Expert: homosexuality clearly a factor in new priest abuse data

Keylem

A leading authority on the clerical sex abuse crisis has criticized those who conclude that new data has ruled out homosexuality as a significant cause in the scandal - even though the vast majority of priest abuse was perpetrated against adolescent males.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a top psychiatrist and expert in handling sexually abusive priests, says criminologists “crossed a line” by pronouncing on the psychological causes behind the data released May 18.

“Analysis of the research demonstrates clearly that the major cause of the crisis was the homosexual abuse of males,” said Fitzgibbons in an interview with the Catholic News Agency. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/critics-say-new-study-misses-real-reasons-for-priest-abuse-crisis/

The new study, conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and commissioned by the U.S. Bishops, shows that nearly 80 percent of victims were post-pubescent and adolescent males. However, the study concludes that available data “do not support the hypothesis that priests with a homosexual identity ... are significantly more likely to sexually abuse.”

The report marks the third such effort by U.S. Bishops to address the causes and manifestations of the clerical sex abuse scandal since it first erupted publicly in 2002.

The data also shows that less than 5 percent of abuse involved prepubescent children, contravening rumor that the scandal largely manifested as acts of pedophilia. But homosexuality, according to Fitzgibbons, was clearly the primary sexual aberration driving the bulk of abuse.

“One can conclude that these priests have strong same-sex attraction,” said Fitzgibbons. “When an adult is involved with homosexual behavior with an adolescent male, he clearly has a major problem in the area of homosexuality.”

The psychologist said that, while the college has done good work collecting data, criminologists “lack the professional expertise to comment on causes of sexual abuse.”

“If the (U.S. bishops) conference wanted an analysis of the causes of complex sexual behavior with adolescents, don’t turn to criminologists,” said Fitzgibbons. “They are not trained to understand those causes - that training is given to mental health professionals.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/expert-homosexuality-clearly-a-factor-in-new-priest-abuse-data

Fanny Cradock

Given past experience, this thread will be tightly moderated. I'm reminding everybody contributing to this thread to read the charter and stick by it.

PDN

And in the cases where priests abused little girls, heterosexuality was clearly a factor.

antiskeptic

Keylem wrote: »

A leading authority on the clerical sex abuse crisis has criticized those who conclude that new data has ruled out homosexuality as a significant cause in the scandal - even though the vast majority of priest abuse was perpetrated against adolescent males.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a top psychiatrist and expert in handling sexually abusive priests, says criminologists “crossed a line” by pronouncing on the psychological causes behind the data released May 18.

“Analysis of the research demonstrates clearly that the major cause of the crisis was the homosexual abuse of males,” said Fitzgibbons in an interview with the Catholic News Agency. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/critics-say-new-study-misses-real-reasons-for-priest-abuse-crisis/

The new study, conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and commissioned by the U.S. Bishops, shows that nearly 80 percent of victims were post-pubescent and adolescent males. However, the study concludes that available data “do not support the hypothesis that priests with a homosexual identity ... are significantly more likely to sexually abuse.”

The report marks the third such effort by U.S. Bishops to address the causes and manifestations of the clerical sex abuse scandal since it first erupted publicly in 2002.

The data also shows that less than 5 percent of abuse involved prepubescent children, contravening rumor that the scandal largely manifested as acts of pedophilia. But homosexuality, according to Fitzgibbons, was clearly the primary sexual aberration driving the bulk of abuse.

“One can conclude that these priests have strong same-sex attraction,” said Fitzgibbons. “When an adult is involved with homosexual behavior with an adolescent male, he clearly has a major problem in the area of homosexuality.”

The psychologist said that, while the college has done good work collecting data, criminologists “lack the professional expertise to comment on causes of sexual abuse.”

“If the (U.S. bishops) conference wanted an analysis of the causes of complex sexual behavior with adolescents, don’t turn to criminologists,” said Fitzgibbons. “They are not trained to understand those causes - that training is given to mental health professionals.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/expert-homosexuality-clearly-a-factor-in-new-priest-abuse-data

He might or might not be able to lay claim to the title "leading authority". But he certainly can't lay claim to the title of "independent authority". Can he?

Dr. Fitzgibbons is an adjunct professor at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at Catholic University and is board member of the International Institute for Forgiveness, www.forgiveness-institute.org. He is also a consultant to the Congregation for Clergy at the Vatican.

http://www.maritalhealing.com/practice/staff/staffprofiles.php

Keylem

PDN wrote: »

And in the cases where priests abused little girls, heterosexuality was clearly a factor.

Obviously there were girls abused, but not on the scale adolescent males were.

antiskeptic

Keylem wrote: »

Obviously there were girls abused, but not on the scale adolescent males were.

Putting some broadbrushstroke figures on this.

Let's suppose the ratio of male/female abuse in the Catholic church is 10/1. And let's suppose the ratio of heterosexuals/homosexuals in society is 10/1.

