Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
this thread is about clerical child abuse. There has to be a statistic on the problem of clerical child abuse. If you google looking for an answer , 4% in the USA is the figure for r.c. priests accused which comes up. I have looked back over this thread and gigino and others found a study in Ireland which showed a high level of clerical abuse, which you disagreed with. Anyway, when you disagree with the results of a report, what is your diversionary tactic ( going on about the 200 young adults + children killed over the past 10 years in car accidents etc ) to do with the price of fish ?
I read back and saw a UN report on r.c. abuse and you criticize the UN.
If you read http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
they are a conservative Catholic website and they do not expose the 4% as a non runner. You may not like the result of the study, they may or may not like the result of the study, but they report it. Of course the level of accusation is not related to the level of abuse. I agree with you there. As said before, to which you did not respond "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 ? "
Maybe you can answer without telling me to be more concerned about the total of 200 or so young adults /children killed in road traffic accidents , suicides etc over the past 10 years.0 -
-
PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »You are not doing anyone any real favours. Please stop.
Im not interested in favouritism so much as facts. The words "what about" don't appear in the post by me to which you refer as far as I can see. It appears you are not interested in discussing child abuse except in cases where Roman Catholic priests are concerned. One can only conclude that your interest is in attacking the Church and not in concern for the victims of child abuse.0 -
Yes and the rate of clerical child abuse (and pedophile sexual abuse in particular and the associated myth of "pedophile priests" ) can only be determined with reference to the total level of child abuse.this thread is about clerical child abuse.
You know? focusing on splinters and not seeing planks and all that.There has to be a statistic on the problem of clerical child abuse.
Indeed there are . I have supplied publiched stats by state agencies ; academics; research groups and so on. If you have any problems with the figures I quoted please feel free to show those problems.If you google looking for an answer , 4% in the USA is the figure for r.c. priests accused which comes up.
It seems you are using a different standard of research for actual facts. I use search engines too but I go and read the actual links they suggest and I go looking for primary data and peer reviewed publication and valid and reliable sources.
I don't rely on "google a phrase and cut and paste the headlines in the answer". I'm sure you will agree that method is nor as reliable and leads to doubtful conclusions.I have looked back over this thread and gigino and others found a study in Ireland which showed a high level of clerical abuse, which you disagreed with.
I think you might find the "study in Ireland" was one comissioned by the Rape crisis centre and I supplied it not gigino! He used the "google a headline" method. I actually read the report and supplied a reference to the primary data and am still happy to discuss if you think I was wrong . Just show me what you think I was wrong about. Care to show me?
It is called the SAVI report by me and you will find it here:
http://epubs.rcsi.ie/psycholrep/10/
I didn't disagree with the study. I disagreed with his misinterpretation of it!
here is what I stated at the time:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73051195&postcount=1241I originally supplied the SAVI source . I do not believe you read the report. You just lifted out stats you though would agree with your argument. You have supplied no confirming statistics. You have ignored over 99 per cent of abusers in order to level all your criticism on the less than one percent roman Catholic clergy. why is that?
Why are you only interest in roman Catholic clergy and not other clergy?
Why are you not interested at all in the 98 per cent plus non clerical abusers?
Why can't you supply ANY actual data yourself?
You lift other peoples data and you cut and paste other peoples graphics and you show no competence in understanding statistics and what they mean.
No doubt you will respond by changing the issue to something else only to came back later with your tired misreporting of SAVI as if it says something about clerical abuse.
It doesn't! Over 99 per cent are NOT Roman Catholic clergy!
Can you point out anything wrong about that?Anyway, when you disagree with the results of a report, what is your diversionary tactic ( going on about the 200 young adults + children killed over the past 10 years in car accidents etc ) to do with the price of fish ?
I'm happy to discuss any report. We were discussing the level of Roman Catholic pedophile priests in Institutions . to then end the Report by the child commission covered 1920 to 1990 - 70 years.
It lists 26 priests over that period and they are not only to do with sexual abuse.
This includes the worst or abuse over the worst periosd in the worst institutions but it also covers 170,000 children over the 70 years.
If we take the last decade in church care the abuse is lower or non existant. Certainly no deaths over the last ten years and I am not aware of deaths over the 70 years of the report.
So one has to compare that to non church. Take the [not worst[/b] but probably more likely the lowest levels of abuse - the last decade.
What do we find?
In State care with no church involvement over 200 children died!
that isnt diversionary that is a valid and reliable comparison!
Where? Can you cite specifics?I read back and saw a UN report on r.c. abuse and you criticize the UN.
I find it oronic how you attack the Church on the grounds that it is an institution which we should not trust but you seem to go down on bended knee to the UN. LOL! How come that?If you read http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
they are a conservative Catholic website and they do not expose the 4% as a non runner.
