Sexual Abuse in other faiths?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HabemusFrancis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi all. We are all sadly familiar with the many news reports on Clerical sexual misconduct. For me it has been a very disheartening, shaking experience, sifting through the various articles, and grand jury reports of various cities/ dioceses. I am fortunate to live in the Twin Cities/ Minnesota archdiocese, where thankfully, there has not been a flood of lawsuits and bankruptcy.

But I wonder about other faiths? Is it really just as bad in other religions? Is it better? Is it worse? I have heard that the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Southern Baptists have severe problems in this regard, though this is just heresay.

Does anyone know?
There are two parts to the answer, I think.

The first part is that the Church did not handle the abuses as well as it should. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, there were things that should have been done that weren’t done.

The second part is that the Catholic church has a celibate priesthood. This in and of itself is suspicious, especially in this day and age. Celibacy or sexual continence, especially in men, is considered suspect at best and deviant at worst.
 
Sure, let’s be “honest” (which your response was clearly not), and look at facts that are readily available online.
My response wasn’t honest? Let’s back the truck up a little here.

Someone has stated that homosexuals had infiltrated seminaries with the precise aim of bringing down the church. A book was mentioned that confirmed it. The book said nothing of the sort. Then it was conceded that the book didn’t actually mention homosexuals but communists and the KGB.

That has also been shown to be a complete fabrication.

Now we are reduced to you pointing out that there are indeed homosexuals in the church. Gosh…

Here’s an idea. Not sure if it will fly, but let’s give it a go. How about people who post something as being a fact actually check out the details first rather than repeat what someone said that someone else told them that they might have read somewhere at some time.

And if they don’t, and what they say is shown to be incorrect, then they post a brief line or two admitting their mistake.

Then we can draw a line under what has been said previously and anyone who joins the discussion can ignore it.

Now, do you have anything that would back up this idea that there has been an organised infiltration of the Church with the express aim of bringing it down?
 
@Happy Catholic

But again, isnt the Catholic attention on the abuse a good thing? Would the Dallas charter in 2002 have happened without it? What would be the state of the Church in Philadelphia without the media? Even with intense media coverage in 2005, and archdiocesan promises to weed out all priestly offenders, there were still 25 serving in 2011!

And also, as bad as he is, isn’t it sort of cheap to blame satan for something someone else did? f he had any part in it at all, might not his motivation be simply to damage children so they become depressed, dysfunctional, and totally turned off to the Church? I also feel that the whole “good of the Church” mindset helped justify the payoffs, the threats, the deceits toward the victims and their families, and hiring of high priced defense attorneys among other shady practices.

I was recently reading the Philadelphia Grand Jury Report. I found it funny how so often, the bishops and other priests could be very cold and unconcerned toward abuse victims, but very protective and nurturing of offending priests. Somewhere a fellow priest told an abuser, that his accuser " was probably looking for money" and " his kind just doesnt give up." He also told the accuser that the priest never molested him ( though the offender admitted to him he did… such low character…)

Idk just my thoughts
 
The child abuse rate is 5% across all groups.
This sort of figure (or even higher) seems to be assumed by those defending the rate of incidence of child abuse in the Catholic Church as ‘normal’ or even below normal, but I’ve never seen a reference - apart from off-hand estimates by ‘experts’. I’d love to see some justification for this.

The Australian public database lists around 1200 paedophiles out of a male population of about 8.5 million, which gives a much lower incidence rate in the general population.
 
Could you tell me where you get this info from? Because I missed the bit about infiltration by the KGB. Likewise the objectives to assault children. Or the bit to destroy the Catholic Church. In fact, the book mentions none of those things at all. It’s a personal account of communism in America in the 60’s.

So maybe it wasn’t homosexuals infiltrating the priesthood. Maybe it wasn’t the Communists either. Maybe it wasn’t the KGB. In fact, let’s be honest, there wasn’t anyone at all…
marymary1975 is quite correct. Bella Dodd was a high-ranking member of the American Communist Party. She testified before the U.S. Senate in 1953 in regard to methods of communist infiltration among numerous organizations.

academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/bc/senate_1952/dodd_2.html

This particular testimony referred more to the communist takeover of Catholic unionists, human right workers, and other groups which had large numbers of Catholic members. The testimony did not refer to the Catholic *Church *specifically, as it was concerned with governmental (and not private) programs, however Bella Dodd did elaborate upon this in her books.

The purpose of communist infiltration was to rot the Church - the staunchest foe of communism - from within.
 
I think people are unnecessarily assuming malice in something tragic.
 
It is very unfortunate but it happens everywhere. In every religion and at any place. Books have their evidences of homosexuality and abuse from early 60s. Its just sad and unfortunate.
 
This sort of figure (or even higher) seems to be assumed by those defending the rate of incidence of child abuse in the Catholic Church as ‘normal’ or even below normal, but I’ve never seen a reference - apart from off-hand estimates by ‘experts’. I’d love to see some justification for this.

The Australian public database lists around 1200 paedophiles out of a male population of about 8.5 million, which gives a much lower incidence rate in the general population.
Off-hand estimates by ‘experts’? It’s hard for you to hide your anti-Catholic bias, is it not.

Something from the Daily Beast and Newsweek, which are not exactly friendly to the Catholic Church.

[Mean Men

The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.](http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html)

The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there’s something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It’s no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently’’ abused children.

Yet experts say there’s simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. “We don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else,” said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. “I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others.”

Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations. Insurance companies that cover all denominations, such as Guide One Center for Risk Management, which has more than 40,000 church clients, does not charge Catholic churches higher premiums. “We don’t see vast difference in the incidence rate between one denomination and another,” says Sarah Buckley, assistant vice president of corporate communications. “It’s pretty even across the denominations.” It’s been that way for decades. While the company saw an uptick in these claims by all types of churches around the time of the 2002 U.S. Catholic sex-abuse scandal, Eric Spacick, Guide One’s senior church-risk manager, says “it’s been pretty steady since.” On average, the company says 80 percent of the sexual misconduct claims they get from all denominations involve sexual abuse of children. As a result, the more children’s programs a church has, the more expensive its insurance, officials at Guide One said.

The only hard data that has been made public by any denomination comes from John Jay College’s study of Catholic priests, which was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops following the public outcry over the 2002 scandals. Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children. Specifically, 4,392 complaints (ranging from “sexual talk” to rape) were made against priests by 10,667 victims. (Reports made after 2002, including those of incidents that occurred years earlier, are released as part of the church’s annual audits.)

Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it’s closer to one in 5. But in either case, the rate of abuse by Catholic priests is not higher than these national estimates. The public also doesn’t realize how “profoundly prevalent” child sexual abuse is, adds Smith. Even those numbers may be low; research suggests that only a third of abuse cases are ever reported (making it the most underreported crime). “However you slice it, it’s a very common experience,” Smith says.

Most child abusers have one thing in common, and it’s not piety—it’s preexisting relationships with their victims. That includes priests and ministers and rabbis, of course, but also family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, youth-group volunteers, and doctors. According to federal studies, three quarters of abuse occurs at the hands of family members or others in the victim’s “circle of trust.” “The fundamental premise here is that those who abuse children overwhelmingly seek out situations where they have easy and legitimate access to children,” he said. “These kinds of positions offer a kind of cover for these offenders.”

[Con’t]
 
[Con’t]

Priests may also appear more likely to molest children because cases of abuse come to light in huge waves. One reason is delayed reporting: less than 13 percent of victims abused between 1960 and 1980, for example, lodged a complaint in the same year as the assault. Two thirds filed their complaints after 1992, and half of those were made between 2002 and 2003 alone. “Offenders tend to be manipulative, often persuading children to believe that this is their fault,” said Allen. “As a result, the children tend to keep it to themselves. There are countless victims who thought they were the only one.” So what looks like high concentrations of abuse may simply reflect long and diffuse patterns of abuse that mirror those among all males.

