The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

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.;)

How is it different?
Did the "various reports" ( which by the way you continually fail to list) have nothing to do with the conclusion?
If they did have something to do with the "endemic " conclusion then what in them supports that view.
AS usual I believe you have ONE report which ou have not read and you think ther might be other reports . Please at least try to go and do some research before making unsupported claims.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

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.

....so you have no proof , and no link, and no example of any non-RC clerical child abuse in the Republic. And yet you claimed earlier half of clerical child abuse in the Republic is non-RC. NOW that is dishonest.

ISAW wrote: »

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

Of couse I can distinguish between those. I never claimed 5% of Priests are abusers. What the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin does say however is

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

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

Considering RC clerics are well less at 00.1% of the population of the country ....does that fact that the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin says "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" not indicate to you that there was (at least) a serious problem ?

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

ed 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 ?

No I, asking you what it has to do with the issue?

You seem to think it means Five per cent of all sexual abusers of Irish children were clerics
It doesn''t!

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

....so you have no proof , and no link, and no example of any non-RC clerical child abuse in the Republic. And yet you claimed earlier half of clerical child abuse in the Republic is non-RC. NOW that is dishonest.

ISAW wrote: »

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

Of couse I can distinguish between those. I never claimed 5% of Priests are abusers. What the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin does say however is

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

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

Considering RC clerics are well less at 00.1% of the population of the country ....does that fact that the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin says "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" not indicate to you that there was (at least) a serious problem ?

I never denied there was a problem. It is just that the problem was 100 times worse outside the clergy.

The stat you raise does indicate that clerics (because of their positions in schools or closed institutions housing children) usually had more access to children and expecially to vunerable children e.g. orphans. On average five times as many victims. The same pattern was prevalent with some other groups such as swimming coaches and teachers and babysitters. Still over 80 per cent of abuse still was by lone adults in the home. However 95 % of victims were from non clerics and over 99 % of abusers were non clerics. And thatis in the 1950-70s when the clerical abuse was at its worst.

The problem was dealt with by removing clergy from lone contact with children and bring in child protection policies. that is why you cant produce any cases from the last decade and any from the one before that is usually of abuse dating back toi the 70s or 80s before the policy changed. However in the non church arena where policy is slower to implement, abuse continued to be a serious problem. for example over 200 deaths in State care in the last ten years.

The Quadratic Equation

gigino wrote: »

....so you have no proof , and no link, and no example of any non-RC clerical child abuse in the Republic. And yet you claimed earlier half of clerical child abuse in the Republic is non-RC. NOW that is dishonest.

Of couse I can distinguish between those. I never claimed 5% of Priests are abusers. What the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin does say however is

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

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

Considering RC clerics are well less at 00.1% of the population of the country ....does that fact that the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin says "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" not indicate to you that there was (at least) a serious problem ?

But what % were abused by Catholic Priests in Ireland in the last 10 years ?

gigino

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

But what % were abused by Catholic Priests in Ireland in the last 10 years ?

The Archdiocese of Dublin are the experts in that area. They have on their website that deals with that specific issue "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics". Perhaps they know of ongoing cases not yet reported ?

The Quadratic Equation

gigino wrote: »

The Archdiocese of Dublin are the experts in that area. They have on their website that deals with that specific issue "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics". Perhaps they know of ongoing cases not yet reported ?

Be honest and man enough to have a go at the actual question :

What % were abused by Catholic Priests in Ireland in the last 10 years ?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

It is just that the problem was 100 times worse outside the clergy.

So if you accept the figure on the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin , that "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics "....and considering clerics make up such a tiny percentage of the population, how can any person credibly say that the problem was 100 times worse outside the clergy ? You cannot.:D You have been caught out again.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

The Archdiocese of Dublin are the experts in that area. They have on their website that deals with that specific issue "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics". Perhaps they know of ongoing cases not yet reported ?

You are misquoting again! That isnt in reference to the last ten years! Go and read your own source!

gigino

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Be honest and man enough to have a go at the actual question :

What % were abused by Catholic Priests in Ireland in the last 10 years ?

% of what ? There is a big difference between the % of children sexually abused and the % of Clerics who sexually abuse.

As I said the Archdiocese of Dublin are the experts in that area. They have on their website that deals with that specific issue "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics". Perhaps they know of ongoing cases not yet reported ?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

You are misquoting again! That isnt in reference to the last ten years! Go and read your own source!

I quoted them word for word. They did not say exactly what period, and neither do I. Its you thats bringing " ten years" in to it.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

So if you accept the figure on the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin , that "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics "....and considering clerics make up such a tiny percentage of the population, how can any person credibly say that the problem was 100 times worse outside the clergy ? You cannot.:D You have been caught out again.

Please try to keep up!
Five per cent of victims are victims of clerics
does not mean five percent of abusers were clerics.

Less than one per cent of abusers were. You have it in the SAVI ( dodsgy) figures you supplied which has 1.5%.

Also 1% of abusers is not 1% of the population. All abusers are a small percentage of the population. A significant number are babies and bedridded old people and in hospital etc. They cant be abusers. So say about 1% of the population abuse. Then 1% of them were ( not now but in the past) clerical abusers which is 0.01% of the population.

Got it?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

You are misquoting again! That isnt in reference to the last ten years! Go and read your own source!

I'm not misquoting. I quoted exactly. I or they did not quote ten years. You are the one who is bringing "ten years" in to it.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

Please try to keep up!
Five per cent of victims are victims of clerics
does not mean five percent of abusers were clerics.

lol. It was me who told you that 2 posts previously . I wrote: " There is a big difference between the % of children sexually abused and the % of Clerics who sexually abuse. "

Please try to keep up yourself.:D

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

The Archdiocese of Dublin are the experts in that area. They have on their website that deals with that specific issue "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics". Perhaps they know of ongoing cases not yet reported ?

You misquoted it
It isnt an official Archdiocese report it is from an Irish times article written by Maeve Lewis executive director of One in Four in 2008.
I dont disagree with her stats.

You as usual selected out the bit that suited you and ignored the context which didnt suit you in the immediately following sentence.
http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml

Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics. However, 75 per cent of children who are sexually abused are violated by members of their own family, or by trusted adults known to them in their daily lives. Facing this is our real challenge now.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

So say about 1% of the population abuse.

So say you !

If what you say is true, then the 00.1% ( a tenth of a per cent ) of the population who are clerics have a lot to answer for if what the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin says is true ( and we have no reason to doubt it ) :

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

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


Clerics are punching well above their weight, would'nt you say ?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

I dont disagree with her stats.

As Mary McAleese would go : WOW !!!

You deny the SAVI stats for months,about 4% of abused boys , and now you accept that "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics".

If ever anyone wanted to get you to say black is white, all they have to do is get it printed on the Archdiocese of Dublin website + you would believe it. Amazing.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

From the link Channel 4 :

Fr Christopher Clonan
High court ruled in 2010 that Clonan abused.

Inthe last ten years?
Clonan died of natural causes at his home on 27 October 1998 AFAIK.

I believe there are other cases under investigation now so in say 2015 we can look back with more clarity on 2001 - 2011.

Clonan isnt one so what are all these others?

It has to be said clerical child abuse is not the problem it once was

Im glad you agree.'any luck on those cases from the last ten years?

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

As Mary McAleese would go : WOW !!!

You deny the SAVI stats for months,about 4% of abused boys

You really should pay attention.
I deny the accuracy of the SAVI stats which say 1.5% of abusers were Ministers.

and now you accept that "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics".

I never disputed that maybe four or five per cent of victims are victims of clerics.
In fact I pointed out to you several times 'that the numbers of victims of clerics were higher on average as some clerics were multiple abusers. dont you remember?

However you still seem not to understand the difference between "percentage of victims" and "percentage of abusers'' you just dont seem to get it.

If ever anyone wanted to get you to say black is white, all they have to do is get it printed on the Archdiocese of Dublin website + you would believe it. Amazing.

I don''t disagree with the stats in the IRISH TIMES article.
But the 5% of victims has nothing to do the less than 1% of abusers claim. You just dont seem to get this. Í think it was pointed out to you around the time when "endemic" was first pointed out to you by Festus.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

So say you !

If what you say is true, then the 00.1% ( a tenth of a per cent ) of the population who are clerics have a lot to answer for

Their predecessors have yes.

Clerics are punching well above their weight, would'nt you say ?

