The John Jay report offers a brilliant insight into the background for the sex-abuse scandal:
The pattern of deviant sexual behavior by clerics is consistent with several other behavioral changes in society between 1960 and 1990, including use of drugs, and an increase in divorce and criminal behavior.
Ah. See, that's why you pay $1.8 million for really high-class social-science research. Society changed between 1960 and 1990. You wouldn't have made that observation yourself.
Once you think about it, though, it all becomes clear. Mrs. Robinson got a divorce and Junior smoked weed at college, so naturally Father Mulligan chased his altar boys. The connection is clear.
Not nearly so clear is the connection between the gender of the victims and the preferences of the predators. On that point the lead social scientist demands great logical rigor.
“It’s important to separate the sexual identity and the behavior,” Terry said. “Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity.”
Right. Just because you perform homosexual acts, that doesn't mean you're homosexual. Therefore, the established fact that well over 80% of the abuse involved homosexual acts sheds no light on the question of whether homosexuals were disproportionately involved.
More than 4 years ago your Uncle Di asked:
Is there a single Catholic on the planet -- and I include the bishops' own mothers in the question -- who really believes the purpose of this study is to discover -- and not to camouflage -- the causes of priestly sexual abuse?
I claim no prophecy points for predicting that the rain would fall earthward.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!