The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Zorbas

soterpisc wrote: »

Any news on my question?

I have no doubt that it will not be long before you will eat your words. Just hold on and you will not need me to point out the mistaken presumption.

marienbad

soterpisc wrote: »

Any news on my question?

''Pride comes before the fall'' comes to mind here. You are behaving as if it were a contest and oblivious to the suffering involved.

The Quadratic Equation

marienbad wrote: »

''Pride comes before the fall'' comes to mind here. You are behaving as if it were a contest and oblivious to the suffering involved.

I have not heard any Catholic here claim they are fall proof.
He asked a question, so instead of the usual empty ad hominem, do you have the answer ?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

Today Roman Catholic clergy are a tenth of a per cent of the population.

closer to two-thirds of a tenth of a percent ie 00.066 % rather than 00.1%, but I'll be generous and round it up 50% to a tenth of a per cent for you.

ISAW wrote: »

In the past they were much higher.

Correct. There are not as many RC Priests as there was a few decades ago.

ISAW wrote: »

The RC clergy didn't do a 4% of anything.

Nobody said they did. The figures are 2% of abused boys were abused by Ministers ( in other words, religous clergy inc RC ) and another 2% of abused boys were abused by religous teachers / Brothers. Thats where the report got their 4% from, as you well know.;)

ISAW wrote: »

The closest you can keep hyping is an unreliable report which says 1.9% of males under eighteen and 1.4% of females were abused by "Ministers"
the actual report you quote has under 2% and for ministers of all religions
http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf PAGE 88
and that is MINISTERS not RC priests!

It is Ministers of religion including RC Priests ! And because the report / survey covers the report of Ireland only, and because all known clerical abuse scandals in the Republic concern RC clergy rather than those of other denominations, you are incorrect in assuming 50% of abusing clergy in the Republic are non-RC. RC clergy form the bulk of clergy in the Republic, therefore it can be assumed the bulk of abusing clergy in the Republic are RC clergy.

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

Are we now taking stats from the US into the argument ISAW. Thats a whole different can of more recent worms.

Into the argument about the normalised level of Roman Catholic abuse being equal to or less than that of non Catholic clergy yes. The same can be found of Ireland but i don't want to get into a Catholic versus Protestant abuse sub thread. I have produced the figures here before.

We are talking about the claim that SAVI supports giginos assertion that Roman Catholic priests constituted 4% of pre pubescent child sex abusers is complete bunkum!

The figures in the US by the way for levels of pedo child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests are not hugely different from anywhere else to my knowledge. And I also posted them here. You have something different to offer?
If you don't understand that any academic argument involves reference to available literature then I suggest you look up "citation"
Here let me help you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation

A prime purpose of a citation is intellectual honesty: to attribute prior or unoriginal work and ideas to the correct sources, and to allow the reader to determine independently whether the referenced material supports the author's argument in the claimed way.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

''Pride comes before the fall'' comes to mind here. You are behaving as if it were a contest and oblivious to the suffering involved.

You are misquoting the Bible. It is "a haughty spirit" I think "pride comes before destruction" is the actual verse.

soterpisc

Zorbas wrote: »

I have no doubt that it will not be long before you will eat your words. Just hold on and you will not need me to point out the mistaken presumption.

Maybe.... But do you agree there are no current cases of abuse commited in the last 10 years before the courts... Simple statement of fact. If there are point one case out...

soterpisc

marienbad wrote: »

''Pride comes before the fall'' comes to mind here. You are behaving as if it were a contest and oblivious to the suffering involved.

I'm not.. if there is not current abuse... Which factually there isn't. Then it should be shown that the measures put in place are working...


Name one single abuse case commited in the last 10 years by a priest in Ireland..

The vast majority of priests are honest people... They don't deserve the media witch hunt that is baseless..



So one case ...? Any in the last 10 years......??????

