Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
The SAVi report was in Ireland, not Timbucto or outer Mongolia.
I have already told you SAVI does not claim the sexual abuse by "ministers" mentioned in SAVI is either by RC clergy or happened to Irish people or happened in Ireland. clearly you did not read the references i supplied you with . You have not ever read the report butyou keep parroting out a part of it which does not support the claim that more then 1% of abusers of pre pubescent children ( pedophiles) in Ireland were RC priests.5.8% of abusers of boys were clerics, religous teachers + brothers.
i.e. not priests. Only 1.4% of male victims were of "ministers"
Boys meaning "all males under 18" So it could be ephebophilia and not pedophilia . And you have already seen the sources for that.
And we just don't know if the clerical abuse mentioned happened in Ireland to Irish children.
I have shown you wher the report actually states that but as usual you ignored it!However the figure as on the official R.C. website must be respected :
Why? they might have a news article with quotes Jim Jones or WACO BranchDividians. That does not mean the RC Church agrees with them does it?If that figure is good enough to be published on the official RC website to do with child abuse without contradiction....
They repost the entire article. That doesnot mean the opinion in the article is their policy!
You do know what a disclaimer is? You might note "opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinion of the editor" etc.
Here:
http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/conditions_of_use.shtmlLimitations of Liability and Disclaimer of Warranties
a. The Child Protection Service is a distributor only, and not a publisher, of Submissions. Please be aware that there may exist Submissions or material that is inaccurate, misleading, or deceptive. All Submissions, statements, advice, and opinions made by users are those of such users only, and the Child Protection Service neither endorse nor shall be held responsible for the reliability or accuracy of any such Submission, statement, advice and/or opinions, or for any injury, loss, or damage which occurs as a result of such Submission, statement, advice, opinions, or other information provided.
Please stop harping on about this. I have stated I don't wholly disagree with the 5% figure
( I think it should probably be less than 4%) if you think otherwise produce an actual figure from a report you have actually read.As regards the number of babysitters in the country, every family of children gets different babysitters from time to time.
No they don't! Most I would reckon dont get professional babysitters at all or justdon't get babysitters full stop.There must be certainly more babysitters in the country than Priests, who are only less than 00.1% of the population.
Off you go and support that then! I have given you the official labour stats for "other service workers not otherwise specified" They list carers, nurses doctors etc. all under separate groups. There is no group for nannies or babysitters.There are just over 3000 RC Priests in the country, according to the link I gave you earlier.
What link? You mean the link I gave you originally? From the census? The 1951 census and the 71 and 81? Or just 2006 when no clerical abuse cases were listed?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.
REally? What school would that be? You are making this up as you go along!
A large school might have say 300 families involved. You are telling me thaton average every one of those families has had ten babysitters? And that such a school was in existence in 1970? WE are discussing adults abusing kids here. So we are discussing babysitters payed to do the job and over 18. And you are saying that for 100 child abusers in the 1980s and before not one of them will come from this group of babysitters?
Well can you then explain how SAVI says ( same reference as you http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf
That of the 66 abusers of males who were Authority figures ( 16% - the other 84% fall into all sorts of "groups" but let us just deal with the authority figures)
Figure 4.12: Comparisons of Categories of Perpetrators of Child
Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim ( and page before that)
That 4.2 % = higher than the 1.9 % of abusers of males ( sorry my error the 1.4% I referred to was females) were "babysitters" Table 4.11.And thats ONE school !
One fictional school for which you have no figures. But SAVI says more abusers were babysitters than Ministers.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 " ?
SAVI only refers to the percentage of abusers. But given "babysitters" are aboit two and a half times the rate of Clergy and given SAVI refers to abuse in the 1960 and 70s as peak when there were more priests. Mind you "non clergy" authority figures not under any category com in at 7.5 % of abusers of boys and 7.6% of girls. SAVI goes non to say "for girls babysitters constituted the biggest group" - 4.6% for girls and 4.2% for boys.
But as I have stated SAVI is not reliable in a statistical sense, and might not even refer to abuse in Ireland.0 -
With all the references to babysitter abusers- is there not a danger of demonising them and why consideration only for priests of whom moral standards would be even more expected?0
-
With all the references to babysitter abusers- is there not a danger of demonising them and why consideration only for priests of whom moral standards would be even more expected?
