The Madness Continues--Canada Loses Its Bearings

[Zoot]

**Here’s an absolutely brilliant post I made in a previous thread. **

Numbers can be fun. Let’splay with some numbers.

The link from the Washington Times in the first post of this thread says:

*“The Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of the 2000 book “The Changing Face of the Priesthood,” estimates 50 percent of all Catholic priests are homosexual.” *

So, let’s say 50% of Catholic priests are gay.

The John Jay report says, “approximately 4% of Catholic priests and deacons in active ministry between 1950 and 2002 have been accused of the sexual abuse of a youth under the age of 18.”

So, let’s say 4% of all priests were accused.

The John Jay report also tells us that 80.9% of victims were male. So we can say that 3.2% of all priests were accused of abusing males (4% x 80.9%).

Let’s further say all the accused abusers of males were gay. That means 6.4% of the gay priests were accused abusers.

It also means 93.6% of all gay priests were not accused abusers.

Note on terminology: If 80.9% of victims are male and that equates to “virtually all,” then 93.6% of gay priests equates to virtually all gay priests. So, virtually all gay priersts were not abusers.

 

[Zoot]

Brad:

The data is very disputed by you. But it’s not disputed by the AIDS journal or any other scientific study of sexual behavior.

I refer back to post 31 in light of my maintaining that homosexuals are multiple times more promiscuous than heterosexuals (until scientific data is shown that proves otherwise, not data that tries to simply raise questions - anyone simpleton can produce that kind of data), it is simply not reasonable to think that heterosexual priests abused children at a higher rate than homosexual priests.

It’s not reasonable to assume that either gays or straight priests had higher abuse rates unless we know the percentage of all prietss who were gay and the percentage of all priestst who were straight.

Simple math.

 

[jlw]

Zoot:

There really is no “and.”

The only point is that one cannot say abuse is more prevelant in the gay population as compared to the straight population unless one knows the breakdown of gays and straights in the total population.

So let’s say the split in the entire priest population is 50/50.

100,000 priests, let’s say. ok?

5% of priests are aledged of abuse, let’s say. ok?

5000 priests, right??

8 out of 10 are gay? That’s 4000 gay priests, 1000 straight ones.

That’s basic math, right?

(I understand it may actually be about 40% gay 60% straight in real life, but that is anectodal)

Do the math with that 40-60% comparison???

 

[Zoot]

jlw:

No, I don’t.

However,for the purpose of studying THE ACTUAL ALLEGED ABUSE, I don’t care about the numbers for the entire priesthood.

I only care about the priests INVOLVED in sexual abuse!!

8 out of 10 priests, who not only broke their vows of celabacy, but also acted out disordered sexuality by abusing minors WERE GAY.

That’s a big deal!

Well, is it a bigger deal than the fact that 2 out of 10 priests, who not only broke their vows of celabacy, but also acted out disordered sexuality by abusing minors WERE STRAIGHT?

How would your position change if we had a total population of 1,000 priests, with 990 gays and 10 straights.

Then let’s say we had 10 victims. Eight were male, and 2 were female.

That would give us 8 gay abusers out of a totla population of 990. That would be a rate of .008.

And we would have 2 straight abusers out of a total population of 10. That would be a rate of .2.

That would say there is a 20% chance that a straight priest was an abuser, but only a .8% chance that a gay priest was an abuser.

I used an extreme example to illustrate the point that without the breakdown of the total population of priests as gay and straight, we don’t know much about the prevalence of abuse in either the gay or straight population.

 

[Zoot]

I have been incorrectly spelling “prevalence” as “prevelance.” My humble apologies.

 

[Lisa_N]

Just a warning folks, we were having this same discussion and “Ken” (Zoot) was quoting these very same studies. The moderators shut it down because it turned into a bickering session.

As to the numbers, you can fiddle all you want and make 'em say what you want. Here is the reality. MILLIONS of dollars have been paid out. Several parishes are BANKRUPT including mine.
ALL OF THEM WERE THE RESULT OF HOMOSEXUALS PREYING ON YOUNG MEN. No heterosexual predators, no sadistic nuns, it was all about homosexuals. Period. I don’t care WHAT Ken Zoot’s report says. This is a problem with homosexuals. Period.

That’s all we need to know.

Lisa N

 

[Zoot]

jlw:

So let’s say the split in the entire priest population is 50/50.

100,000 priests, let’s say. ok?

5% of priests are aledged of abuse, let’s say. ok?

5000 priests, right??

8 out of 10 are gay? That’s 4000 gay priests, 1000 straight ones.

That’s basic math, right?

(I understand it may actually be about 40% gay 60% straight in real life, but that is anectodal)

Do the math with that 40-60% comparison???

