The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Keylem wrote: »

Gigino, you are rehashing the same articles over and over again, and in turn compelling ISAW to repeat the same answers - it's getting boring!

Isaws answers are as predictable as Chemical Ali ....who said Saddam was winning the war just as American tanks were rolling in to Bagdad. Or Lord HawHaw who claimed only a dozen or two jews were killed by the Nazis.
Now, do you have the link to where Isaw claims McDonalds abused a child in Ireland, just like the RC chuch has been accused of on countless occassions.

"I think everyone who has been abused should report it to the police / authorities , do'nt you ?"

ISAW wrote: »

Not necessarily. and you have been shown before why.

I do not think "I have been shown why", as you put it. We are talking about child sex abuse, and surely that should always be reported to the police / authorities. There have been countless instances where it was not reported and the Priest or person concerned went on to abuse elsewhere.

Why is this repeat trolling of the same questions questions over and over allowed ? They've already been answered a thousand times here.

gigino wrote: »

I was not aware McDonalds ever abused a child in Ireland, unlike the RC chuch did on thousands of occassions. Do you have a link ?

Do you have a link to thousands of Roman Catholic Priests abusing kids?
And you conclude that because you are not aware of it that it never happened?
So why can't you apply the same reasoning to the RCC?

Mc Doinalds are in Ireland since 1978 when they had one store. They have atmoist hundreds of employees and few if any have sole access to chiuldren.

According to the SAVI report, abuse by Religous Priests and Religous brothers/teachers accounted for 4% of child abuse.

Here we go again!
The SAVI report does not say 4% of child sex abusers are Roman Catholic priests.

You posted the actual page from where you "spun" the figure here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73049750&postcount=1238

After I had actually supplied that data earlier

If you look at the table "Religious minister " = 1.9 +1.4 = 3.3% of all abusers (in their sample) not 4%
And religious minister was not just Catholic but also other religions. the sample is somewhatbiased but near enough. about half of Clerical abuse is Catholic according to this thatwould be about 1.6% I think that is an over estimate and it should probably be lower than 1% but errors aren't shown so it could be 1% plus or minus 0.6%
The "1% or less" figure is born out by various reports all of which you have been shown.
You don't seem to actually read what is in front of your eyes.

3,120 people were interviewed in the SAVI study. p 57
In a simple overview, five types of perpetrator each accounted roughly one-fifth of abuse: family members, neighbours, es, friends/acquaintances and strangers (see Figure 4.12) p. 85

The figure for clergy is about 1.5 % (1.9% -6 ministers- for males and 1.4% - 6 ministers- for females) p. 88 Table 4.11
Clearly the teachers element is twice that of clergy. and we dont even know if it was roman Catholic clergy! and the babysitters and others are even bigger.

Yet Priests only account for less than 00.1 % of the population, ( currently there are just over 3000 r.c. priests in the country )

And again you are wrong in this figure. Priests also probably currently account for less than 0.01 % of abusers.

But you are comparing current levels of population of priests to historic levels of abuse.
When abuse levels by clergy were higher there were less controls and procedures and child policies and there also were more priests.

Also if you go here:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/scie1.html
You will find by adding up the Arch diocese in 2006 there were over 4100 priests in Ireland.
Maybe you meant the Republic of Ireland?

Do not take my word for it : the Irish government found abuse in the R. C church " endemic". You know all this already, and you have been shown the facts in different reports etc.

I was wondering how long you could manage with using "endemic" . that argument has also been trashed.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73077537&postcount=1261

That child abuse and pedophila happens outside of the clergy is enough to negate the governments statement you so love to refer to as the reality is that child abuse is not endemic anywhere.

Keylem wrote: »

Gigino, you are rehashing the same articles over and over again, and in turn compelling ISAW to repeat the same answers - it's getting boring! Do you have have anything NEW to contribute? :rolleyes:

I expect they might ban me for mounting a counter argument to obvious soap boxing?

But he isn't the only one to have the matter discussed and torn to shreds and then come back making the same discredited claims with no additional evidence.

gigino wrote: »

"I think everyone who has been abused should report it to the police / authorities , do'nt you ?"

