CookieJon wrote:

TimONeill wrote:

Now calm down Tim, and try to answer my question for a change... If the priest broke his vows by committing a crime, then how on Earth can the question "did the priest break his vows?" possibly ever be a "non-criminal question"?

Because the question is about whether he broke his vows. If how he broke his vows also involved...

"If"??

How can you possibly determine "whether" a priest broke his vows without asking "how" he supposedly broke them?

The notion is ridiculous and you're clutching at straws trying to maintain the two questions are separable.

...a criminal act then its criminality is to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities - civil ones.

Show me the canon law that says parties are exempt from the confidentiality of Crimen sollicitationis, or indeed exempt from "pontifical secret" under which cases are more recently judged, in order to facilitate civil investigations.

Something from before 2010 would be good.

A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse

By Thomas Plante, Ph.D., ABPP, Department of Psychology, Santa Clara University

I have edited a book on this topic (Bless Me Father For I Have Sinned: Perspectives on Sexual Abuse Committed by Roman Catholic Priests), have published several professional research studies about priest sex offenders in academic journals, have evaluated about 35 priests or brothers accused of sexually abusing minors, and have consulted with a variety of religious orders and dioceses about this and related problems. I have also evaluated and treated many of the victims. It troubles me that misinformation about this problem still exists. The purpose of this article is to try to set the record straight given the best available data.

First, the available research suggests that approximately 2 to 5% of priests have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18). There are approximately 60,000 active and inactive priests and brothers in the United States and thus we estimate that between 1,000 and 3,000 priests have sexually engaged with minors. That's a lot. In fact, that is 3,000 people too many. Any sexual abuse of minors whether perpetrated by priests, other clergy, parents, school teachers, boy-scout leaders or anyone else in whom we entrust our children is horrific. However, although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 2 to 5% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%. Therefore, the odds that any random Catholic priest would sexually abuse a minor are not likely to be significantly higher than other males in or out of the clergy.

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/plante.html

"The Myth of the Pedophile Priest"

A Researcher Puts Scandals in Context

http://www.zenit.org/article-3922?l=english

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, MARCH 11, 2002 (Zenit.org).- Philip Jenkins, a Penn State University professor of history and religious studies, is author of "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis" (Oxford University Press, 1996). He wrote this article for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, which published it March 3 under the headline "The Myth of the Pedophile Priest."
* * *
Every day, the news media have a new horror story to report, under some sensational headline: Newsweek, typically, is devoting its current front cover to "Sex, Shame and the Catholic Church: 80 Priests Accused of Child Abuse in Boston." Though the sex abuse cases have deep roots, the most recent scandals were detonated by the affair of Boston priest John J. Geoghan.

Though his superiors had known for years of Geoghan´s pedophile activities, he kept being transferred from parish to parish, regardless of the safety of the children in his care. The stigma of the Geoghan affair could last for decades, and some Catholics are declaring in their outrage that they can never trust their church again.

No one can deny that Boston church authorities committed dreadful errors, but at the same time, the story is not quite the simple tale of good and evil that it sometime appears. Hard though it may be to believe right now, the "pedophile priest" scandal is nothing like as sinister as it has been painted -- or at least, it should not be used to launch blanket accusations against the Catholic Church as a whole.

We have often heard the phrase "pedophile priest" in recent weeks. Such individuals can exist: Father Geoghan was one, as was the notorious Father James Porter a decade or so back. But as a description of a social problem, the term is wildly misleading. Crucially, Catholic priests and other clergy have nothing like a monopoly on sexual misconduct with minors.

My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination -- or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.

Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah´s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas -- and the list goes on. One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.

However much this statement contradicts conventional wisdom, the "pedophile priest" is not a Catholic specialty. Yet when did we ever hear about "pedophile pastors"?

