The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

PDN

A number of posters in this thread are now within a whisker of being banned.

Let's make a few things clear from a moderating standpoint.

This thread is for discussing Clerical Child Abuse - it is not for speculating about another poster, or making personal attacks on them.

It is up to the Moderators to determine who is or is not a troll. Posters who continue to call each other trolls will end up getting infractions for backseat modding.

If you feel that someone has posted something here that contravenes the Forum Charter then do NOT shout about it inthread. Use the Reported Post button.

ISAW

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 ?

Please look up "shifting the burden" under "logical fallacy" If you claim I said something it is not for him to read all I have posted to show I didn't post it! Look up "proving a negative" as well. If you say I claimed "space aliens and unicorns did it" it isn't for him to show no unicorns or no space aliens. In fact he can't prove unicorns didn't do it that is why "proving a negative" turns absence of evidence of something into evidence of a conspiracy by the unprovable unicorns/ aliens/international jewry/vatican etc.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

gimmebroadband

ISAW wrote: »

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.

Absolutely, my husband was hit with a leg of a chair, by a lay teacher!

andyjo

Post deleted for ignoring moderator warning and continuing with personalised muppetry.

andyjo

Mod Edit: andyjo is on holiday from this Forum.

Andrew49

ISAW wrote: »

It isn't a "catholic source". The source is the John Jay report.

Ahem, ALL the data used in the John Jay report was provided by .... guess who? ..... the US Catholic Church!

ISAW

Andrew49 wrote: »

Ahem, ALL the data used in the John Jay report was provided by .... guess who? ..... the US Catholic Church!

It was a survey on Catholic priests.
Your point being?

All data in the Irish census was provided by guess who .. the Irish people.

Andrew49

ISAW wrote: »

Ireland does not give a special position to the church! It was removed decades ago. Article 40.6.1.3

Don't be idiotic. During the era of the Industrial Schools the Catholic Church had a Special Position in the Constitution.

ISAW wrote: »

No only properties much much bigger than schools. Your mask is slipping. you have switched from the point of "child abuse" being related to golf clubs as a comparison between the Church and other organisations such as golf clubs to a clear attack on the church as having a "special place" in the constitution and which should not be allowed in education or to have control over schools. If people want the local golf club management to run a school they have the right to campaign for that.

Don't be idiotic.

ISAW wrote: »

Well now you are off on another tangent! If a golf club wants to run a hospital they are free to do so. AS iot happens religious orders did it for a pittance . The current "workers rights" public service run hospitals cost us billions per year!

Don't be idiotic.

ISAW wrote: »

What evidence shows it was worse than the non-Church management?

Silly question. Don't be idiotic.

ISAW wrote: »

No it didn't.

Yes it did.

ISAW wrote: »

You have been shown Magdalen Asylums were NOT set up by the Roman Church but by Protestants!

On that kind of idiotic 'logic' the Wright Brothers were responsible for the Concorde crashing.

ISAW wrote: »

Doubtfull. There again was not Church collusion. I have already referred to Sr. Patricia and Cherish.

Don't be idiotic

ISAW wrote: »

There have been no cases about such "crimes" let alone convictions! This is all a fiction. You are making up things you can't support! You conspiracy theory of "cover up" just doesn't wash! Where is you evidence?

Don't be idiotic.

Andrew49

ISAW wrote: »

It was a survey on Catholic priests.
Your point being?

My point is that the US Catholic Church has lied it's way through this scandal and are not to be trusted. You can trust them if you like, but intelligent people will not trust them to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.

ISAW wrote: »

All data in the Irish census was provided by guess who .. the Irish people.

Wrong.... AGAIN! All data in the Irish census was provided by people living in Ireland - and not all of them are Irish. Get a grip. And get your head out of that new missal.

ISAW

Andrew49 wrote: »

Don't be idiotic. During the era of the Industrial Schools the Catholic Church had a Special Position in the Constitution.

And my words referred to the special postition being removed. I never claimed that before it was removed it was not there in the constituion and I resent you call me an idiot when I clearly pointed out it was there and it was removed.

