The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

gent9662

ISAW wrote: »

Why do you apply this only to Catholics?
Why not Protestants?
How about non celibate christian clergy e.g. orthodox?
How about celibate atheists e.g. Buddhist priests and non priests?

soterpisc wrote: »

Have you lived a Celibate life? Speaking as someone who actually has I can say your whole post above is deeply deeply offensive.

Its not the Celibate priests who abused, it was paedophile priests who abuse.

It is possible to live a celibate life with no sex, once you immerse yourselve in prayer and dedicate your life to others you see the world with another light.

The Root cause of abuse is not celibacy or the Church, in Ireland it stems from many other facts... Men who entered the priesthood not actually wanting to in the hard social times.

Reality is that today in Ireland there still is child abuse.. and its being carried out by friends and family of the kids, not by celibate priests.


Also you make Men out to be animals with your post. Not matter how weak we are, at the end of the day we choose.

No I have not voluntarily lived a celibate life. When I was in my late teens early 20's I very much thought about entering the priesthood. The main reason I did not was due to the vow of celibacy. As much as I wanted to be a priest, I also very much wanted to marry and have children. The latter I did, the former I didn't. You say that the church is not the root cause of child abuse, however it certainly facilitated, housed and provided cover for a lot of men and women who abused children. It provided close access to schools, orphanages, work houses, family homes, retreats etc etc which facilitated the act of abuse. Not only that, they also provided a cover up system which is coming to light right now.

I don't mean to be offensive by any means. I am just stating my opinion on the subject.

I'm sure if you went out and asked 5 practising Catholics right now the question as to whether a vow of celibacy is a factor that contributed to so many cases of child abuse in the church, you would get at least 4 out 5 saying yes indeed. I have carried out this poll several times with different people.

I'm also sure if you went out and asked 5 practising Catholics right now the question as to whether a vow of celibacy is a fundamental requirement to becoming a priest, the answer again would be 4/5 saying no it is not.

I'm 100% sure that if you went out and asked 5 practising Catholics right now the question as to whether they would leave their children in the company of a priest without a third party being present 5/5 would say no.

There are of course exceptions to every rule, however it is just simply not natural for a 20 something man or woman to have their sexuality taken from them and I believe this has lead to so many priests abusing children

ISAW

dclane wrote: »

No I have not voluntarily lived a celibate life. When I was in my late teens early 20's I very much thought about entering the priesthood. The main reason I did not was due to the vow of celibacy. As much as I wanted to be a priest, I also very much wanted to marry and have children. The latter I did, the former I didn't.

Good for you but your personal preference in no way supports you assertion that celibacy causes Roman Catholic Priests to be pedophiles.

You say that the church is not the root cause of child abuse,

It is nothing to do with what I say. It is a fact. Buddhist monks are not pedophiles or any other groups that remain celibate!

however it certainly facilitated,

No it didn't! No church or church group said "so you are having sex with children . Here let us facilitate that by assisting you."

housed and provided cover for a lot of men and women who abused children.

Not the Church but some bishops and some orders yes. But the level outside the Church was a hundred times worse! By your logic society facilitated a hundred times as much abuse as the church did. so how come you are not asking for society to redredd these abuses and how come you turn only to roman Catholic Priests ( less than one per cent of abusers) and blame them for all abuse !

It provided close access to schools, orphanages, work houses, family homes, retreats etc etc which facilitated the act of abuse.

so did the state! Yes it is true so Pedophiles used the church to cover their abuse. But these number say about ten per thousand abusers. In Ireland This was mainly in the 1920s to 1960s And when the church found out it changed policy to protect children.

Not only that, they also provided a cover up system which is coming to light right now.

LOL! "Saddam has WMD they are coming to light right now! WE will find them any minute"
But they didn'[t find any WMD did they?

So where is your evidence for a "cover up system" by the pope and Vatican?

I don't mean to be offensive by any means. I am just stating my opinion on the subject.

so it is your unsupported opinion and you have no evidence to support it?
Suppose you said "orginisations supporting equal rights for black people are silly and pointless and that is coming to light but it is just my opinion" ? do you think that is acceptable?

I'm sure if you went out and asked 5 practising Catholics right now the question as to whether a vow of celibacy is a factor that contributed to so many cases of child abuse in the church, you would get at least 4 out 5 saying yes indeed.

So what? If you asked people in the US whether Iraq was connencted to the world Trade Centre attacks they might also say yes but public opinion doesn't make it a fact! In fact believing certain things which are not true such as beliefs about blacks/jews/catholic priests I submit are dangerous for society!

I have carried out this poll several times with different people.

so what?
If I asked three bigots do they like blacks/jews/catholics would their unanimous opinion make it right?
Even if most people say it is okay to rape a child or torture a prisoner is it then okay?

Polls soliciting the opinion of bigots with samples of three people are not good evidence.

I'm also sure if you went out and asked 5 practising Catholics right now the question as to whether a vow of celibacy is a fundamental requirement to becoming a priest, the answer again would be 4/5 saying no it is not.

And they would be right it isn't! It is a temporal law.

I'm 100% sure that if you went out and asked 5 practising Catholics right now the question as to whether they would leave their children in the company of a priest without a third party being present 5/5 would say no.

The Priest would not allow it.
It is regulated by Church Child protection policies.

There are of course exceptions to every rule, however it is just simply not natural for a 20 something man or woman to have their sexuality taken from them and I believe this has lead to so many priests abusing children

But why only Roman catholic priests in your opinion?
Why not atheists who vow celibacy? Or other groups?
And why didnt the other 99.9 % of celibate priests become pedophiles?
And why is the level of pedophilia a hundred timed greater outside the priesthood?

ISAW

Godge wrote: »

A great post, debunking many of the myths put out on this and other threads. Don't expect a rebuttal though, you are more likely to be ignored.

What do you mean by that?
Are you saying I will ignore and not reputthe stats.
In fact I had half the reply done yesterday but other issues drew me away.

Are you saying I am tryiong to ignore this issue?
I have posted support for all my stats and hove probably posted more to this thread than anyone.

There is no doubt that the institution of the Catholic Church failitated the abuse of numerous children.

Evidence?

The cases where priests were transferred on and remained in contact with vulnerable children are especially chilling to those of us who are parents.

Howe many cases? Ten ? A hundred? One?
How many abusers ?
How many bishops involved?
Did the bishops talk to each other about it?
Total number of bisops and prioests in the world at the time?

What amazes me is the lack of sorrow from so many of the Church and its defenders. It is only people like Diarmuid Martin who give hope for any future for the Catholic Church.

I again find this offensive. I have earlier pointed out that I myself suffered abuse. I find your assertion that I have no feelings for victims to be personally offensive. do you have no sorrow for me?

gent9662

ISAW wrote: »

Good for you but your personal preference in no way supports you assertion that celibacy causes Roman Catholic Priests to be pedophiles.



It is nothing to do with what I say. It is a fact. Buddhist monks are not pedophiles or any other groups that remain celibate!



No it didn't! No church or church group said "so you are having sex with children . Here let us facilitate that by assisting you."



Not the Church but some bishops and some orders yes. But the level outside the Church was a hundred times worse! By your logic society facilitated a hundred times as much abuse as the church did. so how come you are not asking for society to redredd these abuses and how come you turn only to roman Catholic Priests ( less than one per cent of abusers) and blame them for all abuse !



so did the state! Yes it is true so Pedophiles used the church to cover their abuse. But these number say about ten per thousand abusers. In Ireland This was mainly in the 1920s to 1960s And when the church found out it changed policy to protect children.



LOL! "Saddam has WMD they are coming to light right now! WE will find them any minute"
But they didn'[t find any WMD did they?

