Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Deb; Dr. Eckleburg; tsg; Gamecock
Deb: If there are no statistics showing comparisons of Catholic "crimes and cover-ups" to other religions and the general population, that's proof this entire issue is bogus and carried out by atheist haters of God.

There's an old political adage that says "you can't beat something with nothing". As to claims of abuse being more prevalent within one organization or another, those aren't statements of opinionated bias - those are statements that someone can actually prove (or disprove) with math. And to date, I've never seen a Catholic do the math. But I have seen a number of Catholics make unsubstantiated claims that abuse rates are two...three...sometimes even a hundred times worse in Protestant churches than in Catholic ones. Does that make them "atheist haters of God"?

The John Jay Study (see threads here, here, and outside coverage here) - commissioned by the U.S. Catholic Bishops' National Review Board itself - found that the number of accused Catholic priest abusers equaled four percent of the entire Catholic priest population. The John Jay study's findings are more than conclusive - they're exhaustive of the entire US population of Catholic priests. Surely you're not suggesting that the New York Times would be as more reliable source of information than the John Jay Study?

As I've said elsewhere, every study I've been shown of "Protestant" abuse (which include many of the websites your Google search links to) included volunteers and laypersons. The John Jay Study did not address these groups when they looked at Catholic parishes. If we exclude volunteers and laypersons from the "Protestant" studies (thereby creating a "pastor vs priest" apple-to-apple comparison), we arrive at a roughly 1% abuse rate for all "Protestant" pastors, or (in other words) at least a four times greater likelihood that any given Catholic priest will be a sexual predator, as compared to any given "Protestant" pastor. And that's according to the numbers and studies that Catholics keep telling me about.

Let me throw in one caveat to those comparisons. I found something interesting when I broke down the "Protestant" abuse cases by denomination / affiliation / theological leanings. The more free will / Arminian / synergistic the theology is, and the more independent the association is (as opposed to denominational affiliation), the higher the abuse statistic goes - and conversely, if you just look at the Reformed Protestant denominations, the number of "Protestant" abuse cases statistically drops off the chart by comparison. It's only the average of all "Protestant" pastors that is around 1%. Some independent churches have statistics that are far, far higher than the Catholic average of 4%.
-- Alex Murphy, April 2, 2008

"(S)hould denominational ratios be skewed by independent ratios?"....AFAIK, no one has ever attempted to quantify abuse statistics to show where abuse runs high (or low) among Protestant, Evangelical, and Independent church leadership. My attempts appear to be the first. And I would agree with you that we should compare apples to apples by keeping it ratios to ratios, and not raw numbers to raw numbers. See especially the thread Teachers Vs. Priests - Unequal Treatment In the Media? in which I say

While 25,000 hypothesized "accusations" is roughly six times the number of Catholic "accusations", 25,000 cases out of 1,600,000 teachers gives us a 1.3 to 1.56% ratio of sexually abusive teachers out of the entire public school system over a fifty year period - more than twice the volume of Protestant pastoral abuse, and less than half the volume of Catholic priest abuse.

If we're after equal treatment in the media, I would expect there to be at least double the number of Catholic news stories as Public School stories, and four times as many Catholic news stories as Protestant news stories based on the percentage of perverts that exist with their respective organizations. IMO the disproportionate amount of coverage is the result of increased interest, when those organizations are caught protecting the abusers at the expense of the victims.

-- Alex Murphy, April 2, 2008

It is not sexual misconduct, rather it is sexual assault, that Catholic priests were accused of in the John Jay Study. The topic isn't "who's accused of sexual misconduct", it's "who's accused of committing a felony against a minor"....Should I consider the intentional conflation of "statutory rape" with "sexual misconduct" to be deflecting attention? Damn straight I do, skippy....Of the 38% of all Protestant clergy being accused of some level of inappropriate sexual contact, only 4.6% have engaged in actual sexual intercourse outside of marriage. And none of them of rape.

If the Catholic apologist were really comparing apples to apples, the real statistics would speak of Protestant clergy accused of criminal sexual contact with minors, or would adjust the John Jay study's four percent upwards to include inappropriate but otherwise legal sexual relations. But the Catholic apologist does no such thing. They start with John Jay's 4%, move on to Protestantism's 38%, and leave the reader thinking that 4% "statutory rape" is comparable to 38% "inappropriate relations". Sometimes you have to keep score, to tell when the other side is moving the goalposts on you.
-- Alex Murphy, September 29, 2009

"...the scandal was never really about the 4% abusers in their ranks. The real scandal was that 66% of bishops covered for the 4%, negatively affecting 95% of the dioceses in the United States - actions which cost the Catholic Church over three billion dollars paid in settlements and awards to the victims."
-- Alex Murphy, September 29, 2009

Dr Eckleburg: Your posts have ratcheted up the dialogue considerably.

I expect this one will cause the thread to attain orbit.

95 posted on 05/19/2010 11:04:46 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Pretentiousness is so beneath me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: Alex Murphy
Brilliant analysis Alex!

This is a razor edge summary that cuts directly to the core:

The real scandal was that 66% of bishops covered for the 4%, negatively affecting 95% of the dioceses in the United States
98 posted on 05/19/2010 11:11:27 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy
So you deny there's any kind of on-going campaign to discredit and destroy the church? I'm not Catholic, but I see it everyday.

I don't expect Catholics to "do the math", but I would imagine the people who have dedicated their lives to smearing and stomping them would have some numbers they can use in their war.

As far as the false accusers, there were many examples in Los Angeles of young men who couldn't go thru with seeing innocent priests, they had accused, being dragged thru the mud and they tearfully recanted.

It also came out, according to Cardinal Mahony, that in the early days of the instances where there was abuse, the parents of the children begged the church to keep it quiet and not make the allegations public to protect their children, not to protect the offender. I think Mahony even produced letters from the parents. Note: I am not a Mahony fan at all.

104 posted on 05/19/2010 11:23:26 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

To: Alex Murphy

Lol. Thank you, Alex, for providing your usual solid evidence and clarifying observations backed up by the old black and white.


135 posted on 05/19/2010 2:16:49 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson