Posted on 09/12/2009 6:44:04 AM PDT by NYer
Findings from a nationwide study reveal that clergy sexual misconduct is more prevalent than many people believe.
According to research by Baylor University, 3.1 percent of adult women who attend religious services at least once a month have been victims of clergy sexual misconduct since turning 18. In other words, seven women in every congregation of 400 adults have been victimized.
Ninety-two percent of the sexual advances were made in secret and 67 percent of the offenders were married to someone else at the time of the advance.
"Because many people are familiar with some of the high-profile cases of sexual misconduct, most people assume that it is just a matter of a few charismatic leaders preying on vulnerable followers," said Dr. Diana Garland, dean of the School of Social Work at Baylor University and lead researcher in the study, in a statement Wednesday. "What this research tells us, however, is that Clergy Sexual Misconduct with adults is a widespread problem in congregations of all sizes and occurs across denominations. Now that we have a better understanding of the problem, we can start looking at prevention strategies."
The study, which was conducted on more than 3,500 American adults, is the largest scientific study into clergy sexual misconduct and is being published later this year in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
It is part of an effort by Baylor to identify and prevent clergy sexual misconduct. With virtually no research or information available to inform prevention strategies, Baylor University's School of Social Work sought to provide data for that purpose. Along with spreading awareness and educating the public, the team at Baylor hopes the findings will be used to draft model legislation to make it illegal for clergy to make sexual advances just as it is with patients and doctors.
Sexual misconduct by clergy is only illegal in Texas and Minnesota.
Garland hopes the study will prompt congregations to consider adopting policies and procedures designed to protect their members from leaders who abuse their power.
"Many people – including the victims themselves – often label incidences of Clergy Sexual Misconduct with adults as 'affairs,'" said Garland. "In reality, they are an abuse of spiritual power by the religious leader."
The research study also includes a paper co-authored by Garland on first-hand accounts from men and women who are victims of clergy sexual misconduct, family members or spouses of victims, religious leaders who have committed CSM, and helping professionals who have provided care for offenders and survivors.
Data from the 2008 General Social Survey – an in-person survey conducted by National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago – was used to estimate the prevalence of clergy sexual misconduct. Questions developed specifically for this project were administered by the Baylor team.
Clergy sexual misconduct was defined as minister, priests, rabbis, or other clergypersons or religious leaders who make sexual advances or propositions to persons in the congregations they serve who are not their spouses or significant others.
ampu has a bit of funk going on with interpreting the Bible.
I love when the “I am the ONE who knows the mind of God” goes on.
Sometimes I just have to laugh.
You are of course welcome to leave, but it is not yours to grant and withdraw the Church's standing with God and man.
Perhaps you might consider the story of Saul, then David.
No it just listed being a father.
“You are of course welcome to leave, but it is not yours to grant and withdraw the Church’s standing with God and man.”
Certainly not mine. But God does indeed withdraw Churches. You need not read further than Revelation 1 &2... once God does this that church has no standing with God, though it may still have standing with men.
“ampu has a bit of funk going on with interpreting the Bible.
“I love when the “I am the ONE who knows the mind of God” goes on.
1. you did not ping me when discussing me
2. you are engaging in mind reading
3. making it personal
You can do better, all round. Like posting some facts.
best,
ampu
>>1. you did not ping me when discussing me
2. you are engaging in mind reading
3. making it personal<<
1. Thought I did, I apologize
2. No, it’s not mind reading unless YOU are God. If you are not God then you are interpreting His Word
3. I guess you throw yourself into the catagory of “The One who knows the mind of God” I never used your name.
apology accepted.
My point was simple. The article posted was not about “protestant” sexual immorality - though protestants were contained within the study - but it was about religious sexual immorality among clergy.
To highlight “protestant”, when it wasn’t specified in the article, seems trite for us as Catholics. We have our own problems to deal with forthrightly and without cover up.
If we are not willing to hold to the standards for the Church that God himself specifies, then our testimony to the world is poor. No amount of pointing out wrongdoing of other groups makes us more righteous.
If we can’t agree with that, we will never agree.
best,
ampu
>>To highlight “protestant”, when it wasn’t specified in the article, seems trite for us as Catholics. We have our own problems to deal with forthrightly and without cover up.
If we are not willing to hold to the standards for the Church that God himself specifies, then our testimony to the world is poor. No amount of pointing out wrongdoing of other groups makes us more righteous.<<
I agree, but Catholics should not be held to a higher standard and society does do that.
No one said anything about exclusivity. Even the note in the title says "Protestants," NOT "only Protestants."
The point of the parenthetical addition to the title "(Protestants)" is to note that someone actually produced statistics including protestants (and Jews) and not just the stereotypical presumption that it is purely a Catholic problem.
Hardly. Those Churches He left are gone as Christ said they would be. The Catholic Church is still going even after 1600 years by the most rabid Protestant reckoning.
Sorry, such pontificating is nothing but conceit.
“Hardly. Those Churches He left are gone as Christ said they would be. The Catholic Church is still going even after 1600 years by the most rabid Protestant reckoning. Sorry, such pontificating is nothing but conceit.”
No pontificating at all. Just a reporting of facts set out in Revelation. Nor is that a criticism of the RC church. Sorry, it’s not a “rabid Protestant reckoning”, since I’m not one of them.
However, don’t think that God will not continue to remove Churches that are not obedient and who have lost their first love.
My point is simply that we should never do that.
If you disagree and think we should, or that it could never happen to us, then we will not find agreement. That’s OK. And if you have time, please explain why you don’t think (if it is true) that we shouldn’t hold to God’s standards.
ampu
When perception is reality it does; and "other groups" are trying to paint "us" with a broad brush.
When was the last time you heard a Catholic critic make mention of how many hospitals are built and maintained by Catholics? Is that because this information is inaccessible, or because the speaker has an agenda?
And I'm not particularly concerned with agreeing with those who are demonstrably wrong...
The word only is not needed to convey exclusivity, it's clearly implied by the exclusivity of the label protestant appearing all by itself.
"The point of the parenthetical addition to the title "(Protestants)" is to note that someone actually produced statistics including protestants (and Jews) and not just the stereotypical presumption that it is purely a Catholic problem."
No. You are misrepresenting the reason why poster added the the word protestant to the title. The poster's only reply to the matter appeared in post #28, it was: "The article is from a Protestant journal with the focus on protestant clergy." The focus was clearly not protestant clergy, but all clergy. Note that the author(s) of the article generated and applied an accurate title which was rendered inaccurate by the parenthetical addition protestant.
That's your interpretation.
Interpretation is not needed for plain English.
When you said “implies” you admitted you had to apply interpretation. It was not explicitly stated, you took it as implied.
Ridiculous! It's plain English and no interpretation is warranted whatsoever. Protestant in plain means protestant, not protestant plus other things not protestant.
“Protestant” quite obviously does not mean “only protestant.”
You said it yourself when you called it “implied,” as opposed to “expressed.”
...which can be monetized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.