Register to Comment
Page 65 of 148 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775115 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 1479
Like Tree875Likes
  1. #641
    LamportsEdge LamportsEdge is offline
    LamportsEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    22,858

    Quote Originally Posted by Roisin3 View Post
    Where is the evidence that the number are hugely underestimated? There are more than 4,000 clergy included in the JJC report. Dozens compared to thousands isn't a huge under estimation. Statistically, it's not significant.
    Only if you decide that US Bishops were reporting the actual numbers credibly accused. We know they weren't. The Philadelphia Grand Jury example showed that in all its apparent glory.

    And only if you decide for some bizarre reason that all the other bishops were reporting correct numbers. And also if you choose to believe that the bishops were including all the cases they bought off on courthouse steps.

    Which I don't.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #642
    Roisin3 Roisin3 is offline
    Roisin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    16,527

    Quote Originally Posted by LamportsEdge View Post
    Only if you decide that US Bishops were reporting the actual numbers credibly accused. We know they weren't. The Philadelphia Grand Jury example showed that in all its apparent glory.

    And only if you decide for some bizarre reason that all the other bishops were reporting correct numbers. And also if you choose to believe that the bishops were including all the cases they bought off on courthouse steps.

    Which I don't.
    More than 4,000 were included. Excluding dozens doesn't make a significant difference to the findings and analysis of the data. Even if you quadruple the number, what would it show? Would it show abuse was 50/50 female/male victims? Given the cases in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, it isn't going to change. The demographics of the abusers and their victims are the same.

    This argument over the statistics and the analysis of the data has poked a hornet's nest because of the sensitivities around old canards.

    As to cover up, then it is certainly more significant.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #643
    LamportsEdge LamportsEdge is offline
    LamportsEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    22,858

    Quote Originally Posted by Roisin3 View Post
    More than 4,000 were included. Excluding dozens doesn't make a significant difference to the findings and analysis of the data. Even if you quadruple the number, what would it show? Would it show abuse was 50/50 female/male victims? Given the cases in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, it isn't going to change. The demographics of the abusers and their victims are the same.

    This argument over the statistics and the analysis of the data has poked a hornet's nest because of the sensitivities around old canards.

    As to cover up, then it is certainly more significant.
    Why do you insist in averting your eyes from the figures we know were excluded? And insist in repeating the numbers that we know were under-reported?

    As if by simply doing that you could make the data more believable?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #644
    petaljam petaljam is offline
    petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    25,480

    Quote Originally Posted by Roisin3 View Post
    Significant under reporting in what respect? If it's dozens in Philadelphia versus over 4,000 included in the report then that's not significant unless Philadelphia were among the 97% who submitted data and others who submitted did likewise.
    The researcher was only asked about one other investigation, the Philadelphia court cases. The problem with any attempt at minimizing, or even just evaluating the significance of that is that once the data is known not to be reliable, then any use of it to estimate rates of abuse is invalid, because it was never even intended to be a reliable measure. It was a qualitative analysis, which is a very different beast.

    In terms of cover up then it's more significant. In terms of the nature of the abuse it is unlikely to be significant. The Philadelphia cases, for example, have not shown any change in the gender of the victims.
    The other thing is that since then, there have been other cases, and not just in America, where initial estimations by the Catholic Church turned out to have seriously underestimated the actual incidence of abuse. So there is every reason to think that this is the case here too. It is not reasonable to use this study even just to guesstimate abuse levels among priests.

    And that is before one looks at the methods themselves, that is the actual nature of the report.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #645
    LamportsEdge LamportsEdge is offline
    LamportsEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    22,858

    Ever taken a look at the numbers of catholic clerics who are and were dying of AIDs related illnesses?

    The Kansas City Star published some national rates years back claiming catholic priests were dying of AIDs at a rate four times that of the national average.

    Furious catholic sources battered at the data for as long as they could and managed to get the figures reduced to DOUBLE the rate of the national average.

    The point never went away.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #646
    Roisin3 Roisin3 is offline
    Roisin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    16,527

    Quote Originally Posted by LamportsEdge View Post
    Why do you insist in averting your eyes from the figures we know were excluded? And insist in repeating the numbers that we know were under-reported?

    As if by simply doing that you could make the data more believable?
    Why are you avoiding the issues?

    Dozens underreported does not significantly affect thousands reported.

    As I've said, and you've studiously ignored, even if you quadruple the numbers, given the nature of the offences in Philadelphia (and Los Angeles) the statistical analysis of the data does not change. It will still be four fifths of victims were male, based on that.

    The cover up will be more significant, as I have said and now repeat.

    Should I buy a parrot to take over for me?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #647
    Roisin3 Roisin3 is offline
    Roisin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    16,527

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    It is not reasonable to use this study even just to guesstimate abuse levels among priests.

    .
    If you quadruple the abuse then you quadruple the offenders. All that will mean is 16% of priests were sexual offenders instead of 4%.

    You make TA's case in the OP for him.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #648
    Roisin3 Roisin3 is offline
    Roisin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    16,527

    Quote Originally Posted by LamportsEdge View Post
    Ever taken a look at the numbers of catholic clerics who are and were dying of AIDs related illnesses?

    The Kansas City Star published some national rates years back claiming catholic priests were dying of AIDs at a rate four times that of the national average.

    .
    You're making TA's case in the OP for him.

    You don't realise that, do you?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #649
    petaljam petaljam is offline
    petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    25,480

    Quote Originally Posted by Roisin3 View Post
    If you quadruple the abuse then you quadruple the offenders. All that will mean is 16% of priests were sexual offenders instead of 4%.

    You make TA's case in the OP for him.
    I wouldn't mind in the least making his case for him if I agreed with him - and I do, to some extent. I just disagree with some very important aspects of his analysis. But I have always thought marriage would a positive thing for priests and the church.

    The main thing is though that the sexuality of offenders is not the problem I have with what has been said about this report: my problem is that several posters have been using it to claim that rates of abuse by priests was rather lower than rates in the community at large. That is not a valid claim to make from this report.

    I have several problems with TA's analysis, but not in quite the way you seem to think. The issue of homosexuality is complex, IMO. I think there probably is a higher rate of homosexual priests than the average elsewhere, but I don't think that TA's analysis of Vatican 2 and the 60s as being at the origin of the problem is honest. Nor is,his conflation of homosexuality and child abuse, because a high rate of homosexuals, for whatever reason, will lead to a higher rate of homosexual abuse. That is not quite the point he was making though.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #650
    petaljam petaljam is offline
    petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    25,480

    Quote Originally Posted by Roisin3 View Post
    You're making TA's case in the OP for him.
    That's possible to some extent, (and I think he knows what he is saying and implying, don't you? I'm not sure why you find the idea ludicrous). However the issue of an infected priest getting treatment in time is likely (IMO certain) to significantly raise rates of mortality among infected priests compared to other infected people.

    There is also the likelihood that homosexual priests form a closed community, and that they are therefore almost all infected by the same few people, so their infection rate is probably also far higher than for other homosexuals.
    But I agree that one can probably discount most other methods of infection, so again, that tends to confirm the idea that homosexuals are attracted to the priesthood.

    That still doesn't mean that paedophiles aren't also - separately - attracted to the priesthood for other reasons.
    Last edited by petaljam; 4th March 2013 at 06:38 PM. Reason: Clarity
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment