Originally Posted by Male Nude Photographer

- a disproportionate number of gay men enter the priesthood.
.

That's my view. It explains why a disproportionate number of victims were male. A disproportionate number of heterosexuals would result in more female victims.

The problem in this argument, both here and outside of here, is that some people are sensitive to those conclusions because they fear it is the old stick of 'gay = child molester'. As a consequence they argue that all abuse was paedophile and claim the offenders were every bit as likely to abuse girls, just didn't have access to them. The results of the JJC study dispute that, hence the attempts to discredit the report.

Originally Posted by sondagefaux

The dead 7 year old boys were from Afghanistan, not Iraq. And nobody's forgotten they're dead.

Some people will justify their killings wherever they came from.

Originally Posted by Zerubbabel

lol, again I'm sure any minute now one of you will actually provide a reputable quote, link , and source supporting your argument for a change . . . . What's next a link from a blog . . .lol

The piece I quoted I deliberately didn't link. The reason I didn't post the link under the criticism of the John Jay farrago is because the text was from the National Catholic Reporter.

''Questions persist about the reliability of the basic data that underpins both the most recent study, as well as one on the nature and scope of the scandal that was released in 2004, because the researchers relied principally on reporting by bishops. The reliability of such reporting is called into question on a number of fronts and was most recently challenged by a grand jury report that claimed that officials of the Philadelphia archdiocese had not reported dozens of credibly accused priests. Doubts about the reliability of the numbers were even given credibility by one of the John Jay researchers in a recent interview.

The conclusion that priests’ behavior was influenced by and reflected turmoil in American culture during the 1960s and 1970s is called into question, or at least qualified, say experts, given revelations of similar widespread scandals in the United Kingdom and several European countries. The dimensions of the scandal in those countries surfaced in recent months, at a point when the John Jay researchers were concluding research on the U.S. church.

The lack of any in-depth look at institutional dynamics, particularly clerical/hierarchical culture, an element some think is integral to understanding why and how abuse of children was covered up and tolerated for so many years.'

Critics point to John Jay study's limitations | National Catholic Reporter

Do you not regard the National Catholic Reporter as a reputable link to criticism (theirs) of the John Jay report?

There were 60,749 perpetrators of child sexual abuse identified by the federal National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System in 2008; assuming these were all adult males, that works out to a rate of about 0.05 percent for that group. Now, that's one year, not 42 [years], but even if there were no recidivism at all, it's still clear that the priests in the John Jay study were accused of molesting children at a considerably higher rate than that–and that's a study that leaves out the bulk of such accusations.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Originally Posted by Roisin3

That's my view. It explains why a disproportionate number of victims were male. A disproportionate number of heterosexuals would result in more female victims.

The problem in this argument, both here and outside of here, is that some people are sensitive to those conclusions because they fear it is the old stick of 'gay = child molester'.

The objection is to the failure to distinguish between homosexuality and pedophilia or ephebophilia.

The alarming thing about this attempt to make out that the problem wasn't so bad among catholic clerics is that any attempt to pretend you can draw a line between paedophilia and ephebophilia that makes the betrayal of young people somehow more 'acceptable' is utterly extraordinary.

It isn't acceptable for ANY adult to seek gratification for themselves by taking advantage of an immature person.

We know that the John Jay report only counted cases reported by US Bishops. We know since that there has been significant under-reporting. What we don't know is how many cases the church has managed to hush up by making courtroom steps payments either.

The John Jay report was , and remains, a blatant attempt at obfuscation and significant under-reporting.

It was paid for by the catholic conference of bishops in order to attempt just that. It was never an attempt at getting at the root cause or occurrence at child abuse by clerics in the United States. If it had have been it would have led to the dogma and psychology of seminaries in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970's. Instead of the utterly ludicrous conclusion that it was the 'atmosphere of the 1960s in the United States'. That was where the US Catholic Church became a parody of itself in the worst way possible.

Originally Posted by LamportsEdge

The piece I quoted I deliberately didn't link. The reason I didn't post the link under the criticism of the John Jay farrago is because the text was from the National Catholic Reporter.

