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

Ongoing religious scandals

Options
1…2627293132…124

Comments

  • Options
    #842
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    robindch wrote: »
    The thread over in the christianity forum was closed, so posting there was difficult,
    No it isnt.
    I sent you five PM with it.
    I posted it above
    Here it is again for your information
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692
    I checked this thread and I can't find the posts I was referring to,
    i.e. you cant supported your claim that the 6.5% is in this thread.


    Here's where the rate figures for clerical abuse come from:
    1. Cloyne Report. Available [url=http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Cloyne_Rpt.pdf

    and the cloyne report supports you contention that "Figures released by the Dublin Archdiocese suggest that around 6.5% of the priests who worked during that time were convicted of child abuse, or who had credible allegations made against them.

    how does Cloyne relate to claims about Dublin?

    And how does "allegations made or concerns expressed about" become "convicted of child abuse, or who had credible allegations made"?
    2. Report by Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. Available here. Go to section 1.8 on page 2 of "Part 1". Quote:It's not unreasonable to think that perhaps half of the 11 "unnamed priests" might be included in the 172, so adding the remaining five to the 172, we get a figure of 177 priests against whom allegations were made.

    You Misrepresent the data here too
    it reads:
    The Commission received information about complaints, suspicions or knowledge of child sexual abuse in respect of 172 named priests and 11 unnamed priests. (Some or all of the 11 unnamed priests may, of course, be included in the 172 named priests.) After a preliminary examination, the Commission concluded that 102 of these priests were within remit.
    of the 177 some were abusers of adults etc. the ones who were possible child sex abusers were 102. the is no reason to assume half the 11 were within remit.

    And how does 102 allegations become "convicted of child abuse, or who had credible allegations" apparently your standard of "credible" is "anonymous"!

    Eventually in 1.13 you discover "Of the 34 priests from the Dublin Archdiocese, ten are dead, 20 are out of ministry and four are in ministry."

    we can only say 11 were convicted but assume all 34 are "credible" 34:2800 = 1.2%
    Then, go to section 3.4, page 43. Quote:1,350+1,450 = 2,800. There are no statistics concerning abuse by supply priests, and I'm assuming that the original 177 are taken from the 2,800 anyway. So, dividing 177 by 2,800 gives 6.3%.

    Or 34/2800=1.2% The report itself says this figure in 1.13 and mentions 11 convictions not 34.
    3. The Irish Catholic reported some years ago -- I haven't been able to find an online edition of that issue -- that 4% of convicted pedophiles in Irish prisons were clerics.
    So you cant support your claim of 6.5% but you have another claim you cant support of 4%?

    Here let me help you out
    again misreported as diocese figures but actually a diocese archive of media.
    It is the only figure near 6.5% on the diocese site of which i am aware.
    the archive is not available but the figure quotes is Maeve Lewis
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0917/1221599424035.html
    which suggests around 5% but again a media story based on what?
    And it refers to percentage of Victims not percentage of abusers!
    As clerics make up around only 0.1% of the population of the country, we'd therefore expect, all other things being equal, that they'd make up around 0.1% of the convicted prison population too (so the 4% figure indicates they're actually being convicted at 40 times the expected rate).
    all things arent equal! 90% of Mountjoy come from five Dublin estates.
    Yes but they didn,t always make up 0.1% Lots of CSO Census figures in the other thread
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692
    I wont waste more space here.

    Also the 4% is victims not abusers as stated above!
    Your figure is misreported. It does not support your 6.5% of abusers claim.
    The conviction rate will necessarily be lower than the allegation rate owing to the death of the accused, the difficulty of securing a conviction after the passage, in many cases, of many years and the reluctance of the accuser to take their case to court. So the rate of 4% seems plausible, given that it's substantially less than the allegation rate noted elsewhere.
    But it isn't a 4% conviction rate! It is a four percent of victims rate!
    Nothing you supplied shows 6.5% and it doesn't show 4% of abusers are roman Catholics priests either. All this has been pointed out in the clerical child abuse thread
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692
    Ill await you response there.
    I hope this clarifies the issue for you.

    Yes it clarifies that you cant support 6.5% of abusers are priests and you instead change it to 4% which you also cant support. Feel free to provide any evidence of it when you get it. But not here as it is suggested I'm taking up space being; i came her because YOU asked me to. you said the 6.5% was shown here.
    It isnt!
    You changed it to 4% of abusers are priests and suggested a makey uppy reference to the Irish catholic. which you also didnt supply
    That isn't supported either!

    If you actually have some figures to support your claims post it to the clerical child abuse thread.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692


  • Options
    #843
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Robin, I don't know if this is the earliest article but this one mentions the 4% issue.

    Fixing the Church
    Misreported
    It says
    Given that clergy account for approximately 4% of abuse, Irish society has a long way to go to rooting out this evil in our midst.
    I dont dispute that nor does the Catholic church. i woudl say 3to 4% of victims in Irland were victims of clergy and i have given what I believe are reasons for that figure in the clerical child abuse thread.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692

    It does not say "4% of abusers are clergy"! It certainly does not say 6.5% are.
    you are aware of the difference?


  • Options
    #844
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    /weeps into midday coffee


  • Options
    #845
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The ongoing pedantry of squabbling over a percentage or two...


  • Options
    #846
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Galvasean wrote: »
    The ongoing pedantry of squabbling over a percentage or two...

    I'm sure the victims of abuse will find solace that it's cleared up :rolleyes:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #847
    dmw07
    Registered Users Posts: 238 ✭✭dmw07


    Galvasean wrote: »
    The ongoing pedantry of squabbling over a percentage or two...

    At least people have moved on from arguing if church rape ever happened or not, to arguing how many of them committed rape.

    That's progress.


  • Options
    #848
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Galvasean wrote: »
    The ongoing pedantry of squabbling over a percentage or two...
    Over a difference of minimum six and a half times historically
    and given the 0.1% or 0.01% or less today over 65 or 650 times!
    And begun by Robindch not me
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77619733&postcount=39
    I happen to be interested in accurate figures and skeptical of false claims.


  • Options
    #849
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    ISAW wrote: »
    Over a difference of minimum six and a half times historically
    and given the 0.1% or 0.01% or less today over 65 or 650 times!
    And begun by Robindch not me
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77619733&postcount=39
    I happen to be interested in accurate figures and skeptical of false claims.

    out of curiousity, do you have the same passion for justice as you do for numbers? Just asking as most of the posts of yours that I remember on this topic always seem to be about percentages.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #850
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    koth wrote: »
    out of curiousity, do you have the same passion for justice as you do for numbers? Just asking as most of the posts of yours that I remember on this topic always seem to be about percentages.
    o Tempora o mores!

    Yes; Id be happy to answer that in more detail in the other thread. Indeed I already have several times.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692
    I dont want to take up space here. I only came because I was promised the evidence for the 6.5% claim. I still haven't seen it. but no retraction as yet.


  • Options
    #851
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    How is a yes or a no taking up space compared to your arguments over a couple of percentage points?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #852
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    ISAW wrote: »
    o Tempora o mores!
    I've no idea what that means :confused:
    Yes; Id be happy to answer that in more detail in the other thread. Indeed I already have several times.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692
    I dont want to take up space here. I only came because I was promised the evidence for the 6.5% claim. I still haven't seen it. but no retraction as yet.

    Might do that at some stage. Was just asking as a cursory glance at your posts in that thread and this are quite heavy on the numbers related discussion.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #853
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    koth wrote: »
    out of curiousity, do you have the same passion for justice as you do for numbers? Just asking as most of the posts of yours that I remember on this topic always seem to be about percentages.
    ISAW wrote: »
    o Tempora o mores!

