Organisational abuse, which is what you've linked to in your OP, BY DEFINITION requires organisations. That doesn't mean that a lack of organisations is a way to remove abuse.
Having said that, all organisations have their own cultures. I am completely broad-brushing here, but;
1) Older organisations which have strong 'traditions' can mean a lack of governance, since such concepts were less well-defined in the past.
2) Organisations which have traditionally placed their own authority (even be that a distant figure in Rome, for example) over secular authorities might see new laws and recommendations brought in to combat child sex abuse simply as interfering or something to be worked around. Their own laws and traditions are commonly seen as superior or superseding local secular laws.
3) Transparency would appear to be the key to have an organisation (religious or not) which can avoid the pitfalls of child sexual abuse. I have to jump through some hoops to volunteer coach my daughter's basketball team for that very reason. Religious exemptions, exclusivity or other 'special treatment' is completely unhelpful in that regard.
Fair enough. What's your view then?
