# Goddammit Catholic Church, you just won't learn **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934 "2010-08-30T00:07:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/101 "2010-09-01T15:30:55Z")
There is no massive, international hierarchy protecting and facilitating sexual abuse in families, and even if there was, that’s not an excuse for the RCC to do it. What you’re doing is akin to trying to defend the Mafia by saying that lots of individuals outside the Mafia commit crimes too. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/102 "2010-09-01T16:27:36Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > 1. I agree with that. I just couldn’t find those stats in my limited googling. What I did find, though, was that no more than 4% of priests have even been accused, let alone been guilty. And that includes the 25% of accused priests that had allegedly been with 15-17 kids. So the amount of kids touched by their priests is, I’m guessing, less than 1%. But kids in school? 9.6% have been harrassed or molested. Priests 1, Teachers 0. No, no, no! You can’t just make up numbers like that and say you found them by googling. I suspect the 4% is from the same number I had. That is substantiated+credible allegations. **RTFirefly, Kobal2** and I have stated that substantiated (meaning corroborated, hello!) has to be included. 4% does NOT simply represent accused unless you got this from yet another site which you should now cite. Where the hell did 15-17 kids come from? How does this still compare to 9.6% kids in secular schools being subjected to some kind of inappropriate behavior in all their school years (according to a survey of students, not substantiated and may not even be credible)? Now look at **RTFirefly’s** numbers. He’s using the numbers straight from the John Jay report wiki page. See how they’re vastly different and can potentially increase your kiddie-diddler priest fraction by \> 4 fold? In one fell swoop, your numbers have become meaningless. Why don’t you simply make a conservative assumption that priests diddle at similar rates to the rest of the population and get back to the real topic of the thread - RCC hierarchy involved in widespread cover-up even to this day. Then you can focus on **Cyningablod’s** point, which you also misunderstand. We’re not talking about individual priests and parishes. We’re at the level of bishops and cardinals, including one that is now the pope. ---
**Author:** ![Cyningablod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Cyningablod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyningablod)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/103 "2010-09-01T16:59:33Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > First, with the bigot thing: Thanks for the definition. It’s exactly what I thought it meant, and it’s exactly what you are. You’re intolerant of a creed. You’re a bigot. If it makes you feel better to think so, go right ahead. You’re missing a key element that distinguishes my position from that elucidated in the dictionary, but I grow weary of trying to explain nuances to you. > [@](#): > > School administrators do it all the time [ie, abuse cover-ups, - **cyningablod**], repeatedly, for decades, over hundreds of different schools. Cite? (Remember, I’m not asking you for evidence that _abuse_ happens in school districts, nor even that _cover-ups_ happen in school districts. We all openly grant these facts. I’m asking you for evidence that some _highly-placed federal or state-level education officials_, with oversight over IMMENSE educational “parishes” [ie, districts or state Boards] established policies _dictating_ cover-ups, or ordered that teachers not be brought to criminal justice, _as a matter of institutional policy_. THAT is the true analogy to the situation that has existed in the RCC!) > [@](#): > > And there’s nothing “systemic” or “institutional” about the RCC coverups. We’ve already shown that it’s no more a problem in the RCC than it is school, and it’s absolutely dwarfed by the number of relative-on-child molestations that occur. Still not getting it, eh? Lemme take the cookies off the top shelf for you: _It ain’t just about **numbers**._ Think very carefully about that. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/104 "2010-09-01T17:10:05Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Of the 4,392 priests who were accused, police were contacted regarding 1,021 individuals and of these, 384 were charged resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences; **3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died.** > > There isn’t a cover-up epidemic. There _was_ such an epidemic 30-something years ago but that’s changed. And that epidemic was the same one that happened in the Boy Scouts and in many, many school districts across the U.S. [here’s the actual John Jay report](http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/index.html). I’ve just spent way too much time poring over it in an effort to find the source of the “3,300 (priests) were not investigated” number. Care to find it in the actual report? (not to suggest that a single unsourced line in a Wikipedia article might be less than reliable or anything). ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/105 "2010-09-01T17:39:12Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > > [@RTFirefly](#): > > > > ‘Substantiated’ is more solid than ‘credible’, right? But you ignored those numbers altogether. > > No. Precisely the opposite. “Credible” is more solid than “substantiated”. That’s why the number is smaller. Given that that runs completely contrary to the dictionary definitions of ‘credible’ and ‘substantiated’, I’m going to have to ask you for a cite that tacking on the word ‘allegation’ reverses which is the stronger of the two. From [Merriam](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantiated)-[Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credible?show=0&t=1283362392): substantiate: to establish by proof or competent evidence. credible: offering reasonable grounds for being believed. Either proof or competent evidence trumps reasonable grounds for being believed. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/106 "2010-09-01T18:12:16Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > [here’s the actual John Jay report](http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/index.html). I’ve just spent way too much time poring over it in an effort to find the source of the “3,300 (priests) were not investigated” number. Care to find it in the actual report? (not to suggest that a single unsourced line in a Wikipedia article might be less than reliable or anything). Now that you mentioned it, I looked for it too, and couldn’t find it in any of the obvious places. Anyhow, let’s put in abeyance my numbers that I arrived at by extrapolating to cover those allegedly uninvestigated deceased priests, since those numbers may not be worth a damn. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/107 "2010-09-01T18:13:57Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > OK, we’ll include 'em. That gives us 8000 allegations about priests then living, with 6700 substantiated, 1000 that could not be substantiated, and we’ll round to 300 exonerated. > > If the 3300 not investigated because the priests were dead have the same ratios, that would have yielded about another 2800 substantiated allegations, 400 unsubstantiated allegations, and 100 exonerated priests. > > So that’s just shy of 10,000 allegations that were either substantiated, or likely would have been. > > The 6700 substantiated allegations implicated ~4400 distinct then-living priests. The 2800 allegations against deceased priests that would have likely been substantiated if they’d been alive would have implicated another ~1800 priests. > > So we’re talking about over 6000 molesting priests, not 1671. > > Gotta run, but that’s just for starters. RT and Chessic, you both suck. [QUOTE=John Jay Report] The Victim Survey. The third survey, titled the “Victim Survey,” focused on incidents of alleged abuse. The aim of this survey was to capture information about each allegation that was made against a particular priest (Appendix A.1.1.5). In other words, for every priest against whom allegations were made, a separate and unique third survey was completed for each one of the alleged incidents. So, for example, if the “Cleric Survey” indicated that this particular priest had five allegations made against him, then five incident surveys would have been completed and submitted as part of the package of material on that particular priest. **Surveys were neither requested nor submitted for those allegations that had been shown to be false or were withdrawn, or those for which the priest had been exonerated.** [/quote] That’s from the methodology section. So of the 4,392 priests who were accused (according to the dioceses), 298 were (in the judgment of the church) totally exonerated. The 10,667 victim survey responses were for the 4,094 priests remaining. Out of THESE 10,667 survey results, the diocese reported on the investigation status of 9,281 of the surveys. If there’s information [in the report](http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/index.html) on what happened in the 1,386 surveys where the diocese did NOT report, I couldn’t find it. Of those 9,281, the diocese actually investigated in 6,696 cases. This leaves a little fewer than 3,000 cases where either no investigation was made, or the diocese didn’t say if an investigation was made. [QUOTE=Jay Report] a definitive result of the investigation was reported for 5,681 cases. Of these cases, 4,570, or 80%, were substantiated; 1,028, or 18%, were unsubstantiated; 83, or 1.5%, were found to be false. Priests were reported to deny the allegations in 56 cases. Of the investigations that did not produce a definitive result, in many cases the priest was deceased at the time of the allegation or the investigation was ongoing at the time the survey was submitted to the study. [/quote] That would be 1,015 cases without definitive reports. As far as I can tell, this is the only time the Jay report discusses priests having been deceased at the time of the allegation; where the Wikipedia editor got his 3,300 number from is between him and his God. (Chessic, of course, seeing a random unsupported fact that supported his hunt for Teh Liberal Hippocracy!!! took it as Gospel.) BTW, the report does not directly link the two, but apparently the 1,872 figure is the number of priests involved in the 4,570 “substantiated” cases. There were 824 priests involved with the “unsubstantiated” cases. Also per the report: [QUOTE=Jay Report] The **handwritten annotations** on the surveys indicated that for 1,671 priests the allegations were thought to be credible, and not credible for 345 priests. [/quote] I get a total of 2,016 priests for whom there were handwritten annotations; the report does not say anything anywhere I can find about the other 2,078 priests who were not exonerated (according to the church officials). So. The 1,671 and the 1,872 numbers probably substantially double-count the same priests; definitely NOT KOSHER to add them up. The reason the report included both figures was to take two different looks at how the church responded to relatively-proven versus relatively-unproven allegations - eg. 23% of priests named in unsubstantiated allegations were given administrative leave vs. 37.3% of substantiated; 21.5 % of priests named in non-credible cases were given admin leave vs. 34.1% for credible. What I’m getting from the report is that the data simply does not support the level of number-crunching either Chessic or RTFirefly are attempting to apply to it - too many questions left blank by the dioceses for reasons unknown, too many goddamn denominators. So, I reiterate: Either of you could have figured this out if you’d actually bothered to click through to the actual report. You’re both morons. ETA: OK, I see RTF snuck in with a recantation while I was adding the finishing touches. Rant left otherwise unedited. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/108 "2010-09-01T18:21:21Z")
Chessic Sense, I’m willing to debate whether or not, or to what extent, the RCC has engaged in a cover-up of abuse. But if you can’t even understand the English language, if you refuse to acknowledge that “substantiated” represents a higher degree of confirmation than “credible” (which by the way requires no evidence whatsoever), then you simply aren’t work talking to, about this or anything else of substance. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/109 "2010-09-01T20:00:46Z")
> [@](#): > > First, with the bigot thing: Thanks for the definition. It’s exactly what I thought it meant, and it’s exactly what you are. You’re intolerant of a creed. You’re a bigot. No. It’s perfectly possible to think that the Catholic faith is a fine thing, and that the Catholic hierarchy is doing a grave disservice to all of its worshippers when it has and uses a system which is designed to protect and hide pedophile priests. The intolerance is of the actions of a group of people, who happen to be highly placed in a church. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/110 "2010-09-01T20:08:26Z")
If it’s bigoted to be intolerant of a creed which encourages preventing child molesters from facing legal repercussions, then call me a Grand Dragon. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/111 "2010-09-01T20:10:23Z")
It’s not a creed, it’s more like a cabal within the institution. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/112 "2010-09-01T20:33:26Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > > > This story also happened in Boston, and Chicago, and Philadelphia, and New York, and LA, and … > > Yes, and everywhere else too. You just don’t care because they’re not priests. They’re not part of an organization you hate… > The title of this thread isn’t “Goddammit, Cardinal”. It’s “Goddammit, Catholic Church.” There’s a word for that, you know: > > BIGOTRY. > Hey, anyone wanna pick on the Jews next? Some of us are (or were raised as) Catholic. So it’s not bigotry against The Church at all. It’s (becoming a) hatred of the sort of people who hide behind the Church and pretend to be moral authorities, when they are the very ones who perpetrate and perpetuate and cover up this filth and protect the abusers. It’s a disgust for what they did to what used to be our church. Got that? No other organization IN THE WORLD has such a BAD record when it comes to dealing with abuse. Any other organization would most likely cooperate with the police in bringing this scum to jail. So in the meanwhile, here’s a heart felt “shut the fuck up” for you. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/113 "2010-09-01T20:37:18Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s not the job of the church to catch and punish sex offenders, it’s the job of the police and the courts. It is the job of the church, for those that believe in it, to look after the eternal souls of sinners. Not that I believe in souls or sin, but there you go. The saddest thing about this thread is that I feel I have to defend the church! By all means attack it for the things it deserves, such as spreading lies throughout the world and demeaning women, but drop this straw man about abuse. As has been shown repeatedly, in this thread and others, children are safer with priests than almost anywhere else. Bullshit. It is NOT their duty to protect the sons of bitches, and yet they do. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/114 "2010-09-01T22:06:36Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > > [@Steophan](#): > > > > It’s not the job of the church to catch and punish sex offenders, it’s the job of the police and the courts. It is the job of the church, for those that believe in it, to look after the eternal souls of sinners. Not that I believe in souls or sin, but there you go. > > Bullshit. It is NOT their duty to protect the sons of bitches, and yet they do. And to that heartfelt cry, I would add : the Church and its concerned bishops, cardinals and popes can certainly look after the eternal souls of its (former) members when they are in a comfy, child-free cell. That’s why they’ve got padres in jail in the first place : try and save the sinnest of sinners. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/115 "2010-09-02T02:28:33Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > ETA: OK, I see RTF snuck in with a recantation while I was adding the finishing touches. Rant left otherwise unedited. I timed it perfectly to screw you up, didn’t I? It’s just one of those little extras associated with the **RTFirefly** ‘brand.’ 😛 Seriously, thanks for pointing out that I was basing a bunch of stuff on a number that apparently is without foundation. That’s what fighting ignorance is all about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934.md?page=5)