I do not think "I have been shown why", as you put it. We are talking about child sex abuse, and surely that should always be reported to the police / authorities. There have been countless instances where it was not reported and the Priest or person concerned went on to abuse elsewhere.

How do you know ther have been countless instances? There have been one or two maybe involving clergy that I am aware of certainly not dozens and nowhere near "countless".

I think I did show you examples.
For example where the law says the people who have the final decision are the parents and the parents decide they do not want to prosecute.
Where the victim does not want a case and reaches and out of court settlement which will be jeapoardised or nullified by a prosecution.
Where the State does not want to waste money in legal fees and wait years for a decision and instead opts for non criminal court procedures to award people up0 to 300,000 in redress. Do you really think that money should not have been paid to them and the legal trials be ongoing today and most of them get nothing ( except the lawyers)?

ISAW wrote: »

They ( McDonalds ) have atmoist hundreds of employees

Actually there are more McDonalds employees in Ireland than there are Roman Catholic priests "Over 3,700 people work for us around the country" : source www.mcdonalds.ie

Now, where is your link to them abusing children in Ireland?

gigino wrote: »

Actually there are more McDonalds employees in Ireland than there are Roman Catholic priests "Over 3,700 people work for us around the country" : source www.mcdonalds.ie

Now, where is your link to them abusing children in Ireland?

More to the point, where's your link proving that McDonalds employees statistically offend less than the rest of the Irish population when it comes to paedophilia ?

gigino wrote: »

Actually there are more McDonalds employees in Ireland than there are Roman Catholic priests "Over 3,700 people work for us around the country" : source www.mcdonalds.ie

I'll accept that claim as supported by stats.

Now, where is your link to them abusing children in Ireland?

I didn't claim they were.
By the way, where is your support for "countless" or "4%" or "endemic"?

ISAW wrote: »

But you have been shown an example from Mc Donalds before where abuse did happen.

In which McDonalds in Ireland did child abuse happen ? You made an allegation, its up to you to back it up.

You claimed McDonalds have only "at most hundreds of employees". I proved you wrong by proving they have 3700 employees. As said before, the church set itself up as an authority on moral affairs and yet it was found very wanting in this regard. If a McDonalds worker abused a child in McDonalds it would be reported to the police + the worker would not remain working there. Why did that not happen automatically in the church ?

http://poststar.com/news/local/article_a9d25c3c-48fc-11e0-871b-001cc4c03286.html

gigino wrote: »

In which McDonalds in Ireland did child abuse happen ? You made an allegation, its up to you to back it up.

Where "I showed you before" is as you correctly say a claim that I should support.
I thought it was obvious since I gave you the link above but note my words
I didnt say in Ireland I said the Mc Donalds argument.

You before said that other organisations like Mc donalds dont have sex cases and I show you thatthey did. But the dynamic is doifferent . Mc donalds werenot given 170,000 children who spent 24 hours a day in their care and slept on their premises for 70 years.

I pointed out a more comparable example is the Scouts
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73110169&postcount=1280
biutas for Mc Donalds
http://www.dallasfortworthinjurylawyer.com/sexual_abuse/

Lousie Ogborn worked at McDonalds when she was 18 in April 2004. She received a hoax call from a man who claimed to be investigating a theft. During a 3 ½ hour search, the assistant manager Donna Jean Summers asked her boyfriend to take over. Ogborn was convinced to perform sex acts on herself and the boyfriend, Walter Nix Jr. – which were captured on the security camera.
Summers was convicted of unlawful imprisonment and Nix is serving a 5-year sentence for sexual abuse and other crimes

- Police are trying to determine whether there are other victims of a Broadway couple who have been arrested in recent weeks on charges related to the sexual assault of two children, officials said.
...
Crandall worked at Burger King in Glens Falls

I just above showed you where you before came up with this "Mc Donalds" argument.

You claimed McDonalds have only "at most hundreds of employees". I proved you wrong by proving they have 3700 employees.

I accept that. I thought they were in the hundreds but I'm happy to accept in Irelland it is 3,700. Your point being?

