ISAW wrote: » What about!!!!?????
PatricaMcKay2 wrote: » You are not doing anyone any real favours. Please stop.
andyjo wrote: » this thread is about clerical child abuse.
There has to be a statistic on the problem of clerical child abuse.
If you google looking for an answer , 4% in the USA is the figure for r.c. priests accused which comes up.
I have looked back over this thread and gigino and others found a study in Ireland which showed a high level of clerical abuse, which you disagreed with.
I originally supplied the SAVI source . I do not believe you read the report. You just lifted out stats you though would agree with your argument. You have supplied no confirming statistics. You have ignored over 99 per cent of abusers in order to level all your criticism on the less than one percent roman Catholic clergy. why is that? Why are you only interest in roman Catholic clergy and not other clergy? Why are you not interested at all in the 98 per cent plus non clerical abusers? Why can't you supply ANY actual data yourself? You lift other peoples data and you cut and paste other peoples graphics and you show no competence in understanding statistics and what they mean. No doubt you will respond by changing the issue to something else only to came back later with your tired misreporting of SAVI as if it says something about clerical abuse. It doesn't! Over 99 per cent are NOT Roman Catholic clergy!
Anyway, when you disagree with the results of a report, what is your diversionary tactic ( going on about the 200 young adults + children killed over the past 10 years in car accidents etc ) to do with the price of fish ?
I read back and saw a UN report on r.c. abuse and you criticize the UN.
If you read http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp they are a conservative Catholic website and they do not expose the 4% as a non runner.
You may not like the result of the study, they may or may not like the result of the study, but they report it.
Of course the level of accusation is not related to the level of abuse. I agree with you there.
As said before, to which you did not respond
"You did not accuse your abuser of abuse. Other posters on this site did not accuse their clerical abusers of abuse.
Many people were afraid to confront clerics or report them to the authorities.
In confession people were often told it was being dealt with within the church, and not to tell anyone.
When terrified victims did complain, like in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case, they were brought in to a room with stern clerics and hushed up.
You cannot see anything wrong with that?
I know you have the job of being p.r. person for the Catholic church
and you have spent thousands of hours ( look back over this very thread ! ) doing sterling work in damage limitation, but does your conscience never get at you ?
Maybe you can answer without telling me to be more concerned about the total of 200 or so young adults /children killed in road traffic accidents , suicides etc over the past 10 years.
ISAW wrote: » Yes and the rate of clerical child abuse (and pedophile sexual abuse in particular and the associated myth of "pedophile priests" ) can only be determined with reference to the total level of child abuse. You know? focusing on splinters and not seeing planks and all that. Indeed there are . I have supplied publiched stats by state agencies ; academics; research groups and so on. If you have any problems with the figures I quoted please feel free to show those problems. It seems you are using a different standard of research for actual facts. I use search engines too but I go and read the actual links they suggest and I go looking for primary data and peer reviewed publication and valid and reliable sources. I don't rely on "google a phrase and cut and paste the headlines in the answer". I'm sure you will agree that method is nor as reliable and leads to doubtful conclusions. I think you might find the "study in Ireland" was one comissioned by the Rape crisis centre and I supplied it not gigino! He used the "google a headline" method. I actually read the report and supplied a reference to the primary data and am still happy to discuss if you think I was wrong . Just show me what you think I was wrong about. Care to show me? It is called the SAVI report by me and you will find it here:http://epubs.rcsi.ie/psycholrep/10/ I didn't disagree with the study. I disagreed with his misinterpretation of it! here is what I stated at the time:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73051195&postcount=1241 Can you point out anything wrong about that? I'm happy to discuss any report. We were discussing the level of Roman Catholic pedophile priests in Institutions . to then end the Report by the child commission covered 1920 to 1990 - 70 years. It lists 26 priests over that period and they are not only to do with sexual abuse. This includes the worst or abuse over the worst periosd in the worst institutions but it also covers 170,000 children over the 70 years. If we take the last decade in church care the abuse is lower or non existant. Certainly no deaths over the last ten years and I am not aware of deaths over the 70 years of the report. So one has to compare that to non church. Take the [not worst[/b] but probably more likely the lowest levels of abuse - the last decade. What do we find? In State care with no church involvement over 200 children died! that isnt diversionary that is a valid and reliable comparison! Where? Can you cite specifics? I find it oronic how you attack the Church on the grounds that it is an institution which we should not trust but you seem to go down on bended knee to the UN. LOL! How come that? They don't expose anything! they refer to the John Jay Report. Apparently you didn't read the Report or the corrected part which they later added to that report which directly related to the validity of these figures of