The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

MrPudding

ISAW wrote: »

Yes -INCLUDING anti Clericism and media bias.

Only anti clericism with respect to how they handled the crimes of child rape their employees were responsible for. I knwo you keep trying to gloss over that point, but that is the bottom line. They deserve the kind of coverage they are getting because of what they did.

ISAW wrote: »

You don't recall therefore you conclude it is true?

Almost correct. I am taking my recollection and also my knowledge that a thread on child sex abuse, not related to the religious would not, rightly, be tolerated in this forum. So, taking these two things into account I am forming an opinion that it is very unlikely indeed that there was a thread in this particular forum which was discussing child sex abuse in society in general, not related to clerical abuse, which was merged into this thread with all the other thread that were discussing clerical child sex abuse. It really isn't that difficult.

ISAW wrote: »

Now if a banker or a Bishop said i don't recall would you accept that as "it must be true"? So why should I then?

I don't particularly care whether you believe me or not. I know you seem to like arguing for the sake of it, and I believe this is a very silly point for you to be arguing about. I have stated, twice now, why I came to the opinion I did. Make of it what you will.

ISAW wrote: »

your words : clerical child abuse and everything that flows from that.

Yes, so for example, the cover up of clerical child sex abuse. Seriously, why do you have a problem with this very simple concept. This thread is talking about clerical child sex abuse. It may only account for 1%, according to your figures, but that is irrelevant. The subject is clerical child sex abuse. So child sex abuse of the non clerical type is not relevant to this particular discussion.

ISAW wrote: »

the fact that clerical abuse is one per cent of abuse flows from a discussion of clerical abuse since it shows that people like you do not want to discuss child abuse in general and are only interested in discussing one per cent of it.

Sorry, are you being intentionally obtuse? once more for the cheap seats. This is a thread about clerical sex abuse. It also covers the actions taken by the church in covering up and attempting to blame anyone or anything but itself for that abuse. Clerical abuse, just in case you were not sure. it is not that I am not interested in discussing non clerical abuse per se it is simply that a thread about clerical child sex abuse is not an appropriate place to discuss non clerical sex abuse. I would actually be very interested to see my there is a big difference between the acts of abuse and the convictions or even reports, but this is not the place for it.

MrP

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

Not really. A thread about sexual abuse in general, not related to the religious would not have a natural home in this forum and would be unlikely to remain unlocked.

And you are posting to such a thread.

No. RIGHT. Non clerical sex abuse is not relevant to a discussion about clerical sex abuse.

You want to dismiss 99 per cent of abusers? Why? If sexual abuse of children is a problem then why are you only interested in discussing the one per cent of it committed by clergy? surely it suggests you have a problem with clergy and not with sex abuse?

Most people would say slavery is wrong. Let us assume most world slavery was conducted by white people. Say 999 per cent of it. Let us say the public feel slavery is wrong. If you were discussing black people who control the slave trade and I came along and said "but why are you discussing the one per cent what about the 99 per cent who control the other 99 per cent of the trade"? Would you say "but we are discussing only black people who control slavery"? Might people not think you have a problem about black people or do you really believe they would think you are desperately concerned about solving slavery?

Non clerical sex abuse is relevant to society at large and should absolutely not be ignored, but this is not society at large, it is a thread discussing clerical sex abuse.

But why? If you are concerned about child abuse in general do you focus on only one per cent of it? Are you interested in combating abuse or in attacking clerics?

I am sorry but the two are intimately connected. Aside from the new reports of abuse most of the healines seemt o be about the cover up of… wait for it… clerical sex abuse.

Which proves my point! The media are biased by reporting on the one percent. Even yeaterdays Sunday Tribune had a front page six columns on a defrocked priest who had been defrocked years ago. He wasn't under any church control or command.

When discussing clerical sex abuse the cover up of the same is relevant.

And when discussing black people who enslave others the avoidance of the other 99.9 per cent non black slavers is irrelevant?

Hmmm, you appear to be engaging in specious reasoning. Assuming your figures are correct,

Don't just assume it go and read the references . If you find anything wrong show me how it is wrong.

just because each and every instance of abuse that makes up the 99% was not prosecuted does not mean that there was a cover up.

correct it doesn't! And I posted figures on that too in the thread you claim to have "recollected". The rates for conviction of non clergy are higher then for clergy. But they are not 99 times higher . They are IIR higher by a factor of about FOUR times.

You are still left with explaining the other 96!

Each and every incident may not have resulted in a conviction but it is specious reasoning to conclude that this si die to a coverup.

Let us be clear about the history here. Where I came in was in a thread about Cardinal Brady and a claim that he perpetrated a "cover up" of abuse. I listed the stats on abuse and various reports the most comprehensive of which is a State report into religious orders and institutions. That reposr states the orders (I refer specifically to some orders in Ireland and not to the church in general) did prevent clerics being prosecuted. But at the same time they allowed lay people to be prosecuted. However in society in general there were it is suggested thousands of cases outside the church. Now if these were outside the church and were not done by clerics and were not reported then how do you explain WHY they were not reported? It wasn't the Church protecting clerics since this was not done by clerics. The Church didn't tell any Gardai not to prosecute non church people.
SO???

Excellent. Why don’t you start a thread about non clerical child sex abuse in an appropriate forum.

I have i started it here and it was merged with this one. Why have another abuse thread when the mods just merged them all?

Perhaps I will pop along. Humanities perhaps? In the meantime, I will continue to discuss clerical child sex abuse, and the issues that flow from it, in the clerical child sex thread.

And so will I . One issue flowing from it being
why is clerical sex abuse worth discussions meriting 999 times the abount of print when it constituted less than one per cent of abuse?{/b]

Hmmm, yes society was to blame. And don’t forget the devil for tempting the priests with succulent kiddies.

No I wont forget them or the other 99 per cent of non clerical abusers either
And go and read some of the references will you! Most abuse wasn't kiddies! It was pubescent teens!

The church spent hundreds of years manoeuvring itself into a position where the thought of contradicting or challenging them was something that would simply not cross a persons mind.

So what? We are discussing child abuse but apparently you really only want to discuss the Church and attack the Church. That's why you only want to discuss Clerical abuse isn't it?

We can blame the church, or at the very least some of its employees for 100% of the clerical child rapes.

No actually even there you are wrong! If a Priest became a Nazi and killed Jews and Gypsies you couldn't blame the Church. So it isnt true 100 per cent of the time. Even today a new priest or a teacher or a coach could be an abuser. But you cant blame the church the School or the Club since they all have child protection policies.

We can also blame the church for covering up the abuse and moving priests around.

Yes thats right you can. How many of them? Can you list 100? 50? Ten? Worldwide? Or just in Ireland? Meanwhile there are thousands of non Clerical abusers not the responsibility of the church but it seems you don't care about them at all.

Obviously some blame can be attached to others for aiding and abetting the church, but the vast majority of the blame must lie with those that carried out the offenses and those that directly covered up or attempted to cover up the crimes.

Indeed! for one per cent of offences. It is funny how you take say 100,000 cases worldwide and pick out say TEN the Church are indeed responsible for. In one or two of these cases some families or others might be implicates . so you pick eight say of these then where the church is totally responsible. You now have EIGHT of 100,000 but you then proclaim that these eight cases prove that in the vast majority of cases the Church is responsible. But you miss the other 99,950 cases!