So where is your evidence for a "cover up system" by the pope and Vatican?


so it is your unsupported opinion and you have no evidence to support it?
Suppose you said "orginisations supporting equal rights for black people are silly and pointless and that is coming to light but it is just my opinion" ? do you think that is acceptable?



So what? If you asked people in the US whether Iraq was connencted to the world Trade Centre attacks they might also say yes but public opinion doesn't make it a fact! In fact believing certain things which are not true such as beliefs about blacks/jews/catholic priests I submit are dangerous for society!


so what?
If I asked three bigots do they like blacks/jews/catholics would their unanimous opinion make it right?
Even if most people say it is okay to rape a child or torture a prisoner is it then okay?

Polls soliciting the opinion of bigots with samples of three people are not good evidence.



And they would be right it isn't! It is a temporal law.



The Priest would not allow it.
It is regulated by Church Child protection policies.



But why only Roman catholic priests in your opinion?
Why not atheists who vow celibacy? Or other groups?
And why didnt the other 99.9 % of celibate priests become pedophiles?
And why is the level of pedophilia a hundred timed greater outside the priesthood?

Answer some simple questions for me please.

1. Why hasn't the state commenced thorough evaluations of Buddist or celibate atheist schools and institutions in Ireland? In fact why hasn't The US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, Australia?

2. You talk about other celibate denominations, is it not the Catholic church that had/has primarily control the majority of schools and homes in Ireland in the past making the argument relevant to them as the majority religious group in Ireland?

3. Where is the evidence that the Vatican and Pope did not cover up reports made on child sexual abuse?

4. Did the Catholic church in Ireland not bring victims of child abuse in and make them swear a holy oath not to disclose what had happened to them?

Furthermore, The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The English Observer obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'.
The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.

In relation to cover up in ireland...

Four archbishops - John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973, Dermot Ryan who died in 1984, Kevin McNamara who died in 1987, and retired Cardinal Desmond Connell - did not hand over information on abusers.

Bishop James Kavanagh, Bishop Dermot O'Mahony, Bishop Laurence Forristal, Bishop Donal Murray and disgraced Bishop Brendan Comiskey, a reformed alcoholic who failed to control paedophile priests when in charge of the Ferns Diocese, all knew about child abuse for many years.
The inquiry, headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy, said the hierarchy cannot claim they did not know that child sex abuse was a crime.

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

Apologies for the late reply.
7% (of the female sexual abusers)were clergy but we do not know what proportion of the religious staff that were clergy.

Given we are discussing religious institutions it would depend on who runs the institution. IOf it was for example christian Brothers then it would be unlikely priests would teach much since CB's were not ordained. If it was Oblates then maybe half the teachers could be priests. But I'm not sure the institutions in the report were run by ordainied priests . I don't think any were, I would have to check. You see the orders were primarily for teaching and
helping the poor and this isn't a priests primary job unless his order is set up specifically to teach or help the poor.
Having said that, every school would have a priest assigned to it who would regularly visit e.g. for confessions or teaching religion and many would have teaching posts as well. Some orders e.g. Opus Dei even have their own priests.

Don't forget that the Report is on "Industrial Schools". Religious staff and religious schools existed outside this system, including schools run by the same orders e.g. CB's These are known to have had the worst cases of abuse particularly physical abuse. But they account for 170,000 pupils whereas the rest of the schools ( run mostly i.e. 95 per cent by the RCC) account for over five million children.

Most sexual abusers of male victims was by the religious,

Most ?
7.139

139 Brothers and 12 priests of 234 abusers

I submit most of the brothers were in a subset of the schools mentioned.

7.141

Six (6) Brothers were each reported by between 10 and 21 witnesses as having sexually abused them. These six Brothers were identified by a total of 89 witnesses and came from two particular Schools. These Schools had both the largest number of staff reported as sexually abusive and the most reports of sexual abuse made about particular staff members.

This is 151 people in 1090 cases of reported abuse ~ about 13%
In a subset of the subset of religious run schools called "institutions". In fact in very few Institutions Christian Brothers cover the vast majority of these.

with about 50% of all victims reporting sexual abuse.

Fifty percent of "247 adult survivors" http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-03C.php

135 male and 112 female.

Participants from the confidential (N=175) committee had spent fewer years with their families before entering an institution and more years in institutions run by nuns.
They were younger when their worst experiences began.

As regards the investigation (N=71) committee, More participants from the investigation committee entered intuitions run by religious brothers or priests through the courts for petty crime and left because their sentences were over. They reported greater institutional sexual abuse than participants from the confidential committee.
You are picking a biased sample.

This study had three main limitations: (1) there was a high exclusion rate and a low response rate; (2) there was no control group; and (3) the study used a crossectional not a longitudinal design.

The reports conclusions are clear however that the religious orders covered up this abuse, protected religious abusers and moved religious abusers where they were found to other institutions. When lay people were found to be abusers they were generally reported to the gardai. The difference in treatment between religious abusers and lay is telling as to the attitude of the religious organisations.

Certain religious orders in institutions ( we dont know about outside them) gave more protection to religious staff ( mostly non clergy i.e. they were mainly brothers and nuns) than to lay teachers. that is not saying the Bishop pope or Vatican was involved!

The argument from ignorance was why I pointed out to you the figures do not support the assertion that there were only 31 cases of sexual abuse. There are hundreds in the Ryan report.

Form what population? There are not hunderds of cases of hundreds of members of the clergy sexually abusing kids We are talking here about pre pubescent children i.e abuse by pedophiles.
You made specific mention of age yourself.
There are not hundreds in the Ryan Report.

http://www.childabusecommission.ie/publications/documents/abuse.pdf
267 institutions (2,101) complaints ~page 177

88 per cent relate to residential institutions.~p. 178

one hundred and sixty-five (165) complaints, equivalent to 8 per cent of all complaints, involving one hundred and twenty-three (123) primary and secondary schools.
A significant majority of the complaints which have no residential institution element, one hundred and one (101), equivalent to 82 per cent of such complaints, concern nonresidential
institutions in respect of which there is a single complaint only. ~p. 183

This above is tell you sexual abuse was concentrated in a subset!

also Table O (p. 192) explains thow the number of claims and complains can be higher than the number of victims or abusers.

1,195 respondents.
757 with a single allegation ~757 cases
363 avg six cases ~2178
49 avg 16 ~784
36 ave 20 plus ~720

That's 1,195 people but 4,439 cases of abuse

The total number of allegations made by all Complainants against named individuals is four thousand, one hundred and twenty-eight (4,128). p.180

Table N (p.191) shows how the Industrial schools skew the sample.
Table P shows the serious abusers are from Industrial Schools

Even taking the skewed sample

Table F 7 (p. 56)

Shows
175 sexual
228 emotional
286 neglect
330 Physical

cases of abuse in Industrial Schools
that is NOT mostly sexual!

As for sexual abuse being a minority, I would certainly not call the figure of about 50% reporting sexual abuse a minority. The physical abuse was most prevalent with most victims reporting more than one kind of abuse.

Where do you get the idea more than half of the abuse was sexual?

The mean age of the children reporting the sexual abuse does however show that the abuse was most likely paedophile in nature.

Which brings up the "pedophile priests" issue. But for your "hundreds and hundreds" alleged you cant produce more than 12 priests over 70 years!

26 clergy were found in the Ryan report it would seem. However you are trying to compare 26 clergy out of the thousands of priests in Ireland which is incorrect.

NO! You are taking figures from Ryan and extrapoliting this skewed sample to everywhere else!

The Ryan report deals with religious institutions which were mainly staffed by brothers and nuns not by clergy. So we can only assert that 26 clergy out of however many clergy worked in the institutions were sexual abusers.

This is just argument from ignorance" it must have been worse elsewhere"
You have already been shown that Industrial schools were the places most likely to find l sexual abuse clerical or otherwise!

You have been shown the stats for non Industrial schools.

