The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

andyjo

The 6.2% figure you refer to is 6.2% of all abusers. Look carefully at page
xxxvi of the Savi report, where you pluck that figure from.
Do not forget also that priests can also be Uncles;).

Try again. Try harder this time . Try to find 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.

ISAW wrote: »

the John Jayt report was not a survey of 100,000 people. It was a survey sent our to priests!

Priests are people. The survey was on clergy in America, over 100,000 of them, and found ( and I quote from the staunch conservative Roman Catholic website and its sources ) that "4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people " http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

The 6.2% figure you refer to is 6.2% of all abusers. Look carefully at page. Do not forget also that priests can also be Uncles;).

Yes you asked for a group with a higher level than 4%.
As it happens, as i pointed out that higher percentages of abusers are non priests.
AS regards priests being uncles if i recall two priests from the sample were.
But I only posted the executive summary.
Earlier in the thread I referred to the table which shows both per cent of abusers and percentage of authority figures. The point being if you claim no other group had more than 4% ( and don't forget your figures are accusations not abuse) the table shows several other groups e.g. babysitter Teacher who had a HIGHER level of child sex abuse.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73172531&postcount=1337

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

You are doing the same

As for the 4%
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72964420&postcount=1177
has a graphic depicting proportion of authority figures and proportion of all abusers.

Try again. Try harder this time . Try to find 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.

But the level of accusations are not relevant the level of actual abuse is.
In fact if the level is really really high say 40% of priests being accused all it shows is the level of media hysteria against priests!

Priests are people. The survey was on clergy in America, over 100,000 of them, and found ( and I quote from the staunch conservative Roman Catholic website and its sources ) that "4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people " http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

[/quote]

Please please please read the actual report. the updated version.
There are two Causes and context and Nature and Scope
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf

Here is a html version
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/#preface

page 29

The surveys reported 75,694 diocesan priests and approximately 34,000 religious priests in ministry with 4,392 accused of abuse. If the total of the accused priests (4,392) is divided by the total of all priests in ministry between 1950 and 2002 (109,694), the result is 4%; for diocesan priests only, (3,282/76,694), the percentage is 4.27% and for religious priests, (929/34,000), 2.7%.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2788-the-federal-scheme-to-destroy-fatherchild-relationships.html

An overwhelming 94% of respondents indicated that joint legal and physical custody, shared between parents, would be in the child’s best interest, with 78% of respondents indicating that a 50/50 time sharing agreement was appropriate. Another scenario was presented. In the second scenario the father has been accused by the mother of sexually molesting their child. The Department of Social Services and the police conducted an investigation and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not the father committed sexual abuse. The question of custody is again asked. As a result of the unsubstantiated accusation against the father, 79% of the same respondents stated that sole legal and physical custody should be granted to the mother. Only 15% of respondents felt that the father should be permitted a minimum of 50% visitation with the children. In the final survey question regarding the respondent’s personal opinion of child molesters, 42% stated that they should be "locked away for life" and 48% responded that they should "burn in hell". Why do so many mothers file false sexual abuse allegations during custody cases? They work.

The father is not the only victim in a false child sex abuse allegation. Children are also victimized. Not only does the child have to submit to numerous interrogations and invasive tests to determine if abuse occurred, but needless therapy is often prescribed. The child, knowing at first that nothing happened, is subjected to counseling that reinforces the story that abuse has occurred. In time, many children grow to believe and accept that their fathers molested them. The emotional trauma is life-long. This phenomenon has become so common that psychologists have given names to the syndromes that result from false abuse claims, including Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Sexual Abuse in Divorce (SAID).

andyjo

ISAW wrote: »

Yes you asked for a group with a higher level than 4%.

You clearly do not understand statistics, or else are being deliberately very misleading. 6.2% of accused or actual abusers may be uncles ( inc some priests.). That is not the same as 6.2% of uncles ( inc some priests.) being abusers or accused abusers.

