It's long overdue that the Pope, who I like, realised that the vast majority of priests were and are victims of False Accusers.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7319921...iests-worldwide.html

Undoubtedly, many priests were falsely accused - just because they wore the same uniform as their paedophile colleagues.

Francis has acknowledged that the church did little to solve its child abuse problems - except deny that it existed.

If Francis' predecessors had been as forthright in admitting what happened, those innocent clerics could have been saved the ordeal.

Blanket denials, for decades, added to the distrust of the church and its personnel. When - in Ireland for example - known paedophiles were constantly supported from the pulpit.

Numerous legal cases are taking place in several jurisdictions - and billions in compensation already paid.

And several Cardinals are no longer working for the church.

"Real" number of paedophiles and "cover ups" among the Catholic clergy in reported historical abuse cases is unknown. Many "stories" as with other historical alleged cases. The offer of money with no complainant investigated or threat of prosecutions for a false claim. It is a fraudster's dream! Thus the numbers are indications of how many fraudsters are out there waiting for the opportunity. Lately Carl Beech convicted but where are the thousands of other trials for perverting the course of justice and fraud!!!

What can be assessed is by reading the "in the now cases". Those caught red-handed without tons of "fabricated" evidence, the tragic real deal. You know what? There are a much smaller number of reported "current time" trials of abuse of children than indicated by the panic/opportunist claims and I can not recall any "in the now" of priests. So the only real evidence of abuse indicates that the likelihood that most, if not almost all non recent Catholic priest abuse cases are false allegations. Of course, human nature means that there are and have been a number of abusers. But what surprised me on researching any names put forward on this site and others was that on reading and searching with the one question I always have in my head "what is the evidence?". Most had no evidence only a story. But some recent accusation of the past were more than just a story. Some had very flimsy information that indicated the individual may of been caught at the time with indicated evidence but even those that appeared to be possibly evidence supported cases still lacked clarity to exactly what the evidence was and how it was reliable.

So the numbers reported are meaningless, to establishing what the real problem was and is.

The only reasons for the open door policy and believe all and sundry is for compensation, feel sorry for me a victim attention seeker groups(And I do feel sorry for any real victim), for media stories, income for charities, income for professionals lawyers etc that is, for government and others to set up enquiries. Many getting good incomes from the activity. A chance to make a name for oneself.

So good news for the pope and followers if they recognize how opportunistic this whole thing is!!!!

Yes I think the worst crime of all is false allegations; I would say that, naturally. But deliberately condemning someone (even if they are dead) in order to get cash or sympathy or benefit of any kind is really evil; in a more subtle way than actual abuse. I know that Karma wreaks incredible damage - look at Max Clifford. Look at Kirk McIntyre, a vegetable after a series of near terminal strokes. Even unintentional lies (often provoked by media stories or use of drugs or drink) cause incredible damage. Those who cried "rape" when it wasn't suffer far more, in the end, than their victims. I suspect the ghastly Danny Day who made up those lies about David Bryant, causing him years in jail and eventually killing his wonderful wife Lynn, must be having an appalling life. Look at Carl Beech.