how many people inflicted the abuse.
Go and read the reports! Of 170,000 inmates six were awarded for sexual abuse. Even if that is only a tenth of the level it still is 60 cases If it is only a per cent of the level reporting it is 600 cases. As it has been pointed out abusing clergy had multiple victims.
Let us assume the sexual abuse is ten time higher than repported and that all the victims are abused by clergy. the likelihood is that the abusers would have multiple victims e.g ten each which would offset the "ten times higher" assumption. Even if they were all Priests this is SIX priests! Six not thousands!
[/quote]As i understand it based on the Ryan report the number of perpetrators was 151 religious identified by male victims and 31 by identified female victims.http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-07.php Table 24 7.138
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-09.php 9.102
Cant find that table 24
7.13 is about physical abuse not sexual.
section 9.10 saysPhysical abuse was a component of the vast majority of abuse reported in all decades and 46% of physical abuse reports refer to witnesses who were discharged from Schools between 1960 and 1969.
Ill draw your attention to that report.
It refers not only to prepubescnt kids but mostly to7.06Four hundred and sixteen (416) or 86% of male abuse reports refer to senior Schools for boys.
"Abuse" not being only sexual.0 -
31 awards were made in band 5 alone up to the end of 2009http://www.rirb.ie/documents/Annual_Report_2009.doc see last table in the document, page 61.The reference is given in my message. it is from the redress board yes.
Which is also referred to in my post category 4 and 5 of five categories.
Category 5 is all sexual abuse from kissing to rape as I stated in my post:
There were 31 cases at 4 and 5!
The source is given by me in
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73238720&postcount=1394
as
Sources:
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-06.php
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/r...A-VOL5-08A.pdf
Vol 8a covers England and Portugal. It also mentions Canada and Australia.
Child abuse was comparable there and the church had less Authority or control for various different reasons. So one can't say it is church centric worldwide. Yes in Ireland the church had control and influence over institutions but that does not prove the claims of "worldwide systematic church led child abuse and cover up"
I canon't find a reference to six cases on page 22 or anywhere else in the 2009 annual report.As for the first source the redress board
http://www.rirb.ie/annualReport.asp
On page 4 of the 2009 ( latest ) report
You will find 248 cases outstanding of 651 submissions which I assume were awarded compensation
That is out of a population of 170,000 people in institutions.
page 14
Legal costs page 15
Now here is the important statistic for this issue on page 22
Sexual abuse of any kind is rated 5 on a one to five scale
Number of awards at level 5 = SIX people awarded
And the applicants live in fifteen different countries.
Go and read the reports! Of 170,000 inmates six were awarded for sexual abuse. Even if that is only a tenth of the level it still is 60 cases If it is only a per cent of the level reporting it is 600 cases. As it has been pointed out abusing clergy had multiple victims.
Let us assume the sexual abuse is ten time higher than repported and that all the victims are abused by clergy. the likelihood is that the abusers would have multiple victims e.g ten each which would offset the "ten times higher" assumption. Even if they were all Priests this is SIX priests! Six not thousands!
table 24 in section 7.137 and 7.138 deal with sexual abuse cases. Just use CTRL + F with either number herehttp://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-07.phpCant find that table 24
7.13 is about physical abuse not sexual.section 9.10 says
This volume does not mention the ages of the victims.Ill draw your attention to that report.
It refers not only to prepubescnt kids but mostly to
"Abuse" not being only sexual.
Apologies I meant table 38 in section 9.94 which deal with the female victims of sexual abuse herehttp://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-09.php
Again the awards from the redress board do not tell us anything other than at least 31 awards were made for the most serious category. It does not tell us how many victims have died since, how many simply did not make a claim, how many could not build a sufficient case. Thus the only data we can use is the figures of 151 and the 31 religious from the Ryan report itself, which may only be a subset of the residential abuse given that not all victims will have come forward.
edit: Do you have a link for the category definitions of the redress board out of curiosity?0 -
31 awards were made in band 5 alone up to the end of 2009http://www.rirb.ie/documents/Annual_Report_2009.doc see last table in the document, page 61.
Band five which encompasses all sexual abuse ?
sorry if I included band four by mistake. the question is does band four include sexual abuse? As far as I know it does not. So the point stands:
- 170,000 inmates 31 sexual abuse awardsI canon't find a reference to six cases on page 22 or anywhere else in the 2009 annual report.