Correct. Plus there are a lot more babysitters than Priests. In the case of one family with small children which I know, they have had at least 11 different babysitters at least over the years - and thats just for one family. One lady sometimes looks after the kids in the afternoon when both parents are working. Another helps out when that lady is unavailable, and ms t helped once during illness. For evening babysitting duties they used to use ms x, but sometimes when she was studying for exams they used her sister ms y. They when X changed university they used ms w. Once ms w was sick and they used a neighbour,m ms z. Several years later ms h babysat one evening... and so on. All were paid cash ...most were students ....and its obvious if you add up all the babysittters in the country ( of four ands a half million people ) there has to be a lot more babysitters than Priests. I showed ISAW earlier the link for just over 3000 Priests in the country.
Its not surprising that on the official R.C. website is the statistic "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" ( http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml
You stated earlier in the thread it's between 4 and 5% : now you are saying it should be below 4%. Why are you changing your mind again as you go along ?I have stated I don't wholly disagree with the 5% figure
( I think it should probably be less than 4%)
Is it because you have difficulty explaining how your 4 to 5% of child abuse was caused by 00.1% of the population ?
Do not forget that according to the SAVI report, which was from figures taken and compiled in Ireland, 5.8% of abusers of boys were clerics , religous teachers + brothers, despite their tiny numbers. See the table on page 88 of the SAVI report, which I have shown you already.
On page 89 it says " 5.8 per cent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religous."
http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf0 -
Post deleted because it makes a personal assertion about another poster - one that posters were warned about before.
gigino is banned for 1 month.0 -
With all the references to babysitter abusers- is there not a danger of demonising them
i have already made this poiunt.and why consideration only for priests of whom moral standards would be even more expected?
why? why should you expect a priest to nbe "more moral " than other people? Why should anyone assume priests are holier than everyone else or thatnon priests can't be holy or holier than priests?
By the way you are aware that if you are suggesting other groups can be demonised then the same applies to priests being demonised? - which is my central point here!0 -
Advertisement
-
Does the following qualify as an example of how the church changed to bring in changes ensuring no abuses within the last 10 years:
"A PRIEST involved in a controversial out-of-court settlement after allegations of a sex assault has been banned from saying Mass where he now lives, in France, the Irish Independent has learned.
Father Andrew McCloskey paid out €20,000 in 2005 to a man who claimed he had been sexually assaulted by him when he was 18.
A second teenager also made allegations against the priest, though he never took legal action. And there was uproar in the cross-border Diocese of Derry when then Bishop Seamus Hegarty admitted that the priest was later given a job within the church counselling sex abuse victims.
The priest told parishioners in January 2005 that he was taking a leave of absence saying he had "made a mistake for which I have paid very dearly".
The abuse incident allegedly took place in the parochial house of St Mary's Church in the Creggan estate in Derry in 1992.
Fr McCloskey was transferred by the then Bishop Edward Daly shortly afterwards to the parish of Drumsurn 15 miles away."
Complete account on:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priest-banned-from-saying-mass-2975379.html0 -
Does the following qualify as an example of how the church changed to bring in changes ensuring no abuses within the last 10 years:
Complete account on:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priest-banned-from-saying-mass-2975379.html
The abuse incident allegedly took place in the parochial house of St Mary's Church in the Creggan estate in Derry in 1992.
Thats also in the link...
Any cases of new abuse commited in the last 10 years... Just one?.0 -
Correct. Plus there are a lot more babysitters than Priests. In the case of one family with small children which I know, they have had at least 11 different babysitters at least over the years - and thats just for one family. One lady sometimes looks after the kids in the afternoon when both parents are working. Another helps out when that lady is unavailable, and ms t helped once during illness. For evening babysitting duties they used to use ms x, but sometimes when she was studying for exams they used her sister ms y. They when X changed university they used ms w. Once ms w was sick and they used a neighbour,m ms z. Several years later ms h babysat one evening... and so on. All were paid cash ...most were students ....
Accodring to the census there are NOT a lot more FULLTIME babysitters than Priests. In the case of one family with small children which people know, they have had at least 11 different proests at least over the years - and thats just for one family. One priest sometimes looks after the kids in the afternoon when both parents are working. That priest is her brother full time priest but part time brother it seems:) Another helps out her mother and has a cup of tea with her, and another priest helped once during illness. Another buried her father and another her husband and another says mass every week at one Church while another says it at the other parish Church. She prefers to go to confession to another parish where there are two other priests. Two more took her to Lourdes. For evening prayers there is the order priest from the Monastery, they used to go to Taise prayer too, but sometimes when the chapel ther was closed they went on a retreat wher there were several other priests. They when the retreat house priests moved on there were three more replaced them. Once when the old parish priest was sick one from another neighbouring parish filled in and another time one a Jesuit came and replaced him when he had an operation.
