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
-
Repitition is no good as an argument as already pointed out
Well that in itself is tea logical contradiction!
If you already pointed out that "repetition is not a criterion for a good argument" why are you repeating it?
By the way as I pointed out people keep repeating the same unsupported cloaimns and logical fallacies. Why blame me for indicating such?
If they repeated the claim like
"the Holocaust never happened" or
"there is no historical Jesus"
why blame me for continually showing them up on that and exposing the weaknesses of their arguments?and bringing in the irrelevant such as WMD etc is not worthy of comment.
You seem to have a problem with logical consistency.
Maybe you thing two oranges and three oranges are five oranges and two apples plus three apples are five apples but you can't tell me what two elephants and three elephants are because you only learned in apples and oranges? LOL!
If you can't abstract the logical operation from the actual entities then don't claim it is irrelevant.Just more or the same old same old so will not add to the repitition.
Well at least your cop out is something new. The " I already know everything and know you can't be right so I have my fingers in my ears" play.
Then again maybe it isnt . Look up "argument from authority"
Bye the way, if you can show where I am logically inconsistent then please feel free to do so.0 -
Interesting report out soon ( currently with AG*). On children who died in state care. Of the 200 over the last decade about two thirds were not by natural causes. That's about 130 deaths. And no clerics involved. How much coverage will it get compared to cases of clerics from decades ago?
*Attorney General0 -
-
-
An essay written by Brian W. Clowes, Ph.D., director of research for Human Life International.
"Homosexuality and the Church Crisis"Due to clergy sex abuse scandals centered primarily in the Northern hemisphere, the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church has been subjected to an opportunistic siege by prominent individuals and organizations who see the chance to advance their goals, including the ordination of women and the suspension of the requirement for priestly celibacy.
There is also a strongly defensive element to this strategy. Opponents of the Church know that there is a well-documented and strong correlation between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse, but claim that there is no evidence supporting this connection.
A very small number of Catholic priests and other leaders have taken advantage of their positions of authority and influence in order to gain sexual favors or to take advantage of the helpless. The problem of clerical child sexual molestation, particularly in the United States and Europe, has been widely exposed and publicized over the past decade.
During the crisis currently being discussed, homophile activists within and outside the Catholic Church have done everything they can to divert attention away from even the possibility that there may be a higher percentage of homosexuals among the priesthood than in the general public, and that this may be the root cause of the problem of child sexual molestation within the Church. These activists particularly seek to deny the link between homosexuality and child sexual molestation.
more.....0 -
Advertisement
-
gimmebroadband wrote: »An essay written by Brian W. Clowes, Ph.D., director of research for Human Life International.
"Homosexuality and the Church Crisis"
homophile activists within and outside the Catholic Church have done everything they can to divert attention away from even the possibility that there may be a higher percentage of homosexuals among the priesthood than in the general public, and that this may be the root cause of the problem of child sexual molestation within the Church
Good post, and reinforcing what some people have said all along. I pointed out different studies and gave the links to them , which showed homosexuality in the RCC priesthood was 48% ( in one study ) and 50% in another study. Perhaps if enforced celibracy was not compulsory,there would not have been as big a problem ? Children were the easiest to molest / easiest to bully / less likely to report or complain. If there were married women in the clergy / hierarchy its unlikely there would have been as much clerical child abuse / cover ups, due to their influence.0 -
Good post, and reinforcing what some people have said all along. I pointed out different studies and gave the links to them ,
I don't think you did. I think you copied other poeoples links and you extracted the bits you wanted from them. which is acceptable to do so long as
1. Your quote is in the original context
2. You acknowledge where you got source ( i.e me or others posting here or other pages referring to your source ) if you didn't actually find it yourself.which showed homosexuality in the RCC priesthood was 48% ( in one study ) and 50% in another study.
And which studies would those be and how did you get them?
Could you cite them please?
By the way i have been posting in this thread for years ( and I am sure you are aware) that
1. Homosexuality isn't a causal factor in abuse i.e. abusres may be homosexual but their homosexuality itself does not necessarily make them abnusers
2. With respect to clerical sexual abuse most of it ( among RC clergy) was homosexual
in nature ( i.e against older teenage adolescents/young men not against pre pubescent kids ( these kids which are main group about which I post with respect to sexual abuse)Perhaps if enforced celibracy was not compulsory,there would not have been as big a problem ?
And again we have addressed that issue several times.
1. Celibacy isn't enforced it is voluntary
2. There is no convincing evidence that celibacy no more than homosexuality causes abuse. Are celibate Buddhist monks child abusers for example?
In fact almost all RC priests are celibate and don't abuse.
On the other hand - No abusers are celibate!
It isn't a "big" problem. In spite of a HUGE media focus, there are almost no clerical cases worldwide over the past ten years.
There are thousands of not tens of thousands of non clerical cases annually.Children were the easiest to molest / easiest to bully / less likely to report or complain.
I agree. You point being?If there were married women in the clergy / hierarchy its unlikely there would have been as much clerical child abuse / cover ups, due to their influence.
And again there isn't any evidence for this.
By the way it is a ridiculous non argument for female clergy. Less children should be abused - in fact NO children should be abused - whether with or without female clergy.0 -
Interesting report out soon ( currently with AG*). On children who died in state care. Of the 200 over the last decade about two thirds were not by natural causes. That's about 130 deaths. And no clerics involved. How much coverage will it get compared to cases of clerics from decades ago?
*Attorney General
I don't see the relevance. Most children who die in State care do not die because of the actions of the state. Some deaths may be contributed to by negligence or inaction on the part of the State but not as a result of direct action. And these incidents are all subject to coroners inquests so nothing can really be hidden. In contrast to clerical sex abuse, where it was the deliberate actions of priests and their superiors that caused the damage and it was all actively covered up by those involved.
In any case, it has already received lots of coverage, especially in relation to that young lad from Blanchardstown who was murdered and found in Meath.0 -
I don't see the relevance. Most children who die in State care do not die because of the actions of the state. Some deaths may be contributed to by negligence or inaction on the part of the State but not as a result of direct action. And these incidents are all subject to coroners inquests so nothing can really be hidden.
The trawl has revealed that almost 60pc of children who died in state care during the period died of unnatural causes -- 115 of the 196 deaths examined were categorised as 'unnatural deaths'. -http://www.independent.ie/national-news/115-children-in-state-care-died-of-unnatural-causes-2980314.html
All clerical abuse must by definition be by guess what - clerics?In contrast to clerical sex abuse, where it was the deliberate actions of priests and their superiors
You are doing the usual spinning! Ignoring the other 99 per cent plus of abusers. And ignoring the people who actually died not of natural causes while in state care.That caused the damage and it was all actively covered up by those involved.
Little if any of the abuse was covered up by the church.
Can you list how many cases overall and of them how many you claim were covered up?In any case, it has already received lots of coverage, especially in relation to that young lad from Blanchardstown who was murdered and found in Meath.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1217/1224309215657.html
His sister Cathriona McAnaspie said some of the HSE reports could explain how he was cared for before his death. She had sought access to reports written about the teenager by his guardian ad litem, who was appointed by a court when he first went into HSE care in 2005.0 -
The trawl has revealed that almost 60pc of children who died in state care during the period died of unnatural causes -- 115 of the 196 deaths examined were categorised as 'unnatural deaths'. -http://www.independent.ie/national-news/115-children-in-state-care-died-of-unnatural-causes-2980314.html
Dying of unnatural causes does not mean their death was caused by the actions of the state. Murder, overdose and suicide are all unnatural causes but are not caused by the actions of a state worker.All clerical abuse must by definition be by guess what - clerics?
You are doing the usual spinning! Ignoring the other 99 per cent plus of abusers. And ignoring the people who actually died not of natural causes while in state care.
I'm not ignoring them. They're irrelevant to the point. You brought up a report on the issue of the deaths of children in state care in a thread about clerical sex abuse. I was demonstrating the differences between the two issues and why it is not relevant. There is a difference between harm caused to children by direct actions of their carers and the deaths caused to children in state care in the report.Little if any of the abuse was covered up by the church.