Just to find some solid numbers, how many Catholic clergy are involved in misconduct? We actually have some good information on this issue, since in the early 1990s, the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago undertook a bold and thorough self-study. The survey examined every priest who had served in the archdiocese over the previous 40 years, some 2,200 individuals, and reopened every internal complaint ever made against these men. The standard of evidence applied was not legal proof that would stand up in a court of law, but just the consensus that a particular charge was probably justified.

By this low standard, the survey found that about 40 priests, about 1.8 percent of the whole, were probably guilty of misconduct with minors at some point in their careers. Put another way, no evidence existed against about 98 percent of parish clergy, the overwhelming majority of the group.

Since other organizations dealing with children have not undertaken such comprehensive studies, we have no idea whether the Catholic figure is better or worse than the rate for schoolteachers, residential home counselors, social workers or scout masters.

The Chicago study also found that of the 2,200 priests, just one was a pedophile. Now, many people are confused about the distinction between a pedophile and a person guilty of sex with a minor. The difference is very significant. The phrase "pedophile priests" conjures up images of the worst violation of innocence, callous molesters like Father Porter who assault children 7 years old. "Pedophilia" is a psychiatric term meaning sexual interest in children below the age of puberty.

But the vast majority of clergy misconduct cases are nothing like this. The vast majority of instances involve priests who have been sexually active with a person below the age of sexual consent, often 16 or 17 years old, or even older. An act of this sort is wrong on multiple counts: It is probably criminal, and by common consent it is immoral and sinful; yet it does not have the utterly ruthless, exploitative character of child molestation. In almost all cases too, with the older teen-agers, there is an element of consent.

Also, the definition of "childhood" varies enormously between different societies. If an act of this sort occurred in most European countries, it would probably be legal, since the age of consent for boys is usually around 15. To take a specific example, when newspapers review recent cases of "pedophile priests," they commonly cite a case that occurred in California´s Orange County, when a priest was charged with having consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy. Whatever the moral quality of such an act, most of us would not apply the term "child abuse" or "pedophilia." For this reason alone, we need to be cautious when we read about scores of priests being "accused of child abuse."

The age of the young person involved is also so important because different kinds of sexual misconduct respond differently to treatment, and church authorities need to respond differently. If a diocese knows a man is a pedophile, and ever again places him in a position where he has access to more children, that decision is simply wrong, and probably amounts to criminal neglect. But a priest who has a relationship with an older teen-ager is much more likely to respond to treatment, and it would be more understandable if some day the church placed him in a new parish, under careful supervision.

The fact that Cardinal Law´s regime in Boston seems to have blundered time and again does not mean that this is standard practice for all Catholic dioceses, still less that the church is engaged in some kind of conspiracy of silence to hide dangerous perverts.

I am in no sense soft on the issue of child abuse. Recently, I published an expose of the trade in electronic child pornography, one of the absolute worst forms of exploitation, and my argument was that the police and FBI need to be pressured to act more strictly against this awful thing.

My concern over the "pedophile priest" issue is not to defend evil clergy, or a sinful church (I cannot be called a Catholic apologist, since I am not even a Catholic). But I am worried that justified anger over a few awful cases might be turned into ill-focused attacks against innocent clergy.

The story of clerical misconduct is bad enough without turning into an unjustifiable outbreak of religious bigotry against the Catholic Church.

Mean Men:
The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096

The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It's no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.

Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations. Insurance companies that cover all denominations, such as Guide One Center for Risk Management, which has more than 40,000 church clients, does not charge Catholic churches higher premiums. "We don't see vast difference in the incidence rate between one denomination and another," says Sarah Buckley, assistant vice president of corporate communications. "It's pretty even across the denominations." It's been that way for decades. While the company saw an uptick in these claims by all types of churches around the time of the 2002 U.S. Catholic sex-abuse scandal, Eric Spacick, Guide One's senior church-risk manager, says "it's been pretty steady since." On average, the company says 80 percent of the sexual misconduct claims they get from all denominations involve sexual abuse of children. As a result, the more children's programs a church has, the more expensive its insurance, officials at Guide One said.