As said before, the church set itself up as an authority on moral affairs and yet it was found very wanting in this regard. If a McDonalds worker abused a child in McDonalds it would be reported to the police + the worker would not remain working there. Why did that not happen automatically in the church ?

It does happen automatically in the church. the policy is thatthey follow the local law. In addition the Church have their own child protection policies. In the past the State or church authorities didn't have the law or procedures. The state is still playing catch up in this regard.

I ditn check the number s you claimed butI have noe.
As regards conmparisons Ill give you Mc donalds does compare in ternms of global reach:

http://knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?title=McDonald%27s_Corporation

McDonald's brand is in 122 countries around the world. Thirty thousand locations serve 51 million customers each day. More than 70 percent of McDonald's restaurants around the world are owned and operated by independent local businesspeople.

In addition, the company operates other restaurant brands, such as Aroma Café, Boston Market, Chipotle Mexican Grill, and has a minority stake in Pret a Manger. Until December 2003 it also owned Donatos Pizza. It also has a subsidiary, Redbox, which in 2003 started as 18-foot wide automated convenience stores, but as of 2005 has focused on DVD rental machines.

And how does it fare? well other than Morgan Spurlock's documentary film Super Size Me suggesting their diet is child abuse by obesity?...

McDonald's has been the target of criticism for allegations of exploitation of entry-level workers, use of sweatshop labor to produce "happy meal" toys, ecological damage caused by agricultural production and industrial processing of its products, selling unhealthy food, production of packaging waste, exploitative advertising (especially targeted at children, minorities, and low-income people), and contributing to suffering and exploitation of livestock.
...
In July 2001, McDonald's was fined £12,400 by Surrey magistrates for illegally employing and over-working child labor in one of its London restaurants. This is thought to be one of the largest fines imposed on a company for breaking laws relating to child working conditions.
...
In June 2004, the UK's Private Eye reported that McDonald's was handing out meal vouchers, balloons, and toys to children in pediatric wards.
...
Activists claim McDonald's toys made with child labor (September 6, 2000): "Labor rights activists claim that toys distributed at McDonald's restaurants in Hong Kong are made with child labor in China."
...
Disney & McDonald's Linked to $0.06/Hour Sweatshop in Vietnam (May 2, 1997): "Seventeen year old women are forced to work 9 to 10 hours a day, seven days a week, earning as little as six cents an hour in the Keyhinge factory in Vietnam making the popular giveaway promotional toys, many of which are Disney characters, for McDonald's Happy Meals. After working a 70 hour week, some of the teenage women take home a salary of only $4.20! In February, 200 workers fell ill, 25 collapsed and three were hospitalized as a result of chemical exposure."
Download (PDF) : http://www.law.uiuc.edu/publications/cll&pj/archive/vol_22/issue_2/RoyleArticle22-2&3.pdf

Im sorry about thinking hundreds and not checking it out and admit 3,700.
Happy now that the stats on Mc Donalds don't really offer a valid comparison in terms of no child suffering?

"If a McDonalds worker abused a child in McDonalds it would be reported to the police + the worker would not remain working there. Why did that not happen automatically in the church ? "

ISAW wrote: »

It does happen automatically in the church.

We all know it did not happen automatically in the church.

Fromthe latest report, just over a week ago http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1130/dioceses.html