accusations. Please read the primary data. NB Even if the "4% accused" figure is true if IS a non runnder because it says nothing at all about the actual level of abuse! If you produced a "4% convicted" or "4% admitted abuse" then you might be going somewhere. You didn't read the report and you didn't read my comments about accusation not constitution evidence whether against Jews Gypsies Blacks or roman Catholic Priests! It isnt a question of whether I like it of not! It is a question of what the study says and how it gets it's data. Is it valid? I would contest that but even if 4% accusation is valid that does not mean 4% of priests are abusers! you may not like that but it happens to be true! Horray! Eventually some logic seems to have sunk in. Actually I did respond but I will do so again And this is significant because....? Many people didn't accuse non clerical abusers either . Probably a hundred times as many. You now switch from "accusations= high level of abuse" to "lack of accusations=high level of abuse" something which is even weaker! And your evidence that this was not true for non clerical abuse is? The level of abuse victim told this during confession is a tiny tiny number of the already ***less than one percent of victims who were abused by clergy.*** EDIT the bit between asterisks should read less than one per cent of abusers who were clergy [/EDIT] you cant use such a tiny number and claim it applies to all cases in general. That is your impression. Im not aware Smyth was a "told them in confession" case but I have dealt with the Vatical policy about that ( i refer to crimen solicatationis which refers to sexual solicitations during confession which are this rare tiny tiny amount even of clerical abuse but require a policy so clerics cant use secrecy of confession as a way out ) . It can me seen also as a policy to protect victims. I can see a lot wrong with your unspuorted claims and twisting of the facts of situations. The "stern clerics" suggestion in the Smyth case for example. From the recent discussion based on two boys being interviewed on two occasions there were no more than two clerics at any single time (one being Brady) and on one occasion he only recorded and said nothing at all stern or not. I know you are lying about that since I don't have any such job and therefore you could not know what you claim to know! Please look up "ad hominem" while you think about your lie. When you are losing the argument do you always rely on attacking the person? Maybe you can show me how you "know" I work in PR for the Church? My conscience tell me that people like you are not concerned in child welfare but only in attacking the church and you lack of concern for over 200 dead children is evidence of that.
ISAW wrote: » The words "what about" don't appear in the post by me to which you refer as far as I can see.
andyjo wrote: » Of course I am concerned about the 200 or so young adults and children who died in this state over the past 10 years in road traffic accidents and all sorts of other fatalities. However that is nothing to do with clerical child abuse , the subject of this thread.
When the UN committee on torture pulls up the track record of the RC church in the Magdalene Laundries here in Ireland, you ( pages back ) went on to criticise the UN.
When the Taoiseach stands up in the Dail and criticises the RCC, you go on and nitpick the government.
Young people who die in car accidents etc are their fault ! [/qoute] When they are meant to be in care and escape. So if a priest abused someone and they ran off robbed a car and crashed the priest has nothing to do with it? Ill bet you would blame the priest! When the Irish government in their report say child abuse was "endemic" in the Catholic church, you still do not believe that, and you attack the government on something else. We have been over the gigino "endemic" debacle! do you really want to revisit it? If you read http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp they are a conservative Catholic website and they acknowledge 4% of priests have been accused of child abuse, which you do not think is an alarming number. You pasted in a bad link but you really are looking like gigino. Are you gigino? You did not accuse the religous brother who abused you of child abuse, I am not in the business of condemnation or accusation. But I did state it. Here. In this discussion. You on the other hand it appears would rather blame the victim when your real motive of attacking the church is not being satisfied. maybe you think everyone who was abused should not accuse their abuser. Again you try to equate accusations whether false or not with actual abuse. I could posit the number who were abused and didnt accuse is far smaller then the numbers who were not abused and falsely accused. Look up "false negative" and "false positive" errors. Do you think it was right that many people ( there are some on this thread ) were silenced by the church in to not accusing their abuser, as in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case ? You have it factually wrong as usual. I pointed that sout earlier. The Church had no locus standi and no crime of rape of a male or legal extradition existed. It was the family silenced the children as it was the family had the locus standi. If you had accesed / highlighted your abuser / reported him to the authorities, do you not think other victims may have been spared. Back to blaming the victim now eh? The SAVI report shows Clerical child abuse to be a problem ( when the study was carried out), if you read it correctly. Any child abuse is a problem. No report is necessary to show that! But you can only judge clerics in relation to something else i.e. non clerics. How are you getting on with admitting your error about "over 200" ? As someone else said, you are not doing anyone any real favours. Some people say the Moon is made of cheese and WMD are in Iraq.
When the Irish government in their report say child abuse was "endemic" in the Catholic church, you still do not believe that, and you attack the government on something else.
If you read http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp they are a conservative Catholic website and they acknowledge 4% of priests have been accused of child abuse, which you do not think is an alarming number.
You did not accuse the religous brother who abused you of child abuse,
maybe you think everyone who was abused should not accuse their abuser.
Do you think it was right that many people ( there are some on this thread ) were silenced by the church in to not accusing their abuser, as in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case ?
If you had accesed / highlighted your abuser / reported him to the authorities, do you not think other victims may have been spared.
The SAVI report shows Clerical child abuse to be a problem ( when the study was carried out), if you read it correctly.
As someone else said, you are not doing anyone any real favours.
ISAW wrote: » We we discussing the level ofInstitutional abuse by Cathoilic Priests in church run institutions. You have to compare the level to non Church institutions.
ISAW wrote: » How are you getting on with admitting your error about "over 200" ?
ISAW wrote: » Im not interested in favouritism so much as facts. The words "what about" don't appear in the post by me to which you refer as far as I can see. It appears you are not interested in discussing child abuse except in cases where Roman Catholic priests are concerned. One can only conclude that your interest is in attacking the Church and not in concern for the victims of child abuse.
andyjo wrote: » Did you not read any of the links at all?
In 2009, The Murphy Report is the result of a three-year public inquiry conducted by Irish government into the Sexual abuse scandal in Dublin archdiocese, released a few months after the report of the Ryan report.
The Murphy report stated that, "The Commission has no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin and other Church authorities".
It found that, "The structures and rules of the Catholic Church facilitated that cover-up."
Moreover, the report asserted that, "State authorities facilitated that cover-up by not fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that the law was applied equally to all and allowing the Church institutions to be beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes."
The report criticized four archbishops – John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973, Dermot Ryan who died in 1984, Kevin McNamara who died in 1987, and retired Cardinal Desmond Connell – for not handing over information on abusers to legal authorities.
I have three simple questions. Yes or no will suffice , instead of " what about". You do not find the Murphy report or Ryan report or other similar reports disturbing ?
Do you think it was right that many people ( there are some on this thread ) were silenced by clergy in to not accusing their abuser ?
If you had accused / highlighted your abuser / reported him to the authorities, do you not think other victims may have been spared?
As I said, a Yes or no to each will suffice , instead of " what about".
PatricaMcKay2 wrote: » This thread is about clerical child abuse.
ISAW wrote: » myth of "pedophile priests"
andyjo wrote: » lol You dismiss the findings of reports by various government agencies, by the UN and even by people paid by the RC church in to abuses by the RC church. You cannot even give a yes or no to simple questions. The 4% of priests who have been accused of child abuse must be glad to have a spokesperson like you on their side. Have you found any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?
andyjo wrote: » Show me what the 200 or so young adults and children who died in this state over the past 10 years in road traffic accidents and all sorts of other fatalities had to do with clerical child abuse ?
You brought up the subject of these 200 people ( this total includes car accidents and all types of fatalities). You are at your usual " what about".
F12 wrote: » I sometimes wonder what type of person would even think of making any excuse whatsoever for any child rapist group or segment of society that has used its power as a collective foreign agency to claim entitlement and ownership of the bodies of defenceless children? I wonder.
ISAW wrote: » The total includes only those under the care of the HSE. Hundreds more might have died in car accidents
andyjo wrote: » Rubbish. Go back and read the link I showed you and you will see that is rubbish.
You are telling porkies again.
And a porky which has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, clerical child abuse.
Now, back to the subject. Have you found any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?
ISAW wrote: » What link. You supplied none.
ISAW wrote: » Probably Jews in Nazi Germany were. And Gypsies. In fact probably higher than 4%.
andyjo wrote: » I did of course. On numerous posts. See 2219 for example. Quote " The Health Service Executive has revealed that a total of 37 children died in State care in the last 10 years, 18 of those from 'unnatural causes'. ... [/LIST]http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0528/children.html
Minister for Health Mary Harney said the Government was committed to investing more in child protection but that there still was 'a long way to go'.