That means homosexuals are 100 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

Which means the problem of abuse in the Catholic church lies, for the most part, in the fact that dyed-in-the-wool-child-abusing-types entered the priesthood for the purposes of abusing children. The rest of the abuse could probably be written off as statistically normative - abuse will happen in all areas of society.

If only this psychiatrist wasn't umbilically tied to the Vatican


:rolleyes:

Keylem

antiskeptic wrote: »

He might or might not be able to lay claim to the title "leading authority". But he certainly can't lay claim to the title of "independent authority". Can he?




http://www.maritalhealing.com/practice/staff/staffprofiles.php

Do you suppose that independant authorities would come to a different conclusion then, or that Dr. Fitzgibbins Professional report was somehow biased in favour of the Catholic Church??

PDN

Keylem wrote: »

Obviously there were girls abused, but not on the scale adolescent males were.

And, equally obviously, priests were in close proximity to boys in massively greater numbers than they were to little girls. Female schools and residential institutions were predominantly staffed by nuns, weren't they?

antiskeptic

Keylem wrote: »

Do you suppose that independant authorities would come to a different conclusion then, or that Dr. Fitzgibbins Professional report was somehow biased in favour of the Catholic Church??

I've no idea. I just wouldn't give much credence to a Vatican psychiatrist to be objective in the matter of Vatican culpability in the matter of child abuse.

It's an out-of-hand, no-brainer kind of judgement.

Solair

The Catholic Church seems to be doing its best to deflect attention from the simple fact that its own organisational structures, management system and hierarchy failed to prevent and actually facilitated abuse by covering it up and hiding it from the police / legal system etc etc.

The abuse was carried out by pedophiles, not normal hetrosexuals or homosexuals who are interested in sexual relationships with other adults.

The church seems desperate to create a smoke screen and blame anyone else i.e. it has tried to blame liberal society, and it is now trying to blame homosexuality.

Frankly, I find it rather disturbing and slightly sickening that it is not taking responsibility for what when on and recognising that it, as an organisation failed utterly to protect children and even worse, actually put them in harms way.

I also find it very distasteful and disturbing that the Catholic Church, or at least some elements within it, are trying to pin the blame on what has been an oppressed minority group within society.

I'm not religious, in fact I'm an atheist, but I would ask those who are pursuing this kind of cover-up agenda to just think of what their organisation claims to be based upon and the founding principles that it claims to have.

This whole saga just lowers the reputation of the Catholic Church even further, if that were even possible at this stage!

All it says to me is that the organisation accepts no responsibility for what it did and is not prepared to change.

dlofnep

Homosexuality did not cause anything. There are millions of happy homosexual couples around the world that don't go around molesting children. The only conclusion that I can come to is that the priests involved were paedophiles, and the church allowed it to continue by sweeping it under the carpet. To even begin to blame homosexuality for their actions is disgusting.

Why don't normal homosexual males go around molesting young children? Because they aren't paedophiles. So the key problem here is paedophilia and the lack of accountability within the church, rather than sexual orientation.

philologos

OP: The RCC need to stop finding excuses and take responsibility for their actions. Even if many of the people who were abused were adolescents that's still rape. Why is that any more acceptable? Why should that make our view of what went on the better? The sooner that the RCC fully own up and accept full responsibility the sooner people will start to take it seriously surely?

wolfsbane

I take antiskeptic's point about possible bias, but there is merit in the man's case.

It is unlikely to be all a matter of paedophilia. The older age group would be attractive to both heterosexual and homosexual priests willing to abuse their power. And I'm pretty sure that many paedophiles are not attracted to older kids.

Also, some who do abuse the younger children are omnisexuals, rather than mere paedosexuals. There are folk who will sexually abuse anything, man or beast. I've met them.

So the sexual abuse by priests is mis-classified by the 'paedophile priests' label. A handy short-hand maybe, but not entirely accurate.

A breakdown of the sex of the older victims would indicate the level of homosexuality in the RCC priesthood. Anyone any data?

BTW, I'm NOT saying all homosexual priests would abuse children (of any age) - just that if homosexuals and heterosexuals abuse at the same rate, the proportion in membership of the priesthood could be indicated.

************************************************************************
1 Samuel 2:12 Now the sons of Eli were corrupt; they did not know the LORD. 13 And the priests’ custom with the people was that when any man offered a sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come with a three-pronged fleshhook in his hand while the meat was boiling. 14 Then he would thrust it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; and the priest would take for himself all that the fleshhook brought up. So they did in Shiloh to all the Israelites who came there...

17 Therefore the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD, for men abhorred the offering of the LORD...

22 Now Eli was very old; and he heard everything his sons did to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting.

georgieporgy

The John Jay College report stated

80% of victims were postpubescent males,

5% were prepubescent males,

and presumably 15% were female (no doubt a mix of child and adult)

let's stick with those facts.

and here is commentary from another source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-g-plante-phd-abpp/clergy-sex-abuse-report-l_b_866789.html

Solair

The problem is that this is nothing to do with the sexual orientation of priests or religious. Nobody would particularly care if a priest wants to have consensual sex with a woman or another man. It would be a breech of his vows, but there's nothing illegal or particularly wrong with it other than that.

