The number of offenders often was grossly exaggerated. In reality, Jenkins suggests, probably no more than 2 percent to 3 percent of all priests were involved with minors.
2 to 3 percent of any profession being "involved" with minors is a problem. If it was 2 to 3 percent of teachers, or scoutmasters, or little league coaches -- don't you think this would be an issue? 2 to 3 percent is a lot!!. And at that level I don't think the "number of offenders" is being grossly exaggerated.
Sex abuse by clergy of other denominations was treated as an isolated, individual phenomenon, but in the case of Catholic priests it was presented as a product of the doctrines and structures of the Church.
This is partly due to the fact that the catholic church is the biggest and most hierarchical. It is like the IBM of churches. Where the problem in protestant churches exists tends to be mainly in the big mainline protestant churches that are structurally similar to the catholic churches (hierarchy of bishops, ability to shuffle problem minister between churches, etc.) But most protestant churches have "elders" who will deal pretty quickly with a problematical pastor or minister, and that pastor or minister is not going to have an easy time finding another job -- because the reason for firing is going to be communicated.
This is IMO. Comments?
Or he can start his own church.What's to stop him?
I disagree with this theory about how congregational government works. Controversial ministers usually have factions that supports them, so they often leave with a nice severance package and, except in the most clear-cut cases of abuse, find employment elsewhere. But I am afraid that neither of us could produce conclusive evidence of this. No one has done the legwork to see how the thousands of congrehations have handled sexual scandals. My guess is that movement of Protestant clergy more often has to do with the mingling of personal and church funds than with sex.