The Ryan report did not investigate every parish. I believe there is a Garda report being released soon which will document all of the reports they have received over the decades which may give a more broad view of the abuse. However as the Ryan and Murphy reports have shown abuse by religious often went unreported to the gardai.

This is just "argument from ignorance"
Look! You can't claim to go by the Ryan Report and then say "well the numbers of clerical abusers were tiny in the ryan Report which means that they must be higher elsewhere" !
Where?
Where is your evidence for hundreds of clerics sexually abuse=ing pre pubescent kids?
Where is your evidence that there is a culture of "pedophile priests"?

I do find it a little odd that the Ryan report had about 1500 witnesses, which is where we get most of our figures from, such as 26 sexual abuser priests, 182 sexually abusive religious of all types, 369 reports of sexual abuse. Given that the redress board has made 13000 awards then I assume that the Ryan report only shows a small subset of the actual scale of the abuse.

The redress board didn't decide guilt or innocence. You have been shown above how multiple cases of abuse can account for more cases. But you have not shown that of the 13,000 awards that this shows there are hundreds of priests abusing pre pubescent kids over the period!
Wher is your evidence?

The survey of survivors in the Ryan report http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-03A.phpsuggests that about half had experienced sexual abuse.

3.105For about 40% of participants, severe physical abuse was the worst thing that happened to them in an institution. For a further third it was humiliation and degradation. For 16% it was sexual abuse and for about a tenth it was combined physical and sexual abuse.

3.155
there were statistically significant differences between male and female participants in their recollections of child abuse on the following variables: the sexual and emotional abuse subscales of the institution version of the CTQ; the severe physical and sexual abuse scales of the institutional version of the SPSA.These results show that male participants reported more institutional sexual abuse than female participants,


You are cherry picking again!

In fact if you look at table 3.3. when it comes to non contact sexual abuse of 246 people
122 experienced none 8 non contact and 116 varying levels of sexual abuse.

But this "50% sexual abuse" figure is from a subset of a subset of a subset. It is nonsense to apply these stats to all children in Ireland!

Not alone that but there is no evidence at all these were the victims of priests!

Of the 775 who reported institutional abuse in industrial and reformatory schools, 571 were invited to participate in the research study. ( 3.65)

247 adult survivors ( 175 were recruited from the confidential committee and 71 from the investigation committee.( 3.64) ) of institutional abuse in industrial and reformatory schools

3.69The response rate for the study was 26%. Out of a pool of 941 people invited for interview, 246 were actually interviewed.

Is it more likely that the most seriously abused would reply?

If we were to use this survey to look at the 13000 claims of the redress board then the number of sexual abuse victims is huge.

Nonsense! You can't Cherrry pick out 50% and pretend that 7,500 of the 13,000 are sexual abuse cases!

Where is your evidence that of these 13,000 awards most were sexual abuse by clergy of pre pubescent children?

where is your evidence of the percentage of clergy involved in sexual abuse.
All you are doing is handwaving and saying that because of

It seems that the school authorities in the US also screwed up and allowed abuse.
Also you say that the majority of abusers were foster families. This is true only of female victims. For male victims it was religious staff.

In some institutions.

The 63 is only from the sample survey of 247 survivors. What that figure is really saying is that close to 25% of the 170,000 children to be incarcerated were seriously sexually abused. That could well be 42000 children! There will be a sample bias of course.

You are cherry picking out worst cases and expropolating them and then adding "It could be priests you know... expect confirmation later"

Wher is your evidence that priests constitute any more then a tiny per centage of abusers.?
Particularly of young pre pubescent children?

ISAW

dclane wrote: »

Answer some simple questions for me please.

1. Why hasn't the state commenced thorough evaluations of Buddist or celibate atheist schools and institutions in Ireland? In fact why hasn't The US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, Australia?

Because in Ireland the State allowed the church to run schoolds and Industrial schools.
The worst elements of abuse were in Industrial schools.
But 90% of schools were and are still in the hands of the RCC and about 10% were and still are CoI.

2. You talk about other celibate denominations, is it not the Catholic church that had/has primarily control the majority of schools and homes in Ireland in the past making the argument relevant to them as the majority religious group in Ireland?

Congratulations.
You just answered question 1 yourself !

3. Where is the evidence that the Vatican and Pope did not cover up reports made on child sexual abuse?

Please look up "proving a negative" and "shifting the burden" under logical fallacy
Nor do I have to prove the Giant Spaghetti Monster or the Unicorns or the space aliens did not cover up things. You claim it...you prove it!

4. Did the Catholic church in Ireland not bring victims of child abuse in and make them swear a holy oath not to disclose what had happened to them?

To what are you referring here? To Brady "threathening excommunication if you aver talk about this statement" myth? The State take children into secret courts every day. People present in family courts are not allowed speak about the proceedings. even solicitors and the press can't attend.

Look. Church peopole did make mistakes yes but
There is no evidence of the Pope or Vatican trying to cover up child sexual abuse
that is what is being claimed!
Ther is no evidence that most sexual abuse is by "pedophile prioests" who constitute a tiny fraction of a per cent of abusers. What about the other 99 per cent plus?

Furthermore, The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

Where is your evidence of this? It is a myth!

The English Observer obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'.
The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

Where is your evidence of this?
Given your unreferenced cut and paste I assume you refer to a doccument that has been around since 1922!

'Crimine solicitationies', is a document about procedures for clergy who are accused of sexually soliciting penitents during confession!

This applies to abusers who abuse in confession! It is a list of procedures for dealing with such clerical abuse.
It is dealt with very early in this thread.


http://www.richardsipe.com/Docs_and_Controversy/2010-03-04-solicitation.html

According to the 1922 and 1962 documents, accusers and witnesses are bound by the secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the initiation of the process. There is no basis to assume that the Holy See envisioned this process to be a substitute for any secular legal process, criminal or civil. It is also incorrect to assume, as some have unfortunately done, that these two Vatican documents are proof of a conspiracy to hide sexually abusive priests or to prevent the disclosure of sexual crimes committed by clerics to secular authorities.

John L. Allen, Jr. has said the secrecy was aimed rather at the protection of all involved, the accused, the victim/denouncer and the witnesses, before the verdict was passed, and for free finding of facts.
http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0815.htm

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

New York Times article of 1 July 2010 said that since 1922, and not 1962, contrary to what was previously asserted by the Vatican he Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office had "authority" to prosecute clergy accused of sexual abuse
[The office led by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, in 1922, documents show and canon lawyers confirm." New York Times, July 1, 2010 edition.]

But the NTY and AP have consistently promulgated a myth by getting things wrong:
http://subcreators.com/blog/2010/04/10/once-more-unto-the-breach/

Essentially the letter is saying, “your request is important to us, we’ll get to it soon, please be patient.” It may not even have been written by Ratzinger personally but perhaps with a stamped signature.
...
The seven-year delay mentioned was in the diocese! [Not the Vatican]

The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.

See above.

In relation to cover up in ireland...

Four archbishops - John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973, Dermot Ryan who died in 1984, Kevin McNamara who died in 1987, and retired Cardinal Desmond Connell - did not hand over information on abusers.

That's four Bishops of how many over that period ...50 100?
Did any of these four talk to each other about their cases?

Bishop James Kavanagh, Bishop Dermot O'Mahony, Bishop Laurence Forristal, Bishop Donal Murray

Yeah what about them?

and disgraced Bishop Brendan Comiskey, a reformed alcoholic

that is a cheap shot! Other Bishops have even had children and US Presidents have had drink problems . It is nothing to do with the issue of child sexual abuse by clergy!

who failed to control paedophile priests when in charge of the Ferns Diocese, all knew about child abuse for many years.

The inquiry, headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy, said the hierarchy cannot claim they did not know that child sex abuse was a crime.

You are cutting and pasting again!
Murphy has so for looked into Dublin and Cloyne.