Abuse rate for gay priests = gay abusers / all gay priests
= 4,000 / 50,000
= .08
= 8%

Abuse rate for straight priests = str abusers / all str priests
= 1,000 / 50,000
= .02
= 2%

So, in that case we can say that:

8% of gay priests are abusers, and 92% of gay priests are innocent.

2% of straight priests are abusers and 98% of straight priests are innocent.

 

[jlw]

Zoot:

Well, is it a bigger deal than the fact that 2 out of 10 priests, who not only broke their vows of celabacy, but also acted out disordered sexuality by abusing minors WERE STRAIGHT?

How would your position change if we had a total population of 1,000 priests, with 990 gays and 10 straights.

Then let’s say we had 10 victims. Eight were male, and 2 were female.

That would give us 8 gay abusers out of a totla population of 990. That would be a rate of .008.

And we would have 2 straight abusers out of a total population of 10. That would be a rate of .2.

That would say there is a 20% chance that a straight priest was an abuser, but only a .8% chance that a gay priest was an abuser.

I used an extreme example to illustrate the point that without the breakdown of the total population of priests as gay and straight, we don’t know much about the prevalence of abuse in either the gay or straight population.

Read post #43. then get back to me.

 

[jlw]

Zoot:

Abuse rate for gay priests = gay abusers / all gay priests
= 4,000 / 50,000
= .08
= 8%

Abuse rate for straight priests = str abusers / all str priests
= 1,000 / 50,000
= .02
= 2%

So, in that case we can say that:

8% of gay priests are abusers, and 92% of gay priests are innocent.

2% of straight priests are abusers and 98% of straight priests are innocent.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHH.

And with the 40-60 anedoctal numbers???

 

[Zoot]

Lisa N:

Just a warning folks, we were having this same discussion and “Ken” (Zoot) was quoting these very same studies. The moderators shut it down because it turned into a bickering session.

As to the numbers, you can fiddle all you want and make 'em say what you want. Here is the reality. MILLIONS of dollars have been paid out. Several parishes are BANKRUPT including mine.
ALL OF THEM WERE THE RESULT OF HOMOSEXUALS PREYING ON YOUNG MEN. No heterosexual predators, no sadistic nuns, it was all about homosexuals. Period. I don’t care WHAT Ken Zoot’s report says. This is a problem with homosexuals. Period.

That’s all we need to know.

Lisa N

I’m not sure what the gender breakdown of the plaintiffs is, however, I have no problem agreeing that the overwhelming number of plaintiffs are male. That is what is costing the large verdicts.

Ah, those poor parishes with no money. Many seem to consider those bank accounts more important than the 20% of girls who were victims.

Would the 20% of victims who were girls become more important if they were plaintiffs? Then they would cost money. Parish money. Then they would be important.

I have a question for all priests. What did you know, when did you know it, and what did you do about it? We already know the answers for the bishops.

 

[Zoot]

jlw:

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHH.

And with the 40-60 anedoctal numbers???

Abuse rate for gay priests = gay abusers / all gay priests
= 4,000 / 40,000
= .1
= 10%

Abuse rate for straight priests = str abusers / all str priests
= 1,000 / 60,000
= …016
= 1.6%

So, in that case we can say that:

10% of gay priests are abusers, and 90% of gay priests are innocent.

1.6% of straight priests are abusers and 98.4% of straight priests are innocent

 

[jlw]

Zoot:

Abuse rate for gay priests = gay abusers / all gay priests
= 4,000 / 40,000
= .1
= 10%

Abuse rate for straight priests = str abusers / all str priests
= 1,000 / 60,000
= …016
= 1.6%

So, in that case we can say that:

10% of gay priests are abusers, and 90% of gay priests are innocent.

1.6% of straight priests are abusers and 98.4% of straight priests are innocent

Right.

So if you are a parent of an altarboy, there is a 10:1 more likelyhood that your son will be sexually abused if your priest is gay. Right?

 

[Zoot]

jlw:

Right. So if you are a parent of an alterboy, there is a 10:1 more likelyhood that your son will be sexually abused if your priest is gay?

Under those numbers the probability that he will encounter a straight priest who is an abuser is 1.6%.

The probability that he will encounter a gay priest who is an abuser is 10%.

The probability that he will encounter any priest who is an abuser is 5%.

The gay priest is 6.25 : 1 more likely to be an abuser.

The probability a gay priest is innocent is 90%.

The probability a straight priest is innocent is 98.4%.

The probability any priest is innocent is 95%.

So, the best case for a parent is a 1.6% chance the altar boy will encounter an abusive priest. However, the probability the kid will be abused is more complex. One must also consider the probability the encounter will provide opportunity, and the probability the abuser will judge the kid to be a low risk.

But, if the parent does not know which priests are gay, and which are straight, then the best case for a parent is a 5% chance the altar boy will encounter an abusive priest. Opportunity and risk must also be evaluated.

Frequency of serving as an alter boy also is extremely important. The more he acts as an alter boy, the higher the risk from all categories.

 

[Zoot]

Canada may be closer, but let’s not overlook those new civil unions in New Zealand.

stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3122758a10,00.html

 

[jlw]

So if you are a parent of an altarboy, there is a 10:1 more likelyhood that your son will be sexually abused if your priest is gay. Right?

 

[Lisa_N]

Zoot:

I’m not sure what the gender breakdown of the plaintiffs is, however, I have no problem agreeing that the overwhelming number of plaintiffs are male. That is what is costing the large verdicts.

Ah, those poor parishes with no money. Many seem to consider those bank accounts more important than the 20% of girls who were victims.

Would the 20% of victims who were girls become more important if they were plaintiffs? Then they would cost money. Parish money. Then they would be important.

I have a question for all priests. What did you know, when did you know it, and what did you do about it? We already know the answers for the bishops.

I have no clue where the 20% figure came from or what time period it covered. Prior to the homosexual priest sex scandal, one would hear from time to time about a priest having an affair or sexual relationship with a female. Generally it meant the priest left, maybe willingly, maybe not. But in general the problem was recognized, acknowledged and dealt with. It was not allowed to go on and on and on, year after year, with people either unwilling or unable to realize that these predatory homosexuals were not going to stop until they were stopped.

IOW that 20% were female “victims” (and I am very skeptical of this figure) is one issue but far more important is the MAGNITUDE and severity of the act. For example while I think it is disgraceful if a priest touches a woman/girl inappropriately, it is hardly of the same severity as repeatedly preying upon a series of young men. I have read numerous books, articles, editorials, and I’ve seen many an interview about this scandal. Females were never mentioned in any of the settlements or even the claims.

Once more. This is a HOMOSEXUAL PROBLEM. The occasional exception does not negate the overwhelming incidence of older male/younger male non-consenual encounters.

Lisa N

 

[Zoot]

jlw:

So if you are a parent of an altarboy, there is a 10:1 more likelyhood that your son will be sexually abused if your priest is gay. Right?

No. 6.25 : 1

 

[jlw]

Zoot:

No. 6.25 : 1

Gotcha.

 

[Zoot]

Lisa N:

I have no clue where the 20% figure came from or what time period it covered. Prior to the homosexual priest sex scandal, one would hear from time to time about a priest having an affair or sexual relationship with a female. Generally it meant the priest left, maybe willingly, maybe not. But in general the problem was recognized, acknowledged and dealt with. It was not allowed to go on and on and on, year after year, with people either unwilling or unable to realize that these predatory homosexuals were not going to stop until they were stopped.

IOW that 20% were female “victims” (and I am very skeptical of this figure) is one issue but far more important is the MAGNITUDE and severity of the act. For example while I think it is disgraceful if a priest touches a woman/girl inappropriately, it is hardly of the same severity as repeatedly preying upon a series of young men. I have read numerous books, articles, editorials, and I’ve seen many an interview about this scandal. Females were never mentioned in any of the settlements or even the claims.

Once more. This is a HOMOSEXUAL PROBLEM. The occasional exception does not negate the overwhelming incidence of older male/younger male non-consenual encounters.

Lisa N

The 19.1% figure comes from the John Jay study commissioned by the US Bishops Conference.

Here’s the link to the study:
usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/index033104.htm

Here’s the link to the fugure in question:
usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/incident3.pdf

Here’s the first para from the study:
I****n June 2002 the full body of Catholic bishops of the United States in their General Meeting in Dallas approved the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. The Charter created a National Review Board, which was assigned responsibility to commission a descriptive study, with the full cooperation of the dioceses/eparchies, of the nature and scope of the problem of sexual abuse of minors by clergy. The National Review Board engaged the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York to conduct research, summarize the collected data and issue a summary report to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops of its findings. This report by the John Jay College is authorized for publication by the undersigned. **

​

—Msgr. William P. Fay
General Secretary**
​

 

[Lisa_N]

Zoot:

The 19.1% figure comes from the John Jay study commissioned by the US Bishops Conference.

Here’s the link to the study:
usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/index033104.htm

Here’s the link to the fugure in question:
usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/incident3.pdf

OK but it dates back to NINETEEN FIFTY. I would like to see a breakdown by gender of victim, by year, because I suspect that while there were always female victims, I suggest that these would be more evenly represented over all of the years while the male victimizations didn’t start until much later and escalated during the 1960s and 1970s. Is that data anywhere?

Regardless, I have not heard of a settlement paid out or a priest sent to jail or even charged with respect to a female victim. Have you? There is no evidence that this isn’t an overwhelmingly homosexual problem is there?

Lisa N