An issue arises in my mind.

Would a State Government focus its attention on other large organisations? Why has it not done so?

Child abuse by decree is unheard of. There is no organisation that I could conceive of that has Policies that encourage or order child abuse. Accusations of Child abuse in 'Organisations' is rare and so far limited to just specific organisations like 'the church'. But these days some vast organisation, like say McDonalds, or IBM or Coca Cola employ hundreds of thousands of people doing a variety of public and private things.

They do not have such Policies either, but their employees MUST number some amongst them who are preverted and cruel enough to act on their own behalf in that awful manner.

If one were to examine the vocational/organisational contexts of accused and convicted child abuse offenders, I am pretty sure that the incidence of abuse would not be found to be much different from the churches. We already see this Very Clearly in the Education 'industry', an organisation which 'employs' far more people than churches do.

And what of Government itself? So many people are employed in Government Departments of various levels; what is the incidence of government employees abusing children?

Further, the arguement for criticising 'Churches' is that the 'buck stops' with the organisation's leaders. That 'humble', 'intellectual' human rights lawyer fellow, Geoffrey Robinson (married to a rabid feminist journo) has called for the Pope to be prosecuted, but most, if not ALL child welfare services are under the supervision and direction of some Government Department and Minister of State. The Churches have operational responsibility delegated to them in virtually all instances.

So where are the calls for Government Ministers - rather than the delegated clerical Ministers - to be prosecuted?

Why are Ministers of Education not prosecuted when 4 a year old boy hugs a teacher or a female teacher rapes a 12 year old boy? Crikey, not even the school Principle is criticised, let alone prosecuted.

Quote from Percy

Child abuse by decree is unheard of. There is no organisation that I could conceive of that has Policies that encourage or order child abuse. Accusations of Child abuse in 'Organisations' is rare and so far limited to just specific organisations like 'the church'. But these days some vast organisation, like say McDonalds, or IBM or Coca Cola employ hundreds of thousands of people doing a variety of public and private things.

There is a big difference between an organisation that attracts children into an educational and social setting and an organisation that has little to do with them, or even merely serves them food in a very public place.

Quote from Percy

If one were to examine the vocational/organisational contexts of accused and convicted child abuse offenders, I am pretty sure that the incidence of abuse would not be found to be much different from the churches. We already see this Very Clearly in the Education 'industry', an organisation which 'employs' far more people than churches do.

Here, I think you have a very valid point. Educational establishments should be at least as answerable for child corruption as churches. And if it is right that church seniors should take some of the blame (on the basis that there is an internal culture that is encouraging or enabling the corruption) then this must apply at least as equally to schools, where supervision of employees is so much easier.

Your comment need to be taken a little further, Doug.

The very fact that children are catered for in some organisations - even focussed upon - them one might expect more to be abused simply by availability. That seems to be the crux of your point. But is it so?

It is rarely mentioned where an abuser works when it is not a cleric. And if the Pope can be villified, why not the head of other organisations.?

(By the way, I have not heard of the Archbishop of Canterbury being pointed at.)

What of the access to children outside of the fast-food shop by a McDonald's employee? McDonalds attracts and caters for the young predominantly though not exclusively and the 'grooming' of young people is far easier when there is far less 'policy' for children's safety on their premises and plently of opportunity for 'stalking' or 'enticement' from there.

Or at home?

Or am IBM employee who molests children?

If a Priest can be fingered for activities in a toilet or a park, no-where near a church, and the Pope is dragged into it, then so can an IBM'er or a Macca's cleaner and her Boss, shirley? ( make that surely )And if the Church is focussed upon and villified with the priest, why not the other two organisations?