If the “overwhelming majority of known victims were boys” then who were the perpetrators if they were not homosexually-oriented men ?
How does one reconcile what we know about the victime (that the overwhelming majority were young males) with the findings of this study?
Just asking.

“What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse,” said Margaret Smith of John Jay College.
Of course you’re saying that, Margaret, what with the power of the homosexual lobby today; I wouldn’t want to have to deal with their wrath, either!!
This is along the same line of the mainstream media’s ever increasing tendency these days to employ the term “men who have sex with men.”
What a bleeping joke.

Ditto the earlier comment. If the majority of victims are boys and there are no women priests, how can this not be predominately a problem with homosexuals?
Some of these articles can lead to excessive head-scratching.

Let’s see here. The John Jay folks are saying that sexual orientation doesn’t predict abuse. Figure the same proportion of priests identify as homosexual as men in the general population–somewhere around 5%. Yet the overwhelming majority of known victims–I’ve seen 70% quoted–are male.
I see the following possibilities (I’ve probably missed some):
1. There are a *lot* more same-sex-attracted guys in the priesthood than in the general population. Possible, but is SSA really 14 times as common in the priesthood as in the general male population? I have trouble buying that.
2. Gay priests who are abusive are a *lot* more prolific than straight priests who are abusive. Again, it’s possible, but that factor of 14 still seems awfully large.
3. A lot of primarily-straight priests were committing homosexual abuse. That might get the numbers close enough that possibilities #1 and #2 could account for the rest–but I really don’t see why primarily-straight priests would be abusing boys, given that parishes have, as a rule, as many girls as boys.
4. The John Jay folks are not finding something that they *really* don’t want to find, which is that SSA does in fact predict clerical sexual abuse. This might be an innocent mistake–a category mistake in a questionnaire, say–or it could be something less scientifically responsible.
I will note, in passing, that if SSA predicts abuse in priests, it would be pretty surprising if SSA did not also predict abuse (of the same kind) in the general population. Conversely, if SSA predicts abuse in laymen, it would be awfully surprising if priests were somehow exempt from that effect.
Similarly, it would be really surprising if gay priest abusers were vastly more prolific than their straight abusing counterparts, but that the same pattern didn’t hold in the general population (the converse holds here, too). Same deal for primarily-straight priests committing homosexual abuse; that wouldn’t be expected to be a phenomenon limited to priests.
So one might be able to look at those statistics for the general population and get a sense of whether explanations #2, #3, and #4 actually explain anything. The John Jay data itself should allow for testing explanation #1; what proportion of the priests they surveyed identified as gay?
It’s a shame, in any case, that this topic is so politically loaded.
Peace,
–Peter

sigh.
the abuse is overwhelmingly perpetrated by adults against young boys. it’s not about orientation. I’ve seen this discussion before in other venues and it ends up devolving into a demonization of homosexuals. I believe that studies done in the general population have shown that the majority of pedophiles identify themselves as heterosexual even though their victims are young males.
This begs the question. If, as the church teaches, homosexuals are called to live in celibacy–why shouldn’t they be allowed to be priests? The expectation is that as a priest you live a celibate life. Oh. Wait (sarcasm ahead) “homosexuals are deeply disordered and can’t handle such things as priestly celibacy”. Horse puckies. You can’t argue all things at once.
Go ahead attack me. I know it’s coming. I don’t think it’s fair or moral that people try to blame the sex abuse scandal on homosexuals. You’re ignoring the issue. Known offenders were passed around to different parishes and dioceses, that’s on the bishops.

Mhari Dubh – Thank you for your comment. We can keep each other company if we are both are chastised and challenged here.
I have commented about this many times whenever the threads, here and elsewhere, turn ugly and cruel regarding the alleged link between same sex orientation and child sexual abuse.
As a thriving survivor of sexual abuse, one of my pathways of healing was to study about and learn about what causes this. My perpetrator was a heterosexual man with many problems. He also had many sexual partners- adult females. Yet he chose to continue to abuse me and perhaps others. I am 52 and he has been dead for almost 40 years, so others are safe. It is my belief that he hurt others, but I have no way to know.
If anyone does even a minimum study of sexual crimes, you will quickly learn that rape is a crime of power acted out sexually. You want to talk about power issues? Childhood sexual abuse is all about that.
It really sets me off when people continue to equate clergy sexual abuse with homosexuality. It is an insult to one and all and shows a complete lack of understanding.
Going back to what Mhari Dubh said above, perhaps we should also revisit the behavior of the bishops and the church at large… It is easy and cheap to blame the perpetrating priests alone. How about the movement and effort to keep moving them around and to keep the silence at all costs?
The obsessive focus on “blaming the gays” must stop. We must rather focus on finding the perpetrators and dealing with them appropriately.
And then – gasp – then dealing with the victims of these crimes in a healthy and redeeming way.

