Were abusive priests shuffled among parishes?

[WanderAimlessly]

Interesting study done.

Were abusive priests shuffled among parishes?

Eighth in a series.

The belief that bishops moved child abusers from parish to parish, allowing them to abuse over and over, may well be one of the greatest myths created by the press coverage of the sexual abuse scandal in the Church. This has become the conventional wisdom of the press, and also of many Catholics. But is it true? Research done in recent years casts doubt on that widely accepted belief.

Full Story

Yes, I know what the souce of this are is. But it is still interesting.

PF

 

[frommi]

It’s interesting…but I think the main problem is that NOTORIOUS offenders were shuffled around. Even if Paul Shanley had been the only priest that was moved, his crimes were so egregious, it was going to cause a huge credibility gap in the church.

Of course, the other problem is that the media don’t understand that individual dioceses operate differently, and thus paint things as “the American Catholic Church”

 

[dafalax]

Diogenes at the Catholic World News website had some good insights on this article. I think denying that priests were shuffled is wrong, because we have proof they were. What is also wrong, however, is how much emphasis the secular media puts on clergy sex abuse when only around 1% of Catholic priests since 1950 have been molesters whereas 15% of children who attend public schools will have a sexual encounter with a teacher. Bear in mind that doesn’t mean 15% of public school teachers are molesters, just that your kid has a pretty good chance of some nastiness happening in public schools. Much more than at Church, anyway.

 

[my_agatha]

dafalax:

whereas 15% of children who attend public schools will have a sexual encounter with a teacher.

Where’d you get that? I’m not challenging it, I just wonder where it came from?

 

[JOHNYJ]

BALONEY ! Even Cardinal Law admitted that he shuffled pedophile priests and almost every other bishop who has settled claims also admitted shuffling. If it wasn’t for the corupt behaviour of the bshops a lot fewer children would have been molested.

 

[Ortho]

dafalax:

Diogenes at the Catholic World News website had some good insights on this article. I think denying that priests were shuffled is wrong, because we have proof they were. What is also wrong, however, is how much emphasis the secular media puts on clergy sex abuse when only around 1% of Catholic priests since 1950 have been molesters whereas 15% of children who attend public schools will have a sexual encounter with a teacher. Bear in mind that doesn’t mean 15% of public school teachers are molesters, just that your kid has a pretty good chance of some nastiness happening in public schools. Much more than at Church, anyway.

The bishops committee (John Jay) says 4%. But it doesn’t go back to 1950. How do you know the figures back to 1950? The bishops committee also says there is no reliable data on this subject.

 

[Ortho]

The grand jury says many priests were shuffled by Bishop Bevalaqua (spelling?) I’m not sure if he was in Pittsburgh or Philadelpia.