They don't expose anything! they refer to the John Jay Report.
Apparently you didn't read the Report or the corrected part which they later added to that report which directly related to the validity of these figures of accusations.
Please read the primary data.
NB Even if the "4% accused" figure is true if IS a non runnder because it says nothing at all about the actual level of abuse! If you produced a "4% convicted" or "4% admitted abuse" then you might be going somewhere.
You didn't read the report and you didn't read my comments about accusation not constitution evidence whether against Jews Gypsies Blacks or roman Catholic Priests!You may not like the result of the study, they may or may not like the result of the study, but they report it.
It isnt a question of whether I like it of not! It is a question of what the study says and how it gets it's data. Is it valid? I would contest that but even if 4% accusation is valid that does not mean 4% of priests are abusers! you may not like that but it happens to be true!Of course the level of accusation is not related to the level of abuse. I agree with you there.
Horray! Eventually some logic seems to have sunk in.As said before, to which you did not respond
Actually I did respond but I will do so again"You did not accuse your abuser of abuse. Other posters on this site did not accuse their clerical abusers of abuse.
And this is significant because....?
Many people didn't accuse non clerical abusers either . Probably a hundred times as many.
You now switch from "accusations= high level of abuse" to "lack of accusations=high level of abuse" something which is even weaker!Many people were afraid to confront clerics or report them to the authorities.
And your evidence that this was not true for non clerical abuse is?In confession people were often told it was being dealt with within the church, and not to tell anyone.
The level of abuse victim told this during confession is a tiny tiny number of the already ***less than one percent of victims who were abused by clergy.*** EDIT the bit between asterisks should read less than one per cent of abusers who were clergy [/EDIT] you cant use such a tiny number and claim it applies to all cases in general.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.
That is your impression. Im not aware Smyth was a "told them in confession" case but I have dealt with the Vatical policy about that ( i refer to crimen solicatationis which refers to sexual solicitations during confession which are this rare tiny tiny amount even of clerical abuse but require a policy so clerics cant use secrecy of confession as a way out ) . It can me seen also as a policy to protect victims.You cannot see anything wrong with that?
I can see a lot wrong with your unspuorted claims and twisting of the facts of situations.
The "stern clerics" suggestion in the Smyth case for example. From the recent discussion based on two boys being interviewed on two occasions there were no more than two clerics at any single time (one being Brady) and on one occasion he only recorded and said nothing at all stern or not.I know you have the job of being p.r. person for the Catholic church
I know you are lying about that since I don't have any such job and therefore you could not know what you claim to know!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 ?
Please look up "ad hominem" while you think about your lie.
When you are losing the argument do you always rely on attacking the person?Maybe you can answer without telling me to be more concerned about the total of 200 or so young adults /children killed in road traffic accidents , suicides etc over the past 10 years.
Maybe you can show me how you "know" I work in PR for the Church?
My conscience tell me that people like you are not concerned in child welfare but only in attacking the church and you lack of concern for over 200 dead children is evidence of that.0 -
Yes and the rate of clerical child abuse (and pedophile sexual abuse in particular and the associated myth of "pedophile priests" ) can only be determined with reference to the total level of child abuse.
You know? focusing on splinters and not seeing planks and all that.
Indeed there are . I have supplied publiched stats by state agencies ; academics; research groups and so on. If you have any problems with the figures I quoted please feel free to show those problems.
It seems you are using a different standard of research for actual facts. I use search engines too but I go and read the actual links they suggest and I go looking for primary data and peer reviewed publication and valid and reliable sources.
I don't rely on "google a phrase and cut and paste the headlines in the answer". I'm sure you will agree that method is nor as reliable and leads to doubtful conclusions.
I think you might find the "study in Ireland" was one comissioned by the Rape crisis centre and I supplied it not gigino! He used the "google a headline" method. I actually read the report and supplied a reference to the primary data and am still happy to discuss if you think I was wrong . Just show me what you think I was wrong about. Care to show me?
It is called the SAVI report by me and you will find it here:
http://epubs.rcsi.ie/psycholrep/10/
I didn't disagree with the study. I disagreed with his misinterpretation of it!
here is what I stated at the time:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73051195&postcount=1241
Can you point out anything wrong about that?
I'm happy to discuss any report. We were discussing the level of Roman Catholic pedophile priests in Institutions . to then end the Report by the child commission covered 1920 to 1990 - 70 years.
It lists 26 priests over that period and they are not only to do with sexual abuse.
This includes the worst or abuse over the worst periosd in the worst institutions but it also covers 170,000 children over the 70 years.
If we take the last decade in church care the abuse is lower or non existant. Certainly no deaths over the last ten years and I am not aware of deaths over the 70 years of the report.
So one has to compare that to non church. Take the [not worst[/b] but probably more likely the lowest levels of abuse - the last decade.
What do we find?
In State care with no church involvement over 200 children died!
that isnt diversionary that is a valid and reliable comparison!
Where? Can you cite specifics?
I find it oronic how you attack the Church on the grounds that it is an institution which we should not trust but you seem to go down on bended knee to the UN. LOL! How come that?
They don't expose anything! they refer to the John Jay Report.
Apparently you didn't read the Report or the corrected part which they later added to that report which directly related to the validity of these figures of accusations.
Please read the primary data.
NB Even if the "4% accused" figure is true if IS a non runnder because it says nothing at all about the actual level of abuse! If you produced a "4% convicted" or "4% admitted abuse" then you might be going somewhere.
You didn't read the report and you didn't read my comments about accusation not constitution evidence whether against Jews Gypsies Blacks or roman Catholic Priests!
It isnt a question of whether I like it of not! It is a question of what the study says and how it gets it's data. Is it valid? I would contest that but even if 4% accusation is valid that does not mean 4% of priests are abusers! you may not like that but it happens to be true!
Horray! Eventually some logic seems to have sunk in.
Actually I did respond but I will do so again
And this is significant because....?
Many people didn't accuse non clerical abusers either . Probably a hundred times as many.
You now switch from "accusations= high level of abuse" to "lack of accusations=high level of abuse" something which is even weaker!
And your evidence that this was not true for non clerical abuse is?
The level of abuse victim told this during confession is a tiny tiny number of the already ***less than one percent of victims who were abused by clergy.*** EDIT the bit between asterisks should read less than one per cent of abusers who were clergy [/EDIT] you cant use such a tiny number and claim it applies to all cases in general.
That is your impression. Im not aware Smyth was a "told them in confession" case but I have dealt with the Vatical policy about that ( i refer to crimen solicatationis which refers to sexual solicitations during confession which are this rare tiny tiny amount even of clerical abuse but require a policy so clerics cant use secrecy of confession as a way out ) . It can me seen also as a policy to protect victims.
I can see a lot wrong with your unspuorted claims and twisting of the facts of situations.
The "stern clerics" suggestion in the Smyth case for example. From the recent discussion based on two boys being interviewed on two occasions there were no more than two clerics at any single time (one being Brady) and on one occasion he only recorded and said nothing at all stern or not.
I know you are lying about that since I don't have any such job and therefore you could not know what you claim to know!
Please look up "ad hominem" while you think about your lie.
When you are losing the argument do you always rely on attacking the person?
Maybe you can show me how you "know" I work in PR for the Church?
My conscience tell me that people like you are not concerned in child welfare but only in attacking the church and you lack of concern for over 200 dead children is evidence of that.
Of course I am concerned about the 200 or so young adults and children who died in this state over the past 10 years in road traffic accidents and all sorts of other fatalities. However that is nothing to do with clerical child abuse , the subject of this thread.
All you do is "what about". When the UN committee on torture pulls up the track record of the RC church in the Magdalene LaundriesThe words "what about" don't appear in the post by me to which you refer as far as I can see.
here in Ireland, you ( pages back ) went on to criticise the UN. " what about".
When the Taoiseach stands up in the Dail and criticises the RCC, you go on and nitpick the government. Young people who die in car accidents etc are their fault !
When the Irish government in their report say child abuse was "endemic" in the Catholic church, you still do not believe that, and you attack the government on something else. If you read http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp
they are a conservative Catholic website and they acknowledge 4% of priests have been accused of child abuse, which you do not think is an alarming number. You did not accuse the religous brother who abused you of child abuse, maybe you think everyone who was abused should not accuse their abuser. Do you think it was right that many people ( there are some on this thread ) were silenced by the church in to not accusing their abuser, as in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case ? If you had accesed / highlighted your abuser / reported him to the authorities, do you not think other victims may have been spared. The SAVI report shows Clerical child abuse to be a problem ( when the study was carried out), if you read it correctly.
As someone else said, you are not doing anyone any real favours.0 -
Advertisement
-
Of course I am concerned about the 200 or so young adults and children who died in this state over the past 10 years in road traffic accidents and all sorts of other fatalities. However that is nothing to do with clerical child abuse , the subject of this thread.
You can't get off the hook that way!
We we discussing the level ofInstitutional abuse by Cathoilic Priests in church run institutions.
You have to compare the level to non Church institutions.
Comparing the worst ever levels of the worst institutions of the church 50 years ago to the last ten years of the State and other non Church organisations for child care you find
their record resulted in over 200 dead children.
So if you are so concerned about "Holy Catholic Ireland" being run by organisations whcih had 24 priests abusing children over 70 years and you insist they should be cut out of child care and replaced by the state why are you not interested in state institutions who oversaw the death of over 200 children in the last decade?