The only hard data that has been made public by any denomination comes from John Jay College's study of Catholic priests, which was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops following the public outcry over the 2002 scandals. Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children. Specifically, 4,392 complaints (ranging from "sexual talk" to rape) were made against priests by 10,667 victims. (Reports made after 2002, including those of incidents that occurred years earlier, are released as part of the church's annual audits.)

Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it's closer to one in 5. But in either case, the rate of abuse by Catholic priests is not higher than these national estimates. The public also doesn't realize how "profoundly prevalent" child sexual abuse is, adds Smith. Even those numbers may be low; research suggests that only a third of abuse cases are ever reported (making it the most underreported crime). "However you slice it, it's a very common experience," Smith says.

Most child abusers have one thing in common, and it's not piety—it's preexisting relationships with their victims. That includes priests and ministers and rabbis, of course, but also family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, youth-group volunteers, and doctors. According to federal studies, three quarters of abuse occurs at the hands of family members or others in the victim's "circle of trust." "The fundamental premise here is that those who abuse children overwhelmingly seek out situations where they have easy and legitimate access to children," he said. "These kinds of positions offer a kind of cover for these offenders."

Priests may also appear more likely to molest children because cases of abuse come to light in huge waves. One reason is delayed reporting: less than 13 percent of victims abused between 1960 and 1980, for example, lodged a complaint in the same year as the assault. Two thirds filed their complaints after 1992, and half of those were made between 2002 and 2003 alone. "Offenders tend to be manipulative, often persuading children to believe that this is their fault," said Allen. "As a result, the children tend to keep it to themselves. There are countless victims who thought they were the only one." So what looks like high concentrations of abuse may simply reflect long and diffuse patterns of abuse that mirror those among all males.

Another reason is that the church has historically been bad at punishing (or preventing) molesters, so that many cases might come to light when just one priest is finally exposed. A single predator priest with ongoing access to children might be responsible for an immense raft of abuse cases. (Marie Fortune of the Faith Trust Institute, which focuses on clerical-abuse issues, says Roman Catholics tend "to have many more schools and other programs that involve children." "Plenty of other congregations have these problems, for instance, if they have a youth ministry.") That helps explain the 200 children who were abused at a school for the deaf. It didn't happen because the school was full of rapists; it happened because one man was never stopped. Overall, the John Jay study found that 149 priests were responsible for more than 25,000 cases of abuse over the 52-year period studied.

Allen suggests a final reason we hear so much more about Catholic abuse than transgressions in other religions: its sheer size. It's the second largest single denomination in the world (behind Islam) and the biggest in the United States. (Fifty-one percent of all American adults are Protestant, but they belong to hundreds of different denominations.) "When you consider the per capita data," says Allen, "I don't think they have a larger incidence than other faiths."

DoctorE wrote:How many children does some institution have to rape before they are said to be a child raping institution?

DoctorE wrote:How many children does some institution have to rape before they are said to be a child raping institution?

Foxymoron wrote:

DoctorE wrote:How many children does some institution have to rape before they are said to be a child raping institution?

Significantly more than the average institution?

The thing is, you see, when you make a claim such as "The Catholic Church is a child-raping institution" (or indeed any other sort of claim), then there really should be some sort of empirical evidence that backs it up. Otherwise your claim has no substance whatsoever and becomes a special form of communication known as bullshitting.

As an atheist you really should try to examine the evidence dispassionately and not just believe whatever happens to be convenient.

Orange Proximity wrote:
I don't know... But I don't hear Microsoft, Sony, Ford, Government of Ireland, British Museum, Mrs Mac's Pies, Levi's, Google, or any other of millions of institutions raping kids.

Orange Proximity wrote:For the last, errr 15 years or so, there has been the name of one institution popping up as the one that has been raping the kids, usually little boys, or actively hiding that rape.

You might want to look the other way - but I believe there is enough empirical evidence for one to simply point the finger at the RCC and have that look "there they are" on one's face.

Foxymoron wrote:As promised some info on the prevalence of child sexual abuse by priests and others. Although no specific research has been performed to provide a definitive comparison on the rate of priestly abuse compared to the general population, all the available evidence and the voices of researching academics and other professionals in the field point towards the "Paedophile Priest" being about as common as the Paedophile Butcher, Paedophile Baker or Paedophile Candelstick Maker.

Foxymoron wrote:As promised some info on the prevalence of child sexual abuse by priests and others. Although no specific research has been performed to provide a definitive comparison on the rate of priestly abuse compared to the general population, all the available evidence and the voices of researching academics and other professionals in the field point towards the "Paedophile Priest" being about as common as the Paedophile Butcher, Paedophile Baker or Paedophile Candelstick Maker.

A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse

By Thomas Plante, Ph.D., ABPP, Department of Psychology, Santa Clara University

I have edited a book on this topic (Bless Me Father For I Have Sinned: Perspectives on Sexual Abuse Committed by Roman Catholic Priests), have published several professional research studies about priest sex offenders in academic journals, have evaluated about 35 priests or brothers accused of sexually abusing minors, and have consulted with a variety of religious orders and dioceses about this and related problems. I have also evaluated and treated many of the victims. It troubles me that misinformation about this problem still exists. The purpose of this article is to try to set the record straight given the best available data.

First, the available research suggests that approximately 2 to 5% of priests have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18). There are approximately 60,000 active and inactive priests and brothers in the United States and thus we estimate that between 1,000 and 3,000 priests have sexually engaged with minors. That's a lot. In fact, that is 3,000 people too many. Any sexual abuse of minors whether perpetrated by priests, other clergy, parents, school teachers, boy-scout leaders or anyone else in whom we entrust our children is horrific. However, although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 2 to 5% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%. Therefore, the odds that any random Catholic priest would sexually abuse a minor are not likely to be significantly higher than other males in or out of the clergy.

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/plante.html

"The Myth of the Pedophile Priest"

A Researcher Puts Scandals in Context

http://www.zenit.org/article-3922?l=english

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, MARCH 11, 2002 (Zenit.org).- Philip Jenkins, a Penn State University professor of history and religious studies, is author of "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis" (Oxford University Press, 1996). He wrote this article for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, which published it March 3 under the headline "The Myth of the Pedophile Priest."
* * *
Every day, the news media have a new horror story to report, under some sensational headline: Newsweek, typically, is devoting its current front cover to "Sex, Shame and the Catholic Church: 80 Priests Accused of Child Abuse in Boston." Though the sex abuse cases have deep roots, the most recent scandals were detonated by the affair of Boston priest John J. Geoghan.

Though his superiors had known for years of Geoghan´s pedophile activities, he kept being transferred from parish to parish, regardless of the safety of the children in his care. The stigma of the Geoghan affair could last for decades, and some Catholics are declaring in their outrage that they can never trust their church again.

No one can deny that Boston church authorities committed dreadful errors, but at the same time, the story is not quite the simple tale of good and evil that it sometime appears. Hard though it may be to believe right now, the "pedophile priest" scandal is nothing like as sinister as it has been painted -- or at least, it should not be used to launch blanket accusations against the Catholic Church as a whole.

We have often heard the phrase "pedophile priest" in recent weeks. Such individuals can exist: Father Geoghan was one, as was the notorious Father James Porter a decade or so back. But as a description of a social problem, the term is wildly misleading. Crucially, Catholic priests and other clergy have nothing like a monopoly on sexual misconduct with minors.

My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination -- or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.

Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah´s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas -- and the list goes on. One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.

However much this statement contradicts conventional wisdom, the "pedophile priest" is not a Catholic specialty. Yet when did we ever hear about "pedophile pastors"?

Just to find some solid numbers, how many Catholic clergy are involved in misconduct? We actually have some good information on this issue, since in the early 1990s, the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago undertook a bold and thorough self-study. The survey examined every priest who had served in the archdiocese over the previous 40 years, some 2,200 individuals, and reopened every internal complaint ever made against these men. The standard of evidence applied was not legal proof that would stand up in a court of law, but just the consensus that a particular charge was probably justified.

By this low standard, the survey found that about 40 priests, about 1.8 percent of the whole, were probably guilty of misconduct with minors at some point in their careers. Put another way, no evidence existed against about 98 percent of parish clergy, the overwhelming majority of the group.

Since other organizations dealing with children have not undertaken such comprehensive studies, we have no idea whether the Catholic figure is better or worse than the rate for schoolteachers, residential home counselors, social workers or scout masters.

The Chicago study also found that of the 2,200 priests, just one was a pedophile. Now, many people are confused about the distinction between a pedophile and a person guilty of sex with a minor. The difference is very significant. The phrase "pedophile priests" conjures up images of the worst violation of innocence, callous molesters like Father Porter who assault children 7 years old. "Pedophilia" is a psychiatric term meaning sexual interest in children below the age of puberty.

But the vast majority of clergy misconduct cases are nothing like this. The vast majority of instances involve priests who have been sexually active with a person below the age of sexual consent, often 16 or 17 years old, or even older. An act of this sort is wrong on multiple counts: It is probably criminal, and by common consent it is immoral and sinful; yet it does not have the utterly ruthless, exploitative character of child molestation. In almost all cases too, with the older teen-agers, there is an element of consent.

Also, the definition of "childhood" varies enormously between different societies. If an act of this sort occurred in most European countries, it would probably be legal, since the age of consent for boys is usually around 15. To take a specific example, when newspapers review recent cases of "pedophile priests," they commonly cite a case that occurred in California´s Orange County, when a priest was charged with having consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy. Whatever the moral quality of such an act, most of us would not apply the term "child abuse" or "pedophilia." For this reason alone, we need to be cautious when we read about scores of priests being "accused of child abuse."

The age of the young person involved is also so important because different kinds of sexual misconduct respond differently to treatment, and church authorities need to respond differently. If a diocese knows a man is a pedophile, and ever again places him in a position where he has access to more children, that decision is simply wrong, and probably amounts to criminal neglect. But a priest who has a relationship with an older teen-ager is much more likely to respond to treatment, and it would be more understandable if some day the church placed him in a new parish, under careful supervision.

The fact that Cardinal Law´s regime in Boston seems to have blundered time and again does not mean that this is standard practice for all Catholic dioceses, still less that the church is engaged in some kind of conspiracy of silence to hide dangerous perverts.

I am in no sense soft on the issue of child abuse. Recently, I published an expose of the trade in electronic child pornography, one of the absolute worst forms of exploitation, and my argument was that the police and FBI need to be pressured to act more strictly against this awful thing.

My concern over the "pedophile priest" issue is not to defend evil clergy, or a sinful church (I cannot be called a Catholic apologist, since I am not even a Catholic). But I am worried that justified anger over a few awful cases might be turned into ill-focused attacks against innocent clergy.

The story of clerical misconduct is bad enough without turning into an unjustifiable outbreak of religious bigotry against the Catholic Church.

A very recent Newsweek article on the subject:

Mean Men:
The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096

The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It's no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.

Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations. Insurance companies that cover all denominations, such as Guide One Center for Risk Management, which has more than 40,000 church clients, does not charge Catholic churches higher premiums. "We don't see vast difference in the incidence rate between one denomination and another," says Sarah Buckley, assistant vice president of corporate communications. "It's pretty even across the denominations." It's been that way for decades. While the company saw an uptick in these claims by all types of churches around the time of the 2002 U.S. Catholic sex-abuse scandal, Eric Spacick, Guide One's senior church-risk manager, says "it's been pretty steady since." On average, the company says 80 percent of the sexual misconduct claims they get from all denominations involve sexual abuse of children. As a result, the more children's programs a church has, the more expensive its insurance, officials at Guide One said.

