The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Zorbas

soterpisc wrote: »

If your purpose on this thread is to troll... Well you are doing a good job.

My only purpose posting here is to highlight that the church has changed, we are not all abusers or people who turn a blind eye to abuse.

Supporting my argument i have stated that there has not been one single abuse case reported in Ireland in the last 10 years, abuse commited in the last 10 years.


Mosy important are the victims of all this... They were the ones who suffered the most. Christs message was about love. And many priests failed to act like real priests..

If you want to ignore the facts about current church practises, thats your choice... But your posts show no base in reality, just person bias against the facts.

Rather than ignore the facts about current church practises, I have stated that the church has been moving forward. My position is that I feel I am in the majority in that I articulate the inevitable credibility gap which still exists between what is in principle and what is in practice. For that reason I gave the exmple of Cardinal Brady as someone who belatedly rather than immediately expressed his regret at what he had done. Without knowing the man, it is hard to know if that reflected a new heartfelt conviction or rather a strategic political "back against the wall" statement.
To state that my posts have no basis in reality and is just personal bias against the facts is a bit rich. I think the time is gone when the sheep just follow. Now there is an understanding of healthy sceptism which is essential for anyone who wishes to undestand from where they themselves are coming from. To so easily dismiss or rubbish someones opinion is to diminish oneself especially when the personal experience of that person is unknown.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

With what links? To what stats?

for the fifth time.

Number of Priests in Ireland : three to 4 thousand. wiki says "There about 3000 secular clergy—parish priests, administrators, curates, chaplains, and professors in colleges." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Ireland

Population of Ireland, according to census figures : "The population of the state was 4.58 million in 2011" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland


If you divide the number of Priests in ireland by the population of Ireland you will discover that the percentage of the population who are RC Priests in Ireland is well less than a tenth of one per cent. ( ie less than 00.1% )

Now, if what is written on the official RC dublin diocesan website is true - "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" ( http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml ) , and even you accept it, what other group of people in Ireland account for less than 00.1% of the population yet is responsible for "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused " ??

Tinker tailor soldier spy ? No, none of those. Please do not mention some Spanish crime gang because that is not a grouping / professional or trade grouping in Ireland.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

for the fifth time.

Number of Priests in Ireland : three to 4 thousand. wiki says "There about 3000 secular clergy—parish priests, administrators, curates, chaplains, and professors in colleges." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Ireland

But where is the wikipedia source for that?
Your source gives http://www.catholicbishops.ie/archdioceses-and-dioceses/view-list
in the preceding sentence bt that is a dead link!
Error 404 - Page not found!
The page you trying to reach does not exist, or has been moved.

From where do you get the 3,000 figure and for what year or years is it?

Population of Ireland, according to census figures : "The population of the state was 4.58 million in 2011" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland

Wikipedia isnt the irish census. What is the census source? The wikipedia article has no source for "The population of the state was 4.58 million in 2011." What is yours?
At least ywe know you are claiming 2011 even if you can't support it.

If you divide the number of Priests in Ireland by the population of Ireland you will discover

But you don't have a proper source for either!

that the percentage of the population who are RC Priests in Ireland is well less than a tenth of one per cent. ( ie less than 00.1% )

Butyou havent shown the numbers for priests ios for 2011. But even though you haven't a source let us assume you are correct
If there are 3,000 priests then it is less than 0.1% of a population of 4.5 million.
And that applies to 2011.

Now, if what is written on the official RC dublin diocesan website is true - "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" ( http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml ) ,

Quoting the Irish Times from 2008! And you don't know to what period it referred? It certainly didn't refer to 2011.
Here is the actual source quoted:Maeve Lewis
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0917/1221599424035.html

1. Do you know the difference between an "opinion" piece and a "news" piece?
2. Lewis cites Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse and the Dublin Archdiocesan Inquiry
where in those sources is the 5% figure?

Look I'm trying to help you here. Please try and do some real research. find the primary figures!

3. Note: At no stage did anyone say the 5% figure was seriously in error. Butit means 95% of child abuse was by non clergy.

Note also cso.ie main page population
http://www.cso.ie
gives for 2006 - why 2006 becaue you woint get 2011 full results for a while
4,239,848

It also tell you 1.7 million were over 25. i.e. about 3.5 million were of an age that they might be possible abusers.

So the 4.5 isnt a vlaid comparison for population 3.5 is probably closer. Now of course this is only for 2006 when you have no priests and several hundred other pedophiles per year butlet us look at some stats for 2006. Say any occupation with less than about 3-4,000 people
Now I haven't checked them and it isn't for me to do so since I am not claiming it but let me just show you how may occupations nimber less than a group of about 4,000


http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=105109

Occup[ational groups are listed here : http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/dimView.aspx

Ill just list the group numbers: 595, 901,903,904,523,524,525,526,529,515,517,519,530,533,541,....several hundred groups later. I think you get my drift.

