The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

andyjo

marienbad wrote: »

The high water mark seemed to me to be the Popes's visit in to Galway in 1979. I am sure if you were a practicing catholic then everything seemed possible. But if you look at the great and the good on the podium that day and ask where are they now and you have a snap shot of all that was to follow- Bishop Casey, Fr Michael Cleary et al.
.

It seems indeed as if many Priests have ....shady secrets, to use a phrase.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to the following catholic church source, http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] it admits B]"]"About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue[/B].The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people "[/FONT]

In Ireland I doubt very much if 4 % of the population between 1950 and 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor. ...if that was the case the courts would have been swamped with work ! Whats worse than the 4% of those who were accused is the cover ups in the RCC. Even as recently as only 3 days ago in the USA a catholic bishop was found guilty of cover up, if you look back a few dozen posts. Imagine the scandal there would be if e.g. 4% of McDonalds employees, or golf club members were child sex abusers, and the management of McDonalds or the golf clubs covered up the abusers ?

ISAW

StudentDad wrote: »

I don't know what you're on about.

I have shown you several times what I am on about
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74872765&postcount=2131

you justify the churches actions by claiming that the abuse is tolerable

The "you" referred to is ME!
That is a clear direct claim that I claim child sexual abuse should be tolerated.
I never made any such claim that ther was even any level of abuse which could be justified or tolerated!
If you claim I did where did I?
That is what I am on about.

You are defensive in the extreme. Perhaps you don't like it when someone says it how he sees it.

I don't like it when someone makes up things about me and claims they are true and defames me.

As regards the church and whether or not I should be humble? Get off the stage. First off I'm not promoting myself as the moral or other guardian of anyone

You claimed I claimed abuse is tolerable. You claimed the church were involved in justifying it.

I have never had my own army or sent people into an area to kill anyone who didn't follow what I was prattling on about - the church did that.

What? because the Papacy had a small Army 500 years ago in city state Italy, that is somehow related to child abuse? What is the link?

The church expects people to 'believe' well sorry mate, it has to lead by example. Where are the public confessions?

Confessions of WHAT? Yu are the one claiming the Vatican covered something up and that clerical abuse is at a high rate and is widespread. You have produced no evidence to support your empty claims . all you have done is claim anyone asking you for evidence is a supporter of child abuse.

The church is meant to be founded on conscience. Where is the churches conscience?

LOL. What happened to not promoting yourself as the moral or other guardian? Now you are setting the standards of conscience? What are you claiming the church are guilty of doing?

gimmebroadband

Another form of child abuse.

A lesbian couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy who wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty -- so that he can have more time that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/17/controversial-therapy-for-young-transgender-patients-raises-questions/

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

...the overwhelming sense of betrayal the people feel . And why should this be so ? Well from the foundation of the state The Church saw itself at the heart of the State and insisted on being consulted on all sorts of stuff, education, health, family life, private life, books films even sport on occassion.

The church didnt instigate that. the State did! If the Church was given a central role it was voted on by the people and written into law and the constitution. It was not the church running a dictatorship.

We were a Catholic State for a Catholic people , a shining light to godless England and the world. To see the full scale of it just look at those pictures from the Marian year (1951 I think) or those of the Limerick Confraternity . Brimstone fire and sword - Church militant, Church Triumphant indeed.

Indeed. National identity as a celtic catholic Ireland had a lot to do with our polity.

This was deliberate policy by the Church.

And by the State. A policy of Holy Catholic Ireland. And much good was achieved by it and much hardship through the Economic War with England and the Neutrality of Ireland in WWII.

It is no argument saying the Church filled the gap left by the state in education and health- we both know that is only partly true. The fact is the Church was never going to cede primary influence in those areas. But then as Lord Acton tells us -power corrupts , and so it did.

The church had been "filling the gap" for far longer than that. Hedge schools etc. The christian Brothers were set up in the nineteenth century for poor people in under "Protestant" British rule. Don't forget the population of Ireland was eight to ten million in the 1840s. Comparable to England at that time which had about 16 million. Millions died on the roads or were forced to emigrate and died at sea etc. Catholics couldn't vote! The whole country was in a collapse in population from the 1840s till 1970! Meanwhile england by 1900 grew to 30 million. By independance they went from twice our population to fifteen times it! Is it any surprise that when they became independent Catholics had a separate identity?

The high water mark seemed to me to be the Popes's visit in to Galway in 1979. I am sure if you were a practicing catholic then everything seemed possible. But if you look at the great and the good on the podium that day and ask where are they now and you have a snap shot of all that was to follow- Bishop Casey, Fr Michael Cleary et al.

Neither Casey or Cleary were child abusers. I have some sympathy for Casey. He was a good bishop and did a lot for poor in africa etc. He lacked humility maybe. But his problem was not the mistake he made in fathering a child. the problem was in secret even though allowed to do so he put aside discressionary funding for the mother/child. Casey could not be charged with any crime for this as it was all legal but the church could question his judgement with respect to funds even if they could forgive his admitted sins with respect to Annie Murphy. But i dont think using Casey and Cleary as symbols of how great and good were not so good is appropriate when discussing clerical child sex abuse since there is no link between the two. Casey even if morally questionable did not cause any clerics to sexually abuse kids nor did he assist facilitate or hide any of them!

It is not just the sexual abuse ISAW - that was the nuclear bomb just waiting to explode- it was the sheer arrogance and double standards.

This discussion is about child sexual abuse. I am on record as opposing authoritarianism whether from church sources or not. We are not discussing that. We are discussing the statements about why this focus on child sex abuse. You can't show arrogance among some of the hierarchy caused a child to be sexually abused!

And when that bomb did explode the church was seen to lack compassion humility remorse and more interested in damage lmitation than the victims themselves.

Now this is an example of the sweeping statements I mentioned.
How do you assert the church lacked compassion and humility and was more interested in damage limitation? Where is there any evidence that the Vatican covered up or did not have compassion for sexual abuse victims?

But to address your specific point concerning the inordinate amount of attention put on the church. The percentages have nothing to do with it.
The Catholic Church held themselves to a higher standard in Ireland and it is against that standard that they must be measured.

Higher standard than what? Against what standard? What standards do you assert the church were breaking in relation to child sexual abuse? How is it you believe the Church didn't respond to child abuse? didnt compensate victims? etc.

In the same way that wide spread corruption in the UK police force received much more attention that say in an equivalent sized corporation.

A corporation with 15,000 employees if they went out on the Streets on a sunday and shot 20 people dead and refused any enquiry into it would probably deserve media attention. But the level of abuse by priests against kids in the Church is less than 1% of cases. And there is no evidence of corruption/cover up from your side yet.

You cant have it both ways ISAW - demand to be the moral arbiters of a society and then not be held accountable to those standards you set for everybody else.

Indeed they should be. Pedo priests should be locked up and any bishop who knowingly facilitated them. Some bishops may have done that. By some I mean of the order of ten worldwide out of 10,000. when it comes to priests you have been shown 300 cases on Vatican records. All the Holy See can do is remove their office. It is for the local criminal authority to prosecute a sex crime.

As regards you own history I am very sorry to learn about your suffering. If you got some redress board compensation I hope it provided some solace. If not I hope the Child protection procedures adopted in and available every parish provide you with some peace of mind.

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

It seems indeed as if many Priests have ....shady secrets, to use a phrase.

Hedging!
I note your use of "seems". It seems like you are wrong!

About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue[/U][/U][/COLOR][/B][/B].The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people "

Dealt with Earlier in the thread.
Edit: here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73026073&postcount=1209

It isn't a "catholic source". The source is the John Jay report. I provided the primary data earlier. Note the hedging?
"accused of" ~ Just as father Reynolds indeed just as Jesus was "accused of"
Accused of is not "found guilty of" is it?

In Ireland I doubt very much if 4 % of the population between 1950 and 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor.

But you have seen that just as media reports on John Jay were coming out ther numbers of cases reported to the Vatican exploded for the US only. 300 cases worldwide over 50 years but 250 of them in the US between 2002-4 ~just after that report came out. It seems complaining about a priest became all the rage.

...if that was the case the courts would have been swamped with work ! Whats worse than the 4% of those who were accused is the cover ups in the RCC.

No what is worse is that the over-reported 4% which is unsubstantiated as an actual factual level and is playing on media hype is then taken by the media and people like you as an under-reported figure LOL! I have already shown the actual researched levels
less than 1% of population and less than 0.1% of priests.
You then use this overreported made up figure to assert "it must be even higher" In your case it seems absence of evidence is proof of something!

Even as recently as only 3 days ago in the USA a catholic bishop was found guilty of cover up, if you look back a few dozen posts.

Names dates?

Imagine the scandal there would be if e.g. 4% of McDonalds employees, or golf club members were child sex abusers, and the management of McDonalds or the golf clubs covered up the abusers ? [/FONT]

Yeah imagine is 4% of anyone was accused of something and overhype and twisting of it in just a few lines results in "accused" becoming reported as "convicted" and "no evidence of any conspiracy by management to cover up" becomes "management covered up"

one bishop is 0.01% of management. If you have 10,000 managers and one is a criminal is that proof the whole company is involved in that crime?

marienbad

Hello ISAW , I never appplied to nor will I to the redress board , it just was'nt for me but I agree with you it is a good thing and has brought closure to a lot of victims .

I need to think on this overnight before replying to you any further .

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Hello ISAW , I never appplied to nor will I to the redress board

Nor did I . It is too late now anyway. the legal route is still open to you. You could personally sue but that may lead to years of legal cases. Which is what the redress board was set up - to assist victims. But it is presented as an avoidance or conspiracy to hide by the church. The traditional legal route always was and still is there.

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

In Ireland I doubt very much if 4 % of the population between 1950 and 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor.

But that is exactly what you are doing! Not alone that you are giving the impression that a high proportion were catholic priests!

andyjo

ISAW wrote: »

It isn't a "catholic source".

Its from the Catholic News Service, on a Catholic Website. I quote :

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John Jay Study Reveals Extent of Abuse Problem[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years accused of abuse[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Agostino Bono
Catholic News Service[/FONT]



http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp


Karen Terry, John Jay principal investigator for the study, said that "it is possible the bishops are not giving us everything."

andyjo

ISAW wrote: »

Names dates?

I told you to look back a few dozen posts. If you look at post 2170 you will see . Indeed the bishops do not give the researchers everything!


KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Kansas City's Catholic bishop was charged Friday with not telling police about child pornography found on a priest's computer, making him the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic official indicted on a charge of failing to protect children.

Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese Bishop Robert Finn, the first U.S. bishop criminally charged with sheltering an abusive clergyman, pleaded not guilty to one misdemeanor count of failing to report suspected child abuse.

Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker said Finn and his diocese, which also was charged with one count, had "reasonable cause" to suspect a child had been abused after learning of the images.

"Now that the grand jury investigation has resulted in this indictment, my office will pursue this case vigorously because it is about protecting children," Baker said. "I want to ensure there are no future failures to report resulting in other unsuspecting victims."

Read the indictment (.pdf format)

Finn has acknowledged that he and other diocese officials knew for months about hundreds of "disturbing" images of children that were discovered on a priest's computer but did not report the matter to authorities or turn over the computer.

In a statement issued through the diocese, Finn denied any wrongdoing and said he had begun work to overhaul the diocese's reporting policies and act on key findings of a diocese-commissioned investigation into its handling of Ratigan's case.

"Today, the Jackson County Prosecutor issued these charges against me personally and against the Diocese of Kansas City-St Joseph," said Finn, who officials said was not under arrest. "For our part, we will meet these announcements with a steady resolve and a vigorous defense."

After the Catholic sex abuse scandal erupted in 2002, grand juries in several regions reviewed how bishops handled claims against priests. However, most of the allegations were decades old and far beyond the statute of limitations. Until Finn was indicted Friday, no U.S. Catholic bishop had been criminally charged over how he responded to abuse claims, although some bishops had struck deals with local authorities to avoid prosecution against their dioceses.

CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports the indictment comes nearly 10 years after the nation's Catholic bishops pledged to report suspected abusers to police.