"Key points:
Raphoe
. 52 allegations reported to gardaí against 14 priests
. Eight out of 14 priests out of ministry, six retired
. Four convicted of an offence against a child
. Significant errors of judgement made by successive bishops
. Too much emphasis on accused priests, not victims
. More attention should have been given to preventative actions
Tuam
. 25 allegations reported to gardaí against 18 priests
. Ten of 18 priests dead, eight out of ministry
. Two priests convicted of an offence against a child
. Safeguarding children plan "did not exist in previous years"
. Past practices were "defensive and internally focused"
. Current Archbishop "showing strong leadership" in dealing with allegations
Kilmore
. Seven allegations reported to gardaí against seven priests
. Three out of seven priests dead, two out of ministry, two retired
. One convicted on an offence against a child
. One priest living in the diocese is known to be the subject of an allegation arising from a past ministry
. Fr Brendan Smyth response was "inadequate"
. No cases of a failure to report and address matters
. Current practices are a "consistently high standard"
Derry
. 31 allegations reported to gardaí against 23 priests
. 16 out of 23 priests dead, four out of ministry, three are retired
. No priests convicted of an offence against a child
. One priest living in the diocese is known to be the subject of an allegation arising from a past ministry
. Allegations not robustly challenged or adequately managed
. Abusive behaviour continued to be exhibited by priests who moved on
Dromore
. 35 allegations of abuse against 10 priests
. Three of 10 priests dead, seven out of ministry
. No priests convicted of an offence against a child
. Not all allegations promptly referred to the statutory agencies
. Bishop McAreavey consulted appropriately to ensure safety of children remained priority
Ardagh & Clonmacnoise
. 14 allegations reported to gardaí against 13 priests
. 12 of 13 priests dead, one out of ministry
. One convicted on an offence against a child
. Two priests who reside in diocese are known to be the subject of an allegation arising from a past ministry
. Good co-operation by Bishop Colm O'Reilly
. 10 recommendations concerning training and administration "

As said before, many priests died, or victim(s) died or emigrated, some priests were transfered elsewhere / overseas, some victims told to keep quiet + not report it etc.

Considering there are just over 3000 priests in the whole country, why was abuse not reported automatically? You have not been able to come up with a case of child sex abuse in McDonalds in the whole world, where there have been millions of employees. If a McDonalds worker abused a child in McDonalds it would be reported to the police + the worker would not remain working there. Why did that not happen automatically in the church ? "

gigino wrote: »

"If a McDonalds worker abused a child in McDonalds it would be reported to the police + the worker would not remain working there. Why did that not happen automatically in the church ? "

We all know it did not happen automatically in the church.

Fromthe latest report, just over a week ago

Exactly! Did not not not "does not"

The policies didn't exist when that abuse happened.
Some clerics were responsible for abuse many years before Mc Donalds ever came to Ireland. It was a different Ireland the the one Mc Donalds grew in. Also Mc Donalds didnt have access to Children at night in dormitories or have them for whole days alone with a single member of staff.

As said before, many priests died, or victim(s) died or emigrated, some priests were transfered elsewhere / overseas, some victims told to keep quiet + not report it etc.

Which is argument form ignorance.
Maybe many Mc donalds employees didn't report it.
Do you really want to argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
The issue is - It isn't proof of presence either is it?

Considering there are just over 3000 priests in the whole country, why was abuse not reported automatically?

Thathas already been answered.
Considering her were even more teachers doing even more abuse Or babysitters, or coaches or family members? In fact a hundred others for every abusing cleric. Why weren't they reported? Are you really saying all of those were the Churches fault for not reporting them?

You have not been able to come up with a case of child sex abuse in McDonalds in the whole world, where there have been millions of employees. If a McDonalds worker abused a child in McDonalds it would be reported to the police + the worker would not remain working there. Why did that not happen automatically in the church ? "

You can't have it both ways!
You cant say the numbers of abusers must be higher ( in the Church) because the cases are unreported and then also say the numbers (in Mc Donalds) are lower because they are not reported.
And then you compare then as if the are the same when your very comparison has buiolt in double standards!

But the truth is they are not the same.

First of all Mc Donalds is only recently at the levels it is at. The Church is at twice the level about 6000 proests historically and you know that as you have the stats from me from before.

It ( Mc D) began around 1980 with maybe ten employees after which few if any Clerical abusers began their abuse.

It went through rapid growth ion the 2000 plus years when the numbers of priests were in decline

Over all that time most of its employees interacted with kids from behind a counter in broad daylight in the public view.

In any case, comparing Mc donalds or Digital or Google or Siemens or Irish Sugar or any company with the Church on the basis that "equal employees = equal opportunity for abuse" in just nonsense.

ISAW wrote: »

The policies didn't exist when that abuse happened.