The issue that is at hand is one of abuse of power where priests, christian brothers and others sexually assaulted minors who were in their charge.

That kind of behaviour is often down to abuse of power and is exactly the same kind of behaviour as we see in any rape case. Sexual attraction often has nothing to do with it.

Trying to confuse that type of behaviour with normal sexuality, heterosexual or homosexual, is just twisting the truth. You won't find any credible experts to support that kind of thing other than people who are directly linked to / commissioned by the church organisations and who are quite clearly pursuing an agenda.

The Church simply cannot go on trying to cover this up anymore. It is starting to look ridiculous and I think the vast majority of Catholics are getting pretty sick and tired of it.

georgieporgy

here is a news release from the college itself (and it has a link for anyone interested in reading the full report itself):

John Jay College Reports No Single Cause, Predictor of Clergy Abuse

"The researchers at John Jay College are issuing a corrected edition of the report, "The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010," released on May 18, 2011, because the National Institute of Justice was incorrectly identified as a funder of this report. We regret this error and any confusion it may have caused." May 18, 2011, Washington, DC—A landmark study by researchers at John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York, which examined the causes and context of the clergy sexual abuse crisis in the U.S. Catholic Church, concluded that there was no single cause or predictor of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. The report added that situational factors and opportunity to abuse played a significant role in the onset and continuation of abusive acts.," said Karen Terry, PhD., John Jay's principal investigator for the report. "The increased frequency of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s was consistent with the patterns of increased deviance of society during that time. "She also stated that "social influences intersected with vulnerabilities of individual priests whose preparation for a life of celibacy was inadequate at that time." Terry also said that neither celibacy nor homosexuality were causes of the abuse, and that priest candidates who would later abuse could not be distinguished by psychological test data, developmental and sexual history data, intelligence data, or experience in priesthood. The development of human formation components of seminary preparation for priesthood is associated with the continued low levels of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the United States, she said.
The study also found that the initial, mid-1980s response of bishops to allegations of abuse was to concentrate on getting help for the priest-abusers. Despite the development of a comprehensive plan for response to victims and the harms of sexual abuse by the mid-1990s, diocesan implementation was not consistent or thorough at that time. Yet, the decrease in incidence of sexual abuse cases by clergy was more rapid than the overall societal patterns.
The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010 report by a John Jay College research team was made public May 18 in Washington. Terry presented the report to Diane Knight, CMSW, Chair of the National Review Board, a group of lay Catholics who oversaw the project and to Bishop Blase Cupich of Spokane, Washington, who chairs the U.S. Bishops' Committee on the Protection of Children and Young People.
The report can be found here
Established in 1964, John Jay College of Criminal Justice of The City University of New York is an international leader in educating for justice. It offers a rich liberal arts and professional studies curriculum to upwards of 14,000 undergraduate and graduate students from more than 135 nations. In teaching and research, the College approaches justice as an applied art in service to society and as an ongoing conversation about fundamental human desires for fairness, equality and the rule of law.

Donatello

The president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has released an in-depth critique of the John Jay report on the clerical sex-abuse scandal.

In his 24-page analysis, William Donohue is especially critical of the John Jay study’s claim that clerical homosexuality was not a major factor in the scandal. Carefully scrutinizing the data, he finds that the evidence contained in the document suggests that homosexuality was a very important influence. Moreover, Donohue observes, the John Jay study neglected additional evidence that would strengthen the connection with homosexuality. For example:

St. Luke's Institute is the most premier treatment center in the nation for troubled priests, and according to its co-founder, Rev. Michael Peterson, "We don't see heterosexual pedophiles at all." If this is true, how can it be that the John Jay study failed to pick this up?

Donohue faults the John Jay researchers for relying on testimony from groups like SNAP and Voice of the Faithful, which have proven to be consistently hostile to the Catholic hierarchy. He argues that the report provides an explanation of the bishops’ failure to remove abusive priests from ministry, since psychologists regularly testified that the priests would not offend again. “Well, it is painfully obvious by now that the psychologists oversold their competence,” Donohue observes.

URL="http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10422"]Source and full report by the Catholic League HERE.[/URL

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which means the problem of abuse in the Catholic church lies, for the most part, in the fact that dyed-in-the-wool-child-abusing-types entered the priesthood for the purposes of abusing children. The rest of the abuse could probably be written off as statistically normative - abuse will happen in all areas of society.

If only this psychiatrist wasn't umbilically tied to the Vatican
:rolleyes:

The psychiatrist is tied to the Vatican and he is basically supporting the notion that this latest report is a PC whitewash. It makes the American Bishops look foolish and Catholics are not fooled by it.

I don't think most were sociopaths who joined the priesthood just so they could abuse. More realistically, troubled individuals joined the priesthood to escape from their problems with sorry consequences. That's not to say the odd sociopath here and there did not join so they could abuse.