Several years later a visiting priest from the missions said mass one evening... and so on. NONE were paid cash ...none were students ....all were fulltime.
It is also obvious iof you add up "priests plus religious" in the 1951 census you come in with about 25,000. If you include "theology students" and "readers in church" and "Ministers of the Eucharist" and "choir" so on you will pick up some more numbers.and its obvious if you add up all the babysittters in the country ( of four ands a half million people ) there has to be a lot more babysitters than Priests. I showed ISAW earlier the link for just over 3000 Priests in the country.
But babysitter and nannies as defined in the Official Census by "not otherwise" specified are just that. "Student" by the way is defined . You are not talking about a fulltime paid babysitter or nanny who does it for a living no more than a student reading the gospel from the alter or singing in a choir or helping the Vincent de Paul or sitting on the school board or doing anything else a priest might so is not a priest.Its not surprising that on the official R.C. website is the statistic "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" ( http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml
What is surprising is your continual reporting of this "opinion piece in an acchive as church policy.You stated earlier in the thread it's between 4 and 5% : now you are saying it should be below 4%. Why are you changing your mind again as you go along ?
Well if pushed I would think 4 plus or minus maybe one and a half which means between 2.5% and 5.5% It could be a little over five but I doubt that.Is it because you have difficulty explaining how your 4 to 5% of child abuse was caused by 00.1% of the population ?
We have been over that. It wasn't. If you look at the figuyres you will probably find it refers to abuse by clerics , brothers, nuns some lay order people or even anyoine under church Custody and mostly ( I mean 80 to 90 per cent of them) before 1980 with a peak in the 1950s 1960s and 1970s. The census of those days lists about 25,000 such people . It is a little over 1% . I think I pointed it pout to you before thatyou are out by a factor of thirteen?Do not forget that according to the SAVI report, which was from figures taken and compiled in Ireland,
And which I have shown you actually states that it does not refer to abuse in Ireland.
http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf
Page 25Fourth, as the focus was on the prevalence of abuse for those currently living in Ireland, no attempt was made to document whether the participants contacted were Irish citizens, or whether the abuse actually took place in Ireland.
But you constantly refuse to read SAVI and just parrot off a single stat which suits your position.
The updated /revisited SAVI report5.8% of abusers of boys were clerics , religous teachers + brothers, despite their tiny numbers.
http://www.drcc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/SAVI_Revisited.pdf
reports this as page 5
Clerical/religious ministers or clerical/religious teachers constituted 3.2% of abusers,
the sentence befoere that reads
Fathers constituted 2.5% of all abusers, with uncles (6.2%),
cousins (4.4%), babystitters (4.4%), and brothers (3.7%) among
the most common other perpetrators.
With the exception of fathers all higher than Ministers + religious teachers. And way higher than just Ministers alone.0 -
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priest-back-after-false-abuse-claim-2977206.htmlBishop Treanor said the unfounded allegation had had a devastating impact but stressed the priest returned with his character unblemished.0
-
Does the following qualify as an example of how the church changed to bring in changes ensuring no abuses within the last 10 years:
"A PRIEST involved in a controversial out-of-court settlement after allegations of a sex assault has been banned from saying Mass where he now lives, in France, the Irish Independent has learned.
A few things about this case and how it is exasctly the sort of media hype to which I referred
1. This happened 20 years ago
2. It happened in the North of Ireland not in the legal RoI juristiction
3. ALL priests whether guilty or not are removed from active parish duty when an allegation is made.
4. the "victim" was not a pre pubescent child or even a minor but was an adult at the time - 18years old.
5. Apparently ( we really don't know because no crime was committed since the "victim" was over the age of consent) the priest touched the "victim" in an inappropriate way. He apparently did it once - not a modus operandi for a pedophile is it?
So the story atits absolute most extreme is "A priest touched a young man ( over 18) once twenty years ago!"
How is that evidence of "widespread pedophile clerical sexual abuse and cover up" in the last ten years?
Or at any time in history for that matter?
Why do he Irish newspapers run with this and not publish much if anything about the other hundred cases per year?