I assume that they are splitting hairs over definitions here.
When 82% of the victims were post-pubescent boys, used and abused by men, and so far it has cost the Church and its insurers over two billion dollars, it seems to me to that the burden of proof is on the abusers
They are going to have to show that they had girlfriends or girl victims or a subscription to Playboy to show that they don’t have major “same sex attraction issues.” It’s immaterial whether or not that they are “classically homosexual” as determined by the extremely suspect American Psychiatric Association, most of whose members no doubt have various “issues” of their own.
John Jay College of Law is a part of the State Univesity of New York system, I believe. As such they are no doubt permeated with the pandemic of “political correctness” as much as any other secular institution is these days.
John Jay should show us their documents on the destructioin of the World Trade Center and their description of the perpetrators and their creeds, if any.

“…82% of the victims were post-pubescent boys…” Bingo.
This stat comes straight fron the John Jay study itself; you can look it up.
Sex between adult men and post-pubescent boys is called “epebophilia.” Unfortunately for the gay rights lobby, epebophilia involving men and boys is definitionally homosexual, as opposed to pedophilia, which is not.
To delink the facts from the fact of homosexuality in the ranks of the priesthood is a politically motivated lie of gargantuan proportions.

I repeat, sexual abuse of minors is not just a crime of sexual attraction. Add to that, please be aware that there is an astounding number of heterosexual men with a sexual compulsion that finds them connecting with other men, straight or gay, for anonymous sex.
Oh if it were as simple as so many would point out.
No one would ever know that our faith is based in incarnational theology – it is about the body, flesh.
And how we might seek the integrity (opposite of dis-integration) of our bodies, our minds and our spirits rather than shame and blame, jumping to conclusions. Such conclusions might prop our wounded egos up, but does so at the cost of our brothers and sisters. And ourselves.
So much for literally “re-membering” the Body of Christ.

I think it hardly matters what the orientation of the predator is, it is a crime that should be punished. Those who enable such people also need to face criminal charges as well.
I agree with Fran that the primary issue is that it is a crime of power over a weaker person. While fortunate enough not to have been a victim myself, I know others in my past who were less able to stand up against abusive clergy. Most priests in my childhood knew they had children and their parents over a barrel over baptisms, first communions and conformations, conformation time being perhaps the most difficult to avoid tangling with a priest, a DRE or someone enjoying their power a little too much. Most of time I suspect that this does not rise to the level of a crime, priest are content to demean the unlucky lay person/child only verbally. Sexual abuse is the ultimate humiliation that a person with power can inflict, some are cruel enough to go that far.

The scandal was as much or more a power thing as a homo thing, yet the vast majority of the offenses were homosexual in nature?!!
Those who are staking this claim would seem to be in possession of precious little respect for themselves, never mind anyone else.

Irish Spectre – I am very sorry that you do not understand the spectrum of human sexuality and power issues and you do not seem to want to.

The study then will be a flat out lie. Homosexuals are the ones abusing male teens in the Church. Period.
Of course, many will like to do the ostrich approach, bury your head in a hole in the ground and pretend it’s not true.
Men abuse boys, men who like male boys, men who don’t see anything wrong with “genital contact” between males. Homosexuals. Duh!

Fran Rossi: “Mhari Dubh – Thank you for your comment. We can keep each other company if we are both are chastised and challenged here. I have commented about this many times whenever the threads, here and elsewhere, turn ugly and cruel regarding the alleged link between same sex orientation and child sexual abuse.”
Fran and Mhari, with all due respect, no one here has been chastising or challenging you personally. Stop the whining.
Nevertheless, there have been legitimate concerns raised here about the internal contradictions found in the John Jay report which Deacon Greg posted here. Your point, Fran, about sexual abuse being about the abuse of power is understood. Fine. But, then, why weren’t there a proportionate number of young females abused? You argue that heterosexual men abused young boys, but by the same token wouldn’t you have the same phenomenon involving homosexual men and young girls … assuming as you do that it is all “about the abuse of power by the strong over the weak”?
No, the fact that the overwhelming number of victims were young boys (and not young girls) still leads us towards one conclusion about the nature of the perpetrators. It is a conclusion very much at odds with the John Jay study posted by Deacon Greg.

