nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Tigger

serious question as i was arguing this with a mate and he says there is no way people support his position but i honestly believe that many people can see his side.

Find more posts tagged with

ireland

pope benedict

pope francis

abuse scandal

irish catholic church

current affairs

Quick Links

Comments

smurfhousing

Feownah wrote: »

Happy to see the Belgian authorities are taking the kind of action that needs to be taken across the board http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7852125/Child-sex-abuse-raid-on-Belgian-Catholic-Church.html

I think that is out of order. It seems to be jumping the gun and unnecessarily pre-emptive.

Also, it is a concern that some of those who were abused spoke to the Church but did not wish their details to reach civil authorities. Of course the civil authorities have their details now whether they like it or not.

The case is this: the Church was conducting its own internal investigations and was also co-operating with civil authorities. It looks like they just decided to skip due process, jump the gun, and break into the Bishop's residence and start probing into tombs. Reminds me of some of the happenings in Northern Ireland in recent years.

If I were one of the victims who requested and was assured anonymity by the Church, I'd be pretty ticked off. Seems the Vatican is ticked off too: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Vatican+indignant+over+Belgian+raids/3203042/story.html

Of course I'll be accused of being an abuser-enabler and supporter in 3, 2, 1, - but before that you might watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBwtadfvQlM&feature=player_embedded

Vatican Dismay Over Breach of Victims Privacy in Belgium

(25 Jun 10 – RV) Below is the English translation of the text of the Declaration issued by the Spokesman of the Belgian Bishops' Conference, after a police search of the residence of the Archbishop of Malines-Brussels, on 24 June.

* * *

The bishops of Belgium were gathered at the residence of the Archbishop of Malines-Brussels at about 10.30 this morning for the monthly meeting of the Episcopal Conference. At about 10:30, police and court officials entered and referred that there would be a search of the archdiocese, following complaints of sexual abuse within the territory of the archdiocese. No explanation was given, but all documents and mobile phones were confiscated and it was referred that nobody could leave the building. This situation lasted until approximately 19:30.

Everyone was interrogated, members of the Episcopal Conference and staff. It was not a pleasant experience, but everything was done correctly. The bishops have always affirmed their trust in justice and its work. This search was greeted with the same confidence and therefore, for the moment, the [bishops] shall refrain from making further comments.

Instead, they, along with Professor Peter Adriaensses, chairman of the committee for handling sexual abuse as part of a pastoral outreach, regret the fact that during another search, all files of this committee were seized. This goes against the privacy rights of which the victims who have chosen to turn to this committee should benefit. This action gravely affects the much needed and excellent work of this committee.

Eric de Beukelaer
Spokesman for the Episcopal Conference

* * *

In publishing this statement, the Secretary of State reiterates its firm condemnation of all sinful and criminal acts of abuse of minors by members of the Church, and the need to repair and face such acts in accordance with the requirements of justice and the teachings of the Gospel. It is in the light of these needs that the same Secretary of State also expresses great surprise at how some searches were conducted yesterday by the Belgian judicial authorities and its indignation at the fact that the tombs of Cardinals Jozef-Ernest Van Roey and Léon-Joseph Suenens, deceased archbishops of Malines-Brussels, were violated. Added to the dismay over those actions, is regret for some breaches of confidentiality, owed to those very victims for whom the searches were conducted.
These feelings were expressed personally by HE Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States, SE Mr. Charles Ghislain, Ambassador of Belgium to the Holy See.

ISAW

Michael G wrote: »

I agree completely. Some priests were vicious perverts and some bishops tried to hide them, not because they were perverts themselves but because they wanted to conceal the scandal. )

Let us get this in context. ther are millions of clergy and if you include monks probably tens of millions. Thee are probably hundreds up to a thousand cases of abusers. There is no case I am aware of a BISHOP in office having sex with a child although it may have happened. And if it happened it is one or Two RCC bishops of about ten thousand since say WWII.

Now about "concealing things" there were maybe tens of Bishops (or their equicvalent e.g. Abbots or adminstrators with "Ordinary Power" - look it up ) who knew about abuse and while they didn't actually deny the abuse they did things to try to avoid bringing the church into a scandal such as moving abusers around or not admitting the abuse. these bishops were not abusers themselves but their misguided actions misguided did allow abuse to continue. Again this is a population of ten to twenty in a group of say 5000 bishops at any one time.