Terry McKiernan of BishopAccountability.org, which manages a public database of records on clergy abuse cases, called Friday's indictment especially important because it involved a recent case. He said the charge being a misdemeanor makes it no less significant.

"The taboo against acknowledging that bishops are responsible in these matters has been challenged," McKiernan said.

David Clohessy, of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) told CBS News, "We hope this is a beginning of a new era in which prosecutors will go after not just the pedophile priests but the Catholic bishops who enable their crimes and conceal them."

Finn acknowledged earlier this year that St. Patrick's School Principal Julie Hess had more than a year ago raised concerns that a priest was behaving inappropriately around children, but that he didn't read her written report until after the Rev. Shawn Ratigan was charged with child pornography counts this spring. Ratigan has pleaded not guilty.

In a memo dated May 19, 2010, Hess wrote that several people had complained Ratigan was taking compromising pictures of young children and that he allowed them to sit on his lap and reach into his pocket for candy.

Hess at the time gave the report to Monsignor Robert Murphy, the diocese's vicar general, who spoke with Ratigan about setting boundaries with children and then gave Finn a verbal summary of the letter and his meeting with the priest.

Seven months later, a computer technician working on Ratigan's laptop found hundreds of what he called "disturbing" images of children, most of them fully clothed with the focus on their crotch areas, and a series of pictures of a 2- to 3-year-old girl with her genitals exposed.

The computer was turned over to the diocese, where officials examined the photos and reported them to Murphy. Instead of reporting them to authorities, as required by Missouri's mandatory reporting law, Murphy called a police captain who is a member of the diocese's independent review board and described a single photo of a nude child that was not sexual in nature.

Without viewing the photo, Capt. Rick Smith said he was advised that although such a picture might meet the definition of child pornography, it probably wouldn't be investigated or prosecuted.

A diocese computer technician downloaded materials from Ratigan's computer onto a flash drive and Finn eventually returned the laptop to Ratigan's brother, who destroyed it.

Smith said he was shocked in May when Murphy told him there had been hundreds of photos on Ratigan's laptop, rather than a single image. Smith demanded the computer be turned over to police, but since the computer had been turned over to Ratigan's family, it handed over the flash drive, instead.

The New York Times reports that Bishop Finn was appointed in 2005 and his vision to return the diocese to more traditional practices has drawn strong opinions. The paper reports he is one of only a few bishops affiliated with Opus Dei, a conservative movement which, according to wikipedia, "organizes training in Catholic spirituality applied to daily life."

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

Its from the Catholic News Service, on a Catholic Website. I quote :

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John Jay Study Reveals Extent of Abuse Problem[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years accused of abuse[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Agostino Bono
Catholic News Service[/FONT]

Putting things in bold wont change the fact that it is not an official church source no more than the oft quoted Observator Romano which is ruyn by a lleric but isn't official church policy.

What is more you have been shown where it was deal with before
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73026073&postcount=1209

What part of "accused of" are you having problems with>
Was Dreyfuss guilty of something just because he was accused?
Was Fr. Reynolds?
You seem to thing reporting accusations means proving guilt.
It isn't!


http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp


Which are run by the fransiscans who I admire but given people are saying that orders are not top be trusted you then say they are when they say something with which you might agree? Which is it you trust the orders to report things or you don't?

But let us take the John Jay report

Karen Terry, John Jay principal investigator for the study, said that "it is possible the bishops are not giving us everything."

And it is possible that unicorns and space aliens did it!
Same point when one of the John Jay people suggested homosexuality might be a cause of child abuse this was not accepted but when they say something you like it is accepted.
Which is it?
Where is any evidence that bishops (more then one -you can't have a conspiracy otherwise- meeting together planned to cover up anything) How was the vatican involved in this "cover up"?

And why dont you go and read The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, before you spout secondary spin about it. Like I read it!
Original version:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_original/

revised version (in case you spout spin on the original which was changed)
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/

Hereis one of the corrections

Data provided to America by John Jay researchers seems to indicate that 65 percent of the allegations were investigated by diocesan officials, and that of this number 65 percent were judged “substantiated” by those officials, although the survey questionnaire had left the word undefined. The confusion over “substantiated” adds to the problems of Fig. 5.3.1, which was meant to report the response of bishops to “substantiated” allegations.

"substiantial accusations" are listed ion page 97.
The number given isnt the 4,392 you mention in message 2192 but 1,872
Of these 1872 no action was taken in 2.6% ( n=49) cases.

But the 1,872 reduces you 4% claim to 1.7% But it is ALL sexual abuse claims not just pedophiles. It included older teenagers. We have had a long discussion and I have produced evidence most abuse was against older male teenagers and not pre pubescent children. But as it happens the 1.7 per cent is still close to the 1% i claimed. And that is without having to delve much deeper into the matter.

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

I told you to look back a few dozen posts. If you look at post 2170 you will see . Indeed the bishops do not give the researchers everything!

You posted the following link in relation to evidence of Bishops covering upi child abuse
in 2192

Even as recently as only 3 days ago [i.e. 14th Cotober]in the USA a catholic bishop was found guilty of cover up,

For that you provided this link
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/14/national/main20120751.shtml
Now where in that link is the evidence that a bishop was found guilty as you claim?

As usual you turn an "accusation" into an assumption of guilt!
Just as you did with the John Jay Report!

HEr is the opening paragraph of your post which you put all in bold ( for what reason I dont know) I however leave in bold the salient point

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Kansas City's Catholic bishop was charged Friday with not telling police about child pornography found on a priest's computer, making him the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic official indicted on a charge of failing to protect children.

In other words
1. This is not evidence as you claimed of "found guilty". You seem to project you desires onto reality when you spin these yarns.
2. Given it mentions it is the highest ranking accused to date and he is a bishop it is reasonable to conclude they no other bishop was convicted in the past which actually defects your claim of bishops covering up.
3. Child porn is not the actual abuse. I do not justify it but I have referred to the RIRB redress board awards and the five levels involved. This bishop is not accused with facilitating the priest in abusing children but with protecting him from prosecution. It is a misdemeanor as mentioned in the following paragraph. You are aware the difference between a misdemeanor and a crime?

Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese Bishop Robert Finn, the first U.S. bishop criminally charged with sheltering an abusive clergyman, pleaded not guilty to one misdemeanor count of failing to report suspected child abuse.

So your so called "evidence" of a long lasting coverup is actually shows that it is evidence that if this case is true it is a first ever possibility of a conviction of a bishop not acting.

andyjo

ISAW wrote: »

But it is ALL sexual abuse claims not just pedophiles. It included older teenagers.

It does not matter. Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years were accused of child abuse, according the report on child sex abuse. You may think the rape of a 14 year old is less serious than the rape of a 5 year old.
Instead of the hierarchy covering up abuse of older children it should be reported as well.
Imagine if 4 percent of McDonalds workers or 4 per cent of golf club members ( as you specifically mentioned golf clubs) were accused of child sex abuse?

marienbad

ISAW I don't want to get into a back and forth argument where every word and line is subject to forensic analysis . I am in no way denying the enormous contribution of the Catholic Church to this country . And we can go back and forth all day on the scale of and motives behind that contribution. For example your point on education is well taken but you are not giving the whole story, an education system was on offer in the 19th century , just it was not a catholic education system. We could have gone that route and we would most likely have a system similar to the rest of the UK. It was all about hearts and minds first and foremost.

But this is to get sidetracked . It is our state I am interested in- we sought independance, we got it, so what did we do with it- that is all I care about- we now had complete responsibility. So how did we as a nation discharge it ?

Well the short answer is terribly badly .The ultimate responsibility for the failure of the state in these areas is the state. No question about that ,successive governments were glad to palm off their responsibilities on the Church .But there can be no denying the Church sought and received control over many areas of Irish life and had no hesitation in ruthlessly using that power in creating society as it saw fit.

It can be argued who is most responsible - the State or the Church- I would contend it was the state - but for now we are discussing the role of the Church. And I want to measure the Church by the standards it set for everybody else. It is no defence to say the State , or the Gardai, or other religions or organisations did this that or the other, they may well have , but it is not relevant. It may provide context and background and mitigating circumstances, but that is all. We can open a thread of those entities if you like and I agree they wont measure very well, but for now we are discussing the Church .After all when I commit a sin it is no excuse that everyone else is doing it, is it ?

Of course I am not saying Bishop Casey and Cleary abusers . I knew Father Casey long before he became a bishop and he was just an extraordinary man, a force of nature really, and I will always think of him with great affection. What I am saying is that by the 70's we had a state within the state that acted and believed as if it was above the law and the standards that applied to the rest of us. In that context Bishop Casey and Cleary are at the heart of this double standard and were living a life of deception for decades.

Such a climate of deception and unaccountability was the ideal scenario for what was to unfold.

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

It does not matter.

The thread is mainly about pedophile clerical sexual abuse of children.
If you want to include abuse of adolescents or physical abuse then you have to consider non clerical abuse as well. And you will also find that when it happens outside the church it is a hundred times more abusers and a hunderd times woirse.

For example from 1920-1990 we have a record of 24 Priests as abusers in Indultrial schools and Religious run institutions. Ther were few 3to 5 I thin class V cases i.e. the worst of abuse. These are constantly referred to as pedo priests who were involved in a chrurch conspiracy to hide them. Wall to wall media coverage. 24 priests over 70 years.

Now look at the non church State protection of children. How much coverage does the following get?
http://www.thejournal.ie/22-child-deaths-in-state-care-hse-annual-report-257151-Oct2011/?utm_source=shortlink

TWENTY-TWO YOUNG people died while known to State child protection services over a nine-month period, according to new HSE figures.

Four of the young people committed suicide, four died after drug overdoses and there were two cases of homicide. The HSE said these last two young people died as a result of fatal child abuse, not committed by a member of their family.

There were also six deaths from natural causes and six from accidents, including road accidents. All of the 22 deaths took place between March and December 2010, and are revealed today in the first annual report of the HSE’s National Review Panel for Serious Incidents & Child Deaths, which was set up in 2010.

HEre is the report
http://hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/services/Children/natreviewpanelannualreport2010.pdf

Section 4( page 9 ) is about a review over the last ten years 2000 -10

Total 199 deaths

page 10 - another 30 deaths March 2010 -Dec 2010 but 8 even though in state not church care are not under HSE remit.

that is 20-30 dead per year in the last ten years!

Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years were accused of child abuse, according the report on child sex abuse. You may think the rape of a 14 year old is less serious than the rape of a 5 year old.

Again you equate accused with convicted

I do know the death of 30 kids a year is certainly serious. You seem not to care about that. How come? how come over the last ten years when the church introduced child protection policies and when over 200 children and minors in State care actually died while in care and while their problems were known (and some cases were of sexual abuse) you don't see to be interested in such a current problem?

Instead of the hierarchy covering up abuse of older children it should be reported as well.
Imagine if 4 percent of McDonalds workers or 4 per cent of golf club members ( as you specifically mentioned golf clubs) were accused of child sex abuse?

I have dealt with that point earlier. In fact I produced the cases of Mc Donalds workers in sex abuse cases.

marienbad wrote: »

I am in no way denying the enormous contribution of the Catholic Church to this country . And we can go back and forth all day on the scale of and motives behind that contribution. An education system was on offer in the 19th century , just it was not a catholic education system.

But it was. that was partly my point.

We could have gone that route and we would most likely have a system similar to the rest of the UK.

What do you mean "rest of " ? Ireland isn't part of any rest of the UK. but as it happens we DO have a similar system to the UK particularly at second and third level.

It is our state I am interested in- we sought independance, we got it, so what did we do with it- that is all I care about- we now had complete responsibility. So how did we as a nation discharge it ?

See above . We removed the church from institutinal child care and from 2000 to 2011 we have over 200 children in state care DEAD!

Well the short answer is terribly badly .The ultimate responsibility for the failure of the state in these areas is the state. No question about that ,successive governments were glad to palm off their responsibilities on the Church .But there can be no denying the Church sought and received control over many areas of Irish life and had no hesitation in ruthlessly using that power in creating society as it saw fit.