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

We are talking about the claim that SAVI supports giginos assertion that Roman Catholic priests constituted 4% of pre pubescent child sex abusers is complete bunkum!

I never claimed "that Roman Catholic priests constituted 4% of pre pubescent child sex abusers". Can you not read ? I wrote - more than once - "The figures ( in this Republic of Ireland survey report ) are 2% of abused boys were abused by Ministers ( in other words, religous clergy inc RC ) and another 2% of abused boys were abused by religous teachers / Brothers. Thats where the report got their 4% from, as you well know."

Do not forget that RC clergy are less than a tenth of one per cent of the population. ( less than 00.1 % )

Thats why the Irish government done various reports in to the matter and concluded clerical child abuse was " endemic" ( to use their word , not mine ) in the Irish RCC.

The Quadratic Equation

I wonder how many non clerical abuse cases there have been in the last 10 years ?

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

closer to two-thirds of a tenth of a percent ie 00.066 % rather than 00.1%, but I'll be generous and round it up 50% to a tenth of a per cent for you.

"Two thirds of a tenth" LOL - and you work that out -how exactly?
Next I suppose you will claim babies are capable of abusing five year olds?

Correct. There are not as many RC Priests as there was a few decades ago.

I already posted the drop and it was not a few decades ago but in the last ten years.
Why dont you actually read the actual census figures you cite?

Nobody said they did. The figures are 2% of abused boys were abused by Ministers ( in other words, religous clergy inc RC )

No it isn't! Wrong again! Why dont you actually read the actual source you cite?
Where did you get 2% of boys were abused by Ministers?

and another 2% of abused boys were abused by religous teachers / Brothers. Thats where the report got their 4% from, as you well know.;)

No it does not say 2% It says 3.9% of males.
You are just displaying your academic laziness and lack of academic honesty and credibility.
Why don't you actually read the references you cite?
We have been over this before.

The point you amke aboive is about PRIESTS You are using a twisted version of the 2006 census. While that figure is not a demographic from the sample for SAVI wher 80 per cent of respondents were pre 1970 i.e. from at least 40 years earlier!

You also leqave out comparable census periods like the 1951 census which puts priests at about 6000.
You then add in "religious teachers" . While we don't know if these were brothers and nuns let us assume they were.
I have before supplied you with 1951 census stats ( and 61 71 and 81 are not so different) with an extrs 20,000 plus "religious" bringing the numbers up to 25,000
Your shoddy research is way off the mark and dishonest so don't lecture people about 2% or 4% whenthe reliability of the numbers in the case of SAVI is questionable.

It is Ministers of religion including RC Priests ! And because the report / survey covers the report of Ireland only, and because all known clerical abuse scandals in the Republic concern RC clergy rather than those of other denominations, you are incorrect in assuming 50% of abusing clergy in the Republic are non-RC. RC clergy form the bulk of clergy in the Republic, therefore it can be assumed the bulk of abusing clergy in the Republic are RC clergy.

No it cant! Only if the pattern is statistically normal. for example if 90% of clergy are RC and ten per cent others then of a sample of 100 clergy picked at random you should have 90% RC and 10 % others. You have not shown that to be the case!

The “Protestant-run” Bethany House was a “Magdalen Asylum”.
Bethany Home was an evangelistic organisation that was an outgrowth of the Proselytizing Irish Church Missions to Roman Catholics.

I dont want to get into this because the mumbers are still tiny.

http://judecollinsjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/10/paedophile-priest-its-easier-to-say.html
he Free Presbyterian Church didn’t bother respond to a Department of Health audit into child protection. That’s the Free Presbyterian Church whose former head, one Ian Paisley, went all the way to Scotland to protest the Pope’s failure to respond properly to child abuse.

So is there evidence that Catholic clergy abuse children more than their Protestant counterparts? It’s extremely difficult to get data in Britain – the NSPCC has done a survey but it’s vague on the extent to which Protestant Churches suffer from the same horrors as the Catholic Church. In the US, things are much clearer.

Since 1950, an average of 228 credible accusations of child sexual abuse per year have been brought against Catholic clergy. The nearest comparison is provided by the three insurance companies that cover 165,000 Protestant churches. They typically receive 260 reports every year of children being sexually abused by Protestant clergy or other staff. In short, in the US there are on average 32 more cases of child sexual abuse in the Protestant churches than in the Catholic. Professor Philip Jenkins, a respected religion and history scholar from Pennsylvania State University – and a non-Catholic – has studied church abuse problems for twenty years. He’s found that among Catholic clergy in the US, between .2% and 1.7% of Catholic priests are paedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy in the US is between 2 and 3 per cent. “There is no plausible evidence that Catholic priests are gangs of sexual predators, as they are being portrayed” Professor Jenkins says.

There’s no reason to believe things are radically different on this side of the Atlantic. Which means that for the last ten years or so, journalists in Britain and Ireland have been digging vigorously in one corner of the garden, crying out in horror as the latest skeleton is dug up. Now let’s see them tackle the rest of the garden with equal vigour, especially when there are indications even greater horrors await them.

I said earlier that the failure to investigate Protestant churches and paedophilia was the product of laziness and/or fear. There’s actually a third reason, and one the Rev Ian Paisley would know something of: good old-fashioned anti-Catholicism.

The Bethany Survivors Group continues to campaign for inclusion in the redress scheme. It was left out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse

Some residential institutions founded and run by members of the Church of Ireland such as Stewart's Hospital and Miss Carr's Children's Home, do to their connection with the Eastern Health Board, do come under the remit of the redress board scheme and victims are entitled to petition it for compensation.[77] These were added to the redress list following complaints and campaigns that they were being excluded.

Campaigners also campaigned for a number of Protestant run children's residences and former orphanages such as The Smyly Homes which were regulated by the state, and subject to departmental inspection, to be included in the Redress scheme.[78] There was eleven Mrs. Smyly's homes which the government is in dialogue with over some contribution to the redress fund.[79] Some Church of Ireland run institutions for older children like the Cottage Home and Birds Nest have been included in the list of institutions for the Redress Scheme,[77] since these homes were found to have allowed a vaccines to be tested on their residents in trials by the Department of Medical Microbiology at University College Dublin.[24]

ISAW

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I wonder how many non clerical abuse cases there have been in the last 10 years ?

Gave the stats above - of child sex abuse - about 80 to 100 per year.

Actually 135 if you exclude rape and only include defilement of an under 17 year old and over 200 per year if you add in child pornography offences
Soiurce: http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I never claimed "that Roman Catholic priests constituted 4% of pre pubescent child sex abusers".

~So you admit RC priests are not 4% of pedophiles?
They are less than one per cent historically and even less today.

Can you not read ? I wrote - more than once - "The figures ( in this Republic of Ireland survey report ) are 2% of abused boys were abused by Ministers ( in other words, religous clergy inc RC )

That figure is wrong! I showed you why! Where is your source?

and another 2% of abused boys were abused by religous teachers / Brothers. Thats where the report got their 4% from, as you well know."

Where did you get "2% of abused boys were abused by religous teachers / Brothers."
SAVI does not say 2% anything!
And it does not mention "brothers"

You still seem to have a problem knowing the difference between
"2% of communists have beards"
and
"2% of bearded men are communist"

Given you didnt actually read the report it is no wonder!

Do not forget that RC clergy are less than a tenth of one per cent of the population. ( less than 00.1 % )

youare still at the misuse of stats!
Where do you get this "less than 0.1%" from? and why should it not be forgotten when comparing to religious teachers/brothers?

Thats why the Irish government done various reports in to the matter and concluded clerical child abuse was " endemic" ( to use their word , not mine ) in the Irish RCC.

What "various reports" use the word endemic? Care to cite more than one of of them?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

"Two thirds of a tenth" LOL - and you work that out -how exactly?