Dublin to greater or lesser degrees implicates three bishops over fifty years. some knew of a few (not all) cases and didn't act in the right manner. Yes this was wrong but it is not Vatican led!

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

Given we are discussing religious institutions it would depend on who runs the institution. IOf it was for example christian Brothers then it would be unlikely priests would teach much since CB's were not ordained. If it was Oblates then maybe half the teachers could be priests. But I'm not sure the institutions in the report were run by ordainied priests . I don't think any were, I would have to check. You see the orders were primarily for teaching and
helping the poor and this isn't a priests primary job unless his order is set up specifically to teach or help the poor.
Having said that, every school would have a priest assigned to it who would regularly visit e.g. for confessions or teaching religion and many would have teaching posts as well. Some orders e.g. Opus Dei even have their own priests.

Which is why I would expect to see far fewer priests implicated in the abuse than the religious brothers/nuns. Which is borne out in the report.

Don't forget that the Report is on "Industrial Schools". Religious staff and religious schools existed outside this system, including schools run by the same orders e.g. CB's These are known to have had the worst cases of abuse particularly physical abuse. But they account for 170,000 pupils whereas the rest of the schools ( run mostly i.e. 95 per cent by the RCC) account for over five million children.

Yes the report is just on industrial type institutions only, which is why I didn't mention anything about the rest of the schools.

This is 151 people in 1090 cases of reported abuse ~ about 13%
In a subset of the subset of religious run schools called "institutions". In fact in very few Institutions Christian Brothers cover the vast majority of these.

Boys and girls together we have 182 religious abusers of 362 identified sexual abusers or 50% being religious staff. Not sure what kind of point you were trying to make really or why you are mixing figures for abusers with figures for cases of abuse.

The next section of your post is totally irrelevant so I won't bother quoting it.

Certain religious orders in institutions ( we dont know about outside them) gave more protection to religious staff ( mostly non clergy i.e. they were mainly brothers and nuns) than to lay teachers. that is not saying the Bishop pope or Vatican was involved!

Never said they were. The Ryan report only brings to light the horrendous nature of religious congregations in the protection of their own over the protection of children. If there are specific references to bishops or not I don't know, I haven't gone into enough detail in the report yet.

Form what population? There are not hunderds of cases of hundreds of members of the clergy sexually abusing kids We are talking here about pre pubescent children i.e abuse by pedophiles.
You made specific mention of age yourself.
There are not hundreds in the Ryan Report.

There are 182 religious sexual abusers mentioned in the Ryan report, 26 sexually abusive clergy. If you wish to state that because that most were members of religious congregations and not clergy that this makes it less of a problem then go ahead.

http://www.childabusecommission.ie/publications/documents/abuse.pdf
267 institutions (2,101) complaints ~page 177

88 per cent relate to residential institutions.~p. 178

one hundred and sixty-five (165) complaints, equivalent to 8 per cent of all complaints, involving one hundred and twenty-three (123) primary and secondary schools.

The vast majority of abuse was in the residential homes run by the congregations. The definition of an institution includes foster care which swells the number of institutions to 267. 62% of all complaints were in the top 20 industrial schools and 76% relate to the industrial and reformatory schools all bar one of which was run by a congregation.

A significant majority of the complaints which have no residential institution element, one hundred and one (101), equivalent to 82 per cent of such complaints, concern nonresidential
institutions in respect of which there is a single complaint only.

Which means of the minority of complaints (24%) having no residential institution element such as primary and secondary schools most had only one complaint. Which supports what I said earlier about the number of institutions being swelled by smaller non residential institutions such as schools.

also Table O (p. 192) explains thow the number of claims and complains can be higher than the number of victims or abusers.

1,195 respondents.
757 with a single allegation ~757 cases
363 avg six cases ~2178
49 avg 16 ~784
36 ave 20 plus ~720

That's 1,195 people but 4,439 cases of abuse

Yes people were abused multiple times by multiple people, not sure what your point is. All the figures I have used up to now from the Ryan report have been identified abusers not cases of abuse.

The total number of allegations made by all Complainants against named individuals is four thousand, one hundred and twenty-eight (4,128). p.180

Table N (p.191) shows how the Industrial schools skew the sample.
Table P shows the serious abusers are from Industrial Schools

Even taking the skewed sample

Table F 7 (p. 56)

Shows
175 sexual
228 emotional
286 neglect
330 Physical

cases of abuse in Industrial Schools
that is NOT mostly sexual!

These are figures from the interim report, the final report gives the final figures and a more detailed breakdown.
The idea that about half (47%) ,not more than half as you seem to think I said, of the abuse was sexual in nature comes from table 3.3 here http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-03A.php

Which brings up the "pedophile priests" issue. But for your "hundreds and hundreds" alleged you cant produce more than 12 priests over 70 years!

One report which states that ~26 priests (not 12) abused children, most likely in the age range of 10.73 years give or take. 182 Religious congregation members in total and given the age stated, paedophile abuse.

NO! You are taking figures from Ryan and extrapoliting this skewed sample to everywhere else!

All I'm doing is stating that 26 priests abused children in institutions. What we can't say is that only 26 priests were abusers during this period as the report does not investigate beyond institutions, certainly not everywhere else.

This is just argument from ignorance" it must have been worse elsewhere"
You have already been shown that Industrial schools were the places most likely to find l sexual abuse clerical or otherwise!

Not sure where you are getting "it must have been worse elsewhere" from. I'm in complete agreement here, industrial schools had the worst of the abuse.

You have been shown the stats for non Industrial schools.

I have and they are irrelevant to the discussion.

This is just "argument from ignorance"
Look! You can't claim to go by the Ryan Report and then say "well the numbers of clerical abusers were tiny in the ryan Report which means that they must be higher elsewhere" !
Where?
Where is your evidence for hundreds of clerics sexually abuse=ing pre pubescent kids?
Where is your evidence that there is a culture of "pedophile priests"?

Please show me where I said "well the numbers of clerical abusers were tiny in the ryan Report which means that they must be higher elsewhere" or even implied it?
All I said was that as the redress board has made many more awards than would be suggested by the figures from the Ryan report, then we can assume that the Ryan report was only a subset of the actual abuse. By how much? Given the Ryan report had 1090 witnesses and the redress boards 13000 applicants I would say about one tenth of the actual abuse.
You are making accusations that I am stating things which I never have.

The redress board didn't decide guilt or innocence. You have been shown above how multiple cases of abuse can account for more cases. But you have not shown that of the 13,000 awards that this shows there are hundreds of priests abusing pre pubescent kids over the period!
Wher is your evidence?

13000 applicants were awarded compensation. I don't see anywhere on the redress board website where it says awards are made by case only. If you can find that please point it out to me.

3.105For about 40% of participants, severe physical abuse was the worst thing that happened to them in an institution. For a further third it was humiliation and degradation. For 16% it was sexual abuse and for about a tenth it was combined physical and sexual abuse.

3.155
there were statistically significant differences between male and female participants in their recollections of child abuse on the following variables: the sexual and emotional abuse subscales of the institution version of the CTQ; the severe physical and sexual abuse scales of the institutional version of the SPSA.These results show that male participants reported more institutional sexual abuse than female participants,


You are cherry picking again!

In fact if you look at table 3.3. when it comes to non contact sexual abuse of 246 people
122 experienced none 8 non contact and 116 varying levels of sexual abuse.

But this "50% sexual abuse" figure is from a subset of a subset of a subset. It is nonsense to apply these stats to all children in Ireland!

Not alone that but there is no evidence at all these were the victims of priests!

Of the 775 who reported institutional abuse in industrial and reformatory schools, 571 were invited to participate in the research study. ( 3.65)

247 adult survivors ( 175 were recruited from the confidential committee and 71 from the investigation committee.( 3.64) ) of institutional abuse in industrial and reformatory schools

3.69The response rate for the study was 26%. Out of a pool of 941 people invited for interview, 246 were actually interviewed.

