Sexual Abuse in other faiths?

[InSearchofGrace]

Dr.

Who is making the allegation?

Good question.

Related question to yours: what groups stand to gain with the spin to portray that CC clergy sex abuse is largely about pedophilia, and that Catholic priests (males, of course) abuse at a rate more than adult males in the general population? Could it possibly include the group that wants to put as much distance between homosexuality and pedophilia?

Both are sexual inclinations that are not wrong unless acted on. Of course, there are those who believe acting on the homosexual urge is moral and natural (not so!), taking refuge in the argument solely of consent between same sex partners past the legal age to consent.
,

 

[jonathan_hili]

It is an easy mistake to make.

I agree, but the news media should strive for accuracy over sensationalism. In fact, much of the media’s reporting of the sexual abuse cases in the Church in Melbourne contains numerous factual errors, and it seems journalists don’t know the difference between excommunication, defrocking, laicisation, or other ecclesial penalties, as they mix them up all the time.

There are two related but seperate allegations against the Catholic Church here.

1. That Catholic priests have a significantly higher incidence of reported child abuse than the general population
2. That when a Catholic priest is found to have abused a child, that the Church reacts to cover up the incident. That ‘safeguarding teams’ act to safeguard the Church against scandal, rather than safeguarding children against abuse. That Catholics in general are more offended by the accuser than by the accused, regardless of the truth of the accusation.

The first, I believe, is doubtful. From the research I’ve done, most (by which I mean, proportionally more) child abuse happens at the hands of fathers in families, or other older male relatives. And like you, I think any externalising of the issue (e.g. they are homosexuals, and that’s why they abused children) is very poor indeed. I don’t want to make excuses, but like Voltaire, “Ecrasez l’infame!”

As for the second, I think it’s a disgrace. Most Catholics are disgusted at the way some Church officials have handled things. But, to be honest, we are equally disgusted at how the Church is being targeted over other bodies. For example, in Melbourne, the Salvation Army came out and admitted similar problems in their community, but the media completely ignored it. Furthermore, there has been no inquiry at all into sexual abuse in public schools here, which is amazing considering how prevalent it was during the 1960s-1980s (and even to a great degree, today). I mean, I understand why - the government doesn’t want to encourage law suits on the public purse - but if we are going to be fair, then we need to be fair. Yes, some in the Church committed terrible, heinous crimes, but many in secular organisations, especially schools, do so too but no mention is made. It’s a double standard, I guess.

 

[DrTaffy]

Who is making the allegation?

Does it matter, to the basic point that the second one is the one to worry about and that the first one does not even necessarily reflect poorly on the Catholic Church?

Without knowing what the relevance may be, it is hard to respond meaningfully. To give an example, hopefully relevant, Denis Hart the Archbichop of Melbourne recently not only faced a Parliamentary enquiry investigating this allegation, but apparently admitted that it had at least some validity.

From the research I’ve done, most (by which I mean, proportionally more) child abuse happens at the hands of fathers in families, or other older male relatives.

But how on earth do you judge that without a sensible comparison, ideally from a single dataset that covers both groups and gives results based on the same definitions?

InSearchofGrace’s favorite hobby-horse gives an excellent example of what I would like to see in the case of allegations against Catholic priests. (Or Arabs, or immigrants or any group accused of being more likely to abuse children) In the case of homosexuality, there have been studies that investigated this using the same standard for judging all the groups involved. e.g.:
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44
Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181
Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 107-117.

Freund et al tested random adults for whether or not they ‘reacted’ (hem hem) to images of children, and found no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Jenny et al looked at criminal records and found that fewer than 1% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by homosexuals.

Groth et al looked at 175 randomly selected male child abusers and found not one case that was perpetrated by a gay man. (Not that unlikely if you accept Jenny’s figure of fewer than 1% of child molesters being gay, but it does add support to that figure)

And yet some of the same people who on this forum object to Catholic priests being labelled as more likely to molest children are happy to spread the same allegation against homosexuals, without evidence, and noone has spoken out against it.

The golden rule applies. If you object to this allegation being made against you based on slim evidence, you cannot reasonable go around making it against others on no evidence whatsoever.

 

[CopticChristian]

Does it matter, to the basic point that the second one is the one to worry about and that the first one does not even necessarily reflect poorly on the Catholic Church?