On the other hand we have in the RoI at least 100 pedophile convictions of non priests every year. Why do you think it so important to find a conspiracy that does not exist? Why not focus on the actual crimes that do happen?0 -
Advertisement
-
The reason why priest sexual abuse cases are highlighted is because the church is expected to set standards and the nation is still in shock that the moral touchstone is below expectation. Is that so hard to understand?0
-
The reason why priest sexual abuse cases are highlighted is because the church is expected to set standards and the nation is still in shock that the moral touchstone is below expectation. Is that so hard to understand?
No, is it so hard to understand it has, and is, being dealt with, but aside from the actual facts, at the same time many vested intrests are also using the victims again as an opportuinity to invent multiple inaccurate myths, exaggerations and slurs ? This thread being a very good example.0 -
I'll ask you again then. Why do you think a priest should be holier and the rest of people not so holy? Can't everyone else have the SAME moral standards? Can non priests not be holy?
Now it does not justify a priest groping an eighteen year old nor anyone else doing it but the point is that this is from two decades ago and is being spun as a recent "pedophile" sexual abuse case. Without justifying them, I don't find it "shocking" that anyone can make mistakes like that which are NOT pedophile abuse.
Is it so hard for you to understand just who is committing the pedophile abuse nowadays and just who was in the past? Even at it's worst when the church didn't have vetting and didn't have child protection policies the percentage of pedophiles who were priests was less than one per cent! So how come you are not so shocked by the 99% plus of non priests who abused kids? How come they get ignored?
And where is the evidence of widespread pedophile abuse and coverup by the Vatican or the hierarchy?0 -
Not many realise what a huge problem this is, that many priests are falsely accused of abuse. There is a book at Amazon titled:
Catholic Priests Falsely Accused: The Facts, The Fraud, The Stories.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1466425334/ref=as_li_tf_til?tag=whatdoesthepr-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1466425334&adid=1CC9Q52FT54NN9BTC2C9It's a chilling tale of how decades-old claims of abuse by Catholic priests become 'credible'. David F. Pierre tells the sordid story the mainstream media won't touch.0 -
I'll ask you again then. Why do you think a priest should be holier and the rest of people not so holy? Can't everyone else have the SAME moral standards?
A priest goes through some exhaustive tests and assessments which ordinary citizens are not subjected to or required to undertake before employment. Even before they can be accepted for the seminary, they face psychological tests and a conference looking for qualities such as expected from a true disciple of Jesus, good caring and loving human being, with balanced and stable character, spirituality, holiness etc. No other employment or vocation is so searching of the morality of the individual who wishes to be a priest.
After vocation is confirmed the training of up to 6 years is designed to produce an individual concerned with guiding people in the eternal order rather than the temporal order (the here and now of life) or material well-being which is largely the concerns of non-priests.
There is a substantive difference in the role and expectations of priests compared with the rest of us. It is shocking that so many priests have failed after all their selection and assessment process, theological training and the fact that they as church representative are supposed “to proclaim and explain every aspect of the moral order”.
Most people would prefer not to have themselves compared to the moral standards of priests for the obvious reasons.0 -
What's even more shocking is that many children are being abused by those whom they should trust the most -close family members! :eek:0
-
So is this thread about priests or not ? Do the crimes of others somehow diminish or reduce the crimes of priests? Why keep making irrelevant comparisons? Post to another thread on child abuse for those issues not concerned with priests - perhaps that may satisfy the need to properly deal with the other criminals.gimmebroadband wrote: »What's even more shocking is that many children are being abused by those whom they should trust the most -close family members! :eek:0 -
So is this thread about priests or not ? Do the crimes of others somehow diminish or reduce the crimes of priests? Why keep making irrelevant comparisons? Post to another thread on child abuse for those issues not concerned with priests - perhaps that may satisfy the need to properly deal with the other criminals.
Because the media seems only to highlight the 5% of historical abuse that took place by clerics and not the 95% of other abuse..... What would you like to see discussed in the thread? There has not been one reported case of abuse in the last 10 years of abuse commited in the last 10 years in Ireland.0 -
So is this thread about priests or not ? Do the crimes of others somehow diminish or reduce the crimes of priests? Why keep making irrelevant comparisons? Post to another thread on child abuse for those issues not concerned with priests - perhaps that may satisfy the need to properly deal with the other criminals.