''Questions persist about the reliability of the basic data that underpins both the most recent study, as well as one on the nature and scope of the scandal that was released in 2004, because the researchers relied principally on reporting by bishops. The reliability of such reporting is called into question on a number of fronts and was most recently challenged by a grand jury report that claimed that officials of the Philadelphia archdiocese had not reported dozens of credibly accused priests. Doubts about the reliability of the numbers were even given credibility by one of the John Jay researchers in a recent interview.

The conclusion that priests’ behavior was influenced by and reflected turmoil in American culture during the 1960s and 1970s is called into question, or at least qualified, say experts, given revelations of similar widespread scandals in the United Kingdom and several European countries. The dimensions of the scandal in those countries surfaced in recent months, at a point when the John Jay researchers were concluding research on the U.S. church.

The lack of any in-depth look at institutional dynamics, particularly clerical/hierarchical culture, an element some think is integral to understanding why and how abuse of children was covered up and tolerated for so many years.'

Critics point to John Jay study's limitations | National Catholic Reporter

Do you not regard the National Catholic Reporter as a reputable link to criticism (theirs) of the John Jay report?

Unfortunately for you, none of the National Catholic Reporter criticism actually supports any of your hysterical claims. If you have better data on the actual numbers of instances, provide it, but you've failed to every single time.

Originally Posted by LamportsEdge

The piece I quoted I deliberately didn't link. The reason I didn't post the link under the criticism of the John Jay farrago is because the text was from the National Catholic Reporter.
...
Critics point to John Jay study's limitations | National Catholic Reporter

I've just read the link, and in it, there is an unequivocal answer to the question of whether the report can fairly be used to estimate the rate of abuse by priests, from one of the researchers, who says that it is an analytical report, not an audit. They analyzed the data they were given by the dioceses, and that may well be very valuable in discovering more about the nature of clerical abuse, but there is a lot of evidence that the data provided hugely underestimated the actual amount of that abuse.

Margaret Leland Smith, data analyst for the study, was asked ... about the criticism that the study relied on data self-reported by the same bishops who, in many cases, were being investigated. She responded that the researchers were not engaged in “a prosecutorial process. It was not an audit process in that way.
...
“... one can make an inference that there may have been other allegations that the dioceses did not submit because they did not find them substantiated.”... She joked, “I’m going to get in trouble for that.”..., “It seems such a logical inference given the recent events, I can’t not say it.”
(...in Philadelphia, at least two dozen priests should have been considered credibly accused but had not been reported.)

As is often the case, the facts are one thing, using them to extrapolate to something they don't actually say is either naive or dishonest, depending on how long a person goes on refusing to accept that this is what they are doing.

Originally Posted by LamportsEdge

The alarming thing about this attempt to make out that the problem wasn't so bad among catholic clerics is that any attempt to pretend you can draw a line between paedophilia and ephebophilia that makes the betrayal of young people somehow more 'acceptable' is utterly extraordinary.

It isn't acceptable for ANY adult to seek gratification for themselves by taking advantage of an immature person.

We know that the John Jay report only counted cases reported by US Bishops. We know since that there has been significant under-reporting. What we don't know is how many cases the church has managed to hush up by making courtroom steps payments either.

The John Jay report was , and remains, a blatant attempt at obfuscation and significant under-reporting.

It was paid for by the catholic conference of bishops in order to attempt just that. It was never an attempt at getting at the root cause or occurrence at child abuse by clerics in the United States. If it had have been it would have led to the dogma and psychology of seminaries in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970's. Instead of the utterly ludicrous conclusion that it was the 'atmosphere of the 1960s in the United States'. That was where the US Catholic Church became a parody of itself in the worst way possible.

Significant under reporting in what respect? If it's dozens in Philadelphia versus over 4,000 included in the report then that's not significant unless Philadelphia were among the 97% who submitted data and others who submitted did likewise.

In terms of cover up then it's more significant. In terms of the nature of the abuse it is unlikely to be significant. The Philadelphia cases, for example, have not shown any change in the gender of the victims.

Originally Posted by Zerubbabel

Unfortunately for you, none of the National Catholic Reporter criticism actually supports any of your hysterical claims. If you have better data on the actual numbers of instances, provide it, but you've failed to every single time.

What hysterical claims would they be? I'm quite happy to point out as others have done (including that notoriously anti-catholic church organisation the National Catholic Reporter) that the John Jay Report was an exercise in obfuscation and an attempt at misdirection and deliberate under-reporting.

I stand by that and await a writ from the authors/sponsors.