My figures are nominal but I have posted references to this thread before and I suggest I am at the right order of magnitude.

the facts seem to be that non clerical sexual abusers outnumber clerics by a factor of about 100 to 1.

ISAW

pitkan wrote: »

Hi Michael G, my statement was a play on words. The faithful in my statement are the people who, like myself, have been regular church goers and who, for whatever reason in connection with the child abuse scandals- whether it be because of the overall situation (the whole damned affair warts and all) or latterly on separate issues such as Bishops refusing to resign or the Pope stalling all or any inquiries or in handing over documents (the list goes on), have left the mass attending part of the Catholic religion. I have stopped going to mass this year but I have been more than aware of the decline in church goers in my own parish in the last few years since the revelations began to gather pace.

I don't understand. How does your not going to Mass (which is the central element of the Catholic belief ) affect the issue of the tiny minority of clerics who sexually abused Children? Do you think if Mass attendance dropped to say ten per cent that this would somehow indicate to the Church Hierarchy that this is like some form of protest against the percieved lack of Church response to child abusers? As if if everyone stopped going to Mass would make the Pope think "This is all because of The Papacy not doing enough about Child abuse?" Ridiculous!
Your idea reminds me of a guy I knew in the pub who used to deface the old five pound notes because they had a nun on them. He was totally ignorant of Catherine Mc Auley who disposed of a large personal fortune and worded independently of the Church. It is a like responding to corruption in the Police by making a vow to never report a crime or assist the police or courts service.

The Smurf

In an extensive interview with Fox News, the chief Vatican prosecutor for clerical sex abuse cases, Monsignor Charles Scicluna, said he watched Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s “compassion, anger and frustration” as the future pope reviewed hundreds of cases between 2002-2005.

Full story and video: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/23/vatican-sex-abuse-prosecutor-talks-to-fox/

Zombrex

Friend A - It is really sad what is happening in Haiti, really upsets me
Friend B - How about we get a cheap meal tonight and donate what we would have spent on food to a campaign
Me - Yeah I'm on for that
Friend A - Ah maybe, but i was sort of looking forward to dinner out tonight
Friend B and Me - You t**t

Basically sums up my feelings on feeling sad about something but doing virtually nothing productive or helpful to actually stop or deal with it.

Actions speak louder than words has never meant more than the context of the RCC's handling of sex abuse scandal, the current Pope included.

The Smurf

Wicknight wrote: »

Friend A - It is really sad what is happening in Haiti, really upsets me
Friend B - How about we get a cheap meal tonight and donate what we would have spent on food to a campaign
Me - Yeah I'm on for that
Friend A - Ah maybe, but i was sort of looking forward to dinner out tonight
Friend B and Me - You t**t

Basically sums up my feelings on feeling sad about something but doing virtually nothing productive or helpful to actually stop or deal with it.

Actions speak louder than words has never meant more than the context of the RCC's handling of sex abuse scandal, the current Pope included.

Those in the know are aware that BXVI has done and is doing a lot to address this issue. It's not simply enough to rehash what you've heard in the MSM.

See these links for example:
http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/
http://www.osv.com/PopeBenedictXVIandtheSexualAbuseCrisisBlog/tabid/8019/Default.aspx
http://www.osv.com/BooksNav/PopeBenedictXVIandtheSexualAbuseCrisis/tabid/8017/Default.aspx

The MSM hate the Catholic Church. Their reporting on BXVI is not accurate or fair. The above resources prove that. Interview here as well: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pope-abuse-erlandson-book/2010/06/20/id/362496

The Smurf

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/23/here%E2%80%99s-a-crazy-idea-what-if-the-pope-is-innocent/

Fanny Cradock

Why censor the word sex from the article? Very odd!

Anyway, it's not necessarily a question of the Pope's guilt. It's the view amongst many people that he hasn't gone the extra mile.

Is there any reason why this shouldn't be merged with the megathread?

The Smurf

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why censor the word sex from the article? Very odd!

Anyway, it's not necessarily a question of the Pope's guilt. It's the view amongst many people that he hasn't gone the extra mile.

Is there any reason why this shouldn't be merged with the megathread?

I think history will show that he did his best.

Ah you're probably right. I just thought it was a news story that folks would be interested in. If you want to move it, go ahead.

The Smurf

FC - which article censored the word 'sex'?