PDN wrote: »

And, equally obviously, priests were in close proximity to boys in massively greater numbers than they were to little girls. Female schools and residential institutions were predominantly staffed by nuns, weren't they?

Some responses which could be issued to that comment here:

More than 80% of the cases of abuse were homosexual. Moreover, the priests who assaulted little boys went on to assault more little boys. Priests who assaulted little boys didn't assault little girls. Hey, of course the problem is not homosexual priests. It's global warming.

Or, my favourite:

I have been in the military and elsewhere where I had more "access" to males than females: and yet I was not attracted to them. That's because I'm heterosexual. Only a PhD could conclude that there is no link between homosexual acts and homosexuality.

dlofnep wrote: »

Homosexuality did not cause anything. There are millions of happy homosexual couples around the world that don't go around molesting children. The only conclusion that I can come to is that the priests involved were paedophiles, and the church allowed it to continue by sweeping it under the carpet. To even begin to blame homosexuality for their actions is disgusting.

Why don't normal homosexual males go around molesting young children? Because they aren't paedophiles. So the key problem here is paedophilia and the lack of accountability within the church, rather than sexual orientation.

The John Jay report we're talking about (the subject of this thread, said the majority of the abusing priests were NOT pedophiles. Did you notice that conclusion of the report?

This false narrative must be stopped. Catholics are sick of the PC whitewash, if the comments below this story are anything to go by:

Normnuke - correction: over **90%** of the abuse was homosexual (male on male). Over 80% was male (adult) on TEEN male...and the study does not count the male victims 18+ years old, which may number in the thousands (seminarians, monks, etc.). The so-called "reasoning" that ascribes this statistic to "lack of access" to females only demonstrates further: the USCCB is a liberal activist organization.

-

The report concludes, "The study specifically rejects claims that the sex-abuse problem was fueled by clerical celibacy or by homosexuality within the ranks of the clergy." Either our bishops are blind or the report is hopelessly flawed. The abusers did not have sexual relations with girls or grown women but with boys, and if that does not involved homosexual activity, I don't know what does. This report will further damage the credibility of the bishops and the Church on this issue.

Solair wrote: »

The problem is that this is nothing to do with the sexual orientation of priests or religious. Nobody would particularly care if a priest wants to have consensual sex with a woman or another man. It would be a breech of his vows, but there's nothing illegal or particularly wrong with it other than that.

The issue that is at hand is one of abuse of power where priests, christian brothers and others sexually assaulted minors who were in their charge.

That kind of behaviour is often down to abuse of power and is exactly the same kind of behaviour as we see in any rape case. Sexual attraction often has nothing to do with it.

Trying to confuse that type of behaviour with normal sexuality, heterosexual or homosexual, is just twisting the truth. You won't find any credible experts to support that kind of thing other than people who are directly linked to / commissioned by the church organisations and who are quite clearly pursuing an agenda.

The Church simply cannot go on trying to cover this up anymore. It is starting to look ridiculous and I think the vast majority of Catholics are getting pretty sick and tired of it.

Normal sexuality is heterosexuality. I reject your false premise that homosexuality is normal and healthy.

See the above comments. The cover up is that this is 'not' a predatory homosexual abuse problem. The agenda is to ignore the real source of the problem - the elephant in the room.

The Causes and Context report concludes that the overwhelming preponderance of young male victims reflects the fact that abusive priests had more access to boys than girls. On the other hand, the John Jay study notes that only about 5% of the priests who abused children could be classified as true pedophiles, since most of the victims were not young children. While true pedophiles typically show no preference for boys or girls, the statistics show that adolescent boys formed the largest group of abuse victims. See here for story and common sense comments.

More than 80% of the cases of abuse were homosexual involving males over the age of 11.

Some common sense comments on this story from CatholicCulture.org:

Excuse me, but regardless of whether the abuser was gay or straight it was homosexual behavior, a disordered behavior that caused the problem. Unfortunately some people like Donohue bring out the inconvenient truth from time to time, and those who want to defend the indefensible (ie. homosexual behavior) can't stand the bright light of Truth!

-

Margaret Smith, the criminologist who worked on the 2004 study, said that while Donohue quoted the study's data correctly, he "drew an unwarranted conclusion" in asserting that most abusers were gay. "The majority of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature. That participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man," Smith said. Um, sorry, but if participation in homosexual acts isn't homosexual, what is it? I have it now -- it's a sin! Shoulda thought of that.

-

In a related study, Ms. Smith has noted that repeated participation in baseball games does not make one a baseball player.

philologos

A simple lesson neglected by too many:


If you don't want to get caught up in it Donatello, then don't? Why is it so difficult to just accept that the RCC has done the wrong and leave it at that rather than making lame excuses?

Zombrex

Google Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons and the first page are Catholic websites he writes for.

So, this thread is Catholic doctor toes Catholic line with relation to Catholic sex abuse scandal.

I had to pick myself up from the floor after collapsing with shock.

