The evidence Newsweek presents to back up the heading of a recent Web article—”Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males” (4/8/10)—is remarkably unpersuasive.
Here’s the main argument offered by reporter Pat Wingert:
The only hard data that has been made public by any denomination comes from John Jay College’s study of Catholic priests, which was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops following the public outcry over the 2002 scandals. Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children. Specifically, 4,392 complaints (ranging from “sexual talk” to rape) were made against priests by 10,667 victims….
Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but [National Center for Missing and Exploited Children president Ernie] Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it’s closer to one in 5. But in either case, the rate of abuse by Catholic priests is not higher than these national estimates…. Even those numbers may be low; research suggests that only a third of abuse cases are ever reported (making it the most underreported crime).
So a study funded by the Catholic bishops found that there had been “plausible accusations” against 4 percent of priests active between 1950 and 1992. That end date is convenient: Wingert notes later, by way of trying to explain why priests seem to molest more kids than they actually do, that two-thirds of complaints against priests have been made since 1992. So a study that included all “plausible accusations” against priests since 1950 would likely produce a figure closer to 12 percent than 4 percent.
Wingert then compares this to estimates—including one by the person who did the bishop-funded study, though the reporter doesn’t note this—that 10 to 20 percent of all U.S. males have sexually abused children. Regardless of how credible these figures seem, they’re clearly not directly comparable to the John Jay number; there certainly have not been “plausible accusations” of pedophilia against 12 million to 24 million living American men. (Though Wingert seems to think that there might have been, writing that the 20 percent figure “may be low” because “only a third of abuse cases are ever reported.” So 60 percent of U.S. males may be secretly engaging in child sex abuse?)
For a more comparable figure, there were 60,749 perpetrators of child sexual abuse identified by the federal National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System in 2008; assuming these were all adult males, that works out to a rate of about 0.05 percent for that group. Now, that’s one year, not 42, but even if there were no recidivism at all, it’s still clear that the priests in the John Jay study were accused of molesting children at a considerably higher rate than that—and that’s a study that leaves out the bulk of such accusations.
Even IF the headline was true (i.e.; that “Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males”), to me that appears to be a weak argument (actually a distractionary, secondary factoid) since priests are supposed to be much MORE than ‘other males’, as I understand it from afar (not being religious in the mainstream sense, much less Catholic). Priests are elevated to a high level of moral rectitude in the Catholic church, and are supposed to be the ‘right hand of God’, promoting the Catholic version of morality, and enforcing it from the pulpit, etc, etc. They’re in a special category. So not only are they hypocrites when they abuse parishioners, they’re also destroying the morality they’re supposed to be creating/supporting, and their helping to destroy the institution they work for. A rough analogy would be if a policeman was caught stealing from a store and then apologists claimed that while 5% of the general public steals from stores, only 4% of policemen do. Policemen are in a special category, a special status in this argument – – they are NOT part of the ‘general public’. While we can’t expect perfection from anyone or any institution, these sort of transgressions should be in the .1% range, NOT the ‘normal range’ for the entire population.
Wingert’s comparison misses the point in another way: namely, that the main issue here concerning the Vacitan is not that priests are molesting children, but that the Church hierarchy is complicit in the crimes. Arguably, pedophiles need treatment and observation–some if not all may not be able to control themselves. However, it is indisputable fact that the Church knowingly, intentionally hid these creatures from the sight of the law and threatened those who would expose them. If these were mobsters, that would be called ‘accomplice after the fact.’ If you’re one of the largest religions in the world, it’s called ‘counseling.’ I call it an abomination.
I think this author is just trying to tone down the media rhetoric a bit. The govt-sponsored agencies and insurance companies don’t see a problematic trend, so what is the media frenzy about?
Seems like they’re using a version of, “he did it too!” to justify the pedophile behavior of priests. It’s apparently OK if non-priests do it also. Rubbish.
The first paragraph of the Newsweek excerpt does not make sense. First, it must be that there were 4,392 priests against whom complaints were filed, not 4,392 complaints. Isn’t that figure (4,392) related to the “… 4 percent of the 110,000 priests …” comment? How can the number of “plausible” victims exceed the number of “plausible” complaints? Second, 10,667 victims who made complaints against 4,392 priests means that, on average, there were less than 2.5 complaints per priest against whom “plausible” complaints were received. Does that figure seem low? My impression is that pedophiles are multiple offenders (that is, much more than 2.5 times).
As Martin Holt points out, it’s really not about whether priests molest kids in larger numbers than the population at large. Those men in the population at large don’t have a large, powerful, wealthy institution shielding them from the consequences of their deeds. They’re on their own. In my eyes, a bishop or cardinal who purposefully conceals such activities in order to protect the institution is far guiltier and far more evil than the priests themselves.