In other posts I quoted / linked HSE reports as well as RTE reports.
I suppose they are wrong and you are right. lol
No they were not. Those groups were rounded up in Nazi Germany because they were Jews and because they were Gypsies. No other excuse was necessary.
National Socialist propaganda provided a crucial instrument for acquiring and maintaining power, and for the implementation of their policies, including the pursuit of total war and the extermination of millions of people in the Holocaust
After the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, he moderated his tone for the trial, centering his defense on his selfless devotion to the good of the Volk and the need for bold action to save them;
Now, back to the real world. The staunch Roman Catholic website ( whose link I gave you earlier ) has admitted 4% of Priests have been accused of child abuse, inc child rape. Have you come across any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?
andyjo wrote: » I do not think it was an unacceptable allegation as it was something that Isaw had earlier said and discussed, in this very thread. Anyway, to move on, I do not think anyone completed a study which finds 4% of Jews were accused of child abuse / rape; can Isaw provide a link to such a study ?
andyjo wrote: » I do not think it was an unacceptable allegation as it was something that Isaw had earlier said and discussed, in this very thread.
Anyway, to move on, I do not think anyone completed an independent study which finds 4% of Jews were accused of child abuse / rape; can Isaw provide a link to such a study ?
"Watch your children 6-7 weeks before Passover… Everyone knows that just before Passover Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah."
"The following tales tell the truth about the Jewish poison-mushroom. They show the many shapes the Jew assumes. They show the depravity and baseness of the Jewish race. They show the Jew for what he really is: The Devil in human form."
The Jewish actor Peter Lorre is shown in a scene from Fritz Lang's film M, in which he played a child murderer.
The study in the states which found 4% of Roman Catholic Priests there had been accused of child abuse / rape was not politically motivated ; in fact, to its credit, it was funded by the RC church itself.
The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
PatricaMcKay2 wrote: » Its the fact that the organization of the RCC while claiming a divine dignity for its priests and bishops helped cover up and move around the evil in its ranks. That is what ISAW cannot face.
My mum once told me that in Ireland RC power freaks join the Priesthood and Protestant ones the RUC,
there was a lot of truth in that, only the RUC didnt claim that they were representives of Christ.
ISAW wrote: » Look! If you are going to say anyone did someone at least try to produce some evidence.
andyjo wrote: » + 1. And if you look back over this very thread, I see he has spent what must be thousands of hours doing so.
You were asked did you come across any other segment of the population which has had 4% of its members actually accused of child abuse + child rape ?
( like the study in America which found
The best you can come up with is one Nazi who for political reasons at the time wrote something in a newspaper that he personally thought "Watch your children 6-7 weeks before Passover… Everyone knows that just before Passover Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah".
ISAW wrote: » What i spend my time doing is not under your permission or control.
ISAW wrote: » did you know gigino?
ISAW wrote: » Again you didn't read my reply.
andyjo wrote: » I never said it was. However, as another poster remarked " I sometimes wonder what type of person would even think of making any excuse whatsoever for any child rapist group or segment of society that has used its power as a collective foreign agency to claim entitlement and ownership of the bodies of defenceless children? I wonder". To which I replied" if you look back over this very thread, I see he has spent what must be thousands of hours doing so."
No. I would imagine though that there are hundreds if not thousands of people on boards.ie who would be concerned and disappointed, if not appalled with the Catholic churches track record on clerical child abuse.
I did actually, and I lookeed up the link you supplied, and I found it was someones opinion ( not Hitlers) of the Jews in Germany at one point in time. Its completely irrelevant what some individuals racist or political opinion in wartime Germany was.
There was a comprehensive and scientific study done in America of over 100,000 people which found that ( and I quote from the staunch Roman Catholic website and its sources ) 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people "
Have you found a survey / study which found any other group in society which was found to have 4% of its members accused of child sex abuse/rape ?
Preferably in modern times, or in the past 60 years or so , so we are comparining like with like. A yes or a no answer will suffice,
I do not think even the Nazis proved that 4% of Jews were accused of child abuse / rape, like Catholic Priests were.
A relatively small percentage of perpetrators fitted the current stereotype of abusers of children: strangers were in the minority - over 80% of children were abused by those known to them. Fathers constituted 2.5% of all abusers with clerical/religious ministers or clerical/religious teachers constituting 3.2% of abusers. The most common other relative or authority figure categories were uncles (6.2%),