I also pointed out that whle ther were problems with "Holy Catholic Authoritarian Ireland" and the religious institutions with respect to child Care the State currently is in charge of child vcare abnd over 200children have died under their authority in the last then years!

Don't be idiotic.

Gainsaying is not argument. How is "you have switched from the point of "child abuse" being related to golf clubs as a comparison between the Church and other organisations such as golf clubs to a clear attack on the church as having a "special place" in the constitution and which should not be allowed in education or to have control over schools. If people want the local golf club management to run a school they have the right to campaign for that." idiotic?

Don't be idiotic.

More gainsaying how is:

If a golf club wants to run a hospital they are free to do so. AS iot happens religious orders did it for a pittance . The current "workers rights" public service run hospitals cost us billions per year!

idiotic?

Silly question. Don't be idiotic.

More gainsaying. What evidence shows the Church was worse than the non-Church management? I have shown over 200 dead kids over the last ten years in State care when only last year they claimed it was 30 over ten years!

Yes it did.

You claim it you prove it! Can you provide any evidence?

On that kind of idiotic 'logic' the Wright Brothers were responsible for the Concorde crashing.

No the comment was made that the church set up Magdalen Asylums to enrich itself through slave labour. I already showed you how things ran cheaper under the church but the comment above was about the fact that the roman catholics didnt set up the asylums. Non Catholics did!
see: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-magdalene-inquiry-must-lift-veil-and-uncloak-anticatholic-myths-2677561.html
And the later addendum does not stand upo as slave labout because from the above source "according to the Government's own report to the UN committee, the overwhelming majority of women in the Magdalene Laundries were there voluntarily."

Don't be idiotic

I'm not
The suggestion that the church was running a "baby market" to make money is nonsense.

Don't be idiotic.

You are making up things you can't support! You conspiracy theory of "cover up" just doesn't wash! Where is you evidence? Saying "dont be idiotic" wont prove anything. If you claim it, it is for you to prove it! Look up "burden of proof"

ISAW

Andrew49 wrote: »

My point is that the US Catholic Church has lied it's way through this scandal and are not to be trusted. You can trust them if you like, but intelligent people will not trust them to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.

But the Bishops commissioned a survey and a Report done by an independent peer review process. You are claiming the John Jay report is a "lie"? Ludicrous! It is a valid and probably reliable Report. the methodology is sound! Intelligent and qualified people put the report together.

Wrong.... AGAIN! All data in the Irish census was provided by people living in Ireland - and not all of them are Irish. Get a grip. And get your head out of that new missal.

The constitution makes a distinction between nation and state. Ther are people living in the state who are not Irish nationals. But I'm happy to admit not all census forms were filled in by Irish citizens. My point still stands. Taking a few priests and saying "priests abuse kids2 as if this is a trait of all priests is like talking a few abusing criminals and saying Irish people are criminals. Irish people had this treatment in England for example in the past where all Irish were treated as if they were all in and supporting the IRA.

You display an anti catholic religion stance akin to antisemitism or racism

gimmebroadband

More child deaths, more broken promises from the HSE

The Health Service Executive (HSE) has AGAIN pledged to improve services for young people in its care after the latest figures revealed 35 young people who were known to social services have died over the past 18 months.

It’s another shocking indictment on the State and the scant regard that is paid to child safeguarding by many who are charged with looking after children and vulnerable young people. How many more reports do we need into children who are neglected by the HSE before real action is taken? How many more children will die while HSE mandarins and Government ministers continue to promise to improve the situation?

The deaths include children who were known to social services or previously had contact with child protection services. Three children were in the direct care system at the time of their death. Three children died as a result of serious abuse.

The independent chair of the group, Dr Helen Buckley of Trinity College Dublin, criticised the HSE for numerous failures which led to sub-standard care.

In one case highlighted – the death of a four-month old baby “Baby G” – it took almost two years for social services to meet face-to-face with the child’s mother, despite serious welfare concerns for her family.