Castration right after ordination, would bring those percentages down even further.
I am not a Catholic – actually I’m one of the “unchurched” according to Christian dortrine. However, believe me:
(1) The defense that priests are no more likely than others to force sexual acts upon minors is hardly a persuasive argument; and
(2) More tellingly, that a church – in this case the Catholic Church – has ducked and weaved and had the incredible audacity to compare the calls for their supreme leader (pope) to own up to his (in)actions is somehow equivalent to the Nazi’s extermination program for the Jews??? I always thought that the idea of a parallel universe was a fantasy but evidently I was wrong. How can ANYONE with an OUNCE of humanity not DEMAND a recantation and a removal of the sitting pope????
The problem lies in the FUNDAMENTALISM that is perpetuated by Christian, including Catholique, church hierarchy. What does a homosexual do if he is terrified to come out of the closet and is constantly harrassed to have children/grandchildren? He can escape into the clergy. What does he do with all that Testosterone? He masturbates and/or abuses the vulnerable – hoping no one will know. / The church insists that it has the god-given right to tell the people with whom they can live or engage in sex. The church, with it’s shameful, holier-than-thou social pressures has brought this on itself. // Jean Clelland-Morin
Interestingly, the authors seem to want to apply the conception that “research suggests that only a third of abuse cases are ever reported (making it the most underreported crime)” only to crimes committed by non-priests. Isn’t it likely — maybe even more likely, due to the cloistered (pun intended) nature of the crime — that abuse by priests would also go unreported? If so, the adjustment should be applied to any particular statistics about sexual misconduct — and the priests’ numbers would be even higher.
I am not and never was a fan of the Catholic church and I find the stories reported lately horrific and inexcusable. From childhood I found most Catholics to have a self righteous and intolerant attitude, before I even knew there was such a thing as prejudice against Catholics. I didn’t learn it from my parents; as a 6 year old I noticed that the Catholics at school were mean and protestants relatively easy going. I can’t imagine why anyone in their right mind would be celibate as an adult. I resent Catholic’s political power and the threat they pose to abortion rights. However…. I find it highly suspicious that there is so much media interest in these stories long after much of it was first made public. Who is behind these attacks and why? I smell a big political rat.
I was raised and have since left the Catholic church (and will not participate in any organized religion) The fact is a catholic priest is supposed to not engage in such activities no matter what. So the argument that he gives is silly.
The issue is not how often priests commit crimes of torture and rape compared to the general male populace, it’s the fact that the Catholic Church, a religious institution, does not know right from wrong. It’s wrong to beat children. It’s criminal conduct to rape children and cover it up and not disclose it to law enforcement. A religion that does not know right from wrong should be abandoned and disbanded. Catholics should question their faith if their church condones, covers up, perpetuates criminal behavior against minors. You don’t need a god to figure that out.
Even if the statistic were true, a claim which this article seems to completely debunk, it doesn’t address the systemic protection of abusers. Has there been an orchestrated effort of law-enforcement and political authorities to protect abusers?
I wish the Catholic Church & the supporters of ” the organized religion wall -of- silence”, a cold toilet-seat.
These statistics are not an argument justifying the actions of guilty priests. It is simply debunking the claim that the Catholic Church is a breeding ground for molesters. Sexual misconduct is wrong whether you’re a priest or part of the public. Catholics involved in sexual abuse have not only failed in morality, but they have also failed in Catholicism, in that they are not practicing the Catholic Christian faith at all.
The problem didn’t originate in the Catholic Church, it originated within the human heart. Some people are psychologically sick. While this may come as a shock, priests are people too. Let me reiterate, what these priests did was WRONG in the eyes of the Church, there is no excuse. They need our prayers.
As far as systemic protection of abusers go, if someone calls in an allegation, the authorities are immediately contacted. Next, that priest will be booted from the parish (no matter if he is innocent or not). Can you imagine the pressure that respectable priests have? If he someone misunderstands sincere friendliness towards children that priest can be kicked out, no questions asked; he’s basically guilty till proven innocent. It is important to note that the Church has made its screening process (mental, psychological, physical, etc.) much more stringent as well as implementing a zero-tolerance policy on abusive clerics (much credit due to Pope Benedict XVI).
As far as concern for victims, no public organization does more for alleged victims than the Catholic Church does. For example, the Church completely pays for any medical bills (hospital or counseling) for victims and family until the victim feels they are no longer necessary.
What these men have done was wrong, but it doesn’t mean the Faith is false. Leave mother Church out of it and let God deal with those sick sons.