The thing is I suspect you are shoddy on research but no matter If you are prepared to learn Im prepsred to help you. Using google I very much doubt you will find information on the non priest abusere. Butlook at it this way

955: Window cleaners - anbout 900 of them
306 : photographers - about 2,500 of them
490 - computer operaters - about 4,000

All the above are well less than 0.1% of the population and ther are hundreds and hundreds of occupations like this.

Now, given ther http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp
were 111 child porn and child sex offences in 2006 and not one was by clergy and given Im not even consider other sexual assault rape of years do you really believe out of the hundreds and hundreds of possible groups that even for 2006 alone not one of them will fit into an occupational group of less than 4,000?

and even you accept it, what other group of people in Ireland account for less than 00.1% of the population yet is responsible for "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused " ??

Well priests don't anyway for starters. They might have in the past accounted for that as swimming coaches
Given they are not elsewhere - Babysitters and nannies would come under category 959 I guess the 2,000 not otherwise specified workers in sales and services. About half as many as priests. Although like priests maybe their numbers are quite low or zero. But certainly in the past they were higher much higher than clergy ( you might be aware SAVI supports that?)

Tinker tailor soldier spy ? No, none of those. Please do not mention some Spanish crime gang because that is not a grouping / professional or trade grouping in Ireland.

It isnt a spanish crime gang. It is an international ring. One of the offenders is Spanish. I have no idea if the offence was in Spain no more than you have any idea that the "priests" you mention in SAVI were in Ireland or ever if they were Roman Catholics. You do know Irish crime by the way like for example drug gangs were op0erated from Irish criminals in Spain?

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

Rather than ignore the facts about current church practises, I have stated that the church has been moving forward. My position is that I feel I am in the majority in that I articulate the inevitable credibility gap which still exists between what is in principle and what is in practice.

How you "feel" or your "opinion" isn't being questioned. Whether you represent a majority opinion or whether that opinion is actually supported by any evidence at all is what is at issue here.

For that reason I gave the exmple of Cardinal Brady as someone who belatedly rather than immediately expressed his regret at what he had done.

Not as a cardinal! Nor as a bishop! Nor did he regret what he had done AFAIK. He is being criticised for what he didn't do. But I would challenge him on saying that if he is saying it in the sense that himself or the Church were the only people at fault. People in power made mistakes of judgement. He was not one of those people.

Without knowing the man, it is hard to know if that reflected a new heartfelt conviction or rather a strategic political "back against the wall" statement.

So what? How you "feel" or your "opinion" isn't being questioned. Whether you represent a majority opinion or whether that opinion is actually supported by any evidence at all is what is at issue here.

To state that my posts have no basis in reality and is just personal bias against the facts is a bit rich.

Great! Then it should be simple to produce laods of facts to support your position rather then opinion and hoiw you feel about things. Personal opinion and personal feeling are exactly that -subjective bias!

I think the time is gone when the sheep just follow. Now there is an understanding of healthy sceptism which is essential for anyone who wishes to undestand from where they themselves are coming from.

As a scientific skeptic, I half agree with you. There is also unhealthy scepticism. Based on hyped media myths. for example Go and do a news search on pedophile cases. Now you know for a fact there are minimum 100 a year for every year of the last then years. You also know not oine is a priest. So you have 1,000 cases and not one prioest. But you do search and of the first 20 hits how many are about non priests and how many priests from before 10 years ago?

To so easily dismiss or rubbish someones opinion is to diminish oneself especially when the personal experience of that person is unknown.

I accept thisis a panto season but ...Oh No it isn't! You personal experiences or mine are not relevant to the big picture. In fact if anything they may colour your bias. Look at the actual facts and dismiss your personal opinion for a while. I respect this may be what you are trying to do. Please try harder.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Nobody said all priests were abusers. Far from it. But some were.

"Six reports published by the Catholic Church in Ireland have revealed there were child abuse allegations against 85 priests across the dioceses." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15960621


"BishopAccountability.org has a database of 3,000 names of accused priests and said roughly a third are linked to Ireland, which is reeling from revelations of a decades-long coverup of abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese"
http://www.rickross.com/reference/clergy/clergy1068.html

Allegation and accusations are not convictions! I'm sure you could find the names of millions of Jews who also were accused of heinous crimes and executed.
We have a system that we assume innocence and prove guilt. We don't assume guilt based on allegation.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

Allegation and accusations are not convictions! I'm sure you could find the names of millions of Jews who also were accused of heinous crimes and executed.

lol You are scraping the bottom of the barrel if you are using the old " don't scapegoat us like the jews were scapegoated" argument.

From the link I gave you "The bishop of Raphoe apologised for "poor judgements" in managing priests accused of "horrific acts of abuse".
Bishop Philip Boyce was speaking as a review of the County Donegal diocese found "a significant level" of clerical abuse cases in past decades."