Donatello

philologos wrote: »

A simple lesson neglected by too many:


If you don't want to get caught up in it Donatello, then don't? Why is it so difficult to just accept that the RCC has done the wrong and leave it at that rather than making lame excuses?

I'm not prepared to get into daft debate about facts. The information is there. People can come to their own conclusions.
But the information is there, and that is the important thing.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote:

The psychiatrist is tied to the Vatican and he is basically supporting the notion that this latest report is a PC whitewash.

It makes the American Bishops look foolish and Catholics are not fooled by it.

What credence do you suppose anyone but non-Catholics (although I wouldn't limit myself to just non-Catholics) give VaticanMans viewpoint?

I don't think most were sociopaths who joined the priesthood just so they could abuse. More realistically, troubled individuals joined the priesthood to escape from their problems with sorry consequences. That's not to say the odd sociopath here and there did not join so they could abuse.

I suspect people will wonder whether there wasn't something about the culture of the Church that produced such deviant desires. I mean, the very best way to get sin to explode is to seal the vessel that contains it - even the unbelieving dog in the street knows that.

DeVore

So I suppose the priests who knowingly moved paedophiles on to fresh pastures (sometimes many times) or who destroyed documentation or who refused to cooperate with police investigations or who simply turned a blind eye to it... they were what? Homosexual sympathisers? Fag hags?

The entire thing is ridiculous. Its this constant searching for something else to blame which sickens everyone, Christians and others alike.

For Shame!

DeV.

AhSureTisGrand

Could I ask the OP and those on his side to spell out for me what exactly their point is and how it advances their cause?

Keylem

Abuse was not exclusive to the CC as certain media would have us believe, it was just as much widespread in other denominations.


Most of the priests who have been caught out are of a certain age group, 60 or older. What does appear to be clear is that homosexuality was not screened for in the seminaries during the 60s-80s. Some priests left the priesthood to get married. Homosexual priests had, by their choice, opted out of marriage, they in greater proportion, probably remained in the priesthood.

BTW I'm a she, and the point of posting this was to show that Paedophelia was possibly not the main problem with priests.

AhSureTisGrand

Is the main problem with the priests not that they raped children and teenagers?

AhSureTisGrand

And how exactly do you "screen for homosexuality" in celibates?

Keylem

Or perhaps they were homosexuals who happened to be priests who abused the children and teenagers!

AhSureTisGrand

Keylem wrote: »

Or perhaps they were homosexuals who happened to be priests who abused the children and teenagers!

As far as I'm aware, "homosexual" does not equate to "rapist"

alex73

Most Gay men have never look sideways at a child. Child abuse you have in all sectors on society, Parents, Teachers, Coaches, Family Friends. Abuse in the church is in the spotlight because it was known and coverup... Perverts you get in all walks of society.

Reality is many of the men who became priests entered the priesthood in the 50s 60's because there were little opportunities elsewhere for them. Today in society these same men would be bankers, lawyers etc.. and would still abuse given the chance.

philologos

I have no interest in saying that one church is worse than another, I have no interest in saying that church is worse than the abuse that occured in the wider society. What I do have interest in saying is that abuse and rape of any kind or children and teenagers is sick and should be condemned automatically without excuse making. I universally say this. It doesn't matter whether it is the RCC or the Presbolutheran Church of Timbuktu. It simply disgusts me and every perpetrator should be behind bars. Excuses for such depraved behaviour have little to no truck with me from anyone.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Monty Burnz

In case nobody else has made the point, you can see how the priesthood would be an attractive option for homosexual men in an era where living an openly homosexual lifestyle was impossible.

On top of that, put these (often) homosexual men in positions where they have a large exposure to people under their care, and it's hardly astonishing that abuse went on. While straight priests often had it away with 'housekeepers' who bore their children, or other lady admirers in the parish, the gay priest would have had no such avenues.

Then you would have the paedophiles who always try to angle themselves into positions where they can access boys or girls to abuse - I've no doubt that huge numbers of priests came to their 'vocation' in this way.

To try to blame homosexuality in general for an evil caused in the most part by the church's repression of homosexuals in the first place, and the church's failure to treat/kick out/punish paedophiles seems to be...well, exactly what you would expect from a body of people who start with the answer and ignore any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

Donatello

This is important, because if we know what caused the abuse, then we can work to prevent it happening again. Of course, the work shy could sit around waiting for the grace of God to fix it, but I digress. That would be a dereliction of duty.

If most of the abuse was of a predatory homosexual nature (which it was), then we can make sure that unsuitable candidates don't get ordained.

---

WASHINGTON, DC, April 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In the last several weeks such a quantity of ink has been spilled in newspapers across the globe about the priestly sex abuse scandals, that a casual reader might be forgiven for thinking that Catholic priests are the worst and most common perpetrators of child sex abuse.

But according to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a little-remembered 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

After effectively disappearing from the radar, Shakeshaft’s study is now being revisited by commentators seeking to restore a sense of proportion to the mainstream coverage of the Church scandal.

According to the 2004 study “the most accurate data available at this time” indicates that “nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.”