By they way you still have not admitted you were wrong when you claimed my 2over 2002 was wrong have you? Go on why not admit you were wrong?When the UN committee on torture pulls up the track record of the RC church in the Magdalene Laundries
here in Ireland, you ( pages back ) went on to criticise the UN.
and that relates to priests in what way?
The Magdalen asylums were for women and didnt involve priests at all!
How did I criticise the UN as you claim?When the Taoiseach stands up in the Dail and criticises the RCC, you go on and nitpick the government.
Yup. the Taoiseach was factually wrong and later climbed down. Just as others were also earlier factually wrong about the suggestion that they were just about to uncover a letter from the church proving "covering up" by the Vatican. Just as WMD we we told exist didn't exist.Young people who die in car accidents etc are their fault !
[/qoute]
When they are meant to be in care and escape. So if a priest abused someone and they ran off robbed a car and crashed the priest has nothing to do with it? Ill bet you would blame the priest!When the Irish government in their report say child abuse was "endemic" in the Catholic church, you still do not believe that, and you attack the government on something else.
We have been over the gigino "endemic" debacle! do you really want to revisit it?If you read http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp
they are a conservative Catholic website and they acknowledge 4% of priests have been accused of child abuse, which you do not think is an alarming number.
You pasted in a bad link but you really are looking like gigino. Are you gigino?You did not accuse the religous brother who abused you of child abuse,
I am not in the business of condemnation or accusation. But I did state it. Here. In this discussion. You on the other hand it appears would rather blame the victim when your real motive of attacking the church is not being satisfied.maybe you think everyone who was abused should not accuse their abuser.
Again you try to equate accusations whether false or not with actual abuse.
I could posit the number who were abused and didnt accuse is far smaller then the numbers who were not abused and falsely accused.
Look up "false negative" and "false positive" errors.Do you think it was right that many people ( there are some on this thread ) were silenced by the church in to not accusing their abuser, as in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case ?
You have it factually wrong as usual.
I pointed that sout earlier. The Church had no locus standi and no crime of rape of a male or legal extradition existed.
It was the family silenced the children as it was the family had the locus standi.If you had accesed / highlighted your abuser / reported him to the authorities, do you not think other victims may have been spared.
Back to blaming the victim now eh?The SAVI report shows Clerical child abuse to be a problem ( when the study was carried out), if you read it correctly.
Any child abuse is a problem. No report is necessary to show that! But you can only judge clerics in relation to something else i.e. non clerics.
How are you getting on with admitting your error about "over 200" ?As someone else said, you are not doing anyone any real favours.
Some people say the Moon is made of cheese and WMD are in Iraq.0 -
We we discussing the level ofInstitutional abuse by Cathoilic Priests in church run institutions.
You have to compare the level to non Church institutions.
Did you not read any of the links at all?
In 2009, The Murphy Report is the result of a three-year public inquiry conducted by Irish government into the Sexual abuse scandal in Dublin archdiocese, released a few months after the report of the Ryan report. The Murphy report stated that, "The Commission has no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin and other Church authorities". It found that, "The structures and rules of the Catholic Church facilitated that cover-up." Moreover, the report asserted that, "State authorities facilitated that cover-up by not fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that the law was applied equally to all and allowing the Church institutions to be beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes." The report criticized 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 – for not handing over information on abusers to legal authorities.
I have three simple questions. Yes or no will suffice , instead of " what about".
You do not find the Murphy report or Ryan report or other similar reports disturbing ?
Do you think it was right that many people ( there are some on this thread ) were silenced by clergy in to not accusing their abuser ?
If you had accused / highlighted your abuser / reported him to the authorities, do you not think other victims may have been spared?
As I said, a Yes or no to each will suffice , instead of " what about".0 -
Show me what the 200 or so young adults and children who died in this state over the past 10 years in road traffic accidents and all sorts of other fatalities had to do with clerical child abuse ? You brought up the subject of these 200 people ( this total includes car accidents and all types of fatalities). You are at your usual " what about".How are you getting on with admitting your error about "over 200" ?0 -
Im not interested in favouritism so much as facts. The words "what about" don't appear in the post by me to which you refer as far as I can see. It appears you are not interested in discussing child abuse except in cases where Roman Catholic priests are concerned. One can only conclude that your interest is in attacking the Church and not in concern for the victims of child abuse.
This thread is about clerical child abuse.0 -
Did you not read any of the links at all?
I supplied most of them! Unlike you I actually read reports and don't just post third hand headlines about them.In 2009, The Murphy Report is the result of a three-year public inquiry conducted by Irish government into the Sexual abuse scandal in Dublin archdiocese, released a few months after the report of the Ryan report.