The second point to bear in mind is that a high proportion of the population are uncles ( most men are uncles at some stage in their lives ) but only something like 0.1% of the population are Priests. Yet the damage done in terms of child abuse by these very same Priests / Brothers, ( and you admitted earlier in the thread you had experience of that, and chose - like many - not to report the Brother who abused you ) was out of all proportion to their percentage of the population.

Unsurprisingly, you still have not come up with a survey / study which found any other group in society which has 4% of its members accused of child sex abuse/rape, like RC Priests. If 4% of all babysitters had been accused of child abuse / rape, there would be a national outcry.


________________________________________________________________
"4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people " http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp

PatricaMcKay2

andyjo what Roman Catholic calls the pslam "Have mercy on me oh Lord, have mercy on me..." number 51? ISAW is some type of troll from a Protestant background, not that there is anything at all wrong with that but trolling on such a serious issue is sickening.

lmaopml

ISAW is not a troll..and it is beneath a good debater to call foul Patricia. Or even to presume too much about denomination - Debate or don't but don't call foul when you feel challenged...

ISAW, imo is not exactly somebody I 'know' - but is very interesting and is defo worth reading - much like many others who are written off on this forum..for sadness! Many others of very different persuasions...in fact, are worth heeding too.

I like ISAW, and he/she is not a protestant. Pay more attention..

PatricaMcKay2

lmaopml wrote: »

I like ISAW, and he/she is not a protestant. Pay more attention..

What Roman Catholic would refer to that Pslam as Pslam 51? The fact that I was paying attention made me cop that he wasnt RC.

Good debater, yup....Majorly looking Roman Catholics as heartless scum also.

andyjo

lmaopml wrote: »

ISAW is not a troll....

its quite obvious he is. If you look back over the numerous posts he/ she made on this thread , its obvious that either he is a troll , or else the abuse he claims to have suffered under a Brother when he was at a very vulnerable age has left a deep psychological wound. I feel sorry for him.

PatricaMcKay2

andyjo wrote: »

its quite obvious he is. If you look back over the numerous posts he/ she made on this thread , its obvious that either he is a troll , or else the abuse he claims to have suffered under a Brother when he was at a very vulnerable age has left a deep psychological wound. I feel sorry for him.

I doubt that extremely, I know people who have been sexually abused and he (and its more than certainly a he) doesnt exhibit any of the signs.

That he may be a pervert with a power fantasy of being a "Prince of the Church" (a Parish Priest a actually used that term to describe himself to my dad) is very possible though, still he most certainly after that major slip is from a Protestant background.

lmaopml

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

I doubt that extremely, I know people who have been sexually abused and he (and its more than certainly a he) doesnt exhibit any of the signs.

That he may be a pervert with a power fantasy of being a "Prince of the Church" (a Parish Priest a actually used that term to describe himself to my dad) is very possible though, still he most certainly after that major slip is from a Protestant background.

Well, I think it's good to approach this thread in humility, but I must say that the opportunists are abundant, and the guess work is beyond bizarre...

ISAW, imo is not of Protestant descent - in fact, I don't know if he/she is of any traditional descent that I could actually pin down, all I know is that they don't suffer fools gladly, and he/she is very truthful and scholarly in debate...and I think 'this' person is a very valuable asset to the forum - so troll doesn't fit guys.

Afterall, nobody wants to debate a fool? Surely....I can entirely guarantee that ISAW is not a fool...

Guitar_Monkey

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

I doubt that extremely, I know people who have been sexually abused and he (and its more than certainly a he) doesnt exhibit any of the signs.

That he may be a pervert with a power fantasy of being a "Prince of the Church" (a Parish Priest a actually used that term to describe himself to my dad) is very possible though, still he most certainly after that major slip is from a Protestant background.

He never said he was sexually abused. As for the other rubbish, you are out of order. And i thought personal attacks wern't allowed around here....

lmaopml

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

I doubt that extremely, I know people who have been sexually abused and he (and its more than certainly a he) doesnt exhibit any of the signs.

That he may be a pervert with a power fantasy of being a "Prince of the Church" (a Parish Priest a actually used that term to describe himself to my dad) is very possible though, still he most certainly after that major slip is from a Protestant background.

Well, I think it's good to approach this thread in humility, but I must say that the opportunists are abundant, and the guess work is beyond bizarre...and not lacking in exuberant name calling.....crazy stuff really.

ISAW, imo is not of Protestant descent - in fact, I don't know if he/she is of any traditional descent that I could actually pin down, all I know is that they don't suffer fools gladly, and he/she is very truthful and scholarly in debate...and I think 'this' person is a very valuable asset to the forum - so troll doesn't fit guys.

Afterall, nobody wants to debate a fool? Surely....I can entirely guarantee that ISAW is not a fool...

PatricaMcKay2

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, I think it's good to approach this thread in humility, but I must say that the opportunists are abundant, and the guess work is beyond bizarre...and not lacking in exuberant name calling.....crazy stuff really.

Afterall, nobody wants to debate a fool? Surely....I can entirely guarantee that ISAW is not a fool...

The Pslam he referenced in 50 in Roman Catholicism, surely you must know it? Its been set to music so much....Its 51 in the KJV, this isnt my nordie paranoid side kicking, its clear as day light!

PatricaMcKay2

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

He never said he was sexually abused. As for the other rubbish, you are out of order. And i thought personal attacks wern't allowed around here....

Indeed he didnt..andyjo speculated that he had been and I contradicted that.

Are you a parent? If you arent its probably impossible for you understand unless you have been abused yourself.

lmaopml

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

The Pslam he referenced in 50 in Roman Catholicism, surely you must know it? Its been set to music so much....Its 51 in the KJV, this isnt my nordie paranoid side kicking, its clear as day light!

My objection is based on your psychological assessment of contributors to the thread, as to the 'motives' etc. I think you are unqualified in fact - I think they are baseless and not worth a whole lot really.

The same could be said of your assessment of how truthful Catholics are who praise God. I think you are drawing your very own personal portrait and it isn't representative of anybody else really except what is important to you as a person....

..so join the club.

Guitar_Monkey

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Indeed he didnt..andyjo speculated that he had been and I contradicted that.

Are you a parent? If you arent its probably impossible for you understand unless you have been abused yourself.

Indeed i am. ISAW is not burying his head in the sand and saying that abuse never happened. He is not defending abuse that has occured. In fact he has stated quite frequently that he abhors it and has condemned it as wrong. What he is doing is pointing out that it was carried out by a tiny minority of priests. That sexual abuse of minors is a serious problem in society, and to focus soley on what has happened in the church is to miss the bigger picture. Especially when you take the percentages into account.This is not deflecting the blame....it's simply pointing out the media's unfairness in it's reporting of these issues.

andyjo

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Indeed he didnt..andyjo speculated that he had been .

if you put certain key words inc ISAW in to the search engine at the top of this page, it does not take long to where ISAW admits he was physically assaulted by a Brother.

Guitar_Monkey

andyjo wrote: »

if you put certain key words inc ISAW in to the search engine at the top of this page, it does not take long to where ISAW admits he was physically assaulted by a Brother. ( page 68 of this thread).

Physically....not sexually. And it wasn't just Brothers who physically assaulted children in schools.

andyjo

ISAW wrote: »

The discussion was specifically about sexual abuse but yes in my experience in schools more physical abuse was doled out by lay teachers then by brothers. And I speak as someone who had a pitchside pole from a sideline flag broken over my back by a Brother when I was ten years old. Actually my vertibrae are weak there and I have no idea if the two are linked. If I met the brother tomorrow I would bear him no ill feelings.

post 1012 of this very thread.