These statistics suggest that Catholic priests have in fact molested children at a much higher rate than men in the general population–which indicates that the problem involves the Catholic Church as well as the human heart. As for the credit due to Pope Benedict, see:
https://fair.org/blog/2010/04/13/rewriting-ratzingers-record-to-create-a-hero-of-the-abuse-scandal/
Hey Jim,
The study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice covered the years 1950-2002 not 1950-1992 (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PriestAbuseScandal.htm ). That basically deflates most of your argument. But hey, for you I’m sure “1992 is a convenient end date”.
The study also found that only about 10-20% of the sexual abuse cases were pedophilia (http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/ ). So 0.4-0.8% of priests between 1950-2002 engaged in pedophilia. Comparing these numbers to the 0.5% rate of males found by the federal National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System in 2008, the rate of pedophilia in the priesthood over the past 52 years is consistent with the rate of pedophilia in the general public.
If you want to question the credibility of the John Jay research team, the credentials of the 8 PhD’s are here: .
To reiterate, these statistics suggest that Catholic priests have in fact molested children at a consistent rate as the general population. Again, this looks like a problem with the human heart, not the Church. But hey, nice try Jim!
Credential of the John Jay research team:
PRESIDENT, JOHN JAY COLLEGE
GERALD W. LYNCH, PHD
President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice for 28 years. He received his Ph.D. in
clinical psychology in 1968 from New York University. He has been personally involved in
many scholarly inquiries dealing with controversial topics, including casino gambling and
policing in Northern Ireland. He is the editor of Human Dignity and the Police, a volume
which describes and analyzes a program designed by Dr Lynch and others for training
police officials about respecting the rights of citizens with whom they interact.
ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR
JAMES LEVINE, PHD
Dean of Graduate Studies and Research at John Jay College of Criminal Justice where
he is also professor of government. He received his Ph.D. in political science from
Northwestern University in 1968. Prior to joining John Jay College in 1993, he was on the
faculties of Michigan State University, the University of Oregon, and Brooklyn College of
The City University of New York. He is the author of four books and fifty articles in the fields
of criminal justice, criminology, and policy analysis.
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
KAREN TERRY, PHD
Associate Professor in the Department of Law, Police Science, and Criminal Justice
Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Deputy Executive Officer
of the Doctoral Program in Criminal Justice, CUNY. She holds a doctorate in criminology
from Cambridge University and she has several publications on sex offender treatment,
management and supervision. She is also the Editor of the Sex Offender Law Report.
DATA ANALYST
MARGARET LELAND SMITH, ABD
Trained as a criminologist at Rutgers School of Criminal Justice, Margaret Smith is a
member of the Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics at John Jay College and the
Coordinator of the Prisoners Self Help Legal Clinic in Newark, New Jersey.
RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
MICHELE GALIETTA, PHD
Assistant Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She received a
Ph.D. in clinical psychology and a M.A. in Religion from Fordham University in New York
City. Dr. Galietta is a researcher and clinician specializing in the assessment and
treatment of various offender groups.
MAUREEN O’CONNOR, JD, PHD
Chair of the Psychology Department at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She
received her law degree and her Ph.D. from the University of Arizona. Her research
interests are in the intersection of psychology, gender, and law. Prior to graduate school,
Dr. O’Connor worked for six years in the research and grants agencies of the U.S.
Department of Justice, specializing in crime victim issues.
CREDITS â┚¬“ THE JOHN JAY COLLEGE RESEARCH TEAM
4
STEVEN PENROD, JD, PHD
Distinguished Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He
received his law degree and his doctorate from Harvard University. He was formerly
Professor of Law and Psychology at the University of Nebraska, Professor of Law at the
University of Minnesota and Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin. His
primary area of research is legal decision making–with a particular emphasis on juries
and eyewitness reliability, and he has over 100 book and journal publications.
LOUIS SCHLESINGER, PHD
Professor of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a Diplomate in
Forensic Psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology. He received his
doctorate from the New School of Social Research. Dr. Schlesinger’s area of expertise is
criminal psychopathology and sexually motivated antisocial acts, and he has published
numerous articles, chapters, and eight books on the topic.
I’m dropping by this site in 2012. This article has been up years. I was looking up stats for priest abuse, and it is pretty clear that the Jay report does not limit the study to 1992, but to 2002. Newsweek is just wrong on this fact, as has been posted above.
Newsweek should have got the date right. But FAIR, by this point, knows that the Jay study went to 2002. So the basis for this article is just false. FAIR has known this for two years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report
So, why is this still up? It’s clear the problem is a typo in the article, not some implausible argument.