I am not a priest, I am not a bishop. I don’t believe in your god, in fact I don’t believe in anyone’s god,

Not alone that but you seem not just atheist but anti theist because you only want to discuss the one per cent of clerical abuse.

but I can tell you one thing. If it ever come to my attention that a person is raping a child I will report it to someone,

But you will focus your attention on clerics and not the other 99 per cent awhich you dont really want to discuss?

and I will make sure that something is done about it.

So WHY then? Why didn't people who knew abou the the other 99 per cent of non clerical abuse of do that? Why didnt they report it?

I would not care about my personal feelings for the authority involved. I would find a way. Stop making excuses for him. If he had been inclined to report the abuse and have something done about it he would have found a way.

Why didn't people who knew about the the other 99 per cent of non clerical abuse of do that? Why didn't they report it?

Even if the 99% was covered up by some other organisation, and it is not clear it was,

the stats are clear. - 99 per cent not catholic clergy
slightly hiogher reporting of non clergy.
Thousands (tens of thoudands even) of cases not reprted. Why? The clergy was not involved in these cases.

that does not make covering up a mere 1% ok. Particularly when the people covering up the 1% hold themselves forward as moral guardians.

I totally agree with that. But it doesn't make only see that one percent ok and ignoring the reast does it? Why are you ignoring the 99 per cent non clergy is ytou really care about the issue of child sexual abuse?

I don’t think anyone is arguing this is the case. As I have pointed out, in a thread discussing clerical sex abuse dealing with non clerical sex abuse would be off topic.

Please don't try to moderate the thread,. If you have a problem report it. If you are correct a mod will pm me and or ban me.

Graces7

ISAW; your stats are wrong. Even the Church admits that.

Also of course to date by no means all of the clerical child abuse has ben exposed.

There is a national audit in progress now.

And as happened with Cardinal Brady, many more victims will come forward as time passes and the power of the Church wanes.

One interesting thing is the greater number of other abuse cases we are hearing about. Victims are finding courage from the clerical abused .

Also of course this has become a generational curse;many who were abused go on to abuse. They were well taught.

Also note the kind of sentences rightly handed to non'clerical offenders, compared to clerical offenders.

itis this partiality that gives offence.

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

More whataboutery. For shame.

MrP

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64960229&postcount=136

So he is saying that he believes child rape was acceptable then.

It was a general point. he didn't say "clerical" child abuse.
It was made in relation to Ratzinger commenting on child abuse.
there is absolutely no way you can claim that Ratzinger above is being accused as having said clerical abuse was OK whereas non clerical wasn't.

It also brings in the medi point from the previous message replied to.

It isn't for you to moderate or decide what is or isn't on topic!

Ironiocally the FIRST comment to go off the topic of Brady resigning which was the original thread was YOU when you stated :
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64934395&postcount=5

This is an interesting point. In the UK I believe it is a criminal offence not to report child abuse you are aware of. The laws in Ireland are often very similar to those in the UK, I wonder if there is such an offence?

Presumably, if there was, there are a fairly large number of church officials guilty of this offence. Added to that, there are also like to be a number of government and ex-government officials who had the same knowledge. So, if such an offence does exist why are they not being prosecuted?

As a separate issue I would expect there should be charges also brought against the gardai that were aware of the abuse but chose to let the church deal with it. I would like to think that this is also illegal.

You were discussing Brady resigning but YOU brought in other non church matters such as the law of the state (which applies to ALL abusers not only to the one per cent of clerics)
YOU also brought in the Gardaí who are non Church and who have to react to ALL abuses reported whether church or non church. But it seems you only really wanted to discuss the "special case" of the one per cent of Church related clerical abusers.
Why was that? It now transpires you admit you are are an atheist so it can't be because you are interested in improving the Church. so why is it you are only interested in discussing the one per cent of clerical abusers and you are not at all interested in the other 99 per cent of abusers?

Ghost Buster

ISAW wrote: »

And you are posting to such a thread.



You want to dismiss 99 per cent of abusers? Why? If sexual abuse of children is a problem then why are you only interested in discussing the one per cent of it committed by clergy? surely it suggests you have a problem with clergy and not with sex abuse?

Most people would say slavery is wrong. Let us assume most world slavery was conducted by white people. Say 999 per cent of it. Let us say the public feel slavery is wrong. If you were discussing black people who control the slave trade and I came along and said "but why are you discussing the one per cent what about the 99 per cent who control the other 99 per cent of the trade"? Would you say "but we are discussing only black people who control slavery"? Might people not think you have a problem about black people or do you really believe they would think you are desperately concerned about solving slavery?




But why? If you are concerned about child abuse in general do you focus on only one per cent of it? Are you interested in combating abuse or in attacking clerics?



Which proves my point! The media are biased by reporting on the one percent. Even yeaterdays Sunday Tribune had a front page six columns on a defrocked priest who had been defrocked years ago. He wasn't under any church control or command.




And when discussing black people who enslave others the avoidance of the other 99.9 per cent non black slavers is irrelevant?



Don't just assume it go and read the references . If you find anything wrong show me how it is wrong.



correct it doesn't! And I posted figures on that too in the thread you claim to have "recollected". The rates for conviction of non clergy are higher then for clergy. But they are not 99 times higher . They are IIR higher by a factor of about FOUR times.

You are still left with explaining the other 96!



Let us be clear about the history here. Where I came in was in a thread about Cardinal Brady and a claim that he perpetrated a "cover up" of abuse. I listed the stats on abuse and various reports the most comprehensive of which is a State report into religious orders and institutions. That reposr states the orders (I refer specifically to some orders in Ireland and not to the church in general) did prevent clerics being prosecuted. But at the same time they allowed lay people to be prosecuted. However in society in general there were it is suggested thousands of cases outside the church. Now if these were outside the church and were not done by clerics and were not reported then how do you explain WHY they were not reported? It wasn't the Church protecting clerics since this was not done by clerics. The Church didn't tell any Gardai not to prosecute non church people.
SO???



I have i started it here and it was merged with this one. Why have another abuse thread when the mods just merged them all?



And so will I . One issue flowing from it being
why is clerical sex abuse worth discussions meriting 999 times the abount of print when it constituted less than one per cent of abuse?{/b]



No I wont forget them or the other 99 per cent of non clerical abusers either
And go and read some of the references will you! Most abuse wasn't kiddies! It was pubescent teens!



So what? We are discussing child abuse but apparently you really only want to discuss the Church and attack the Church. That's why you only want to discuss Clerical abuse isn't it?



No actually even there you are wrong! If a Priest became a Nazi and killed Jews and Gypsies you couldn't blame the Church. So it isnt true 100 per cent of the time. Even today a new priest or a teacher or a coach could be an abuser. But you cant blame the church the School or the Club since they all have child protection policies.



Yes thats right you can. How many of them? Can you list 100? 50? Ten? Worldwide? Or just in Ireland? Meanwhile there are thousands of non Clerical abusers not the responsibility of the church but it seems you don't care about them at all.



Indeed! for one per cent of offences. It is funny how you take say 100,000 cases worldwide and pick out say TEN the Church are indeed responsible for. In one or two of these cases some families or others might be implicates . so you pick eight say of these then where the church is totally responsible. You now have EIGHT of 100,000 but you then proclaim that these eight cases prove that in the vast majority of cases the Church is responsible. But you miss the other 99,950 cases!