Fanny Cradock

Your last link, "Here’s a crazy idea...". For whatever reason the author replaces sex and sexually with s-x and s-xually. Bizarre!

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your last link, "Here’s a crazy idea...". For whatever reason the author replaces sex and sexually with s-x and s-xually. Bizarre!

I could suggest two reasons:

1. To hinder web spiders harvesting during a search.
2. To enable the author to search for the original copy.

ISAW

Expect an update here on the false statistical claim of 5.8 per cent of abusers of boys being priests

But first this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72684532&postcount=77

Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo

here is the copy of the email I sent to all the addresses on the aforementioned board.

Thank you for this information.

:
Dear <insert name here>,

I have followed with great interested the media explosion in recent years

To which in your ignorance you add.

:
resulting from the coming to light of the various heinous acts towards children that have peppered our countries history for longer than any have expected.

99 per cent of which were not clergy

:
Following the release of “Our Children, Our Church” it seems the safeguarding.ie website and board were established to assist in the creation of procedures to ensure such events are prevented as much as possible in the future.
And you have been shown exactly where such procedures are for each parish! They are called the Child Protection Policy for that parish.

In addition ther are others for schools , and other institutions and offices.

However of greater concern to me is how or even whether such policies are being implemented, enforced and policed.

and you have been shown where the policies are. Each parish is responsible for implementation. It isn't done by a centralised authority. the imoplemention is dealt with under an Implementation section which is specific to each parish. You would have to go and read what each parish wrote specific to that parish depending on their needs facilities etc. to understand how each one may be different.

:
How is it being ensured that we are not just producing an array of policy documents to satisfy a hungry media and an angry public.

You have already been show how. Implementation requires ACTIONS e.g. staff training, reporting procedures, behavior procedures, legal procedures including but not limited to privacy legislation, criminal records etc. These in turn are NOT solely under the control of the Parish bu have remifications for the DPP Gardaí JLO etc.

:
but that these policy documents are making a difference and are being noticed and adhered to.

That is what you have been told yes. You have also been asked to go and look yourself and confirm it is so or to point out any breaches of policy. As you have failed to do so I wonder how your concern only seems to manifest in writing doccuments and not actually doing anything - something you accused the Church!

:
Since August of 2009 I have attempted to write to various parishes around Ireland,

Which ones?

:
most notably those local to the areas where I myself live, have lived or currently have family and friends living. As such much of my mail went to Cork city, Sligo city, Offaly and Dublin North.

Okay. Care to name the parishes in Dublin North you wrote to and we will see if they have CPP's?

:
As a “Safeguarding Delegate” of safeguarding.ie therefore I wonder if you could answer these concerns and give me your experience and knowledge on the subject of whether anything more is actually being done other than the simple producing and printing of policy documents.

The documents have to be adhered to and reports are continually made. A parish will not be at liberty to name cases brought to their attention. You could contact the Gardai or DPP and ask them who is under investigation for child abuse in a parish but I suspect you will not receive a reply.

:
Also I am concerned at how these documents are produced at a parish level. It seems each parish that has such a document on line has produced their own version and policies.

Correct
You have also been told that.

:
Is there no centralized standards board or authority that reviews these documents, or has produced an updated modern central Policy Document that should apply to all parishes and delegates concerned.

No there is no Authoritarian Model telling each Parish what it must to other than produce a CPP. Each parish produces their own. They are of course guided by the law of the land in that they can't produce an illegal procedure and by the rules of the church in that they should not produce an immoral or questionable one. For example alcohol might be legal in some circumstances for teens but is discouraged and so policy is not to have any.

The "tell them what to do" top down model does not apply.

Finally, can you comment on any conflict of interest that might exist given that your website and board appear to have been established by the church itself. Is it enough to have someone with the history we know of to be essentially producing it's own policy documents and policing itself.

Yes it is. 99 per cent of abusers are not clerics whereas 90 per cent or so of the population are christian. The church is protected by law in their appointments. They don't need atheists and non church members to advise them and sit on policy committees. Maybe you should write to Fianna Fáil and tell them the should appoint only Fine Gael members to their policy committees?

:
How are such conflicts of interest dealt with and their effects allayed?