“Educator sexual misconduct is woefully under-studied,” writes the researcher. “We have scant data on incidence and even less on descriptions of predators and targets. There are many questions that call for answers.”

In an article published on Monday, renowned Catholic commentator George Weigel referred to the Shakeshaft study, and observed that “The sexual and physical abuse of children and young people is a global plague” in which Catholic priests constitute only a small minority of perpetrators.

While Weigel observes that the findings of Shakeshaft’s study do nothing to mitigate the harm caused by priestly abuse, or excuse the “clericalism” and “fideism” that led bishops to ignore the problem, they do point to a gross imbalance in the level of scrutiny given to it, throwing suspicion on the motives of the news outlets that are pouring their resources into digging up decades-old dirt on the Church.

“The narrative that has been constructed is often less about the protection of the young (for whom the Catholic Church is, by empirical measure, the safest environment for young people in America today) than it is about taking the Church down," he writes.

[...]

In an editorial last week, The Gazette revisited the testimony of Kraizer in the context of the Church abuse scandal coverage, concluding that “the much larger crisis remains in our public schools today, where children are raped and groped every day in the United States.”

“The media and others must maintain their watchful eye on the Catholic Church and other religious institutions,” wrote The Gazette, “But it’s no less tragic when a child gets abused at school.”

In 2004, shortly after the Shakeshaft study was released, Catholic League President William Donohue, who was unavailable for an interview for this story, asked, “Where is the media in all this?”

“Isn’t it news that the number of public school students who have been abused by a school employee is more than 100 times greater than the number of minors who have been abused by priests?” he asked.

“All those reporters, columnists, talking heads, attorneys general, D.A.‘s, psychologists and victims groups who were so quick on the draw to get priests have a moral obligation to pursue this issue to the max. If they don’t, they’re a fraud.”

more here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/apr/10040101

---

The media HATES the Catholic Church and Her moral teaching, especially on homosexuality. Under the guise of concern for the young, they pound the Church for Her opposition to their nefarious behaviour and ideology. How come the media is not going after the public schools in America, where there is cover-up, brushing under the carpet, and denial, as bad as anything, if not worse, than what happened in the Church.

Donatello

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What part of 80% of victims were adolescent males do you not understand?

This latest John Jay report we are talking about right now, concluded that it was NOT a pedophile problem. THey acknowledged it was a male adolescent problem, but then (and this is the bit that has intelligent Catholics scratching their heads) went on to deny that it had anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality. :rolleyes:

The priests went after the boys because they could. Additionally, a boy would be much more easily manipulated into silence than an adult.

Threads like this convince me that most people don't bother reading anything they just come on and spout their own views. Loads of material has been presented so that all may have the facts and come to a proper conclusion.

Take a look at this, particularly the bits in bold:

A final report on the “causes and context” of the clerical sex-abuse scandal, prepared by John Jay College and released on May 18 by the US bishops’ conference, has met with critical reactions--both from victims of abuse and from readers who question the report’s treatment of controversial issues such as the influence of homosexuality and the responsibility of the American bishops.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist who has treated many troubled priests, said that the statistical evidence in the John Jay report clearly indicated a connection with homosexuality: a connection that the report itself denied. Fitzgibbons said that “analysis of the research demonstrates clearly that the major cause of the crisis was the homosexual abuse of males.” He added that the John Jay College authors, who are experts in criminology rather than psychology, “lack the professional expertise to comment on causes of sexual abuse.”

Historian David O’Brien questioned the study’s conclusion that social upheaval during the 1960s and 1970s was a major factor in the rise of clerical abuse. That explanation, he said, created the impression that the American bishops are blaming society for the problem, rather than admitting their own culpability for the failure to stop priestly abuse.

Spokesmen for victims generally took a similar line, protesting that the report downplayed the role of the hierarchy in shielding abusers.

URL="http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10374"]Source[/URL

The comments below that story show what real Catholics are looking for:

Posted by: impossible - May. 19, 2011 11:23 PM ET USA
How very odd that the Report compared the Priest situation to brutality in Police Departments when the obvious elephant in the abuse room is the public school system. How very disingenuous of the Report and the USCCB to play the PC game of ignoring the established fact that predatory homosexuality was the overwhelming culprit. That is allowing our perverted culture to affect the Church instead of the Church affecting culture. How very sad indeed.

Posted by: lauriem5377 - May. 19, 2011 7:18 PM ET USA
It seems so simple to those of us outside the hierarchy of our church. Priests abused mostly boys. Other priests and bishops hid what was going on. They moved pediphile priests around putting other children at risk. There are no excuses for what they did. It was simply wrong! Confess. Repent. Do what you can to compensate the victims. Prevent it from ever happening again. Create an order that only prays unceasingly day and night for God's mercy and forgiveness for this sin.

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

The media HATES the Catholic Church and Her moral teaching, especially on homosexuality. Under the guise of concern for the young, they pound the Church for Her opposition to their nefarious behaviour and ideology.