Without knowing what the relevance may be, it is hard to respond meaningfully. To give an example, hopefully relevant, Denis Hart the Archbichop of Melbourne recently not only faced a Parliamentary enquiry investigating this allegation, but apparently admitted that it had at least some validity.

But how on earth do you judge that without a sensible comparison, ideally from a single dataset that covers both groups and gives results based on the same definitions?

InSearchofGrace’s favorite hobby-horse gives an excellent example of what I would like to see in the case of allegations against Catholic priests. (Or Arabs, or immigrants or any group accused of being more likely to abuse children) In the case of homosexuality, there have been studies that investigated this using the same standard for judging all the groups involved. e.g.:
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44
Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181
Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 107-117.

Freund et al tested random adults for whether or not they ‘reacted’ (hem hem) to images of children, and found no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Jenny et al looked at criminal records and found that fewer than 1% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by homosexuals.

Groth et al looked at 175 randomly selected male child abusers and found not one case that was perpetrated by a gay man. (Not that unlikely if you accept Jenny’s figure of fewer than 1% of child molesters being gay, but it does add support to that figure)

And yet some of the same people who on this forum object to Catholic priests being labelled as more likely to molest children are happy to spread the same allegation against homosexuals, without evidence, and noone has spoken out against it.

The golden rule applies. If you object to this allegation being made against you based on slim evidence, you cannot reasonable go around making it against others on no evidence whatsoever.

You first state this…

There are two related but seperate allegations against the Catholic Church here.

If there are allegations, then who made them, you?

Absolutely, it does make a difference…because you follow with this…

I personally would be more worried about the second accusation. Certainly the first implies greater personal culpability on the part of the individuals involved, but the second is the more damaging in the long run.

So,

while your producing lots and lots of stuff, let us clear this up first.

 

[rom422]

This has been a very interesting thread, and I want to congratulate everybody for their (name removed by moderator)ut. I mean “everybody,” including those whom I don’t agree with. I learned a little bit from everyone.

I just want to point out that I have been reading the Jay Report. It did say that the number of incidences of child sex abuse committed by Catholic Priests is less than the number of incidences of child sex abuse committed by the general population. It’s on page 13.

Using 1992 data, the number of incidences of child sex abuse (as an average from 49 jurisdictions) was 246 per 100,000; while the number of incidences of child sex abuse committed by Catholic Priests was conservatively estimated as 15 per 100,000.

Using 2001 data, the number of incidences of child sex abuse (as an average from 49 jurisdictions) was 134 per 100,000; while the number of incidences of child sex abuse committed by Catholic Priests was conservatively estimated as 5 per 100,000.

See the Jay Report: usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

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?

Pedophilia (or any other form of sexual abuse) does not limit itself to any particular church. Pedophiles seek positions in society that are traditionally trusted and have access to children to whom they are in a position of power: coaches, teachers, clergy, etc. They prey on those that are unlikely to complain, or wouldn’t be believed if they did report the abuse to anyone. Almost all pedophiles adopt a benevolent outward persona, particularly when their usual ‘target population’ has strong family support. This is a proven successful tactic, because if an accusation does come to light, these other families are quick to defend the accused, stating with conviction they could never believe someone they (think they) know so well could do something so awful. Children with disabilities - particularly communication challenges, are far more likely to be victims.

The difference between the Catholic Church and other religions isn’t the frequency of abuse or numbers of abusers, but the unique hierarchy of Catholicism and how the abuse accusations were handled: reports were made, sent up the chain of command and the Church attempted to deal with the issue internally rather than turning the accused over to public authorities (which is now their practice). They tried to counsel these offenders and reform them, most notably in the US in the founding in 1947 of The Servants Of The Paraclete in Santa Fe, New Mexico, as well as similar treatment centers set up in other countries. In the beginning, they thought reform through prayer and strict spiritual guidance was possible, but the recidivism rate disproved that notion, because even though the priest was moved to distant parishes, the reports and accusations followed. A number of counselors came to the conclusion that the only way to stop the abuse was to remove the priest from any possible contact with children. Priests had a choice of a life within the Church, but secluded from society, or to leave the priesthood.

