« All your space are belong to us | Main | Police Use College Intern As Undercover Stripper »

Catholic Sex Abuse and statistics: a correction

Recently, I tossed off a number that "117 of 175 American bishops" had, in some way, been involved in the sex-abuse scandal that rocked the American Catholic Church. Longtime reader Julie called me on that number, and sent me off to spend several hours researching just where that number had come from before it got stuck in my head.

I finally found what I believe to be the original source, and Julie was right and I was wrong. I had the wrong numbers.

According to a report published by the Dallas Morning News (reprinted here), the actual numbers were 111 of 178, not 117 of 175. That works out to about 62.4%, or 5/8, and not 66%, or 2/3.

While I do regret my initial error, and wish I had been less precise about my numbers, I think that the actual numbers bear up my initial allegation: that a large number of the American bishops (including the odious Cardinal Law, who ought to be behind bars and not celebrating Masses in honor of the Pope) are too "tainted" to be considered for the office of Pontiff.

Again, I'd like to thank Julie for hounding me to find the real numbers in this matter. I was sloppy, and I shouldn't have been.

J.

Update: And yet again I'm closing down the comments thread. It's degenerated into "Julie-bashing," and I just don't have the stomach for it. She's been a valuable commenter in the past, and even though I think she pretty much "asked" for it and participated in it myself, I'm not letting it go on any longer. Hell, I wish I'd had the time to do so earlier.


Comments (39)

Throw Cardinal Mahoney (LA)... (Below threshold)
DWC:

Throw Cardinal Mahoney (LA) into the bag of unacceptables, too.

According to a report pu... (Below threshold)
areaman:

According to a report published by the Dallas Morning News (reprinted here), the actual numbers were 111 of 178, not 117 of 175. That works out to about 62.4%, or 5/8, and not 66%, or 2/3.

That is atrocious.

- I would say that in this ... (Below threshold)

- I would say that in this case the difference is minimal and just serves to drive home your original point. As a practicing Catholic I vehemently disagree with julies atempts to sugarcoat things. I'm surprised she favors circling the wagons instead of campaigning hard to clean up the mess and move the church back onto solid moral ground and regain the lost respect for our clergy, many of whom are very pious dedicated people, as quickly as possible.....

Jay: Oh, please! Y... (Below threshold)
julie:

Jay:

Oh, please! Your error was not even that you failed to cite any authority for your original assertion, it was that when you were politely asked several times where you got your figures, you it off. It wasn't until I hounded you to death yesterday you even bothered to respond.

While I have no problem accepting the problem was wide spread and expanded a long period of time. I do have problems accepting the extent of it based on an entirely conclusionary piece by the Dallas Morning News.

Again, I'd like to thank Julie for hounding me to find the real numbers in this matter.

Yeah. Right.

Big Bang Hunter:

Oh, yeah? How have I attempted to sugar coat things? How have I circled the wagons? By asking him for authority for his stats? I searched for several hours to verify what he said and found nothing. If it is a widely accepted figure, how come I couldn't find it? How come it took Jay so long to find it? How come it's based on one story in a newspaper article containing nothing but conclusions? Not exactly the best authority and would never be admissible in court.

As I have stated in his intitial post last week and to him just now, I have no illusions about the extent of the problem but don't just throw out numbers with nothing to back it up. I work and prefer to live in a real world that requires real proof.

Other than that, screw you, too.

Make that: "asked several t... (Below threshold)
julie:

Make that: "asked several times where you got your figures, you blew it off.

"While I do regret my in... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

"While I do regret my initial error, and wish I had been less precise about my numbers, I think that the actual numbers bear up my initial allegation"
That's just friggin' hilarious the way you slipped that in there, whether is was a Freudian slip or not.

Yeah, Jay wants us to accep... (Below threshold)
julie:

Yeah, Jay wants us to accept everything on his authority and his authority alone. Hail, Jay!

We should all remember that... (Below threshold)
TheEnigma:

We should all remember that the individuals, for the most part, who operate these blogs do so as a sideline activity. They do not always have the time available to immediately respond to a question about a particular post. If you find an error or think you have, post your comment and allow the owners of the site(s) time to research the question and post a response.

In addition, I doubt there are many of us who've posted on a blog that have not managed to post a comment that contained unintential erroneous information. Are we expected to be available for an immediate response as soon as someone finds that error?