Can you list how many cases overall and of them how many you claim were covered up?
Are you for real? Are you suggesting that priests weren't moved from parish to parish when they were reported? How many cases were brought voluntarily to the Gardaí by those in charge?http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1217/1224309215657.html
His sister Cathriona McAnaspie said some of the HSE reports could explain how he was cared for before his death. She had sought access to reports written about the teenager by his guardian ad litem, who was appointed by a court when he first went into HSE care in 2005.
I don't see your point here. You're just supporting my point by showing it is covered in the media.0 -
Advertisement
-
Dying of unnatural causes does not mean their death was caused by the actions of the state. Murder, overdose and suicide are all unnatural causes but are not caused by the actions of a state worker.
Then the same applies to victims of clerical abuse or of people who went to Industrial schools does it not? Does a brother or priest cause someone to murder overdose or suicide 30 years later? I'm happy to accept that people who attended church Managed institutions had problems in which the management shares responsibility and indeed for which tens of thousands have received some compensation. so how come the same does not apply to state run institutions?
And as regards "caused by the State" it isnt a question of that but of responsibility. Of course the State will distance themselves because this in the long run means thy have to pay damages.I'm not ignoring them. They're irrelevant to the point. You brought up a report on the issue of the deaths of children in state care in a thread about clerical sex abuse. I was demonstrating the differences between the two issues and why it is not relevant.
I'm only pointing out the spin. We constantly hear about one or two clerics in 200,000 and about the same dozen or so clerics over decades from a half century ago. I dont think we should forget than but child abuse continues to happen by non clerics and child abuse happened then by 100 times as many non clerics! Also give the inordinate amount of attention on children ( few if any of whom actually died from abuse in church responsibility over a century) don't you find it extraordinary that in a the most recent decade we have over 200 deaths?There is a difference between harm caused to children by direct actions of their carers and the deaths caused to children in state care in the report.
So we can disregard all the abuse in any Church institutions which was not direct abuse?Are you for real? Are you suggesting that priests weren't moved from parish to parish when they were reported?
Yes i am for real. Very few of these cases happened.
If you look you will find the same cases hyped in the media.
The numbers of cases of these are in single digit figures and the numbers of pedophiles in dozens. The total number of sex related cases ( and this would include priests marrying or committing adultery with another married adult or the housekeeper having a child for the priest) number ( from memory) about 3000 ten per cent of which relate to children and three quarters of the remaining 300 in a very short period.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74992109&postcount=2196But you have seen that just as media reports on John Jay were coming out ther numbers of cases reported to the Vatican exploded for the US only. 300 cases worldwide over 50 years but 250 of them in the US between 2002-4 ~just after that report came out.
The source for the above is actual Vatican records over the last century and completely demolishes you "moving all of them around" conspiracy. Yes some ( i.e. singular digits) priests were moved. It was against policy and highly irregular in the few cases it happened.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74278975&postcount=1905The whole issue we are discussing is about the "pedophile priests " myth and the allegations of a cover up of priests abusing kids by the Vatican or hierarchy. Very few clergy were involved and the Vatican didn't cover it up.
And we DO know ther were 12 priests involved!
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/03-07.php
Table 24: Position and Number of Reported Sexual Abusers – Male Industrial and Reformatory Schools
234 male abusers reported 12 females reported
12 were priests
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74231566&postcount=721 . the numbers of child sex abusers who were non clergy (e.g. swimming coaches , teachers, family members) are a hundred times more than clergy!
2. The Church never organised child sexual abuse. In the worst cases of church run institutions there are between 14 and 26 Priests listed as abusers over 70 years and from a population of 170,000 children and 25,000 religious brothers nuns and priests ( at any one time so the numbers are higher) maybe a fifth of which ( im guessing 5,000 but I gave the Census data earlier) were priests
That's 170k kids
5,000 Priests
14-26 sexual abusing Priests ( not all pedophiles) over 70 years!How many cases were brought voluntarily to the Gardaí by those in charge?
How many non clerical abuse cases were brought? Given there were a hundred times as many non clerical abusers one might expect a thousand. But again you find convictions maybe in the dozens.I don't see your point here. You're just supporting my point by showing it is covered in the media.
Covered by saying "he was in HSE care." So who was responsible for him his sister or the HSE?0 -
Then the same applies to victims of clerical abuse or of people who went to Industrial schools does it not? Does a brother or priest cause someone to murder overdose or suicide 30 years later? I'm happy to accept that people who attended church Managed institutions had problems in which the management shares responsibility and indeed for which tens of thousands have received some compensation. so how come the same does not apply to state run institutions?
There is a big difference between a social worker not checking up on a child in care and a priest buggering a young boy. One is an action and the other is an inaction. The HSE may be accused of failing to prevent a death ot injury to a child in care but in the case of clerical abuse is direct.And as regards "caused by the State" it isnt a question of that but of responsibility. Of course the State will distance themselves because this in the long run means thy have to pay damages.
The state are limitied in what they can do. They can't lock up children to prevent them hanging out with the wrong people and getting in trouble. In most cases these children are severely damaged before coming into care. In the case of clerical abuse the damage was caused while they were in care and caused by their carers directly. The management in many cases ignored what was going on when they could have taken action.I'm only pointing out the spin. We constantly hear about one or two clerics in 200,000 and about the same dozen or so clerics over decades from a half century ago. I dont think we should forget than but child abuse continues to happen by non clerics and child abuse happened then by 100 times as many non clerics! Also give the inordinate amount of attention on children ( few if any of whom actually died from abuse in church responsibility over a century) don't you find it extraordinary that in a the most recent decade we have over 200 deaths?
Not really. I think that maybe you don't understand the type of child or the number of children that go into care and how damaged they often are before they enter, often at the hands of their own parents.
The reason there is so much more focus on clerics is that it was such a greater betrayal of trust as well. Priests in particular were given such a high standing and when some of them betrayed this trust it sent shockwaves. The denial and coverup by the church authorities compounded this mistrust and caused it to spread. The spin is of their own doing.So we can disregard all the abuse in any Church institutions which was not direct abuse?
What other kind of abuse is there?Yes i am for real. Very few of these cases happened.
If you look you will find the same cases hyped in the media.
The numbers of cases of these are in single digit figures and the numbers of pedophiles in dozens. The total number of sex related cases ( and this would include priests marrying or committing adultery with another married adult or the housekeeper having a child for the priest) number ( from memory) about 3000 ten per cent of which relate to children and three quarters of the remaining 300 in a very short period.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74992109&postcount=2196
The source for the above is actual Vatican records over the last century and completely demolishes you "moving all of them around" conspiracy. Yes some ( i.e. singular digits) priests were moved. It was against policy and highly irregular in the few cases it happened.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74278975&postcount=1905
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74231566&postcount=72
You're very selective with your figures. It's admirable really. You refer to priests when you want the figure to be low but to clerical abuse when you want it to be more vague. My own local priest was moved to another parish after being reported where he went on to abuse again so I think I will go by what I have seen rather than what the vatican reports.How many non clerical abuse cases were brought? Given there were a hundred times as many non clerical abusers one might expect a thousand. But again you find convictions maybe in the dozens.
The practice of dealing with it in-house prevented any kind of accurate records being kept at the time but at the end of the day if abuse was reported to a bishop it should have been passed to the Gardaí. It was not the choice of the church to make.Covered by saying "he was in HSE care." So who was responsible for him his sister or the HSE?
As that particular case is an ongoing criminal investigation I'm sure it will be revealed after it's complete.0 -
There is a big difference between a social worker not checking up on a child in care and a priest buggering a young boy.
So what? What is your point ? Is there a no difference between a priest not checking up on a child in care and a social worker buggering a young boy who later is found dead?One is an action and the other is an inaction. The HSE may be accused of failing to prevent a death ot injury to a child in care but in the case of clerical abuse is direct.
And the church could be accused of syatematic abuse and not having the enough procedures and policies in the past but the case of social worker or parental or swimming instructor or any other non clerical direct abuse is direct. Don't forget of 100 child sex abusers 99 of them are NOT clergy.The state are limitied in what they can do. They can't lock up children to prevent them hanging out with the wrong people and getting in trouble. In most cases these children are severely damaged before coming into care. In the case of clerical abuse the damage was caused while they were in care and caused by their carers directly.