Not alone that but you seem not just atheist but anti theist because you only want to discuss the one per cent of clerical abuse.



But you will focus your attention on clerics and not the other 99 per cent awhich you dont really want to discuss?



So WHY then? Why didn't people who knew abou the the other 99 per cent of non clerical abuse of do that? Why didnt they report it?



Why didn't people who knew about the the other 99 per cent of non clerical abuse of do that? Why didn't they report it?



the stats are clear. - 99 per cent not catholic clergy
slightly hiogher reporting of non clergy.
Thousands (tens of thoudands even) of cases not reprted. Why? The clergy was not involved in these cases.



I totally agree with that. But it doesn't make only see that one percent ok and ignoring the reast does it? Why are you ignoring the 99 per cent non clergy is ytou really care about the issue of child sexual abuse?



Please don't try to moderate the thread,. If you have a problem report it. If you are correct a mod will pm me and or ban me.

I have began to address posters on the "I hate broccoli" forum. There are countless other greens that people find unpalatable and they are being dismissed out of hand. Why are posters unwilling to discuss cabbage, spinach and lettuce on the "I hate broccoli' forum.?

ISAW

Graces7 wrote: »

ISAW; your stats are wrong. Even the Church admits that.

which stats? The peer reviewed ones? The oficially reported ones? they are MINE are they?
Which ones are you saying are wrong?
And WHO in the church said which stats are wrong?

Any actual evidence to back up your claim?

Also of course to date by no means all of the clerical child abuse has ben exposed.

The stats are not of what has been convicted but of what is expected.
About one percent of sexual abusers are Clerics in the roman catholic church.

There is a national audit in progress now.

You have the reports I posted sources. Wher is your counterargument? Saying "ther is an audit the figures may be wronmg we dont really know" is argument from ignorance. I put the counter claim that Roman Catholic clerics were about one per cent of abusers. I supported it with published stats. You just gainsay that and post no evidence except £we will find it out later" Just like we found WMD in Iraq?
It isn't as if this didn't happen before. similar claims were made about clerics by the Nazis.

And as happened with Cardinal Brady, many more victims will come forward as time passes and the power of the Church wanes.

good for them. and i would hope for every one there will be another 99 non clerical abuse victim that comes forward as well.

One interesting thing is the greater number of other abuse cases we are hearing about. Victims are finding courage from the clerical abused .

But the media arent highlighting the cases like the front page coverage of even defrocked ex priests who are no longer part of the active church clergy.

Also of course this has become a generational curse;many who were abused go on to abuse. They were well taught.

By the 99 times as many non clerics who abused them?
By the way in case you didn't notice and I have pointed this out while 99 per cent of abusers are non clerics that does not mean 99 per cent of victims are from non clerics since clerics tended m ore to have multiple victims.

Also note the kind of sentences rightly handed to non'clerical offenders, compared to clerical offenders.

you quote em and ill note em! How about listing twenty of each. Ill bet you cant even manage twenty non clerical abusers let alone twenty clerics. Then we can compare the sentences. I submit you don't even know the stats but you are just offering your unsupported opinion. Care to prove me wrong?

it is this partiality that gives offence.

If it is true it is illegal I would think. But you haven't shown it to be true. and if it is true it is worth publishing.

ISAW

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I have began to address posters on the "I hate broccoli" forum. There are countless other greens that people find unpalatable and they are being dismissed them out of hand. Why are posters unwilling to discuss cabbage, spinach and lettuce on the "I hate broccoli' forum.?

except this seems not to be Brocolli but it seems the "I hate the church" forum.

You already admitted you were an atheist. You obviously aren't concerned with improving the church. You posted very early on in this thread about the legal situation for all abusers and about whether a law could be used against Cardinal Brady. But the title then was about should Brady resign. clearly it seems to me you were then interested in attacking the Cardinal. Now when the thread title is merged with others you are only interested in clerical abuse. You are prepared to forget your original post about the law which applies to all and not just to clerics. You are prepared to forget about the 99 per cent of non clerics who are abusers and we are meant to assume that it is because you want to improve society by concentrating only on attacking the Church and its members?

I really don't think you are convincing anyone that focusing on attacking a tiny minority (which you already admit you don't want to help improve) and ignoring the vast majority shows that you are interested in a solution to child abuse in Ireland.

Even a Brocolli (if it could think) could figure that out

For "you" read Mr Pudding. who posted this thread at message 5.

Now Ghostbuster what is your interest in the subject? Are you also only interested in clerics? Or maybe only in clerics who eat broccoli?

Ghost Buster

ISAW wrote: »

except this seems not to be Brocolli but it seems the "I hate the church" forum.

You already admitted you were an atheist. You obviously aren't concerned with improving the church. You posted very early on in this thread about the legal situation for all abusers and about whether a law could be used against Cardinal Brady. But the title then was about should Brady resign. clearly it seems to me you were then interested in attacking the Cardinal. Now when the thread title is merged with others you are only interested in clerical abuse. You are prepared to forget your original post about the law which applies to all and not just to clerics. You are prepared to forget about the 99 per cent of non clerics who are abusers and we are meant to assume that it is because you want to improve society by concentrating only on attacking the Church and its members?

I really don't think you are convincing anyone that focusing on attacking a tiny minority (which you already admit you don't want to help improve) and ignoring the vast majority shows that you are interested in a solution to child abuse in Ireland.

Even a Brocolli (if it could think) could figure that out

For "you" read Mr Pudding. who posted this thread at message 5.

Now Ghostbuster what is your interest in the subject? Are you also only interested in clerics? Or maybe only in clerics who eat broccoli?

Dont question anybodys intelligence please especially in such a snide manner.
And the bit in green = Huh. "You" who. What?

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't particularly care whether you believe me or not.

Please look up "shifting the burden" under "logical fallacy" ! If you claim something it is for you to support it! If i say "i dont believe you" it is for you to show your were right. Otherwise all you have is unsupported opinion.

I know you seem to like arguing for the sake of it,

Oh you know that do you? HOW? How do you know it?
And so what? do you always resort to personal attack when you are losing the argument?
Look up "ad hominem" while you are looking up fallacies would you?

i rarely indulge in it. I react when people attack me. As you have when you suggested I had no right to post about non clerical abuse. and other people brought in ridiculous examples of vegetables. What nonsense! Why should a Christian group be restricted to discussion only clerical sins?

and I believe this is a very silly point for you to be arguing about. I have stated, twice now, why I came to the opinion I did. Make of it what you will.

I have! It is a completely nonsensical point that we can only discuss clerical abuse in this forum and non clerical abuse is off limits! Particularly in a discussion in which anticlericism is central! But if you have a problem about that post a moderator and don't try to moderate the discussion yourself.

Yes, so for example, the cover up of clerical child sex abuse. Seriously, why do you have a problem with this very simple concept.

I don't . Where have i stated that any cover up clerical or non clerical should not be dealt with?