These are wikipedia links and not links to the actual reports!
Where does it state that?The Murphy report stated that, "The Commission has no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin and other Church authorities".
On what page?
What is the third word in the preceeding paragraph and the fourth word in the followiong paragraph?
You didn't read it did you?It found that, "The structures and rules of the Catholic Church facilitated that cover-up."
Where did it find that? when you actually do your own reading and don't rely on wikipedia we can discuss these matters. And if you look you will find I already have!
What constituted "cover up" ?
How did the church facilitate in "cover up" as you claim?
Which is a criticism of the State not the ChurchMoreover, the report asserted that, "State authorities facilitated that cover-up by not fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that the law was applied equally to all and allowing the Church institutions to be beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes."The report criticized 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 – for not handing over information on abusers to legal authorities.
I dealt with all of these earlier in the thread. all you have done is cut and paste wikipedid. But it is better than your earlier unsupported opinion.I have three simple questions. Yes or no will suffice , instead of " what about".
You do not find the Murphy report or Ryan report or other similar reports disturbing ?
1. I believe you didn't read those reports as I have. when you bother to locate primary copies and not opinions about them we can discuss our level of disturbance. What in particular do you think I should find disturbing? If that thing has been changed then should I still find it disturbing or should I consider it rectified?Do you think it was right that many people ( there are some on this thread ) were silenced by clergy in to not accusing their abuser ?
2. If that happened no I do not think it was right? But as I stated family/state and others coerced people into silence. And the significance of point 2 is?If you had accused / highlighted your abuser / reported him to the authorities, do you not think other victims may have been spared?
3. I don't know. I have already dealt with why I think it would have been ineffectual or why I or others might not have done it. I suggest you read the reply on that also.As I said, a Yes or no to each will suffice , instead of " what about".
Given you refusal to actually read the reports you quote and your refusal to admit your errors about "200" please don't instruct me on how to reply.0 -
Advertisement
-
PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »This thread is about clerical child abuse.
Cop out!
I have already pointed to the moderators decisions on it!
I have already pointed out any child abuse will be referred to this thread.
What do you think was "merged" in the title?
You can't discuss the rate of clerical abuse unless you accept the hundred timed greater rate of non clerical abuyse.
But rather than admit 200 deaths of children in state care you clearly only want to discuss your myth of "pedophile priests" and by excluding anything outside that exacerbate that myth.0 -
lolmyth of "pedophile priests"
You dismiss the findings of reports by various government agencies, by the UN and even by people paid by the RC church in to abuses by the RC church. You cannot even give a yes or no to simple questions. The 4% of priests who have been accused of child abuse must be glad to have a spokesperson like you on their side. Have you found any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?0 -
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.
0 -
lol
You dismiss the findings of reports by various government agencies, by the UN and even by people paid by the RC church in to abuses by the RC church. You cannot even give a yes or no to simple questions. The 4% of priests who have been accused of child abuse must be glad to have a spokesperson like you on their side. Have you found any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?
The central thing he dismisses is the fact though without a doubt there are scum in all groupings in society that what people are most mad about is the fact that the RCC hierarchy protected these scumbags who seriously damaged millions of childern's lives as an insitution, and also that these acts were not being done by any old people but by men who claimed almost the same dignity as that due to God Incarnate.0 -
lol
You dismiss the findings of reports by various government agencies, by the UN and even by people paid by the RC church in to abuses by the RC church. You cannot even give a yes or no to simple questions. The 4% of priests who have been accused of child abuse must be glad to have a spokesperson like you on their side. Have you found any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?
I sometimes wonder what type of person would even think of making any excuse whatsoever for any child rapist group or segment of society that has used its power as a collective foreign agency to claim entitlement and ownership of the bodies of defenceless children? I wonder.0 -
Show me what the 200 or so young adults and children who died in this state over the past 10 years in road traffic accidents and all sorts of other fatalities had to do with clerical child abuse ?
That are the "over 200" children ion state care of the HSE who died! if they were in the Care of the church and died you would be wall to wall over the abuse of them by the church. so the church didn't take over their care and put them in an Institution and your preference for state care was realised. and what happened. Over 200 oif them died while in the care of the HSE.You brought up the subject of these 200 people ( this total includes car accidents and all types of fatalities). You are at your usual " what about".
The total includes only those under the care of the HSE. Hundreds more might have died in car accidents but how many were under church care and how many under state care? Well ZERO under church care and over 200 in state care. That's the comparison! So what does that say about your trust in state care as opposed to Church run Institutions?0 -
I sometimes wonder what type of person would even think of making any excuse whatsoever for any child rapist group or segment of society that has used its power as a collective foreign agency to claim entitlement and ownership of the bodies of defenceless children? I wonder.