What seems shocking, to me at least, is the fact that children at risk of abuse is not always a high-profile news story in Ireland. The children who died while the HSE ought to have been looking after them made the front page on only one of this morning’s national newspapers.

more.....

gigino

gimmebroadband wrote: »

More child deaths, more broken promises

And what has that to do with clerical child abuse, the subject of this thread ?
Incidentally, looking at all of the abuse from the Catholic church and seeing how our government cannot even keep children alive in this day and age, perhaps we should do what Gay byrne suggested : hand the country back to the British with a note of apology.;)
Would there have been as much clerical child sex abuse, as much abuse and exploitation of poor women in Magdalene laundries, and as many children killed in the past ten years in Ireland ( which you highlight in your post ) if we were not independent. The millions of Irish who emiograted to the UK over past past century were more free than many people left here in Ireland, because the police in UK did not turn a blind eye to clerical child abuse. As you say, the state here failed children, even in the past ten years when it came to the simpler situation of children in care.

gimmebroadband

gigino wrote: »

And what has that to do with clerical child abuse, the subject of this thread ?
Incidentally, looking at all of the abuse from the Catholic church and seeing how our government cannot even keep children alive in this day and age, perhaps we should do what Gay byrne suggested : hand the country back to the British with a note of apology.;)
Would there have been as much clerical child sex abuse, as much abuse and exploitation of poor women in Magdalene laundries, and as many children killed in the past ten years in Ireland ( which you highlight in your post ) if we were not independent. The millions of Irish who emiograted to the UK over past past century were more free than many people left here in Ireland, because the police in UK did not turn a blind eye to clerical child abuse. As you say, the state here failed children, even in the past ten years when it came to the simpler situation of children in care.

Take a gander at the new thread title, merged. That means ALL child abuse!

Thousands of children die every year in the uk through abortion!

PDN

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Take a gander at the new thread title, merged. That means ALL child abuse!

No it doesn't. It means that a number of different threads on Clerical Child Abuse were merged.

gimmebroadband

Sorry PDN I thought ISAW mentioned in one of his threads that it was so! My mistake!

There is even a few 'Magdalene posts, threw in here, and that has it's own thread!!

When you say clerical, I assume it's all denominations!

gigino

gimmebroadband wrote: »

When you say clerical, I assume it's all denominations!

In this country has there ever been an example of clerical child abuse in other denominations ? Most clerics I cam across in other denominations seemed normal , happily married folk.

Festus

gigino wrote: »

In this country has there ever been an example of clerical child abuse in other denominations ? Most clerics I cam across in other denominations seemed normal , happily married folk.

This might be a start for you

http://www.paddydoyle.com/not-enough-being-done-for-protestant-survivors-of-abuse/

or this as the thread is not restriced to Ireland

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/protestants-are-to-blame-too-for-child-abuse-14608758.html

gigino

As I thought, no proof or evidence in Ireland of clerical child abuse in other denominations , at least in reasonably modern times. I suppose there are fewer clerics in the other denominations, and the ones there are, usually seem to be normal family folk, happily married with children themselves.

Festus

gigino wrote: »

As I thought, no proof or evidence in Ireland of clerical child abuse in other denominations , at least in reasonably modern times. I suppose there are fewer clerics in the other denominations, and the ones there are, usually seem to be normal family folk, happily married with children themselves.

Let's say not yet, shall we.

As for judging books by their cover, much child abuse is carried out by seemingly normal family folk, happily married on their own children.

Because is hasn't been reported in the media does not mean it has not happened nor been investigated.

gigino

Festus wrote: »

much child abuse is carried out by seemingly normal family folk, happily married on their own children.

source ?

Festus wrote: »

Because is hasn't been reported in the media does not mean it has not happened nor been investigated.

Of course it could have happened but generally speaking normal happily married people have each other for their sexual and physical needs. Generally women as well would be humane to victims and their influence would rub off and make it less likely ( than a club of celibate men ) to agree to have abusers shifted from Parish to Parish, as happened in the Catholic church.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

And what has that to do with clerical child abuse, the subject of this thread ?