Maybe I can help you out.
You are conflating two issues here. The first is the abuse issue which should be discussed. The second is the covering up of abuse which is a different issue. But the covering up issue again is also concerned with two types of covering up. the one per cent of clerical abusers being covered up and the other 99 per cent being covered up ( well maybe 90 per cent). Yo uonly want to discuss the tiny minoroity of the tiny minority of cases where the roman Catholic Church hierarchy may have colluded in cover up. Ther are over the last 50 years about 10,000 Bishops in the Roman Church. some of them were bad Bishops. But of the covering up of clerical sexual abuse ther may have been about ten bishops I am aware of. this is a TENTH OF A PERCENT of Bishops and Bishops themselves are I woud guess about five per cent or less of clergy. Maybe even one per cent. they is a tiny tiny tiny minority. It still isnt right what they did but they are not representative of the vast majority of clergy even in the Authoritarian church of the past. Yes they should be exposed and the church and the state should deal with that. But surely if you actually care about the issue of abuse you should also be concerned about the much much much larger number of non church non clerical abusers and who is keeping quiet abou them?

This thread is talking about clerical child sex abuse.

Among other things. such as legalities, resignations, non clerical abusers.

It may only account for 1%, according to your figures,

They are not MY figures, they are PUBLISHED figures! If you dispute them then show wher they are wrong! Can you do that?

but that is irrelevant.

No it isnt because if you are interested in solving the problem of abuse you can't do that by only focusing on clerical abuse . Something which tit seems the anticlerical atheists seem very interested in. Why is that do you think?

The subject is clerical child sex abuse. So child sex abuse of the non clerical type is not relevant to this particular discussion.

Abuse is abuse. You can single out one sub group of abusers and think you are solving any problems as well. It is like saying that you want to deal with thieves so you introduce a law to cut off hands. But only the hands of gypsies. We will deal with them first. Or discussing slavery and then say "well lets begin by discussing the half per cent of people making money from slavery who are black africans" and totally leave out the European and Asian slave mongers. It is patent nonsense. Do you really think the anti slave laws would have been brought in based on evidence and discussion about black slavers on the african coast and leaving out the White Europeans?

it is not that I am not interested in discussing non clerical abuse per se

good then discuss it!

it is simply that a thread about clerical child sex abuse is not an appropriate place to discuss non clerical sex abuse.

You dont decide what the thread is! One can't discuss one without the other in my opinion. But if you doubt me complain to a moderator and see what they say. You may be right. As I view it though I doubt people with an antio clerical agenda have any interest ion discussing non clerical abuse. I would add that such atheistic politbeauro they definition of what can and can't be discussed strikes me as typical. I would not be interested in discussing only non clerical abuse either.

I would actually be very interested to see my there is a big difference between the acts of abuse and the convictions or even reports, but this is not the place for it.

Yes it is.

Graces7

ISAW and others

Some reading for you ...on the real topic of this thread

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/

Much more relevant.

MrPudding

ISAW wrote: »

Please look up "shifting the burden" under "logical fallacy" ! If you claim something it is for you to support it! If i say "i dont believe you" it is for you to show your were right. Otherwise all you have is unsupported opinion.

I have already stated it is a conclusion I came to and geven the reasons for coming to that conclusion. I litterally could not care less what you think about it. I don't need to prove anything I explained how I came to my conclusion.

ISAW wrote: »

Oh you know that do you? HOW? How do you know it?

I know it because I have read dozens of you posts in this thread and others and it is certainly the impression you give, and I am not the only person that thinks so. Do I have any proof? No. Do I need to prove it to anyone? No. I have read your posts and formed an opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

And so what? do you always resort to personal attack when you are losing the argument? Look up "ad hominem" while you are looking up fallacies would you?

Hardly a personal attack, merely an observation, and not even a particularly negative one. And losing what argument exactly? I don’t want to talk about non clerical child sex abuse in a thread devoted to that and I am losing. Yeah, OK. And I don’t need to look up ad hominem but thank you for showing concern for my education.

ISAW wrote: »

i rarely indulge in it. I react when people attack me. As you have when you suggested I had no right to post about non clerical abuse. and other people brought in ridiculous examples of vegetables. What nonsense! Why should a Christian group be restricted to discussion only clerical sins?

Sorry, could you point me to where I said you have no right to post about non clerical abuse? I have said that I do not believe this is the place for that discussion, and I will refrain from discussing it here. I don’t care what you do and I most certainly am not telling you what you can or cannot post.

ISAW wrote: »

I have! It is a completely nonsensical point that we can only discuss clerical abuse in this forum and non clerical abuse is off limits! Particularly in a discussion in which anticlericism is central! But if you have a problem about that post a moderator and don't try to moderate the discussion yourself.

Really, I am at a loss as to why you cannot simply accept that I do not want to discuss non clerical sex abuse in this thread. Seriously, is it such a hard concept to get?

ISAW wrote: »

I don't . Where have i stated that any cover up clerical or non clerical should not be dealt with?

I don’t know. Where did I say you said it should not be dealt with?

ISAW wrote: »

Maybe I can help you out.
You are conflating two issues here. The first is the abuse issue which should be discussed. The second is the covering up of abuse which is a different issue. But the covering up issue again is also concerned with two types of covering up.

No, the covering up of clerical child sex abuse, which is what I am discussing is about the covering up of clerical child sex abuse. Why would I want to talk about non clerical sex abuse, or its covering up, in a thread about clerical sex abuse.

ISAW wrote: »

the one per cent of clerical abusers being covered up and the other 99 per cent being covered up ( well maybe 90 per cent). Yo uonly want to discuss the tiny minoroity of the tiny minority of cases where the roman Catholic Church hierarchy may have colluded in cover up.

In this thread, yes.

ISAW wrote: »

Ther are over the last 50 years about 10,000 Bishops in the Roman Church. some of them were bad Bishops. But of the covering up of clerical sexual abuse ther may have been about ten bishops I am aware of. this is a TENTH OF A PERCENT of Bishops and Bishops themselves are I woud guess about five per cent or less of clergy. Maybe even one per cent. they is a tiny tiny tiny minority. It still isnt right what they did but they are not representative of the vast majority of clergy even in the Authoritarian church of the past. Yes they should be exposed and the church and the state should deal with that. But surely if you actually care about the issue of abuse you should also be concerned about the much much much larger number of non church non clerical abusers and who is keeping quiet abou them?

I am concerned. Not not with respect to this thread.

ISAW wrote: »

Among other things. such as legalities, resignations, non clerical abusers.

Well, thats as maybe, but I am not talking about non clerical child sex abusers.

ISAW wrote: »

They are not MY figures, they are PUBLISHED figures! If you dispute them then show wher they are wrong! Can you do that?

I have not read them, I may get round to it at some point. I am sure they are fabulously interesting and you are interpreting them perfectly.

ISAW wrote: »

No it isnt because if you are interested in solving the problem of abuse you can't do that by only focusing on clerical abuse . Something which tit seems the anticlerical atheists seem very interested in. Why is that do you think?

I don’t think this thread is trying to solve the problem of child sex abuse. It is to discuss clerical child sex abuse.

ISAW wrote: »

Abuse is abuse. You can single out one sub group of abusers and think you are solving any problems as well.

I agree, abuse is abuse. That does not mean that a sub section of the abuse can’t be discussed, as is happening here.

ISAW wrote: »

It is like saying that you want to deal with thieves so you introduce a law to cut off hands. But only the hands of gypsies. We will deal with them first.