What Criminals would that be, the 'accused who are guilty until proven guiltier? My comment on non-clerical child abusers is to show how biased the media are against priests. They never publish about the 99% of abusers with the same fervour accused priests are! :rolleyes:0 -
A priest goes through some exhaustive tests and assessments which ordinary citizens are not subjected to or required to undertake before employment. Even before they can be accepted for the seminary, they face psychological tests and a conference looking for qualities such as expected from a true disciple of Jesus, good caring and loving human being, with balanced and stable character, spirituality, holiness etc. No other employment or vocation is so searching of the morality of the individual who wishes to be a priest.
After vocation is confirmed the training of up to 6 years is designed to produce an individual concerned with guiding people in the eternal order rather than the temporal order (the here and now of life) or material well-being which is largely the concerns of non-priests.
There is a substantive difference in the role and expectations of priests compared with the rest of us. It is shocking that so many priests have failed after all their selection and assessment process, theological training and the fact that they as church representative are supposed “to proclaim and explain every aspect of the moral order”.
Most people would prefer not to have themselves compared to the moral standards of priests for the obvious reasons.
Indeed.. I have highlighted in Black what I agree with...
But at the bottom of your statement you should have said. ....moral standards of a small minority of priests.. That is the problem that people today are generalising the defects of some priests on all priests...
As for assessments and training well its not only Priests who are assessed, it or it should be anyone who works with Kids. Teachers, Social workers, etc...
Also of the 5% of the abuse in Ireland some was of religious brothers who were not priests and who did not have the same training as priests.. Not that its an excuse for their crimes, just to make the point they were not priests.0 -
Advertisement
-
A priest goes through some exhaustive tests and assessments which ordinary citizens are not subjected to or required to undertake before employment. Even before they can be accepted for the seminary, they face psychological tests and a conference looking for qualities such as expected from a true disciple of Jesus, good caring and loving human being, with balanced and stable character, spirituality, holiness etc. No other employment or vocation is so searching of the morality of the individual who wishes to be a priest.
Not true historically! Psychological tests and profiling are more recent.
so what? One could claim the same of physicists.After vocation is confirmed the training of up to 6 years is designed to produce an individual concerned with guiding people in the eternal order rather than the temporal order (the here and now of life) or material well-being which is largely the concerns of non-priests.
As there is of police, doctors and bankers. Your point being?There is a substantive difference in the role and expectations of priests compared with the rest of us.Most people would prefer not to have themselves compared to the moral standards of priests for the obvious reasons.
Nice try at defamation there without actually saying anything.
What obvious reasons? Care to name names?0 -
So is this thread about priests or not ?
Not - it is about clerics of all religions not just RC priests. and it is about them with respect to the wider society. And about sexual abuse of pre pubescent children ion particular. Im happy to discuss the older homosexual abuse of teenagers by men and women butthe mods are not keen on that avenue.Do the crimes of others somehow diminish or reduce the crimes of priests?
LOL. but you haven't shown ANY from the last decade! And you haven't shown a "widespread conspiracy by the Church" or "Vatican involvement"Why keep making irrelevant comparisons?
Exactly! why make claims about abuse with which you have no data to compare i.e. why when there are a thousand pedophiles convicted in the last decade and not one priest are you so interested in the priests?Post to another thread on child abuse for those issues not concerned with priests - perhaps that may satisfy the need to properly deal with the other criminals.
We have been over this before. All child abuse references belong in this thread by a mods decision. Also non clerical abuse is valid in so far as it gives an idea of the level of clerical abuse ( currently ZERO for the last decade as far as we know) .0 -
Indeed.. I have highlighted in Black what I agree with...
But at the bottom of your statement you should have said. ....moral standards of a small minority of priests.. That is the problem that people today are generalising the defects of some priests on all priests...
As for assessments and training well its not only Priests who are assessed, it or it should be anyone who works with Kids. Teachers, Social workers, etc...
Also of the 5% of the abuse in Ireland some was of religious brothers who were not priests and who did not have the same training as priests.. Not that its an excuse for their crimes, just to make the point they were not priests.
Yes the brothers level was much higher than priests I reckon. Butthe issue of
It is shocking that so many priests have failed after all their selection and assessment process, theological training and the fact that they as church representative are supposed “to proclaim and explain every aspect of the moral order”.
seems a cop out that this same standard of "every aspect of the moral order" should not apply to swimming coaches or teachers or parents or uncles or babysitters.
Why not?0 -
Because the media seems only to highlight the 5% of historical abuse that took place by clerics and not the 95% of other abuse..... What would you like to see discussed in the thread? There has not been one reported case of abuse in the last 10 years of abuse commited in the last 10 years in Ireland.