What point are you making here? I didnt excuse any child rape! where are you claiming I did?0 -
Rubbish. Go back and read the link I showed you and you will see that is rubbish. You are telling porkies again. And a porky which has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, clerical child abuse.The total includes only those under the care of the HSE. Hundreds more might have died in car accidents
Now, back to the subject. Have you found any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?0 -
What link. You supplied none.Rubbish. Go back and read the link I showed you and you will see that is rubbish.
The linki to the actual HSE report as asked by HIQA is
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!You are telling porkies again.
Again? What other lie do you lcaim I made?
As for the 200 dead over the last ten years. You offer an unsupported claim to something you claim to have posted I offer the actual report:
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!
But you seem not to actually read the material about which you speak.And a porky which has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, clerical child abuse.
again you have no supporting reference to any lie you claim I stated.
And again I refer you to any child abuse being the Subject of the "merged" part of the thread and to this Moderator decision:
The old "i only want to talk about priests" ruse.
WE have been over that several times.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65076556&postcount=1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...3#post72734433
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 in that post where message 903 etc. is referencedNow, back to the subject. Have you found any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?
Probably Jews in Nazi Germany were. And Gypsies. In fact probably higher than 4%. But level of accusations means nothing in terms of guilt. Although you might love if accusations meant guilt it doesn't.0 -
I did of course. On numerous posts. See 2219 for example.What link. You supplied none.
Quote "
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"
In other posts I quoted / linked HSE reports as well as RTE reports. I suppose they are wrong and you are right. lol
No they were not. Those groups were rounded up in Nazi Germany because they were Jews and because they were Gypsies. No other excuse was necessary. Now, back to the real world. The staunch Roman Catholic website ( whose link I gave you earlier ) has admitted 4% of Priests have been accused of child abuse, inc child rape. Have you come across any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?Probably Jews in Nazi Germany were. And Gypsies. In fact probably higher than 4%.0 -
Advertisement
-
I did of course. On numerous posts. See 2219 for example.
Quote "
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'.
...
[/LIST]http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0528/children.html
LOL From 28 May 2010. Last years report to Mary Harney I note you left out the next line.Minister for Health Mary Harney said the Government was committed to investing more in child protection but that there still was 'a long way to go'.
Your figures are hopelessly out of date! the report I referred to was last week and contradicts all that! And the HSE agree to the revised figures because the like I gave you above is from them!
But of course I told you all this and you ignored it! Who is lying now?In other posts I quoted / linked HSE reports as well as RTE reports.
What other posts? RTE didnt do the report HSE did! And those were last years reports. They now admit they were wrong. But you don't!I suppose they are wrong and you are right. lol
Yes LOL! They WERE wrong! Their latest report shows that!
You are the one who is lying! You know this is last years wrong report.No they were not. Those groups were rounded up in Nazi Germany because they were Jews and because they were Gypsies. No other excuse was necessary.
you are ignorant of the history also? Nazi propeganda frequently accused Jews of all sorts of things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propagandaNational Socialist propaganda provided a crucial instrument for acquiring and maintaining power, and for the implementation of their policies, including the pursuit of total war and the extermination of millions of people in the Holocaust
But Hitler couldn't just round up people because they were Jews. That came later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_in_Nazi_propaganda#JewsAfter the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, he moderated his tone for the trial, centering his defense on his selfless devotion to the good of the Volk and the need for bold action to save them;Now, back to the real world. The staunch Roman Catholic website ( whose link I gave you earlier ) has admitted 4% of Priests have been accused of child abuse, inc child rape. Have you come across any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?
Yes Jews. Are you gigino?0 -
Totally unacceptable allegation deleted.0
-
I do not think it was an unacceptable allegation as it was something that Isaw had earlier said and discussed, in this very thread.
Anyway, to move on, I do not think anyone completed an independent study which finds 4% of Jews were accused of child abuse / rape; can Isaw provide a link to such a study ?
The study in the states which found 4% of Roman Catholic Priests there had been accused of child abuse / rape was not politically motivated ; in fact, to its credit, it was funded by the RC church itself.
The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp0 -
I do not think it was an unacceptable allegation as it was something that Isaw had earlier said and discussed, in this very thread.
Anyway, to move on, I do not think anyone completed a study which finds 4% of Jews were accused of child abuse / rape; can Isaw provide a link to such a study ?
Its the fact that the organization of the RCC while claiming a divine dignity for its priests and bishops helped cover up and move around the evil in its ranks. That is what ISAW cannot face.
My mum once told me that in Ireland RC power freaks join the Priesthood and Protestant ones the RUC, there was a lot of truth in that, only the RUC didnt claim that they were representives of Christ.0 -
I have no idea what was deleted but have you any references to anything I stated earlier.I do not think it was an unacceptable allegation as it was something that Isaw had earlier said and discussed, in this very thread.