The only hard data that has been made public by any denomination comes from John Jay College's study of Catholic priests, which was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops following the public outcry over the 2002 scandals. Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children. Specifically, 4,392 complaints (ranging from "sexual talk" to rape) were made against priests by 10,667 victims. (Reports made after 2002, including those of incidents that occurred years earlier, are released as part of the church's annual audits.)

Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it's closer to one in 5. But in either case, the rate of abuse by Catholic priests is not higher than these national estimates. The public also doesn't realize how "profoundly prevalent" child sexual abuse is, adds Smith. Even those numbers may be low; research suggests that only a third of abuse cases are ever reported (making it the most underreported crime). "However you slice it, it's a very common experience," Smith says.

Most child abusers have one thing in common, and it's not piety—it's preexisting relationships with their victims. That includes priests and ministers and rabbis, of course, but also family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, youth-group volunteers, and doctors. According to federal studies, three quarters of abuse occurs at the hands of family members or others in the victim's "circle of trust." "The fundamental premise here is that those who abuse children overwhelmingly seek out situations where they have easy and legitimate access to children," he said. "These kinds of positions offer a kind of cover for these offenders."

Priests may also appear more likely to molest children because cases of abuse come to light in huge waves. One reason is delayed reporting: less than 13 percent of victims abused between 1960 and 1980, for example, lodged a complaint in the same year as the assault. Two thirds filed their complaints after 1992, and half of those were made between 2002 and 2003 alone. "Offenders tend to be manipulative, often persuading children to believe that this is their fault," said Allen. "As a result, the children tend to keep it to themselves. There are countless victims who thought they were the only one." So what looks like high concentrations of abuse may simply reflect long and diffuse patterns of abuse that mirror those among all males.

Another reason is that the church has historically been bad at punishing (or preventing) molesters, so that many cases might come to light when just one priest is finally exposed. A single predator priest with ongoing access to children might be responsible for an immense raft of abuse cases. (Marie Fortune of the Faith Trust Institute, which focuses on clerical-abuse issues, says Roman Catholics tend "to have many more schools and other programs that involve children." "Plenty of other congregations have these problems, for instance, if they have a youth ministry.") That helps explain the 200 children who were abused at a school for the deaf. It didn't happen because the school was full of rapists; it happened because one man was never stopped. Overall, the John Jay study found that 149 priests were responsible for more than 25,000 cases of abuse over the 52-year period studied.

Allen suggests a final reason we hear so much more about Catholic abuse than transgressions in other religions: its sheer size. It's the second largest single denomination in the world (behind Islam) and the biggest in the United States. (Fifty-one percent of all American adults are Protestant, but they belong to hundreds of different denominations.) "When you consider the per capita data," says Allen, "I don't think they have a larger incidence than other faiths."

Thommo wrote:I appreciate the effort you went to, but sadly it seems that all of these writers found was the same thing we did - consequently none of them presents any like for like data. The data to make a comparison is simply not available, or is not made public. I remain sceptical of your claim here that "all the available evidence and the voices of researching academics and other professionals in the field point towards the "Paedophile Priest" being about as common as the Paedophile Butcher, Paedophile Baker or Paedophile Candelstick Maker.", when no actual evidence is forthcoming and we are forced instead to rely on opinion, which inevitably will align with the prior beliefs of those writers.

Thommo wrote:I am somewhat perplexed as to why various governments seem to suppress the raw data on the conviction rates for child sex abuse, which would be adequate to analyse this claim on an objective measure.