Again sorry it is on page 22 of the the 2003 reportRedress Board Bands
The breakdown of awards by Redress Bands is as follows:
Redress Bands
Total Weightings for Severity of Abuse and Injury/Effects of Abuse
Award Payable by way of Redress/ Number/Percentage
V 70 or more €200,000 - €300,000 6 1.12
IV 55 – 69 €150,000 - €200,000 19 3.55
III 40 – 54 €100,000 - €150,000 101 18.88
II 25 – 39 € 50,000 - €100,000 325 60.75
I Less than 25 Up to €50,000 84 15.70
Total number = 535 percentage = 100
Hey, I could have gotten 150k from them!
Thanks.table 24 in section 7.137 and 7.138 deal with sexual abuse cases. Just use CTRL + F with either number herehttp://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-07.php
Sorry again I went to 7.13 not thinking ther were more than a hundred paragraphs
To quote 7.138
Table 24: Position and Number of Reported Sexual Abusers – Male Industrial and Reformatory Schools
Total - 234 males 12 females
7.139 says 139 Brothers and 12 priests. while abuse by brothers or lay people is terrible they are not members of the clergy.Apologies I meant table 38 in section 9.94 which deal with the female victims of sexual abuse herehttp://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-09.phpAgain the awards from the redress board do not tell us anything other than at least 31 awards were made for the most serious category. It does not tell us how many victims have died since, how many simply did not make a claim, how many could not build a sufficient case.
True. Indeed I was one of them.
But it does tell us that of 170,000 inmates 13 were awarded claims for sexual abuse. It is not likely 13,000 were sexually abused or 1,300. Possibly ten times as many which makes 130 over more than a half century. And the abusers were not clergy but brothers and lay people. Certainly from my own experience, in spite of the worst coming from a particular brother, lay people were worse in general.Thus the only data we can use is the figures of 151 and the 31 religious from the Ryan report itself, which may only be a subset of the residential abuse given that not all victims will have come forward.
Data which mentions 12 priests.
edit: Do you have a link for the category definitions of the redress board out of curiosity?
Page 22 2003. I was going from memory from my earlier comments in the thread but
page 53 says
REgulations being Regulation 3 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 (Section 17)This weighting is set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulations by reference to the “constitutive elements of redress”.
http://www.rirb.ie/pdfs/s17regs.pdf
but again from memory sexual abuse was category five. Ill have to check. I did post it earlier in the thread.0 -
I've gone through the http://www.rirb.ie/documents/cac_report2002.pdf specifically 7.14 which was referenced here http://www.rirb.ie/pdfs/s17regs.pdf It has not mention of sexual abuse being only a category 5. The categories are weighted on the severity of the abuse and the harm done. As far as I can make out elements of sexual abuse could be included in the thousands of awards depending on the severity.Band five which encompasses all sexual abuse ?
sorry if I included band four by mistake. the question is does band four include sexual abuse? As far as I know it does not. So the point stands:
- 170,000 inmates 31 sexual abuse awards
The 2003 report only deals with awards made during 2003. The 2009 report has a cumulative tally which lists 31 of the most severe category. But again as far as I can see this does not mean there were only 31 sexual abuse awards from the total of about 13000 awards to date.Again sorry it is on page 22 of the the 2003 report
Redress Bands
Total Weightings for Severity of Abuse and Injury/Effects of Abuse
Award Payable by way of Redress/ Number/Percentage
V 70 or more €200,000 - €300,000 6 1.12
IV 55 – 69 €150,000 - €200,000 19 3.55
III 40 – 54 €100,000 - €150,000 101 18.88
II 25 – 39 € 50,000 - €100,000 325 60.75
I Less than 25 Up to €50,000 84 15.70
Total number = 535 percentage = 100
Hey, I could have gotten 150k from them!
Men of God all.Thanks.
Sorry again I went to 7.13 not thinking ther were more than a hundred paragraphs
To quote 7.138
Table 24: Position and Number of Reported Sexual Abusers – Male Industrial and Reformatory Schools
Total - 234 males 12 females
7.139 says 139 Brothers and 12 priests. while abuse by brothers or lay people is terrible they are not members of the clergy.
There were also clergy reported from the female witnesses but it doesn't give a breakdown.