Sorry that is less than 1% of abusers who were RC clerics. They did have a higher average number of victims.0 -
Repetition that because cases of child abuse by priests over the last decade have not been uncovered = no child abuse by priests = false premise. Historically the church have been expert at hiding abuses (don’t ask for examples – just refer to Cloyne et al) so its more likely than not that cases will come to light despite settlements etc.
Repetition that priests should not face such media attention or criticism than non-priests = denial of the fact that the church sets itself above everyone as the promoter and definer of morality. Show me a swimming coach who has not had equal media attention and criticism in any case.
Repetition that the problem of child abuse by priests has been solved = unhelpful pretence and a rush to hastily dislocate the church from the past and recover the halo effect.
Repetition that because the cases brought against priests have not been successful; this implies proof positive that there is innocence. Rape convictions have a low rate of success for the obvious difficulties of legal proof but that does not mean that a lot of rape cases brought are false even in the case of those involving priests.
Rejection of opinion except when it suits e.g. “Yes the brothers level was much higher than priests I reckon” = how dare anyone reckon?
Could go on but am against any more repetition.0 -
Repetition that because cases of child abuse by priests over the last decade have not been uncovered = no child abuse by priests = false premise.
The logical fallicies are on your side of the issue. They ahve been pointed out above
"Argument from silence"
"Argument from ignorance"
"proving a negative"
"Shifting the burden"
"affirming the consequent"
"ad hominem"
And that is to just list off a few.
People are not claiming a negative that they have to prove! Your side are claiming that abuse is rife and widespread and church cover ups and all that sort of thing. The burden is on those claiming abuse to prove it. As for the other side I have produced ample evidence of non clerical abuse thousands of cases in the last decade and I have seen none by RC priests.
I accept that I can not deduce the Sun will rise tomorrow but I can say that based on the fact that I have witnessed it rose for the last ten years I do not think it is not going to rise tomorrow and some space alien conspiracy for example is going to prevent it rising. I have no evidence of the space aliens nor have I evidence of current abuse or historical widespread cover ups by the Vatican ( except maybe from Dan Browne books)Historically the church have been expert at hiding abuses (don’t ask for examples – just refer to Cloyne et al)
Now that the "current abuse" claims have collapsed you are off into "historically"
How historically? How recent?
How many cases?
How many bishops covered up how many cases?
Please don't try "don't ask for evidence"? If you propose something the buurden is on you to prove it! It is a logical fallacy called "burden of evidence"
I don't deny some bishop's did in fact in a few cases either hinder an investigation or delay it or act 9in advance of the law acting on a criminal case of the sexual abuse of children. I don't believe I have any evidence so far of say three bishops sitting down and colluding i.e. discussing various abuse cases and deciding to hide or cover them up or bury them.
I don't have evidence of bishops disregarding the law
Where does Cloyne show widespread abuse, collusion or Vatican involvement?so its more likely than not that cases will come to light despite settlements etc.
so we have over a thousand pedophiles convicted inthe last ten years and zero priests . How come that?Repetition that priests should not face such media attention or criticism than non-priests = denial of the fact that the church sets itself above everyone as the promoter and definer of morality.
Priests, blacks, protestants, Jews, homosexuals electricians should be treated the same under the law and not made a special case. Do you consider the media "balanced" if they continually report clerical abuse when they have not a single case in the last ten years and over a thousand non clerical cases? Why is ther scant reporting of non clerical abuse and wall to wall coverage of the same clerical abusers from decades ago?
You might be to young to remember the same was done about blacks and Jews and you are certainly to young to have witnessed butyou can read about the infamous about Dreyfuss case. Butyou are not too young to know about
"WMD in Iraq" and all the claims about "islamofacists" and "muslims" and all the fear and hatred whipped up over that! And wher were the WMD and how was Saddam "training terrorists"
WE now know better and millions are dead because of the fake WMD and terrorism claims.
That does not mean Saddam was all wonderfull butit does mean the media hype about WMD was just that a MYTH!Show me a swimming coach who has not had equal media attention and criticism in any case.
I don't intend to persecute swim Ireland like the RCC. But Ill give you an example further afiels . A major US college football team. Indicted on 42 counts of child molestation dating from 1994 to 2009, though the alleged abuse may date as far back as the 1970s. Of course the media were busy trying to lynch priests at the time.