Obviously if you are creating a law to deal with an activity you may not want to single out a section of society, there are reasons why this might not be appropriate. But we aren’t writing legislation. We are having a discussion. Whilst it might not be appropriate to enact legislation to cut the hands of thieves, as long as they were gypsies, it would be perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about crime in the gypsy community, dealing only with crime in the gypsy community, if the whole point of that discussion what to discuss crime in the gypsy community.

ISAW wrote: »

Or discussing slavery and then say "well lets begin by discussing the half per cent of people making money from slavery who are black africans" and totally leave out the European and Asian slave mongers. It is patent nonsense. Do you really think the anti slave laws would have been brought in based on evidence and discussion about black slavers on the african coast and leaving out the White Europeans?

I am familiar with your slavery analogy, it does not improve with repetition. If you are discussing slavery in general then you are correct. If, on the other hand, you were discussing slavery with respect to the 0.5% that are black Africans then it is perfectly acceptable to discuss only that subsection. Really, this is not difficult.

ISAW wrote: »

good then discuss it!

Not here.

ISAW wrote: »

You dont decide what the thread is!

With respect to what I post, yes I do. I am not trying to backseat mod this forum. I am not saying what other people can or cannot post. I am simply saying that I am choosing not to discussion non clerical child sex abuse in a thread that I believe is about clerical child sex abuse.

ISAW wrote: »

One can't discuss one without the other in my opinion.

And that is your opinion. I don’t have to agree with it. I think it is perfectly possible to discuss clerical child sex abuse without also discussing non clerical child sex abuse.

ISAW wrote: »

But if you doubt me complain to a moderator and see what they say. You may be right.

Why would I report you? You can do whatever you want. As you have rightly pointed out, I do not moderate this forum, I think hell would freeze over (and remember I don’t believe in hell) before I was considered for that. I am merely taking a decision on how I will post on this thread, and I have decided I will not discuss non clerical child sex abuse. Simples.

ISAW wrote: »

As I view it though I doubt people with an antio clerical agenda have any interest ion discussing non clerical abuse.

I am unashamedly anti clerical, but I would not have a problem discussing non clerical child sex abuse elsewhere and assuming I had the time.

ISAW wrote: »

I would add that such atheistic politbeauro they definition of what can and can't be discussed strikes me as typical. I would not be interested in discussing only non clerical abuse either.

Sorry, who is dictating what can and can’t be discussed? I am simply saying that I won’t discuss a particular thing here. I am not dictating what other people can or can’t say nor have I received any instructions from our Atheist Materialist Conspiracy (tm) headquarters telling me I can’t.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes it is.

Not for me.

MrP

Michael G

philiporeilly wrote: »

Its amazing that when the media print evidence which embarrasses the hierarchy of the RCC they are biased, yet when you or others here who link to religious or RCC opinion blogs they must be considered facts and have no bias whatsoever. I'm not refuting those sources but please if you are accusing the media of bias, it's ironic that you give sources that are not independent.

At first glance your argument looks strong, but it does not stand up. Why is it that the rebuttal (or in many cases the actual refutation) of stories that reflect badly on the Church is not carried in the same mainstream media that printed the original stories?

philiporeilly wrote: »

As long as there is public interest in these matters, the media will report. It's their duty and to be fair the church would be as forthcoming with child protection issues if it wasn't for the media doing their jobs.

You make it sound as though the "media" were high-minded and disinterested commentators. Most journalists are paid for each published word. If you have to pay for a mortgage and a car loan, what kind of secular saint would you have to be to file a story like Church actually not quite as bad as the Sunday World said it was?

Graces7

Michael G wrote: »

At first glance your argument looks strong, but it does not stand up. Why is it that the rebuttal (or in many cases the actual refutation) of stories that reflect badly on the Church is not carried in the same mainstream media that printed the original stories?

You make it sound as though the "media" were high-minded and disinterested commentators. Most journalists are paid for each published word. If you have to pay for a mortgage and a car loan, what kind of secular saint would you have to be to file a story like Church actually not quite as bad as the Sunday World said it was?

The Vatican publishes stories like that and many read them....

No; journalists are not known for being high minded, but in this case they speak the truth and there is no need to exaggerate or sensationalise. Was just reading the "new" O'Grady saga on clericalwhispers. It beggars belief.

Michael G

Graces7 wrote: »

The Vatican publishes stories like that and many read them.

The weaker-minded among us will take a while to understand the singular importance of your discovery, but I congratulate you for bringing this thread to a conclusion.

All the same, make sure you continue to wear your tinfoil hat; and never step on the cracks between the paving stones.

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

I have already stated it is a conclusion I came to and geven the reasons for coming to that conclusion. I litterally could not care less what you think about it. I don't need to prove anything I explained how I came to my conclusion.

Oh but you DO if you claim it is true. yher reasons you gave were your unsupported Opinion!

I know it because I have read dozens of you posts in this thread and others and it is certainly the impression you give, and I am not the only person that thinks so.

so "I have an opinion based on my impression which other people agree with " is FACT now is it?

Do I have any proof? No. Do I need to prove it to anyone? No. I have read your posts and formed an opinion.

Exactly ! an OPINION! Not a fact but an opinion.

Hardly a personal attack, merely an observation, and not even a particularly negative one. And losing what argument exactly?

the argument that you can make a claim about a Bishop or a banker and assume it is true without providing any evidence and just supplying unsupported opinion!

I don’t want to talk about non clerical child sex abuse in a thread devoted to that and I am losing.

It isn't devoted only to clerical sex abuse as you have claimed. Again your opinion is that it is devoted to that. But you don't decide on that.

Yeah, OK. And I don’t need to look up ad hominem but thank you for showing concern for my education.

If you don't need to look it up you are then aware that accusing me of argument just for the sake of it requires supporting evidence and not just bald assertion.

Sorry, could you point me to where I said you have no right to post about non clerical abuse?

Yes. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65590616&postcount=902
where you stated:
I am taking my recollection and also my knowledge that a thread on child sex abuse, not related to the religious would not, rightly, be tolerated in this forum.

I have said that I do not believe this is the place for that discussion, and I will refrain from discussing it here. I don’t care what you do and I most certainly am not telling you what you can or cannot post.

You stated that you do not believe that a post on non clerical abuse would not rightly be tolerated in this forum!

Really, I am at a loss as to why you cannot simply accept that I do not want to discuss non clerical sex abuse in this thread. Seriously, is it such a hard concept to get?

We are all aware you don't want to discuss it. It seems church bashing is all you really care about. But you went further than that. You stated that you believed non clerical abuse should be allowed in this discussion or anywhere else on this forum. You tried to net cop me by suggesting that I was posting something that should not be allowed.

I don’t know. Where did I say you said it should not be dealt with?

Weere I posted
"It is a completely nonsensical point that we can only discuss clerical abuse in this forum and non clerical abuse is off limits!"

And you replied:
Yes, so for example, the cover up of clerical child sex abuse. Seriously, why do you have a problem with this very simple concept.

No, the covering up of clerical child sex abuse, which is what I am discussing is about the covering up of clerical child sex abuse. Why would I want to talk about non clerical sex abuse, or its covering up, in a thread about clerical sex abuse.