Again the redress commission doesn't specify how many were sexually abused. The Ryan report however does give figures of 242 and 128 of reports of sexual abuse. In the case the male witnesses most were religious abusers. In the vast majority of cases this was in addition to physical, neglect and emotional abuse.True. Indeed I was one of them.
But it does tell us that of 170,000 inmates 13 were awarded claims for sexual abuse. It is not likely 13,000 were sexually abused or 1,300. Possibly ten times as many which makes 130 over more than a half century. And the abusers were not clergy but brothers and lay people. Certainly from my own experience, in spite of the worst coming from a particular brother, lay people were worse in general.Data which mentions 12 priests.
Page 22 2003. I was going from memory from my earlier comments in the thread but
page 53 says
REgulations being Regulation 3 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 (Section 17)
http://www.rirb.ie/pdfs/s17regs.pdf
but again from memory sexual abuse was category five. Ill have to check. I did post it earlier in the thread.
The religious staff of these institutions were found to be prolific abusers of these children. You said before that 170,000 children came through these institutions and we know that about 13000 or 13% have received substantial compensation for their suffering. Now while the number of religious sexual abusers that it was possible to identify appears to be 182, I've got to wonder what proportion is this number of the total number of staff who ran these places.0 -
Men of God all.
There were also clergy reported from the female witnesses but it doesn't give a breakdown.
There are no female roman Catholic clergy.
Abuse was heavily weighted on boys not girls. This is why the suggestion of it being homosexual in nature arises.
Clerical abuse in particular has not been on per pubescent kids but usually on older boys.Again the redress commission doesn't specify how many were sexually abused. The Ryan report however does give figures of 242 and 128 of reports of sexual abuse. In the case the male witnesses most were religious abusers. In the vast majority of cases this was in addition to physical, neglect and emotional abuse.
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/03-07.php
Table 24: Position and Number of Reported Sexual Abusers – Male Industrial and Reformatory Schools
234 male abusers reported 12 females reported
12 were priests
The whole issue we are discussing is about the "pedophile priests " myth and the allegations of a cover up of priests abusing kids by the Vatican or hierarchy. Very few clergy were involved and the Vatican didn't cover it up.The religious staff of these institutions were found to be prolific abusers of these children. You said before that 170,000 children came through these institutions and we know that about 13000 or 13% have received substantial compensation for their suffering.
Not for sexual abuse! The 13,000 awards are not for sexual abuse. most abuse was physical. Sexual abuse by clergy was rare. In the 13,000 awards there are twelve cases of priests sexually abusing children. We don't know if these are all pre pubescent children.Now while the number of religious sexual abusers that it was possible to identify appears to be 182, I've got to wonder what proportion is this number of the total number of staff who ran these places.
7.139 The number of priests who were abusers is 12!
Note also the Christian Brothers make up the bulk of abusers. This organisation isn't the whole Church. Also, as I have stated before the non religious abusers outside the Church outnumber the priests by a factor of 100.
Of the 253 reports of sexual abuse in relation to 20 Schools. ( http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/03-07.php at 7.110)
Four (4) Schools were collectively the subject 156 reports. ( 7.111)
another 5 schools had 67 reports
That's 60 per cent of all sexual abuse in just four schools! and 90 per cent in 9 schools!
Clearly rather than "widespread" this is painting a picture of "concentrated"0 -
Now while the number of religious sexual abusers that it was possible to identify appears to be 182, I've got to wonder what proportion is this number of the total number of staff who ran these places.
No it was 12 not 182! I have before supplied census stats on the number of priests and brothers in Ireland in the 1950s.
http://www.cso.ie/census/census_1951_volume_3.htm
320 on page 17
about 5100 priests 11,600 nuns and 1625 brothers. and another 4000 theological students.
about 23,000 and that isn't including the lay staff in schools.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=410&Itemid=336Until the early 1970's child sexual abuse was thought to be rare, and centered among the poor. Experts now agree that child sexual abuse has always occurred and still exists in all socio-economic groups.
...
A recent Department of Justice report found that half of the women who reported rapes in 1992 were under the age of 18, 16 percent were under 12.
...
A study in three states found 96 percent of reported rape survivors under age 12 knew the attacker. Four percent of the offenders were strangers, 20 percent were fathers 16 percent were relatives and 50 percent were acquaintances or friends. Among women 18 or older, 12 percent were raped by a family member, 33 percent by a stranger and 55 percent by an acquaintance
...