That isn't true either. Given 99% or abusers were non clerical most of the people doing the direct damage were non clerics. Yo just single out clerics with the usual "clerical abuse" filter. We can dod the same for "HSE abuse" except in the case of the HSE the level of actual death is much much worse.
I agree.The management in many cases ignored what was going on when they could have taken action.
Apparently this is true of the HSE since over 200 died over the last ten years.Not really. I think that maybe you don't understand the type of child or the number of children that go into care and how damaged they often are before they enter, often at the hands of their own parents.
funny how you seem to forget this when it comes to historic Church run institutions isn't it?The reason there is so much more focus on clerics is that it was such a greater betrayal of trust as well. Priests in particular were given such a high standing and when some of them betrayed this trust it sent shockwaves.
Indeed it did. But why should that apply today when the policy has changed and clerics not alone dont but can abuse and when over 200 die in HSE care. why are you still discussing the 1% of abusers from decades ago and focusing on them?The denial and coverup by the church authorities compounded this mistrust and caused it to spread. The spin is of their own doing.
No it is of YOUR doing. Why? - Because the church didnt cover up. Only in a few very rare cases ( maybe a dozen in hundreds of sex abuse cases over a century ) did maybe a handfull of church management ( ten or twenty bishops of maybe 100,000) cover up anything and even then this was not in consultation with each other but by the management acting independently of one another.What other kind of abuse is there?
In terms of Sexual abuse - Ephebophilia; and adult sexual abuse and harassement.
Then there is physical abuse and emotional abuse and neglect.
I resent you accusing me of being either sly or dishonest.You're very selective with your figures. It's admirable really.You refer to priests when you want the figure to be low but to clerical abuse when you want it to be more vague.
I'd suggest you look at my posting record. Even though Roman Priests are a huge majority of Christian clergy the amounts of RCC priests who were sexual abusers is half or less. Other denominations are higher and ther is also evidence of Rabbi's. But I don't want to get into a Protestant versus Catholic debate when adding them all together they are minor ( and I mean a hundred times less minor) when the issue of the other 99% is being ignored.My own local priest was moved to another parish after being reported where he went on to abuse again so I think I will go by what I have seen rather than what the vatican reports.
and the General's wife knew a load of criminals. You can't seriously think that everyone should base objective arguments on your opinion and your personal experience can you?The practice of dealing with it in-house prevented any kind of accurate records being kept at the time
What do you mean "in house" ? either the Vatican knew or it ddint. If you are claiming it didn't then you cant also claim it did and it hid it? That is your whole point destroyed!but at the end of the day if abuse was reported to a bishop it should have been passed to the Gardaí. It was not the choice of the church to make.
the church policy is to obey the local law. If the local law said pass it to the Gardai then that is the policy. as I stated rarely if at all was such a policy ignored soully by the church. In some instances for example a senior garda was contacted by a Bishop and stated it need not be reported locally. In some cases civil servants in the Department of Justice lost paperwork. In very few cases bishops knew about cases and hid them.As that particular case is an ongoing criminal investigation I'm sure it will be revealed after it's complete.
We will leave it sub judice then. Bu if so it isnt evidence of anything it is just an unsupported claim until we can look at the court findings.0 -
So what? What is your point ? Is there a no difference between a priest not checking up on a child in care and a social worker buggering a young boy who later is found dead?
Is there any report at all of HSE workers abusing children in care? I've never heard even a hint of it.And the church could be accused of syatematic abuse and not having the enough procedures and policies in the past but the case of social worker or parental or swimming instructor or any other non clerical direct abuse is direct. Don't forget of 100 child sex abusers 99 of them are NOT clergy.
Why are you bringing all these people up? How is this related to the report on HSE deaths?That isn't true either. Given 99% or abusers were non clerical most of the people doing the direct damage were non clerics. Yo just single out clerics with the usual "clerical abuse" filter. We can dod the same for "HSE abuse" except in the case of the HSE the level of actual death is much much worse.
From the report you linked
"Witnesses reported being sexually abused by 151 male and four female religious staff in 15 Schools where sexual abuse was reported."
You seem to think that because it doesn't specifically say cleric that they aren't included.I agree.
Apparently this is true of the HSE since over 200 died over the last ten years.
What could they have done?funny how you seem to forget this when it comes to historic Church run institutions isn't it?
I suppose it depends on what you call damaged. Back then a pregnant girl was considered damaged and was locked up. Many children in HSE come from abusive homes.Indeed it did. But why should that apply today when the policy has changed and clerics not alone dont but can abuse and when over 200 die in HSE care. why are you still discussing the 1% of abusers from decades ago and focusing on them?
I didn't focus on the clerics. All i did was highlight the irrelevance of the HSE report in a thread on clerical abuse. But if there is a reason for focusing on clerics then maybe it is because there is still no proper accountability or even a sign of remorse for the way things were handled by the church in relation to clerical abuse. Each child death in the HSE is investigated thoroughly by more than one authorityNo it is of YOUR doing. Why? - Because the church didnt cover up. Only in a few very rare cases ( maybe a dozen in hundreds of sex abuse cases over a century ) did maybe a handfull of church management ( ten or twenty bishops of maybe 100,000) cover up anything and even then this was not in consultation with each other but by the management acting independently of one another.
Denial and deliberate ignorance is as bad as covering up when you are in positions of authority.In terms of Sexual abuse - Ephebophilia; and adult sexual abuse and harassement.
Then there is physical abuse and emotional abuse and neglect.
Those are all direct abuse.I resent you accusing me of being either sly or dishonest.
I don't think you're dishonest. I think you're in massive denial.I'd suggest you look at my posting record. Even though Roman Priests are a huge majority of Christian clergy the amounts of RCC priests who were sexual abusers is half or less. Other denominations are higher and ther is also evidence of Rabbi's. But I don't want to get into a Protestant versus Catholic debate when adding them all together they are minor ( and I mean a hundred times less minor) when the issue of the other 99% is being ignored.
The Catholic church has the most recognisable and structured hierarchy and the covering up and denial went all the way to the top indicating a complete corruption of the church.and the General's wife knew a load of criminals. You can't seriously think that everyone should base objective arguments on your opinion and your personal experience can you?
No. But you expect me to believe self serving figures released by the church? A church who doesn't even recognise when people leave it so can't even accurately measure its membership.What do you mean "in house" ? either the Vatican knew or it ddint. If you are claiming it didn't then you cant also claim it did and it hid it? That is your whole point destroyed!
Within the organisation as opposed to involving the proper authorities from outside the church.the church policy is to obey the local law. If the local law said pass it to the Gardai then that is the policy. as I stated rarely if at all was such a policy ignored soully by the church. In some instances for example a senior garda was contacted by a Bishop and stated it need not be reported locally. In some cases civil servants in the Department of Justice lost paperwork. In very few cases bishops knew about cases and hid them.
If the bishops had any kind of human decency they would have made sure they followed up on these reports.0 -
Is there any report at all of HSE workers abusing children in care? I've never heard even a hint of it.
The HSE is only 10 years old... and in the same period since the HSE was founded there have been no cases of abuse committed/Reported in the same period but Clerics.
Before the HSE going back to the time of the abuse there was no health service.. If you were a orphan or have family issues the state put you in the Care of the Catholic run institutions (of protestant if you were protestant).. As the church fell back the state had to step up to cover the gap.
There has been sexual abuse of kids across all sections of Irish society. Primary school teachers, Older kids, Sports coaches, Parents, Relatives etc... More that 90% of the abuse committed to Children in Ireland had nothing to do with the Church.0 -
Is there any report at all of HSE workers abusing children in care? I've never heard even a hint of it.
Really? We seem to be a bit lost here. What would you call the actual death of 200 children? that would not be "abuse" according to you? So over 200 children die wghile in HSE care and you think that isn't abuse and it could be worse?Why are you bringing all these people up? How is this related to the report on HSE deaths?
Because it is outlining how the NON clerical abuse isn't reported and how people like you seem to be inordinately concerned about a dozen or so priests from the last century who abused children and not about the 200 dead children from the last decade and the thousands of cases of sexual abuse every year.From the report you linked
"Witnesses reported being sexually abused by 151 male and four female religious staff in 15 Schools where sexual abuse was reported."
You seem to think that because it doesn't specifically say cleric that they aren't included.
Not as clerics i.e. priests no. They were teachers and cleaners and coaches.
If you are now saying cleric = priests and all other people in lay and religious orders then you have to widen the population.
Now it is true some orders such as the christian brothers in a few schools had a core concentrated group of abusers. But while there were 4000 or so priests ther were learly 25,000 if you include briothers nuns etc. and that isnt including the other lay people such as Third Order of At Frances, Legion of Mary Opus Dei and the like which could well pull it up to 40 or 50,000.
the thing is "clerical" abuse is clerical abuse i.e priests.
But if you want to include others I have already supplied the stats in this thread.
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/03-07.php7.08 There were 474 reports of physical abuse involving 26 Schools given in evidence by 403 male witnesses
Four (4) Schools were collectively the subject of 230 reports.
7.10 The Schools that were the subject of 230 reports accounted for 49% of all physical abuse reports by male witnesses
Lay care and ancillary staff
7.98 There were 95 lay staff, 75 male and 20 female, identified by name as physically abusive by male witnesses. A further 34 lay staff were identified by their position, but not by name, by male witnesses.
7.99 Forty two (42) of the lay staff who were reported as physically abusive were ancillary staff employed as night watchmen, drill masters, farm workers, maintenance and trade workers. Witnesses reported that contact with lay ancillary staff was mainly in the dormitories, showers or in the context of work activity on the farm, in the kitchens or in trade shops where they were in constant contact with the staff who abused them.
7.110Two hundred and forty two (242) male witnesses (59%) made 253 reports of sexual abuse in relation to 20 Schools
Four (4) Schools were collectively the subject 156 reports.
7.112 One School was the subject of 29% of all sexual abuse reports heard by the Committee.
7.145 Witnesses identified 19 male and six female lay staff as sexually abusive. The main occupational group identified were lay ancillary staff of whom 11 were named by 21 witnesses. These staff were mainly night watchmen and farm workers employed by the Schools.
The thing is these were Industrial schools run by religious orders and had 170,000 students through their doors. Nobody seems to be concerned for the five million or so children who went through all the other schools in the State.What could they have done?
That isn't the point! You are banging on about clerical abuse. I point out to you that it hasn't happened for decades and in fact not just sexual abuse but actual death has happened to over 200 in non clerical state care over the last decade. AS regards "what should they have done" don't you find that a bit hypocritical to say that when you insist the bishops etc. should have done something about clerical sexual abuse?I suppose it depends on what you call damaged.
What i mean by "damages" are legal compensation paid as result of litigation.
Of course a year ago Minister Harney was saying maybe 20 died. Now their own report says over 200. It is an outrageous figure! If 200 died in the last ten years in a Church run institution you would be braying about it from the rooftops!I didn't focus on the clerics. All i did was highlight the irrelevance of the HSE report in a thread on clerical abuse.
It is relevant! The number of abusing Roman Catholic priests was always tiny and is now close to or equal to zero. The number in society is high . Thousands of cases of rape and sexual assault a year. The number of dead children in RCC care is zero and has been for at least 50 years. But like "blame the blacks/jews/Saddam" or whatever scapegoat you harp on relentlessly about "evil priests" when none are to be seen today and haven't been around for decades while children do in fact die while under the care of non church authorities. If even one of these 200 dies in church care you would be banging on about that!But if there is a reason for focusing on clerics then maybe it is because there is still no proper accountability or even a sign of remorse for the way things were handled by the church in relation to clerical abuse.
And you evidence to support that claim is?
You seem to have forgotten
apologies made by clerics including the Pope and bishops
Compensation in excess of that paid in the UK Australia and other countries paid over without any need for proof to be supplied.
Changes in operations and child protection policies in advance of and in the absence of any state legislation or of state bodies introducing them - for God's sake even One in four and other similar organisations have not brought in confidentially and other victim protection schemes until about a year ago.Each child death in the HSE is investigated thoroughly by more than one authority
Asnd you suppose child death ( of which ther are none) in church care wouldn't be?Denial and deliberate ignorance is as bad as covering up when you are in positions of authority.
So do you apply that to the Statements made by Harney a year or so ago which were given to her by senior department civil servants?
28-05-2010,“The inability of the HSE to properly collate and tell the truth about the
number of children who died in care during the past 10 years is both
shocking and unacceptable as is the number of children reported to have
died,” according to Fine Gael Children’s Spokesman Alan Shatter TD.
“On 5th March 2009, the Minister of State at the Department of Health &
Children John Moloney TD informed the Dáil of a total of 21 deaths of
children during the previous ten years. A total of 12 ‘deaths from
unnatural causes’ were reported by Minister Moloney...
This evening’s statement issued by the HSE not only yet again confirms its
incapacity to either both properly collate essential information and to
tell the truth, but also yet again starkly and tragically highlights the
chaotic dysfunction within our childcare and protection services.
“By making this dishonest presentation, the HSE has failed to explain why
the Government was advised in March 2009 of 21 deaths of children in care,
in March 2010 of 23 deaths of children in care and today of 37 deaths of
children in care, with today’s number being approximately 60% more than
originally revealed.
That's from the current Minister of Justice!I don't think you're dishonest. I think you're in massive denial.
I dont deny a tiny minority ( less than 1% at its height ) of priests sexually abused pre pubescent children.
For ever priest so doing over 100 non priests did it! It was not a church centic thing.
I don't deny in some church managed institutions brothers nuns or others also abused children. Even taking these dispicable acts under consideration they were a tiny minority
of child sex abuse.The Catholic church has the most recognisable and structured hierarchy and the covering up and denial went all the way to the top
So you keep saying but produce no backup!
Given you claim this hierarchy is so recognisable care to ouitline it?
How many people constitute the "higher" level of the RCC?
Care to show how many people at senior levels?
Care to show how a large proportion of the "top" either covered up or denied abuse?No. But you expect me to believe self serving figures released by the church?
No. I expect you to understand that the Vatican can't be covering up for cases it does not even have files for or know about!
If you have any other evidence from any other source of the numbers or levels of clerical sex abusers of young kids ( not priests having affairs with grown women) then care to supply it?
I for my part have supplied academic reports from non Catholics and ex Catholics and from people who have clear records in the field such as Jenkings and Shakeshaft.
All you supply is unsupported opinion.A church who doesn't even recognise when people leave it so can't even accurately measure its membership.
Another off topic side swipe at the Church which has been dealt with elsewhere. But for your information the Church happily accepts CSO - non church - state statistics taken in the Census. The numbers of ex Catholic atheists is a tiny number as is the total number of atheists anyway.Within the organisation as opposed to involving the proper authorities from outside the church.
Again already dealt with in this thread. The church has no role in criminal or civil proceedings. All a church Court does is remove church offices from a cleriuc and/or laisise them. They have no role in incarceration. It is possible however if a country had execution for child abusers that the church would try to save them from that whether or not they were clerics just as the Vatican protected Jews in WWII.If the bishops had any kind of human decency they would have made sure they followed up on these reports.
On which reports? If you cite the actual cases you might find they DID but it seems you prefer to wallow in ignorance.0 -
Really? We seem to be a bit lost here. What would you call the actual death of 200 children? that would not be "abuse" according to you? So over 200 children die wghile in HSE care and you think that isn't abuse and it could be worse?
I'd call it a tragedy, not abuse. There's nothing to suggest any of these deaths are as a result of abuse while in the care of the HSE.Because it is outlining how the NON clerical abuse isn't reported and how people like you seem to be inordinately concerned about a dozen or so priests from the last century who abused children and not about the 200 dead children from the last decade and the thousands of cases of sexual abuse every year.