A few days ago I remember reading where he implied he had been sexually assaulted too, but I cannot be bothered trying to read through more of his numerous posts to find it.

The idea of Stockholm Syndrome seems to fit this victim, and may be an explanation for the way he can can blank out the horrible actions and just see the good, like a wife sees only the good in her brute husband who hits her and feels that she is the one in the wrong and that he is doing it for her own good. Indoctrination 24/7 at a vulnerable age has had a lasting effect on the poor fellow. I'll say a prayer for him, he needs it.

Guitar_Monkey

andyjo wrote: »

post 1012 of this very thread.

A few days ago I remember reading where he implied he had been sexually assaulted too, but I cannot be bothered trying to read through more of his numerous posts to find it.

So you make an accusation but can't be bothered to supply the proof ?? He has talked about the abuse before. It was non sexual. I'm sure he'll give you details if you so require them.

PatricaMcKay2

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

ISAW is not burying his head in the sand and saying that abuse never happened. He is not defending abuse that has occured. In fact he has stated quite .

LOL....I have debated hardcore Unionists who have denied that the Loyalist death squads were a vital part of British policy in the north, and once they get a few beers in them their attitude becomes collusion was no big deal...Similarly here, what does his persistent denial of the insitutional cover up which has been revealed say about? I know what it says but you cant face that reality...

As for you being a parent, you obviously believe that the kids abused were ontologically inferior to your own and so had it coming...Not very Christian.

Guitar_Monkey

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

LOL....I have debated hardcore Unionists who have denied that the Loyalist death squads were a vital part of British policy in the north, and once they get a few beers in them their attitude becomes collusion was no big deal...Similarly here, what does his persistent denial of the insitutional cover up which has been revealed say about? I know what it says but you cant face that reality...

As for you being a parent, you obviously believe that the kids abused were ontologically inferior to your own and so had it coming...Not very Christian.

Some bishops taking matters into there own hands does not an instituional cover up make. As for the personal attacks....we'd all appreciate it if you could knock it on the head and grow up. Nobody on here has said that abuse was ok. Everyone is in agreement that the abuse was a sickening disgrace.

andyjo

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

So you make an accusation but can't be bothered to supply the proof ?? He has talked about the abuse before. It was non sexual. I'm sure he'll give you details if you so require them.

For someone with only a few dozen posts, you seem to know ISAW very well....;)
He has posted five and a half thousand posts. Have you read them all ?

andyjo

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

we'd all appreciate it ..

speak for yourself, do not speak for others

Nobody on here has said that abuse was ok ..[/QUOTE]
ISAW has made little of abuse by members of the RCC. He did not report his own abuser and does not advocate that people should report clerical abusers. He was not appalled that abusers were sheltered/ moved around without penalty or criticism. That comes pretty close to saying certain abuse was ok.

PatricaMcKay2

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

Some bishops taking matters into there own hands does not an instituional cover up make. As for the personal attacks....we'd all appreciate it if you could knock it on the head and grow up. Nobody on here has said that abuse was ok. Everyone is in agreement that the abuse was a sickening disgrace.

Yes it does, especially given the way the RCC is run, and especially with the Ryan report...And no one is has said outright that abuse is okay, however well...Live the same old self enforced ignorance that smiled on internment of kids into work camps where they were sexually abused. The fact of kids being placed into work camps in the first place is sick enough.

ISAW

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

Physically....not sexually. And it wasn't just Brothers who physically assaulted children in schools.

If i recall, at the time i pointed that out i.e. that in my experience lay teachers were much worse and more frequent in their abuse.

ISAW

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

LOL....I have debated hardcore Unionists who have denied that the Loyalist death squads were a vital part of British policy in the north, and once they get a few beers in them their attitude becomes collusion was no big deal...Similarly here, what does his persistent denial of the insitutional cover up which has been revealed say about? I know what it says but you cant face that reality...