There is NO conflict of interest in church members formulating Church policy. Your misconception seems to be based on a false analogy that Clerics were involved as the vast majority of abusers when in fact they were about one per cent of abusers.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72684532&postcount=77

I look forward with much interest to your reples.
Yours,
<My Name Here>

That's funny you seem to have ignored my replies and redoubled your conformational bias.

ISAW

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72686278&postcount=85

My post wasn't off topic, I said I didn't like the increase in the numbers of possible priests because of the increase of paedophilia it will bring. What I was was about the number of priests enrolling therefore relevant to the topic

You are asserting more priests = more pedophiles. You are aware Catholic clergy constitute about one per cent of abusers?

How do you know becoming a priest is a causal factor and that they would non be an abuser if they didn't become a priest?

ISAW

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056294141
Quote:
Originally Posted by gigino View Post
No I am not. I am quoting directly from the statistics. According to http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf ( see page 88 / 89 ),
Word for word at the top of page 89 : "Combining religious ministers and religious teachers they constituted the largest single category of authority figures as abusers of boys; 5.8 per cent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious".

Which lists "Minister" as a percent of authority figures! There were 6 cases of "Ministers"
in n=66 cases of boys abused authority figures and this was of and overall figure of 308 cases of boys and (there are another 430 girls).

i.e. 6 ministers in 308 cases . Also of these six not all are under 12 and not all by catholic Priests. But even 6/308 =1.9 per cent

Quote:
I never said they were pre pubescent or post pubescent or any pubescent.As far as I am concerned the sexual abuse of anyone up to the age of 17 is very wrong.

A pedophile is not a person having sex with seventeen year old.
Pederasts are different.

Quote:
The cover up / moving of priest from parish to parish or overseas , to cover up these abuses was also very wrong.

All off topic and for a different thread. The point is you stats on MINISTERS are wrong!
You are lying about them.

gigino

Wicknight wrote: »

Friend A - It is really sad what is happening in Haiti, really upsets me
Friend B - How about we get a cheap meal tonight and donate what we would have spent on food to a campaign
Me - Yeah I'm on for that
Friend A - Ah maybe, but i was sort of looking forward to dinner out tonight
Friend B and Me - You t**t

Basically sums up my feelings on feeling sad about something but doing virtually nothing productive or helpful to actually stop or deal with it.

Actions speak louder than words has never meant more than the context of the RCC's handling of sex abuse scandal, the current Pope included.

+1. There was a great documentary on RTE Primetime on Tuesday night ; it showed some of the widespread abuses in the magdalene laundries, and how none of the 4 RCC institutions involved even had the courtesy to reply to letters.

Its difficult tio imagine how the survivors / ex slave residents of these institutions feel. Or indeed the 5.8% of all boys who were abused by clergy / religous in this country. According to http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf ( see page 88 / 89 ),"Combining religious ministers and religious teachers they constituted the largest single category of authority figures as abusers of boys; 5.8 per cent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious".. Only an abuser or friend or defender of those abusers could defend that level of abuse.
The RCC elsewhere has'nt done much better. Across the Atlantic, looking at the situation in America, according to http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html , a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children. Thats a shocking statistic considering everyone knows Catholic Priests / Catholics.

Turtwig

August Last Year, to June this year that's gotta be one of the biggest thread resurrections I've ever seen.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Its difficult tio imagine how the survivors / ex slave residents of these institutions feel. Or indeed the 5.8% of all boys who were abused by clergy / religous in this country.

The laundry has NO BOYS and NO PRIESTS! It was run by nuns and had a 100 % female workforce.

The 5.8 % figure is a lie you keep saying.

According to http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf ( see page 88 / 89 ),"Combining religious ministers and religious teachers they constituted the largest single category of authority figures as abusers of boys; 5.8 per cent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious"..

Which
1. combines teachers or religion and Ministers ( Clergy) into one group
( there were 6 cases of boys and ministers - read your own source)
2. Treats this as a sub group of the group "people in authority" group n=66 boys
3. The total abused was over 700 and the authority abuse constituted 15-20 per cent of total abuse ( it is in figure 4.12 on page 87)

There are therefore 6 cases of abuse on boys ( under 17) in 700 abuse cases of the 3,000 population.

6 in 3,000 ~ 0.2 per cent of the population being boys abused by clergy and dont forget this is for under 17 and for non Catholic Ministers too so the figures might be even lower but certainly can't be higher! It also tell you that two of the Ministers group were also family of victim and one authority figure was a Garda.