To come back to your poor analogy with the Jews, no I could not find the names of millions of Jews who also were accused of heinous crimes. Millions of Jews were executed but they were not each accused of heinous crimes.

Jews did not make up less than 00.1% of the population and Jewish religous leaders did have it in black and white writing on their own religous website - their equivalent of http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml that their clergy abused Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

The thing is I suspect you are shoddy on research but no matter If you are prepared to learn Im prepsred to help you. Using google I very much doubt you will find information on the non priest abusere. Butlook at it this way

955: Window cleaners - anbout 900 of them
306 : photographers - about 2,500 of them
490 - computer operaters - about 4,000

You claim I am shoddy on research and several lines later you claim there are only "about 4000" computer operators in the country.

Can you find a group which "punched above their weight" as much as RC clergy when it came to child abuse ?

ISAW wrote: »

It also tell you 1.7 million were over 25. i.e. about 3.5 million were of an age that they might be possible abusers.

so you think a 22 or 24 year old could not abuse children ? Given that different studies have shown that 48.5% and 50% of RC Priests are homosexual, would you allow a 22 year old student Priest babysit male children ?

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

lol You are scraping the bottom of the barrel if you are using the old " don't scapegoat us like the jews were scapegoated" argument.

It is a logically valid argument. In fact the idea that came to mind was the Dreyfus case.
By indulging yourself in the media myth you are framing the issue.

From the link I gave you "The bishop of Raphoe apologised for "poor judgements" in managing priests accused of "horrific acts of abuse".
Bishop Philip Boyce was speaking as a review of the County Donegal diocese found "a significant level" of clerical abuse cases in past decades."

Significant being four was it ? And Raphoe being the worst of all six diocese reported and all the others added together not having more abusers than Raphoe?

To come back to your poor analogy with the Jews, no I could not find the names of millions of Jews who also were accused of heinous crimes. Millions of Jews were executed but they were not each accused of heinous crimes.

Yes they were but I won't get into an argument about Mein Kamph.

Jews did not make up less than 00.1% of the population

They did and still do in quite a lot of places. Russia and Poland wo9uld have been exceptions. But you are mixing up tow groups. I was not suggesting Jews were abusers and also a tiny percentage of the population. i was suggesting they were blamed for wrongs they never committed. Snip the invalid comparison.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

You claim I am shoddy on research and several lines later you claim there are only "about 4000" computer operators in the country.

Correct group 490 in the census . If you dont believe me look up the link.

Can you find a group which "punched above their weight" as much as RC clergy when it came to child abuse ?

I have given you hundreds of them.

so you think a 22 or 24 year old could not abuse children ?

No i just told you the detail for 2011 isnt out with the actual population groupings. ButI think a 24 year old today who is a cleric would have been 14 ten years ago. It takes about 7 years to become a priest so If they went in directly after leaving school at 18 they would not be priests until 25.

Given that different studies have shown that 48.5% and 50% of RC Priests are homosexual, would you allow a 22 year old student Priest babysit male children ?

Would I allow a known homosexual babysit male children? Just as much as I would allow a known hetrosexual babysit female children.
You really should desist from the "homosexual" angle. It has little or nothing to do with pre pubescent child abuse.

Zorbas

ISAW wrote: »

Zorbas "For that reason I gave the example of Cardinal Brady as someone who belatedly rather than immediately expressed his regret at what he had done. "

Not as a cardinal! Nor as a bishop! Nor did he regret what he had done AFAIK. He is being criticised for what he didn't do. But I would challenge him on saying that if he is saying it in the sense that himself or the Church were the only people at fault. People in power made mistakes of judgement. He was not one of those people.
I respect this may be what you are trying to do. Please try harder.

Brief on Cardinal Brady:
-was installed as Archbishop of Armagh on 3 November, 1996.
- elevated to the College of Cardinals at a ceremony in St Peter’s Basilica, Rome, on Saturday 24 November 2007
http://www.armagharchdiocese.org/cardinal