How do we put these numbers in perspective? Tragically, the best available data from both the federal government and a number of independent researchers suggest that sexual victimization of children is neither rare nor confined to the Catholic Church. In fact, about 20 percent of American women and 15 percent of American men report that they were victims of child sexual abuse, with about 80 percent reporting that the abuse was perpetrated by a family member. Sexual abuse by other groups of men who have regular unsupervised contact with and power over children appears to occur at levels similar to those associated with priests. About 5 percent of school teachers, for instance, have sexually victimized a student; 15 percent of Americans report being the target of sexual misconduct by a teacher while in primary or secondary school. Apparently, other groups also need to conduct their own John Jay study.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0mJIpsuL2

Thommo wrote:We should bear in mind that between 4-6% of Catholic priests in the US have had what was called a "substantiated allegation" of sexual abuse of children made against them.
The natural response to that based upon personal experience is to estimate whether out of every 100 people you know (man, woman and child) between 4 and 6 have had a "substantiated allegation" of abusing a child made against them, to the best of my personal knowledge I have never known a single person for whom that statement would apply, bringing the claim into grave doubt.

Sexual harassment and abuse of students by teachers
Prevalence
In their 2002 survey, the AAUW reported that, of students who had been harassed, 38% were harassed by teachers or other school employees. One survey, conducted with psychology students, reports that 10% had sexual interactions with their educators; in turn, 13% of educators reported sexual interaction with their students.[7] In a survey of high school students, 14% reported that they had engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher. (Wishnietsky, 1991) In a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 found that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000. And a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education found that nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students reported having been targeted with sexual attention by school employees. Indeed, one critic has claimed that sexual harassment and abuse by teachers is 100 times more frequent than abuse by priests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_har ... Prevalence

That the whole 2,000 year history of the church is just a cover for dirty old men to become rich and molest small boys?

Paul1 wrote:

That the whole 2,000 year history of the church is just a cover for dirty old men to become rich and molest small boys?

Stealing the idea from another thread: Do you have evidence to show the contrary?

I agree the church is not inherently paedophilic. But still, I'd never leave my potential child with a catholic priest, given the church's inability to report cases to the police. I'm sure many current parents would agree with this sentiment.

Foxymoron wrote:
The “opinions” are those of experts in the field:

Foxymoron wrote:The Newsweek article also points out that major insurance companies who specialise in insuring organisation and institutions involved in childcare against allegations of abuse do not charge the catholic church a higher premium than the norm. Now surely that’s an objective assessment, based on the risk assessments of insurance actuaries working from hard data.

Foxymoron wrote:
These highly qualified individuals and organisations confirm that catholic priests do not molest children any more than other denominations or their secular counterparts.

Foxymoron wrote:
Your scepticism appears to be highly selective. You are happy to accept that an exceptionally high number of priests are paedophiles without any sound statistical evidence, merely on the amount of media coverage of the issue.

Thommo wrote:
We should bear in mind that between 4-6% of Catholic priests in the US have had what was called a "substantiated allegation" of sexual abuse of children made against them. The natural response to that based upon personal experience is to estimate whether out of every 100 people you know (man, woman and child) between 4 and 6 have had a "substantiated allegation" of abusing a child made against them, to the best of my personal knowledge I have never known a single person for whom that statement would apply, bringing the claim into grave doubt. Of course, these kinds of qualitative estimates tell us very little, which is why I attempted to work on the conviction rates, which are far more concrete and would reveal something factual.

Foxymoron wrote:You are sceptical of highly qualified experts who state otherwise, but have so far failed to provide ANY statistics or experts to back up your own belief.

Foxymoron wrote:As Ian Tattum very helpfully pointed out, the comparison figures for allegations against priests would be for individuals who have regular unsupervised contact with and power over children. Again from the data quoted above from Professor Thomas Plante: 20% of US women and 15% of US men report being sexually abused as a child, and 80% of the abusers were family members. Plante quotes the percentage of school teachers who have sexually victimised a student as 5%, but the wiki article references research finding significantly higher rates:

Foxymoron wrote:Do you still find these statistics on the general extent of child sexual abuse unconvincing, and the rates of priestly abuse likely to be significantly higher than any group? Then present some proper evidence and not just one-sided and self-serving scepticism.

I'm sure they would given the constant barrage of lurid stories in the press, but it wouldn't be an informed and rational judgement.

But do I really have to prove that the church isn't a 2,000 year conspiracy for paedophiles?