I partly agree. But the church dint think abusing children was fitting . Earlier in the thread i produced Middle Age and Early church rules showing they always regarded child sex with an adult as wrong. furthermore the hierarchy never organised facilitated or condoned child sexual abuse. In some rare instances some bishops ( and we are talking a handfull i.e. single digits at most in 100,000) may have erred and thought that they should hide the priest. Current policy is different and the church in Ireland are not involved as much in institutional care. But the state are and have overseen over 200 DEATHS in the last ten years!

It can be argued who is most responsible - the State or the Church- I would contend it was the state - but for now we are discussing the role of the Church.

Okay how many died in church care in Ireland in the last ten years? zero!

And I want to measure the Church by the standards it set for everybody else. It is no defence to say the State , or the Gardai, or other religions or organisations did this that or the other, they may well have , but it is not relevant. It may provide context and background and mitigating circumstances, but that is all. We can open a thread of those entities if you like and I agree they wont measure very well, but for now we are discussing the Church .

And i have already stated the church brought in Child protection policies. Brought in a policy of mandatory reporting. had no deaths or sexual abuse cases of which I am aware in the last ten years. Compensated victims of historic abuse (and maybe some fake claims too) . so how does that compare with non church . Well when did "one in four" bring in mandatory reporting ? 2009 was it I think? As for the state - over 200 dead in ten years.

After all when I commit a sin it is no excuse that everyone else is doing it, is it ?

No . A single priest abusing is a terrible thing . 24 abusing priests over 70 years from 1920-1990 is much worse. How wopuld you rate over 200 dead victime in the last ten years?

Of course I am not saying Bishop Casey and Cleary abusers . I knew Father Casey long before he became a bishop and he was just an extraordinary man, a force of nature really, and I will always think of him with great affection. What I am saying is that by the 70's we had a state within the state that acted and believed as if it was above the law and the standards that applied to the rest of us. In that context Bishop Casey and Cleary are at the heart of this double standard and were living a life of deception for decades.

I don't mind meeting you havlf way on that . But these "double standards" did not apply to the sexual abuse by pedophile priests! Not as a church wide policy! Yes some bishops didn't have mandatory reporting but none condoned or allowed or turned a blind eye to abuse. They may have acted with an unsuitable solution but they never conspired to allowed abusers in order to protect the church.

Such a climate of deception and unaccountability was the ideal scenario for what was to unfold.

Again I can accept unaccountability happened in many cases but I don't accept a deception by the Vatican or Irish hierarchy.

andyjo

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW I don't want to get into a back and forth argument where every word and line is subject to forensic analysis . I am in no way denying the enormous contribution of the Catholic Church to this country . And we can go back and forth all day on the scale of and motives behind that contribution. For example your point on education is well taken but you are not giving the whole story, an education system was on offer in the 19th century , just it was not a catholic education system. We could have gone that route and we would most likely have a system similar to the rest of the UK. It was all about hearts and minds first and foremost.

But this is to get sidetracked . It is our state I am interested in- we sought independance, we got it, so what did we do with it- that is all I care about- we now had complete responsibility. So how did we as a nation discharge it ?

Well the short answer is terribly badly .The ultimate responsibility for the failure of the state in these areas is the state. No question about that ,successive governments were glad to palm off their responsibilities on the Church .But there can be no denying the Church sought and received control over many areas of Irish life and had no hesitation in ruthlessly using that power in creating society as it saw fit.

It can be argued who is most responsible - the State or the Church- I would contend it was the state - but for now we are discussing the role of the Church. And I want to measure the Church by the standards it set for everybody else. It is no defence to say the State , or the Gardai, or other religions or organisations did this that or the other, they may well have , but it is not relevant. It may provide context and background and mitigating circumstances, but that is all. We can open a thread of those entities if you like and I agree they wont measure very well, but for now we are discussing the Church .After all when I commit a sin it is no excuse that everyone else is doing it, is it ?

Of course I am not saying Bishop Casey and Cleary abusers . I knew Father Casey long before he became a bishop and he was just an extraordinary man, a force of nature really, and I will always think of him with great affection. What I am saying is that by the 70's we had a state within the state that acted and believed as if it was above the law and the standards that applied to the rest of us. In that context Bishop Casey and Cleary are at the heart of this double standard and were living a life of deception for decades.

Such a climate of deception and unaccountability was the ideal scenario for what was to unfold.

Well said. Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years were accused of child abuse, according the report on child sex abuse. 4,392 Priests. Thats the official figure admitted to on the Roman Catholic website. http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp Yet we all know the real figure would be higher.
How many people were accused of shop lifting in a given time period ? How many people were accused of speeding in a given time period ? The real percentages of those who committed the offences would unfortunately have been higher.

The Quadratic Equation

andyjo wrote: »

Well said. Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years were accused of child abuse, according the report on child sex abuse. 4,392 Priests. Thats the official figure admitted to on the Roman Catholic website. http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp Yet we all know the real figure would be higher.
How many people were accused of shop lifting in a given time period ? How many people were accused of speeding in a given time period ? The real percentages of those who committed the offences would unfortunately have been higher.

The golden thread and first principle of all justice is that everyone is innocent untill proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Otherwise, I could easily accuse you of being anything and demand you prove to everyone you are otherwise.

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

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years were accused of child abuse, according the report on child sex abuse. 4,392 Priests.

Wrong 1.7 per cent were accused in the USA . You have been shown the page from the John Jay report saying that and how the John Jay report was corrected by them in a later version.

Thats the official figure admitted to on the Roman Catholic website. http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp

No it isn't! Yu quoted it yourself and you were supplied the primary research the John Jay report! Please read the references you quote would you? It was done by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States.

40% of the victims were between 14 and 17. so a little more than half could be regarded as "pedophile" in nature. Also about 30% of victims involved penetrative sex (part 4.4) so "child rape" could only be attributed to less than a thirds of cases.

Yet we all know the real figure would be higher.

There you go with the sweeping statements again! We know nothing of the sort. You fail to support that claim!

How many people were accused of shop lifting in a given time period ? How many people were accused of speeding in a given time period ? The real percentages of those who committed the offences would unfortunately have been higher.