The reason that abuse isn't reported very often is to protect the identity of the victims. This is decided on an individual basis. The reason clerical abuse was reported so much was because of the number of victims and the actions of the church in hiding, or ignoring, the problem and in doing so endangering further victims.The thing is these were Industrial schools run by religious orders and had 170,000 students through their doors. Nobody seems to be concerned for the five million or so children who went through all the other schools in the State.
Because they weren't subject to the same level of abuse.That isn't the point! You are banging on about clerical abuse. I point out to you that it hasn't happened for decades and in fact not just sexual abuse but actual death has happened to over 200 in non clerical state care over the last decade. AS regards "what should they have done" don't you find that a bit hypocritical to say that when you insist the bishops etc. should have done something about clerical sexual abuse?
The 200 deaths are not as a result of abuse by their carers though.What i mean by "damages" are legal compensation paid as result of litigation.
I'm talking about the level of psychological damage. Most children who entered the HSE care had already suffered this damage. In the case of clerical abuse it happened while in their care.Of course a year ago Minister Harney was saying maybe 20 died. Now their own report says over 200. It is an outrageous figure! If 200 died in the last ten years in a Church run institution you would be braying about it from the rooftops!
That would depend on the circumstances of the deaths. If the deaths were caused directly by the staff then yes I would. There is nothing to suggest that the HSE staff had any connection to the deaths.It is relevant! The number of abusing Roman Catholic priests was always tiny and is now close to or equal to zero. The number in society is high . Thousands of cases of rape and sexual assault a year. The number of dead children in RCC care is zero and has been for at least 50 years. But like "blame the blacks/jews/Saddam" or whatever scapegoat you harp on relentlessly about "evil priests" when none are to be seen today and haven't been around for decades while children do in fact die while under the care of non church authorities. If even one of these 200 dies in church care you would be banging on about that!
Perhaps you don't know what they mean when they say "in state care". If a child is taken from an abusive family and put with a foster family and subsequently commits suicide then he is considered to have died in state care. If he runs away he is still considered to be in state care. If he gets murdered by a drug dealer he is still considered to have died in state care. If he gets hit by a car the he has died in state care. Once the HSE have taken some form of custody he is considered to be in state care.And you evidence to support that claim is?
You seem to have forgotten
apologies made by clerics including the Pope and bishops
Compensation in excess of that paid in the UK Australia and other countries paid over without any need for proof to be supplied.
Changes in operations and child protection policies in advance of and in the absence of any state legislation or of state bodies introducing them - for God's sake even One in four and other similar organisations have not brought in confidentially and other victim protection schemes until about a year ago.
Better late than never I suppose. And do you think that the reporting on this matter is still as high as ever?Asnd you suppose child death ( of which ther are none) in church care wouldn't be?
I'd say it would be now alright.So do you apply that to the Statements made by Harney a year or so ago which were given to her by senior department civil servants?
28-05-2010,
That's from the current Minister of Justice!
I call it incompetence.So you keep saying but produce no backup!
Given you claim this hierarchy is so recognisable care to ouitline it?
How many people constitute the "higher" level of the RCC?
Care to show how many people at senior levels?
Care to show how a large proportion of the "top" either covered up or denied abuse?
How do you backup something which has been hidden?No. I expect you to understand that the Vatican can't be covering up for cases it does not even have files for or know about!
If you have any other evidence from any other source of the numbers or levels of clerical sex abusers of young kids ( not priests having affairs with grown women) then care to supply it?
I for my part have supplied academic reports from non Catholics and ex Catholics and from people who have clear records in the field such as Jenkings and Shakeshaft.
All you supply is unsupported opinion.
It shouldn't be waiting for reports. There should have been a proactive stance taken with the aim of finding and ejecting all of the 1% who were abusing.Another off topic side swipe at the Church which has been dealt with elsewhere. But for your information the Church happily accepts CSO - non church - state statistics taken in the Census. The numbers of ex Catholic atheists is a tiny number as is the total number of atheists anyway.
It's not a side swipe. It's a fact. If they can't even keep an accurate count of their own membership then how can they be expected to have accurate figures for anything.Again already dealt with in this thread. The church has no role in criminal or civil proceedings. All a church Court does is remove church offices from a cleriuc and/or laisise them. They have no role in incarceration. It is possible however if a country had execution for child abusers that the church would try to save them from that whether or not they were clerics just as the Vatican protected Jews in WWII.
That's a cop out. They had a moral obligation to ensure that the innocent victims received proper justice at the hands of the local authorities0 -
I'd call it a tragedy, not abuse. There's nothing to suggest any of these deaths are as a result of abuse while in the care of the HSE.
ALL of then were! That's why they are classified as "deaths while in care".
Some occurred naturally but about two thirds were not of natural causes.
Those are the actual reported figures after the HSE tried to hide it by saying a report into it would be very costly and not worth it and the deaths might be as high as 20. They were over ten times that!The reason that abuse isn't reported very often is to protect the identity of the victims. This is decided on an individual basis. The reason clerical abuse was reported so much was because of the number of victims and the actions of the church in hiding, or ignoring, the problem and in doing so endangering further victims.
We are not arguing about reasons for reporting abuse we are discussing actual levels of abuse
The actual figures show - in church care -ZERO deaths.
In HSE care over same period - more than 200 dead.Because they weren't subject to the same level of abuse.
How do you know?
While there were some concentrated exceptional examples, we do know that most sexual abuse of kids was not by clerics in Industrial schools but happened outside of them.
If the level was even thirtytimes less than the level in Industrial Schools ( with 170,000 children) then there are at least as many victims from other schools ( with over 5 million
children) .The 200 deaths are not as a result of abuse by their carers though.
And your evidence is?
If an adult suffering from depression and committed suicide and it transpires he went to an Industrial school I'm sure you wouldn't have any problem attributing his depression to the
school/church.
In fact if your read the reports all the fifteen thousand or so who were compensated didn't prove they were abused by clerics nor did most of the abuse consist of sexual abuse by clerics.I'm talking about the level of psychological damage. Most children who entered the HSE care had already suffered this damage.
Oh so you aren't interested in sexual abuse at all but emotional abuse now? Or only in emotional abuse brought about by sexual abuse.
Thisis a handy "if someone dies it isn't our fault" sidestep. Im sure if a violent criminal hanged himself in a garga cell you would be harping on about how the Gardai should have procedures to see this didn't happen or if someone died whiule a Ward of the bishop you would be saying the same.In the case of clerical abuse it happened while in their care.
In some cases yes. In many cases the abuse was by non clerics and abuse happened before they were admitted to care. If the families were so perfect outside of the Institutions then why did they admit them in the first place?That would depend on the circumstances of the deaths. If the deaths were caused directly by the staff then yes I would. There is nothing to suggest that the HSE staff had any connection to the deaths.
What you are saying is they didn't commit the crime of premeditated murder. did I claim they did. Nor did Roman Catholic priests for that matter. the point however is that the authority under which these events happened bears some responsibility for any damage which happened to a person under their care., whether or not a crime happened.
I have for example pointed out that the crime rape could not happen against a male but i have never claimed that anyone who raped a boy even if no crime happened was not responsible for their actions or that the authority involved should not assist the victim or admit their part in not having procedures to prevent it.
Same for the HSE.
Also you have been shown the predecessor of the HSE also bear some responsibility for their carry on. Given the HSE tried to cover it up is it any wonder?Perhaps you don't know what they mean when they say "in state care". If a child is taken from an abusive family and put with a foster family and subsequently commits suicide then he is considered to have died in state care. If he runs away he is still considered to be in state care. If he gets murdered by a drug dealer he is still considered to have died in state care. If he gets hit by a car the he has died in state care. Once the HSE have taken some form of custody he is considered to be in state care.
I m well aware of the difference between State and residential State care.
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/04-04.php4.05In September 2008, there were 5,380 children in care in Ireland, of whom only 400 (or 7.4 percent) were in residential care. This is in stark contrast to the position in the late 1960s, when approximately 3,000 children were in various forms of residential care. At the end of the 1960s, all children’s Residential Homes were managed by either Catholic Religious Congregations or voluntary organisations, whereas by 2008 the vast majority of homes were managed directly by the State or it agents, with the last of traditional religious providers of residential care, the Sisters of Mercy ceasing their direct involvement in 2003
In the last decade since the above handover there are more than 200 deaths! How many in the decade before that "in Church care"?Better late than never I suppose.
i.e you were wrong when you claimed the Church did nothing! And you accept that the state and even victims groups lagged the church reaction to the problem.And do you think that the reporting on this matter is still as high as ever?