If by that you mean the average number of victims are higher for clerics then I have pointed this out to you

If you keep rehashing the same defeated points ill have to complain

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75173315&postcount=2309
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75176994&postcount=2313
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75184588&postcount=2326
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75207731&postcount=2352


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75183192&postcount=2320

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.

soterpisc

gigino wrote: »

So say you !

If what you say is true, then the 00.1% ( a tenth of a per cent ) of the population who are clerics have a lot to answer for if what the website of the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service of the ( Roman Catholic ) Archdiocese of Dublin says is true ( and we have no reason to doubt it ) :

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

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


Clerics are punching well above their weight, would'nt you say ?

Wrong was done the facts were in the public domain. At certain periods over the last 50 60 years there may well have been the above figures.


But today, this decade there has been no abuse reported or before the costs of abuse commited.

The problem is largely solved in Ireland.

gigino

From the SAVI report. I am having to show you this chart again ISAW as you still do not get it.



The study / survey is in the Republic of Ireland.
1.9% of all abusers are religous ministers ( inc RC Priests ) and 3.9% are religous teachers ( Brothers etc ). What does 1.9 and 3.9 add up to, pray tell ?

Now the The Archdiocese of Dublin are the experts in that area. They have on their website that deals with that specific issue "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics". Perhaps they know of ongoing cases not yet reported ???



Considering Priests numbers just over 3000 people in the country, out of a population of 4.5 million or whatever, its some (dubious) achievement to have 5% of children abused by a group of that scale. Priests are well less than a tenth of one percent of the population, and decreasing. Thankfully there are / had to be put in place child protection policys, but these came too late for thousands of kids.

gigino

soterpisc wrote: »

The problem is largely solved in Ireland.

People in the RC church were also saying 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 and 60 years ago there was no problem. But I do acknowledge that clerical child abuse now is not as bad as years / decades ago.

There may be many reasons for this eg child protection guidelines now in place in society etc ; better awareness of past problems etc ; older age profile of Priests / less young Priests ; higher risk of getting caught / punished / exposed in media etc.

However, past experience shows its best not to be complacent. Certainly other studies have show the % of RC Priests who are homosexual to be 48.5% and 50%. If you get a large group of men, force them to be celibate, discourange them from coming out, etc, then who is to say all natural inclinations / frustrations in this all-male institution can be controlled ?

It would be interesting to see if most of the clerical abusers were homosexual ? If they were, this of course is not the same as saying most homosexuals are abusers.

PDN

gigino wrote: »

People in the RC church were also saying 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 and 60 years ago there was no problem. But I do acknowledge that clerical child abuse now is not as bad as years / decades ago.

There may be many reasons for this eg child protection guidelines now in place in society etc ; better awareness of past problems etc ; older age profile of Priests / less young Priests ; higher risk of getting caught / punished / exposed in media etc.

However, past experience shows its best not to be complacent. Certainly other studies have show the % of RC Priests who are homosexual to be 48.5% and 50%. If you get a large group of men, force them to be celibate, discourange them from coming out, etc, then who is to say all natural inclinations / frustrations can be controlled ?

It would be interesting to see if most of the clerical abusers were homosexual ? If they were, this of course is not the same as saying most homosexual are abusers.

Moderator Warning
Let's not stray into homophobia, please.
Child abuse and homosexuality are two very different things. Child abuse is much more to do with damaged people who feel powerless wielding control over those even more powerless - not about repressed sexuality.
We are not going to start lumping 'heterosexuals' together as a cause of child abuse against girls, so don't do it with homosexuals when it comes to abuse against boys.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

From the SAVI report. I am having to show you this chart again ISAW as you still do not get it.

Which is a source I gave you
But you didnt read the report.
How do you know the statistical confidence of the above figures?

Homeless people, those in group accommodation (e.g., students or trainees), and those in institutional settings (e.g., the armed forces, prisons, psychiatric hospitals or religious communities) are often not included. In this way surveys may not represent the entire population. p. 24 You agree with that don't you?

The study / survey is in the Republic of Ireland.

And if no attempt was made to document whether the participants contacted for the survey were Irish citizens, or whether the abuse actually took place in Ireland25? That would make no difference

1.9% of all abusers are religous ministers ( inc RC Priests ) and 3.9% are religous teachers ( Brothers etc ). What does 1.9 and 3.9 add up to, pray tell ?