I found the last paragraph in the blog to be interesting and might help explain the boy/girl abuse ratio problem to a large extent…the issue of abuser access to children. The report comments that the incidence of abuse is declining in the US and I think this is largely due to effective reforms that now strongly limit clergy access to children. In the past, priests had far greater opportunity to be alone with boys but not with girls, sleep-overs, trips, etc.
Now that this gender specific access to boys is over, I predict that we will see the statistics even out considerably. I think the motive will still be related to abuse of power. I hope the the John Jay report will examine how the victims and perpetrators describe their motives, then we will have better answers to the problem.

DML: “The report comments that the incidence of abuse is declining in the US and I think this is largely due to effective reforms that now strongly limit clergy access to children.”
What a tragic outcome if the result is to limit clergy access to children, who today are statistically far more at risk to being sexually abused by public school teachers, for example, and others on the public payrolls who work with the young.
Who will safeguard children against predators in the public schools? Who in the media will have the courage to turn the spotlight on this scandal?

Public school teachers should also have restricted access to children, such as in settings where they would be alone with them one-on-one. Schools, day-care operators and doctors typically abide by these same restrictions. I agree that everyone needs to be equally accountable.

Deacon, first of all this site is a pain to comment on. It is slow and cumbersome. Liked your old site much better. I found that true when Amy Wellborn moved over here as well.
I think it is interesting to read the following from Vatican official after the last Jay Report release with actual data.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09092910.html
“The sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the US and abroad was a matter of homosexuals preying on adolescent boys, not one of pedophilia, said the Vatican’s representative at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland. It is “more correct,” said Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males, than pedophilia, in relation to the scandals.”
I suspect there has been some Political Correctness with this new release.

Greta…
Re: the site. You’re preaching to the choir. Every one of my old readers who has commented on it has said the same thing. Frankly, I’m not thrilled with it, either.
Dcn. G.

Always amazes me how we can rationalize away studies that we don’t want to believe or discard science when it doesn’t meet our end. As to abuse of females, I believe that the best estimate is that 1 in 5 priests (20%) are in a heterosexual relationship. Of course, since it is heterosexual we don’t consider that an abuse.
If we work at it, we can redefine anything.

Yes, agreed with Mike L. Redefine a homosexual problem into a non-problem. Ostrichesd with their heads in a hole!

Mhari and Fran:
The Church teaches that homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered. The APA holds the same thing: that homosexuality is a behavioral (not a mental) disorder. Sin leads us into more sin. When we sin against God through disordered sexual conduct (including adultery and fornication, as well as homosexuality) why is it so hard to fathom that such men would stoop to abuse teenage boys?
Homosexual activity is, by nature selfish. Abuse is likewise selfish. To use another’s body simply for your pleasure is solely about you and what you get out of it. Abuse is the same thing: while homosexuals and sexual deviants use other’s body for their disordered sexual pleasure, abusers use another’s body for their emotional satisfaction. The two are intrinsically related.
It is for this reason that homosexuals are not suited for the priesthood.

I think we could use a further clarification. I would agree that consensual clerical sex with adults (18+) would be the same homo or hetero. But ABUSE of minors (be they 17 or 7) is NOT the same thing and as far as the sickness of this sexual deviation with MINORS goes..I think the report is askew.

I spoke at the Bishops’ 2002 meeting in Dallas about my experience of being abused by a priest (then a seminarian).
The crisis of clergy sexual abuse was not caused by homosexuals, it was caused by men who did not keep their vows of celibacy and who were sexually attracted to children. The problem is not homosexuality, but unfaithfulness and a desire to have power over a powerless victim.
If the clergy sexual abuse crisis was caused by homosexuality, how do you explain my (an 11 year old girl at the time of the abuse) molestation by a man? I am one of thousands of female victims who were victimized by priests. The problem of male priests abusing boys was exacerbated by abusive priests’ proximity to young boys as altar servers. I think if abusive priests had had more access to young girls the statistics would be much higher.
Again, homosexuality was not the problem, a sexual attraction to children was (and still is, as this problem hasn’t gone away).

Not only is Beliefnet cumbersome to use, what with the pop-ups that keep on coming no matter what, but it also attracts more than its share of PC types, as the comments on this thread make clear. Gays are a victim-class these days, and pedophiles are not (not yet, anyway), so the elite crowd is desperate to convince us that men who abuse adolescent boys are power-trippers rather than frustrated closeted homosexuals. The possibility that they could be both evidently escapes them.

