There was a shocking article in the Guardian the other day, from a Catholic, who was saying that the abuse statistics amongst priests weren't too bad, compared to the population as a whole and that hence they are no worse than any other profession. Which is basically wrong – as he is missing the point that almost all abuse is by parents, who obviously have most access to children, and that abuse from people outside the family is incredibly rare. Compared to teachers, Catholic priests are many orders of magnitude more likely to be abusers. The "we're not too bad really" tone and the misrepresentation of statistics in that article really made me angry.
By that argument, would you also state that all muslims are responsible for 911, etc?
Islamic terrorism is hardly on the same scale though. No one sensible has ever suggested that anything other than an extremely tiny minority of Islamic leaders are active terrorists. Whereas 4% of US Catholic clerics have been accused of being child abusers – that is 1 in 25 of them.
It is hard to understand how anyone can claim to take moral leadership from an organisation with such an endemic problem of buggering children. Or can go to church and worship with the knowledge that there is a 1 in 25 chance (or better if there are multiple people running the service) that one of the people teaching them how to be good is also buggering kids in their spare time.
Joe