I think people like you still over hype it yes and the media feed your need to do so.I'd say it would be now alright.
It was never high. It was at best close to one per cent of abusers. for the last thirty years it is of a level of one per thousand 0.1% In the last twenty 0.01% In the last ten years zero as far as I know. Meanwhile the other 99.999999% of abusers continue to abuse but you would rather spend your time having a go at the Church who reacted and brought in child protection polices etc. in advance of the state or other bodies ( including victims bodies)?I call it incompetence.
I call it "cover up". You have not shown any cover up by the church but quite clearly shatter shows how the HSE was trying to cover up.How do you backup something which has been hidden?
that is your fallacy not mine! Maybe the invisible unicorns or pixies did it? After all I can't prove it wasn't them either can I? Look up "proving a negative" and "shifting the burden." It isn't for me to disprove something you claim to be true.It shouldn't be waiting for reports. There should have been a proactive stance taken with the aim of finding and ejecting all of the 1% who were abusing.
Already done! Hence ZERO abusers today in the Church. Not only that but even being accused of abuse gets a priest suspended. Fr Reynolds in Mayo is an example. RTE suggested he was an abuser and he was suspended. Turns out the whole story was made up and RTE were asked not to broadcast it and to check it out. Fr Reynolds even offered to do a DNA test which he was not required to do but RTE turned him down.It's not a side swipe. It's a fact. If they can't even keep an accurate count of their own membership then how can they be expected to have accurate figures for anything.
It is a side swipe and comprehensively dealt with in another thread on that issue.That's a cop out. They had a moral obligation to ensure that the innocent victims received proper justice at the hands of the local authorities
so you are saying the church should be administering Justice in a state and not the State. sorry but church policy is to leave the criminal law up to the local state, with the exception of the Holocaust (cop out as you call it) or similar as outlined above for States not normally functioning. Otherwise the Church did not interfere with the local civil authorities.0 -
ALL of then were! That's why they are classified as "deaths while in care".
Some occurred naturally but about two thirds were not of natural causes.
Those are the actual reported figures after the HSE tried to hide it by saying a report into it would be very costly and not worth it and the deaths might be as high as 20. They were over ten times that!
We are not arguing about reasons for reporting abuse we are discussing actual levels of abuse
The actual figures show - in church care -ZERO deaths.
In HSE care over same period - more than 200 dead.
How do you know?
While there were some concentrated exceptional examples, we do know that most sexual abuse of kids was not by clerics in Industrial schools but happened outside of them.
There's nothing to suggest that the deaths in state care were as a result of abuse inflicted by the state or the carers. The suffering in industrial schools was a direct result of abuse by the carers.And your evidence is?
If an adult suffering from depression and committed suicide and it transpires he went to an Industrial school I'm sure you wouldn't have any problem attributing his depression to the
school/church.
In fact if your read the reports all the fifteen thousand or so who were compensated didn't prove they were abused by clerics nor did most of the abuse consist of sexual abuse by clerics.
Completely irrelevent. There is no comparison between people suffering direct abuse in religious institutions and people dying in state care from actions outside the realm of the state care. If a person attended a religious school and was abused on his way home by a stranger would you consider that institutional abuse just because he attended the school? Of course you wouldn't. Yet for some reason you think the same link should be made in cases of children in state care.Oh so you aren't interested in sexual abuse at all but emotional abuse now? Or only in emotional abuse brought about by sexual abuse.
i think you've missed the point here. If a person in state care injures themselves it is likely as a result of abuse suffered before they enter state care. The injury suffered by those in industrial schools is a direct result of abuse sustained in the school.Thisis a handy "if someone dies it isn't our fault" sidestep. Im sure if a violent criminal hanged himself in a garga cell you would be harping on about how the Gardai should have procedures to see this didn't happen or if someone died whiule a Ward of the bishop you would be saying the same.
Completely irrelevent again. If someone wants to take their life they are going to do it.In some cases yes. In many cases the abuse was by non clerics and abuse happened before they were admitted to care. If the families were so perfect outside of the Institutions then why did they admit them in the first place?
They trusted them.What you are saying is they didn't commit the crime of premeditated murder. did I claim they did. Nor did Roman Catholic priests for that matter. the point however is that the authority under which these events happened bears some responsibility for any damage which happened to a person under their care., whether or not a crime happened.
I have for example pointed out that the crime rape could not happen against a male but i have never claimed that anyone who raped a boy even if no crime happened was not responsible for their actions or that the authority involved should not assist the victim or admit their part in not having procedures to prevent it.
Same for the HSE.
Also you have been shown the predecessor of the HSE also bear some responsibility for their carry on. Given the HSE tried to cover it up is it any wonder?
I don't understand your point here. How can raping a boy not be a crime?I m well aware of the difference between State and residential State care.
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/04-04.php
In the last decade since the above handover there are more than 200 deaths! How many in the decade before that "in Church care"?
It's a pointless comparison again. People in residential care in the past lived under much stricter conditions. You could argue that these conditions were safer in that they prevented deaths but they had the downside of abuse and restriction of freedom. Whereas children in residential care today have massive freedoms and very few rules or consequences. This leads to more reckless behaviour but the state can't be accused of abuse. It's two sides of a scale really.i.e you were wrong when you claimed the Church did nothing! And you accept that the state and even victims groups lagged the church reaction to the problem.
They did nothing until the massive backlash and then they acted very slowly.I think people like you still over hype it yes and the media feed your need to do so.
I think if you look through my post history you will find that I am very supportive of people who join the priesthood and I do not accept the lumping of them all together as abusers. My problem is with you trying to somehow compare the tragic deaths of children in state care to the abuse suffered directly by victims in industrial schools.It was never high. It was at best close to one per cent of abusers. for the last thirty years it is of a level of one per thousand 0.1% In the last twenty 0.01% In the last ten years zero as far as I know. Meanwhile the other 99.999999% of abusers continue to abuse but you would rather spend your time having a go at the Church who reacted and brought in child protection polices etc. in advance of the state or other bodies ( including victims bodies)?
As i said already. My problem is with your attempt to link the deaths of children (not caused by state or workers) in state care to the abuse suffered (at the hands of carers and management)by so many in church care. There is no comparison.Already done! Hence ZERO abusers today in the Church. Not only that but even being accused of abuse gets a priest suspended. Fr Reynolds in Mayo is an example. RTE suggested he was an abuser and he was suspended. Turns out the whole story was made up and RTE were asked not to broadcast it and to check it out. Fr Reynolds even offered to do a DNA test which he was not required to do but RTE turned him down.
And if a state worker was acused of abuse then I'm sure you would find the same actions taken, suspension and media interest. But the state has much more safeguards to prevent it happening.so you are saying the church should be administering Justice in a state and not the State. sorry but church policy is to leave the criminal law up to the local state, with the exception of the Holocaust (cop out as you call it) or similar as outlined above for States not normally functioning. Otherwise the Church did not interfere with the local civil authorities.
They had a moral obligation to follow through and make sure they weren't endangering children by placing their staff with them. If you ran a creche and there was an allegation of abuse against a staff member which was handed over to the Gardaí would you be happy to let that person continue minding children before you discovered the truth of the matter?0 -
There's nothing to suggest that the deaths in state care were as a result of abuse inflicted by the state or the carers.
What about the fact of cover up?
What about the HSe refusing to hand over files ?
What about them saying it would cost to much to look into it?
If the church had done the same you would be screaming about it!
They withheld files for years doing the same "daddy knows best" authoritarian stuff you claim ( without supporting evidence) the church did!The suffering in industrial schools was a direct result of abuse by the carers.
All you are saying is that failing to deal with the problem which results in 200 deaths is preferable to a dozen priests sexually abusing kids. But the suffering was NOT always a direct result of clerics abusing them. Nor was it because of staff. Though some institutions had a cadre of abusers, abusers in Ireland in the past were mostly outside of these institutions and outside of the church. By mostly i mean "times one hundred"
You brought it up.Completely irrelevent. There is no comparison between people suffering direct abuse in religious institutions and people dying in state care from actions outside the realm of the state care.
There is no copmparison between a priest or coach who abuses and a bishop who does not abuse but who is responsibil for the institution in which the priest or coach works.
You are the one who brought up the "cover up2 and conspiracy theories.
Unless you are claiming the Pope himself or several cardinals are child sex abusers what are you claiming is the Vatican's part in all this?If a person attended a religious school and was abused on his way home by a stranger would you consider that institutional abuse just because he attended the school?
If he was abused by someone who worked at the school and the school knew of that persons record. yes.Of course you wouldn't. Yet for some reason you think the same link should be made in cases of children in state care.
No the link to responsibility for damages should be made. Just as you might claim a Bishop ( who is NOT an abuser) is responsible.
Politicians media commentators and the HSE in their own report which had to be dragged out of them
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/services/Children/reportA.pdf
admit that!
And that is their own version.
http://www.alanshatter.ie/?p=354“If children today are not given the protection to which they are entitled, the shame expressed and tears shed over past events will lack all credibility. We must not as a State continue to fail the most vulnerable children of today and tomorrow.”
that was in 2007 when they didn't realise the deaths were ten times worse!Completely irrelevent again. If someone wants to take their life they are going to do it.
That isan absurd comment. You remind me of Camus. Don't let them tell us stories. Don't let them say of the man sentenced to death "He is going to pay his debt to society," but: "They are going to cut off his head." It looks like nothing. But it does make a little difference.
Trusted the State more than the family? Or trusted the church who had some abusers ( a hundred times less than outside it) and did get 170,000 children educated. And another 5 million outside also had church involvement to some degree.They trusted them.
But you think the HSE in whose hands over 200 died in 10 years was somehow better?I don't understand your point here. How can raping a boy not be a crime?
Rape of a male was not a crime! that was the law. Up until recently the crime of rape could only happen to a female.
The term "statutory rape" is not used in the legislation but it is the term that is commonly used for unlawful sexual contact with a person aged under 17 years. Until June 2006, charges for this offence were brought under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1935/en/act/pub/0006/index.htmlIt's a pointless comparison again. People in residential care in the past lived under much stricter conditions. You could argue that these conditions were safer in that they prevented deaths but they had the downside of abuse and restriction of freedom. Whereas children in residential care today have massive freedoms and very few rules or consequences. This leads to more reckless behaviour but the state can't be accused of abuse. It's two sides of a scale really.
You only argue against yourself here. You are saying in order to reduce sexual abuse, a consequence of not having the old authoritatian system ( which allowed abuse) is that more children will die due to lack of close supervision.
First I doin't agree. But second the Authoritarian way the HSE dealt with the hiding of the cases and excuses them made is the SAME type of thing od which you accuse the Church ( which by the way I also don't agree with. Some Churchmen in authority erred -and here
I refer not to abusers but to their superiors who failed to act or acted incorrectly-. By "some" I mean maybe ten or twenty bishops worldwide over a half century all actin independently i.e. without collusion with the other bishops and these were out of a population of maybe 100,000 bishops. )They did nothing until the massive backlash and then they acted very slowly.
Wrong again.
In some cases they did act - and acted wrongly
In other cases they acted correctly.
When the church reacted to serious multiple abusers they acted in advance of the State and they acted more swiftly. the State and other bodies are still catching up. the rape law for example being changed only in 2006.I think if you look through my post history you will find that I am very supportive of people who join the priesthood and I do not accept the lumping of them all together as abusers.
thank you for that. I am sure the 99.9% of priests over the last century who were not abusers will be happy to hear it.My problem is with you trying to somehow compare the tragic deaths of children in state care to the abuse suffered directly by victims in industrial schools.
I am comparing YOUR ISSUE about church responsibility, authoritarianism, cover up conspiracy and systems failures to the HSE yes.As i said already. My problem is with your attempt to link the deaths of children (not caused by state or workers) in state care to the abuse suffered (at the hands of carers and management) by so many in church care.
Management? Are you saying a bishop or a Cardinal in Rome personally sexually abused children? How many ? Which ones? If not why are you saying they had anything to do with the issue? It was YOU who linked the abusers to the managers and they system of authority!There is no comparison.
Sure there is! Your faux "authoritirian church managemnt coverup" with the real " HSE management coverup".And if a state worker was acused of abuse then I'm sure you would find the same actions taken, suspension and media interest.
I have already shown on this thread that that isn't true! While they do report some non clerical abuse Media focus on "pedophile priests" stories. Look at the Fr REynolds case. Why when a case has not happened in Ireland in over a decade and when thousands of rapes and child abuse happen every year do we have wall to wall coverage of priests from decades ago and little if any coverage of current cases?But the state has much more safeguards to prevent it happening.
AND YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN IT DOESNT!
in fact I come across this daily. I am aware of the lack of application or slowness of standards and child protection policies being adopted in non church sources but I would be hard pressed to find a parish without a CPP anywhere.They had a moral obligation to follow through and make sure they weren't endangering children by placing their staff with them. If you ran a creche and there was an allegation of abuse against a staff member which was handed over to the Gardaí would you be happy to let that person continue minding children before you discovered the truth of the matter?
Funny how again you apply such a rule to the Church about abuse allegations from years before when the priest is not currently in a child care capacity and you don't apply it to a creche? Do you really think a cheche has such standards?
So any accusation should be allowed to have a creche closed down because by
suspending such a member of staff you are breaking the guidelines of child to carer ratio?
If you have to take on a substitute staff member you may also be taking on extra costs.
If you went to such a creche and and said that you don't want that staff member minding your child because they had been accused they could take a civil suit against you for defamation.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is that the same RCC which figures prove ( if you look back through this thread ) was responsible for 5% of boys who were abused, even though the % of the population who were clerics is much much smaller than that.Or trusted the church who had some abusers ( a hundred times less than outside it)
Even if the RCC clerics are "only" responsible for 1% of abuse, its still too high, given that RCC clerics account for less than 00.1% of the population.0 -
Is that the same RCC which figures prove ( if you look back through this thread ) was responsible for 5% of boys who were abused,
As usual gigino you trawl up the same unsupported nonsense
where exactly in the thread are these figures?
Might they be the figures you made up by out of context snipping of a report I suppled you with e.g the SAVI report?
If the so called "figures" you produce are from anything other than the SAVI please show them.
To my knowledge you have used two other sources and also misattributed them.
1. the John Jay report - in relation to the Us which you also get from me and other people.
2. A link to the Press archive of other non church media articles on the Dublin Archdiocese website.
None of the above are RCC figures.
In addition you have constantly been shown that the proportion of abusers who were clerics and the peroprtion of victims of clerics differed. Some abusers such as team caoches and Clerical abusers had the opportunity to access multiple victims. While the percentage of the victims abused by clerics may be as high as 4% the percentage of clerical abusers however even at their height remains at 1% or under. 4% is still one twenty fifth of victims. why have yo no concern for the other 96% of victims?
You also used some US media reports about accusations not convictions from about 2004 i think but it migh be as far back as the 1980s.even though the % of the population who were clerics is much much smaller than that.
And again you doctored this figures as well. We have been over all this before. Ten clerical ( or coaches or teachers) abusers with 100 victims each woudl be 100 victims. It is still only ten abusers. One can not conclude from that that ther is widespread abuse among teachers or coaches or clerics. AS it happens not only was the abuse more concentrated in Industrial schools but of the dozens of schools and religious orders concentrated on three or four schools and orders. This is in fact because clerical abuser in general had larger numbers of victims compared to non clerics and this has been pointed out to you. I never claimed less than 1% of victims were victims of clerics. what claimed was that less than 1% of abusers were clerics. I accept that the percentage of victims might be as high as 4%. That is still disregarding the other 96% of victims. the moist important issue is today after all the new procedures and policied the percentage appears to be ZERO whereas in State institutions children are actually dying in state care. Where is your concern . All you want to do is bang on about 4% of victims and less than 1% of abusers and forget about the other 96% of victims or 99% plus of abusers or in the current times 100% of abusers.Even if the RCC clerics are "only" responsible for 1% of abuse,
Please please please STOP misattributing me!
