The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

PatricaMcKay2

cybercellesta wrote: »

With the same Judgement you judge, so will you be judged!!

And yet in some circumstances we are commanded to judge.

PatricaMcKay2

gimmebroadband wrote: »

That's a lie!

Individuals within the Church covered it up, they didn't act on behalf of the Church, they may have done so to cover up their own negligences!!! It's not fair to implicate the whole Church, that is downright deceitful!!

It isnt though, we are talking about a highly centralized organization. I suggest that you look into the Ryan report. The only logical conclusion to reach is that the RC hierarchy in this country and the Vatitican dont think that child abuse is a big deal.

Here is a Roman Catholic source....

http://www.christorchaos.com/CanonizingAManWhoProtectedMoralDerelicts.htm

If you want to make things better I would suggest cutting back on the hero worship of men like JP II who can only be described as objectively EVIL.

Fanny Cradock

Spacedog wrote: »

If you don't like it, take it to dispute resolution.

That's not how DR works. If, for example, you got infracted or banned for, say, being a troll who only posts sneering and you feel that you didn't deserve said actions then you take it to DR.

Spacedog wrote: »

Far be it for you to derail an ongoing discussion in the clerical abuse thread eh?

I've no idea what you mean.

Fanny Cradock

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

If you want to make things better I would suggest cutting back on the hero worship of men like JP II who can only be described as objectively EVIL.

Mercy! While I'm sure everybody has their moments, I hardly think that JP II was evil.

And on that bombshell - I'm out

gigino

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

It isnt though, we are talking about a highly centralized organization. I suggest that you look into the Ryan report. The only logical conclusion to reach is that the RC hierarchy in this country and the Vatitican dont think that child abuse is a big deal.

Here is a Roman Catholic source....

http://www.christorchaos.com/CanonizingAManWhoProtectedMoralDerelicts.htm

If you want to make things better I would suggest cutting back on the hero worship of men like JP II who can only be described as objectively EVIL.

While I agree with much of what you say, I am surprised someone can say , a few hours ago in another thread in the Christianity forum that you gave your " support primarily to the INLA during the troubles"...and now you say "men like JP II who can only be described as objectively EVIL".
I would not say he was a very Christian person, but at least JP II did not go around terrorising , bombing and shooting fellow Christians. I do not think JP II was the most evil person in the RCC...I would'nt have crossed the road to see him either, but he himself may not have been very EVIL - I would give him the benefit of the doubt without knowing all the facts. Misguided, misinformed and mistaken certainly, but not necessarily EVIL.

cybercellesta

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

If you want to make things better I would suggest cutting back on the hero worship of men like JP II who can only be described as objectively EVIL.

Sorry Fanny I was not inferring to you in particular, but some of the other poster here, like the above venom spouted out, very un-Christlike! :eek:

PatricaMcKay2

gigino wrote: »

While I agree with much of what you say, I am surprised someone can say , a few hours ago in another thread in the Christianity forum that you gave your " support primarily to the INLA during the troubles"...and now you say "men like JP II who can only be described as objectively EVIL".
I would not say he was a very Christian person, but at least JP II did not go around terrorising , bombing and shooting fellow Christians. I do not think JP II was the most evil person in the RCC...I would'nt have crossed the road to see him either, but he himself may not have been very EVIL - I would give him the benefit of the doubt without knowing all the facts. Misguided, misinformed and mistaken certainly, but not necessarily EVIL.

The UK state has no right at all morally to be in Ireland and people do have a mandate to resist forgein occupation. No one has a mandate to faciliate the abuse of childern. That is not rocket science. Given also his very possible role in faciliating various death squads in Latin America and his role in the destruction of Yugoslavia to say that he wasnt involved in terrorizing, bombing and shooting really is a tad niave.

PatricaMcKay2

cybercellesta wrote: »

Sorry Fanny I was not inferring to you in particular, but some of the other poster here, like the above venom spouted out, very un-Christlike! :eek:

http://www.christorchaos.com/CanonizingAManWhoProtectedMoralDerelicts.htm

How else would you describe this carry on?

Are you saying that child abuse isnt objectively evil??