And yet again you claim if some priests are accused that it means that even more than that number are guilty. You haven't even proved the accused guilty!

ISAW

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The golden thread and first principle of all justice is that everyone is innocent untill proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Otherwise, I could easily accuse you of being anything and demand you prove to everyone you are otherwise.

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

I have pointed this out but it is continually ignored!
Meanwhile over 200 children die in State care over the last ten years and no interest at all is expressed!

The Quadratic Equation

ISAW wrote: »

I have pointed this out but it is continually ignored!
Meanwhile over 200 children die in State care over the last ten years and no interest at all is expressed!

Especially, and worst of all, by the media.
The ceased reporting the full facts a long time ago.
Now, if you read them carefully, their articles are in the main built around misquotes and selective opinions.
I long for more proper, neutral, professional, real investigative journalism in Ireland, but that takes nerve, skill and hard work.

andyjo

ISAW wrote: »

40% of the victims were between 14 and 17. so a little more than half could be regarded as "pedophile" in nature.

This thread is "the clerical child abuse thread".
14 or 15 year old children being abused by Priests is also wrong, you know.
Thank God at least some of them had the guts to complain / report the Priest in question. Child abuse is wrong, very wrong, and attempts by yourself to diverty attention by pointing out deaths in state institutions do your argument no good. Set up a seperate thread on that if you want.

Actually, just as your "opinions" on clerical child abuse are as far wide off the mark as Chemical Ali's propoganda on the allies on the invasion of Iraq, you are totally wrong that "over 200 children die in State care over the last ten years and no interest at all is expressed". The figure is much much lower, and yes, there is interest expressed, inc by the state broadcaster :
"The Health Service Executive has revealed that a total of 37 children died in State care in the last 10 years, 18 of those from 'unnatural causes'.

A further 19 children died from natural causes and health-related conditions.

There had been calls for a full disclosure from the HSE following the death of Dublin teenager Daniel McAnaspie, who was murdered while in the care of the State.

Of the 18 deaths from 'unnatural causes':
■5 died from suicide
■5 deaths were drug related
■2 were unlawful killings
■3 died from road accidents
■3 died from other accidents"
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0528/children.html

Imagine if 4 percent of McDonalds workers or 4 per cent of golf club members ( as you specifically mentioned golf clubs) were accused of child sex abuse? Its disgusting people, professional spin-docter or not, child abuser or not, would try to cover up or excuse the abuse of teenage victims aged 14, 15, 16 or 17.

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

This thread is "the clerical child abuse thread".

The old "i only want to talk about priests" ruse.
WE have been over that several times.

Mr Pudding went into it over a year ago
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72754815&postcount=1085

There are moderating decisions on it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65076556&postcount=1

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72734433#post72734433

Which is a clarification of the earlier decision that non clerical abuse ius allowed
In fact any child abuse is locked in other threads and referred to this one
It is explained in
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72754815&postcount=1085
see lower down wher message 903 etc. is referenced

14 or 15 year old children being abused by Priests is also wrong, you know.

Aha! But if you are going to go away from "pedophiles" into clerics that abused older minors ( and this would be the majority of clerical abuse) then why not go into non clerics who represent 95% or mire of abusers?

Thank God at least some of them had the guts to complain / report the Priest in question. Child abuse is wrong, very wrong, and attempts by yourself to diverty attention by pointing out deaths in state institutions do your argument no good. Set up a seperate thread on that if you want.

Mr Pudding tried all that ruse.
His admitted interest was in attacking the Church hierarchy as I suspect your is and not discussing child abuse and how to deal with it.
Read the above moderating decision! ANY child abuse will be moved here., that is why the "merged" in the title exists! I originally posted several child abuse threads and all child abuse is merged into this one.

Actually, just as your "opinions" on clerical child abuse are as far wide off the mark as Chemical Ali's propoganda on the allies on the invasion of Iraq,

Who is bringing in off topic issued now. But as regards WMD in Iraq they were also a media myth weren't they?

you are totally wrong that "over 200 children die in State care over the last ten years and no interest at all is expressed". The figure is much much lower,

The figure is NOT lower at all. The published figure is over 200 and over 30 not in church care in the last year but not all 30 were HSE. some were other State supported agencies.

and yes, there is interest expressed, inc by the state broadcaster :
"The Health Service Executive has revealed that a total of 37 children died in State care in the last 10 years, 18 of those from 'unnatural causes'.

No interest by YOU! Yes it has been reported but let us see if it gets wall to wall coverage like constant referenced her to Brendayn Smyth. I did not say it was not reported at all .. I just claimed that people like you who are so concerned about chjild abuse or the abuse of minors over 14 which you claimn is also wrong don't seem to be posting much about the ZERO dead in church care and over 200 dead in state care over the last decade.

A further 19 children died from natural causes and health-related conditions.

In the last year. Are you trying to make it look like the state can excuse this are "natural causes" or " state looking after terminally ill children"? We are talking about suicide and drug overdoses caused due to to child sexual abuse and other abuse of which the state agency was aware. And that is in the last year. A single year! and it has been going on while the church were bringing in child protection policies!

There had been calls for a full disclosure from the HSE following the death of Dublin teenager Daniel McAnaspie, who was murdered while in the care of the State.

How many children have been murdered in Church care in the last ten years? If anywere you would be here blaming the Church Hierarchy.

Of the 18 deaths from 'unnatural causes':
■5 died from suicide
■5 deaths were drug related
■2 were unlawful killings
■3 died from road accidents
■3 died from other accidents"

In the last year!

Imagine if 4 percent of McDonalds workers or 4 per cent of golf club members ( as you specifically mentioned golf clubs) were accused of child sex abuse?

for all we know they are. We don't know how many are members of such organisations. Why ? Because such things are not hyped and over reported by people like you.
The point is you are attributing causality i.e. you are suggesting abuse because they are members of a club or members of the clergy.
You have been shown again and again and again that clerical sexual abuse particularly pedophile abuse is a lower level than pedophiles outside the clergy.

Its disgusting people, professional spin-docter or not, child abuser or not, would try to cover up or excuse the abuse of teenage victims aged 14, 15, 16 or 17.