It is a terrible tragedy, but the fault lies with the abusers and those that attempted to keep it quiet - in a misguided attempt to protect the Church. Now that Church policies have changed - in both screening applicants and the way accusations are handled, I hope the faithful continue to heal and find strength together.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Not a hobby horse or pet idea at all: homosexual activists seeking to deny the link between homosexuality and pedophilia! Some even find their way into CAF.

Homosexuality and the Church Crisis
Brian W. Clowes

First three paragraphs

The Church has always had a small number of priests and other religious who have taken advantage of their positions of authority and influence in order to gain sexual favors or to take advantage of the helpless. The problem of clerical child sexual molestation, particularly in the United States, has been widely exposed and publicized over the last several years. The numerous recent revelations have exposed the problem as much deeper and more widespread than most would have previously believed.

During the current crisis, homosexual activists within and outside the Catholic Church have done everything they could to divert attention away from even the possibility that there may be a higher percentage of homosexuals among the priesthood than in the general public, and that this may be the root of the problem of child sexual molestation within the Church. It is particularly the link between homosexuality and child molestation that they seek to deny.

During the current crisis, homosexual activists within and outside the Catholic Church have done everything they could to divert attention away from even the possibility that there may be a higher percentage of homosexuals among the priesthood than in the general public, and that this may be the root of the problem of child sexual molestation within the Church. It is particularly the link between homosexuality and child molestation that they seek to deny.
…

(Good to read whole document, with 44 end notes listing primary sources)

also published on April 19, 2010 at provided link with Abstract and Conclusion as follows:

Abstract:

Due to clergy sex abuse scandals centered primarily in the Northern hemisphere, the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church has been subjected to an opportunistic siege by prominent individuals and organizations who see the chance to advance their goals, including the ordination of women and the suspension of the requirement for priestly celibacy.

There is also a strongly defensive element to this strategy. Opponents of the Church know that there is a well-documented and strong correlation between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse, but claim that there is no evidence supporting this connection. And, of course, those who are currently attacking the Church hope that they can undermine its moral authority to preach on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and weaken its opposition to ersatz homosexual “marriage.”

This paper demonstrates that there is indeed a very strong link between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse. It also shows that there is a similar rate of child sexual abuse among other very large groups of adult males (e.g., Protestant clergy, who are usually married), thus proving that celibacy is not the root of the problem ─ homosexuality is.

…

Conclusion

There are many attacking on the Pope specifically and the Roman Catholic
Church generally because of the sex abuse crisis. However, **these individuals and organizations are not motivated by a desire to enlighten mankind or protect the innocent, **since the crisis has already largely subsided, and stringent means have been enacted to prevent the abuse from reoccurring. Rather, the motivation appears to be more one of bigotry and a desire to muzzle and sideline the Church’s moral opposition to the “gay rights” movement.
,

 

[jonathan_hili]

InSearchofGrace’s favorite hobby-horse gives an excellent example of what I would like to see in the case of allegations against Catholic priests. (Or Arabs, or immigrants or any group accused of being more likely to abuse children) In the case of homosexuality, there have been studies that investigated this using the same standard for judging all the groups involved. e.g.:
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44
Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181
Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 107-117.

Freund et al tested random adults for whether or not they ‘reacted’ (hem hem) to images of children, and found no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Jenny et al looked at criminal records and found that fewer than 1% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by homosexuals.

Groth et al looked at 175 randomly selected male child abusers and found not one case that was perpetrated by a gay man. (Not that unlikely if you accept Jenny’s figure of fewer than 1% of child molesters being gay, but it does add support to that figure)

And yet some of the same people who on this forum object to Catholic priests being labelled as more likely to molest children are happy to spread the same allegation against homosexuals, without evidence, and noone has spoken out against it.

The golden rule applies. If you object to this allegation being made against you based on slim evidence, you cannot reasonable go around making it against others on no evidence whatsoever.

I don’t know about the “homosexual” predilection among Catholic priests as abusers, Dr Taffy. I honestly think it’s difficult to judge since homosexuality can be open to different definitions. For instance, you use the term “gay”, which doesn’t just suggest an attraction to the same sex but the adoption of some kind of identity and lifestyle. In that case, I’d agree with you, that most of the abusers are not “gay”.

