Eye popping statistics on priest molestation cases

Remove all ads!

LNT, in my experience, and I work in psychiatric care and have run across quite a few pedophiles, the divide between the gender of the victim is fairly equal. It is the "childness" of the victim which attracts the pedophile and they tend to go for whoever they can get their hands on. In the case of priest it is choir boys and the like. Also a vast majority of abusers have themselves been abused so I think the problem the church are having is something they have inherited from past generations, not something a recent church political decision is to blame for. Choirboy gets molested, choirboy grows up and goes to seminar, choir boy is ordained as a priest, the choirboy turned priest in turn molest new choirboys.

I am sure you can find statistics to prove otherwise though but I am quite convinced that the numbers which shows females being a large majority of the victims is young teenage girls getting abused. Their abusers arent really pedophiles in the same way someone is who abuses a 9 year old. That abuser is mentally speaking more a "normal" rapist.

 

The Boston Globe did an excellent series on this issue. From what I read there were two main reasons so many more boys were reporting abuse than girls: oppurtunity and the fact female victims tend to be treated as perpertrators, thus discouraging them from ever coming forward. I once knew a girl who was told by her lawyer that it was a good thing she had a clean reputation because otherwise the jury would never convict a certain child molestor. She was TEN when it happened. There ARE more female victims out there - you're just not hearing about them. Now about my first point - priests had easy access to boys, and could take them out without raising suspicion. Priests were often regarded as substitute father figures, and as such, the offenders often preyed upon families where the father was notably absent.

 

First of all, I don't buy the hypothesis that "openness" of allowing open homosexuals into the priesthood somehow allowed for pedophiles to get in there. That is like saying "The openness that lead to blacks being given freedom lead to us setting free murderers and rapists". Tere is no correlation. Pedophiles in the priesthood likely predated open homosexuals by a large margin. You cannot readily identify a potential pedophile but an open homosexual is another matter...they are OPEN after all.

Secondly, this is NOT a new issue. For at least twenty years now the Catholic church has had an ALARMING problem with child molestation by priests. SO much so they had to set up a center for treating priests who had commited such offenses(like 15 years ago or more IIRC). Even back in the 80s they were covering this stuff up and moving the offending priests around to different churches when a "situation" arose.

For a long time the issue did not get mainstream attention because it was deemed that attacking the church in the press and whatnot would not be good for business. Nowadays, in the "information age" it is simply to hard to ignore and attempts to do so would only swell the issue.

 

I'm about to go , but I when I looked at the thread title on the forum page, the 'y' had disappeared in the underscore. So what I read was: "Eve popping statistics on priest molestation cases."

So it goes back as far as Adam, then?

 

Well, I think it's about having opportunities. That is not meant as an excuse. Insofar priests are similar to teachers, youth workers or maybe orphanage and youth penitentiary wardens. They have to do with children a lot.

Other child molesters have less chances and so may restrict it to the children in their families and among relatives. That are the cases you usually don't hear about.

The priest cases IMO get such a massive public echo because it is about 'angels falling', always a good crowdpuller. One should be careful reading statistics like that.

And as usual, there is the problem of people getting [snip] up by incompetent therapists, or worse (because more activist), self-aid groops - of course, with the best intentions. So, when asked for deeper roots for their actual problems in their childhood, people sometimes got talked into remembering an imagined molestation, reacting with real grief and real anger - very credible. That risk is even greater with children who are way more 'moldable'.

For a judge or jury, how will you see if the plaintiffs are right or wrong,? After some 15 years evidence is very unlikely to find so you will have to rely on testimonies exclusively. It is very, very difficult to deal with such cases fairly, for both sides.

[Profanity with a single asterisk deleted ] - Beren

[ February 20, 2004, 20:58: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

You are correct about the imagined cases more or less brought about by over-zealous therapist but I do not think they put a dent in the statistics. With this sort of crimes, and with all crimes related to sexuality there is a huge hidden number. For every priest who get caught there are ten who gets away, it is very very hard to tell anyone about experience with abuse and often you have a trust, perhaps even a love relation to the person who has abused you. Not to mention that in for instance the catholic community the priest holds a position of power and respect. It takes a lot for a child to accuse him of something the child doesnt even really know what it is and it takes almost as much for the parents to imagine that their kind gentle priest could do something like that.

So those over-zealous therapist actually have a part to play in uncovering things like that, even if they at times start out with the notion that the child has been molested and more or less plants the idea in the childs head, most often unconsciously.

 

RuneQuester... didn't the opening sentence of the survey(and the thread) say it covers the past 52 years?

 

*fanfares*
*trumpet*
*angelic sopranos*

Quantus tremor est futurus
Quando chevvy est venturus
Cuncta stricte discussurus...

The first presumption I make is that sects don't count. Then, I'm quite sure Roman Catholicism isn't really all that much ahead of other religions when it comes to bad priests. Honestly, how is lack of celibacy going to improve the conduct of a paedophile priest? Removal of celibacy from priestly strictures could only lower the percentage of priests having consentual sexual relations with adult women. Not even abusing, as abuse requires a bit more than just fire in your loins.

Hmm... I wonder... How big is the percentage of married priests of other religions cheating on their spouses? Perhaps that's the figure to which we could compare RC abuse statistics.

The outrageous activity that's supposedly bottled up inside isn't really inside anymore. I am not sure about the way other religions handle such cases.

The same is true for Protestant ministers who are married and willing to be priests of Roman Catholic Church after conversion. To the best of my knowledge, some Catholic priests in Africa have been allowed to marry. Also, when a priest is dismissed from the priesthood, he sometimes receives permission to marry. That is despite the fact that priestly character is not lost, as a valid ordination remains in power irrespectively of any circumstances. Even if your priest, for example, embraces Islam and gets himself a dozen of wives. I am not aware of any Roman Rite and Western culture Roman Catholic active priest allowed to marry. It is possible, though, for him to be married before ordination and still be ordained on conditions similar to separation, which basically means no living together and no sex.

Historical note: Celibacy was not always mandatory. The last married Pope was Hadrian II in 9th century. Clergy celibacy was introduced as law in 1024, which is 30 years before the schizm between the Roman and the Orthodox churches, and yet it doesn't seem the East heeded this regulation at any point. In Roman Catholic Church there had been married priests still after 1024 AD, in some regions even until 16th century as is proved by Trent regulations specifically aimed at married and performing priests. PM me for more details, if you're into SM

A final note is that in the light of Roman Catholic Church doctrine and law, priestly celibacy is not as much extraordinary and exceptional as it seems to be for people not well versed in it. Basically, there's a great focus on chastity of all members, which means that any and all sexual relation of a couple not remaining in marriage is a violation of this chastity (doesn't mean it's the biggest sin one could think of, it's just the publicity). A priest vows celibacy (not getting a wife), which de facto makes him already obligated to remain chaste even without additional vows. Just like everyone Catholic who has no spouse Well, but of course their obligation is stronger and consequences of violation truly dire...

 

Yep.