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.
“Frankly, you reveal a certain something about yourself merely by coming up with that language, hypothetical or not. “
Really? and what would that be?
“Suddenly the anti-Catholic crowd becomes very particular about statistics.”
Suddenly, responsible people of all faiths object to misdirection aimed at increasing inter-religious strife where none exists in the posted article.
Make your argument on thread as to why the comment was wrong, misleading, argumentative or whatever.
It is apparent on its face.
“It is apparent on its face.”
No it isn’t. State your case or withdraw the comment.
LOL
“LOL”
State your case or withdraw the comment.
LOLOL
“LOLOL”
Do you have nothing more substantive to justify a direct personal attack?
I think you should state your case or withdraw the comment.
I made no direct personal attack.
“I made no direct personal attack.”
I’m not trolling for you to get a mod-spanking, I just want you to defend your attack that you said was “apparent on it’s face” and then indicated laughter when I asked you to withdraw it.
If it wasn’t a direct attack, yet is “apparent on it’s face” I’m not sure we’re having an honest dialog.
Since you either cannot defend the aspersion or will not defend it, then we are done, would you not agree?
No aspersion to defend.
“No aspersion to defend.”
You won’t defend it. It’s there, even you said it was obvious. Now you say it’s not there at all.
Absent honest dialog, we are done, do you agree?
Since I doubt you mean I sprinkled you with water, your claim itself is an aspersion upon myself.
You seem to me to be laboring mightily to make this personal. I will not participate. Such things are not permitted on the Religion Forum.
I said there was an obvious aspersion? That's just not true.
Absent honest dialog...
Blame yourself for that absence.
“Blame yourself for that absence.”
As I said, absent honest dialog we are done, right?
If you cannot be honest, where would such a dialog even begin?
“If you cannot be honest, where would such a dialog even begin?”
Absent honest dialog, we are done, correct?
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.