Abuse has been happening for a hell of a long time in the RC Church ; instead of coverups and silencing victims + transfering priests the decent thing for the RC church to do about abusing clerics would have been to report them to the authorities. If you know of any crime like murder, you tell the authorities, so why not with the rape of children? If would have helped prevent further abuse if nothing else. Other people / organisations have ( or should have ) zero tolerance for serious abuse ; the church should have had as well. For example, if a religous brother abused someone ( not an unknown occurance ) , history shows he more than likely abused again if he was not reported.

gigino wrote: »

Abuse has been happening for a hell of a long time in the RC Church ;

But that i9s a different issue not connecte4d to abuse ahpppeni9ng before Mc donalds had thousands of employees in Ireland.
You can't compare Mc donalds with something existing along side Mc donalds and then refer to something from history from when Mc donalds didnt exist. You may as well say ther were 3,000 gladiators in ancient Rome and the fact thatMc donalds doesnot have people fighting to the death proves the Current Mayor of Rome is responsible for mass murder.

instead of coverups and silencing victims + transfering priests the decent thing for the RC church to do about abusing clerics would have been to report them to the authorities.

You have been given evidence before from the very Early church in the East ( where the church was the Authority) where child abuse laws were enacted by them.
The transferring priests happened in a limited number of cases and both it and the silence and lack of prosecution was done at the request of the victim's family. It isnt up to the Church to report in that 'criminal case since the family have locus standi. This has all been explained before.

If you know of any crime like murder, you tell the authorities, so why not with the rape of children?

Again with RC abuse most seems to have been homosexual ephebophilia i.e. by makes against older teenage boys. The Rape law didnt exist so it was not legally rape. Many of the abusers operated in isolation as it is quite clear no "pedophile ring" ever existed. So victims were isolated and witnessess not present. A bishop reporting such a crime wouldf have no legal standing. It was legally for the guardian or parent to do so. Except in a minority of cases wher the Church was the guardian. In which case they should have reported it.

If would have helped prevent further abuse if nothing else.

I agree. It would have. Which begs the question if this minority of 1% of abuseres were unreported whatdo you say for the other 99% of non clerical abusers and how they also remained mostly unreported? The Church was not responsible for them was it?

Other people / organisations have ( or should have ) zero tolerance for serious abuse ;

This does not stand up! 99 per cent of abuse was not RC clerics. So how comne the other 99% dont have a huge list of reported abusers? Because ther was non zero tolerance.

the church should have had as well. For example, if a religous brother abused someone ( not an unknown occurance ) , history shows he more than likely abused again if he was not reported.

Abusers would abuse again even if they were reported! Reporting isnt the answer. Prevention is better.

ISAW wrote: »

Abusers would abuse again even if they were reported! Reporting isnt the answer. Prevention is better.

Wrong, reporting to the Police / authorities does help prevent future abuse. At least it alerts potential victims about the abuser.

Anyway, I see on the news today yet another priest convicted. It seems to be happening on an almost weekly basis somewhere in the country. It does not make the RTE headlines but here it is anyway :

"A former priest has been convicted of a series of sexual abuse offences against two altar boys and a trainee priest.
James Donaghy, 53, of Lady Wallace Drive, Lisburn, Co Antrim had denied 26 counts, including indecent assault and serious sexual assault.
He was found guilty on 19 charges, with the jury yet to reach a verdict on the remaining seven counts.
Donaghy had denied sexually abusing his three victims on dates between June 1983 and December 2000.
During his four-week trial, one of the victims, Dublin-based priest Fr Patrick McCafferty, told Belfast Crown Court he had first been assaulted by Donaghy at a seminary in Co Wexford. Another incident occurred when the two men were on a retreat in Donegal.
A second victim, who cannot be named in order to protect his identity, told the court the priest started abusing him when he was 14. The first assault happened after Donaghy gave him a bottle of beer at the parochial house.
He said the priest had threatened to kill him if he told anyone about the abuse. .........."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1214/donaghyj.html

gigino wrote: »

Wrong, reporting to the Police / authorities does help prevent future abuse. At least it alerts potential victims about the abuser.

I didn't argue otherwise. WhatI pointed out was prevention is better than detection. Having policies that fail safe and prevent abuse happening is a hundred times better than reporting it after it happens.

Anyway, I see on the news today yet another priest convicted. It seems to be happening on an almost weekly basis somewhere in the country.