I think that most of us would agree that the owners of most Conservative blogs are much better at acknowledging and posting correctins to errors than one would ever expect or see from the MSM or Lunatic liberal blogs.

Jay ...remember that all ca... (Below threshold)

Jay ...remember that all cardinals are bishops, they just have the extra-ordinary title. like how all monsignors are priests...they just have the extraordinary title.

TheEnigma: What's ... (Below threshold)
julie:

TheEnigma:

What's your defintion of immediate? How much time must pass before it becomes stonewalling? blowing off? If someone has time enough to email one on other issues, do they have time enough to email someone on this? Please, I really really want to know. And, do you think someone should know all the facts before they attempt to lecture people?

Jeez, Julie.You go... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Jeez, Julie.

You got your cite. You got a correction. You got publicly and graciously thanked for insisting that Jay check his facts.

Now you want to start a pissing match over how many hours it took? Enough already. It's not like you pay to read this blog or something.

So, if I'm reading all this... (Below threshold)

So, if I'm reading all this correctly, 111 of 178 dioceses had at least one member of the religious accused of sexual abuse, and that person was allowed to continue in their ministry.

If we took the top 178 metro police departments over the last twenty years, how many would have had at least one member of their department accused of sexual abuse? In the last year, locally, a sheriff's deputy was caught with child pr0n, a Rochester city police officer was convicted of "searching" women far too carefully, and another local officer was convicted of "date" rape. We've also had two prominent doctors convicted of having child porn, a prominent OB/GYN and the head of the pediatric emergency department at the local level 1 trauma center. It's not just a Catholic religious problem.

Under both canon law, and the laws of the United States, the accused is entitled to a trial and the presumption of innocence by the law until the verdict in that trial. Cardinal Law is an example of the monsterous things that were done to protect a few known paedophiles. But not every religious accused was guilty.

And... it is only in the last decade or less that paedophilia has even been presumed to be incurable. During the time that most of these abuses happened, the psychiatric community happily told us all that they could cure any abnormality, and many of the chronic abusers were, in fact, pronounced cured by medical professionals.

In the last year, over a dozen female teachers have been discovered to be having sex with their students. Yet we don't tarbrush the teaching profession.

Here is a good source for information from the Church's perspective. The Church teaches forgiveness. A religious who has repented, confessed their sin, been granted absolution and has not repeated the sin is, and should be, in good standing with the Church.

Julie, as TheEnigma said, t... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Julie, as TheEnigma said, this is a SIDELINE for me. I have a full-time job in addition to this. (From which I'm out sick today -- bit of stomach problem.) I said I spent a couple hours trying to find the citation, and finally did earlier today. Please note that I gave you full credit for bitching -- er, nagging -- er, nudging me to actually track down the real numbers. If you don't like it, might I suggest you take the following steps:

1) Go to nearest rest room;

2) Drop trou;

3) Piss off.

Steps 2 and 3 need not be done in that order.

J.

Further, Julie, I'll gladly... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Further, Julie, I'll gladly refund you everything you've paid for the privilege of reading my postings on Wizbang. Hell, I'll refund double what you've paid me. Sound fair enough?

J.

Jeez, Julie. You got pu... (Below threshold)
julie:

Jeez, Julie. You got publicly and graciously thanked for insisting that Jay check his facts.

Well, Jeez, Michael, you can't be that naive, can you? BBH even accused me of defending pedohphies over it.

It's not like you pay to read this blog or something.

See the big box to the left that reads DONATE? Try clicking it once in a while.

No, Jay, you did not say yo... (Below threshold)
julie:

No, Jay, you did not say you spent a couple of hours looking. I was the one that spent several hours trying to verify it before even asking you what your source was.

As to going to restrooms and dropping ones pants, thanks for sharing what you like to do when on the road to meet men and make extra cash. But that's really really not for me.

Further, Julie, I'll gladly refund you everything you've paid for the privilege of reading my postings on Wizbang. Hell, I'll refund double what you've paid me. Sound fair enough?

Since, I only paid what it was worth, and $0.00 x 2 = $0.00, I'll expect a check from you in the mail.

As to going to restrooms... (Below threshold)
Jo:

As to going to restrooms and dropping ones pants, thanks for sharing what you like to do when on the road to meet men and make extra cash.

How you know when the argument is lost:

"Well, you're GAY! And a WHORE!"

I have always found the ter... (Below threshold)
TheEnigma:

I have always found the term "Get a life" or its variations a bit pitiful. However, I have encountered one individual who is working overtime to fit the criteria for that statement and its implications.