You just keep doing this! In the SAVI sample 1.9% of abusers of males were Ministers not "RC priests" no attempt was made to document whether the participants contacted for the survey were Irish citizens, or whether the abuse actually took place in Ireland.

3.9% of abusers of males up to 17 were "religious teachers". WE dont know what religious teachers are since you didn't supply a definition.

You have been shown the tendency for clerical abuse to be male on male on older teens. This would tend to follow a similar pattern. I say "tend" because We dont know whatage the victim was just that they were under 17 and we know ZERO percent abuse of females were religious teachers. So it is very weak evidence for "pedo priests".

You however in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76120775&postcount=2722

Tried to link the abuse of only males with priests

According to the SAVI report 4% of boys who were abused in Ireland were abused by Priests / religous teachers / Brothers.

To put things in context there are just over 3000 Roman Catholic Priests in the country, out of a population of what, 4,500,000 people. Even if we round up the number to 4,500 people thats a tenth of one per cent. ie 00.1%

You committed a number of errors in doing so
1. The abuse is not by priests only but priests and religious teachers
2. The abuse is not 4%
3. The abuse you select out is only of males ( clearly this is because of the male/female anomaly)
4. The abuse is not as you claim in Ireland no attempt was made to document whether the participants contacted for the SAVI survey were Irish citizens, or whether the abuse actually took place in Ireland.
5. Arguing on rates of priests in the current population has no bearing on issues about historic rates in the population.
6. Arguing on historic rates of abuse has nothing to do with current levels.
7. The per cent priests per capita is a wholly different concept to the percent abusers who were priests
8. the per cent of abusers who were priests is entirely different to the percent of victims who were victims of clerical abuse.

Now the The Archdiocese of Dublin are the experts in that area. They have on their website that deals with that specific issue "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics". Perhaps they know of ongoing cases not yet reported ???

Perhaps space aliens and unicorns did it!
9. Look up "argument from ignorance"
10. the 5% figure on the website is from a newspaper article nothing to do with the diocese! I have no reason to douby about 5% of victims being victims of clerics. Thisis wholly different to the less than one per cent of abusers being clerics! the two stats are different they do not contradict each other! You seem to think they are related and the same "specific issue". they are not!

Considering Priests numbers just over 3000 people in the country, out of a population of 4.5 million or whatever, its some (dubious) achievement to have 5% of children abused by a group of that scale.

It just does not seem to be sinking in! 95% were abused by groups of a larger scale.
Taking your figures for abuse ogf males under 17( abuse by the way if you look up SAVI includes non contact e.g. verbal suggestions) we find 12 Ministers .edit sotty six ministers We dont know if they were Irish or roman Catholic or even if they happened in Ireland but let us assume all 12 were. Now we can stick with just the males (the figures are even more in your favour there) for table 4.10 page 86
these 12 Ministersedit 6 ministers you have
42 - abused by family members
197 - by non family members
61 by strangers

Of the 66 authority figures 6 were "ministers"
The 0.1 % you claim ( a false stat anyway) were ten times less than the group of "Authotiry figures"
The 6 Ministers who abused males under 18 were part of a group of 310 abusers of males under 18
That is what SAVI says . Btyou didnt read it did you?

Priests are well less than a tenth of one percent of the population, and decreasing. Thankfully there are / had to be put in place child protection policys, but these came too late for thousands of kids.

They were not less than a tenth of a per cent! and you included "religious teachers brothers" - bringing it over 1%
Authority figures are also less than a per cent.
You keep trying to link the per capita percentage of priests with the percentage of pedophiles who were priests. You have not proved any correlation and if anything it is negative. WE know today when it comes to percentasge of proiests they are a fraction of a per centage of the population ( between a half and one) but there level of sex crimes are under one in a million and against minors wher theere are hundreds poer year there are no priests listed.

gigino wrote: »

People in the RC church were also saying 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 and 60 years ago there was no problem. But I do acknowledge that clerical child abuse now is not as bad as years / decades ago.

You are being anachronistic but any Church people who said that were wrong
But you also have to consider the other 99.99% people outside the Church.
People who said it outside the Church were also wrong.

However, past experience shows its best not to be complacent. Certainly other studies have show the % of RC Priests who are homosexual to be 48.5% and 50%. If you get a large group of men, force them to be celibate, discourange them from coming out, etc, then who is to say all natural inclinations / frustrations can be controlled ?