Is it more likely that the most seriously abused would reply?

I'm not applying it to all the children of Ireland only to those who were abused in institutions.
If you have a better source of the detailed accounts of the type, severity and nature of abuse suffered by people willing to give evidence to the commission then please present it.

Nonsense! You can't Cherrry pick out 50% and pretend that 7,500 of the 13,000 are sexual abuse cases!

Where is your evidence that of these 13,000 awards most were sexual abuse by clergy of pre pubescent children?

If you can show that the survey of the witnesses to the commission were somehow skewed towards sexual abuse then please show me. Until then I will take the survey at face value. And as such I will apply the 47% figure to the 13000 and come out with over 6000 sexually abused children. Unless you know of an actual breakdown of the 13000 awards then this is a fair guess.

where is your evidence of the percentage of clergy involved in sexual abuse.

I haven't presented any, nor have I made accusations based on the percentage of clergy involved in sexual abuse. But if you wish then we can do a quick guess ourselves(using figures from the Ryan report, sexual abuse only, in institutions investigated by the commission) 26 clergy of 362 sexual abusers is about 7%. For religious congregation members it is 182 so 50% of sexual abuse was by religious altogether.

You are cherry picking out worst cases and expropolating them and then adding "It could be priests you know... expect confirmation later"

Not cherry picking at all, just presenting the data given, and I am not expecting confirmation later, we already know the type and scale of the abuse.

Wher is your evidence that priests constitute any more then a tiny per centage of abusers.?
Particularly of young pre pubescent children?

It would seem, that according to the Ryan report, that 7% of sexual abusers of children, with a mean age of 10.73, in residential institutions were clergy.

For figures relating to other types of institutions you will have to look elsewhere than the Ryan report/Redress commission.

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

Boys and girls together we have 182 religious abusers of 362 identified sexual abusers or 50% being religious staff. That is ~17% of the total abuse being sexual abuse by religious congregation members. Not sure what kind of point you were trying to make really.

Which is saying more than half the sex abusers in specific religious institutions were not religious! If you are going to look at stats for places staffed by religious congregations then the percentage of offenders from religious congregations are bound to be higher. In the extreme case where zero percent of people working in a place are not a member of a congregation then religious will make up 100% of offenders and non religious will make up zero. The point is there are 182 religious abusers identified in religious schools where 170,000 children went to schools. But there were five million plus children went to school in Ireland over this time. How many abusers were there in Ireland over this time and how many were clergy and how many were religious? That is the statistic yo are looking for! I submit you have a humber of hundreds of brothers and nuns concentrated in a subset of certain institutions in certain orders and you have tens of priests. I suggest outside of this you have thousands to tens of thousands of sex offenders who are not brothers not nuns and not the ten or twenty priests.


Even given the above certainly a tiny percentage were priests and a smaller percentage of them abused pre pubescent children. which is the central discussion point of this thread. i.e that pedophile priests and clerical abuse was "endemic" to society as one poster put it.

The next section of your post is totally irrelevant so I won't bother quoting it.

Irrelevant on what grounds?
I pointed to concentrations of abuse
You suggested 50% of abusers were religious
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74267131&postcount=1904

The survey of survivors in the Ryan report http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-03A.phpsuggests that about half had experienced sexual abuse.

Chapter 3
The psychological adjustment of adult survivors of institutional abuse in Ireland Report submitted to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse( reference 1 Professor Alan Carr, PhD, Professor Alan Carr, PhD. June 2006 (revised for minor inaccuracies in December 2008).)
Here is where you got the 50% figure:

3.03Participants had spent, on average, about 5 years living with their families before entering institutions and about 10 years living in institutions. More than 90% had experienced institutional physical and emotional child abuse and about half, institutional child sexual abuse. Just over a third of those who had memories of having lived with their families reported family-based child abuse or neglect.

Are you claiming 90 per cent of Irish children were physically abused by religious ?
Are you claiming a third of all children are abused by their family?
No!
But you are happy to lift out the 50% of these 247 and as if by magic suggest this is some sort of proof that religious and that clergy in particular are highly tending towards sexual abuse.

the "participants" are the demographic I supplied in the Appendix by Professor Carr which you considered irrelevant.

I asked for the source
You said chapter 3
Fifty percent of "247 adult survivors" of religious institutions is a biased group.
It is a handwaving argument to suppose that fifty per cent of children in religious institutions were sexually abused!

It does not say that. it says 50 per cent of a sample of 247 (the most extreme cases of abused children in the Industrial Schools system and all born in the 1940s or earlier ) of 170,000
children were sexually abused!

This says nothing about the propensity of religious brothers nuns or priests to sexually abuse young children or whether they are more inclined to do it.
If you keep making the sample of abused smaller so that the only staff in contact with them are religious staff then 100% of the abuse will be by religious.
except it wont! because even in the abve case where 47 per cent were abused by brothers ten per cent were still sexually abused at home.

Never said they were. The Ryan report only brings to light the horrendous nature of religious congregations in the protection of their own over the protection of children.

Not all religious congregations.
Those that did erred.
But the argument has been made that this was "corruption" and that the Vatican were involved or that Bishops or other members of the RC Hierarchy colluded to cover abuse up.
"Covering up" happened in a very limited number of cases and I am aware of no Vatican involvement or of several Bishops colluding.
And do not forget over this period (1920s to 1990s) there were maybe ten thousand bishops or equivalent in the RCC.

And this "closed ranks" mentality is not restricted to church organisations!
And there has been no evidence produced for the suggestion that the Vatican was involved in it!

If there are specific references to bishops or not I don't know, I haven't gone into enough detail in the report yet.

So you don't know and have no evidence of any Bishops or the Vatican being involved?

There are 182 religious sexual abusers mentioned in the Ryan report, 26 sexually abusive clergy. If you wish to state that because that most were members of religious congregations and not clergy that this makes it less of a problem then go ahead.

I never said it was not a problem.
One abusing priest is a problem!
What I said was if there are 26 clergy (in 26,000 priests) abusing over a period of 50 years
and there are 26,000 non clergy abusers in the general population do you think people should devote all their time to pointing at the 26 priests or should they actually think about the other 99 per cent plus of abusers?

The vast majority of abuse was in the residential homes run by the congregations.

The vast majority of sexual abuse associated with religious institutions was in the subset of residential homes. It is unlikely that abuse by members of orders would be in holiday camps on beach resorts as
1. they didnt frequent such places
2. to enable such abuse they would have to collude and conspire which they didn't do or at least I have seen no evidence of it. I have seen limited evidence so some abuse by more than one abuser ( I believe in all cases physical abuse ) in a tiny number of cases.

But children were also abused outside these institutions. Most of them not by priests and not by religious. By most I mean over 99 % of child sex abusers were not RC priests.

Yes people were abused multiple times by multiple people, not sure what your point is. All the figures I have used up to now from the Ryan report have been identified abusers not cases of abuse.

My point has been made by Jenkins and others. The "Pedo priests" thing is an over hyped myth! One to which you are pandering.

Hold on. Are you claiming your statistic of 13,000 claims are for 13,000 individual abusers all of which were members of religious congregations? Yes or no?

It appears no. You did however produce a hand waving argument that half of these were abused by priests and religious. It does not stand up!

These are figures from the interim report, the final report gives the final figures and a more detailed breakdown.
The idea that about half (47%) ,not more than half as you seem to think I said, of the abuse was sexual in nature comes from table 3.3 here http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-03A.php

Which as i have pointed is a biased sample of 247.

Not alone that but carrs research is on people in their sixties in the 1990s.
Volume V

3.02In 2005 and 2006, 247 adult survivors of institutional abuse in industrial and reformatory schools recruited through CICA were interviewed.