I never said they were only 1% of abuse!
I said at their heighest level the statistics suggest that cleric ( and roman Catholic Priests are a subset of that but let us assume they were all RC) were 1% or less of abusers
I refer to sexual abuse of pre pubescent children.
I did NOT say anything about 1% of abuse but about 1% of abusers. Got it?
The system mamaged by Church Orders hadless than 1% of abusers but maybe had as much as 4% of abuse victims. The Church and the State both bear some responsibility for these Institutions and both have awarded damages. They awarded damages without the cases having to be legally proved and the levels of awards were higher than for similar cases in other countries e.g. UK or Australiaits still too high, given that RCC clerics account for less than 00.1% of the population.
I agree ZERO is an acceptable level. and that seems to be wher it is today.
Again you still keep misattributing figures. We have been over this before also.
The "less than 0.1%" of the population" applies today. about 4,000 priests
In the past the abuse figures are for not only priests but also brothers friars nuns and other religious ( excluding lay religious which may be in the thousands) - that comes to about 25,000 in the 1950s of a population of about 2.5 million - about 1% and not 0.1%
Today priests are about 0.1%
Also the clerical demographics have changed. Most priests are "secular" i.e in parishes and not concentrated in orders or schools or particularly in boarding schools. for various reasons including availability of transport, more schools better housing, support for single parents and large families, ( brought about with some church lobbying I might add) the boarding population is also much lower and much more open/less isolated. The need for instutions has dissipated. Also the procedures and authoritarian culture in them have changed. except in the HSE it seems;)0 -
As already indicated by other posters/posts, the Church is fully committed to ensuring the continuing safety of children, that the Vatican is hosting a global summit on sexual abuse.
more.....Ten years after the clergy sexual abuse scandal erupted in the United States, Catholic bishops from all over the world will meet next week at a Vatican summit aimed at preventing abuse and protecting children.
The conference, “Towards Healing and Renewal,” will be held on Feb. 6-9 and is organized by the Jesuit-run Gregorian University in Rome.
The Vatican’s top spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters on Friday (Feb. 3) that the summit enjoys the “full support and participation” of the Vatican’s highest offices, but Pope Benedict XVI is not expected to attend.
Monsignor Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s chief abuse prosecutor, said the protection of children must become “a permanent principle and concern” in every decision of the church.0 -
the times are a-changing all right. Paddy Power is holding a conference on gambling abuse too.gimmebroadband wrote: »that the Vatican is hosting a global summit on sexual abuse.
Will the RCC come clean and hand up all the information it has been requested to ( and refused ) on clerical child abuse ? As said before, there was data from John Jay College's study of Catholic priests, which was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops following the public outcry over the 2002 scandals. Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
Bear in mind
(a) the study was paid for + authorised by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops - would you anyone trust a study on Jews done by the Nazis ?
(b) they decided which were plausible accusations + which were not
(c) they limited their study to pre-1992. Since then people are perhaps less afaid to speak out about their local priest, and are less likely to be silenced / covered up / hushed up.
0 -
Comparing Catholic bishops to Nazi's ?
That's even low by gigino's troll standards.0 -
The Quadratic Equation wrote: »Comparing Catholic bishops to Nazi's ?
That's even low by gigino's troll standards.
It wasn't a comparison, it was an analogy to highlight possible bias.0 -
t
Will the RCC come clean and hand up all the information it has been requested to ( and refused ) on clerical child abuse ?
Exactly WHAT information do you require?
The Vatican has released the figures for the last century. the links are in the thread above.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74613788&postcount=2026
Above people are saying they don't accept church figures.
Now you want figures which people claim they don't trust anyway?
The cases of priests accused of paedophilia in the true sense have been about three hundred in nine years.
Mostly from the United States which, in the years 2003-2004, represented around eighty percent of total cases. That's 300 over 9 years in at least a million clerics over the same period. fifteen hundredths or 0.15%
You have no evidence Ratzinger read over 3,000 cases or even knew about 300 of them? I have no doubt he knew about some but where is your evidence he covered up any cases?As said before, there was data from John Jay College's study of Catholic priests,
As I pre empted above
You got the John Jay data from ME your didnt research it yourself
You have the source over a year or so by now and still didn't even read the reportwhich was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops following the public outcry over the 2002 scandals.
See above 80 % of cases on vatican records over 50 years are in the US from 2002-3. don't you think that 80% in one year might suggest a hysterical public or a core group of abusers? for example more than 80 % of Cambodianatrocities happened in the Pol Pot period. dont you thing it might in fact be related to a group of Kymer rouge being in the country at the time. Of course this is assumuing that the reports were actually not hysterical outbursts but actual abusers.Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992,
Like they should also have included implausible abuse reports such as UFO abductions?John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children"
Pre empted above. Your usual spin! accused of does not mean guilty of
According to you all the Jews and Gy7psied accused during the Holocaust must have been guilty!Bear in mind
(a) the study was paid for + authorised by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops -
So what?would you anyone trust a study on Jews done by the Nazis ?
1. You discredit the actual source you use?
2. The comparison between RCC and Nazis is inept - the Church opposeed Nazism
3. You can't even get that right ...I think what you actually meant was "would you trust a study done on Nazis by Nazis?"(b) they decided which were plausible accusations + which were not
the researchers? Yes .
The Nature and Scope of the Problem
of Sexual Abuse of Minors
by Catholic Priests and Deacons
in the United States
A Research Study Conducted by the
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
didn't read it did you? Or the corrections amd mistakes in the original?(c) they limited their study to pre-1992.
WRONG!
Page 13/14As a result we were able to
construct three separate surveys, which taken together, provided a more comprehensive assessment of the scope of the problem.
...
p 14
The Diocesan Profile. The first survey was the “Diocesan/Order Profile” (Appendices A.1.1.2 and A.1.1.3).
We were able to obtain a
census of active and retired priests in the diocese/eparchy/religious community during the study
period, 1950 – 2002.
NOT pre 1992 as you wrongly claim!
You seem not to have considered that as the surveys were done in 2002 or so anyone who would be over 18 in 2002 would be born pre 1994 anyway.
You constantly misquote or spin out elements of reports which you haven't yourself supplied and haven't even bothered to read!
Please at least try to adhere to some objective and balanced standards.0 -
It wasn't a comparison, it was an analogy to highlight possible bias.
Don't be silly.
John Jay ( whether you or I agree with them or not) are an Independent group of academics subscribing to objective standards. The fact that the Roman Catholics Bishops paid them to do independent research does not indicate bias no more than the government paying for an independent study indicates that the survey will be biased.
John Jay may have made some mistakes but they were not dishonest or willingly biased. the more important issue is that gigino uses other peoples research and he snips out soundbytes from it which is a dishonest way of supporting his need to trash the Church.
His tabloid style snipping and misreporting will not get very far in this discussion because it will be exposed for what it is. It isn't analogous to anything except maybe bigotry.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Don't be silly.
John Jay ( whether you or I agree with them or not) are an Independent group of academics subscribing to objective standards. The fact that the Roman Catholics Bishops paid them to do independent research does not indicate bias no more than the government paying for an independent study indicates that the survey will be biased.
Exactly.The John Jay College of Criminal Justice is a senior college of the City University of New York, Midtown Manhattan, New York City, and is the only college with a criminal justice and forensic focus in the United States.
It offers criminal justice education and research.
It is a training facility for local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel.
The school's namesake, John Jay , was the first chief justice United States Supreme Court and one of the founding fathers of the United States. Jay was a native of New York City, and a governor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_College_of_Criminal_Justice
The Catholic church had to fund this independent study. Why ? Because no one else was interested in carrying out an independent factual study, as an independent unbiased study would only deal with the actual facts not the bias and prejudice beloved of the vested intrests.0
Advertisement