In April 2010, Cardinal Brady, who was under pressure to resign and had publicly stated he was considering his position over his role in the cover-up of the activities of a pedophile priest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seán_Brady
Cardinal Brady, then Fr Brady, made Mr Boland swear an oath of secrecy as a teenager in May 1975 not to tell anybody except designated priests about the abuse being carried out by Smyth.
Mr Boland went on to sue the Armagh diocese in 1997 when it emerged that Smyth had gone on to abuse other children, although the cardinal and other priests had promised that he would never be able to target children again
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1205/1224308582678.html
Brendan Boland, 50, sued Cardinal Brady, the diocese of Ktilmore and Smyth's Norbertine Order.The High Court was told this morning that the proceedings had been settled and could be struck out.
In a statement following today's proceedings, Mr Boland said he had been abused by Smyth between 1973 and 1975, starting when he was 12 years old.He brought the matter to the attention of the church authorities, who convened an Ecclesiastical Court.
The then Fr Brady was one of three priests present at the court
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1130/bolandb.html
20 years later it was discovered that Smyth had gone on to abuse others - proof again that it takes time for ”evidence” to emerge.
On the credibility gap which exists between people and the Catholic Church. Consider His Holiness the Pope and how evidence is withheld.
As Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the sexual abuse of minors by priests was his responsibility to investigate from 2001, when that charge was given to the CDF by Pope John Paul II.[5] Before given this charge, Cardinal Ratzinger was theoretically privy to all sexual abuse cases within the Church. As Prefect of the CDF, Canon Law directed Bishops to report sexual abuse cases involving priests in their diocese to Cardinal Ratzinger. However, due to the obscurity of Canon Law, even within the Church, it is unknown whether this directive was actually followed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ratzinger_as_Prefect_of_the_Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith#Response_to_sex_abuse_scandal
Beleaguered Irish Cardinal Sean Brady has made a standing offer to meet with a survivor of clerical child abuse to deliver a personal apology, a Church spokesman told the Irish Examiner on Monday.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Cardinal-Brady-repeats-apology-offer-to-survivor-over-Brendan-Smyth-sexual-abuse-135086518.html#ixzz1hjWzm0dq
Please try harder to understand why there will be sceptism of change in the church for a long time and why on the basis of history such sceptism is well founded.

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

Brief on Cardinal Brady:
In April 2010, Cardinal Brady, who was under pressure to resign and had publicly stated he was considering his position over his role in the cover-up of the activities of a pedophile priest[/SIZE][/FONT]

Yes he was a bishop in 1996 and Cardinal in 2007. This would mean he dint have a "vatican responsibility " role till 2007. But yes, he would have been responsible for Armagh diocese since 1996. What decision did he make since 1996 which you claim was "corrupt£ or "covering up " etc. ? That's fifteen years, so you might have a list of decisions made for which you think he should resign?

Cardinal Brady, then Fr Brady, made Mr Boland swear an oath of secrecy as a teenager in May 1975 not to tell anybody except designated priests about the abuse being carried out by Smyth.[

Exactly1 Then father Brady I asked you what cases you have since he was made a bishop in 1196 It seems all anybody ever brings up is ca single case from the 1970s when he was not a bishop. Look! this isn't about Brady, it is about the suggestion that The church has members of the hierrarchy that are corrupt or covering up etc.

Mr Boland went on to sue the Armagh diocese in 1997 when it emerged that Smyth had gone on to abuse other children, although the cardinal and other priests had promised that he would never be able to target children again

Where is this promise? when did Brady as bishop promise this to Boland? Note Brady is not suing people he is suing the diocese or the Church. And it is a civil not a criminal action. As Cardinal/bishop Brady is responsible for the office he holds. So whatdid Brady do oin office which you claim is sue able? Office means he was making the decisions for the Church/diocese.


[quyote]]Brendan Boland, 50, sued Cardinal Brady, the diocese of Ktilmore and Smyth's Norbertine Order.The High Court was told this morning that the proceedings had been settled and could be struck out.[/quote]
So that's an admission of damages by the church but not Brady. Whr in the judgemsnt is Brady held in error?

]The then Fr Brady was one of three priests present at the court[

As was a stenographer at the High Court. How does that show the stenographer is guilty of something. And if the stenographer becomes a High Court Judge how is being a stenographer in any way showing they are corrupt as a judge?

20 years later it was discovered that Smyth had gone on to abuse others - proof again that it takes time for ”evidence” to emerge.

From which you argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and therefore we must assume guilt?


[quoite]i]On the credibility gap which exists between people and the Catholic Church. Consider His Holiness the Pope and how evidence is withheld.[/quote]

Okay letys

As Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF),

That would mean he had an very central office of hierarchical responsibility yes.

the sexual abuse of minors by priests was his responsibility to investigate from 2001,

Which is almost thirty years after the Smyth case. You rpoint being?

when that charge was given to the CDF by Pope John Paul II.

I do not deny his bone fides . I never have.

Before given this charge, Cardinal Ratzinger was theoretically privy to all sexual abuse cases within the Church.

Sweeping statement! Do you mean he knew and read every case that happened. I have already produced the number of cases on vatican files ~form memory ther are thousands . About ten per cent 250 or so ( from memory) are of pedophile priests. And they are allegations not convictions.


Yes I found where I discussed it
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74613788&postcount=2026
Of these cases, 300 involved allegations of "genuine paedophilia", he said. Most of the others concerned homosexual attraction to adolescents.


I can't see - what allegation you are making against Ratzinger/his office?

As Prefect of the CDF, Canon Law directed Bishops to report sexual abuse cases involving priests in their diocese to Cardinal Ratzinger.

