Posted on 03/08/2005 5:08:12 PM PST by dangus
The National Review Board of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops authorized in 2003 the publication of “The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States: A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.”
On Page 28, in chapter 2.3, the study included a graph showing the number of incidents of pedophilia (including ephibophilia) and the number of priests involved in such cases in each year, from 1950 through 2002. The results are strongly contradictory to many of the false notions perpetuated by critics of the Catholic Church of both the left and right. The numbers contained in this article are somewhat round because they have been read from a graph, rather than a table.
Many false notions have greatly damaged the reputation of present leaders of the Catholic Church during the so-called "pedophilia" crisis. While there is much blame to be found, these notions cloud the truth, preventing the best possible response. Without claiming to know what that response is, I will debunk some of the false notions:
Notion 1: The pedophilia crisis was a fruit of the alleged modernism of Vatican 2.
Truth: The crisis was in full bloom before Vatican 2. It is possible that several false expectations of the what the “spirit of Vatican 2” meant may have inspired a laxity of adherence to church laws may have abetted pedophiles, but the timing shows this could not have been a major cause. Vatican 2 went on from 1962 to 1965. By 1962, there were already about 390 incidents of abuse per year. In fact, the fastest growth in the number of incidents occurred between 1959 and 1960. Apparently the increase caught the attention of the Vatican: in 1961, the Pope issued guidelines recommending that homosexuals not be admitted into the priesthood because of the grave spiritual consequences of the burdens of celibacy on the sexually dysfunctional. (Please note that celibacy is much more than mere chastity.)
The number of abuse cases increased from 60 in 1952, to 360 in 1960, a 600% increase in eight years! Between 1960 and 1969, the number of cases increased slightly less than 100% in nine years. Between 1969 and 1980, the number of cases increased only about 10 percent. The vast majority of even these cases were perpetrated by priests who finished seminary long before Vatican 2 began.
[It is quite possible that the pedophilia crisis was much worse than we know in 1950. Any priest alive then would likely be dead by now, and their accusers may be reluctant to come forward to accuse someone when the perpetrator and most possible witnesses are dead.]
Notion 2: The Church failed to limit the pedophilia crisis until it was exposed by the media.
Truth: After 1980, the number of abuse cases dropped in nearly half in the next six short years. And in half again in the next five. And in half again in the next three. In fact, by 1994, the year the media was catching on to the story, the number of abuse cases had been cut by 90 percent. By 1987, there were fewer abuse cases than there had been in 1960. And by 1995, there were fewer abuse cases than there had been in any year in the 1950s.
Notion 3: The Pedophilia crisis was caused by the Catholic Church’s demands of chastity in the priesthood.
Truth: The amazing collapse of the number of annual pedophile cases demonstrates that the church can effectively maintain a celibate priesthood without resultant pedophilia. In 2002, there were still 30 reported incidents, and one may surmise that the number may drift up as new accusers step forward. Even one incident is not acceptable. However, that rate is far, far below rates of other non-celibate vocations that include substantial contact with children.
It is important to note that what is being called pedophilia in this context is not true pedophilia. While women in the general population are roughly three times more likely than men to have been sexually abused (citing Journal of the AMA, 278 (1997): 131-135), nearly four out of five cases of sexual abuse in this study were of boys. And most of the abuse was not of children, but of post-adolescent teenagers. Only 2% of victims were of children under age 5, nearly 80% were age 11 or older.
I just showed you the Vatican position, it is not vague except to those with an agenda to present it as such, and the delusions on this thread belong to neither myself nor dsc. Thanks for sharing.
That is the bottom line. And some folks at the Vatican know it and want to prevent homosexuals from being ordained, while other folks at the Vatican know it and want to perpetaute their "boy's club."
Both sides know it full well in other words. Who wins determines the direction of the Church for the foreseeable future. The anticipated Vatican document on ordaining homosexuals will tell much about which faction has more power in the Curia.
“I'm not a gay activist by any means”
Didn’t say you were.
”And by the way, nope, I'm not attracted to 14 year olds”
Yeah. Uh, huh. (Yawn.)
“Your vast knowledge on this topic”
Vast is a bit too much. “Considerable” would be a better choice of words.
“strong assumption”
Sorry, no assumptions there anywhere. Just observations and conclusions drawn from them.
“Perhaps you are among the disordered”
My, you are determined to bring every possible cliché into this, aren’t you. Yes, yes, we all know that everyone who fails to think SSAD is wonderful is just a “repressed homosexual.” (ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz)
“If it is so clear than why must the Vatican make further comments? This is a legitimate question, is it not?”
I suppose. Pope St. Pius X told us that there are enemies working within the Church. One of their programs has been to obfuscate this issue by ignoring or contradicting the teachings of the Church, with the result that many are now misinformed or confused. It is the Vatican’s duty to guide these people with strong, unequivocal teaching, and to defrock and excommunicate the wolves in sheep’s clothing.