In the Appendix ( which you dismissed) you will see regarding Carr's 247

The overall exclusion rate was 26% (326 of 1267). The participation rate was 20% (246 of 1267). The response rate for the study was 26% (246 of 941).

The 247 participants in this study included roughly equal numbers of men and women of about 60 years of age, who had entered institutions run by nuns, religious brothers or priests due to family adversity or petty criminality.

If they were about 60 in 2005/6. They were born about the mid 1940s and were children in the 1950s. How is it your sample just happens to be 247 of the worst abuse cases from the period of the worst abuse in Industrial schools?
These would have been at school in the 1950 and 60s.
According to the report
Table 22: Number of Sexual Abuse Reports by Decade of Witnesses’ Discharge – Male Industrial and Reformatory Schools
Chapter 7 Vol III
82 % of sexual abuse happened in the sixties and before.
You don't think that might skew the reported level of sexual abuse?

If you look at Figure one in the appendix you will see
Figure 1. Rates of institutional child maltreatment on the institutional version of the childhood trauma scale among all 247 participants
that the rate of sexual abuse is lower than others ( forms of abuse) which are near 100 per cent. Your ( fifty per cent of people were sexually abused) sample is a sample of some of the most damaged and abused victims of the Industrial school system.
You cant take a subset of a subset of a subset and use that to say anything about the church in general or society in general!
You can not argue from the particular to the general!

If one did one would have "90 per cent of Irish children were physically abused"

One report which states that ~26 priests (not 12) abused children, most likely in the age range of 10.73 years give or take.

Give or take what? Three years ? Two? Secondary sexual characteristics emerge around twelve and younger in girls. But let us accept the 26 figure. how many non priests abused children over the same period?

All I'm doing is stating that 26 priests abused children in institutions. What we can't say is that only 26 priests were abusers during this period as the report does not investigate beyond institutions, certainly not everywhere else.

Obviously in institutions run by religious authority figures abusers ( who tend to be authority figures) would more likely be religious members or priests.
But how many cases of abuse were there outside these institutions and how many non religious abusers?
You see saying "of 247 people in an institution half were abused by religious and 7% by priests"
really isn't dealing with the other 5 million outside is it?
It is just cherry picking people who wher seriously abused in institutions.

Not sure where you are getting "it must have been worse elsewhere" from. I'm in complete agreement here, industrial schools had the worst of the abuse.

And you picked a sample of 247 from the worst period of that abuse.
and in some of them as much as half of the sexual abuse was committed by brothers and as much as seven per cent by clergy.
The sample is skewed!
In other Industrial schools and at other times the rates are much lower for religious.
Outside industrial schools ( in mainstream schools run by religious to which the vast majority of children went ) it is even lower.
But for the say 200 (180 or so religious and 20 or so priests) religious abusers how many more existed in society? and how many more non religious?

If and when you can produce a figure that in "holy Catholic Ireland" fifty per cent of sex abusers were from religious orders and about a tenth of those abusers ( five per cent of all abusers) were RC Priests you have a serious contention. But you will find less than one per cent are priests.

I have and they are irrelevant to the discussion.

i.e. non Industrial schools are not relevant to the "clerical child abuse discussion"?

Why are you only interested in 247 of the worst abused children from Industrial schools in Ireland?

Of these 247 victims about half the sexual abuse was by brothers.
Why do you think that is more relevant then the experience of the other five million children? Or than the rest of the 170,000 children in industrial schools?

Please show me where I said "well the numbers of clerical abusers were tiny in the ryan Report which means that they must be higher elsewhere" or even implied it?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74267131&postcount=1904
I stated:
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.

To which you replied:

I pointed out to you the figures do not support the assertion that there were only 31 cases of sexual abuse. There are hundreds in the Ryan report.
As for sexual abuse being a minority, I would certainly not call the figure of about 50% reporting sexual abuse a minority.

AS I pointed out the 50 per cent figure ( abuse by religious) is of a subset of 247 victims of the worst abuse in Industrial schools! A biased sample.

You go on to say:

The Ryan report deals with religious institutions which were mainly staffed by brothers and nuns not by clergy. So we can only assert that 26 clergy out of however many clergy worked in the institutions were sexual abusers. The Ryan report did not investigate every parish. I believe there is a Garda report being released soon which will document all of the reports they have received over the decades which may give a more broad view of the abuse. However as the Ryan and Murphy reports have shown abuse by religious often went unreported to the gardai.

I do find it a little odd that the Ryan report had about 1500 witnesses, which is where we get most of our figures from, such as 26 sexual abuser priests, 182 sexually abusive religious of all types, 369 reports of sexual abuse. Given that the redress board has made 13000 awards then I assume that the Ryan report only shows a small subset of the actual scale of the abuse.

In other words of 26 abusing priests and 182 religious in places not run by clergy we can expect a much higher level by clergy elsewhere.

All I said was that as the redress board has made many more awards than would be suggested by the figures from the Ryan report, then we can assume that the Ryan report was only a subset of the actual abuse. By how much? Given the Ryan report had 1090 witnesses and the redress boards 13000 applicants I would say about one tenth of the actual abuse.
You are making accusations that I am stating things which I never have.

How many do you assert of the 13,000 cases of abuse were sexual abuse by priests of pre pubescent children?

13000 applicants were awarded compensation. I don't see anywhere on the redress board website where it says awards are made by case only. If you can find that please point it out to me.

Here is an interesting thread on the payments:
http://www.politics.ie/forum/current-affairs/121838-redress-board-payments-8.html

But to answer you question if you can't show how many of the 13,000 claims are for sexual abuse by priests then don't blame me. I have shown ample evidence that most abuse even in the worst of places was physical.

I'm not applying it to all the children of Ireland only to those who were abused in institutions

Fair enough then. Of a sample of less than one per cent of people sexually abused in Ireland a hundred per cent of them were abused by priests.

So we can forget about the other 99 per cent of which zero were abused by priests?

.
If you have a better source of the detailed accounts of the type, severity and nature of abuse suffered by people willing to give evidence to the commission then please present it.

http://www.richardwebster.net/irelandsfolly.html

or if a government body publicly advertises its willingness to pay sums of up to €300,000 to those making claims of abuse, and simultaneously makes it clear that there is no requirement to produce evidence to prove that the events alleged did in fact take place, it should not be surprising if the response is a mixed one.

Unless Ireland proves to be a country whose citizens are entirely immune to the laws of human nature, it is almost certainly the case that a significant number of those now claiming money from the government are quite genuine victims of abuse who suffered in the manner they have claimed.

But it is also likely to be the case that a very large number of the claims received, perhaps as many as 90%, would prove, if it were possible to investigate them fully, entirely false.

As I earlier stated, though I could have, I have not made any claim.

If you can show that the survey of the witnesses to the commission were somehow skewed towards sexual abuse then please show me. Until then I will take the survey at face value.

I did show you.
The Appendix to chapter 3 Professor Carr's report

The 247 sample
98 per cent were physically abused
98 per cent were abused by neglect
95 per cent were emoutionally abused
47 percent were sexually abused.
82 percent plus suffered from mental illness

121 of these 247 lived also with a family
Figure 2. Rates of family-based child maltreatment
also shows high levels of abuse outside the institution for this subset
from 10% sexual to 50% physical neglect.
I don't know it the 10% per cent sexual ( for the 121 who were abused outside the institution) is part of the almost half ( 47%) for the whole 247

If you take a sample where 82 per cent are mentally damaged and 50% are sexually abused and quote that 50% as representative of 13,000 other people you are skewing it!

You pick the worst forms of abuse in Irish history and you rebuke me for producing this appendix?
Why?

And as such I will apply the 47% figure to the 13000 and come out with over 6000 sexually abused children. Unless you know of an actual breakdown of the 13000 awards then this is a fair guess.

