John Jay on what the critics got wrong

One point that I find troublesome is the insistence that there are fewer children being abused today based on decreasing numbers of reports being made to dioceses. The lack of reporting could be reflective of any number of reasons which include fewer children and teens being abused. However, fewer reports are no guarantee there are actually fewer cases of abuse. I certainly hope that is true, but given the small numbers of sexual abuse victims who do report and the length of time it takes children at assimilate and recognize abuse as well as the courage to defy authority or risk consequences due to threats, I think we should all be very cautious in assuming there are fewer cases of abuse.

Having heard an overview of the report at the Restorative Justice Conference in Milwaukee, I think there are many questions that are not adequately answered and need further investigation. It is far too soon to make broad assumptions that the abuse of minors in in the past. I hope that is true, but given what we have seen in Philly and Kansas City, I would not be so sure.T2CDW

So where do we find Clohessy's and Doyle's apologies for their near-complete and obviously intentional misreading of the report? Will NCR be publishing it? Or will you pull this piece quickly so your all-wise readers don't have to deal with the facts?

Now the researchers are on the defensive,   ...but what did they expect when the majority of people reading their report   (including RCC bishops)   are non-researchers who have no real comprehension of the severe limits on one research study,   its operational parameters   and other research methodology.     When I read the report I could already see trouble on the way with just enough information,   inevitably poorly understood,   to create a destructive spin on all sides.     The media itself is notorious for reading too much into the conclusions of a single body of research — and too many folks believe that once said by a media talking-head or posted on the Internet,   the story is 'gospel truth'.     'Ever heard the expression   "just enough information to be dangerous"?
.
Despite protests to the contrary,   the study was done from a criminology perspective by a college of criminology — that is their default focus no matter who else is "consulted".     A valid question could be raised as to why the study was not commissioned with scientists in the psychology-sociology venues of academia.     (Was the RCC only interested in activity that could rise to the legal definition of criminal and/or lead to monetary settlements?     Were they not interested in solving problems within the clergy culture itself?)     The psychology-sociology perspective would perhaps have been more useful within the context of the Catholic Church clergy problems that led to men sexually abusing minors with the enabling of superiors,   and more narrowly focused on the internal sociological factors influencing the clergy culture in particular.
.
This is just another bit of research within a larger body of research.     It is not the end-all-be-all final conclusion by any means.     Don't kill the messenger — the Jay College gave the RCC what it commissioned and paid for...   a criminology school's analysis of very limited scope.     Bishops can "gloat" all they want,   but it ain't over until it's over.     And as recent events demonstrate...   it definitely ain't over.
.

The USCCB, NRB, and John Jay had 5 years to prepare for the Executive Summary that was released May 18. A fact of life in the world of such studies is that a number of the most important recipients will read only the Executive Summary. (Some will go on to the Conclusions at the end.) If these did not say very precisely, clearly, and understandably exactly what they wanted people to hear and carry away about the study and the results of the work, it is rather late in the game for regrets and blaming others.
The specific audiences who needed to receive and understand the results have been well known since 2003. The fact that sound-bites would result from the material they controlled and issued should hardly have been a surprise. The need for Dr. Terry's article "to put the record straight" a month after reporting out is an unfortunate addendum to the study.

"Few abusers were primarily sexually attracted to children; a very small percentage of priests were clinically diagnosed with pedophilia (by clinicians, using standard guidelines of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Many had other problems, such as alcoholism, stress, or financial improprieties."
*************************************************************************

Using a made up cut off age for pedophilia at 10yrs and under, she arrived at a percentage of pedophile priests at 22% If you set the age at 13 and under as the psychiatric community does, that percentage zooms to 60%

"In the month since publication, our research team has presented our findings to national and overseas audiences. Based on our study, the National Review Board, for example, is preparing recommendations to the US Catholic Church about enhancing current policies and creating new ones.

Earlier this month, we traveled to Rome to meet with Catholic Church representatives from 22 countries and Vatican officials, with the aim of discussing how this issue has affected the Church worldwide and whether there are uniform policies that can be implemented to prevent sexual abuse.
**************************************************************************

So now she's out preaching to the Vatican choir what they paid her to put out.

In addition to the phony definition of pedophilia, there is inherent selection bias in depending on the bishops to supply the data without even a random audit of the dioscesen files for accuracy in reporting. Does anyone think the data provided by the Philly Diocese was accurate? If her report is to have a lick of respect, she would submit it to a reputable psychology/pschiatric journal for peer review. She never will because she knows it would be ripped to shreads as pseudo-science, not unlike the old tobacco company sponsored "studies" of the 60's and 70's that tried to convince us there was no direct link between smoking and cancer.

BTW, most of the rest of the money for the study came from the Knights of Columbus. Wanna guess if they were aligned with the bishops as well?

Sorry, Karen. Too late for excuses and passing the blame. You have managed to insult most intelligent people with this lame excuse. Don't bother to try again, your credibility is ZERO.

If the whole report is as shabby as the part entitled Psychoanalysis then no wonder it is criticized. Not once was a psychoanalyst even mentioned in the report! It is as if these canon LAWYERS can understand from one or two psychologists (note I said psychologists because to be a psychoanalyst it takes an added several years of study and training to obtain this specialty), and analyze all the psychological problems not only of the offending priests, but all so of the enabling bishops. It is not hard for a retired physician to see that this report has WHITE WASH stamped all over it.

I do not believe the Knights of Columbus would have anything other the best interest of the victims and heart of the Church at their core reasoning in funding a study such as this. Knowing what they stand for is central to understanding why their funds are spent wisely.