1. you have not established that only clerical abuse can be discussed in this thread?
2. Only discussing clerical abuse and ignoring the other 99 per cent of abusers isn't really tackling the problem of child abuse it?


[snip]

ISAW

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Dont question anybodys intelligence please especially in such a snide manner.
And the bit in green = Huh. "You" who. What?

Ghostbuster. YOU are the one who re posted an entire message of mine and highlighted in large red letters a single phrase and commented nothing about the rest of the message. You then made a quip about an "I love brocolli forum" as if I was doing something which is fallacious. It wasn't! I pointed out to you that your suggstion that I was fallacious or off topic was in error so please don't blame me for that. YOU are the one who made the veggie comment in the first place!

I assume you also are an atheist. Maybe you aren't but I already have made the point that the anticlericism demonstrated in the media seems to be spilling over into these groupos.

I never said clerics who commit crimes or those who hide them should not be brought to justice. I pointed out that all of a sudden atheists with no interest at all in the Church and who admite and look up to anti Clerical people like Dawkins, are interested in posting on clerical abuse only! Why is that? Is it because they are interested in the subject of abuse and want to do something to solve the problem? so then why are they only interested in posting on the church and clerics when they admit they have no interest in helping or improving the Church?

I then find if ironic that I am accused of "arguing for the sake of it" when in fact I am quite prepared to discuss and quite interested in discussing the causes of how people (clerics and the other 99 per cent plus of abusers) become abusers. I not only interested in clerical abuse and I think discussing it in isolation is only done to facilitate those whose motivation is to attack the church and not solve the problem of abuse. In doing that they are no better than the people they accuse of only wanting to defend the church and not do anything about the actual abuse.

Yes the Church should do has done and is doing something and that can be talked about but not in isolation from the other 99 per cent of abusers.

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

Only anti clericism with respect to how they handled the crimes of child rape their employees were responsible for.

Aha! So you admit you are not interested in the actual crime of abuse. Youe main interest is in the people who were in charge at the time even if the people in charge didn't actually commit acts of abuse?

You interest isn't the abuse itself but how the hierarchy handled the abusers.
Now I don't object to discussing this separate issue but you it seems want only to discuss this. so having said you only want to discuss the actual abuse byt only clerics themselves you are nowchanging your focus to how the hierarchy handled abusers.

Again why are you interested in that? It isn't because you want to improve the hierarchy of the Church so why is it?

Anyway to discuss it. Please supply some facts.
How many cases? Of a hundred thousand cases of child abuse in the last fifty years how many cases can you cite of a Bishop covering up the abuse. One , two , five? now how many Bishops were there in the last fifty years? I would recon about 10,000. If all of those 10,000 were aware of abuse and covered it up then I agree the church has a big problem. but I suspect you cant produce even ten let alone a hundred which is about one per cent of Bishops.

I knwo you keep trying to gloss over that point, but that is the bottom line. They deserve the kind of coverage they are getting because of what they did.

And non clerics who did the same things don't deserve similar coverage? why?

Almost correct. I am taking my recollection and also my knowledge that a thread on child sex abuse, not related to the religious would not, rightly, be tolerated in this forum.

How do you know?
did you ask a moderator about that? Mind you I'm not suggesting non clerical abuse should be segregated out either! ALL abuse should be dealt with together as a topic. Why gnit pick out only the abusers who were under the responsibility of a a Church hierarchy group you don't wish to improve and are intent on attacking? Unless that is as you admitted you main interest - not the abuse but the minority of a minority who weer involved in covering it up. And not only the people covering it up but a minority of them - the senior church people who covered it up.

So, taking these two things into account I am forming an opinion that it is very unlikely indeed that there was a thread in this particular forum which was discussing child sex abuse in society in general,

The church is part of society in general. You can't say there should be one law for church people and another for everyone else! That is exactly what you are accusing the Church of doing!

not related to clerical abuse,

I didn't claim that either! I didn't suggest only non clerical abuse. I pointed out that if people are intent on actually helping or solving any problems all abuse should be discussed and not any sub group gnit picked for a personal agenda which is not about the abuse itself but about attacking an authority they despise. If you discuss only clerical abuse you pander to their agenda.

MrPudding

ISAW wrote: »

Oh but you DO if you claim it is true. yher reasons you gave were your unsupported Opinion!

No I don’t. Seriously how hard is this to get. I have formed an opinion based on my observations which dictates what I will post about. End of.

ISAW wrote: »

so "I have an opinion based on my impression which other people agree with " is FACT now is it?

Seriously, what are you talking about. If anything you are confirming my opinion. I said, “ I know you seem to like arguing…” This is my opinion and in my opinion it is borne out by your behaviour. I never said it was a fact, and only a person who really likes to argue would take a comment made by someone, which is clearly an opinion, and then try to argue that the person is trying to say it is a fact.

ISAW wrote: »

Exactly ! an OPINION! Not a fact but an opinion.

Sorry, when did I say it was a fact? How is “I know you seem to like arguing…” a stated fact? It is obviously an opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

the argument that you can make a claim about a Bishop or a banker and assume it is true without providing any evidence and just supplying unsupported opinion!

Seriously, what are you talking about. I am not trying to actually prove anything but seriously, are you trying to argue that there is no proof you like to argue?

ISAW wrote: »

It isn't devoted only to clerical sex abuse as you have claimed. Again your opinion is that it is devoted to that. But you don't decide on that.

You are quite wrong there. I am perfectly entitled to decide what I post in this thread, or rather what I don’t post in this thread. I do not want to discuss non clerical child sex abuse in a thread called Clerical child sex abuse. Is this really so hard to understand?

ISAW wrote: »

If you don't need to look it up you are then aware that accusing me of argument just for the sake of it requires supporting evidence and not just bald assertion.

Read your posts.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65590616&postcount=902
where you stated:
I am taking my recollection and also my knowledge that a thread on child sex abuse, not related to the religious would not, rightly, be tolerated in this forum.



You stated that you do not believe that a post on non clerical abuse would not rightly be tolerated in this forum!

No. I believe that a thread on child abuse in general and not related to religion would not be tolerated. I have not checked with the moderators to see if this is the case, so it is simply my opinion. It is based on observations I have make on this, and other fora, where threads which are not related to the forum are locked or deleted.

ISAW wrote: »

We are all aware you don't want to discuss it. It seems church bashing is all you really care about. But you went further than that. You stated that you believed non clerical abuse should be allowed in this discussion or anywhere else on this forum. You tried to net cop me by suggesting that I was posting something that should not be allowed.

Now you are really taking the P. I don’t care what you post or where you post it. I don’t care if you post about sex abuse regarding Barbie and Ken dolls. I have stated that in my opinion this thread, and this forum is not the place to discuss general child sex abuse. My opinion carries no weight in this forum with respect to other posters, so I am not trying to dictate what anyone else does. I am simply pointing out what my opinion is and the reason why I won’t discuss something. So, one more time just in case you still have not got it. I am not trying to dictate what anyone one else can or cannot discuss on this thread or in this forum. I am simply explaining my opinion on the subject and what I personally will not discuss on this thread, or indeed in this forum.

ISAW wrote: »

Weere I posted
"It is a completely nonsensical point that we can only discuss clerical abuse in this forum and non clerical abuse is off limits!"

And you replied:
Yes, so for example, the cover up of clerical child sex abuse. Seriously, why do you have a problem with this very simple concept.

