We know that the abuse is by no means limited to the clergy, and we know that most clergy are very decent, upright people. The particular concern with the clergy is that they are trusted and regarded as guardians of morality more than almost anyone else (at least, before Joe goes for my jugular, they don't half talk about it from the pulpit a lot). There's no doubt that their institutions have, by dint of denial and inaction, perpetuated the misery endured by thousands of victims. How bad is that. Yes there are thousands of victims within families and within institutions that are supposedly there to protect children, and there are adult victims in Hollywood, etc., the thing universally in common being that the vulnerable are exploited sexually by adults in positions of power. But two things set the religions apart, first, that sexual abuse is, on the face of it, a terrible sin that we would least expect of the clergy of all people, and second, that the abusers are seen to be able to hide behind their institution. That last point is a very serious one and it's one that the religion mostly in question has had serious difficulty in coming to terms with. I say this with some regret in that I was brought up in that religion, taught for seven years by priests and brothers, and, despite all its absurdities that I now see, I saw nothing of this kind of abuse and I acknowledge freely that, despite their delusions, they generally had our best interests at heart. There ya go. No black and white!