Well the Military didn't seem to suffer from inordinately ( no pun intended) from it and similar rules.

hotmail.com

Supposedly "good", "moral", "religious" men covered up the abuse.

I don't think people get that.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

Which is a source I gave you
But you didnt read the report.

I knew of the source already and I can assure you I read it. I have quoted from iot numerous times on this thread to you, inc reproducing the table above a number of times. How dare you claim I "didnt read the report" !

ISAW wrote: »

In the SAVI sample 1.9% of abusers of males were Ministers not "RC priests"

I said "The ( SAVI ) study / survey is in the Republic of Ireland.
1.9% of all abusers are religous ministers ( inc RC Priests )".
I reproduced the chart for you again ( see several posts up ), and earlier in the thread I cut and pasted text from the report for you, as well as linking the report.

In case you are not aware, a minister is
"a person authorized to conduct religious worship; member of the clergy; pastor. "
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minister
In Ireland this has to include RC Priests as they are "person authorized to conduct religious worship; member of the clergy" etc. What are they if not that? There is no seperate category for RC priests to fit in to in the SAVI statistics, so therefore they are included in "Ministers". Incidentally in the lifetime of most people ( say in the past 60 years ) all of the clerical child abuse in the state is known to have taken place in the RC church, but nevertheless the category of Minister is used as any clerical abuser can be included. If you know of any convicted clerical abuser in the state who was not RC perhaps you would have a link for that ?

Do you have any proof that the average number of victims are so much higher for clerics as to explain the fact that "Five per cent of all Irish children who are sexually abused are harmed by clerics" ( http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_287.shtml ) ...while RC Priests are well less than a tenth of one percent of the population ?

Zorbas

Just a bystander watching you guys crunch the stats = very funny. Especially amusing when so much reliance is on the stats and then soundness questioned - since when have stats ever been 100%?
Cant see the two sides here making any progess towards reconciliation - a good job you guys were'nt involved in the peace process or it would never have happened.
Time to just express opinions because they can stand on their own without any stats and can be more appreciated rather than the endless round of chosing the stats that suit the opinion in the first place.

soterpisc

Zorbas wrote: »

Just a bystander watching you guys crunch the stats = very funny. Especially amusing when so much reliance is on the stats and then soundness questioned - since when have stats ever been 100%?
Cant see the two sides here making any progess towards reconciliation - a good job you guys were'nt involved in the peace process or it would never have happened.
Time to just express opinions because they can stand on their own without any stats and can be more appreciated rather than the endless round of chosing the stats that suit the opinion in the first place.

Simple facts are sufficient. Not one single abuse case reported in the last 10 years... Obvious fact showing measures put in place are working.

soterpisc

gigino wrote: »

People in the RC church were also saying 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 and 60 years ago there was no problem. But I do acknowledge that clerical child abuse now is not as bad as years / decades ago.

There may be many reasons for this eg child protection guidelines now in place in society etc ; better awareness of past problems etc ; older age profile of Priests / less young Priests ; higher risk of getting caught / punished / exposed in media etc.

However, past experience shows its best not to be complacent. Certainly other studies have show the % of RC Priests who are homosexual to be 48.5% and 50%. If you get a large group of men, force them to be celibate, discourange them from coming out, etc, then who is to say all natural inclinations / frustrations in this all-male institution can be controlled ?

It would be interesting to see if most of the clerical abusers were homosexual ? If they were, this of course is not the same as saying most homosexuals are abusers.

Your statetment that 50% of priests are Gay is crazy. Having worked with about 300 priests over the last 20 years it certainly does not corrispond to any data I have seen.

Parish priests often get anoymous surveys looking for data... Questinaires " are you Gay" yeah.. Sure like they have nothing better to do thab fuel speculation. Most of them spend most of their time tending to the parish, Baptisms, weddings funerals etc...

Believe it or not.. The majority of priests are priests for the right reasons.. They want to follow Christ, it goes beyond money and material motives.

I have seen many cynical remarks that people can't believea priest can live his life celibate.. But they do... Same as I would not go running for a prostitute I were in a foreign work assignment... People who really believe in Chist.. Can be faithful..

The church has turn a corner. there is no current abuse. all the priests I know simply won't put them in a position of suspiscion regarding kids and will only work with them with adults present..