Clergy sex abuse on the rise again, and church leaders are ignoring why, sociologist says

  • Thread starter Thread starter 13pollitos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

13pollitos

Guest
I didn’t see this mentioned. If it has been I apologize.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...aders-are-ignoring-why-sociologist-says-47293

“Clergy sex abuse incidence is today about one third as common as in the late 1980s. While sex abuse by clergy is “much lower” than 30 years ago, it has not declined “as much as is commonly thought.” Most of the decline since the 1990s is consistent with “a similar general decline in child sex abuse in America since that time,” Sullins’ report said.

The decline is not necessarily related to measures taken by the U.S. bishops. Sullins told the press conference he saw no link between a decline in abuse and the implementation of the U.S. bishops’ 2002 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young Adults.

“Recent experience calls into question whether the current understanding of the nature of the abuse and how to reduce it is accurate or sufficient,” said Sullins in his report.“
 
where are the stats that the abuse is still happening, and whats happened to the clergy and laity engaging in abuse, any trials yet?
 
There is another thread with the same source information. I don’t know how to merge them. This one is written much better however and the information much easier to understand.
40.png
Is Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Related to Homosexual Priests? Catholic News
Here is the 2002 LA Times article that the new study used to identify the number of priests self-identifying themselves as gay: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/20/local/me-gaypriest20 The Times poll of priests asked respondents to characterize their sexual orientation. A combined 15% (9%) identified themselves as homosexual (6%) “somewhere in between, but more on the homosexual side” . But among younger priests – those ordained for 20 years or less – the figure was 23%. [So that coho…
Click to expand...
Like I posted in the other thread, I agree with Fr Sullins that we should not target homosexual priests, but we should not be supporting an environment where we are disproportionately selecting them or providing a welcome environment for homosexual lifestyle.

“Drawing on his findings, Sullins predicted that if the proportion of homosexual priests remained at the 1950s level “at least 12,000 fewer children, mostly boys, would have suffered abuse,” he said. As a percentage, this means abuse would have been about 85 percent lower.”

This is a no-brainer! These ruined young lives are worth protecting!
 
Last edited:
I’m pretty sure the Freemasons have been trying to use their subliminal and surveillance to undermine the catholic church…
 
The author mentions rates of homosexuality among priests in the 50’s. How does he know that.
 
Feanor2 said:
The author mentions rates of homosexuality among priests in the 50’s. How does he know that.
Click to expand...
You could read the article.
Sullins’ sources included a 2002 survey of 1,854 priests by the Los Angeles Times that included questions about respondents’ sexual orientation, age, year of ordination, and whether they thought there was a homosexual subculture in their seminary. He measured abuse using data provided by the authors of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice reports, which themselves used reports of abuse provided by Catholic dioceses.
Click to expand...
 
No he refers to rate of homosexuality being lower in the 50s. How does he know that?
 
Feanor2 said:
No he refers to rate of homosexuality being lower in the 50s. How does he know that?
Click to expand...
Because they asked them? Is that so hard to understand? If they are 80 yrs old in 2002, they were ordained in the 50’s likely. Why don’t you post some evidence to the contrary if you don’t believe it? This seems like a very balanced article, highly researched by someone with great credentials.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/20/local/me-gaypriest20


In fact, digging into the data, only 67% identified themselves as heterosexual. That a whole lot of 33% that think of themselves as something else.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top