This graph, derived from the John Jay report, is incomplete as it only covers abuse in America for a specific period ending in 2002 and does not include recently discovered cases such as Lawrence Murphy, 200 deaf boys, etc..
Most of these incidents were reported in the 1990s and 2000s, years after they took place. This raises the question of whether the low numbers for the 1950s reflect a real difference between the rate of abuse in the Eisenhower era and the rate in the decades that followed, or whether it’s just that fewer of the victims from the ’50s have come forward with their stories, because of advanced age, greater shame, etc.
Sorry but the graph is bogus.
And what do you know of the Murphy case?
The Jay report is used by your fellows to prove whatever they wish. Here, for you, it’s bogus; there, it’s used to prove the severity and uniqueness of the abuse.
Soon you’ll see as those you invited will demonstrate.
Sorry, but this “even handed” thread is bogus from the git-go.
You wrote:
“This graph, derived from the John Jay report, is incomplete as it only covers abuse in America for a specific period ending in 2002 and does not include recently discovered cases such as Lawrence Murphy, 200 deaf boys, etc..”
You’re basing that conclusion on what? The graph is about all known cases. That would include the Fr. Murphy cases since those were known about already in the 1970s and fully investigated in the 1990s. Remember, even the police investigated in the 1970s. Your assertion is clearly without merit. Back it up. Can you?
“Sorry but the graph is bogus.”
The graph is completely not bogus in connection to the article. The graph shows that the incidents started to sharply decline 30 years ago, while JPII was Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. For the article to not address this, and in fact give the impression that the Church only really started to address the problem post-public scandal, is not even handed at all. It is bogus.
Freegards