And her you go again! Accusing the church of "covering up". The issue raised was pedophile abuse. If you want to move the goal poasts and discuss non pedophile priests fair enough. If you want to go away from just sexual abuse we can do that too. But I suspect you will find an even greater minority of clerics then the less than one per cent pedophile level.

furthermore we have already discussed a priest having sex with another adult. In some cases the other person got pregnant and had a child. It is a wholly different matter to child sexual abuse and is not illegal.

andyjo

ISAW wrote: »

The old "i only want to talk about priests" ruse.
WE have been over that several times.

Mr Pudding went into it over a year ago
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72754815&postcount=1085

There are moderating decisions on it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65076556&postcount=1

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72734433#post72734433

Which is a clarification of the earlier decision that non clerical abuse ius allowed
In fact any child abuse is locked in other threads and referred to this one
It is explained in
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72754815&postcount=1085
see lower down wher message 903 etc. is referenced



Aha! But if you are going to go away from "pedophiles" into clerics that abused older minors ( and this would be the majority of clerical abuse) then why not go into non clerics who represent 95% or mire of abusers?



Mr Pudding tried all that ruse.
His admitted interest was in attacking the Church hierarchy as I suspect your is and not discussing child abuse and how to deal with it.
Read the above moderating decision! ANY child abuse will be moved here., that is why the "merged" in the title exists! I originally posted several child abuse threads and all child abuse is merged into this one.



Who is bringing in off topic issued now. But as regards WMD in Iraq they were also a media myth weren't they?



The figure is NOT lower at all. The published figure is over 200 and over 30 not in church care in the last year but not all 30 were HSE. some were other State supported agencies.



No interest by YOU! Yes it has been reported but let us see if it gets wall to wall coverage like constant referenced her to Brendayn Smyth. I did not say it was not reported at all .. I just claimed that people like you who are so concerned about chjild abuse or the abuse of minors over 14 which you claimn is also wrong don't seem to be posting much about the ZERO dead in church care and over 200 dead in state care over the last decade.



In the last year. Are you trying to make it look like the state can excuse this are "natural causes" or " state looking after terminally ill children"? We are talking about suicide and drug overdoses caused due to to child sexual abuse and other abuse of which the state agency was aware. And that is in the last year. A single year! and it has been going on while the church were bringing in child protection policies!

How many children have been murdered in Church care in the last ten years? If anywere you would be here blaming the Church Hierarchy.



In the last year!



for all we know they are. We don't know how many are members of such organisations. Why ? Because such things are not hyped and over reported by people like you.
The point is you are attributing causality i.e. you are suggesting abuse because they are members of a club or members of the clergy.
You have been shown again and again and again that clerical sexual abuse particularly pedophile abuse is a lower level than pedophiles outside the clergy.



And her you go again! Accusing the church of "covering up". The issue raised was pedophile abuse. If you want to move the goal poasts and discuss non pedophile priests fair enough. If you want to go away from just sexual abuse we can do that too. But I suspect you will find an even greater minority of clerics then the less than one per cent pedophile level.

furthermore we have already discussed a priest having sex with another adult. In some cases the other person got pregnant and had a child. It is a wholly different matter to child sexual abuse and is not illegal.

Of course "a priest having sex with another adult " is different to "Clerical Child Abuse", the subject of this thread. Many priests do / did of course ( eg Fr. Cleary, Bishop Casey ) have children ...its more usual than not among Catholic priests in the third world. Enforced celibacy there is not seen as natural. What we are talking about here though is clerical child abuse, and the official report on the staunch Roman Catholic website which admitted that Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years were accused of child abuse.
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp

I suppose it is damage limitation - many people would have thought it was much higher. You never accused your abuser for example, and yet he abused you, or so you said earlier. Other posters on this thread were abused but never accused the abuser, who may now be dead. The figure of shoplifters who were accused is lower than the number of actual shoplifters. People also sometimes break the speed limit without being accused of speeding. . Imagine if 4 percent of McDonalds workers or 4 per cent of golf club members ( as you specifically mentioned golf clubs) were accused of child sex abuse ...and imagine if the authorities there tried to shield the abuser like Fr. Brendan Smyth was shielded by the church.
I showed you the state link which reported that " a total of 37 children died in State care in the last 10 years". You claim the figure is over 200. Where is your link?

ISAW

Why did you copy my points and then ignore most of them?

andyjo wrote: »

Of course "a priest having sex with another adult " is different to "Clerical Child Abuse", the subject of this thread. Many priests do / did of course ( eg Fr. Cleary, Bishop Casey ) have children ...

Wrong! Many dont! Few do! You gave examples of two and one of them is a bishop! and while one had children the other had only one child.

its more usual than not among Catholic priests in the third world.

Another myth you are happy to peddle! This type of defamation got RTE into defamation. Care to name the numbers of priests with kids in the third World. Can you name five? Ten? A hundred? Out of how many priests? A million? It is "few" not "many" and you have given more examples from Ireland than the entire third world!

Enforced celibacy there is not seen as natural.

Another Myth! Local cultural norms do not dictate Church celibacy policy! What evidence suggests the third world views celibacy as unnatural?

What we are talking about here though is clerical child abuse, and the official report on the staunch Roman Catholic website which admitted that Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years were accused of child abuse.
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp

Nobody denies the John Jay report originally said that ( even if the later version of the report revised it). what I am asking you is how is this evidence that ther is a high level of clerical sexual abuse particularly of pre pubescent children?

I suppose it is damage limitation - many people would have thought it was much higher.

Many people might think it is space aliens! Where is you evidence of the rate of such abuse. Not the level of accusations like the false one against Fr Reynolds who RTE claimed fathered a child in the Third World but evidence of actual abuse!

You never accused your abuser for example, and yet he abused you, or so you said earlier. Other posters on this thread were abused but never accused the abuser, who may now be dead.

So what. Two people never made an accusation. How does that show the level of sexual abuse of priests on young children is high? Where is your actual evidence?

The figure of shoplifters who were accused is lower than the number of actual shoplifters. People also sometimes break the speed limit without being accused of speeding. .