Just quote what yuo claim I stated earlier and Ill say if I stand by it or not.Anyway, to move on, I do not think anyone completed an independent study which finds 4% of Jews were accused of child abuse / rape; can Isaw provide a link to such a study ?
You don't need an independent study. It was published and people promulgate it.
http://www.aish.com/ho/o/48954321.html"Watch your children 6-7 weeks before Passover… Everyone knows that just before Passover Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah."
http://www.aish.com/ho/o/70446272.html#9"The following tales tell the truth about the Jewish poison-mushroom. They show the many shapes the Jew assumes. They show the depravity and baseness of the Jewish race. They show the Jew for what he really is:
The Devil in human form."
Try re reading the story and putting "priest" in for Jew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew#Plot_and_contentThe Jewish actor Peter Lorre is shown in a scene from Fritz Lang's film M, in which he played a child murderer.The study in the states which found 4% of Roman Catholic Priests there had been accused of child abuse / rape was not politically motivated ; in fact, to its credit, it was funded by the RC church itself.
Indeed. And in the revised version which I doubt you read since I doubt you even read the original does it say 4%?
And you point is? Say the study found 40% of priests were accused of child abuse. Why would that be that significant? You already accepted accusation is not guilt.
So what is the significance of this 4% figure?
You are gigino aren't you? You certainly rant on defeated and inconsequential points like gogino did.The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
Where in the study did it say that? That almost all priests were accused of abuse.
What page ?0 -
PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »Its the fact that the organization of the RCC while claiming a divine dignity for its priests and bishops helped cover up and move around the evil in its ranks. That is what ISAW cannot face.
If you produced any evidence that the Vatican were involved in moving around abusers and covering up their abuse people would be really interested but in the absence of evidence yu assume guilt. I dont deny a handfull of bishops made mistakes . By that I mean bishops acting in isolation and without talking to or conspiring with any other bishops. By a handfull I mean maybe ten out of 10,000 or even out of 100,000 over the last century.My mum once told me that in Ireland RC power freaks join the Priesthood and Protestant ones the RUC,
Great for the supporting evidence of the crime of the century we have "mu mum once told me" . sorry but we don't base guilt on old wives tales.
There was "a lot of truth" in that for you because you believed it! If your mother said "it was the space aliens did it" you probably would have believed that too. It doessn't make it true just because it is true for you. Many believed things about Jews that just were not true because someones mother compared them to poison mushrooms.there was a lot of truth in that, only the RUC didnt claim that they were representives of Christ.
Look! If you are going to say anyone did someone at least try to produce some evidence.0 -
+ 1. And if you look back over this very thread, I see he has spent what must be thousands of hours doing so.I sometimes wonder what type of person would even think of making any excuse whatsoever for any child rapist group or segment of society that has used its power as a collective foreign agency to claim entitlement and ownership of the bodies of defenceless children? I wonder.
lo thats a bit rich coming from you.Look! If you are going to say anyone did someone at least try to produce some evidence.
You were asked did you come across any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ? ( like the study in America which found 4% of Roman Catholic Priests there had been accused of child abuse / rape. This study was not politically motivated ; in fact, to its credit, it was funded by the RC church itself. I quote from the staunch conservative Roman Catholic website and its sources which admitted / found that "4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people " http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp
The best you can come up with is one Nazi who for political reasons at the time wrote something in a newspaper that he personally thought "Watch your children 6-7 weeks before Passover… Everyone knows that just before Passover Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah".
Pathetic.0 -
+ 1. And if you look back over this very thread, I see he has spent what must be thousands of hours doing so.
What i spend my time doing is not under your permission or control.
You were asked did you know gigino?You were asked did you come across any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?
Do you ? Why do you avoid the answer?( like the study in America which found
I study I SUPPLIED to the thread. You havent read it and like gigino all you do is rehash the headline claim which
1. I disputed
2. Was revised ( you didnt read the revided version either did you?)
3. Does not relate to the issue because numbers of Accusations are not a measure of guilt!The best you can come up with is one Nazi who for political reasons at the time wrote something in a newspaper that he personally thought "Watch your children 6-7 weeks before Passover… Everyone knows that just before Passover Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah".
Again you didn't read my reply. the Nazi was a top nazi how called Hitler "Adolph". No other Nazi called him that. The male body in particular was presented as an "Aryan Superman". It was only after the SD became dispensible that Hitler became antio homosexual and began to become more anti Jew than previously.
Here is an interesting take on it ~ the pink swastica
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html
furthermore the quote you attribute as being from you was not from the Homosexual nazi but from a different anti Jew propaganda publication.0 -
What i spend my time doing is not under your permission or control.