No it isn't it is a skew!

the 247 are of the worst forms of abuse
The REdress board had five abuse bands
Band V is the worst form
of the 13,781 completed cases ( page 27) 29 of these ( 0.22%) are band V
1.62 per cent (210) are band IV
this 1.84 per cent represents your 247 cases.

you are applying the stats from a band V type sample ( 247 of the most seriously abused people) and applying it to the other 99.88% !

Also, the 247 people are all born pre 1950's . Their abuse was in the 1950s and 60s or earlier. This is more akin to the 3,000 priority applicants sample than the 13,000.

But in the final analysis it is all just more handwaving.

You have no idea how many of the 13,000 were abused at all and how many sexually and when and whether the experience of 247 people from the worst industrial schools in any indicator of how the 13,000 were abused.

Actually we do know that 1.84% of the 13,000 were IV and V most serious similar to the 247.

I haven't presented any, nor have I made accusations based on the percentage of clergy involved in sexual abuse. But if you wish then we can do a quick guess ourselves(using figures from the Ryan report, sexual abuse only, in institutions investigated by the commission) 26 clergy of 362 sexual abusers is about 7%. For religious congregation members it is 182 so 50% of sexual abuse was by religious altogether.

It is nonsense to say 505 [sorry that should read edit 50%] of sexual abuse of children was by offenders who were members of religious orders.

Not cherry picking at all, just presenting the data given, and I am not expecting confirmation later, we already know the type and scale of the abuse.

Do we? What is the percentage of abusers who were RC clergy?
You stated you expect Gardai reports into parishes will indicate the levels of abuse by clergy. You expected that to be high and specific to clergy by the assertion you made. Have you got any actual evidence or are you going to just produce more assertion and handwaving?

It would seem, that according to the Ryan report, that 7% of sexual abusers of children, with a mean age of 10.73, in residential institutions were clergy.

No it wouldn't! It might seem that way to you but that is only in your skewed sub sample of 247 victims from the worst religious institutions!

Likewise we can take the victims of a single priest and say 100% of these victims were victims of clergy!

The point is how many abusers were there?
What percentage of them were clergy?
We find internationally about one per cent or less were RC clergy.

Show Time

I still think the best way to deal with ALL the kiddie fiddler priests would be to feed them to the lions and less of the crap that there are good priests as they are all the same.

It would be fun to watch them get ripped limb from limb screaming for their imaginary friend to help them and getting the same sort of mercy they gave their poor victims.

gimmebroadband

Show Time wrote: »

I still think the best way to deal with ALL the kiddie fiddler priests would be to feed them to the lions and less of the crap that there are good priests as they are all the same.

It would be fun to watch them get ripped limb from limb screaming for their imaginary friend to help them and getting the same sort of mercy they gave their poor victims.

And how do you suggest we deal with the other 99% of 'kiddie fiddlers' that are out there in the public?

ISAW

Show Time wrote: »

I still think the best way to deal with ALL the kiddie fiddler priests would be to feed them to the lions

Well nothing new there! People said the same about the first Christians. Reactionary bigots who try to scapegoat a tiny minority in fact only exacerbate a problem by ignoring it and focusing on blaming a tiny minority who contribute to less than one per cent of the cases.

and less of the crap that there are good priests as they are all the same.

Not just a bigot but an ignorant one to boot! You are aware are you of the first official victim of the World Trade Centre attack? Oh no that's right you are ignorant of that aren't you?

It would be fun to watch them get ripped limb from limb screaming for their imaginary friend to help them and getting the same sort of mercy they gave their poor victims.

So "bring back hanging" is your solution to every problem? Especially if the hanging is of innocent people and the guilty are ignored? So long as you can see action you are not concerned about a solution. Please troll your bile elsewhere.

gent9662

ISAW wrote: »

Well nothing new there! People said the same about the first Christians. Reactionary bigots who try to scapegoat a tiny minority in fact only exacerbate a problem by ignoring it and focusing on blaming a tiny minority who contribute to less than one per cent of the cases.


Not just a bigot but an ignorant one to boot! You are aware are you of the first official victim of the World Trade Centre attack? Oh no that's right you are ignorant of that aren't you?

So "bring back hanging" is your solution to every problem? Especially if the hanging is of innocent people and the guilty are ignored? So long as you can see action you are not concerned about a solution. Please troll your bile elsewhere.

ISAW take the example of Al-Qaeda. They represented a small minority of worldwide terrorist groups, however the damage they caused changed the world. Similar can be said for paedophile priests. They may be in a minority however their actions have caused catechismic repercussions.

The Catholic Church have been known to hang thousands of innocents in the name of religion. Are you aware or do you know of the Spanish Inquisition and what they did?

If you do, why is it that you still defend the church and it's teachings?

Cybercelesta

dclane wrote: »

ISAW take the example of Al-Qaeda. They represented a small minority of worldwide terrorist groups, however the damage they caused changed the world. Similar can be said for paedophile priests. They may be in a minority however their actions have caused catechismic repercussions.

The Catholic Church have been known to hang thousands of innocents in the name of religion. Are you aware or do you know of the Spanish Inquisition and what they did?

If you do, why is it that you still defend the church and it's teachings?

The problem isn't the teachings, it's the individuals!

ISAW

dclane wrote: »

ISAW take the example of Al-Qaeda. They represented a small minority of worldwide terrorist groups, however the damage they caused changed the world.

Al Khyda are another Media Myth! In fact I don't know if they exist as purported or whether Bin Laden planned or had anything to do with 911.

Similar can be said for paedophile priests. They may be in a minority however their actions have caused catechismic repercussions.

I think you may mean "Catastrophic" the Catechism has not changed because of it!
Yes the position of a priest abuser is probably much more serious than a non clergy offender. Which is why the church responded to the problem in advance of the state.
But still a authority figures in non clerical positions are possibly as serious. Certainly less than one per cent of abusers getting inordinate media attention ( what with bogus human rights cases against the Pope) is not "balanced"

The Catholic Church have been known to hang thousands of innocents in the name of religion. Are you aware or do you know of the Spanish Inquisition and what they did?

Not that old troll!
We have had discussions about it yes.
It is another media myth.
The numbers killed were were less than ten a year!
Meanwhile atheistic regimes killed hundreds of millions of people.

Please don't hop away from trying to defend how one per cent of abusers should get most of the media attention by suggesting it is because of the Spanish Inquisition!

If you do, why is it that you still defend the church and it's teachings?

I'm not saying leaders in the Church were always right. I'm not saying some abusing clergy were not bad people. I am not saying there were no bad popes. But if they erred it was against church teachings and against Christian beliefs.

gent9662

THE FORMER BISHOP of Derry Dr Edward Daly has called for an end to mandatory clerical celibacy for priests in the Catholic Church, saying that removing the requirement would “ease the church’s problems”.
Daly, one of the most well-known figures in the Church, describes the issue of celibacy as “the other conflict” in his memoir, A Troubled See: Memoirs of a Derry Bishop.
Daly said he believed that not allowing priests to marry was causing potential candidates to turn away from their vocations, writing: “I believe there… should be a place in the modern Catholic Church for a married priesthood and for men who do not wish to commit themselves to celibacy”.
He noted that, in recent years, allowances had been made for former Anglican bishops who were already married but wished to convert to Catholicism. The Pope has created a special place in the Catholic Church for some Anglican church bishops who reacted angrily to the ordination of women priests within their original faith.
“Admission of married men to the priesthood could well create new problems and issues,” Daly admitted. “However, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, major decisions must be made”.
Daly is one of the most well-known members of the Catholic Church; he gained widespread recognition following Bloody Sunday in 1972. A photograph showing Daly waving a white handkerchief as he tried to bring a dying victim to safety remains one of the most iconic of the Troubles.
The former bishop also commented on the issue of child sexual abuse in the Church, saying that he was “heartbroken and appalled that colleagues in the priesthood could engage in such horrible criminal acts against the most vulnerable”.

http://www.thejournal.ie/former-bishop-of-derry-calls-for-end-to-clerical-celibacy-224990-Sep2011/

On the issue of celibacy I think the results are pretty clear.