Only an abuser or friend or defender of those abusers could defend that level of abuse.

You alleged level is a lie! And the level of abuse I will defend is ZERO! So don't try the "guilt by association" line. You are clearly trying to overtmhasise the one per cent oor less of abusers who were Priests. What about the other 99 per cent?

I expect your agenda will become clear and that it isn't the abusers or the abused you care about but trying to have a go at religious organisations and try to link them with child abuse as if they are a cause or source of it.

The RCC elsewhere has'nt done much better.

Considering you have lied about the stats claiming 5.8% of abusers are priests I don't knbow how you can talk about "better"

Across the Atlantic, looking at the situation in America, according to http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html , a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.

and as you have been shown before if 90 per cent of Americans thought the Sun orbits the Earth, that would not make it true! Whatever next - you will be insisting Pi equals exactly three because enough people believe it?

Thats a shocking statistic considering everyone knows Catholic Priests / Catholics.

The only shocking thing about it is that people like you believe the lies you tel yourself and use confirmation bias to convince yourself that your opinion is a fact . It isn't!

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

The laundry has NO BOYS and NO PRIESTS! It was run by nuns and had a 100 % female workforce.

Of course the laundries were run by nuns and not priests. Of course it had a 100 % female "workforce" ( although RTE said they were treated more like slaves than workers ; 12 hour days, locked up after work, not allowed leave, handed back to the institution if escaped + captured by Gardai etc )

ISAW wrote: »

The 5.8 % figure is a lie you keep saying.

The RTE documentary implied 100% of the women held in those institutions by nuns were abused, though not sexually.

The 5.8% is the percentage" of all boys sexually abused who were abused by clergy or religious".
( the surveys words, not mine ).
http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf

If you were to include all forms of abuse its possible the figure would be higher.

As regards the sun orbiting the earth or vise versa,thats the subject of a different thread or forum. Certainly peoples experiences cannot be disregarded. I remember many many years ago people talking about the priest offering x chocolate etc for a w**k, and other people would disregard it and said it could'nt be true. The priest was the priest and you never complain about the priest. None of the people concerned ever did ( to any official source anyway), to the best of my knowledge either. So I am not entirely surprised that the Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children. Its not the same thing as saying that 64% of priests " frequently" abuse children. There are many priests who never did and never will abuse children.

Festus

ISAW wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056294141
Quote:
Originally Posted by gigino View Post
No I am not. I am quoting directly from the statistics. According to http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf ( see page 88 / 89 ),
Word for word at the top of page 89 : "Combining religious ministers and religious teachers they constituted the largest single category of authority figures as abusers of boys; 5.8 per cent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious".

The text is copied from SAVI report so let's press on.

ISAW wrote: »

Which lists "Minister" as a percent of authority figures! There were 6 cases of "Ministers"
in n=66 cases of boys abused authority figures and this was of and overall figure of 308 cases of boys and (there are another 430 girls).

i.e. 6 ministers in 308 cases . Also of these six not all are under 12 and not all by catholic Priests. But even 6/308 =1.9 per cent

Thank God someone is using their brain and actually querying the presented table. So refreshing.

So, ministers... Is that Catholic or Protestant, or Other ?

ISAW wrote: »

All off topic and for a different thread. The point is you stats on MINISTERS are wrong!
You are lying about them.

Actually SAVI is lying or misrepresenting. giginio is meerly promulgating an error.

Clearly the text is not representative of the table so lets take a look shall we.

Teachers 24.3%
Ministers 9.1%

hmm, not looking good for teachers.

Baby sitters - 19.7%.
Compared to religious at 9.1% statistically you are better off getting a priest to look after your kids rather than a baby sitter or a teacher.

Other authority figures 34.7%. This does not include baby sitters, religious, teachers, coaches or employers.

So who are they. Who else has access to young people on their own and can be considered an authority figure? Police, social workers, politicians, doctors, dentists, bus conductors, drug dealers, lawyers.

Given it is unlikely that politicians, doctors, dentists, lawyers et al. are likely to be left alone with a child, though it is possible they may be left alone with a juvenile they are not as suspect but not out of the woods yet.

Police and social workers do however have reasonably free access to juveniles and may sometimes be left alone with them. Oops.

Perhaps we need more raw data.

Now, mixing Religions ministers and Religious teachers together to make a pseudo category of "clergy or religious" is statistical abuse.