”I imagine the Vatican is too!”
Not sick enough of it, IMO.
My, you are determined to bring every possible cliché into this, aren’t you. Yes, yes, we all know that everyone who fails to think SSAD is wonderful is just a “repressed homosexual.” (ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz)
LOL! If it wasn't such a tired cliché, this might be a humorous exchange. Surely they can come up with something new?
Then again, we must be careful, he might actually catch on and stop showing his hand on his first few posts on every forum he visits...
Rule One! No Poofters!
OK. A council in 300 AD noted it as a problem. In 1000 AD it was seen as a problem. In the 15th century it was a problem. In the 20th century it was a problem. Are you suggesting that something that has cropped up throughout recorded history just vanished for hundreds of years at a time. You have tremendous faith, and are, IMHO, quite naive.
I don't know about you, but I'm awake and smelling the coffee.
And please, no more with the tired "it's anti-Catholic to suggest those things". A religion with, what, a billion adherents playing the victim card. I'm not buying it.
Yep. Fads and particularly fashionable sins come and go, increase and decrease in prevalence, but always against a background level of sinsulness that has been with us since the Garden. Or are you telling me you still wear your polyester leisure suits?
So you do think that there has been a constant supply of gay clergy in the Catholic church, you're simply contesting the relative percentage? So it's a continuous, though not in your view, universal problem.
Reminds me a bit of the joke, a guy asking a woman to sleep with him for a million dollars, and she say's yes, so he asks, would you sleep with me for a dollar, and she says, what kind of girl do you think I am. His response, we've already determined that, now we're just haggling over price. You're just haggling over percentages, it seems.
I never had polyester leisure suits, I was an anti-Disco kid of guy through the 70's. LOL. I dress almost exactly the same now as I did then, jeans, tshirts and bare feet (when it's warm).
No, I think they were usually screened out, though some may have slipped through throughout history. However, there were particular times and places in which the number of pederast priests was higher, due to iniquity of the leaders at the time and other lax morals.
you're simply contesting the relative percentage?
All men have sinned. All professions have had sinners. Sometimes general laxity in morals, and perversity in particular times and places, are far out of proprtion to the norm. This is one of those times in history, i.e., the number of active homosexuals in the priesthood has been way above the backgrounds levels of general society, for the last 45-50 years or so. It will return to its normal (i.e., homosexual priests are rare and if present celibate) as soon as the current crop of liberal, dissenting and corrupt leaders and priests go on to their eternal reward.
You say no to a constant supply of gay clergy throughout history, but then suggest that "some may have slipped through throughout history". Sounds more like a yes to me.
"This is one of those times in history, i.e., the number of active homosexuals in the priesthood has been way above the backgrounds levels of general society, for the last 45-50 years or so. It will return to its normal (i.e., homosexual priests are rare and if present celibate) as soon as the current crop of liberal, dissenting and corrupt leaders and priests go on to their eternal reward."
What makes you so sure there is not a steady supply of corrupt leaders to take their place? Cardinal Mahony has actively promoted the ordaining of homosexual men in the Los Angeles diocese for many years now. The Modernists that Pope St. Pius X warned about went underground for a few decades then gradually resurfaced, especially before, during and after VatII. Seminaries don't really teach much Catholicism anymore (neither do parochial schools), so the formation of priests is a joke. The present pontiff has practically stacked the ranks of bishops and cardinals with just such men.
Are they all going to drop dead all of a sudden? I guess that's possible, but I would like to know if that's what you figure is going to happen. And if so, then who is going to fill the void?
The virtue of "Hope"?
Well, you have a lot of spunk. The "unsinkable Molly Brown" had a similar outlook.
As for me, I hope you're right.
Yes, but only insofar as "some may have slipped through throughout history" everywhere in every profession in every culture, pagan or Christian. The rates of pederasty in the priesthood are higher right now because they stopped actively screening out homosexuals 50 years ago. Before that, the rates were most likely lower than any secular profession, with the notable exception of specific times and places throughout history when morals and discipline were poor.
"Is there much hope for Frodo and Sam?"
"There never was much hope, just a fool's hope."
Allowing priest to marry doesn't seem to help much. The Anglican Church is rife with homosexuals.
Speaking of wishful thinking!
Sink, you wouldn't be quite so annoying if just once you were to back up your sweeping pontifications with some actual facts. As yet I have yet to see any. Just endless bloviating that corresponds to the latest conventional wisdom.
Whatever was done was done secretively. The statistical reversal is simply too sharp and drastic to ascribe merely to general societal trends. The dawining of the MTV era hardly represented a sudden re-establishment of societal morals about sexuality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.