Study: At least 1 in 20 catholic priests is an abuser.

[D1B]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/one-i ... 2816q.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rofessor Cahill said that 14 of 378 Corpus Christi priests graduating between 1940 and 1966 were convicted of child sexual abuse, and church authorities had admitted that another four who had died were also abusers, a rate of 4.76 per cent.

But the actual figure was much higher when under-reporting was taken into account, along with cases dealt with in secret by the Catholic Church. "One in 20 is a minimum. It might be one in 15, perhaps not as high as one in 10," he said.

He suggested that, though the Church tried to "fudge the figures" by including other church workers, Catholic priests offended at a much higher rate than other men. If the general male population now over 65 offended at the same rate, there would be 65,614 men living in Australia who had been convicted of child sex abuse — very far from the case.

Professor Cahill said the Church's "culture of caste clericalism" and its pyramid structure rendered it incapable of the systemic reform needed. The organisational culture was "verging on the pathological".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/one-i ... z2A2HqHfFR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gil Dobie]

What have you done to fight the abuse, other that posting hate towards all the other catholics, on a football messageboard.

[D1B]

What have you done to fight the abuse, other that posting hate towards all the other catholics, on a football messageboard.

Already answered that question. Pay attention, Dopehead.

[GannonFan]

Not that the Church needs any defending, as they've clearly been serial abusers and protectors of abusers for years and years, but the reasoning in the article is weak. They talk about underreporting and say once you calculate in the speculative numbers that they give no real evidence for, that the rate among priests is far greater than the rate among men in general. Of course, they fail to take into account the underreporting that happens in the general population too - there's plenty of stories of abuse outside of the Church that don't see the light of day for decades and decades, if ever.

The Church is clearly guilty of hiding and preventing abuses from happening. Whether there's more abuse by priests than in the general population, eh, there's no good evidence there - way too many people in way too many walks of life that don't include the Church abuse children. It's a pretty sick world when you think about it that way.

[Ibanez]

1 out of 20. Those are low odds. So you just told us that 19 out of 20 priests are good, decent men. I'll take those odds.

[Grizalltheway]

1 out of 20. Those are low odds. So you just told us that 19 out of 20 priests are good, decent men. I'll take those odds.

You'd trust your child alone with a priest if there were a 5% chance he's a pervert? Wow.

[CAA Flagship]

1 out of 20. Those are low odds. So you just told us that 19 out of 20 priests are good, decent men. I'll take those odds.

You'd trust your child alone with a priest if there were a 5% chance he's a pervert? Wow.

Good point GATW.
Heck, there was only a 1% chance your last date was a dude in drag.
Then the penis emerged from behind the curtain.

Glad you had fun anyway.

[Grizalltheway]

You'd trust your child alone with a priest if there were a 5% chance he's a pervert? Wow.

Good point GATW.
Heck, there was only a 1% chance your last date was a dude in drag.
Then the penis emerged from behind the curtain.

Glad you had fun anyway.

Lame. Work on it and try again.

[Ibanez]

1 out of 20. Those are low odds. So you just told us that 19 out of 20 priests are good, decent men. I'll take those odds.

You'd trust your child alone with a priest if there were a 5% chance he's a pervert? Wow.

Don't put words in my mouth, Nancy. 1%-5% of teachers sexually harass or sexually abuse their students.

According to AmericanHumane.org, 79.4% of child abuse perpatrators are the parents or relatives.

You are more likely to get sexually abused in school than by the Catholic Church. First, in 2002 the DoE reported that 6%-10% of public school students will be abused. The numbers are will tell you that in California, for example, there are roughly 420,000 public school students vice 140,000 Catholic school students. It is estimated that 9.6% of students are targeted for sexually abuse per the DoE.

I'm not excusing the Catholic Church, by no means, but you have better chances of NOT getting sexually abused during a Church function then you do during school.

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pu ... report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1933687.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gil Dobie]

What have you done to fight the abuse, other that posting hate towards all the other catholics, on a football messageboard.

Already answered that question. Pay attention, Dopehead.

I see, nothing!

[JohnStOnge]

When are you going to start discussing the extent to which this is a homosexual thing?

[psychoCAT]

d1b is still mad that Father O'Malley didn't pull out in time in his rump.

[D1B]

Not that the Church needs any defending, as they've clearly been serial abusers and protectors of abusers for years and years, but the reasoning in the article is weak. They talk about underreporting and say once you calculate in the speculative numbers that they give no real evidence for, that the rate among priests is far greater than the rate among men in general. Of course, they fail to take into account the underreporting that happens in the general population too - there's plenty of stories of abuse outside of the Church that don't see the light of day for decades and decades, if ever.