Thisis all hand waving!!! Di you read the references to my earlier posts and the argument about how many Jews and Gypsies and blacks were accused of things. Your "no smole without fire" argument just does not stand up! It smoulders into non existence!

I showed you the state link which reported that " a total of 37 children died in State care in the last 10 years". You claim the figure is over 200. Where is your link?

[/quote]

Where is yours! If you actually read it you will find it says "in the last year"

You didnt read the message above in reply to you
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75007156&postcount=2206
wher I stated
http://hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/services/Children/natreviewpanelannualreport2010.pdf

Section 4( page 9 ) is about a review over the last ten years 2000 -10

Total 199 deaths

page 10 - another 30 deaths March 2010 -Dec 2010 but 8 even though in state not church care are not under HSE remit.

that is 20-30 dead per year in the last ten years!

gimmebroadband

An accusation of wrong-doing is not justification for assumption of guilt, but I guess that doesn't extend to the Catholic Church! :rolleyes:

ISAW

gimmebroadband wrote: »

An accusation of wrong-doing is not justification for assumption of guilt, but I guess that doesn't extend to the Catholic Church! :rolleyes:

In spite of the fact that this point has been made several times by at least three different posters I doubt it will be accepted. Expect the point to be ignored and a different anti catholic point to be made based on unsupported opinion like "we all know that....insert any unsupported claim e.g. in the Third world X Y and Z are true" . Also expect actual facts like over 200 children dead while under state care in the last ten years to be ignored.

gimmebroadband

Seeing as other posters are repeating the same 'ole posts........

andyjo

you are totally wrong that "over 200 children die in State care over the last ten years and no interest at all is expressed". Interest is expressed in the 37 known children who died in state care over the past ten years, as shown by this RTE report, from our state broadcaster.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0528/children.html

If you google it, lots of interest is shown. The figure of 37 known children who died over the past ten years includes road traffic fatalities, suicides, drugs etc. The government ( and I am not a special supporter of the government) does in all fairness spend a lot of time and money investigating these deaths, and trying to prevent such deaths occuring again, through road safety programmes, drugs awareness programmes, etc. The figure of 37 is much lower than your figure of "over 200", and now 199, which includes road traffic accidents of young adults etc.
In the link you give: it is "children and young adults known to the child protection system". Road traffic accidents of young adults are included in your figure of 199, if you look up page 9 of your link. And anyway, this thread is about clerical child abuse. What is your diversionary tactic to do with the price of fish ? lol....or even the 4% of Priests accused of child abuse , as admitted on front page headlines on the staunch Roman Catholic website. http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

andyjo

ISAW wrote: »

So what. Two people never made an accusation.

You did not accuse your abuser of abuse. Other posters on this site did not accuse their clerical abusers of abuse. Many people were afraid to confront clerics or report them to the authorities. In confession people were often told it was being dealt with within the church, and not to tell anyone. When terrified victims did complain, like in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case, they were brought in to a room with stern clerics and hushed up. You cannot see anything wrong with that? I know you have the job of being p.r. person for the Catholic church and you have spent thousands of hours ( look back over this very thread ! ) doing sterling work in damage limitation, but does your conscience never get at you ?

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

you are totally wrong that "over 200 children die in State care over the last ten years and no interest at all is expressed". Interest is expressed in the 37 known children who died in state care over the past ten years, as shown by this RTE report, from our state broadcaster.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0528/children.html

Which dates from MAY 2010 and you diont even read it did you?

Minister for Health Mary Harney/b]

It goes on to say Shatter queried that figure.

Little or No interest shown by you!
If you were interested you would actually READ the report.
I gave you a link to a primary version!
I gave you the bloody page references!
But you seem not to have read it!

Here it is again from the HSE website
http://hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/services/Children/natreviewpanelannualreport2010.pdf

Go and read it and you will see:
Section 4( page 9 ) is about a review over the last ten years 2000 -10

Total 199 deaths

page 10 - another 30 deaths March 2010 -Dec 2010 but 8 even though in state not church care are not under HSE remit.

Total over 200 deaths as I claimed!

If you google it, lots of interest is shown. The figure of 37 known children who died over the past ten years includes road traffic fatalities, suicides, drugs etc.

Will you please go and read the actual HSE report and stop spinning myth history?

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=19898

RTE News reported today that there have been 35 deaths and 15 serious incidents involving children in the care of the HSE, or among adolescents known to the health executive, since March of last year.

Please stop claiming RTE are referring to ten years WHEN THEY ARE REFERRING TO ONE!

The government ( and I am not a special supporter of the government) does in all fairness spend a lot of time and money investigating these deaths, and trying to prevent such deaths occuring again, through road safety programmes, drugs awareness programmes, etc. The figure of 37 is much lower than your figure of "over 200", and now 199, which includes road traffic accidents of young adults etc.

199 By October 2010
199 plus this year = over 200

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hse-reveals-35-deaths-of-children-in-care-in-the-last-18-months-2909434.html

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/health/death-review-group-struggles-to-cope-with-caseload-171183.html

Here is a link to the SIX reports:
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/services/Children/nationalreviewpanelreports.html

In the link you give: it is "children and young adults known to the child protection system". Road traffic accidents of young adults are included in your figure of 199, if you look up page 9 of your link.

Yes and that was "in October 2010" if you actually read the first three words of the paragraph.

And anyway, this thread is about clerical child abuse. What is your diversionary tactic to do with the price of fish ?

Funny how I point out the level of clerical pedophile abuse is 254 priests over 70 years in 170,000 going to industrial schools. HSE is over 200 deaths in ten years with about the same number of clients ( actually more 200,000 -mentioned in the same paragraph in the report that you didn't read the first three words from). You then get the whole thinkg factualyy wrong and having done so try to ignore it and return to the attack on the Church.

What are you really interested in? As I pointed out you seem to have little or no interest in the actual death in care of children. You are more concerned with attacking priests!

lol....or even the 4% of Priests accused of child abuse , as admitted on front page headlines on the staunch Roman Catholic website. http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

[/quote]

Are you related in any way to gigino because you seem to have his preoccupation with this 4% which was exposed as a non runner! You have been shown the links to gigino's raising of this 4% and how accusation is not related to the level of child abuse!