I never said it was. However, as another poster remarked " I sometimes wonder what type of person would even think of making any excuse whatsoever for any child rapist group or segment of society that has used its power as a collective foreign agency to claim entitlement and ownership of the bodies of defenceless children? I wonder".
To which I replied" if you look back over this very thread, I see he has spent what must be thousands of hours doing so."
No. I would imagine though that there are hundreds if not thousands of people on boards.ie who would be concerned and disappointed, if not appalled with the Catholic churches track record on clerical child abuse.did you know gigino?
I did actually, and I lookeed up the link you supplied, and I found it was someones opinion ( not Hitlers) of the Jews in Germany at one point in time. Its completely irrelevant what some individuals racist or political opinion in wartime Germany was. There was a comprehensive and scientific study done in America of over 100,000 people which found that ( and I quote from the staunch Roman Catholic website and its sources ) 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people " http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.aspAgain you didn't read my reply.
Have you found a survey / study which found any other group in society which was found to have 4% of its members accused of child sex abuse/rape ? Preferably in modern times, or in the past 60 years or so , so we are comparining like with like.
A yes or a no answer will suffice, and if you go off on a "what about" tangent again about someones personal racist / political opinion in Germany , that will be taken as a no. I do not think even the Nazis proved that 4% of Jews were accused of child abuse / rape, like Catholic Priests were.0 -
Advertisement
-
I never said it was. However, as another poster remarked " I sometimes wonder what type of person would even think of making any excuse whatsoever for any child rapist group or segment of society that has used its power as a collective foreign agency to claim entitlement and ownership of the bodies of defenceless children? I wonder".
To which I replied" if you look back over this very thread, I see he has spent what must be thousands of hours doing so."
I didn't spend any time making any excuses for child rape or any child rapist group!
Where did I?No. I would imagine though that there are hundreds if not thousands of people on boards.ie who would be concerned and disappointed, if not appalled with the Catholic churches track record on clerical child abuse.
If you want to discuss the specific myth of "pedophile priests" this is the thread. for more broader anti Catholic media hype and spin see the new thread on that.I did actually, and I lookeed up the link you supplied, and I found it was someones opinion ( not Hitlers) of the Jews in Germany at one point in time. Its completely irrelevant what some individuals racist or political opinion in wartime Germany was.
LOL! People who wrote anti Jew propaganda books for children and were subsequently found guilty at nuremberg and executed had nothing to do with the Holocaust?There was a comprehensive and scientific study done in America of over 100,000 people which found that ( and I quote from the staunch Roman Catholic website and its sources ) 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people "
the John Jayt report was not a survey of 100,000 people. It was a survey sent our to priests!
Please supply the actual link and not the dead one you supply
http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp
Dead link!Have you found a survey / study which found any other group in society which was found to have 4% of its members accused of child sex abuse/rape ?
Croat Med J. 2011 February; 52(1): 25–34.
Risk factors of child physical abuse by parents with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder or posttraumatic stress disorder
Parents with MADD and PTSD exhibit high risk of child abuse.
Child Abuse Negl. 2008 October; 32(10): 925–940.
Mediators of Childhood Sexual Abuse and High-Risk Sex Among Men-Who-Have-Sex-With-Men
childhood sexual abuse (CSA) and HIV risk behavior were examined for men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM).Conclusions
CSA contributes to the ongoing HIV epidemic among MSM by distorting or undermining critical motivational, coping, and interpersonal factors that, in turn, influence adult sexual risk behavior.
I already supplied stats for Mc donalds earlier in the thread.
As I intimated, it would be more likely to occur in places wher there are children e.g. sports instructors, teachers, babysitters and not in say retiement homes. the SAVI report which you recently mentioned if I recall shows that in in the vast majority f cases that these professions account for a higher level of child abuse.Preferably in modern times, or in the past 60 years or so , so we are comparining like with like.
A yes or a no answer will suffice,
Eh Yes. SAVI for one now that yuu brought it up .
http://epubs.rcsi.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=psycholrep&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dsavi%2520report%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCUQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fepubs.rcsi.ie%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1014%2526context%253Dpsycholrep%26ei%3DKnOhTsnCDMHRhAeM_qH6BA%26usg%3DAFQjCNHdKB0lh5fcSom9s0v6G48dbUXkrQ#search=%22savi%20report%22I do not think even the Nazis proved that 4% of Jews were accused of child abuse / rape, like Catholic Priests were.
Executive summary page xxxviA relatively small percentage of perpetrators fitted the current
stereotype of abusers of children: strangers were in the
minority - over 80% of children were abused by those known
to them. Fathers constituted 2.5% of all abusers with
clerical/religious ministers or clerical/religious teachers
constituting 3.2% of abusers. The most common other relative
or authority figure categories were uncles (6.2%),0
Advertisement