Please try to keep up.
the discussion was about institutional ( Run by Catholics) abuse and the comparison was made to State Run institutions over the last decade. It isnt a "what if" it is a comparison of two definite from history. One over a period of 70 years resulted in no deaths and another in a period of ten years resulted in over 200 deaths.

Would there have been as much clerical child sex abuse, as much abuse and exploitation of poor women in Magdalene laundries, and as many children killed in the past ten years in Ireland ( which you highlight in your post ) if we were not independent.

"What if ..." alternative history isn't the subject of the thread.

As you say, the state here failed children, even in the past ten years when it came to the simpler situation of children in care.

Which si significant to the thread because it points out the church didnt do as bad. Elsewhere such as in the UK Australia etc. the state also failed so that points to the whole "blame the church" lobby as in error.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

No it doesn't. It means that a number of different threads on Clerical Child Abuse were merged.

For information/clarification
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65076556&postcount=1
and
UPDATE: 27/3/10
All child abuse threads are now merged into one Clerical Child Abuse megathread.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

In this country has there ever been an example of clerical child abuse in other denominations ? Most clerics I cam across in other denominations seemed normal , happily married folk.

gigino wrote: »

As I thought, no proof or evidence in Ireland of clerical child abuse in other denominations , at least in reasonably modern times. I suppose there are fewer clerics in the other denominations, and the ones there are, usually seem to be normal family folk, happily married with children themselves.

gigino wrote: »

source ?


Of course it could have happened but generally speaking normal happily married people have each other for their sexual and physical needs. Generally women as well would be humane to victims and their influence would rub off and make it less likely ( than a club of celibate men ) to agree to have abusers shifted from Parish to Parish, as happened in the Catholic church.

Don't you remember when this information was given to you some time ago?

the SAVI report for starters wher you posted about abuse being "endemic" for weeks!
In that report clerical abuse was 1.7 per cent and abuse by family members abd babysitters were each up at around 20% plus.

I also offered the Kincora Boys home as an example.

the whole "feminist" angle was explored and advanced i.e. that "rape" was the worst crime ( of course only men could rape) Later when this issue became tired an all male target had to be identified. well priests fit that category. Ther is no strong evidence to suggest that women in power are less likely to abuse it than men in power.

Very few pedophile priests were shifted from parish to parish. i doubt you can provide ten examples for the entire world in the last fifty years. It was not restricted to Cathoplics and your idea that celibacy is connected to pedophilia is also a non runner and has been gone into in depth. And when priests were shifted or prosecutions not taken it was sometimes done at the behest of the family.

You seem to have forgotten or ignored the entire debate.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692&page=83
particularly post 1231 where the celibacy argument and the other denominations argument are referenced to you.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

the SAVI report for starters wher you posted about abuse being "endemic" for weeks!
In that report clerical abuse was 1.7 per cent and abuse by family members abd babysitters were each up at around 20% plus.

I also offered the Kincora Boys home as an example.

the whole "feminist" angle was explored and advanced i.e. that "rape" was the worst crime ( of course only men could rape) Later when this issue became tired an all male target had to be identified. well priests fit that category. Ther is no strong evidence to suggest that women in power are less likely to abuse it than men in power.

Very few pedophile priests were shifted from parish to parish. i doubt you can provide ten examples for the entire world in the last fifty years. It was not restricted to Cathoplics and your idea that celibacy is connected to pedophilia is also a non runner and has been gone into in depth. And when priests were shifted or prosecutions not taken it was sometimes done at the behest of the family.

You seem to have forgotten or ignored the entire debate.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692&page=83
particularly post 1231 where the celibacy argument and the other denominations argument are referenced to you.

Don't you remember when this information was given to you some time ago? In the SAVI report the percentage of religous clerics and religous teachers ( brothers etc ) combined is 5.8%.
See the SAVI report. I even produced the table report from it in post 1216. Do pay attention.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692&page=82


If you look up the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin. http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml , it says in black and white "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics".
Given Religous clerics " are" - and they use present tense only about 3 or 4 thousand strong, thats a very high percentage considering the population of the country is , what 4 million ?

You seem to continually ignore the facts in the entire debate.