That's because you parrot the media myth of widespread current abuse . One case you mention dates from 1983 and the latest is over ten years ago! Edit: His bishop heard alligations in 2004 and immediate after that he (the priest) stepped down.
You are aware one of the victims is in fact a priest?
Note also they are cases of sexual assault not rape. that doesnt justify them at all. Im just pointing out because of discussions on this elsewhere.

ISAW wrote: »

I didn't argue otherwise.

yes you did. You do not advocate automatic reporting to the authorities of known cases of serious clerical abuse.

ISAW wrote: »

WhatI pointed out was prevention is better than detection. Having policies that fail safe and prevent abuse happening is a hundred times better than reporting it after it happens.

Of course " prevention is better than detection", the same as any crime. However I put it to you that clerical child rapists should be reported to the police / authorities.
You said " Reporting isnt the answer" !!!

ISAW wrote: »

One case you mention dates from 1983 and the latest is over ten years ago!

He is just in court this week. He was just convicted / "found guilty on 19 charges" yesterday . Your point being ? That because it happened a decade ago it should be brushed under the carpet, like so much other clerical sex abuse was ? It'll be forgotten in another week or 2 and there will be another priest somewhere in the country convicted + found guilty, and buried in the inside pages. It happens so often it does not make headlines anymore.
Incidentally "After more than eight hours of deliberation, the jury has yet to reach a verdict on seven counts. Judge Patrick Lynch has remanded the accused in custody, pending a decision on the remaining seven charges.
The jury will resume its deliberations tomorrow afternoon."

ISAW wrote: »

You are aware one of the victims is in fact a priest?

A former priest has been convicted of a series of sexual abuse offences against two altar boys and a trainee priest.
Yes, one of the victims was a trainee priest. Another victim was a 14 year old boy. Your point being ?

ISAW wrote: »

Note also they are cases of sexual assault not rape.

You think its ok then ? That he's not a bad priest, as far as priests go ?
The priest " had denied 26 counts, including indecent assault and serious sexual assault." A 14 year old victim " said the priest had threatened to kill him if he told anyone about the abuse". At the end of the day the Priest was convicted of a series of sexual abuse offences against two altar boys and a trainee priest. You think its ok for Catholic Priests to sexually assault boys and then threaten to kill them if they tell anyone about the abuse ?

gigino wrote: »

yes you did. You do not advocate automatic reporting to the authorities of known cases of serious clerical abuse.

Where the law does not require it. and in cases where the family or whomsoever else has locus standi have already said they will not press charges.

Of course " prevention is better than detection", the same as any crime. However I put it to you that clerical child rapists should be reported to the police / authorities.
You said " Reporting isnt the answer" !!!

Correct it isn't! REporting all sex crimes is just treating the symptoms and not the cause.
And if it was not the churches place to press charges and the victim said they didnt want charges and said they would deny it what then?

He is just in court this week. He was just convicted / "found guilty on 19 charges" yesterday . Your point being ? That because it happened a decade ago it should be brushed under the carpet, like so much other clerical sex abuse was ?

No that the hundreds of other current rape cases are about rapes that occured this year. Yes maybe some are older but I don't see anyone printing stories about a rapist from over ten years ago because it isn't newsworthy and they don't have to go back decades to find such cases.

It'll be forgotten in another week or 2 and there will be another priest somewhere in the country convicted + found guilty, and buried in the inside pages.

The numbers are tiny in comparison! One priest a year versus a hundre3d or several hundred other sex criminals. You dont get one priest every two weeks = 25 a year!

It happens so often it does not make headlines anymore.

Rubbish . It justdoes not happen anymopre so they have to go fishing for old cases.
That isnt to say the prosecution should not be made. It should butit is evidence that the crimes are long past and not current. Not alonme that but the clerical abusers are a small number of overall abusers - less than one per cent.

Incidentally "After more than eight hours of deliberation, the jury has yet to reach a verdict on seven counts. Judge Patrick Lynch has remanded the accused in custody, pending a decision on the remaining seven charges.
The jury will resume its deliberations tomorrow afternoon."

On cases from ten years ago or more recent?