Im a bit lost here above you said Ratzinger was Prefect now Law is which is it?

However, due to the obscurity of Canon Law, even within the Church, it is unknown whether this directive was actually followed

You are arguing against yourself here. You are saying "her is no evidence if this happened"

Beleaguered Irish Cardinal Sean Brady has made a standing offer to meet with a survivor of clerical child abuse to deliver a personal apology, a Church spokesman told the

YesI would also be sorry if the Church or society erred in the pastr. Bertie Ahern made a similar apology. That doesnot make Bertie a Child abuser or responsible for covering up child abuse does it?

i]Please try harder to understand why there will be sceptism of change in the church for a long time and why on the basis of history such sceptism is well founded.

Please try to understand why media myths blame the hioerarchy for a widespread conspiracy which never existed; blame fianna fail ( or any other government) for every economic mistake; blame the jews,blacks, workers etc.

The Pope isnt a child abuser and never supported or condoned child abuse.
The Vatican never had any policy to hide child abuse.
Bishops never had any such policy.
Some bishops ( in their own mind thinking it would be better for society/the victim/the church) did cover it up. [and I would argue In some cases not mentioning rape publically can be a better course]. For "some" read "ten or twenty in the last century" out of 100,000. It isn't "widespread"
Those ten or twenty never met in grouops to discuss how they wouold cover it up.
Some senior priests in diocese who had the bishops ear also didnt believe iot possible and prevented prosecution or hampered criminal investigation.
The problems of admit outside the church were mush worse and continue.

Now what decisions did Brady make as a bishop which implicate him in covering up child abuse?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

Would I allow a known homosexual babysit male children?

Actually I asked "Given that different studies have shown that 48.5% and 50% of RC Priests are homosexual, would you allow a 22 year old student Priest babysit male children ?" Bear in mind that Priests are forced celibates and the track record of this group of forced celibate men. ( as written on the official RC dublin diocesan website : "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" ( http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml ).

You claim to have supplied " Hundreds" of groups which have punched above their weight as much as rc clerics when it came to child abuse in Ireland. What other group of people in Ireland account for less than 00.1% of the population yet is responsible for "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused " ?


I'll put it to you another way as you seem to have a problem understanding statistics. Priests account for less than one in a thousand of the population in Ireland. Yet its admitted on the official RCC website relevant to the matter that 50 out of every thousand abused children have been abused by clerics.

And you still do not think child abuse was "endemic" in the Irish Catholic church, as the government said in one of its report findings ?

soterpisc

gigino wrote: »

Actually I asked "Given that different studies have shown that 48.5% and 50% of RC Priests are homosexual, would you allow a 22 year old student Priest babysit male children ?" Bear in mind that Priests are forced celibates and the track record of this group of forced celibate men. ( as written on the official RC dublin diocesan website : "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" ( http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml ).

You claim to have supplied " Hundreds" of groups which have punched above their weight as much as rc clerics when it came to child abuse in Ireland. What other group of people in Ireland account for less than 00.1% of the population yet is responsible for "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused " ?


I'll put it to you another way as you seem to have a problem understanding statistics. Priests account for less than one in a thousand of the population in Ireland. Yet its admitted on the official RCC website relevant to the matter that 50 out of every thousand abused children have been abused by clerics.

And you still do not think child abuse was "endemic" in the Irish Catholic church, as the government said in one of its report findings ?

What is the point you are trying to Make? That half of all priests are Gay? that 5% of all abuse that took place was by clerics?



Statistics today 2011 state that not one single new case has been reported in the last 10 years..


Most of the sexual abuse that took place in Ireland had nothing to do with the Church. That is not to negate the grave crimes of some priests/Bishops.

So where is this thread going? What's its aim. Is it just going to be a regurgitation of the failings of the Church/State of the 40s to 90's?


Celibacy does not make person a paedophile or a Homosexual or it does not make a latent homosexual a paedophile. Celibacy for the sack of being celibate is wrong. If you live you life for Christ dedicated to him in Prayer as committed to his message celibacy is a gift that allows you to live you live committed to his message. I have lived i many Orthodox communities where this is a strong tradition of celibate monks and as in the Catholic Church they see celibacy as a gift that some men are called to.


Abuse was not endemic in the Church. I went to a religious school run by nuns and many a time I would have been given a good slap for not doing my homework. Today it would been seen as abuse.. but in that time all teachers would to some extent given some corporal punishment. Not the best policy, but in its day it was used. Sexual abuse was not committed in every school run by religious. It did happen sadly, and too often in state fund Schools for Kids.

But if you were to compare Irish schools with English Boarding schools during the same period (and this is not to deflect blame) you will see that there was a lot higher sexual abuse committed there per capita of students.

No matter how much or how little sexual abuse that was committed by clerics, it was wrong. The reports are there to be read.

The Church has moved forward, the abuse has stopped.