ISAW

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

The UK state has no right at all morally to be in Ireland and people do have a mandate to resist forgein occupation. No one has a mandate to faciliate the abuse of childern. That is not rocket science. Given also his very possible role in faciliating various death squads in Latin America and his role in the destruction of Yugoslavia to say that he wasnt involved in terrorizing, bombing and shooting really is a tad niave.

I would reply but I am being threatened with a ban should I post about mass atrocities linked to discussing child abuse.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I actually wrote " 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. ".

You have give an example of Protestant run homes a long long time ago, but have you found any Protestant clerics who were accused or convicted ? Thats what this thread is about - Clerical child abuse.

You were shown ages ago but when you raised it again you were shown this:

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

The discovery of a total of 219 unmarked children’s graves in Mount Jerome on Sept 10, 2010 astonished reporters. But why hadn’t these investigative journalists done more to report Protestant abused and neglected children?

http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/004282.html

Its written ( and supported by you ) in your post no. 2313 that "Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals."."

The evidence as published is that most sexual abuse by roman Catholic priests is Ephebophilia and homosexual in nature. However because of the "pedophile priests" media myth I mostly refer in my references to the minority of pedophile clerical offenders.

Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics"

i.e. 95 per cent are not!
What does "abuse" entail in this survey? Can it be non contact?
And five percent are not victim of Roman Catholic clerics. nor does it mean five percent of abusers are clerics.

Given that priests only make up 00.1 % of the population,

When? where? does the 5% figure cover the same demographic for the same period? If not you are comparing apples and oranges.

that does indeed suggest it is endemic, b

It doesn't if you cant supply the demographic support.
and you are not doing correct statistical work. There could for example be ten priest in Ireland and one who does all the child abuse. Priests might be 0.001 per cent of population and 5% of abuse be done by that priest. That would not mean it was endemic to the church. One would also have to look at the other 95% of victims.

You cant take per cent opf victims and compare percent of priests per head of population.
All the strats show is that clerics on average have higher numbers of victims. i never denied that. I cant really comment unless you comp[are clerics with non clerics. The point regarding "endemic" is that clerics are a tiny minority of offenders but again you can't mention endemic unless you refer to society as a whole and non clerical abuse in context.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

You are just making up figures. I am quoting from the SAVI report itself.
This was explained to you already.

In the SAVI report as pointed out to you before ,the percentage of abused boys who say the abuser was a member of the clergy ( ie religous minister ) or religous teacher , was 5.8%.

That's 5.8 percent of all the people who were abused who happened to be 20 per cent of the population ( wide description of abuse including non sexual and non contact). the percentage figures for girls were lower. but 5.8% of 20 % is....???? About 1%

your own reference http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf says

3,120 people were interviewed in the SAVI study. p 57
In a simple overview, five types of perpetrator each accounted ely one-fifth of abuse: family members, neighbours, es, friends/acquaintances and strangers (see Figure 4.12) p. 85

The figure for clergy is about 1.5 % (1.9% -6 ministers- for males and 1.4% - 6 ministers- for females) p. 88 Table 4.11
you got the 5.8 % by adding teachers (3.9% - 12 teachers ) to clergy (1.9%- 6 ministers). Clearly the teachers element is twice that of clergy. and we dont even know if it was roman Catholic clergy!
And this isn't true for girls where teachers are ZERO and ministers 1.4% giving a 1.4% total.

This combined group of clergy + religous teachers is the single biggest group of abusers among authority figures, responsible for 27.3% of boys abused by authority figures.
That is a fact. See the SAVI report.

Eh no it isn't! The actual report says p.89 it is largest "combined category" for boys.
But you can see the only way they could get bigger than the 13 for boys and 20 for girls babysitters ( total=33) who abused was to add together other categories. and they could only do this for boys ( total = 18 but 12 of them are not clergy) since the girls figure ( total= total=6) was still to small to pass out babysitter ( total for girls =20). And even then this was stil lless than other authority figure (23 for boys 34 for girls total = 57) which dwarf the 12 clerics who we still don't know if they were Catholic or not. all ther on page 88.

I even produced the table report from it in post 1216. Go and look at the SAVI report, or from the table which I reproduced from it in post no. 1216. Do pay attention.

Page 88 of the report oin the ink given. Please try to actually read the information. You didn't produce that tabel by the way. another poster first posted it. and if I recall it was I first produced the SAVI report. I actually read it. Did you?