The statement ""Combining religious ministers and religious teachers they constituted the largest single category of authority figures as abusers of boys; 5.8 per cent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious"" is both mathematically incorrect and categorically erroneous and makes a mockery of the entire study.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

Of course the laundries were run by nuns and not priests. Of course it had a 100 % female "workforce"
...The RTE documentary implied 100% of the women held in those institutions by nuns were abused, though not sexually.

And you brought the women and non sexual abuse into a thread to defend a claim about BOYS and male abusers who SEXUALLY abused them?

The 5.8% is the percentage" of all boys sexually abused who were abused by clergy or religious".
( the surveys words, not mine ).
http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf

5.8 perent of WHAT? You are lying! of boys sexually abused by authority figures such as Gardai Swimming Instructors , teachers, coaches etc.

This group was 20 per cent of the 700 or so abused which was about 20 per cent of the 3,000 people in the survey. Abuse was very widely defined to include 17 year olds seeing people naked , no contact involved.

5.8 per cent of 20 per cent is about one per cent of people. As it happens one per cent or less of abusers are catholic Priests. the other 99 per cent are not! Why don't you care about what the other 99 per cent of abusers did?

If you were to include all forms of abuse its possible the figure would be higher.

You didnt read the report! they DID include a broad definition and age range.

As regards the sun orbiting the earth or vise versa,thats the subject of a different thread or forum.

Wrong!
The point is that just because people believe something which is totally untrue it wont make they thing true! But you want it to be so true that you are prepared to lie about it. Why?

Certainly peoples experiences cannot be disregarded. I remember many many years ago people talking about the priest...

What was the Priests name?
Is he still alive?

Its not the same thing as saying that 64% of priests " frequently" abuse children.

Which is why it is not evidence of abuse no more than believing the Sun goes round the earth is evidence of that.

There are many priests who never did and never will abuse children.

almost all priests never abused children. 99 per cent of abusers were not priests and a tenth of a per cent of priests or less were abusers !

Go and read the actual data and stop making up things you want to believe and telling others your belief is proven true by stats.

gigino

Festus wrote: »

Compared to religious at 9.1% statistically you are better off getting a priest to look after your kids rather than a baby sitter ...

And if you get a Priest to babysit then I wonder what would the statistic be ? Forget it, almost nobody ever would.

(considering that 5.8% is the percentage" of all boys sexually abused who were abused by clergy or religious", and considering most Priests had not easy access to boys in private, putting them to bed etc )

What about the RTE documentary last Tuesday evening ( Prime Time, 9.30 pm ) which more or less stated 100% of the women held in those institutions ( Magdalene Laundries ) by nuns were abused, though not sexually ? And, as you are fond of statistics, the 0% response rate by the 4 Roman Catholic institutions ionvolved ?

I wonder if a http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html , a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll was done here, would it also find, like it did in the united states - that 64 percent of those queried would be of the opinion that to the best of their experience and knowledge Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children ?

ISAW

Festus wrote: »

The text is copied from SAVI report so let's press on.

Quoted out of context. It is 5.8 per cent of 20 per cent and that 20 per cent is as broad to include non contact and up to age 17. It is all in my original replies.

Thank God someone is using their brain and actually querying the presented table. So refreshing.

Thank you

So, ministers... Is that Catholic or Protestant, or Other ?

In this case Ministrers is "clergy plus catheism teachers"
I have given evidence of catholic clergy being lower than Jews Protestants etc elsewhere so about 0.25 per cent of that would be fair I reckon but as it is in relation to Ireland let us assume the whole 6 ( of the population ) were Catholic priests. TWO by the way were also family members.

Actually SAVI is lying or misrepresenting. giginio is meerly promulgating an error.

No he is lying! i showed him the error at least five times now in other threads.

Clearly the text is not representative of the table so lets take a look shall we.

Teachers 24.3%
Ministers 9.1%

hmm, not looking good for teachers.

Baby sitters - 19.7%.
Compared to religious at 9.1% statistically you are better off getting a priest to look after your kids rather than a baby sitter or a teacher.

correct .

Other authority figures 34.7%. This does not include baby sitters, religious, teachers, coaches or employers.

So who are they. Who else has access to young people on their own and can be considered an authority figure?

there was one case of police.