Zorbas

ISAW wrote: »

Please try to understand why media myths blame the hioerarchy for a widespread conspiracy which never existed; blame fianna fail ( or any other government) for every economic mistake; blame the jews,blacks, workers etc.

Some bishops ( in their own mind thinking it would be better for society/the victim/the church) did cover it up. Those ten or twenty never met in grouops to discuss how they wouold cover it up.
Some senior priests in diocese who had the bishops ear also didnt believe iot possible and prevented prosecution or hampered criminal investigation.
Now what decisions did Brady make as a bishop which implicate him in covering up child abuse?

I never said he made the decisions that damn him as a bishop.
How can you enter into the minds of bishops and claim you know their thinking = no evidence.

Cardinal Daly agreed with the North's chief constable, Hugh Annesley, to end the church's previous practice of informing only the Vatican and to encourage bishops to report complaints to the police.
This Annesley-Daly deal triggered a fundamental change in the Irish hierarchy's approach to clerical paedophilia, according to a retired RUC detective who interrogated Smyth.
The Catholic Church then began to put aside substantial amounts of money in anticipation of compensation claims.
This was just months before the current Primate of All Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, was ordained coadjutor Archbishop of Armagh in February 1995.
Cardinal Brady has been under pressure in recent weeks after admitting he was at meetings in 1975 where two abused children signed vows of silence over complaints against Smyth.
The previously unknown timing of the 1994 deal points to the fact that Fr Smyth was still being discussed at the top level of the church hierarchy at that time.
And as assistant archbishop with right of succession to the primacy, Cardinal Brady would have been appraised by Cardinal Daly of the horrendous list of victims abused by Smyth since 1945
http://irishsalem.com/individuals/Politicians and Others/pat-rabbitte/cardinaldaly-secretdealwithruc-8apr10.php

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Actually I asked "Given that different studies have shown that 48.5% and 50% of RC Priests are homosexual, would you allow a 22 year old student Priest babysit male children ?"

And I answered you . If I know someone to be homosexual or celibate whether p-riest or not it would make no difference because i don't believe celibacy or homosexuality is a causal factor in the sexual abuse of pre pubescent children. You keep hopping off into red herring non issues.

Bear in mind that Priests are forced celibates and the track record of this group of forced celibate men.

There you go again! Look five per cent of abuse today is not by clerics. Nor was it ever. 5% of victims may have been victims of clerics at some at time in the past but99% plus of abusers were non clerics. Clerics just happened to have the opportunity to abuse more victims on average because the safeguards were not therr . And that was because the older generations were naive that pedophiles could take up such positions of authority.

You claim to have supplied " Hundreds" of groups which have punched above their weight as much as rc clerics when it came to child abuse in Ireland. What other group of people in Ireland account for less than 00.1% of the population yet is responsible for "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused " ?

Asked and answered. I gave you the numbers of about ten or twenty groups from the census. The media fail to report the occupations of the 100 or so child abusers per year abusers. I'm sure many will fit into the "4,000 or less" category. I did provide one babysitters and nannies. We know babysitters historically abused at a rate several times that of clergy. We also know from census figures that they come other carers "not otherwise specified" which ore in the hundreds and thus less than 0.1%

I'll put it to you another way as you seem to have a problem understanding statistics. Priests account for less than one in a thousand of the population in Ireland. Yet its admitted on the official RCC website relevant to the matter that 50 out of every thousand abused children have been abused by clerics.

Not exactly. What is admitted isn't just to do with pedophiles . It has to do with older teenagers as well. We know from reports that most RC clerical sexual abuse was male on male of older teenagers and not pre pubecent. We also know contact abuse was a minority and rape was a minority of that.

In the past yes it accounted for fifty per thousand i.e 950 per thousand were not victims of RC clerics. Alsoi we know that less than ten per thousand abusers were RC clergy. Some clerics had more than 100 victims. That is why the average is so high. So a single abusing cleric could account for the percentage of abuse for 2,000 victims. Ten clerics like that account 1,000 of for 20,000 victims. the other 19,000 victims might have been abused by 10,000 abusers Ten clerics in 10,000 abusers. You are more interested in the media reports on the ten than look at the ten thousand! Why?

And you still do not think child abuse was "endemic" in the Irish Catholic church, as the government said in one of its report findings ?

