[vladimir998]

“...in particular their thesis that the abuse peaked in the 1960s and 1970s and dropped off significantly by the mid-1980s.”

Well, that’s obviously true.

There are less than a dozen new cases reported per year nowadays.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

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.

[Salvation]

There you go again, a supposed Republican believing in what the New York Slimes puts out.

OOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooh, no, not you?

[Stingray51]

The article makes no mention of homosexuality. I have read elsewhere that the report concludes that homosexuality in the priesthood was not a cause of the abuse. If so, that pretty much tells you what you need to know about this report.

[lastchance]

“The report’s conclusion was counterintuitive”

Interesting phrasing there. So because they feel it can not be right it is not right? It may be hard for them to accept but intuition is not a basis for analyzing the conclusions reached in any report let alone one which has used valid methodology to reach its conclusions.