Dont forget none of this is proved it is just 3000 phone interviews at random. But let us accept they all told the truth.

The statement ""Combining religious ministers and religious teachers they constituted the largest single category of authority figures as abusers of boys; 5.8 per cent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious"" is both mathematically incorrect and categorically erroneous and makes a mockery of the entire study.

It does look like a stitch up . Considering the girls number in some cases was Zero. and considering the penchant to link priests to boys and promulgate a myth one might be aghast as to why this beefing up the 6 "priest" figure was done.

Unlink your other interlocutor I actually read the report.

ISAW

Malty_T wrote: »

August Last Year, to June this year that's gotta be one of the biggest thread resurrections I've ever seen.

If some people with anti christian and atheistic agendas are deleted for their off topic child abuse references elsewhere and directed here don't blame me.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

And if you get a Priest to babysit then I wonder what would the statistic be ? Forget it, almost nobody ever would.

More opinion dressed up as fact.

(considering that 5.8% is the percentage" of all boys sexually abused who were abused by clergy or religious",

Which is a lie since it is 5.8 per cent of the number of boys abused by authority figures.

What about the RTE documentary last Tuesday evening ( Prime Time, 9.30 pm ) which more or less stated 100% of the women held in those institutions ( Magdalene Laundries ) by nuns were abused, though not sexually ?

What about it? nothing to do with you lie about Sexual abuse of boys?

I wonder if a http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html , a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll was done here, would it also find, like it did in the united states - that 64 percent of those queried would be of the opinion that to the best of their experience and knowledge Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children ?

I don't since peoples' opinion has nothing to do with your LIE about the level of abuse by Priests!

Festus

gigino wrote: »

And if you get a Priest to babysit then I wonder what would the statistic be ? Forget it, almost nobody ever would.

Agreed but statistically, according to SAVI report, they are the safer than babysitters.

If SAVI is to be believed a baby sitter is more than twice as likely to abuse as those in the "Religious - minister" category

StudentDad

I've only skimmed over this thread as it seems to have come back to life. Anyway, if the figures of abuse are so low as argued on this thread why are the church authorities so loath to step forward into the light, atone for their mistakes and admit liability? Surely this attitude runs contrary to any christian belief.

From what I've seen in the media and various reports etc from around the world nevermind in Ireland the church has adopted a siege mentality even to go so far in the states as to argue before the courts that they are as 'representatives of god' not answerable to the common law!

To my mind the church has wandered so far away from it's own teachings in how it behaves that frankly it is little wonder that the RC church has lost credibility. This saddens me as there are many clerics within the church who do very good work but 'church corporate' undermines the very faith in it's teachings by it's blinkered actions.

I'd love to know why Robert Mugabe was at the beatification of John Paul II as an example.

SD

Festus

ISAW wrote: »

Dont forget none of this is proved it is just 3000 phone interviews at random. But let us accept they all told the truth.

This must be taken on faith until proven otherwise.

ISAW wrote: »

It does look like a stitch up . Considering the girls number in some cases was Zero. and considering the penchant to link priests to boys and promulgate a myth one might be aghast as to why this beefing up the 6 "priest" figure was done.

Consider the last paragraph after table 4.11

"Two (of 23 religious ministers/religious teachers were also relatives"

religions ministers/religious teachers (23) -

Consider table 4.11 religious(6), religious teacher (12)
6 + 12 = 23 ?

No 6 + 12 = 18

Either the authors of SAVI cannot do basic math or it is a stitch up.

Either way it makes the SAVI report worthless.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

If some people with anti christian and atheistic agendas are ......

The most anti-christian people are those who defend child abusers and the various cover-ups.

gigino

Festus wrote: »

If SAVI is to be believed a baby sitter is more than twice as likely to abuse as those in the "Religious - minister" category

But babysitters have contact with children, for example putting them to bed. The level of sexual abuse achieved by Priests / Religous is shocking because (a) most do not have that level of access to children in private and (b) there are far more babysitters in the country than Priests.
And leaving aside sexual abuse / moving religous to different parishes or abroad etc as cover ups, what about other types of child abuse e.g. the RTE documentary last Tuesday evening ( Prime Time, 9.30 pm ) which more or less stated 100% of the women held in those institutions ( Magdalene Laundries ) by nuns were abused, though not sexually ? And the 0% response rate by the 4 Roman Catholic institutions ionvolved ?