The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, was the first to report on the grand jury investigation, in March 2011. T he story did not receive much attention outside of the immediate area,and many readers at the time assailed the newspaper for impugning Penn State's reputationsRepetition that the problem of child abuse by priests has been solved = unhelpful pretence and a rush to hastily dislocate the church from the past and recover the halo effect.
Child protection policies ( well in advance of the state) mean that what can be done is done. I can not say no priest will ever abuse again no more than the National Roads Authority can say people will not drink and drive or speed or anyoine die on the roads. What I can say is "show me a way in which you think anyone ( not just a priest) might abuse any child under RCC care and a policy will be created and followed to prevent that happening. Meanwhile over 2000 minors died in State care in Ireland in the last decade!Repetition that because the cases brought against priests have not been successful; this implies proof positive that there is innocence.
In criminal cases innocence does not have to be proved it is assumed!
You on the other hand seem to like the "lynch law" kangaroo court type justice wher we assume guilt and have to prove innocence! Just like WMD in Iraq.Rape convictions have a low rate of success for the obvious difficulties of legal proof but that does not mean that a lot of rape cases brought are false even in the case of those involving priests.
You are back to the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" fallacy.
I know it could also be pixiex and space aliens doing the abuse and I have no evidence of that either. Maybe the papers should have wall to wall coverage of "pedophile pixies"?Rejection of opinion except when it suits e.g. “Yes the brothers level was much higher than priests I reckon” = how dare anyone reckon?
I have supplied the stats from several sources in this discussion. My "reckoning" is based on published statistics, SAVI , commission reports, international comparisons etc.
Feel free to pick them over if you want to actaully read the entire reports as I did.
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/
http://www.rirb.ie/resact.asp
http://www.drcc.ie/media/savi-report/
Jenkings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Anti-Catholicism:_The_Last_Acceptable_Prejudice
Shakeshaft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charol_Shakeshaft
I find the same unsupported repetition again and again and they same spin put on the same "trial by media" casesCould go on but am against any more repetition.
Go on if you wish but try and produce some actual evidence. Meanwhile look up "manufacturing consent" and Chomsky.0 -
Repitition is no good as an argument as already pointed out and bringing in the irrelevant such as WMD etc is not worthy of comment. Just more or the same old same old so will not add to the repitition.0
-
Historically the church have been expert at hiding abuses
The is just yet more of the same prejudice.Prejudice
1. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
'The Church' consists of 1 billion people, so no 'The Church' was not. This is trying to let the individual perpetrators and the individual Bishops who did not deal with it properly off the hook by trying to blame the entire Church.
If a dozen Irish politicians are guilty of corruption, you would not dream of claiming that the Irish Republic is corrupt. People who are genuine about the matter are able to differentiate, and know the importance of doing so.
Historically some very incompetent Bishops very wrongly tried to hide abuse for the wrong reasons, including protecting the name of the Children involved. Whether people today want to acknowledge it or not, there was until recently a stigma in Irish society against anyone that was a victim of abuse as well as abusers.0 -
The Quadratic Equation wrote: »The is just yet more of the same prejudice.
'The Church' consists of 1 billion people, so no 'The Church' was not. This is trying to let the individual perpetrators and the individual Bishops who did not deal with it properly off the hook by trying to blame the entire Church.
If a dozen Irish politicians are guilty of corruption, you would not dream of claiming that the Irish Republic is corrupt. People who are genuine about the matter are able to differentiate, and know the importance of doing so.
Historically some very incompetent Bishops very wrongly tried to hide abuse for the wrong reasons, including protecting the name of the Children involved. Whether people today want to acknowledge it or not, there was until recently a stigma in Irish society against anyone that was a victim of abuse as well as abusers.
It seems to me that that is the key, If blame can be placed on the entire Church and not on the individuals within who were the abusers, then the Church loses credibility, and then silenced! She will not be allowed a voice in Society, and that is the first step to persecution!
5 steps to persecution:
1. Stigmatising the targeted group,
2. Marginalizing its role in society,
3. Vilifying it for alleged crimes or misconduct,
4. Criminalizing it,
5. And finally, persecuting it outright.0 -
Advertisement
-
Repitition is no good as an argument as already pointed out and bringing in the irrelevant such as WMD etc is not worthy of comment. Just more or the same old same old so will not add to the repitition.
If you can't hold a rational debate founded on the facts why are you posting on this forum?0
Advertisement