Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Child abuse: 7% of Australian Catholic priests alleged to be involved


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 1883 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

In one religious order, over 40% of church figures were accused of abuse.

One victim said he was sexually abused by his Catholic Christian Brother teacher in his classroom, with other students ordered to look away.

In another case, the inquiry heard allegations that a priest threatened a girl with a knife and made children kneel between his legs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38877158

Percentage of church figures behind alleged abuse, 1950-2010

St John of God Brothers 40.4
Christian Brothers 22.0
Salesians of Don Bosco 21.9
Marist Brothers 20.4
De La Salle Brothers 13.8
Patrician Brothers 12.4
Society of Jesus 4.8
Missionaries of the Sacred Heart 3.3
Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart 0.6
Sisters of Mercy (Brisbane) 0.3
Source: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what is so strange about the Royal commission focusing so much attention on JWs. In the Church it is the organization's leaders that are sick. It is institutional and pervasive. No one is surprised when such activities get noticed. It is not unkown in our organization for an appointed brother to be outed as an abuser, but it is not the norm.

I wonder what the Catholic Church's record would look like if ALL their members were marched before the public eye and not just the clergy. Since abuse breeds abuse, their long history of institutional abuse must have bred generations of abusers among lay members.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Old said:

This is what is so strange about the Royal commission focusing so much attention on JWs. In the Church it is the organization's leaders that are sick. It is institutional and pervasive. No one is surprised when such activities get noticed. It is not unkown in our organization for an appointed brother to be outed as an abuser, but it is not the norm.

I wonder what the Catholic Church's record would look like if ALL their members were marched before the public eye and not just the clergy. Since abuse breeds abuse, their long history of institutional abuse must have bred generations of abusers among lay members.

 

I am just shocked with St.John of God Brothers percentage ... the culture of abuse is beyond my comprehension.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Old said:

This is what is so strange about the Royal commission focusing so much attention on JWs. In the Church it is the organization's leaders that are sick. It is institutional and pervasive. No one is surprised when such activities get noticed. It is not unkown in our organization for an appointed brother to be outed as an abuser, but it is not the norm.

I wonder what the Catholic Church's record would look like if ALL their members were marched before the public eye and not just the clergy. Since abuse breeds abuse, their long history of institutional abuse must have bred generations of abusers among lay members.

 

I personally didn't get the impression they were focusing so much attention on JWs, but I will say that the assumption is that no religion is "squeaky clean", so they're going to dig for something if its not already readily apparent.

 

As I recall, the ARC was created because of allegations in the Catholic Church and pedophile priests in the 90s and 2000s, but they did not want to be seen as singling our Catholics, so they looked at everyone, so naturally, their jobs is to actuality to find something. They thought they had hard evidence of 1,006 abusers since 1950, but the evidence (mentioned in the transcripts from case study 54) revealed that only 514 had enough merit to garner turning over to police, and the remaining 492 either did not have "sufficient evidence" to report, or were already sent to the police.

 

So there are 514 verified cases of abuse since 1950, which means that abuse in our organization was grossly overstated by the ARC and lying opposers.

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bob said:

So there are 514 verified cases of abuse since 1950, which means that abuse in our organization was grossly overstated by the ARC and lying opposers.

I have a question: What are those figures (514 or 1006), alleged cases of abuse or names of alleged abusers? I understood it was a list of abusers which included even people who visited a KH occasionally, relatives of JWs or even inmates who were studying the Bible in prison. But I may be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, carlos said:

I have a question: What are those figures (514 or 1006), alleged cases of abuse or names of alleged abusers? I understood it was a list of abusers which included even people who visited a KH occasionally, relatives of JWs or even inmates who were studying the Bible in prison. But I may be wrong.

Well, I know that at least 470 of the total 1006 were "Familial" abuse committed in the home that the elders took reports on during those years. I did not read anything that pointed out how many of those were perpetrated by Witnesses or non-Witnesses.

 

What I do know is that at least since 2002, the organization keeps records on all of the people you mentioned in all countries, even if a person was merely accused all the way up to a person who may have had consensual sex with someone under the age of consent 50 years ago.

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we have the issue of reporting which are telling the public not that there are 1,006 cases but there are 1,006 abusers as in this from the 'much esteemed' ABC: 

 

"At the time of the public hearing, the Jehovah's Witness organisation in Australia had recorded allegations, reports or complaints of child sexual abuse made against 1,006 members of the organisation," the report read.

"There is no evidence before the royal commission that the organisation reported any of those allegations to police or any other secular authority."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-28/jehovahs-witness-handling-of-child-abuse-condemned-in-report/8063798

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen the 2015 film "Spotlight"? Makes one wonder if that 7% is a low estimate for the Catholic Church.

 

Also, who has been to Southeast Asia? From what I learnt, Buddhism seems to have this in common with the Catholic Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GeordieGirl said:

Then we have the issue of reporting which are telling the public not that there are 1,006 cases but there are 1,006 abusers as in this from the 'much esteemed' ABC: 

Terri, that is what I was asking. I think that report in ABC is correct in that it's 1006 abusers, not cases of abuse. That's a very different thing. A person comes to the meeting, he has a criminal record as a child abuser, so the elders keep track of him in order to protect the children in the congregation. That person name appears in the 1006 list. But there is nothing to report since that person hasn't abused anyone, he just attended a meeting. Do you understand what I mean?

 

Some months ago our opposers claimed there were 1006 cases of abuse among JWs in Australia and none were reported. Many newspapers and mass media echoed that lie. But now it has been made clear in the RC that elders did report many of those, since a good number of those abusers ended up in jail. If they were prosecuted that means they were reported. However newspapers are not being so swift to correct the lies they repeated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, carlos said:

Terri, that is what I was asking. I think that report in ABC is correct in that it's 1006 abusers, not cases of abuse. That's a very different thing. A person comes to the meeting, he has a criminal record as a child abuser, so the elders keep track of him in order to protect the children in the congregation. That person name appears in the 1006 list. But there is nothing to report since that person hasn't abused anyone, he just attended a meeting. Do you understand what I mean?

 

Some months ago our opposers claimed there were 1006 cases of abuse among JWs in Australia and none were reported. Many newspapers and mass media echoed that lie. But now it has been made clear in the RC that elders did report many of those, since a good number of those abusers ended up in jail. If they were prosecuted that means they were reported. However newspapers are not being so swift to correct the lies they repeated.

Thanks Carlos, for clarifying your question.  I should have asked for clarity, but I am glad you said this.

 

This is why it is always best to wait until the conclusion of an investigation, because at that point facts are determined and all the emotion and drama is gone. Our opposers clearly wanted knee-jerk reactions from JWs and the media. So for those who reacted emotionally, they are faced with themselves. The hope is they are humble enough to admit they were wrong, or go the immodest route and try to find further justifications for their reactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, carlos said:

Terri, that is what I was asking. I think that report in ABC is correct in that it's 1006 abusers, not cases of abuse. That's a very different thing. A person comes to the meeting, he has a criminal record as a child abuser, so the elders keep track of him in order to protect the children in the congregation. That person name appears in the 1006 list. But there is nothing to report since that person hasn't abused anyone, he just attended a meeting. Do you understand what I mean?

 

Some months ago our opposers claimed there were 1006 cases of abuse among JWs in Australia and none were reported. Many newspapers and mass media echoed that lie. But now it has been made clear in the RC that elders did report many of those, since a good number of those abusers ended up in jail. If they were prosecuted that means they were reported. However newspapers are not being so swift to correct the lies they repeated.

To clarify a few things. It is 1006 alledged to have been abusers, not 1006 abusers.

 

383 of those alledged abusers had been dealt with by either the police or the secular authourities and according to the Royal commissions analysis 161 were convicted of child sexual abuse.

 

The newspapers ignored those final two points as that would of shown that reports were made and there was successful convictions in relation to 16% of alledged perpetrators from those 1006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, carlos said:

Terri, that is what I was asking. I think that report in ABC is correct in that it's 1006 abusers, not cases of abuse.

Sorry Carlos.  I didn't read what you had written properly.  I understand what you are saying now I have re-read your comments .. properly this time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat off topic but related nonetheless. 

 

I have just read, in my morning news email, of a 14 year old girl who was raped by 3 brothers in 2015. These 3 perpertrators got away scot free because at the end of the day the young girl couldn't deal with being cross examined in court.

The trial of the three Wild brothers in the Supreme Court was discontinued on February 24 this year, when Amy and her family decided she was too distraught and vulnerable to continue.

"My sister is traumatised by what happened and would have had to relive it again on the stand, knowing every word would be scrutinised and held against her," Amy's sister said in a statement at the time.

The Wild brothers face no further charges in relation to this matter.

http://www.watoday.com.au/victoria/im-the-girl-that-got-raped-how-a-family-coped-with-teenage-daughters-ordeal-20170319-gv1hcb.html?promote_channel=edmail&mbnr=NTY3NjYxMw&eid=email:nnn-13omn652-ret_newsl-membereng:nnn-04%2F11%2F2013-news_am-dom-news-nnn-watoday-u&campaign_code=13INO006&et_bid=29070783&name=2142_wa_today_news_update&instance=2017-03-20--23-50--UTC

I had to go to court at age 14, (not for an abuse case) but I wasn't able to give evidence because of my feelings and distress at the time, so I can imagine how hard it must be for these young ones to be cross-examined for sexual cases, especially if it is against their own family members or family friends. It makes one wonder how many of these alleged cases were pushed aside because of the way the law treats victims.  

 

And they have the audacity to point their hating fingers at Jehovah's organistion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.1.2 (changelog)