In up to 50 percent of reported cases, offenders are adolescents
...
http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf
Page 3Less than 5 percent of the priests with allegations of
abuse exhibited behavior consistent with a diagnosis
of pedophilia (a psychiatric disorder that is characterized
by recurrent fantasies, urges, and behaviors about
prepubescent children). Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to
abusers as “pedophile priests.”0 -
I've gone through the http://www.rirb.ie/documents/cac_report2002.pdf specifically 7.14 which was referenced here http://www.rirb.ie/pdfs/s17regs.pdf It has not mention of sexual abuse being only a category 5. The categories are weighted on the severity of the abuse and the harm done. As far as I can make out elements of sexual abuse could be included in the thousands of awards depending on the severity.
Ok here is my earlier message:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73238720&postcount=1394
which refers to
Sources:
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-06.php
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/pdfs/CICA-VOL5-08A.pdf
Vol 5 03A i.e. chapter 3 of vol 5
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-03A.php
has a Table 3.3. History of abuse
Most severe form of sexual institutional abuse (N=246)
None frequency= 122.00 Percent = 49.40
Contact (fondling and masturbation) 53.00 21.50
Penetration (oral, anal or vaginal sex) 46.00 18.60
Attempted penetration (oral, anal or vaginal sex) 17.00 6.90
Non-Contact (flashing, exposure)
8.00 3.20
Worst thing that ever happened to you in an institution (N=247)
16 percent said severe sexual abuse and a further nine per cent sexual and physical abuse
that's 25 % at the most severe.
you may be interested in Table 3.12. Correlations between indices of abuse and adjustment0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes I'm aware there were no female clergy. I said that female witnesses also reported sexual abuse by clergy but that the report does not specify the amount so we can add this unknown number I found the figure which is 14, to the 12 from the reports from the male witnesses. The amount of sexual abuse was also significant among girls but it was perpetrated more so by external lay people. In the male case it was mostly religious staff.There are no female roman Catholic clergy.
Abuse was heavily weighted on boys not girls. This is why the suggestion of it being homosexual in nature arises.
Clerical abuse in particular has not been on per pubescent kids but usually on older boys.
26 identified clergy is plenty. While the paedophile priest myth as you say may not be in the hundreds based on this one report, it is not unfair to say that religious staff, clergy, brothers and nuns inflicted serious harm on far too many children.http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/03-07.php
Table 24: Position and Number of Reported Sexual Abusers – Male Industrial and Reformatory Schools
234 male abusers reported 12 females reported
12 were priests
The whole issue we are discussing is about the "pedophile priests " myth and the allegations of a cover up of priests abusing kids by the Vatican or hierarchy. Very few clergy were involved and the Vatican didn't cover it up.
For the 2nd or 3rd time in the 13000 awards we do not know how many were sexually abused.Not for sexual abuse! The 13,000 awards are not for sexual abuse. most abuse was physical. Sexual abuse by clergy was rare. In the 13,000 awards there are twelve cases of priests sexually abusing children. We don't know if these are all pre pubescent children.
7.139 The number of priests who were abusers is 12!
Note also the Christian Brothers make up the bulk of abusers. This organisation isn't the whole Church. Also, as I have stated before the non religious abusers outside the Church outnumber the priests by a factor of 100.
The Ryan report identifies 12 clergy from male witnesses and 14 from female witnesses as abusers. See here for the 14 figure http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/03-09.php 9.104
15 of the 20 male schools with reported sexual abuse had religious abusers.Of the 253 reports of sexual abuse in relation to 20 Schools. ( http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/03-07.php at 7.110)
Four (4) Schools were collectively the subject 156 reports. ( 7.111)
another 5 schools had 67 reports
That's 60 per cent of all sexual abuse in just four schools! and 90 per cent in 9 schools!
Clearly rather than "widespread" this is painting a picture of "concentrated"
Sexual abuse was linked to 35 schools by female witnesses. The majority were lay abusers in these cases though. There is no breakdown of where the clergy were stationed as far as i can see.
The commission investigated industrial schools which they received over 20 complaints. I can only hope that the other schools had no incidents but this may be naive.0 -
The 182 refers to religious staff of all types. While the census is somewhat useful it doesn't tell us how many of these priests, nuns and brothers worked at the industrial schools and thus had access to children.No it was 12 not 182! I have before supplied census stats on the number of priests and brothers in Ireland in the 1950s.
http://www.cso.ie/census/census_1951_volume_3.htm
320 on page 17
about 5100 priests 11,600 nuns and 1625 brothers. and another 4000 theological students.
about 23,000 and that isn't including the lay staff in schools.
While interesting I'm not sure of the relevance. What I have found though from the Ryan reports survey of the victims was that the mean age of the sexual abuse was 10.73years SD2.87 http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-03A.php Table 3.30 -
The post and the two references(which are about abuse in the UK...relevance?) contain nothing about sexual abuse being a category 5 on the redress board scale. I'll take it you may have miss remembered this.Ok here is my earlier message:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73238720&postcount=1394
which refers to
Sources:
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-06.php
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/pdfs/CICA-VOL5-08A.pdf
Yes about 25% reported that the worst thing from their time spent incarcerated was the sexual or sexual and physical abuse. 47% reported sexual abuse.Vol 5 03A i.e. chapter 3 of vol 5
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-03A.php
has a Table 3.3. History of abuse
Most severe form of sexual institutional abuse (N=246)
None frequency= 122.00 Percent = 49.40
Contact (fondling and masturbation) 53.00 21.50
Penetration (oral, anal or vaginal sex) 46.00 18.60
Attempted penetration (oral, anal or vaginal sex) 17.00 6.90
Non-Contact (flashing, exposure)
8.00 3.20
Worst thing that ever happened to you in an institution (N=247)
16 percent said severe sexual abuse and a further nine per cent sexual and physical abuse
that's 25 % at the most severe.
Again what stood out was the mean age of 10.73 SD2.87. Pretty horrific.0 -
-
I wonder if ISAW and others would be as willing to conduct the same arguments in person in a public forum? an audience of normal decent people (referred to here as "anti Catholics") would tear you to pieces.
For me the trouble with the internet message boards is that people of marginal radical or outlandish opinions can gather and reinforce one another while disregarding comments of common scene by having a louder voice within the bubble of the forum.
I challenge ISAW to try posting any of this in after hours, another neutral forum, or even explain this opinion in detail to any genuine victim of child abuse. See how far you get.0 -
For me the trouble with the internet message boards is that people of marginal radical or outlandish opinions can gather and reinforce one another while disregarding comments of common scene by having a louder voice within the bubble of the forum.
You've described yourself perfectly.0 -
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/03-09.phpI found the figure which is 14, to the 12 from the reports from the male witnesses. The amount of sexual abuse was also significant among girls but it was perpetrated more so by external lay people. In the male case it was mostly religious staff.
9.94
Table 38: Position and Number of Reported Sexual Abusers – Female Industrial and Reformatory Schools
Lists 14 clergy of 188 sexual abusers of girls. A seriously high figure at round 7% but this still is saying that in the worst cases in Ireland 93% of abusers were not clergy!
9.96The most frequently reported group of adult sexual abusers were members and relatives of families to whom residents were sent from the Schools for either a holiday, weekend or work placement. These were known as ‘holiday’, ‘weekend’ or ‘foster’ families or ‘godparents’. There were 42 men and two women identified by the female witnesses as sexually abusive in these circumstances
[quot]
26 identified clergy is plenty. While the paedophile priest myth as you say may not be in the hundreds based on this one report, it is not unfair to say that religious staff, clergy, brothers and nuns inflicted serious harm on far too many children.
[/quote]
We are not discussing "serious harm". By far tyhe most frequent abuse was physical and the victims themselves and psychologists say that the most enduring abuse was emotional. Yes religious and lay staff inflicted non sexual abuse again mostly by non clergy ( by mostly I mean 95 per cent plus by non clergy in religious institutions and 99 per cent plus outside religious institutions )
but this thread is about sexual abuse by clergy.For the 2nd or 3rd time in the 13000 awards we do not know how many were sexually abused.