I explained it already to you. I found the number of priests in Ireland, currently just over 3 thousand, and showed you the link.
I found the population of the country, showed you the link, and divided one in to the other. As I said its closer to two-thirds of a tenth of a percent ie 00.066 % rather than 00.1%, but I'll be generous and round it up 50% to a tenth of a per cent for you.

ISAW wrote: »

I already posted the drop and it was not a few decades ago but in the last ten years.

The number of RC priests in Ireland has been dropping for decades, and it continues to drop as the population of Priests ages. ( average age is getting closer + closer to retirement age ... ). I quoted the exact figures before for you.

ISAW wrote: »

Why dont you actually read the actual census figures you cite?

lol. I did.

ISAW wrote: »

Where did you get 2% of boys were abused by Ministers?

SAVI. Rounded to the nearest percentage.

ISAW wrote: »

No it does not say 2% It says 3.9% of males.

The 4% figure ( lets use round numbers, its easier ) includes abuse by religous teachers / Brothers.

ISAW wrote: »

No it cant! Only if the pattern is statistically normal. for example if 90% of clergy are RC and ten per cent others then of a sample of 100 clergy picked at random you should have 90% RC and 10 % others. You have not shown that to be the case!

You think 50% of abuse by clergy in the Republic is by clergy who are not RC. Even though there has not been a clerical child abuse case outside the RC church in the Republic.

ISAW wrote: »

The “Protestant-run” Bethany House was a “Magdalen Asylum”.
Bethany Home was an evangelistic organisation that was an outgrowth of the Proselytizing Irish Church Missions to Roman Catholics.

We are talking about clerical child abuse in the Republic. You have still not come up with any which was not RC. If you want to start a new thread on an alleged "evangelistic organisation that was an outgrowth of the Proselytizing Irish Church Missions to Roman Catholics" then you can do so. They did not - unless you can show otherwise - contribute to the "endemic" level of clerical child abuse in the republic.( to use our governments adjective again in relation to child abuse in the Irish RCC ).

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

I have no doubt that it will not be long before you will eat your words. Just hold on and you will not need me to point out the mistaken presumption.

And you will be jumping with glee if you ever get such a case to announce. But you haven't been able to find oine in the last ten years. Meanwhile non RC prirsts commit over 100 sexual offences against minors per year ( not including rapes) and you dont seem to post anything about that anywhere? Why such a priority on the Zero priests compared to the thousands of priest offenders?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

So you admit RC priests are not 4% of pedophiles?

They are only 00.06% of the population. They are not 4% of pedophiles, as for one thing they are generally not let near children alone now.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

What "various reports" use the word endemic? Care to cite more than one of of them?

I did not say "various reports" used the word endemic.

I said "Thats why the Irish government done various reports in to the matter and concluded clerical child abuse was " endemic" ( to use their word , not mine ) in the Irish RCC"

Big difference.;)

The Quadratic Equation

gigino wrote: »

I never said "it must also have nothing to do with the new child protection polices being implemented properly ". As you are the one who brought that up, you can provide your proof or not, if you are interested in that topic.

But you refuse to mention or credit in any way the new child protection policies, and whenever you mention
reasons for the complete drop off in abuse cases, and you refuse to acknowledge in any way the work the Church as a whole has done in this regard ? This is yet another attempt to skew reality.

gigino wrote: »

"decent" is a subjective adjective ; everyone could interpret the word differently and no meaningful statistics could be gathered on that, so you are after asking a silly question. If you want to go in to % of priests, its easier to gather statistics on something like the % of Priests who are homosexual. ( results from different studies report 48.5% and 50%, as linked earlier ). " Decent" can mean different things to different people. Even Hitler or Jack the Ripper or Bin Laden seemed "decent" to some people.

You claimed many Priests were decent, so what % are decent in your honest estimation ?

gigino

Isaw, as pointed out to you before, on the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin.

