[Alex Murphy]

So how does the (upper limit) number of 5% translate into absolute numbers please? Is this "only" 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 or even more? Downplaying absolute numbers (if such is the case) by citing relative numbers (percentages) would be absolutely reprehensible, IMHO (but the usual MO of liars-by-numbers of all colors....).

At it's apex, the USCCB's John Jay Study reported that 4% of all (US) priests serving from 1950 until 2002 were accused of abuse. The John Jay study puts real numbers on that percentage:

The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984. During the same time frame there were 109,694 priests, it said....

....68 percent of the allegations were made against priests ordained between 1950 and 1979, while priests ordained after 1979 accounted for 10.7 percent of the allegations.

For the entire 52-year period "the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95 percent of the dioceses and approximately 60 percent of religious communities," said the study.

[Campion]

“Accused of abuse” and “guilty of abuse” aren’t the same thing, at least, not in America.

[Moltke]

Thanks for the perspective in absolute numbers. Even if those numbers will be debated, that’s a whole lot of abuse cases...only for the US - never mind the rest of the world. The ‘Boss’ really needs to get on top of things. NOW!

[Moltke]

Oh, as a PS: Why exactly would abuse numbers in other religions justify the appalling abuse by Catholic clergy? Just doesn’t make sense to me.