    Yes; Id be happy to answer that in more detail in the other thread. Indeed I already have several times.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692
    I dont want to take up space here. I only came because I was promised the evidence for the 6.5% claim. I still haven't seen it. but no retraction as yet.

    dodge_logo-5984.jpg


  • Options
    #854
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Galvasean wrote: »
    dodge_logo-5984.jpg
    im not dodging the question.
    Im happy to answer it. but not here. i have been asked and have offered to restrict my posts here for the moment to the 6.5% claim
    You should post your graphic to robindch on answering the 6.5% claim.
    I feel it is suggesting something which is not true of me; i am not dodging any answer.


  • Options
    #855
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Two posts now, and no answer. You sure you're not dodging the question?


  • Options
    #856
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    *yawn*


  • Options
    #857
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sarky wrote: »
    Two posts now, and no answer. You sure you're not dodging the question?

    Happy to reply here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692
    But not in this thread. Reasons given
    No dodge.


  • Options
    #858
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Happy to reply here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692
    But not in this thread. Reasons given
    No dodge.


    ISAW , you have made the clerical child abuse thread virtually unreadable , which is why I never bother to post there anymore.

    If I appear before god seeking entry in to heaven and point out that so many others committed much worse sins than I, I will be told this is no defence.

    This is your only defence of what went on in the Chuch here for over 50 years, the other guy was worse. There is or was a fundamental sickness at the heart of the church and you just don't see it. And your slash and burn mish mash defence just prevents any possibility of renewal and is symtomatic of the church response through the years .

    To solve a problem you must first accept one exists, and it is not the church that defines the scale of the problem it is the victims.


  • Options
    #859
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    This is your only defence of what went on in the Chuch here for over 50 years, the other guy was worse. .

    no it isnt but Ill reply to that elsewhere as indicated


  • Options
    #860
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Guys, let's move on from the ISAW show. If Robin wants to respond again regarding the "numbers", he will. And if ISAW can keep his responses to a reasonably brief level, he can reply in kind.

    In the interim, let the thread breathe until someone posts something new.


  • Options
    #861
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,282 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    http://www.lazygamer.net/general-news/catholic-priest-sells-his-ds-forgets-to-remove-child-porn-3/
    Yes it’s happened again, one of the good lords sheep has hit the news for all the wrong reasons after selling his Nintendo DS to a woman in Montana who was going to be giving it to her child.

    The problem, well the priest had forgotten to remove his child porn from the device before handing it over and after the lady went to the police they searched his parish house and found even more on his computer.

    Edit: More reputable source - http://missoulian.com/news/local/catholic-priest-from-kalispell-parish-accused-of-possessing-child-porn/article_936f89be-7304-11e1-9adf-0019bb2963f4.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #862
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights – has reportedly declared a “no more Mr Nice Guy” policy in relation to payouts to victims of clerical sexual abuse.

    Getting tough on victims?
    The bishops have come together collectively. I can’t give you the names, but there’s a growing consensus on the part of the bishops that they had better toughen up and go out and buy some good lawyers to get tough. We don’t need altar boys. Bill Donohue

    Bad choice of words I'd imagine.

    http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/03/18/snapping-back-at-snap/


    Bill Donohue on Matt Cooper

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKLlxAgMO-w


  • Options
    #863
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Those pesky victims, how very dare they seek to bring their abusers to account!


  • Options
    #864
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Sarky wrote: »
    Those pesky victims, how very dare they seek to bring their abusers to account!

    They would have gotten away with it too. If it hadn't been for those pesky victims! :pac:


  • Options
    #865
    dmw07
    Registered Users Posts: 238 ✭✭dmw07


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Getting tough on victims?



    Bad choice of words I'd imagine.

    http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/03/18/snapping-back-at-snap/


    Bill Donohue on Matt Cooper

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKLlxAgMO-w

    What is the connection between Bill Donohue/catholic league and the catholic church in the vatican?

    Is it just a group of nutjob mouthpieces or are there links to the epicentre of crime?


  • Options
    #866
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ISAW wrote: »
    No it isnt. I sent you five PM with it. I posted it above Here it is again for your information
    ISAW, like a few days ago, I give up.