" It has been very difficult for us to accept that Roman Catholic priests and religious were responsible for harming thousands of children across the country. It has been even more difficult to accept that the church authorities had in many cases known of the abuse, and had acted to protect the institutional church rather than vulnerable children."

"Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics"

http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml

Are you disagreeing with the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the Archdiocese of Dublin now ?

The Quadratic Equation

gigino wrote: »

Isaw, as pointed out to you before, on the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin.

" It has been very difficult for us to accept that Roman Catholic priests and religious were responsible for harming thousands of children across the country. It has been even more difficult to accept that the church authorities had in many cases known of the abuse, and had acted to protect the institutional church rather than vulnerable children."

"Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics"

http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml

Are you disagreeing with the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the Archdiocese of Dublin now ?

How many were harmed by Catholic Priests in the last 10 years ?

Seth Brundle

ISAW wrote: »

What did Brady do as a bishop which you find so problematic?
You are aware he only recently became primate ? Like in the last year? So what is it he did in the last year which makes you unconvinced about the eleven years preceding that?

What has the last year got to do with it?
I am referring to his actions many years ago which were made public following his comments "If I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign."
Why on earth would I think he has any credibility if he makes a statement like this (but won't stand by it)? Do we know exactly how many children were preyed upon because he decided that canon law was more important than a country's criminal law? You have all the stats; surely you know this figure?

Now to get back to my original comment, I disagreed with alex73 as I am not convinced that the best choices would be made because I don't have confidence in the leadership. What is your problem with this and why the need to refer to either the last year or the preceeding 11? I don't think that the man is fit to lead an organisation that is torn apart by revelations of abuse, cover up, etc. when he is actually part of the problem (through both his actions and inactions).
Now maybe you think that he is wonderful because he has great faith or whatever. That's fine - that's your view. I don't think he is a suitable person to be "in charge" - that's my view.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I explained it already to you. I found the number of priests in Ireland, currently just over 3 thousand, and showed you the link.

Where did you find that? what link? i think you will find I found it and you copied my data as usual. ButI still want to knwo what source for what year refers to how many RC priests?

I found the population of the country, showed you the link, and divided one in to the other.

What is the population? Wher is your source? for what year

As I said its closer to two-thirds of a tenth of a percent ie 00.066 % rather than 00.1%, but I'll be generous and round it up 50% to a tenth of a per cent for you.

Based on WHAT figures. WHAT did you divide into what?

The number of RC priests in Ireland has been dropping for decades, and it continues to drop as the population of Priests ages.

It hasnt been dropping for decades. What is your source for those numbers ? go and look up the figures. You haven't bothered. Do some homework. How many priests in the RoI in 2006 2001 1996 1991 1986 1981 and so on?

( average age is getting closer + closer to retirement age ... ). I quoted the exact figures before for you.

Wher di you do that? Are you sure you were not using figures i provided?

SAVI. Rounded to the nearest percentage.

So it IS one point somethi9ng which you rounded up to 2!
i no0te you only pick the abuse for boys since for girls rounding would yield 1%
You do realise other Authority figure = 8% and Babysitter =4%
And you are aware that "not an authority figure" = 80%?

You are aware that percentage of abusers and percentage of the population as a whole are different aren't you?

I dont think SAVI is really accurate but it is in the right area. It says "Ministers" are about 1.5% of abusers. I would reckon it is less than 1% but the difference is only half a per cent.

The 4% figure ( lets use round numbers, its easier ) includes abuse by religous teachers / Brothers.

The actual numbers are twelve abusing Ministers and twelve abusing religious teachers.
These are not all necessarily pedophile abusers. You do know that?

Thats twelve Ministers? And the total numbers of "abused " were 3,088. ( page 64) you know that too do you?

You think 50% of abuse by clergy in the Republic is by clergy who are not RC.

No I think if normalised it would not be in parity. That is if ther were the same numbers of clergy the RC numbers of abusers would not be higher than any others.