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-priests-be-allowed-to-renounce-the-vow-of-celibacy-225073-Sep2011/?voted=1

ISAW

dclane wrote: »

THE FORMER BISHOP of Derry Dr Edward Daly has called for an end to mandatory clerical celibacy for priests in the Catholic Church,

There is another thread on this. Can you move it there?

Cybercelesta

The mainstream media didn't think it important enough to report this, (no priests mentioned in it).

"Why is the mainstream media given a free pass when it engages in wildly biased reporting and ignores watershed moments in cultural development?
Just this last month, a group of researchers from some of the top U.S. universities participated in a disturbing conference organized by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophilia activists and medical professionals seeking to re-classify pedophiles as “minor-attracted persons.” Did you catch that? This is the beginning step towards legalization of pedophilia."


http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/enough-is-enough

Monty.

Cybercelesta wrote: »

The mainstream media didn't think it important enough to report this, (no priests mentioned in it).

"Why is the mainstream media given a free pass when it engages in wildly biased reporting and ignores watershed moments in cultural development?
Just this last month, a group of researchers from some of the top U.S. universities participated in a disturbing conference organized by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophilia activists and medical professionals seeking to re-classify pedophiles as “minor-attracted persons.” Did you catch that? This is the beginning step towards legalization of pedophilia."


http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/enough-is-enough

It helps if you can also trick the public into electing a gay pro paedophilia president to help push through the legislation for a lower age of consent, abortion, same sex marriage etc.

optogirl

Monty. wrote: »

It helps if you can also trick the public into electing a gay pro paedophilia president to help push through the legislation for a lower age of consent, abortion, same sex marriage etc.

Nobody is being 'tricked' into anything and I haven't seen any candidate endorse any of these things. However, I know many of the voting public who would like to see abortion available and same sex marriage available. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you don't want a same sex marriage or an abortion, don't have one.

ISAW

optogirl wrote: »

Nobody is being 'tricked' into anything and I haven't seen any candidate endorse any of these things.

How about the Magill mag interview debacle with Norris ? Or don't you remember?

However, I know many of the voting public who would like to see abortion available and same sex marriage available.

And most wouldn't . Which is why it is constantly voted down.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you don't want a same sex marriage or an abortion, don't have one.

So if you think child sex is okay or rape is okay or littering or driving at 100 miles an hour then all you have to say is "if you don't like those things don't do them and leave me do what I like?"

Monty.

optogirl wrote: »

I know many of the voting public who would like to see abortion available and same sex marriage available.

Let's have a referendum and see then

optogirl

ISAW wrote: »

How about the Magill mag interview debacle with Norris ? Or don't you remember?



And most wouldn't . Which is why it is constantly voted down.



So if you think child sex is okay or rape is okay or littering or driving at 100 miles an hour then all you have to say is "if you don't like those things don't do them and leave me do what I like?"

I am almost 32 and have never had the opportunity to vote on either Abortion or Same Sex Marriage.

Again you are equating what consenting adults do with rape. This is insulting & ignorant. Littering and driving at 100 miles an hour are not anywhere near being considered human rights whereas the right of an adult to have an abortion or 2 consenting adults to get married are in that arena.

Why people are so paranoid about same sex marriage is completely beyond me. How does it effect you?

gent9662

Monty. wrote: »

It helps if you can also trick the public into electing a gay pro paedophilia president to help push through the legislation for a lower age of consent, abortion, same sex marriage etc.

At least the president of Ireland is a democratically elected person unlike the Pope. As far as I go, I could live with a Gay President that believes is lowering the age of consent, abortion and same sex marriages. Just as long as the people get their say on said issues. In the catholic church, Catholics due not. Why?

What's worse? Em let me think:

1. A Pope that condones the cover up of child sexual abuse within the church.

2. In the past twenty years prominent religious leaders including the Pope, have publicly declared their opposition to the use of condoms for contraception or disease prevention. Unlike drugs and surgical procedures, however, the current consensus is that using condoms during sex is morally contraceptive and thus a sin. As such, their use is forbidden. Theology aside, Church officials deny that their teaching against condom use is followed by those same people who flout Church teaching on illicit sexual activity, such as its absolute condemnation of anal intercourse between men.

Result: Hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide.

PDN

optogirl wrote: »

Again you are equating what consenting adults do with rape. This is insulting & ignorant.

It is insulting and ignorant to pretend that abortion is solely what consenting adults do. The baby does not consent to be killed.

optogirl

PDN wrote: »

It is insulting and ignorant to pretend that abortion is solely what consenting adults do. The baby does not consent to be killed.

I'm not pretending any such thing. I was referring to ISAW's constant equation of gay marriage to paedophilia.
Abortion is a very contentious issue and in my mind each case should be judged on its own merits. Having never been in the horrible position whereby I had to consider it, I don't pretend to know what is best for anyone who has. I also don't think that people's religious beliefs should influence law.

Monty.

optogirl wrote: »

I also don't think that people's religious beliefs should influence law.

I don't think peoples atheist beliefs should influence the law, but like it or not peoples beliefs influence everything. Also since when did you have to be anyway religious to oppose abortion ?

fedor.2.

PDN wrote: »

It is insulting and ignorant to pretend that abortion is solely what consenting adults do. The baby does not consent to be killed.

None of your business though, is it?.

optogirl

Monty. wrote: »

I don't think peoples atheist beliefs should influence the law, but like it or not peoples beliefs influence everything. Also since when did you have to be anyway religious to oppose abortion ?

I agree - I think referenda, where everybody can vote, religous or not, should be the foundation of our laws.

Monty.

dclane wrote: »

At least the president of Ireland is a democratically elected person unlike the Pope.

Actually the Pope is democratically elected by the college of Cardinals.
Secondly, unlike the President of Ireland the Pope plays no role in Irish legislation.

dclane wrote: »

What's worse? Em let me think:

1. A Pope that condones the cover up of child sexual abuse within the church.

If that’s true, you won't mind posting us up some proof then, or is this just another dishonest bigoted remark ? Surely not . . . .

dclane wrote: »

2. In the past twenty years prominent religious leaders including the Pope, have publicly declared their opposition to the use of condoms for contraception or disease prevention. Unlike drugs and surgical procedures, however, the current consensus is that using condoms during sex is morally contraceptive and thus a sin. As such, their use is forbidden. Theology aside, Church officials deny that their teaching against condom use is followed by those same people who flout Church teaching on illicit sexual activity, such as its absolute condemnation of anal intercourse between men.

Result: Hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide.

The Catholic belief it that sex is a loving act for pro-creation inside marriage, and not for lust and personal gratification. I see no problem with that, and Non Catholics can wear condoms on their heads for all we care.

Seeing as the instance of HIV and HIV in African countries is actually inversely proportional to the number of Catholics in that country, perhaps you can post up some proof of your claim, but I won't hold my breath.

The hypothesis that the Catholic doctrine against the use of condoms facilitates the spread of HIV and AIDS is formally falsified through available demographics. If anything, Catholicism seems to decrease the spread of HIV. The idea that faithful Catholics would follow rules regarding the use of condoms, but ignore the more important doctrines of marital fidelity is ludicrous, at best. So, Catholicism isn't the cause of the AIDS crisis in Africa.

Monty.

optogirl wrote: »

I agree - I think referenda, where everybody can vote, religous or not, should be the foundation of our laws.

Then why is the Pro Sodomy brigade trying to circumvent a referenda on same sex marriage at all costs ?