You do not think it scandalous that 5% of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics? That twhat the Dublin Archdiocese says, and it should know. Some people would think its a lot higher than that, given the RC track record for hush-hushing instances of child abuse / trying to reserve the right not to inform the authorities etc.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

the discussion was about institutional ( Run by Catholics) abuse and the comparison was made to State Run institutions over the last decade. It isnt a "what if" it is a comparison of two definite from history. One over a period of 70 years resulted in no deaths and another in a period of ten years resulted in over 200 deaths.

You are trying to claim that there was no deaths in Roman Catholic run institutions over 70 years ? lol.

And you were show figures earlier that actual deaths in state run institutions over 10 years was not 200, as the 200 figure included car accidents etc. Over 10 years, you unfortunately do get a lot of kids in Ireland killed in car accidents etc.

By you trying to claim that there was no deaths in Roman Catholic run institutions over 70 years loses you all credibility.

Anyway , this thread is about clerical child abuse, so you should not be trying to derail it abgainst the government and the UN, just because they found in their reports that child abuse in the RC church was " endemic". You were shown the meaning of the word "endemic". Look it up again in the dictionary if you want.

ISAW wrote: »

Which si significant to the thread because it points out the church didnt do as bad .

The church, I am afraid, did do bad. Here in Ireland the RCC in its official website admits "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics". Are they including brothers in this? Either way, its a lot of damage, considering there are only a handful of thousand clerics in the country. And in this country the clerics that have been exposed seem to be all R. Catholic clerics - I cannot recall any other demonination in the state which has had any accusations or convictions. No doubt if there are any you will know.

ISAW wrote: »

Elsewhere such as in the UK Australia etc. the state also failed so that points to the whole "blame the church" lobby as in error.

The state , when dealing with hundreds of thousands of people, is not infallible anywhere in the world. However, most states are not run by men old clubs of celibates, and for whatever reason - maybe its the influence of women - child abusers are / were not given shelter , victims told not to complain beyond the confessional etc

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

For information/clarification
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65076556&postcount=1
and
UPDATE: 27/3/10
All child abuse threads are now merged into one Clerical Child Abuse megathread.

For your information/clarification.

The phrase "All child abuse threads" is obviously referred to under a heading that reads "PLEASE READ: CLERICAL CHILD ABUSE THREADS"

It should be obvious to anyone that not every child abuse thread anywhere on the internet was merged into this one. The threads that were merged here all referred to Clerical Child Abuse.

Now, please understand that this thread is to discuss Clerical Child Abuse - and that definition is not open for debate or discussion. If you wish to discuss child abuse in general then, to be honest, another Forum is probably more appropriate.

Please feel free to post away on the subject of Clerical Child Abuse, and leave it to the mods to do the moderating.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Don't you remember when this information was given to you some time ago? In the SAVI report the percentage of religous clerics and religous teachers ( brothers etc ) combined is 5.8%.

Please stop trolling this out! that issue was gone into in depth and you just kept trolling it then! The SAVI report has IIR three clerics. the "religious teachers and brothers" fudge is dealt with in the reference in my last reply

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692&page=83
particularly post 1231

See the SAVI report. I even produced the table report from it in post 1216. Do pay attention.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692&page=82

All dealt with on page 83

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692&page=83

And you ended up banned for trolling the SAVI. If you can't argue based on it


The 5.8 % does not refer to clergy alone. And the clergy figure of 1.7% fpor boys does not say Roman Catholic clergy.

If you look up the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin. http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml , it says in black and white "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics".

Again you make the same error. That does not mean five percent of abusers are clerics! It means clerics who abused, on average abused a higher number of victims. If for example all clerical abuse was committed by a single priest then five percent of victims may well be due to this single priest. that does not mean five percent of abusers are priests!

I note also you selectively quote the 5 % figure and ignore the following sentences.

However, 75 per cent of children who are sexually abused are violated by members of their own family, or by trusted adults known to them in their daily lives. ..
The Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland (SAVI) Report (2002) showed that 23 per cent of Irish men and 30 per cent of Irish women had unwanted sexual experiences in childhood.