However, I do find it interesting that while in general female children are five times more likely to be sexually abused by males (Sedlack, et. al., 2010), in the case of priests’ victims, male children predominate. Of course, this could be because access to male children is easier for a priest, I don’t know…

Personally, I find that whole side of the argument (“Priests abuse because they’re gay,” from some Catholics, or “Priests abuse because they’re celibate,” from the mainstream media) to be pointless. Let’s identify the problem, deal with it, help the victims, and work to build up God’s Church.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I reject any correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. There are many studies to support my position, and publications that insist there is a link are either misguided supposition or blatant homophobic rants. Regardless of one’s opinion of homosexuality, the importance is in understanding one has nothing to do with the other.

Pedophilia is a type of rape - it is more about power than sex. They are drawn to innocence, asserting power over a weaker subject, and maintaining their control through threats, guilt, shame - or their twisted interpretation of ‘love’ - often convincing the child they need them in some way. Pedophiles generally have a preferential age range, physical/personality type including gender, but gender is far less a priority in contrast to level of maturity - the lack of body hair, stage of psychological development and the offender’s ability to control and manipulate. It is not uncommon for a pedophile to use a victim that has aged beyond their range of preference, in order to recruit younger victims.

Some pedophiles seek treatment, they don’t want to hurt children and have been known to go to extreme lengths to avoid temptation, including chemical or physical castration - but despite all of this, they continue to struggle with intrusive, compulsive thoughts.

 

[CopticChristian]

I reject any correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. There are many studies to support my position, and publications that insist there is a link are either misguided supposition or blatant homophobic rants. Regardless of one’s opinion of homosexuality, the importance is in understanding one has nothing to do with the other.

Pedophilia is a type of rape - it is more about power than sex. They are drawn to innocence, asserting power over a weaker subject, and maintaining their control through threats, guilt, shame - or their twisted interpretation of ‘love’ - often convincing the child they need them in some way. Pedophiles generally have a preferential age range, physical/personality type including gender, but gender is far less a priority in contrast to level of maturity - the lack of body hair, stage of psychological development and the offender’s ability to control and manipulate. It is not uncommon for a pedophile to use a victim that has aged beyond their range of preference, in order to recruit younger victims.

Some pedophiles seek treatment, they don’t want to hurt children and have been known to go to extreme lengths to avoid temptation, including chemical or physical castration - but despite all of this, they continue to struggle with intrusive, compulsive thoughts.

I made a living finding studies that supported my position and disputing someone elses. Studies are studies. People are people. It is not a clean cut…

this type of sexual habit or that…

There is a blur…as the age for consent, as noted gets lowered…in other countries a 16 year old boy is considered of the age of consent and in others it is not. So, is it pedophelia when a man lures a 16 year old boy, able to consent in a country where the age of consent is 16 or is it pedophelia when a man lures a 16 year old boy, unable to consent in a country where the age of consent is not 16. How do you manage this scenario in your rejection of the correlation with homosexuality and pedophelia?

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I made a living finding studies that supported my position and disputing someone elses. Studies are studies. People are people. It is not a clean cut…

this type of sexual habit or that…

There is a blur…as the age for consent, as noted gets lowered…in other countries a 16 year old boy is considered of the age of consent and in others it is not. So, is it pedophelia when a man lures a 16 year old boy, able to consent in a country where the age of consent is 16 or is it pedophelia when a man lures a 16 year old boy, unable to consent in a country where the age of consent is not 16. How do you manage this scenario in your rejection of the correlation with homosexuality and pedophelia?

16 yr old boys aren’t quite children, yet not quite men. One 16 yr old boy may have the intellect and maturity to give consent, while another may not - it depends on the kid. Surely one can see a difference between sexual exploration between 2 teenagers (regardless of gender), and 40 yr old man and an immature teenager - one who lacks the protection and guidance of family. When I speak of pedophiles, the victims are not always easily defined, but for the most part, the victims I am referring to are children - at a level of maturity that is truly unable to give consent because they lack the understanding, unaware of the consequences. Again - this crime is more about power than sex. The pedophile may be attracted to same sex victims, but the difference between the pedophile and a homosexual is that the pedophile is not attracted to, and often unable to participate in a sexual relationship with an adult. Some pedophiles seek relationships with women who have children in order to have access to the child. When the crime comes to light, the women often remark that their boyfriend or husband was outwardly affectionate, but actual sex was rare and ‘perfunctory’ - used in order to keep up the ‘benevolent outward persona’.