As for you being a parent, you obviously believe that the kids abused were ontologically inferior to your own and so had it coming...Not very Christian.

Not very christian? You just personally attacked me and equated me to a death squad enabler.

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

speak for yourself, do not speak for others

Nobody on here has said that abuse was ok
ISAW has made little of abuse by members of the RCC.
He did not report his own abuser and does not advocate that people should report clerical abusers. He was not appalled that abusers were sheltered/ moved around without penalty or criticism. That comes pretty close to saying certain abuse was ok.

I did not say any priest abusing was right EVER!
Your mask is slipping!
I find it a bit rich when you claim unreported abuse as part of your argument that abuse must have been much higher. Then you show your real concern isnt the victims of unreported abuse at all! You r real concern is in attacking the church! If it was jot you would have some concern for victims and not attack them because they didn't report abuse. And If you go back to the post which you cherry picked out and follow the debate from there you will see I quite clearly outline why I ( and others) didn't report that abuse.
But rather than do they you blame the victims! this is exactly the reason whaty myself and others don't like to raise it ~because ironically others ( whose main concern isn't victims at all but attacking the church) will use the victims experience as a stick to beat them with!

ISAW

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Yes it does, especially given the way the RCC is run, and especially with the Ryan report...And no one is has said outright that abuse is okay, however well...Live the same old self enforced ignorance that smiled on internment of kids into work camps where they were sexually abused. The fact of kids being placed into work camps in the first place is sick enough.

What are you talking about "internment in work camps"? You have been shown the stats for the 170,000 children sent to industrial schools and other RC institutions from 1920 to 1970. are you talking about them? They were not "internment camps". I'm not aware of any deaths. You have been shown the five levels of abuse of the referee board five being the worst. There were
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74348270&postcount=1929
about 20 lines from the bottom of that message

of the 13,781 completed cases ( page 27) 29 of these ( 0.22%) are band V

That is over 70 years in Authoritarian Ireland and no deaths involved.

You have also been shown in the post inquiry Ireland where children were put in state hands that in the lase decade over 200 of them have died! You cant have it both ways! You can't say they should not be locked up or put under closed supervision and they should be allowed to roam the streets and then ignore the fact that should they be allowed out they end up dead in addition to ones that died in custody in institutions.

Guitar_Monkey

andyjo wrote: »

For someone with only a few dozen posts, you seem to know ISAW very well....;)
He has posted five and a half thousand posts. Have you read them all ?

Oh i see.....you're trying to discredit my defence of ISAW by implying that i might be a friend of his are you ? I've never met him in my life. What i know of him is entirely through his posts on these boards. You might not like what he has to say, but at least he backs it up with up to date stats and links to the relevant reports. And no....i havn't read all of his posts. I have read most of this thread though. I'm just sick of people coming along and launching into personal attacks against him whenever they become frustrated at their lack of ability to out debate him. He knows his subject. He has put the time in to read the reports. And he is open to being proven wrong. He consistantly asks people such as yourself for links etc to eveidence to back up what you say. Evidence and proof being the key words. Not hearsay, anti-Catholic propaganda or finger pointing. As regards my lowly number of posts....what's that got to do with anything ?? Havn't you ever heard of lurking ? I like to read a lot of threads on here. I seldom have time to get involved with posting though.

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

post 1012 of this very thread.

A few days ago I remember reading where he implied he had been sexually assaulted too, but I cannot be bothered trying to read through more of his numerous posts to find it.

The idea of Stockholm Syndrome seems to fit this victim, and may be an explanation for the way he can can blank out the horrible actions and just see the good, like a wife sees only the good in her brute husband who hits her and feels that she is the one in the wrong and that he is doing it for her own good. Indoctrination 24/7 at a vulnerable age has had a lasting effect on the poor fellow. I'll say a prayer for him, he needs it.

I resent your unsupported accusation and personal attack and comparing me to a wife beater. More blaming the victim!