Ron, it wasn’t so long ago that homosexual activity was widely (and, of course, appropriately) derided as an outrage against God and nature, but moral relativism has quite taken care of that, witness the colossal tripping over of one another that the John Jay folks, and many within the Church itself, are doing these days to convince those of us with a functional brain that the scandal is separate and apart from a homosexualized priesthood. Moral relativism being what it is, you can bet your bottom dollar that, sooner or later, our hypersexualized, God-less world will make provision as well for pedophilia, and beastiality after that. …unless, of course, we’re fortunate enough to experience the apocalypse before such “progress” is realized.

So your parents sucked at practicing the faith. Why should we pay the price?
Actually, my parents paid the price of a church that sucked at practicing the faith. And beginning in 2 years, they’ll get to start paying some more.
(Well, to be fair the priest that said mass in 8 minutes flat and then stood silently staring at his watch for 5 more minutes because he had been instructed that mass must be at least 13 minutes long amused my mother as well as that other kids. The people who paid the price were my grandparents, who had trouble getting to church perfectly on time and 8 — or even 13 — minutes doesn’t leave a lot of slack.
As for my other parent, my dad spent 8th grade in a parish where they spent a lot of time teaching the parishoners to understand Latin well enough that they could follow the mass (and actually said the mass with spaces between words and at the ends of sentences, with proper pronunciation and inflection.) He had moved away, though, by the time somebody reported that parish to the chancery and they were forced to put a stop to it. So it’s debatable whether he “paid the price.”)
This has been a very long war between those who advocate the congregation perceiving the mass as prayer, and those scandalized by the thought that the congregation might pray incorrectly. In the 40s and 50s the battle lines were drawn at dialogue masses and congregational singing…
(At the University of Chicago in the 50s, virtually all of the Catholic students had a pretty strong mastery of Latin, and so the entire congregation would say — and understand — the altar boys’ responses. Until their chaplains were ordered by the bishop to stop it.)

Fran – cool someone to stand back to back with on this one!
Reaganite – with as much respect as you offered me (and Fran) – didn’t say anyone here had been chastising or challenging me but I’ve commented on this issue before and get all kinds of mud thrown at me. Also “stop the whining” not very respectful at all, I wasn’t whining. “Why weren’t there a proportionate number of young females abused?” Because it has been generally frowned upon to let any older male be alone with girls; even when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s. It’s all about access and cultivation.
Commenting on teachers…..are you aware of the policies around access and when you spend time with students? Guess what — an abuser will figure out their way around those policies wherever those abusers are.
Mrteachersir – so someone with homosexual inclinations who chooses to ignore those inclinations and live a celibate life is still “by nature selfish” and thus not suited to the priesthood? Really? I think someone who has felt called to religious life and has chosen to be celibate would do just fine in the role of priest.
I think the hierarchy is trying to find an easy way to explain the abuse. They need to face the fact that supervision was not what it should have been and that there were horrible mistakes made in shuffling abusers around.
Gays as victim class??!?!? Let’s talk about conservatives as victim class – the elites, the evil media, and politically correct types are ruining everything! Since when is elite a bad thing to be? Since when is questioning things a symptom of the downfall of civilization?
My position is that it is wrong to paint a group of people with the same brush. As Catholics we all get mad (or should) when someone makes a comment about “all priests” being pedophiles and abusers. But – according to many commentors it’s just fine to say all those abusers are homosexuals and that homosexuals are abusers. I’m calling you on it. Examine what you’re accusing others of; you’re missing the plank in your own eye.

“The APA holds the same thing: that homosexuality is a behavioral (not a mental) disorder.” says Mrteachersir
Please cite this finding for us.
And a reminder that the Church also taught many other things that came to pass away, such as slavery. And let’s not forget that usury, the backbone of capitalism is now a sin.
The lack of dignity towards any human person even if YOU think that they are not worthy of dignity is a very sad way for a Catholic or Christian to think or believe.
Thank you.

CORRECTION to the above comment…
http://breadhere.blogspot.com
“The APA holds the same thing: that homosexuality is a behavioral (not a mental) disorder.” says Mrteachersir
Please cite this finding for us.
And a reminder that the Church also taught many other things that came to pass away, such as slavery. And let’s not forget that usury, the backbone of capitalism is now was once a sin.
The lack of dignity towards any human person even if YOU think that they are not worthy of dignity is a very sad way for a Catholic or Christian to think or believe.
Thank you.

Posting problems should cause me to consider reverting back to silence…
was once a sin, not is now a sin.