You may see both homosexuality and pedophilia as evil and deviant, but I assure you - there is a difference between the two.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I reject any correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. There are many studies to support my position, and publications that insist there is a link are either misguided supposition or blatant homophobic rants. Regardless of one’s opinion of homosexuality, the importance is in understanding one has nothing to do with the other. …

Indeed not all homosexuals are pedophiles, so for homosexuals who are not pedophiles, it is a hard fact and an uncomfortable truth to hear much less accept that there is an overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia. Overlap or link between said sexual orientations does not mean interchangeability.

We hear of the anti-Catholic rant and false meme that all Catholic priests are pedophiles. However, some priests did commit child sexual abuse. An uncomfortable truth to hear and accept as well.
,

 

[Muze]

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.

Shouldn’t an organization claiming to be the THE representation of Christ in the earth be doing significantly better than the population as a whole on child sexual abuse?

Shouldn’t an organization claiming to be able to form inerrant doctrine have sufficient integrity to expose and expel members of the clergy who engage in child sexual abuse rather than paying off victims and shifting the priest to another parish where he can do it again in an attempt to cover up the abuse in the name of saving face?

Or should we not have higher expectations from an organization who claims these things?

 

[GraceSofia]

Shouldn’t an organization claiming to be the THE representation of Christ in the earth be doing significantly better than the population as a whole on child sexual abuse?

Shouldn’t an organization claiming to be able to form inerrant doctrine have sufficient integrity to expose and expel members of the clergy who engage in child sexual abuse rather than paying off victims and shifting the priest to another parish where he can do it again in an attempt to cover up the abuse in the name of saving face?

Or should we not have higher expectations from an organization who claims these things?

Protestant clergy have higher rates than Catholic. Shouldn’t we have higher expectations from the people who claim to be born-again and the true Christians?

If a Protestant group gets embarrassed by a pedophile minister, they often go off and start another “church” or change the name or whatever so they can break all links and start off with a clean slate. Not comparable to the Catholic Church.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Shouldn’t an organization claiming to be the THE representation of Christ in the earth be doing significantly better than the population as a whole on child sexual abuse?

Shouldn’t an organization claiming to be able to form inerrant doctrine have sufficient integrity to expose and expel members of the clergy who engage in child sexual abuse rather than paying off victims and shifting the priest to another parish where he can do it again in an attempt to cover up the abuse in the name of saving face?

Or should we not have higher expectations from an organization who claims these things?

Yes, the Catholic Church holds herself to those things, and doctrinal matters on faith and morals are held to be eternal and sound then and now. But the smoke of Satan seeped through the cracks of the Church … the devil is happiest with the downfall of a priest, his top prize.

A bit of background neither to excuse nor to justify actual child sex abuse and cover up by the hierarchy. First, the Church believes and teaches forgiveness and redemption with true remorse, penance and resolve not to repeat an offense against God and against a child. Second, young homosexually conflicted men including those sexually attracted to boys saw the priesthood as a sort of refuge or cover, who may or may not have had the best intention to be able to keep their inclination in check. Policy and procedures in admission and during priest formation could have been better, but they were not, until beefed up guidelines years later, mostly by then Cardinal Ratzinger. Did the reform come too late? Sure. Third, before 1973, the Church referred offending homosexual and pedophile priests to the mental health profession that classified and treated both as mental disorders. When offenders were released from treatment, it would run against the teaching on redemption and the benefit of rehabilitation as offered by the so called mental health practitioners if priests were not returned to or transferred to another parish. The hierarchy indeed should have caught on that certain afflictions, or said afflictions in a number of men, can be enduring and deep seated.

It is significant to note what the Church started to do even well before completion of the John Jay Report. She rolled out the Virtus Program to the dioceses in 2002 with its beginnings in 1998. In tandem effort, she also tightened admission requirements to the priesthood and more stringent qualification prior to ordination. After all, to be in the business of saving souls, it is important to to maintain her moral authority. Moral authority is connected to holy priests and bishops who need to guard against all forms of abuse in the ranks and inappropriate exercise of authority.