How right you are. The media - composed of ordinary men and women - don't really give two hoots if children are being raped. But the Catholic Church cares so much that it will move the rapist from parish to parish, to protect the previous victims, and will try to get them to promise never to reveal that they have been abused. It is clear that ordinary people are indifferent to the rape of children, whereas the Catholic Church made the prevention of these rapes and the punishment of the rapists its number one priority.

georgieporgy

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No attempt is being made to reclassify the pedophile clergy.

However as 80% of the sex abuse victims were male ( and NOT children) we are having a look at the type of perpetrators involved with that group so we can put a stop to it.

Benny_Cake

georgieporgy wrote: »

No attempt is being made to reclassify the pedophile clergy.

However as 80% of the sex abuse victims were male ( and NOT children) we are having a look at the type of perpretrators involved with that group so we can put a stop to it.

I would have thought that priests and brothers had far more access to boys than to girls. Furthermore, the easiest way to put a stop to it would be to report allegations to the civil authorities,something the Vatican and the heirarchy had no interest in doing. And going by the RTE documentary the other night, in places like Africa they are still getting away with turning a blind eye. But I suppose thats also the fault of the gays,the media and the swinging 60s.

Fanny Cradock

I think it's pretty simple. Paedophiles knew that the RC indirectly provided the perfect opportunity to abuse children. In this regard, it really no different to swimming coaches, youth workers, teachers, parents or any adult who is given responsibility over minors.

It has nothing to do with homosexuality. But it has everything to do with men who have a proclivity for sexually abusing children, and the systemic inability within the RCC to deal with these individuals. This, in my opinion, was tantamount to tacitly aiding them.

The sooner people admit this, the sooner everybody can begin to draw a line under the abuse.

Donatello

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think it's pretty simple. Paedophiles knew that the RC indirectly provided the perfect opportunity to abuse children. In this regard, it really no different to swimming coaches, youth workers, teachers, parents or any adult who is given responsibility over minors.

It has nothing to do with homosexuality. But it has everything to do with men who have a proclivity for sexually abusing children, and the systemic inability within the RCC to deal with these individuals. This, in my opinion, was tantamount to tacitly aiding them.

The sooner people admit this, the sooner everybody can begin to draw a line under the abuse.

What part of 80%+ of the abuse was male on male abuse with victims aged 11-14 do you not understand?

The John Jay Report (the one this thread is about, right?) concluded that it was not a pedophile problem. Rather, it was a problem with abuse of adolescent males. The ridiculous conclusion after that statement of fact was that it was not a homosexual abuse problem. Right.

This is a good retort to your claims:

I have been in the military and elsewhere where I had more "access" to males than females: and yet I was not attracted to them. That's because I'm heterosexual. Only a PhD could conclude that there is no link between homosexual acts and homosexuality.

[T]he John Jay study notes that only about 5% of the priests who abused children could be classified as true pedophiles, since most of the victims were not young children. While true pedophiles typically show no preference for boys or girls, the statistics show that adolescent boys formed the largest group of abuse victims.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10364

The critics of the report, far from trying to cover up the problem, are drawing attention to this report's statement of facts and then the ridiculous spin used to avoid stating the obvious.

Moreover, Donohue observes, the John Jay study neglected additional evidence that would strengthen the connection with homosexuality. For example:

St. Luke's Institute is the most premier treatment center in the nation for troubled priests, and according to its co-founder, Rev. Michael Peterson, "We don't see heterosexual pedophiles at all." If this is true, how can it be that the John Jay study failed to pick this up?

here

Historian David O’Brien questioned the study’s conclusion that social upheaval during the 1960s and 1970s was a major factor in the rise of clerical abuse. That explanation, he said, created the impression that the American bishops are blaming society for the problem, rather than admitting their own culpability for the failure to stop priestly abuse.

here.

The wilful ideological obfuscation which you represent is the real avoidance of the truth that would prevent such things happening again.

philologos

Donatello wrote: »

What part of 80%+ of the abuse was male on male abuse with victims aged 11-14 do you not understand?

What part of the RCC let these children (you are officially a child until 18 years old) down don't you want to accept seems the better question?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Donatello

philologos wrote: »

What part of the RCC let these children (you are officially a child until 18 years old) down don't you want to accept seems the better question?

Where the frig did I say that? Where the frig did I deny that the bishops let the youngsters down?
:mad::mad::mad:

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

The wilful ideological obfuscation which you represent is the real avoidance of the truth that would prevent such things happening again.

I don't mean to sound critical, but it almost seems like you have an ideological reason to excuse one bunch of people and blame a different bunch.

Quo Vadis

The Bishops ALL failed in their duty to deal with child abusing clergy properly.

Then they tried to cover up their failures, and the abuse, in a vainglorious attempt to protect their own reputations.

Now, ironically, the pro homosexual-anti Catholic lobby, and the Bishops, seem to be desperately trying to cover up the fact, with as much spin as possible, that it was also a homosexual abuse scandal

This is some mess.

