- Status
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
The 7% figure must be false.
It’s impossible that a mere 572 people amounts to 7% of the entire cohort of ordained Catholic priests working in Australia between 1950 and 2010 - 60 years.
In 1971 there were 3895 priests in Australia
That’s just one year.
7% of 3895 = 273 priests
So how on earth can 572 priests equate to 7% of the SIXTY YEAR number!
It’s impossible that a mere 572 people amounts to 7% of the entire cohort of ordained Catholic priests working in Australia between 1950 and 2010 - 60 years.
In 1971 there were 3895 priests in Australia
That’s just one year.
7% of 3895 = 273 priests
So how on earth can 572 priests equate to 7% of the SIXTY YEAR number!
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Well, how about releasing some of their records? What priests were accused, where, when, how many accusers, what happened to the priests? Etc.
I have yet to hear any priest mention any part of the issue in a sermon. Nor have I seen any publications whatsoever by any of the dioceses I have been part of. To them, it just doesn’t exist.
Watch The Keepers on Netflix. When 100+ students at a girls’ school come forward with the same accusations, acting independently without consulting, I’d say we have proof. If it were you or your daughter or son, I suspect you would find a lot they could do.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Sexual abuse of any kind is notoriously difficult to “prove” in a court of law.
I think there should be a lesser standard–call it “credible accusation” or something. This should go for schools, the military, and yes, priests. They don’t have to be “proven” guilty to be removed from their positions. They might not necessarily go to jail, but they’re not just left in a position of authority or bounced around to different parishes, either.
There is way too much emphasis on protecting the institution of the church and ignoring justice for the victims.
I think there should be a lesser standard–call it “credible accusation” or something. This should go for schools, the military, and yes, priests. They don’t have to be “proven” guilty to be removed from their positions. They might not necessarily go to jail, but they’re not just left in a position of authority or bounced around to different parishes, either.
There is way too much emphasis on protecting the institution of the church and ignoring justice for the victims.
R
Rau
Guest
If they did not mean it, they are to be condemned. I’m quite sure they meant it. They have learned from this debacle.
P
pnewton
Guest
Civil standards in the United States are much lower, basically going to the best story-teller. That usually keeps people from being able to return to their profession if their company has to pay out. FYI - It is a easier to return a guilty verdict when the accusation takes place in a timely manner. Justice is the reason we have statute of limitation laws.
P
pnewton
Guest
P
pianistclare
Guest
It’s on Netflix and there have been a ton of threads about it.This is the second time today someone has referenced a movie as evidence.
Odd.
People are shocked, and dismayed, disgusted. I believe the various poster put it here not as PROOF, but as an example of looking the other way, cover-up and denial.
I don’t have a dog in this fight,we need to learn that transparency is the only way to restore credibility when people do evil things. It only takes a few to besmirch the reputation of the tens of thousands of fine priests that work hard for justice.
I
Irishmom2
Guest
The Archdiocese of Baltimore did release its list.
baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.priestlist26sep26-story.html
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
abc.net.au/news/2017-02-06/child-sex-abuse-royal-commission:-data-reveals-catholic-abuse/8243890
""Seven per cent of priests ministering in the 60-year period have been accused of child sex offences.
This is an even starker figure to similar research carried out in the US which found that from 1950 through June 2015, 5.6 per cent of the 116,153 priests who worked have been accused of child sexual abuse.
This map shows the weighted average percentage of accused-perpetrator priests over 60 years. Some dioceses are not included in the map, or the data provided.""
Worst dioceses in Australia
Archdiocese/diocese State Weighted average of priests that were accused perpetrators
Diocese of Sale
VIC 15.1%
Diocese of Sandhurst
VIC 14.7%
Diocese of Port Pirie
SA 14.1%
Diocese of Lismore
NSW 13.9%
Diocese of Wollongong
NSW 11.7%
Worst Catholic religious institutes in Australia
The Benedictine Community of New Norcia is about two hours north-east of Perth in the Wheatbelt of Western Australia, and holds a monastery that was founded in 1847.
It is one of the oldest monasteries in Australia, and has the worst average of child sex abuse complaints against its priests and personnel.
Institute Weighted average of priests that were accused perpetrators
Benedictine Community of New Norcia 21.5%
Salesians of Don Bosco 17.2%
Marist Fathers - Society of Mary 13.9%
Pallottines - Society of the Catholic Apostolate 13.7%
Vincentians - The Congregation of the Mission 8.0%
Catholic monasteries and orders were the worst offenders
The worrying figures from the 2000s
In the full report there are datasets that appear to show there is very little abuse happening in the last decade of survey — the 2000s.
However, in her opening address, Ms Furness revealed some statics about victims which show how to take those statistics with a grain of salt.
Ms Furness said the average time it took between a victim being abused and reporting it, or seeking redress, is 33 years — a very long time and an explanation for low figures in the 2000s.
There is one dataset that can show us whether or not accused priests and brothers were pushed out of the diocese or institution, and that is a much more worrying picture and reveals how ineffective victims’ claims about child sex abuse may have been.
