Are 10% of graduates of St. John's Seminary offending pedophiles?

[Alan_Smithee]

@Polycarp

No, it should be a simple plural, the subject of a participial phrase: "a study on ___ " On what? Not on priests generally. Not on children generally. Not even on abusing generally. On priests abusing children. A plural possessive would be modifying a gerund or other noun – and “abusing” does not appear to be functioning gerundially, as in “The abusing continued for years.”

The sentence works just as well if you substitute “priests’ abuse of children.” I agree that priests’ was intended.

[bengangmo]

@MeDrewNotYou

I can’t answer to the reliability of the 10% claim, but I can contribute to the ‘why.’

In high school, I had a great teacher who was Catholic and, as things often did in his class, a strange subject came up. We were reading The Canterbury Tales and someone asked what a ‘pardoner’ was. He explained it was a priest who sold pardons and indulgences, and someone murmured, “To the priests who molest kids?” Being Catholic, the teacher felt the need to defend his religion. His argument in a nutshell was that the priesthood doesn’t make you a molester, its that if you have those urges, the priesthood is obviously an appealing place. You get easy access to victims and your position of authority makes it much less likely that the kid will talk.

I find this to be a pretty compelling argument, as there seems to be nothing in the position itself that would seem to remotely cause that behavior if you weren’t already so inclined. I wouldn’t be surprised if similar rates of abuse were found in any other pastor/youth leader positions or things like scouting. Its just that when the abuser is a religious authority, the child would probably be more reluctant to report because you’re throwing God into the mix in addition to their regular authority.

To be fair, if you find yourself with such urges “appealing to the power of god” to help you overcome them would also be a pretty appealing propasition

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Markxxx

The arguments seem to skirt around the real question is whether people who would molest children are drawn to the priesthood or does the priesthood make them do what they do?

I would submit that this is immaterial. Whether molesters are drawn to the priesthood or priests are drawn to molesting is irrelevant, since the most important aspect is “how do we protect kids?” Either way, it’s the Church’s responsibility.

[SmackFu]

Here’s your cite:

Boston Seminary Linked to Problem Priests

From the class of 1968, 6 out of 50 were accused of pedophilia.

Given that, it’s typical fairly terrible newspaper statistics work. Using very small sample sizes to get percentages, then comparing those to national statistics? Glossing over years with no one accused?

[SmackFu]

Also:

Wikipedia lists it as “citation needed”, like, you think?

Since it’s in the section title “Movie Claims”, it doesn’t actually need citation, other than that it truly is claimed in the movie. In fact, those citations have been added and removed several times if you look at the history.

[astorian]

@Markxxx

As one poster said, to really answer the OP question, we need to find out as much as we can, who was the target group being abused. Then you need to compare it to the general population. Then as a side, you’d need it to compare it to other Christian and non-Christian religious groups.

The basic argument people make is that Priests are sexually repressed so take their frustrations out on their young memebers. I use those words in a psychological sense.

The arguments seem to skirt around the real question is whether people who would molest children are drawn to the priesthood or does the priesthood make them do what they do?

I don’t think you’ll ever get a decent answer till you start really qualifying your data so it can be accurately compared.

This IS an important question, but it also demonstrates why I made a point of saying that most of the victims of sexual predators in the priesthood have NOT been children, but teenagers.

Which means, we may have to ask, “Was Father Paul Shanley a pedophile, or simply a horny gay man who couldn’t keep his pants zipped around teenage boys?”

Let I be accused of homophobia, the same question must be raised when a priest is accused of groping or seducing, say, a 15 year old girl. Is such a man a pedophile? I’d say no. A scumbag, a dirty old man, a disgrace to the Church, yes… but NOT a pedophile.

I really want to know if we’re dealing with mentally ill individuals, or mere horndogs who can’t/won’t control their urges.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That’s 12%! A 2% increase in just one thread!

[JerseyFrank]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

how many sex crimes are there that don’t require registration?

Voyeurism in Florida isn’t an offense which requires draconian registration.

[MeDrewNotYou]

@bengangmo

To be fair, if you find yourself with such urges “appealing to the power of god” to help you overcome them would also be a pretty appealing propasition

I didn’t think of that angle, but you make a good point. It seems reasonable that a decent number of guys would join the priesthood for that reason. But then again, I could see a lot of men thinking, “I have these urges, maybe I should ask for God’s help to fix this before putting myself in such a tempting position.” On this front, a lot would seem to depend on the individual’s psychology and overall view of how God operates in their life.

[Captain_Amazing]

@SmackFu

Here’s your cite:
Boston Seminary Linked to Problem Priests

From the class of 1968, 6 out of 50 were accused of pedophilia.

Those were also people accused of the crime. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re all guilty of what they were accused of.

[Freudian_Slit]

@astorian

Let I be accused of homophobia, the same question must be raised when a priest is accused of groping or seducing, say, a 15 year old girl. Is such a man a pedophile? I’d say no. A scumbag, a dirty old man, a disgrace to the Church, yes… but NOT a pedophile.

I really want to know if we’re dealing with mentally ill individuals, or mere horndogs who can’t/won’t control their urges.

Does groping a teen/adult against their will make you any less mentally ill than doing it to a child? They’re still committing sexual assault, no?

[MeDrewNotYou]

@Freudian_Slit

Does groping a teen/adult against their will make you any less mentally ill than doing it to a child? They’re still committing sexual assault, no?

While of course groping anyone against their will is unacceptable, I doubt I’m the only one that is utterly appalled at someone molesting, say, an 8-year-old, but “merely” disgusted when the victim is pubescent. I can kind of understand going after someone with secondary sexual characteristics, but before then? Yes its sexual assault, but you can at least comprehend what they’re going after, whereas with the very young there’s just nothing sexual about them at all.

ETA: I don’t think I’m as clear as I could be. On a disgust scale of 1-10, molesting the 8yr old is a 9, while the 15yr old is ‘just’ a 7.