People will be arguing about it for centuries to come.

Donatello

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So, let's get this straight then: 78% was sex abuse of adolescent males.

''Based on this, I would say...'' Gimme a break. I've quoted several experts who conflict with your opinion. As well as the common sense facts of the matter. The facts disagree with you.

St. Luke's Institute is the most premier treatment center in the nation for troubled priests, and according to its co-founder, Rev. Michael Peterson, "We don't see heterosexual pedophiles at all." If this is true, how can it be that the John Jay study failed to pick this up?

Again.

I think the only semantic gymnastics going on here is the attempt to deny that male on male sex abuse of adolescent boys is homosexual predation. :rolleyes:

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist who has treated many troubled priests, said that the statistical evidence in the John Jay report clearly indicated a connection with homosexuality: a connection that the report itself denied. Fitzgibbons said that “analysis of the research demonstrates clearly that the major cause of the crisis was the homosexual abuse of males.” He added that the John Jay College authors, who are experts in criminology rather than psychology, “lack the professional expertise to comment on causes of sexual abuse.”
Here.

Let's move this discussion on a bit: we have the facts, those are established. Let's now look at why there is a desire to deny reality.

alex73

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think it's pretty simple. Paedophiles knew that the RC indirectly provided the perfect opportunity to abuse children. In this regard, it really no different to swimming coaches, youth workers, teachers, parents or any adult who is given responsibility over minors.

It has nothing to do with homosexuality. But it has everything to do with men who have a proclivity for sexually abusing children, and the systemic inability within the RCC to deal with these individuals. This, in my opinion, was tantamount to tacitly aiding them.

The sooner people admit this, the sooner everybody can begin to draw a line under the abuse.

I think the RC church knew years ago it needed to deal with the issue and has done so. Problem is there is so much dirt under the carpet that it will take years to clean out. Certainly today in 2011 any accusation in the church is taken with a totally different attitude, i think the church should go further and world wide report accusations to authorities. There has to be clear strong consequences to these crimes.

Donatello

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't mean to sound critical, but it almost seems like you have an ideological reason to excuse one bunch of people and blame a different bunch.

I get frustrated at ideological anti-Catholics, whether it comes from the homosexualist lobby, or the anti-Catholic Protestant fundamentalist side who seek on the one hand to bash the Church for the way abuse was handled (fair enough) but then who deny it when the Church comes out (excuse the pun) and says what the problem really was: homosexual predation. One of the foremost world experts, Dr. Fitzgibbons, and two high-ranking prelates in the Vatican, have all said it is predominantly a homosexual abuse problem. Either it was or it wasn't. The evidence strongly supports the claim that it was, as has been proven.

My desire is for truth to be brought out. I can't stand those who try to conceal the ultimate truth. What we are now seeing is the truth emerge but certain ideological factions are trying to deny the reality in order to protect and forward their own agenda.

There's a lot of people on this thread, for whatever reason, doing their best to try to obfuscate and this can only be to the detriment of future young people. The truth must come out so that we can then work to prevent such things happening again. The spin and denial on this thread is exactly the sort of thing (dishonesty and obstinate denial) we don't need.

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

I get frustrated at ideological anti-Catholics,

Do you get equally frustrated with pro-Catholics?

philologos

My opposition to trying to obscure the full responsibility of the RCC in this doesn't arise out of anti-Roman Catholicism. I don't encourage those members of the RCC to leave their church and never have. I'm opposed to any institution that has let such grievous abuse happen. I support and anticipate the full reform that is taking place in the RCC in respect to children. Every excuse such as the one made in the article provided in the OP slows this down. There are Roman Catholics that have inspired me to take up faith in Christ. I have a special respect for those in the RCC who are willing to accept in full the crimes perpetrated by those ordained and the abuses of power that took place in the heirarchy.

dlofnep

Donatello wrote: »

I get frustrated at ideological anti-Catholics

And the rest of the world get's frustrated with Catholics trying to offset the blame from paedophile Priests, onto the the gay community. If the priests have targeted males, it's because the majority of people priests would have influence over were males.

Donatello wrote: »

, whether it comes from the homosexualist lobby

What on earth is the 'homosexualist lobby'?

Donatello wrote: »

but then who deny it when the Church comes out (excuse the pun) and says what the problem really was: homosexual predation.

It has nothing to do with their sexual preference. It has to do with their desire to prey on young, vulnerable children.

Donatello wrote: »

One of the foremost world experts, Dr. Fitzgibbons, and two high-ranking prelates in the Vatican, have all said it is predominantly a homosexual abuse problem. Either it was or it wasn't.

I'll give you a hint:

It wasn't.

Donatello wrote: »

The evidence strongly supports the claim that it was, as has been proven.

No it doesn't.

Donatello wrote: »

I can't stand those who try to conceal the ultimate truth.

That the Catholic church facilitated rape of children? I'm all about letting that truth out in the public.

AhSureTisGrand

Seems to me that if the priests had all used condoms the RCC would claim artificial contraception was the real problem