And the argument that they are all from this is therefore "argument from ignorance". If you can't say how many were due to sexual abuse then you just can't claim anything! But as i have suggested we can produce studies which show the level of abuse by clergy is a tiny proportion of sexual abusers of pre pubescent children i.e pedophile in nature. We can also assert from evidence that sexual abuse is in the minority of cases of abuse that physical and emotional abuse and neglect were far more common. Finally, sexual abuse such as inappropriate fondling or for example what we might term "sexual harassment" in today's terms is a different level to Rape.The Ryan report identifies 12 clergy from male witnesses and 14 from female witnesses as abusers. See here for the 14 figure http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/03-09.php 9.104
But we don't know if there is an overlap between the 12 and 14. But let us take 26 as the number. This is from the 1920s to the 1990s. Eight decades. 170,000 children. three priests per decade of a population of thousands of priests.The commission investigated industrial schools which they received over 20 complaints. I can only hope that the other schools had no incidents but this may be naive.
Im sure sexual abuse probably happened elsewhere in schools but to a much lower degree. Given industrial schools dealt with isolated children without family or with foster family ( who constituted the majority of abusers) the children involved were more likely to be targeted. However reports in the Us have suggested sexual abuse by non clergy outside of Religious schools were much higher than inside them.
Shakeshaft published a report based on a four-year study of 225 sexual abuse complaints—184 in New York State and 41 in other states—
Charol Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan (1994), In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools (What administrators should know).
She found that "All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package."
This was hardly caused by the Church or as result of any Vatican cover up.0 -
The post and the two references(which are about abuse in the UK...relevance?) contain nothing about sexual abuse being a category 5 on the redress board scale. I'll take it you may have miss remembered this.
Ill have to get back to you. It came as result of a private discussion with a lawyer and I would have to track down the references.
appendix C (and D) here may help
http://www.rirb.ie/documents/cac_report2002.pdf
But yes it appears that sexual abuse may be "minor" and physical abuse may be "severe".Yes about 25% reported that the worst thing from their time spent incarcerated was the sexual or sexual and physical abuse. 47% reported sexual abuse.
Again what stood out was the mean age of 10.73 SD2.87. Pretty horrific.
Yes dreadful between 8 and thirteen years old which is fairly much pre pubescent children.
But is this is 25 per cent of those abused who reported the worst abuse they experienced as sexual abuse. and that includes 9 5 who reported physical and sexual abuse. i.e. 63 of 247 victims of 170,000 children.0 -
I wonder if ISAW and others would be as willing to conduct the same arguments in person in a public forum?
This is a public forum!an audience of normal decent people (referred to here as "anti Catholics") would tear you to pieces.
That is your opinion. Of course you claim to represent normal decent people when it is quite obvious that your unsupported "tear you to pieces" comment is simply a "throw them to the lions" anti Catholic remark.
You can keep you "I wish I caught up with you on the street" to yourself. If other than saying you would like to see me torn to pieces by a mob you don't want to partake in the discussion then go away.For me the trouble with the internet message boards is that people of marginal radical or outlandish opinions can gather and reinforce one another while disregarding comments of common scene by having a louder voice within the bubble of the forum.
I dont have a marginal radical or outlandish position. I am doing my best to represent what I think is a valid position which the Church have.I challenge ISAW to try posting any of this in after hours, another neutral forum, or even explain this opinion in detail to any genuine victim of child abuse. See how far you get.
If you can't deal with the issue in a Christianity forum then go away. I have posted my views on this and other issues in other fora inside and outside boards. I don't need to prove this to you. As this is a specific thread on clerical abuse I will address that issue here. You are not being gagged but we have reasoned debate here not "mob will tear you apart" gutter press debate.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its a terrible shame the Romans were soft and didnt throw a few more Christians to the lions. We might all be better off.;)This is a public forum!
That is your opinion. Of course you claim to represent normal decent people when it is quite obvious that your unsupported "tear you to pieces" comment is simply a "throw them to the lions" anti Catholic remark.
You can keep you "I wish I caught up with you on the street" to yourself. If other than saying you would like to see me torn to pieces by a mob you don't want to partake in the discussion then go away.
I dont have a marginal radical or outlandish position. I am doing my best to represent what I think is a valid position which the Church have.
If you can't deal with the issue in a Christianity forum then go away. I have posted my views on this and other issues in other fora inside and outside boards. I don't need to prove this to you. As this is a specific thread on clerical abuse I will address that issue here. You are not being gagged but we have reasoned debate here not "mob will tear you apart" gutter press debate.0
Advertisement