Church Abuse Report Authors Defend Findings as Critics Weigh In

The criminologists hired by the nation's Roman Catholic bishops to study the sexual abuse crisis in the church defended their findings on Wednesday at the bishops' headquarters - in particular their thesis that the abuse peaked in the 1960s and 1970s and dropped off significantly by the mid-1980s.

Sexual abuse victims and experts in the field began to absorb and criticize what is thought to be the most extensive study ever conducted of child sexual abuse within an institution, produced after five years by researchers from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York.

Karen Terry, the report's principal investigator and the dean of research and strategic partnerships at John Jay, said Wednesday at a news conference: "The peak of this abuse crisis is historical. That peak is over."

The report's conclusion was counterintuitive to many Catholics and abuse victims, because the scandal itself did not peak until 2002 with the revelations that the archbishop of Boston had knowingly reassigned serial abusers to serve in ministries where they continued to have access to young people.

That practice appears still to have been at work until very recently, at least in Philadelphia, where a grand jury in February found that about three dozen priests accused of abuse and inappropriate behavior with minors were still in ministry.

Then the author ought to have said that. Instead what the article reads is “The report’s conclusion was counterintuitive to many Catholics and abuse victims” Which means their conclusion is based on their own personal feelings and not on evidence.

You might be fooled by the continuation of the sentence which reads “because the scandal itself did not peak until 2002 with the revelations that the archbishop of Boston had knowingly reassigned serial abusers to serve in ministries where they continued to have access to young people.”

Now does the above contradict the main claim the article has issue with which is that abuse peaked in the 60’s and 70’s? No it does not. Because it is one of the agreed upon facts of the scandal that the most of the abuse was not reported until decades after it occurred. That this reporting was indeed very largly in response to the expose by the Boston Globe. Publication gave many victims the courage to finally come forward and report to civil and church authorities what happened.

There is an assumption by those who debate the report that since the scandal was first made known in 2002 (why they conclude that means it peaked then I don’t know) The abuse itself must have peaked at that time. That is an illogical and erroneous conclusion.

Does that mean that all abuse ceased after the 1970’s? No it does not? Does it mean no more victims are likely to come forward? No it does not.

But it can be said with firm conviction based on the evidence at hand that most of the abuse happened in the decades of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s. That is what is meant by peaked.

If the evidence does not satisfy people that is just too bad for them.

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.