A former priest has been convicted of a series of sexual abuse offences against two altar boys and a trainee priest.
Yes, one of the victims was a trainee priest. Another victim was a 14 year old boy. Your point being ?

That you make a big deal about the less than one percent of abusers who were priests but say nothing about the victims who are clerics.

You think its ok then ? That he's not a bad priest, as far as priests go ?
You think its ok for Catholic Priests to sexually assault boys and then threaten to kill them if they tell anyone about the abuse ?

What a silly question!
You think I am seriously going to say yes?
Build up your straw man arguments elsewhere. I never claimed any abuser was Okay!

ISAW wrote: »

Where the law does not require it.

I think all child sex abusers should be reported to the aurthorities, if for no other reason that it may reduce the chance of such abuse happening to others. The priests who are responsible fot the 4% of all abuse against boys should be reported just as much as anyone else....even though priests only make up less than 00.1% of the population. What do you have to say about the Catholic Priest threatening to kill them if they told anyone about the abuse ?

gigino wrote: »

What do you have to say about the Catholic Priest threatening to kill them if they told anyone about the abuse ?

What do you have to say about the farmer, swimming coach, or grandparent that said the same thing to their victims ?

Keylem

What about the other 99% of non-clerical child abusers, what percentage of those are doing time in jail, very few I would imagine! Can anyone provide stats?

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

What do you have to say about the farmer, swimming coach, or grandparent that said the same thing to their victims ?

There was no farmer, swimming coach, or grandparent in court this week, or this year for that matter that I know of, that said the same thing to their victims. And even if there was, farmers, swimming coach, or grandparent do not put themselves forward as leaders of moral guidance in the community.....unlike Priests. What do you think of this latest conviction of the former priest , convicted of a series of sexual abuse offences against two altar boys and a trainee priest ? And the threats to kill them if they told anyone about the abuse ? Sign of the times ? Years ago it was usually enough to tell them they would go to hell if they told anyone ? After all Priests were the supreme authority in the Parish on "the right thing to do", and who would go to hell and who would not.:rolleyes:
I'm sure you would not have known about the Priest convicted this week as they hardly get a mention in the media now, celibate Priests get in to trouble so often.

gigino wrote: »

There was no farmer, swimming coach, or grandparent in court this week, or this year for that matter that I know of,

Exactly! that you know of. It is apparent that you are making judgement on a subject bease on you r personal knowledge and and what you wish to know about. You already admit your ignorance of any other non clerical child sexual abuse case this year. Given the one you raise actually refers to abuse in the 1980s I would recon you don't know about thousands of non clerical cases that have come before the courts since then.

that said the same thing to their victims.

According to a news report on BBC One presented in 12 November 2007, there were 85,000 women raped in the UK in the previous year, equating to about 230 cases every day
According to that report one of every 200 women in the UK was raped in 2006. The report also showed that only 800 persons were convicted in rape crimes that same year.
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf

Of course I expect you will dismiss this because it does not list clergy?

And even if there was, farmers, swimming coach, or grandparent do not put themselves forward as leaders of moral guidance in the community.....unlike Priests.

Actually a coach does and a parent even more so!

What do you think of this latest conviction of the former priest , convicted of a series of sexual abuse offences against two altar boys and a trainee priest ? And the threats to kill them if they told anyone about the abuse ?

I think they and the other 99 per cent of child sex abusers are all very troubled people who should be kept away from children.

Sign of the times ? Years ago it was usually enough to tell them they would go to hell if they told anyone ?

You have a great ability in respinning 1980 as "a year ago"

After all Priests were the supreme authority in the Parish on "the right thing to do", and who would go to hell and who would not.:rolleyes:
I'm sure you would not have known about the Priest convicted this week as they hardly get a mention in the media now, celibate Priests get in to trouble so often.

And here you have put your head on the chopper!
Care to mention the numerous cases of clerical abuse from 2011 thatyou know about
Or 2010
or 2009
or 2008
and so on until 1990. Ill bet in the last twenty years you cant produce five pedophile clerics. But apparently you think there is one a week! LOL!

ISAW wrote: »

Ill bet in the last twenty years you cant produce five pedophile clerics.