No. Because ten priests ween there are ten thousand non priests would question what your definition of endemic to society means.

and I still think you didn't pay attention to the "endemic" issue no more than you trot out the homosexual or celibacy as a cause when it suits you in order to avoid supporting the last claim. Then when challenged ion the issue to which you have hopped off into you later hop back to the unsupported claim. This will go on and on until you learn to argue properly or you are banned.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

l in black and white writing on their own religous website - their equivalent of http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml that their clergy abused Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused

Please stop doing this! You are quoting an opinion piece from a Newspaper which is linked by the Church website and you continually make out it is the official Church report. It isn't! Now I'm sure you can't do some proper research and provide the actual figures from a proper source but this is academically dishonest. Please go and read some of the reports and quote from them. "Read the report" does not mean "cut and paste out a bit out of context to suit your own biased position"

The Quadratic Equation

Zorbas wrote: »

The problem is solved

No it is not.
Although the reality is a very far cry from the usual hysterical and disingenuous claims spouted about the Catholic Church, an organistation of 1 billion people, the problem will never be solved in any organistaion, group or society. However, with proper policies, strict manangement and strict enforcement, hopefully it can be reduced to an absolute minimum.

gimmebroadband

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No it is not.
Although the reality is a very far cry from the usual hysterical and disingenuous claims spouted about the Catholic Church, an organistation of 1 billion people, the problem will never be solved in any organistaion, group or society. However, with proper policies, strict manangement and strict enforcement, hopefully it can be reduced to an absolute minimum.

I agree! No-one can say for sure that it can NEVER happen again no organisatin is perfect, but it is less likely to happen if the policies that are in place are adhered to 100%!

soterpisc

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No it is not.
Although the reality is a very far cry from the usual hysterical and disingenuous claims spouted about the Catholic Church, an organistation of 1 billion people, the problem will never be solved in any organistaion, group or society. However, with proper policies, strict manangement and strict enforcement, hopefully it can be reduced to an absolute minimum.

Good post and valid point. We all have to be careful to respect boundaries and not to let ourselves become complacent.

gimmebroadband

Bishop says renewal must come from within Church itself.

THE Catholic Church in Ireland must renew itself from within rather than blame its demise on society, culture or growing secularisation, the Archbishop of Dublin warned in his Christmas homily.

After another year when the Church's standing has taken a further battering, with the publication of the Cloyne Report, Dr Diarmuid Martin said "renewal in the Church must first come from conversion within the Church".

Speaking at midnight mass in Dublin's Pro-Cathedral on Christmas Eve, Dr Martin said: "It is very easy to point the finger and say that it is all due to society or to culture or to secularisation and even to hostility against faith".

"Conversion is not about fleeing from the realities of the world and society and culture and secularisation, it is about understanding them in a different light," he added.

more.....

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course the reason the people are demanding stats for something unproven is because claims are being made by others that the unproved abuse is still happening. The burden of proof is clearly on the positive claim.

Some statistics do exist.
Stats of sex crimes against children I have supplied cso link (by children i mean pre pubscent and by crime i mean convictions for child porn child rape etc.) for the last ten years - more than a thousand cases. I'm not aware of a single cleric Protestant or Catholic. Or Jew or Islamic for that matter.

Statistics for people now in State care - and these shocked me- show over 200 deaths form minors in their care in the last decade!

The idea that it is "deadlocked" or "trenches have been dug" suggests a balance. I would suggest that the proposers show that abuse is still happening. Failing to do they they must concede defeat.

kjw47

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No it is not.
Although the reality is a very far cry from the usual hysterical and disingenuous claims spouted about the Catholic Church, an organistation of 1 billion people, the problem will never be solved in any organistaion, group or society. However, with proper policies, strict manangement and strict enforcement, hopefully it can be reduced to an absolute minimum.

this also poses even bigger problems within the spiritual setting-- Because of the lack of mortal man to be able to read anothers true heart as is shown in these cases of pedophilia, Does one actually think these are men of God just because they wear a white collar and robe( or whatever) So when these men performed baptisms,confessions, etc, i would say it was for naught because they arent men of God. But the largest problem of all found in alot of religions( pedophiles or not) is that there isnt one mortal alive who can read anothers true heart to know for sure that they are saved, nor have they ever seen the book of life. So it is not truth if a mortal tells another they are saved.

ISAW

kjw47 wrote: »

this also poses even bigger problems within the spiritual setting-- Because of the lack of mortal man to be able to read anothers true heart as is shown in these cases of pedophilia, Does one actually think these are men of God just because they wear a white collar and robe( or whatever) So when these men performed baptisms,confessions, etc, i would say it was for naught because they arent men of God. But the largest problem of all found in alot of religions( pedophiles or not) is that there isnt one mortal alive who can read anothers true heart to know for sure that they are saved, nor have they ever seen the book of life. So it is not truth if a mortal tells another they are saved.

True . AFAIK Orthodox Anglicans and Roman Catholics believe one confesses to God. And Baptism isn't reserved for only priests to do . Technically anyone could do it. The thing is though when it comes to the law of the land people make decisions based on available evidence.

gimmebroadband

But in the case of Priests, an accusation is akin to being guilty until proven guiltier!;)

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

Look five per cent of abuse today is not by clerics. Nor was it ever. %% of victims may have been voctims of clerics at some at time in the past but99% plus of abusers were non clerics.

Getting excited again ISAW ?