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692&page=82[/QUOTE]

that was not the original production of that table
This was:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72964420&postcount=1177

Where the points I make above above were made to you by another poster.
I hadn't even bothered to check until you posted the table.

The Quadratic Equation

Apparently ISAW has been covertly banned from the Christianity forum.

Would any of the mods care to properly explain why ?

This is a very serious development regarding the supposed impartiality of boards.ie

PatricaMcKay2

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

This is a very serious development regarding the supposed impartiality of boards.ie

The Christianity forum I think is generally impartial, you should really compare it to the politics forum which completely isnt.

Guitar_Monkey

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Apparently ISAW has been covertly banned from the Christianity forum.

Would any of the mods care to properly explain why ?

This is a very serious development regarding the supposed impartiality of boards.ie

I'd like to have this explained too.

gigino

If you look back over his posts, I do not think it needs explaining. Enough said. Its not the first or only forum he is banned from.

cybercellesta

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

The Christianity forum I think is generally impartial, you should really compare it to the politics forum which completely isnt.

That depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on!

Keylem

cybercellesta wrote: »

That depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on!

Absolutely!!!

The Quadratic Equation

gigino wrote: »

If you look back over his posts, I do not think it needs explaining. Enough said. Its not the first or only forum he is banned from.

Says the pet troll thats still here . . . . . btw we're still waiting for your first ever factual post.

PDN

Can I please remind posters that this thread is for the discussion of Clerical Child Abuse.

If you want to discuss a moderating decision or policy then please address it by PM or with a Catmod. Or feel free to use the Feedback Forum.

gimmebroadband

I'm sure that extends to the "pet troll" who constanly brings up the 'Magdalene Laundry', when his nonsense about numbers of Clerics is defeated by ISAW!! :rolleyes:

optogirl

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I'm sure that extends to the "pet troll" who constanly brings up the 'Magdalene Laundry', when his nonsense about numbers of Clerics is defeated by ISAW!! :rolleyes:

why is Magdalene Laundry in inverted commas?? It's a valid example of clerical child abuse surely?

The Quadratic Equation

Backseat modding deleted

gimmebroadband

optogirl wrote: »

why is Magdalene Laundry in inverted commas?? It's a valid example of clerical child abuse surely?

It's i in nverted commas, to highlight the fact that it was OT because they weren't children, and it has it's own discussion thread. BTW I once worked in the Magdalene Laundry!!

gimmebroadband

Backseat Modding deleted

marienbad

gimmebroadband wrote: »

It's i in nverted commas, to highlight the fact that it was OT because they weren't children, and it has it's own discussion thread. BTW I once worked in the Magdalene Laundry!!

So did I , and I am open to correction but if my memory serves there were children. Did not some of the young women have their babies at least for a few months ? And some of the mothers were little more than children themselves. But as I say I am open to correction, it was all so long ago.

gigino

marienbad wrote: »

So did I , and I am open to correction but if my memory serves there were children. Did not some of the young women have their babies at least for a few months ? And some of the mothers were little more than children themselves.

correct

"The Kennedy Report (1970), also commissioned by the Department of Education, signals the scale of this reality, stating that "the Committee is satisfied that there are at least 70 girls between the ages of 13 and 19 years confined in this way who should properly be dealt with under the Reformatory Schools' system" (39). The "girls" referred to here were put in the laundries by "parents, relatives, social workers, Welfare Officers, Clergy, or Gardaí." These "girls," in other words, joined the other population of children in the laundries, those transferred illegally from State residential institutions. "



http://www.magdalenelaundries.com/press/JFM%20PR%2028-04-10.pdf

Other sources confirm children in Magdalene laundries too eg
http://users.erols.com/bcccsbs/bass/new_25magd.html

Guitar_Monkey

this place is a joke

marienbad

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

this place is a joke

How so Guitar ?

Newsite

'For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God'.

'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth'.

This entire debacle is what results when a man-made church, not only takes upon itself to establish and enforce its own rules and doctrines, but actively OPPOSES Scripture/the Word of God.

How can a church with a billion members stand over its flock? How can it possibly have an honest relationship with God when it can't possibly account for its cazillion members?

'But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person'.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.