They were at least eleven
Miranda did a close reading of the US Conference of Catholic bishops’ report on child sexual abuse.
Feast on this one item:
One of the most egregious aspects of this report is that the researchers arbitrarily redefine “pedophilia” as sexual abuse of victims that were ten years old or younger at the time, despite the fact that the DSM sets the cutoff age at thirteen.
And guess what the result of that is? It changes the stats! Radically. It makes the problem seem a whole lot smaller than it is.
if the researchers had used the DSM‘s guidelines, the percentage would jump from 22% to almost 73%.
Extraordinary, isn’t it? Just arbitrarily change the definition and poof, the whole mess all but disappears – and the report gets the fun of scolding the media for using the unchanged definition:
Media reports about Catholic priests who sexually abused minors often mistakenly have referred to priests as pedophiles. According to the DSM IV-TR, pedophilia is characterized by fantasies, urges, or behaviors about sexual activity with a prepubescent child that occurs for a significant period of time. Yet, the Nature and Scope data indicated that nearly four out of five minors abused were at least eleven years old at the time of the abuse. Though development happens at varying ages for children, the literature generally refers to eleven and older as an age of pubescence or postpubescence (53).
At which point children simply long to be raped by priests.
‘At which point children simply long to be raped by priests.’
If the victim is still breathing, they were totally asking for it. Otherwise they secretly wanted it and shouldn’t have been dressed that way in the wrong place.
Why isn’t this on the front page of the New York Times?
Entirely coincidentally, most altars boys begin their service around age 11.
This is one reason why I advocate using simpler terms. Let’s just all call it “child rape” so there’s no confusion.
Every single one of the bishops, archbishops and cardinals should have resigned over this fiasco. The fact that they didn’t just shows how deep the rot is in the church.
It’s just jaw-droppingly galling (and I still have no clue what “literature” they’re referring to there). Honestly, I can’t figure out why John Jay College agreed to do either of the studies.
Donohue has a “critical analysis” which basically blames our culture’s acceptance of homosexuality for the children that were raped:
http://www.catholicleague.org/images/upload/image_201105230830.pdf
Nothing new from Donohue, he has been pushing that lie for some time now. You see, the heterosexual priests left the priesthood to get married and this left a high proportion of homosexuals as priests…
So the researchers are saying that lusting after a 10-13 year old is merely grubby, and not deeply disordered. Who’s to bet that someone among them is doing a bit of quiet self-justifying?
Is the church saying that the problem is that too many altar boys are gay? That the poor priests were simply unable to withstand the temptation?
[…] Butterflies and Wheels. Media reports about Catholic priests who sexually abused minors often mistakenly have referred to priests as pedophiles. According to the DSM IV-TR, pedophilia is characterized by fantasies, urges, or behaviors about sexual activity with a prepubescent child that occurs for a significant period of time. Yet, the Nature and Scope data indicated that nearly four out of five minors abused were at least eleven years old at the time of the abuse. Though development happens at varying ages for children, the literature generally refers to eleven and older as an age of pubescence or postpubescence. […]
[…] to Ophelia Benson for the link, who comments on it here. Miranda’s close reading of the full Catholic Bishops Report gives the lie to the newspaper […]
[…] H/T: Ophelia Benson […]
John Jay College forfeits any reputation it may ever have had for academic integrity and independence with this wholly Catholic funded whitewash-to-order.
A disgusting, morally repugnant piece of work. On a par with the conduct it so shamefully seeks to excuse.
read this : http://patrickjwall.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/10-common-myths-in-the-sexual-abuse-of-minors-and-vulnerable-adults-by-clerics/
Arbitrarily redefining the cut-off age, for self-serving reasons is exactly the kind of thing RCC Inc does to deflect criticism and outrage. It is the standard strawman op. for a bunch of theologians who are divorced from any reality. The fact remains that catholic priests raped children. The laws in most western countries puts the victim’s age of consent at sixteen, absent a “romeo and juliet” clause. Below sixteen it is rape whether or not there is consent of the victim. Above that age it is still rape where there is no consent. So is it better that RCC Inc claims it has 73% pedophiles and 27% rapists or 78% rapists and 22% pedophiles?
Pardon me for not seeing a whole lot of difference. But if they like I’ll average all the numbers and agree they have 100% rapists and 47.5% pedophiles.
But no worries – Donohue claims it’s all down to homosexual priests, the sexual mores of the 1960s and “moral relativism”. And you all know who’s responsible for those things don’t you?
Perhaps this study was to be expected.
After blaming the gays, the devil, the Jews (of course), the sixties, and the poor position of the Dollar against the Yen, the logical next candidate to shift the blame on are those damnable statistics.
Good on you, MCH, very well done !
Fegh, they’re trying to hide behind semantics. Yes, the word “pedophilia” gets tossed around too freely, in that the strict medical definition stipulates that the target of lust has not yet developed adult sexual characteristics. But that hardly excuses older men in a position of power doing it to 15-year-olds.
As recently as a year or so ago, I thought the RCC was (finally) taking responsibility for the problem. Now this.
Eamon, the RCC was forced to take responsibility by the courts while attempting to hide the sins at the same time. As others have pointed out this study/report is a whitewash and shows that the RCC does not take responsibility for the pedophilia that was hidden by the administration of the church.
These are the same folks who have no problem telling me what I’m allowed to do with my genitals and spending tons of money to push politicians to force consenting adults to bend to their will, while giving a free pass to their membership who rape and molest children and adults. I’m sick of the whole thing from top to bottom, and I’m so enraged by the evil heaped on evil that I can’t really come up with anything coherent to say on the issue.
If the Catholic Church feels that strongly about their definition of pedophilia, then we should simply demand that, in the interests of completeness, they fund a second report that looks at the abuse of children over the age of 11. And they can call it whatever they want to.
Dear Catholic Church:
What part of “it’s a felony” do you not understand?
What part of “age of consent” do you not understand?
What part of “keep you dick in your pants” do you not understand?
Please, explain it to me, because I’m mystified. Have you excused away ANY crime? Any criminal intent? Any criminal activity? Has even one felony been converted into nothing but playful innocence because of this report?
I thought not.
[…] to Ophelia Benson for the link, who comments on it here. Miranda’s close reading of the full Catholic Bishops Report gives the lie to the newspaper […]
[…] to Ophelia Benson for the link, who comments on it here. Miranda’s close reading of the full Catholic Bishops Report gives the lie to the newspaper […]