Saying that I believe it should nto be dealt with in this thread, and I personally will therefore not discuss it, does not mean I believe it should not be dealt with. But then you know that.

ISAW wrote: »

1. you have not established that only clerical abuse can be discussed in this thread?
2. Only discussing clerical abuse and ignoring the other 99 per cent of abusers isn't really tackling the problem of child abuse it?


[snip]

1. I have established, to the satisfaction of the person I am trying to influence (me) that only clerical child sex abuse should be discussed in this thread. I don’t care what you think about that. I am not trying to influence you or dictate what you can or cannot say.
2. I am not trying to tackle the problem of child abuse. I am trying to take part in a discussion about clerical child sex abuse.

MrP

ISAW

Graces7 wrote: »

ISAW and others

Some reading for you ...on the real topic of this thread

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/

Much more relevant.

Are you a troll? If you are making a point make the point! Use references and citations to support the point!

How is the above reference relevant to a "real" topic?

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

No I don’t. Seriously how hard is this to get. I have formed an opinion based on my observations which dictates what I will post about. End of.

Yes. Post about what you are interested in. and we can all see that you already admitted
what you are interested in is who the church hierarchy handled it and not the abuse itself. Why? why as a self confessed atheist are you only interested in church hierarchy? It seems to me that other than just not believing in god your atheism extends into Church bashing.

Furthermore, you also tried to net cop me! You told me what I should be posting on! You tolf me the thread was about clerical abuse. It now seems you yourself ignored your own advice since your main interest isn't the abuse but how the Hierarchy handled the abuse!

Seriously, what are you talking about. If anything you are confirming my opinion. I said, “ I know you seem to like arguing…” This is my opinion and in my opinion it is borne out by your behaviour.

Specious reasoning!

You say: You like arguing.
I say : That isn't necessarily true for example...

You say: see! see! you are doing it again!


But the main issue here is whether my argument is correct and not whether I like it or hate it! In doing that you switch emphasis from the argument to the person making it. I freely admit I do that in your case. I begin to doubt why you are arguing about clerical abuse only and I suspect your motives are to attack the church and not to actually propose anything positive about combating abuse or abusers. i mean What so far have you suggested to combat ANY abuse?

I never said it was a fact, and only a person who really likes to argue would take a comment made by someone, which is clearly an opinion, and then try to argue that the person is trying to say it is a fact.

If you only have bald assertion and unsupported opinion you haven't much of a case. Agreeing with me on that isnt making your case any stronger. Try supplying some FACTS as I have!

Sorry, when did I say it was a fact? How is “I know you seem to like arguing…” a stated fact? It is obviously an opinion.

fine I won't labour the point! what I like is beside the issue. whether my argument stands up and is sound is what matters.

You are quite wrong there. I am perfectly entitled to decide what I post in this thread, or rather what I don’t post in this thread. I do not want to discuss non clerical child sex abuse in a thread called Clerical child sex abuse. Is this really so hard to understand?

You are not entitled to post things against the rules. If you want to avoid discussing the 99 per cent of non clerical abusers it makes me wonder why and what concerns you have for actually solving and problems. when you let the mask slip and say you are really interested in how the hierarchy handled clerical abuse Im not sayng you cant discuss that . But if you dont discuss it in relation to the broader problem of ALL abuse and how to deal with it then I clearly indicates a church bashing agenda.

No. I believe that a thread on child abuse in general and not related to religion would not be tolerated. I have not checked with the moderators to see if this is the case, so it is simply my opinion. It is based on observations I have make on this, and other fora, where threads which are not related to the forum are locked or deleted.

On child abuse in general including the one percent of clerical abuse. the church as part of society is a social partner in dealing with this issue but it cant work in isolation.

Now you are really taking the P. I don’t care what you post or where you post it.

If you don't care why then tell me to post about clerical abuse only?

I don’t care if you post about sex abuse regarding Barbie and Ken dolls. I have stated that in my opinion this thread, and this forum is not the place to discuss general child sex abuse.

Yes and my supported published facts happen to disagree with your unsupported opinion. It is called a debate. I happen to disagree with your opinion.

My opinion carries no weight in this forum with respect to other posters,

No opinion should unless supported. This forum does not work like that in my opinion. Care to disagree and prove me wrong?

so I am not trying to dictate what anyone else does.

Nor am I but neither of us can anyway. so what? It still won;t do anything about child abuse until you actually come up with some recommendations!

I am simply explaining my opinion on the subject and what I personally will not discuss on this thread, or indeed in this forum.

Quite. Your interests are in attacking Church hierarchy and then and not in recommendations for what to do about child abuse?

Saying that I believe it should nto be dealt with in this thread, and I personally will therefore not discuss it, does not mean I believe it should not be dealt with. But then you know that.

Oh so now you are saying "someone ELSE should deal with child abuse because Im only interested in attacking the Church hierarchy"

1. I have established, to the satisfaction of the person I am trying to influence (me)

i.e. i don't care what anyone else thinks. Do you think indulging yourself will proffer any solution to child abuse?

that only clerical child sex abuse should be discussed in this thread.

Because your [real interest isn't the one per cent of offenders who were clerics
but that because they were clerics there were people higher up in the church responsible for those clerics so you therefore can attack the Hierarchy?

I don’t care what you think about that. I am not trying to influence you or dictate what you can or cannot say.

You quite clearly were trying to influence what I post! And whether you are or not wont change the fact that you are still wrong!

2. I am not trying to tackle the problem of child abuse. I am trying to take part in a discussion about clerical child sex abuse.

Only in so far as it enables you to criticise the hierarchy of the Church. when you get to that step you won't need to care about the abusers or the victims at all because you will have arrived at what you admitted was the target of your angst. why is an atheist so interested in improving how the church handles cases or are you interested in just knocking their mistakes?

ISAW

Graces7 wrote: »

Was just reading the "new" O'Grady saga on clericalwhispers. It beggars belief.

How so?

Eddie Yu

MrPudding wrote: »

This is an interesting point. In the UK I believe it is a criminal offence not to report child abuse you are aware of. The laws in Ireland are often very similar to those in the UK, I wonder if there is such an offence?

Presumably, if there was, there are a fairly large number of church officials guilty of this offence. Added to that, there are also like to be a number of government and ex-government officials who had the same knowledge. So, if such an offence does exist why are they not being prosecuted?

As a separate issue I would expect there should be charges also brought against the gardai that were aware of the abuse but chose to let the church deal with it. I would like to think that this is also illegal.

MrP

Shortly after the so-called Kilkenny 'incest' case government officials in the Department of Justice saw fit to repeal the old Aiders and Abettors Act which included the indictable criminal offence 'misprision of felony' - failure to report the commission the commission of a crime - thus saving many social workers and their bosses, right up to government level from prosecution for failing to report to the proper authorities, the Gardai, the commission of many thousands of child sexual abuse crimes, including cruelty and other definitions.

Misprision of Felony was on the statute books until Catherine McGuinness referred to this particular issue in the course of the Kilkenny Case.

The silence on this issue is still deafening.

Eddie Yu.