This chart shows the percentage of priests or church personnel who were working in these areas or orders even when claims had been made against them.
The chosen four below all had a percentage greater than 10 per cent in the final decade reported.
What the data doesn’t tell us
Despite the data covering members of church institutions between 1950 and 2009, the claims data it was matched with only covers claims made between January 1, 1980 and February 28, 2015, so claims reported before then are not included.
It only shows where victims sought redress, like compensation, or where the church investigated and substantiated the claim — it does not include complaints made that did not have any follow-up or investigation.
Anyways, read it
A
abucs
Guest
Questions about a rush to judgement by some hostile sections of the Australian press and the chances pf Pell receiving a fair trial.
Herald Sun article.
Herald Sun article.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Oh come on, the herald sun is all about subscribed sensationalism. A few days ago you claim d the ABC was also inaccurately reporting.
What’s left? The Northern Territory news
C
chris62
Guest
That is the legacy of reality TV perhaps.This is the second time today someone has referenced a movie as evidence.
Odd.
Oh dear.
C
chris62
Guest
I hear it a lot in sermons.
And the Catholic Weekly has been all over the subject.
As has the website Cathnews.
Both Pell and our new archbishop Anthony Fisher have always talked about it.
P
pianistclare
Guest
It’s a documentary.That is the legacy of reality TV perhaps.
Oh dear.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
No, not odd since a) it’s a documentary, not a drama and b) it just came out last month.This is the second time today someone has referenced a movie as evidence.
Odd.
Watch it (7 episodes!) I if you’re opinion doesn’t change, I will…do something nice for you.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I’ve seen that list before.
Personal information of the accusers has not been released. Fair enough.
It excludes clergy who have been accused, but are dead. Fair enough.
It excludes clergy who had no credible evidence against them. Probably fair, but maybe
not always. Depends.
Almost all the rest are priests whose priestly powers were taken away–i.e., the guiltiest
of the guillty.
If, as many studies estimate, 4% of priests are abusers, the list should be a lot longer. Where are all those accused with credible evidence, but not guilty enough to be stripped of their powers or go to jail? Where are they? What happened to them? That’s the key question.
And of those listed, it doesn’t give the necessary detail: Yes, this guy was accused in 1998 and served in that parish over there, but all the details are missing–what sort of evidence was there, why did they move him, what actions did they take to keep an eye on him, etc. etc. Without any of that, you can’t do much with the list.
My all-time favorite is also on the list: Spillane. He was stripped of his priestly powers. He admitted the abuse. No question that it happened. And yet from 1986-2002 he was in charge of children’s liturgies nationally. No one had bothered to check his references!!!
This prompted one of my better letters to the archbishop suggesting that if a child abuser was hired to deal with children’s liturgies, then why didn’t they hire a few rapists to deal with Marian liturgies? No response, of course. But come on, folks, that’s just pitiful. Beyond pitiful. I don’t think there’s a word to describe it. And I’m sure all the fine folks who hired him kept their jobs.
To take an example from The Keepers: Maskell (yes, he’s on the list) was accused 30 years after the fact of abusing a female student in his school. The diocese wrote back that they couldn’t do anything without corroboration. Well, it turns out that in 1967 a mother had gone to the diocese complaining that her son was abused over a period of time by this same Maskell. They had the records. They kept them secret and said their was no corroboration. Later the amateur investigators sent out letters to the alumna of the school who graduated in a 5-7 year period. Over 100 letters came back from girls who said they had been abused too, and who told substantially the same stories–the MO was the same. The diocese could have sent the letters 30 years ago. They didn’t. Why not? Isn’t finding the truth a good thing?
Let me make one of my beloved analogies to illustrate my point. Let’s say you have 100 people you’re interviewing for a job as a head accountant for your company. You know that probably 10 of these have been accused of embezzlement in the past. You’re not really keen on hiring them. The employment firm who sent you the 100 candidates knows who the 10 are, but refuses to identify them on the grounds that “it would tarnish the reputations of all accountants” to let you know the ones who have accusations against them. And of course the opposite is the case: now all 100 are under suspicion, not just 10. If you just revealed the 10, that would clear the other 90. So until I get answers, every priest I meet is under suspicion. Fair? No, but if I don’t know who’s under suspicion, I have to suspect everyone.
I know if I were running a company, church, whatever, I would want to root out evil people as fast as I could, not stand around and protect them.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Lucky you, you live in Sydney. From what I saw when I visited there in 2012, and from what I have read, they had horrible abuses but are more open about them. Maybe that’s because Catholics are a higher % of the population and feel less threatened?
P
Peebo
Guest
Funny about that…anyone remember the Da Vinci Code movie…all those with a beef against the Catholic church fell for that hook…line…and sinkerThis is the second time today someone has referenced a movie as evidence.
Odd.
J
JimG
Guest
I have no idea what Cardinal Pell did or did not do. But here is a contrasting view.
The media’s Cardinal Pell disinformation campaign.
The media’s Cardinal Pell disinformation campaign.
- Status