The Church is clearly guilty of hiding and preventing abuses from happening. Whether there's more abuse by priests than in the general population, eh, there's no good evidence there - way too many people in way too many walks of life that don't include the Church abuse children. It's a pretty sick world when you think about it that way.

Nice post, Joltin Joe.

Underreporting in the church has got to be far greater due to the billions in church funds used to settle cases (no conviction = perfectly good priest), complicit hierarchy - top to bottom, sophisticated system often involving catholic police officers, DA's, judges, politicians, all lay catholic employees and fucks like joltin joe, 89Hen, Col Hogan - all organized to force or buy silence of victims, fear of accusing the church and being shunned by neighbors (Joltin Joe, Col Hogan, 89Hen).

[D1B]

When are you going to start discussing the extent to which this is a homosexual thing?

Start your own thread, psycho fuck.

[GannonFan]

Not that the Church needs any defending, as they've clearly been serial abusers and protectors of abusers for years and years, but the reasoning in the article is weak. They talk about underreporting and say once you calculate in the speculative numbers that they give no real evidence for, that the rate among priests is far greater than the rate among men in general. Of course, they fail to take into account the underreporting that happens in the general population too - there's plenty of stories of abuse outside of the Church that don't see the light of day for decades and decades, if ever.

The Church is clearly guilty of hiding and preventing abuses from happening. Whether there's more abuse by priests than in the general population, eh, there's no good evidence there - way too many people in way too many walks of life that don't include the Church abuse children. It's a pretty sick world when you think about it that way.

Nice post, Joltin Joe.

Underreporting in the church has got to be far greater due to the billions in church funds used to settle cases (no conviction = perfectly good priest), complicit hierarchy - top to bottom, sophisticated system often involving catholic police officers, DA's, judges, politicians, all lay catholic employees and **** like joltin joe, 89Hen, Col Hogan - all organized to force or buy silence of victims, fear of accusing the church and being shunned by neighbors (Joltin Joe, Col Hogan, 89Hen).

So you're guessing then? We've gone from a questionable study, with a questionable assumption, and now to just out and out guessing? If there's something scientifically solid, then there's no argument. But you bring out something weak and then weaken it further with this post and it just doesn't pass the smell test.

[D1B]

Nice post, Joltin Joe.

Underreporting in the church has got to be far greater due to the billions in church funds used to settle cases (no conviction = perfectly good priest), complicit hierarchy - top to bottom, sophisticated system often involving catholic police officers, DA's, judges, politicians, all lay catholic employees and **** like joltin joe, 89Hen, Col Hogan - all organized to force or buy silence of victims, fear of accusing the church and being shunned by neighbors (Joltin Joe, Col Hogan, 89Hen).

So you're guessing then? We've gone from a questionable study, with a questionable assumption, and now to just out and out guessing? If there's something scientifically solid, then there's no argument. But you bring out something weak and then weaken it further with this post and it just doesn't pass the smell test.

Call it a guess if you want. Read the cases, all of the above applies to some degree in every case.

The reason there is no real hard numbers is due to the catholic church keeping them secret or destroying the records and simply not cooperating with law enforcement and moral secularists trying to find the truth - fact.

Another fact - you will never allow your child to be unsupervised with a priest, deacon, bishop, cardinal , pope, choir director or usher, but you will leave them for a good chunk of the night with the 16 year old neighbor girl (babysitter). The reason for this is deep down you know the church is sick and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg.

[GannonFan]

So you're guessing then? We've gone from a questionable study, with a questionable assumption, and now to just out and out guessing? If there's something scientifically solid, then there's no argument. But you bring out something weak and then weaken it further with this post and it just doesn't pass the smell test.

Call it a guess if you want. Read the cases, all of the above applies to some degree in every case.

The reason there is no real hard numbers is due to the catholic church keeping them secret or destroying the records and simply not cooperating with law enforcement and moral secularists trying to find the truth - fact.

Another fact - you will never allow your child to be unsupervised with a priest, deacon, bishop, cardinal , pope, choir director or usher, but you will leave them for a good chunk of the night with the 16 year old neighbor girl (babysitter). The reason for this is deep down you know the church is sick and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg.

No, the reason I would leave the kids alone with the babysitter is because she's a girl and there are clear studies that show that men, religious or not, are far more likely to abuse kids than women are, and certainly much more than teenage girls. I wouldn't leave my kids alone for most of the night with really any of the guys who coach any of the various sports leagues my kids play in and none of those guys are priests. The reason, deep down, is because guys can be really sick bastards and there are millions of such people who aren't now nor ever have been priests.

[D1B]

Call it a guess if you want. Read the cases, all of the above applies to some degree in every case.

