Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Survey Reveals Prevalence of (Protestant) Clergy Sexual Misconduct
Christian Post ^ | September 11, 2009 | Audrey Barrick

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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: adultery; baptist; catholic; clergy; moapb; pastors; protbashing; protestant; protestantabuse; sexabuse; sin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last
To: papertyger

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.


121 posted on 09/12/2009 8:17:57 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Um, I'd like to buy an argument.
122 posted on 09/12/2009 8:25:17 PM PDT by TradicalRC (Go here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2326276/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
If they aren’t willing to hold to and enforce God’s commandments, they are no longer a church.

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.

123 posted on 09/12/2009 9:25:57 PM PDT by papertyger (A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC

No it just listed being a father.


124 posted on 09/12/2009 9:34:54 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

“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.


125 posted on 09/13/2009 7:27:16 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; Religion Moderator

“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


126 posted on 09/13/2009 7:29:40 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

>>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.


127 posted on 09/13/2009 8:01:07 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

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


128 posted on 09/13/2009 8:06:01 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

>>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.


129 posted on 09/13/2009 8:26:24 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
No it's not. Are rabbis protestant?

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.

130 posted on 09/13/2009 9:02:49 AM PDT by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
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.

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.

131 posted on 09/13/2009 10:07:55 AM PDT by papertyger (A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

“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


132 posted on 09/13/2009 10:21:05 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
No amount of pointing out wrongdoing of other groups makes us more righteous.

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...

133 posted on 09/13/2009 10:21:06 AM PDT by papertyger (A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; NYer
"No one said anything about exclusivity. Even the note in the title says "Protestants," NOT "only Protestants."

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.

134 posted on 09/13/2009 10:53:38 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
...it's clearly implied...

That's your interpretation.

135 posted on 09/13/2009 10:54:31 AM PDT by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
"That's your interpretation."

Interpretation is not needed for plain English.

136 posted on 09/13/2009 11:01:22 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

When you said “implies” you admitted you had to apply interpretation. It was not explicitly stated, you took it as implied.


137 posted on 09/13/2009 12:39:02 PM PDT by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
"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.

138 posted on 09/13/2009 7:03:26 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

“Protestant” quite obviously does not mean “only protestant.”

You said it yourself when you called it “implied,” as opposed to “expressed.”


139 posted on 09/14/2009 7:10:16 AM PDT by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"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."

...which can be monetized.

140 posted on 09/14/2009 7:14:59 AM PDT by cmj328 (Filibuster FOCA--a/k/a this "Health" Bill--or lose reelection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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