Another reason is that the church has historically been bad at punishing (or preventing) molesters, so that many cases might come to light when just one priest is finally exposed. A single predator priest with ongoing access to children might be responsible for an immense raft of abuse cases. (Marie Fortune of the Faith Trust Institute, which focuses on clerical-abuse issues, says Roman Catholics tend “to have many more schools and other programs that involve children.” “Plenty of other congregations have these problems, for instance, if they have a youth ministry.”) That helps explain the 200 children who were abused at a school for the deaf. It didn’t happen because the school was full of rapists; it happened because one man was never stopped. Overall, the John Jay study found that 149 priests were responsible for more than 25,000 cases of abuse over the 52-year period studied.

Allen suggests a final reason we hear so much more about Catholic abuse than transgressions in other religions: its sheer size. It’s the second largest single denomination in the world (behind Islam) and the biggest in the United States. (Fifty-one percent of all American adults are Protestant, but they belong to hundreds of different denominations.) “When you consider the per capita data,” says Allen, "I don’t think they have a larger incidence than other faiths."
 
The two part post above is not to defend actual Catholic clergy abuse.

The statistic of one applies, as the current best practices program of the Catholic Church rolled out in 2002 in U.S. parishes and put in place: one case of child sex abuse is too many.

The program is now bearing fruit with reports of abuse drastically down.

ISoG
 
Off-hand estimates by ‘experts’? It’s hard for you to hide your anti-Catholic bias, is it not.
It can’t be healthy to see “anti-Catholic bias” everywhere. Nothing in my post was anti-catholic, unless you see asking for references as a threat to catholicism.

Yes, I do suspect that the rate of sexual child abuse is a lot lower in the general population than sometimes claimed by catholic apologists, but that is not an attack on catholicism per se.

I can give you an example of what I mean by off-hand estimates by experts, from the very article you quoted:
Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it’s closer to one in 5.
Now that is a hair-raising claim - that one in five men** have sexually abused a child**! Yet the only justification we have for this claim is that this expert makes it.

Contrast the Australian figure of around 1200 paedophiles out of a male population of about 8.5 million, roughly 1 in 7000. That seems nearer what I would have guessed, even a little low. But even there I don’t have direct access to the database where that figure of 1200 comes from, just a journalist’s reference that that is what the Australian database says.

I don’t know if there is an equivalent estimate for the USA, but would like to know if anyone can point me at one. Or any other solid source that gives a sensible basis for estimating what the incidence of sexual child abuse perpetrators actually is in the general populace.
 
I think to a large degree the media has singled out the Catholic Church and has hurt her greatly! I believe that in many instances, the media drooled all over themselves in there haste to purposely harm the Catholic Church. I found the following very, very interesting;
themediareport.com/fast-facts/

Peace, Mark
Largely I believe the reason is that Catholic diocesan structure means that we are better at record-keeping than the Protestants. It’s like how state troopers pick out among the speeders the easiest to pull over.
 
@Happy Catholic

But again, isnt the Catholic attention on the abuse a good thing? Would the Dallas charter in 2002 have happened without it? What would be the state of the Church in Philadelphia without the media? Even with intense media coverage in 2005, and archdiocesan promises to weed out all priestly offenders, there were still 25 serving in 2011!

And also, as bad as he is, isn’t it sort of cheap to blame satan for something someone else did? f he had any part in it at all, might not his motivation be simply to damage children so they become depressed, dysfunctional, and totally turned off to the Church? I also feel that the whole “good of the Church” mindset helped justify the payoffs, the threats, the deceits toward the victims and their families, and hiring of high priced defense attorneys among other shady practices.

I was recently reading the Philadelphia Grand Jury Report. I found it funny how so often, the bishops and other priests could be very cold and unconcerned toward abuse victims, but very protective and nurturing of offending priests. Somewhere a fellow priest told an abuser, that his accuser " was probably looking for money" and " his kind just doesnt give up." He also told the accuser that the priest never molested him ( though the offender admitted to him he did… such low character…)

Idk just my thoughts
I grew up in the Philadelphia Archdiocese and knew a couple of the priests who were those last 25 still serving as priests in 2011. I also attended a school where one of the priests I knew was convicted. So, all of this hits very close to home for me. When the news first came out in 2002/2003 (can’t quite remember the year now, but I know it was around that time) I didn’t want to believe it. How can the Church that I loved and trusted allow such atrocities? But more and more stories came out through the years, the grand jury reports, then finding out that friends/relatives of mine were abused and there was no place for disbelief anymore. It disgusted me, turned me off from the Church for a while. I forced myself to attend mass, but all I saw were hypocrites and it took a long time for me to get that out of my head. What kept me going was my faith and also knowing good priests who were also disgusted and actually spoke out about it at mass. I didn’t read the first Grand Jury report for the priests from the earlier part of the mid-century, but I did read the most recent one which made my stomach turn. The cover-up and the attitude of these men, in some ways, seemed just as awful.

Anyway… as much as all of this pained and hurt me, I do think in the end the “outing” of this scandal was a good thing. These men who preyed upon boys and girls can no longer find easy access to them. The dioceses in the country have taken measures to stop and avoid any kind of abuse and cover-up. I hate to say this, but I do think the Philadelphia Archdiocese needed the media coverage to purge itself of the past and implement new policies in handling and preventing abuse in the future. She has had to do A LOT to rebuild her image. I think bringing Archbishop Chaput was a great way to clean house and start anew. I look to the future as being bright, rather than the “outing” being a negative.

In regards to the original question, yes, sexual abuse does happen in the other faiths. Whether or not the media hates Catholicism the most, thus bringing more attention to her, isn’t so much of an issue for me. Part of the reason, I think, Catholicism does get a lot of attention is because the other Protestant denominations don’t really have a “mothership” per say. They answer to their regional leaders or even just to the leadership of their congregation. Whereas Catholics ultimately answers to the Pope. Despite how it may seem, too, the Catholic faith also has much more influence in the world than many of the other Protestant denominations. I mean, look at how much coverage the Church received when it was choosing the new Pope, and how the normal news was stopped once Pope Francis was chosen. I have never seen that happened with any other denomination. The other thing is that when we are supposed to be a beacon of Christian living and such and it’s discovered how much it miserably failed, the press and society will jump all over it.
 
You wonder why it is, that no matter what country they are in or time it is, the reaction by the Clergy to sexual abuse by its members has been remarkably the same. And the outrage by the laity at the existence of the above is rarely replicated or expereinced in the same way by the bishops/ clergy.

I wonder what it could be? Forgive me, I am just speculating. Could it be that since the hiearchy holds masturbation, homosexuality, fornication, and birth control as all equally terrible, they are less able to identify truly terrible sexual acts and recognize them as such?

I know that celibacy didnt cause the abuse, but I wonder if it caused the coverup. Perhaps, since all ostensibly eschewed sexual relationships, ( and had no children of their own) a sort of us vs. the world groupthink developed among certain preists ( and may well be the culture of many priests in philly, where my aunt and uncles family live :()

Not too mention, the sacredness of the priestly celibate state. It is of course good, but perhaps there was an idolatry of that state, which led to thinking they were celestial ubermenchen who were called to go to any lengths to defend/ cover for each other no matter the crime. Perhaps “My fellow Priest, right or wrong, my fellow Priest” clubbiness and philosophy developed.

Ah well, this is just idle musing. Only the good lord knows for sure…😦
 
You wonder why it is, that no matter what country they are in or time it is, the reaction by the Clergy to sexual abuse by its members has been remarkably the same. And the outrage by the laity at the existence of the above is rarely replicated or expereinced in the same way by the bishops/ clergy.

I wonder what it could be? Forgive me, I am just speculating. Could it be that since the hiearchy holds masturbation, homosexuality, fornication, and birth control as all equally terrible, they are less able to identify truly terrible sexual acts and recognize them as such?

I know that celibacy didnt cause the abuse, but I wonder if it caused the coverup. Perhaps, since all ostensibly eschewed sexual relationships, ( and had no children of their own) a sort of us vs. the world groupthink developed among certain preists ( and may well be the culture of many priests in philly, where my aunt and uncles family live :()

Not too mention, the sacredness of the priestly celibate state. It is of course good, but perhaps there was an idolatry of that state, which led to thinking they were celestial ubermenchen who were called to go to any lengths to defend/ cover for each other no matter the crime. Perhaps “My fellow Priest, right or wrong, my fellow Priest” clubbiness and philosophy developed.

Ah well, this is just idle musing. Only the good lord knows for sure…😦
I personally don’t think celibacy had anything to do with it because the priesthood, at least in the Latin Rite, has adhered to the practice of celibacy for centuries. It doesn’t appear that the Church had this kind of problem, at least as wide-spread as it was in recent history, in the more distant past. There might have been other scandals, but this wasn’t one of them. I think part of the problem was society in general. Even today, so many people don’t want to talk about sexual scandal, especially when it occurs to children. It’s hushed up. It’s the unthinkable and a lot of denial (I believe, occurs). Although the abusing priests and those who covered it up are the most to blame and the most culpable for such a perverted and sick atrocity, society is also to blame. For those I know who were abused in the 50s, 60s and 70s, parents would not believe that things like that would happen to their children, even when the children went directly to them. Some would even reprimand their child for saying such a thing about “dear Fr. Such-and-Such”. Many closed their eyes and ears. For those priests and religious who did speak up when they saw something, they probably believed that it was handled well.

Then you have the law enforcement. In Philadelphia, many of the police, firefighters and such were/are Catholic. If you remember very recently, when Philly had a string of police murders, almost every single one of them were Catholic. I am only guessing here, but it is something my family and friends and I have discussed, it was probably sometimes very hard to arrest your parish priest because of an alleged claim of abuse before it was proven. If there was any kind of reporting to the police, how often was it actually handled, especially in the 50s, 60s and 70s? In the 80s and 90s (when I was growing up), things were different, but it was still very taboo to even talk about child sexual abuse.

I think when you have a society who won’t talk about it, especially with their children, you are leaving them open to predators because they are not aware of what is appropriate and inappropriate. When you are taught that certain people should be revered… ie. good, ole Uncle Joe, Coach Simpson, fun-loving Fr. Maher, etc. a child will be conflicted as to what is right. You are told to obey Uncle Joe while he’s babysitting you. Uncle Joe tells you to sit on his lap and do things to him, you don’t want to, but you’re only 5 and you’re told to respect, obey and listen to your elders… what’s going to happen? Fr. Maher is a revered priest, he is persona in christi, you, as an 8-year-old really looks up to him and believes everything that you are taught about the Church, you are even considering wanting to become a priest one day (what little Catholic school girl or boy hasn’t dreamed about becoming a religious or priest?)… Then after all of this happens you feel guilty and ashamed, you are sometimes threatened not to tell anyone or they’ll hurt your or your family. If you do tell your family, there is a fear of not being believed, etc. Those men took advantage of their positions, betraying trust, seriously hurting you emotionally, mentally and physically. So many of these instances can be avoided if only parents and caregivers talk to their children, which I do believe many are doing and I am currently doing with my own children. The Church is finally talking to Her children as well. She has begun to take measures to help avoid such a sinful scandal again.
 
If I am correct, isnt it true that before 1983-84 or so, Sexual abuse wasnt reported to the police, and rarely made news headlines? My father and mother tell me that they never heard about pedophilia growing up ( 60s-70s) from the news. Instead they heard hearsay, rumors about different teachers/ priests.

A lay teacher at my mothers school was fired in 1976 for a sexual relationship with student. No police, just fired. There were jokes told at my fathers Jesuit high school about the priests liking the male students. Maybe there was nothing too it. Maybe some of the priests were just gay, instead of pedophiles. Who knows?🤷

But then there is Philadelphia. In the year 2011, after all everyone knows about pedophilia, after all the millions it has cost the Church, the credibility the Church has lost, the Cardinal still thought it wise and just to keep pedophiles serving after he promised he would not. He had backbone and principle if nothing else…

Not to mention Monsignor William Lynn’s tenure from 92-2004. Even in the 90s, pedophilia was an open discussed topic, that people knew to be really, really, really bad. Yet he helped shuffle priests around and around, even after the psycholigists told him it was dangerous for them to be around kids. I think at some level, some hierarchs simply didnt care as long as it was kept quiet!😦
 
It can’t be healthy to see “anti-Catholic bias” everywhere. Nothing in my post was anti-catholic, unless you see asking for references as a threat to catholicism.

Yes, I do suspect that the rate of sexual child abuse is a lot lower in the general population than sometimes claimed by catholic apologists, but that is not an attack on catholicism per se.

I can give you an example of what I mean by off-hand estimates by experts, from the very article you quoted:

Now that is a hair-raising claim - that one in five men** have sexually abused a child**! Yet the only justification we have for this claim is that this expert makes it.

Contrast the Australian figure of around 1200 paedophiles out of a male population of about 8.5 million, roughly 1 in 7000. That seems nearer what I would have guessed, even a little low. But even there I don’t have direct access to the database where that figure of 1200 comes from, just a journalist’s reference that that is what the Australian database says.

I don’t know if there is an equivalent estimate for the USA, but would like to know if anyone can point me at one. Or any other solid source that gives a sensible basis for estimating what the incidence of sexual child abuse perpetrators actually is in the general populace.
Pedophilia is a very narrow thing, it is regarding prepubescent children.
If I am correct, isnt it true that before 1983-84 or so, Sexual abuse wasnt reported to the police, and rarely made news headlines? My father and mother tell me that they never heard about pedophilia growing up ( 60s-70s) from the news. Instead they heard hearsay, rumors about different teachers/ priests.

A lay teacher at my mothers school was fired in 1976 for a sexual relationship with student. No police, just fired. There were jokes told at my fathers Jesuit high school about the priests liking the male students. Maybe there was nothing too it. Maybe some of the priests were just gay, instead of pedophiles. Who knows?🤷

But then there is Philadelphia. In the year 2011, after all everyone knows about pedophilia, after all the millions it has cost the Church, the credibility the Church has lost, the Cardinal still thought it wise and just to keep pedophiles serving after he promised he would not. He had backbone and principle if nothing else…

Not to mention Monsignor William Lynn’s tenure from 92-2004. Even in the 90s, pedophilia was an open discussed topic, that people knew to be really, really, really bad. Yet he helped shuffle priests around and around, even after the psycholigists told him it was dangerous for them to be around kids. I think at some level, some hierarchs simply didnt care as long as it was kept quiet!😦
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent children; high school aged children are pubescent.
 
Regarding the topic of the thread:

DeLand online preacher who raped children scheduled for prison release
news-journalonline.com/article/20130521/NEWS/130529969

A Sex Scandal Splits Orthodox Zionist World Between Silence and Action
bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=9962

Second in a Series: Rabbinic sexual misconduct is rarely taken seriously
jweekly.com/article/full/4317/second-in-a-series-rabbinic-sexual-misconduct-is-rarely-taken-seriously/

Former NJ yeshiva teacher, camp counselor pleads guilty to sexually assaulting boy, is jailed
foxnews.com/us/2013/05/13/former-nj-yeshiva-teacher-camp-counselor-pleads-guilty-to-sexually-assaulting/

Child Sex Abuse in the Jewish Hasidic Community

nydailynews.com/new-york/satmar-leader-weberman-guilty-molesting-girl-article-1.1217092

Dallas pastor sued over alleged inappropriate behavior
wfaa.com/news/crime/FORMER-MEMBER-OF-Dallas-St-Luke-Methodist-sues-pastor-and-church-138819604.html

Virginia pastor extradited to Fort Worth on sexual assault of minors charges
wfaa.com/video?id=208897001&sec=567392&ref=rcvidmod

Revivalist preacher convicted of sexual abuse
yle.fi/uutiset/revivalist_preacher_convicted_of_sexual_abuse/6554940

Research carried out by the BBC Sinhala service has revealed that over the last decade, nearly 110 Buddhist monks have been charged for sexual and physical assaults on minors in Sri Lanka.
bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15507304

Famous Preacher Scandals
news24by7.us/2011/12/famous-preacher-scandals.html

Shining light on Baptist clergy sex abuse
stopbaptistpredators.org/news.html

Buddhist monks walk away from sex-abuse cases
articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-24/news/ct-met-monk-sex-cases-20110724_1_thai-monks-buddhist-monks-paul-numrich

Sex Scandal Has U.S. Buddhists Looking Within
nytimes.com/2010/08/21/us/21beliefs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&sq=zen&st=cse&scp=2&

The hypocrisy of child abuse in many Muslim countries
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty

Stoke-on-Trent imam guilty of sexually abusing boys
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-12335032

Father tells of boy’s sexual abuse at Tampa mosque
tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/father-tells-of-boys-sexual-abuse-at-tampa-mosque/1002859

Young girls allege sex abuse by B.C. Hindu priest
bc.ctvnews.ca/young-girls-allege-sex-abuse-by-b-c-hindu-priest-1.575301

Canada court finds Hindu priest, Karam Vir, guilty of sex crimes
abbynews.com/news/206040451.html

Sikh priests face sex assault trial
winnipegfreepress.com/local/sikh-priests-face-sex-assault-trial-53785912.html
winnipegfreepress.com/local/crown-abandons-sex-case-against-sikh-priests-162324046.html

Yes, of course abuse happens in other faiths. Abuse and cover-up occur within the secular / non-religious institutions as well. Sexual abuse will occur in any place a predator thinks he/she will have easy access to children who place their trust in authoritative figures. Sadly.
 
Pedophilia is a very narrow thing, it is regarding prepubescent children.
Whereas ‘child abuse’ is a very vague term that could potentially even refer to leaving your kids unsupervised while you run down to the shops.

That’s why I would like to see what exactly the figures are and what exactly they were measuring.

I could just about accept that 1 in 5 men show some signs of arousal at child porn, for example (although that would be horrifying enough), but I would want serious evidence before I accepted that 1 in 5 men had actually sexually abused a child.
 
It can’t be healthy to see “anti-Catholic bias” everywhere. Nothing in my post was anti-catholic, unless you see asking for references as a threat to catholicism.

Yes, I do suspect that the rate of sexual child abuse is a lot lower in the general population than sometimes claimed by catholic apologists, but that is not an attack on catholicism per se.

I can give you an example of what I mean by off-hand estimates by experts, from the very article you quoted:

Now that is a hair-raising claim - that one in five men** have sexually abused a child**! Yet the only justification we have for this claim is that this expert makes it.

Contrast the Australian figure of around 1200 paedophiles out of a male population of about 8.5 million, roughly 1 in 7000. That seems nearer what I would have guessed, even a little low. But even there I don’t have direct access to the database where that figure of 1200 comes from, just a journalist’s reference that that is what the Australian database says.

I don’t know if there is an equivalent estimate for the USA, but would like to know if anyone can point me at one. Or any other solid source that gives a sensible basis for estimating what the incidence of sexual child abuse perpetrators actually is in the general populace.
Case in point, per your post, you choose to take the worse number of 1 in 5 instead of 1 in 10 or entertaining that it could be somewhere in between, as applies to Catholic clergy child sex abuse. The Megan’s Law site provides child sex abuse rate of 1 in 10 in past years, the latest number being 1 in 6, for general society. A more unbiased person would give or take a bit from the numbers from different experts, not ‘experts’. It would therefore be reasonable to deem that there is not much difference in the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the Catholic clergy cases.

I don’t know about Australian figures that you cite, unsourced. You must know the definition of pedophilia, that not all pedophiles molest or commit child sexual abuse, correct?

If you want good raw data on U.S. Catholic child sex abuse in the context of the general American male population and in the context of other religious affiliations, take a read of this report, pages 11 and 20.
,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top