"Starting in the 1990s, a series of criminal cases and Irish government enquiries established that hundreds of priests had abused thousands of children in previous decades. In many cases, the abusing priests were moved to other parishes to avoid embarrassment or a scandal, assisted by senior clergy"

Quote from 2nd paragraph in from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland

Some catholics would know personally 5 abusing Priests, never mind 5 in the whole island.

So to put the hundreds of abusing priests in Ireland in perspective, there are currently just over 3000 serving Priests in Ireland. No wonder the government in its detailed and very expensive reports found child abuse in the Irish Roman Catholic church "endemic", to use its choice of word. I gave you the dictionary explanation of endemic before eg malaria is endemic in several areas of the tropics.

hotmail.com

Another country, another devastating scandal for the Catholic Church. This time in the Netherlands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16216174

Tens of thousands of children have suffered sexual abuse in Dutch Catholic institutions since 1945, a report says.
The report by an independent commission said Catholic officials had failed to tackle the widespread abuse at schools, seminaries and orphanages.

gigino wrote: »

There was no farmer, swimming coach, or grandparent in court this week

Read the local and national papers, there are at least several non clerical child abusers in courts up and down the land every day of the week. Parents, Grandparents, Uncles, Sports coaches, Neighbours, Babysitters etc. But of course you wish to ingore them, and pretend they do not exist.

Keylem wrote: »

What about the other 99% of non-clerical child abusers, what percentage of those are doing time in jail, very few I would imagine! Can anyone provide stats?

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf

Ok this is UK figures but the case gigino mentioned came before a N Irish court.

Figure 3.5 Proportion of victims where the police came to know about the partner
abuse, 2004/05 BCS. page 67

Over 80% of victims don't report partner abuse to police. According to gigino they are at fault and partly top blame.

In 37 % of reported cases the police took no action. page 75 in only 245 of cases was an offender charged.

In the most recent incident of serious sexual assault over half of offenders (54%) were
current or former partners, the next most frequent occurrence being that the offender was
a friend (including date, friend, neighbour) (20%) (Table 3.34). - page 77

And to answer your main question

In 2006/7 (the base of 24,000 people -well 23823 used is on page 80and 82)
Women about 3% men about 0.5% in the last year ~ 900 people
Since age 16 ~ 4% of men and 24 % of women avg of 14% ~ 3,400 cases

And gigino has referred to maybe 3 but there were as many as maybe 30 clerical offenders in 100 years.

hotmail.com

The Dutch case needs its own thread.

It's a different country.

gigino wrote: »

"Starting in the 1990s, a series of criminal cases and Irish government enquiries established that hundreds of priests had abused thousands of children in previous decades.

I note you neglected to put in previous decades in bold.

In many cases, the abusing priests were moved to other parishes to avoid embarrassment or a scandal, assisted by senior clergy"

Many = more than one. How many? two three?

Some catholics would know personally 5 abusing Priests, never mind 5 in the whole island.

I would have thought this is the same five constantly recycled in the media. You know the same ones you continually mention? I would reckon based on whatwe have researched in this thread you are talking at most 30 clerical sexual offenders. Im talking here about pedophiles and not priests having an affair wioth a married woman or a woman having a child for them.

So to put the hundreds of abusing priests in Ireland in perspective, there are currently just over 3000 serving Priests in Ireland.

And to out that in perspective ther were over 6,000 every year fo the five or so generations you mention going back to the foundation of the State in the 1920s.

Thats about 30,000 RC priests have been in Ireland. and I recon about 30 were offenders which is 0.1% bit even 1% is still about 300. I dont believe the figure is anywher near 100 RC poriests sexually abusing young children.

No wonder the government in its detailed and very expensive reports found child abuse in the Irish Roman Catholic church "endemic", to use its choice of word.

Back to the old "endemic" clai,ms? LOL! Why cant you actually supply somne evidence and not makey uppey stats with a cut and pasted reference from wikipedia whi9ch you havent even read?

I gave you the dictionary explanation of endemic before eg malaria is endemic in several areas of the tropics.

Where did you give me that and what was Festus's reply?