Graces7

Eddie Yu wrote: »

Shortly after the so-called Kilkenny 'incest' case government officials in the Department of Justice saw fit to repeal the old Aiders and Abettors Act which included the indictable criminal offence 'misprision of felony' - failure to report the commission the commission of a crime - thus saving many social workers and their bosses, right up to government level from prosecution for failing to report to the proper authorities, the Gardai, the commission of many thousands of child sexual abuse crimes, including cruelty and other definitions.

Misprision of Felony was on the statute books until Catherine McGuinness referred to this particular issue in the course of the Kilkenny Case.

The silence on this issue is still deafening.

Eddie Yu.

That is appalling. I did not know that. Thank you.

Graces7

ISAW wrote: »

How so?

Have you read it?

ISAW

Graces7 wrote: »

Have you read it?

you cited it as evidence. There are pages and pages of stuff there. what are you claiming is "the real issue"?

Look!: How about i point you to this and say This shows what the real issue is:

http://www.biblegateway.com/


supplying a link isn't making any case!

Eddie Yu

Graces7 wrote: »

That is appalling. I did not know that. Thank you.

‘Misprision of Felony’ failure to report the commission of an indictable criminal offence to the Gardai.

Pre - 1998 it was a criminal offence not to report to the Gardai the commission of an indictable criminal offence. This criminal offence namely ‘Misprision of Felony’ came under the old ‘Aiders and Abettors Act’ and was on the Statute books until the Act was, for unexplained reasons, repealed shortly after the fallout from the ‘Kilkenny (incest) Case.

Much media attention has been focused on the church for failures to report alleged cases of child sexual abuse – child abuse and neglect to the proper authorities, the Gardai for investigation.

The question to be asked is why are the media ignoring those professionals in the ‘caring profession’ who for many years and up to the present time have failed to report alleged cases of child sexual abuse – child abuse and neglect to the proper authorities, for investigation, the Gardai.

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/Eddie/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image002.jpg[/IMG]

September 9, 1998.

Five senior health workers face private prosecution

by Niall Murray
FIVE senior health workers are being prosecuted for allegedly failing to report suspected incidents of child abuse to the Gardaí, and hundreds more similar cases are expected to follow.
The private prosecution is being taken by Edward Hernon, who was accused by the Health Board of abusing his daughter 12 years ago, but the matter was not handed over to the gardaí.
He is taking the private prosecution against the community care director of the Eastern Health Board, Paul Harrison, who was involved in investigating the Mid Western Health Board's handling of the McColgan case.
He is also prosecuting another senior executive with the Eastern Health Board, Ray Kavanagh, social worker Evelyn Lynch, Fred Lowe, clinical psychologist with the Board, and Dr Maura Woods of the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin, for failing to report to the Gardaí the commission of an indictable crime of incest or cruelty to a child.
The case is due to come before the District Court in Dublin on Tuesday next and is understood to be the first time such an action has been taken.
An Eastern Health Board spokesman said all four of its employees facing the charges would be represented in court to defend the allegations.
Mr Hernon, who is a founder member of Vocal Ireland, which represents victims of child abuse law, said over the past 10 years more than 30,000 cases of child abuse, both physical and sexual, have been reported and up to half these have been confirmed but only 2,400 have been reported to the Gardaí.
Under recent legislation it is a criminal offence to make a false accusation and, based on this, Vocal was now advising all its members accused by Health Boards that did not report the claims to the Gardaí to lodge official complaints with the Gardaí.
Mr Hernon said as many as 700 people who had contacted the group over the last five years would be urged to take proceedings against their accusers, if a precedent is set in his own case.
The Department of Health said health boards and the Gardaí are required to notify each other of all cases of suspected abuse, under guidelines in place since 1995.
Official figures for the period between 1992 and 1997 show that more than 12,000 of the 30,000 cases of all forms of child abuse reported to the country's health boards were confirmed.

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

I do not want to discuss non clerical child sex abuse in a thread called Clerical child sex abuse. Is this really so hard to understand?
...
I have not checked with the moderators to see if this is the case, so it is simply my opinion. It is based on observations I have make on this, and other fora, where threads which are not related to the forum are locked or deleted.
...

1. I have established, to the satisfaction of the person I am trying to influence (me) that only clerical child sex abuse should be discussed in this thread. I don’t care what you think about that.

Well the fact is that non Clerical child abuse won't be allowed in other threads!

Look here at the sticky Entitled:

PLEASE READ: CLERICAL CHILD ABUSE THREADS
and:

UPDATE: 27/3/10
All child abuse threads are now merged into one Clerical Child Abuse megathread.

and mentions locking all other child abuse threads and deleting any new ones.

MrPudding

ISAW wrote: »

Well the fact is that non Clerical child abuse won't be allowed in other threads!

Look here at the sticky Entitled:

PLEASE READ: CLERICAL CHILD ABUSE THREADS
and:

UPDATE: 27/3/10
All child abuse threads are now merged into one Clerical Child Abuse megathread.

and mentions locking all other child abuse threads and deleting any new ones.

Which is why I suggested, several times, that if you want to discuss non clerical child sex abuse you should do it in 1) a specific thread for the subject and 2) In a forum that will allow you to post a thread about non clerical child sex abuse. I even suggested a forum for you to post in.

MrP

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

Which is why I suggested, several times, that if you want to discuss non clerical child sex abuse you should do it in 1) a specific thread for the subject

Please read the sticky. Other threads are deleted or frozen!
All child abuse threads are now merged into one Clerical Child Abuse megathread.

and 2) In a forum that will allow you to post a thread about non clerical child sex abuse. I even suggested a forum for you to post in.

But if anyone wants to discuss it in the Christian forum this is the thread! If you are saying that this thread is only about clerical abuse as you claimed you are WRONG!
And trying to say you never claimed that will result in you moving into even deeper waters.

MrPudding

ISAW wrote: »

Please read the sticky. Other threads are deleted or frozen!
All child abuse threads are now merged into one Clerical Child Abuse megathread.



But if anyone wants to discuss it in the Christian forum this is the thread! If you are saying that this thread is only about clerical abuse as you claimed you are WRONG!
And trying to say you never claimed that will result in you moving into even deeper waters.

Why are you treating both points as separate? Obviously, if it states that other threads will be deleted or lock then not only do you have to create a new thread, but you have to do it somewhere where they won't be locked or deleted. That is why I said new thread and a forum where it would be allowed. I used "and" to indicate that both actions would have to be carried out.

As I have repeatedly tried to point out to you, as far as I am concerned, with respect to what I post, this thread is not for talking about non clerical child sex abuse. I don't care what you do, or what you discuss.

This is not a denial of the other 99%, according to you and your source, of child sex abuse. It should not be taken as an indication that I believe it is less important than the 1%, it should not be taken as an indication that I condone non clerical child sex abuse, or support it, or think it should be covered up. It should only be taken as an indication that I have taken the decision that I, that is me and me only, not you, not anyone else, no one, just me, should not and will not discuss non clerical child sex abuse in this thread. This is not me back seat modding, it is not me commenting on how this thread, or indeed forum should be moderated, it is not me trying to influence what anyone else posts or does not post in this thread or in this forum. It is simply an indication that I AM UNWILLING TO TALK ABOUT NON CLERICAL CHILD SEX ABUSE IN THIS THREAD.

now, I am really running out was ways, and indeed the will to explain this any further. It is a reasonable easy concept to understand, I think.

MrP