The Church is quick to forgive but slow to condemn. There is no question she was slow to decisively act on the clergy sex abuse on an organizational scale. Nevertheless, she fully recognizes that protection of God’s children should have been the primary and paramount concern over the repetitive human weakness of men and the fear of eroded moral leadership. The organization, its big size notwithstanding, is not beyond making amends and corrections.
,

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It is just as bad or worse anywhere else.

Sexual abuse of a minor knows no boundaries of faith, religion, denomination, profession, economical situation, gender, sexual preference, and anything else we want to label and/or classify.

One abuse is enough…

 

[DrTaffy]

If there are allegations, then who made them, you?

I answered this, giving an example of a case where the allegation was made recently, and a senior Catholic clergyman accepted that it has at least some validity. How does this not answer your question?

I just want to point out that I have been reading the Jay Report. It did say that the number of incidences of child sex abuse committed by Catholic Priests is less than the number of incidences of child sex abuse committed by the general population. It’s on page 13.

That page is quite clear that you cannot directly compare those figures. One is the incidence of abuse per 100 000 children, the other is the number of cases per 100 000 confirmations in a particular year. The same old problem of trying to compare two figures from different datasets with different definitions.

I honestly think it’s difficult to judge since homosexuality can be open to different definitions.

Agreed - for example the most common justification I’ve seen for the alleged link between homosexuality and child abuse assumes that all men who assault a boy are ‘homosexuals’.

The Jay report is fairly explicit in saying that those who self-identify as ‘homosexual’ or those who had homosexual experiences before becoming priests are not more likely to assault children, although those who had negative opinions of homosexuality were slightly more likely to assault children.

 

[CopticChristian]

That page is quite clear that you cannot directly compare those figures. One is the incidence of abuse per 100 000 children, the other is the number of cases per 100 000 confirmations in a particular year. The same old problem of trying to compare two figures from different datasets with different definitions.

Agreed - for example the most common justification I’ve seen for the alleged link between homosexuality and child abuse assumes that all men who assault a boy are ‘homosexuals’.

The Jay report is fairly explicit in saying that those who self-identify as ‘homosexual’ or those who had homosexual experiences before becoming priests are not more likely to assault children, although those who had negative opinions of homosexuality were slightly more likely to assault children.

I answered this, giving an example of a case where the allegation was made recently, and a senior Catholic clergyman accepted that it has at least some validity. How does this not answer your question?

Dr.,

Where on the periodic table does Argon reside? I would imagine that would be met with a direct answer. Here is your first offering to my question.

Does it matter, to the basic point that the second one is the one to worry about and that the first one does not even necessarily reflect poorly on the Catholic Church?

So, it matters. You said “allegations”…tell me who made the allegations and point out what the allegations are so that I may now where in the scheme of things these thoughts reside. Ok…

 

[andrewstx]

I have heard that sexual abuse of children is rife in the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In a local case one of the largest congregations of fundamentalists. In that congregation of the self named “churches of Christ” youth preacher flew to Las Vegas with a 13 year old girl. They were returned to Midland and the youth preacher had his wrist slapped. But no charges were ever filed.

It was OK to them because it was a female assaulted. This sect has a very low opinion of females. I’'m not speaing of their refusal to ordain women (they ordain no one) but women are not allowed to even pray verbally in public or even teach boys in their sunday school classes.

 

[DrTaffy]

Where on the periodic table does Argon reside? I would imagine that would be met with a direct answer. Here is your first offering to my question.

No, here is my first offering to your question:

Without knowing what the relevance may be, it is hard to respond meaningfully. To give an example, hopefully relevant, Denis Hart the Archbichop of Melbourne recently not only faced a Parliamentary enquiry investigating this allegation, but apparently admitted that it had at least some validity.

Now this is the third time I have given you an explicit answer to this question, including a direct link to an example of this allegation being made and a senior cleric admitting the validity of the accusation. For those unwilling or unable to click on a link:

While expressing remorse for the delayed action, Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart admitted before a Victorian parliamentary inquiry into child abuse by clergy that the Roman Catholic Church’s culture of secrecy and cover up is to blame for the situation.

What about this answer do you fail to understand?