The reason there is no real hard numbers is due to the catholic church keeping them secret or destroying the records and simply not cooperating with law enforcement and moral secularists trying to find the truth - fact.

Another fact - you will never allow your child to be unsupervised with a priest, deacon, bishop, cardinal , pope, choir director or usher, but you will leave them for a good chunk of the night with the 16 year old neighbor girl (babysitter). The reason for this is deep down you know the church is sick and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg.

No, the reason I would leave the kids alone with the babysitter is because she's a girl and there are clear studies that show that men, religious or not, are far more likely to abuse kids than women are, and certainly much more than teenage girls. I wouldn't leave my kids alone for most of the night with really any of the guys who coach any of the various sports leagues my kids play in and none of those guys are priests. The reason, deep down, is because guys can be really sick bastards and there are millions of such people who aren't now nor ever have been priests.

Wrong again, Gannon. The reason, ultimately, for leaving your kids with a 16 year old girl, is that you know her and trust her. You also know her father and brothers too, and you trust them, ultimately. Even though you get down on your knees every Sunday because your priest tells you to, listen intently and believe every word he says during mass, trust him with highly personal information in the confessional or in marriage counseling, you would never trust him (the church) with your most precious possession, like you do that girl.

The coaches don't have the entire community, the full support of a sovereign nation, reverence as a man of god and billions of dollars at their disposal to avoid accountability. When coaches get caught, they spend years in prison, then have to register as a sex offender or they go back to jail. Your priest, currently, is working in Disneyland for pedophiles and sexual freaks - which makes them light years more dangerous and likely to abuse than lay people.

[GannonFan]

Wrong again, Gannon. The reason, ultimately, for leaving your kids with a 16 year old girl, is that you know her and trust her. You also know her father and brothers too, and you trust them, ultimately. Even though you get down on your knees every Sunday because your priest tells you to, listen intently and believe every word he says during mass, trust him with highly personal information in the confessional or in marriage counseling, you would never trust him (the church) with your most precious possession, like you do that girl.

The coaches don't have the entire community, the full support of a sovereign nation, reverence as a man of god and billions of dollars at their disposal to avoid accountability. When coaches get caught, they spend years in prison, then have to register as a sex offender or they go back to jail. Your priest, currently, is working in Disneyland for pedophiles and sexual freaks - which makes them light years more dangerous and likely to abuse than lay people.

And here's again why you just go off the rails and are seen as a joke of a poster (a fun one at time). Very few people I know will do what a priest tells them to do or believe every word they say simply because they are a priest. You've warped yourself to believe that and it's a distorted view of reality. It fits what you want to believe so you pretend it's true.

As for the babysitter, wrong again. Heck, I don't even know the brothers of the babysitter I use and I only know her father enough to say hi to him. We use her as a babysitter because we trust her and her mother and she's in our house. I don't need to know or trust her male family members since they aren't part of the equation in any shape or form.

And as for the priests, the only thing that separates them from the male coaches or male teachers or male anyone that my kids come in contact with in the real world is the only point you're right on - the priests are more likely to continually abuse kids before they get caught or stopped. But, as a father, that means absolutely nothing to me - it only takes one abuse of my kid for it to be a tragedy, and whether the priest did it before or will do it again doesn't change the single instance that it could happen to my kid. From that perspective, it doesn't matter to me that a non-priest is more likely to be caught after the first abuse and then put away - there's another soon-to-be-first-time-abuser right behind that guy. And there are tens of millions of them.

But that doesn't compute for you because the child abuse isn't your focus - you care immensely more about desparaging religion - the child abuse is just one vehicle for you to pursue that. I wonder if you even care about the kids or if it's just your hatred of religion and its adherents that really fuels you. Actually no, I don't have to wonder about that.

[psychoCAT]

long past time to end the mandatory celibacy rule and let these guys have wives.

[CAA Flagship]

long past time to end the mandatory celibacy rule and let these guys have wives.

Pay attention: Then they will have kids and abuse them at home because the Church told them to do it.


Did I get that right D1B?

[89Hen]

long past time to end the mandatory celibacy rule and let these guys have wives.

http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm

[psychoCAT]

long past time to end the mandatory celibacy rule and let these guys have wives.

http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm

I'm a practicing Catholic.

[89Hen]

http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm

I'm a practicing Catholic.

Just saying that allowing them to marry doesn't stop abuse by sick people. Other denomonations have almost as many problems.

[D1B]

I'm a practicing Catholic.

Just saying that allowing them to marry doesn't stop abuse by sick people. Other denomonations have almost as many problems.

The Catholic Church is the worst of em all by far.