That is saying "even if clerics had multiple victims, in terms of victims they still were five to six times less that some other non clerical groups"

Given Religous clerics " are" - and they use present tense only about 3 or 4 thousand strong, thats a very high percentage considering the population of the country is , what 4 million ?

Again you try to relate the level of abuse of priests to the level of priests who abused.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73045830&postcount=1235

What surprises me is gigino's inability to distinguish between "4% of abuse cases were committed by priests" and "4% of priests committed abuse".

You do not think it scandalous that 5% of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics?

In the past not at present. I find any level of abuse unacceptable. But when 30% are by family the 5% are a small minority.

That twhat the Dublin Archdiocese says, and it should know. Some people would think its a lot higher than that, given the RC track record for hush-hushing instances of child abuse / trying to reserve the right not to inform the authorities etc,

And as usual when nailed down on one issue you bait and switch to another unsupported issue. Where is your evidence of "he RC track record for hush-hushing instances of child abuse / trying to reserve the right not to inform the authorities" ?

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

For your information/clarification.

The phrase "All child abuse threads" is obviously referred to under a heading that reads "PLEASE READ: CLERICAL CHILD ABUSE THREADS"

It should be obvious to anyone that not every child abuse thread anywhere on the internet was merged into this one. The threads that were merged here all referred to Clerical Child Abuse.

Nope. All child abuse - including non clerical! this was specifically discussed. All abuse inculding non Clerical abuse was to be referred to the clerical abuse thread.

Now, please understand that this thread is to discuss Clerical Child Abuse - and that definition is not open for debate or discussion. If you wish to discuss child abuse in general then, to be honest, another Forum is probably more appropriate.

But you can't discuss clerical child abuse unless you related it to the level of Child abuse in general. what should discussing ably child abuse by blacks or by Catholics be allowed unless yu can provide the level in relation to non black or non Catholics abuse?

Please feel free to post away on the subject of Clerical Child Abuse, and leave it to the mods to do the moderating.

I am abiding by your earlier decision. The decision arose from this particular discussion. Mr pudding and others raised this in the past. If there was a reversal of the "all child abuse ( including non clerical) is to be discussed the in child abuse thread" please care to show the group where that reversal occurred? I'm asking you to show that decision because your announcement of "only Catholic" or "only clerical" child abuse is both contradictory and unfair. why not only Protestant abuse ? Or only Jewish abuse ?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

The 5.8 % does not refer to clergy alone.

I did not say " the 5.8 % did refer to clergy alone" ! Please do not troll. I wrote: In the SAVI report the percentage of religous clerics and religous teachers ( brothers etc ) combined is 5.8%.
See the SAVI report. I even produced the table report from it in post 1216. Do pay attention.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...855692&page=82


How much clearer can that be for you ? Religous teachers are very closely related to clergy , and so its no harm to look at the combined figure.

ISAW wrote: »

That does not mean five percent of abusers are clerics

I never said "five percent of abusers are clerics"! I made the point that "Here in Ireland the RCC in its official website admits "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics". Are they including brothers in this? Either way, its a lot of damage, considering there are only a handful of thousand clerics in the country. And in this country the clerics that have been exposed seem to be all R. Catholic clerics - I cannot recall any other demonination in the state which has had any accusations or convictions. No doubt if there are any you will know"


Some clerics may have had multiple victims ; some lay people may have had multiple victims. I suggest you are just guessing if you think clerics had more victims than lay people.

ISAW wrote: »

But you can't discuss clerical child abuse unless you related it to the level of Child abuse in general.

This thread is about " Clerical Child abuse". Its clear that even the RCC admits clerical child abuse is a problem when it admits in its own Irish website that ""Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" There are millions of adults in this state : there are something in the order of 3000 to 4000 Clerics in the state. In other words, Clerics make up 00.1% of the population, yet they account for ( as admitted by the Catholic archdioce of Dublin ) 5% of child sexual abuse.
And you still do not think its a problem ? Well, the church does ;)
No wonder the government and U.N. said in the Catholic church child abuse was endemic.