Who knows what percentage of abuse today ( Wednesday 28th December ) is by clerics , but we know in the past 5.8% of abusers of boys were "clerics, religous teachers + brothers" ( SAVI report : I actually gave you the links, cut and pasted text etc ) . So you are right. Its not 5%. 5% is the figure on the official R.C. website : "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" ( http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml ).

Babysitters incidentally would be more than 00.1% of the population. Try harder.

ISAW

gimmebroadband wrote: »

But in the case of Priests, an accusation is akin to being guilty until proven guiltier!;)

In many countries and in Ireland yes. It isn't unique. Being a Republican might have similar reactions e.g. supporting SF or Fianna Fáil. Even "westbrits" are given a better profile
The attack on RC clergy in particular is rather targeted. For example in this thread over the lst few weeks I have looked into media reports of pedophiles and the actual rates of conviction. Now I know from Garda reports that there are over 1,000 conviction for offences over the last ten years in Ireland. I don't believe anyare priests.


Do an internet search. Take 100 results. How many articles of them use the word "pedophile" without "priest"? In fact ther are quite a few if you know how to find them - use some simple logical search parameters such as "-priest" or "-cleric"

The Pennsylvania Record - 13 Dec 2011
The much-anticipated preliminary hearing for accused pedophile Jerry Sandusky

Phnom Penh Post - 6 days ago
Convicted pedophile Alexander Trofimov , former chairman of the Koh Pous Investment Company, pardoned in Cambodia.

Ninemsn - 20 Dec 2011
Queensland Health stands behind its decision to employ a convicted pedophile and a man ordered to pay damages for software piracy.

Ninemsn - 19 Dec 2011
A South Australian pedophile with offences dating back more than half a century has been jailed again, this time for molesting children

Jan 14, 2003
Pedophile sites: MPs under cloud with rock star - smh.com.au

Sydney Morning Herald - all 90 news articles »
Oct 8, 2007
CTV.ca - Suspected pedophile digitally unmasked- Ctv News, Shows ...

CTV.ca - all 41 news articles »
Nov 10, 2010
Consumers Call for Boycott of Amazon Over 'Pedophile's Guide ...

Fox News - all 52 news articles »

That's 155 articles above in about a ten second search. I only read the first page of the 517 results search

But do a normal web or news search on "pedophile" and you will be pushed not to find a priest mentioned and all the cases form over a decade ago.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Getting excited again ISAW ?

Spelling corrected. If all you can resprt to is spelling flames you are going down in flames.

Who knows what percentage of abuse today ( Wednesday 28th December ) is by clerics

So you admit you do not know? Great we are getting somewhere. gigino finally admits the level of current abuse is unknown.
But as it happens it is known.
Thousands of child abuse cases go through the courts in Ireland and none are priests!
Of course it might be unicorns as well to use gigino's fallacy.
Please look up "proving a negative"

, but we know in the past 5.8% of abusers of boys were "clerics, religous teachers + brothers" ( SAVI report : I actually gave you the links, cut and pasted text etc ) .

Exactly! Cut and pasted. from a reference I originally gave you!

And
1. we don't know the reliabiality of thiose SAVI figures!
2. they don't apply to priests
3. WE dont even know if the abuse happened in Ireland
4. The "ministers" ( whom we dont know were RC priests or in Ireland ) accounted for a 1.4% abusers of boys.
5. the figures are also for older pubescent males who were under 18 i.e. they cover non pedophile abuse

You didnt actually supply anything ( other then unsupported opinion piece from the Irish times) to support the contention that at any stage in the past priests sexually abused 5% of pedophile victims.

So you are right. Its not 5%. 5% is the figure on the official R.C. website : "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" ( http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml ).

It isn't the official church fiogure. You are being disingenuous and mi9srepresenting an archive list of news reports as if they are Church research figures.

Babysitters incidentally would be more than 00.1% of the population. Try harder.

How so? Wher is your official stats shopwing people employed as babysitters are more than 0.1%. Im not talking about non documented non paid "friends" but the professional group of tax paying babysitters as catalogued in the labour statistics.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

2. they don't apply to priests

The SAVi report was in Ireland, not Timbucto or outer Mongolia. 5.8% of abusers of boys were clerics, religous teachers + brothers. However the figure as on the official R.C. website must be respected : "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" ( http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml
If that figure is good enough to be published on the official RC website to do with child abuse without contradiction....

As regards the number of babysitters in the country, every family of children gets different babysitters from time to time. There must be certainly more babysitters in the country than Priests, who are only less than 00.1% of the population. There are just over 3000 RC Priests in the country, according to the link I gave you earlier. If you ask the parents of the pupils in ONE large school in the country the names of everyone who babysat their kids you would get over 3000 names. And thats ONE school !

What other group of people in Ireland account for less than 00.1% of the population yet is responsible for "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused " ?

gimmebroadband