  • Options
    #867
    eire4
    Registered Users Posts: 6,638 ✭✭✭eire4


    Sarky wrote: »
    Those pesky victims, how very dare they seek to bring their abusers to account!

    The church's behaviour here brings a whole new level of meaning to the phrase insult to injury. Absolutely disgusting and shameful.


  • Options
    #868
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    robindch wrote: »
    ISAW, like a few days ago, I give up.

    Which is a post about The dutch Deetman report> It is followed by a proimise of the 6.5% source to arrive in a few minutes> That was several says ago.

    The only mention of 6.5% was by you and I have doccumented how your spin on the source is in error and it is actually saying under or around 1% see here:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77657998&postcount=3001
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77657998&postcount=3002
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77657998&postcount=3003
    Dont forget this all happened because you asked me to come here to get that evidence when you arrived in a thread claiming the 1% figure as unsourced. I did my homework. My sources stand up to scrutiny. yours dont
    Now have you any evidence that catholic priests are or were at any stage 6.5% of pedophiles or not?
    If not please say so.


  • Options
    #869
    darealtulip
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭darealtulip


    I don't understand what you all are on about? the pope stated clearly that child porn was very normal in the 70's. See no issue what so ever....

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html

    besides it is the vaticans own numbers that only 1.5-5% of the priest were involved in child abuse. It is a small gamble with your child since 5% is "only" 1 in 20.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/sex-abuse-religion-vatican

    My opinion is that every one still attending a chuch is condoning this child abuse or at minimum is indifferent to it. If it was any other institution it would have been closed.

    Imagine if it was a school with "only" 1 in 20 teachers being involved in child abuse, would you send your child there?


  • Options
    #870
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    darealtulip wrote: »
    I don't understand what you all are on about? the pope stated clearly that child porn was very normal in the 70's. See no issue what so ever....

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html

    besides it is the vaticans own numbers that only 1.5-5% of the priest were involved in child abuse. It is a small gamble with your child since 5% is "only" 1 in 20.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/sex-abuse-religion-vatican

    My opinion is that every one still attending a chuch is condoning this child abuse or at minimum is indifferent to it. If it was any other institution it would have been closed.

    Imagine if it was a school with "only" 1 in 20 teachers being involved in child abuse, would you send your child there?


    Nonsense.. There has not been one since abuse case reported in Ireland in the last 10 years... of abuse commited in the last 1o years. The Pope and the church as consistently voiced the strong commitment to rooting it out. And stated it was wrong and it was wrong how it acted with the abusers. The abuse was/is and always will be wrong. It goes against everything that Catholic faith stands for.

    The Church is all its members. I go to my church... because its MY church.. its not the Popes or the bishops Church.

    Lets me clear... Teachers who abused in the 50's 60's in Ireland and who got reported with dealt with in the same way as priests of the time.. Society turned a blind eye... Ireland failed its Children. This is not letting the Church off the hook.. This many serious and criminal decisions.. But this was not the Church alone.. it was the view taken by many institutions of the day.. Teachers that abused in Private boarding schools were not reported to the Police.. they were just fired.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #871
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    Nonsense.. There has not been one since abuse case reported in Ireland in the last 10 years... of abuse commited in the last 1o years. The Pope and the church as consistently voiced the strong commitment to rooting it out. And stated it was wrong and it was wrong how it acted with the abusers. The abuse was/is and always will be wrong. It goes against everything that Catholic faith stands for.

    The Church is all its members. I go to my church... because its MY church.. its not the Popes or the bishops Church.

    Lets me clear... Teachers who abused in the 50's 60's in Ireland and who got reported with dealt with in the same way as priests of the time.. Society turned a blind eye... Ireland failed its Children. This is not letting the Church off the hook.. This many serious and criminal decisions.. But this was not the Church alone.. it was the view taken by many institutions of the day.. Teachers that abused in Private boarding schools were not reported to the Police.. they were just fired.
    <yawn> Your church is run by scum. It saddens me to see that you simply can't see this.

    MrP


Advertisement