We are talking about clerical child abuse in the Republic.

No you arent!
You added in teachers presumable in religious orders who may be non priests
Others refer to all Ireland and to non clerics
And specifically we arew discussing pedophile sexual abuse but others from time to time mention homosexual abuse of older teenage boys of say 16 years of age and also others mention physical abuse.

We are also discussing a period from abnout 1920-1970. Your figures for numbers of priests today are irrelevant.

You have still not come up with any which was not RC. If you want to start a new thread on an alleged "evangelistic organisation that was an outgrowth of the Proselytizing Irish Church Missions to Roman Catholics" then you can do so.

So you deny there was any abuse by non roman Catholic clergy?
Your argument is that only RC clergy sexually offended?

gigino

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

But you refuse to mention or credit in any way the new child protection policies whenever you mentions reasons for the complete drop off in abuse cases.

I have credited the child protection policy now in place. There are child protection policys in place in all sorts of organisations which deal with children now, and rightfully so.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

This is dishonest.

You should not question my honesty.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

You claimed many Priests were decent, so what % are decent in your honest estimation ?

now or 10 or 20 or 30 years ago ? As said before , it depends in what context you define "decent". In some contexts you could argue - some would - Hitler or Jack the Ripper or Bin Laden were decent people. Nobody is perfect. Certainly the Priests who raped and who covered up the rapes were not decent. I have met decent Priests and some who are not. I do not know what percentage of Priests knew of serious abuse and done nothing about it. That is the question. "All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing". The ordinary homosexual Priest ( and different surveys have put the number of homosexual priests at 48.5% and 50% ) who did not abuse and who did not know of abuse, I would classify as " decent". Most people are decent deep down - although some are misguided - and I would like to think Priests are no different.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

So you deny there was any abuse by non roman Catholic clergy?

I have not heard of any here in the Republic, but no doubt if there ever was any you would have a link for it, which you do not appear to have.
It could of course have happened.

Now, back to my question, which you have failed to answer : Are you disagreeing with the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the Archdiocese of Dublin now ? ( in relation to what they say as quoted below):

" It has been very difficult for us to accept that Roman Catholic priests and religious were responsible for harming thousands of children across the country. It has been even more difficult to accept that the church authorities had in many cases known of the abuse, and had acted to protect the institutional church rather than vulnerable children."

"Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics"
http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml

ISAW

kbannon wrote: »

What has the last year got to do with it?

Well you were the one mentioned "Brady sitting on his throne up in Armagh," which he only got last year. If you didn't thin the Primate of All Ireland was significant then why bring up his investiture on the throne of Armagh?

I am referring to his actions many years ago which were made public following his comments "If I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign."

And these comments were made when? Look why dont you save yourself time and go back to the start of this thread and read over the issues before you continue.

Why on earth would I think he has any credibility if he makes a statement like this (but won't stand by it)? Do we know exactly how many children were preyed upon because he decided that canon law was more important than a country's criminal law?

He dint make that decision so the question is irrelevant. such a decision was impossible to make anyway.
What criminal law of what country do you assert should have been upheld?
How should Brady have upheld it?
What canon law do you assert he followed above criminal law?
Other than taking a statement in the 1970s from two children what OTHER children do you assert were sexually abused which Brady had any hand act or part in as a bishop?

You have all the stats; surely you know this figure?

You are the one suggesting it. Zero springs to mind unless you can provide any cases?

Now to get back to my original comment, I disagreed with alex73 as I am not convinced that the best choices would be made because I don't have confidence in the leadership. What is your problem with this and why the need to refer to either the last year or the preceeding 11?

Because you referred to Byady oin reference to his taking up position as Cardinal on the "throne of Armagh". You also were entering into a discussion requesting evidence of abuse by clerics since 2000.

I don't think that the man is fit to lead an organisation that is torn apart by revelations of abuse, cover up, etc.

What cover up? One Brady was aware of or complicit in as a bishop?
Brady was mostly in Rome. Where is the evidence that he covered up anything when in Rome?
Teh only thiong was are aware of is the statements of the two boys. Other than that what have you?

when he is actually part of the problem (through both his actions and inactions).

What actions and what inactions? Especially as a bishop.

Now maybe you think that he is wonderful because he has great faith or whatever. That's fine - that's your view. I don't think he is a suitable person to be "in charge" - that's my view.

And from what period since he was in charge do you allege he discovered any new abuse cases and failed to act on them?

gigino

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

How many were harmed by Catholic Priests in the last 10 years ?

I am just quoting from whats written on the official website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the Archdiocese of Dublin. If anyone should know about clerical child abuse they should. Do'nt say it was a freudian mistake ?

In fairness the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the Archdiocese of Dublin is making a good attempt at preventing child abuse now. It knows all eyes are on it, and even in other organisations eg junior sports clubs - rightfully - there are child safety rules and regulations now etc.

The Quadratic Equation

gigino wrote: »

You should not question my honesty.

But you continually give people reason to. You constantly use misquotes in all your arguments.

e.g. Check the editing times and the time of your post before you make such claims.

If you don't want your honesty being questioned, start being honest with the full facts.

gigino wrote: »

now or 10 or 20 or 30 years ago ? As said before , it depends in what context you define "decent". In some contexts you could argue - some would - Hitler or Jack the Ripper or Bin Laden were decent people. Nobody is perfect. Certainly the Priests who raped and who covered up the rapes were not decent. I have met decent Priests and some who are not. I do not know what percentage of Priests knew of serious abuse and done nothing about it. That is the question. "All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing". The ordinary homosexual Priest ( and different surveys have put the number of homosexual priests at 48.5% and 50% ) who did not abuse and who did not know of abuse, I would classify as " decent". Most people are decent deep down - although some are misguided - and I would like to think Priests are no different.

Again, the simple term decent was the one you used, and you said that many Priests are decent.

So again, be honest, no fluff this time, be man enough to answer the striaght question being put to you properly :

What % of all current Priests are decent in your honest estimation ?

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I have not heard of any here in the Republic, but no doubt if there ever was any you would have a link for it, which you do not appear to have.
It could of course have happened.

If not Catholic clerical abuse happened in the Republic it would be extremely rare. Again I would think less than one per cent of abusers are clergy.

" It has been very difficult for us to accept that Roman Catholic priests and religious were responsible for harming thousands of children across the country. It has been even more difficult to accept that the church authorities had in many cases known of the abuse, and had acted to protect the institutional church rather than vulnerable children."

I never disagreed with that.

"Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics"
http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml

[/quote]

And again you seem unable to distinguish between
P five per cent of wolves eat sheep and
Q five per cent of sheep were eaten by wolves

If there was 1000 sheep and 1000 wolves there could be fifty sheep be eaten by one wolf. i.e Q would be true. It does not mean P: 50 wolves eat sheep or that sheep eating is "endemic" to wolves.

The Quadratic Equation

gigino wrote: »

I am just quoting from whats written on the official website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the Archdiocese of Dublin. If anyone should know about clerical child abuse they should. Do'nt say it was a freudian mistake ?

In fairness the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the Archdiocese of Dublin is making a good attempt at preventing child abuse now. It knows all eyes are on it, and even in other organisations eg junior sports clubs - rightfully - there are child safety rules and regulations now etc.

Have a go at the actual question for a change.
The question you were asked was :

How many Children were harmed by Catholic Priests in the last 10 years ?

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

You should not question my honesty.

Why not? You continually demonstrate academic dishonesty
in
1. failure to provide original citation
2. Using other people data and research and not crediting them
3. Cherry picking from reports without citation or context

Who are you to tell people what they should or should not do? Do you have the power of Imprimatur now?