Not that I have a pony in t... (Below threshold)
andy:

Not that I have a pony in this race, but:

As to going to restrooms and dropping ones pants, thanks for sharing what you like to do when on the road to meet men and make extra cash. But that's really really not for me.

So, Julie, where do you like to drop your pants to meet men and make cash?

And, no, that's not an offer. Don't get excited.

P.S. As a former Catholic, ... (Below threshold)
andy:

P.S. As a former Catholic, I find your behavior and your language to be undecidedly Christian or Catholic.

Off to confession with ye, sinner!

- Julie you're way over the... (Below threshold)

- Julie you're way over the top. The crux of all your heavy duty "research" was to uncover the fact that Jay T erred a whole 3.5% out of more than 60%. Then you have at it with everyone who tries to talk some common sense with you, or in My case admitedly, where I found it puzzling as to why you're not using the obvious over-zealous energies you emit toward something constructive like hammering on the church leadership to clean up their act. You nitpick and then you flame in all directions. You should seriously consider anger management. But I'm assuming with your blogside manner that will illicite yet more posts reeking with immaturity and childish aggression. Maybe you'll prove Me wrong. But I wouldn't bet on it.

I also find my language to ... (Below threshold)
andy:

I also find my language to be a bit gobbled as well today, as that should say "decidedly un-Christian and un-Catholic."

I knew I picked the wrong day to quit drinking.

My god, Julie. Did someone ... (Below threshold)

My god, Julie. Did someone put sand in your vagina today?

- Julie you're way over ... (Below threshold)
julie:

- Julie you're way over the top. The crux of all your heavy duty "research" was to uncover the fact that Jay T erred a whole 3.5% out of more than 60%.

No, BBH, you're way over the top. I found no statistics at all. No reports. Nothing to quantify the number of people involved directly or indirectly. No numbers at all. Nada. Zero. None. That is why I asked him where he found his data. There was *nothing* to nitpik. Yet, you were able to twist that into me defending pedophiles. And I see you are trying to do it again. So, once again, fuck off.

Maybe you should consider a reading comprehension course and deal with your own inability to deal with facts and not your emotions.

So, Julie, where do you ... (Below threshold)
julie:

So, Julie, where do you like to drop your pants to meet men and make cash?

I don't. However, you can ask your wife what public restrooms she drops her pants to meet men and make extra money.

My god, Julie. Did someo... (Below threshold)
julie:

My god, Julie. Did someone put sand in your vagina today?

Is that one of your camp follower tricks? Don't tell me about it.

We know without question th... (Below threshold)
aubrey:

We know without question that there was one bishop (Cardinal Law). That is ONE TOO MANY.

I agree that we all need to make sure that the tragedy that befell countless young children never happens again.

Julie, you really need to ... (Below threshold)

Julie, you really need to work on your comebacks. You should sign up for my Oozer camp. We have a "witty repartee" workshop Tuesday afternoons. Right before the baby eating contest.

P.S. As a former Catholi... (Below threshold)
julie:

P.S. As a former Catholic, I find your behavior and your language to be undecidedly Christian or Catholic.

Is this suppose to mean something? It sure doesn't mean you are a Christian. And you are sure in no position to criticize anyone else's language or behavior, you little oozing hyprocrite you!

Julie, you really need t... (Below threshold)
julie:

Julie, you really need to work on your comebacks.

No thanks, Michele. Some of us have higher goals in life. I always find your type of comment pathetic.

- Perhaps the following, ta... (Below threshold)

- Perhaps the following, taken directly from the report Jay cited for you will improve YOUR reading comprehension:

The News' review found that at least 111 of the nation's 178 mainstream, or Roman rite, Catholic dioceses are headed by men who have protected accused priests or other church figures, such as brothers in religious orders, candidates for the priesthood, teachers and youth-group workers. The study did not include about 100 other members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, most of whom serve in supporting roles but can vote this week in Dallas.

Key findings

111 of 178 leaders of dioceses kept accused priests working
Eight of the 111 are cardinals in U.S. archdioceses
The bishops come from at least 40 states
They ignored warnings of suspicious behavior
They kept priests on the job after admissions of wrongdoing, sexual disorder diagnoses, legal settlements and criminal convictions
The 111 bishops' involvement took many forms, from ignoring warnings about suspicious behavior to keeping priests on the job after admissions of wrongdoing, diagnoses of sexual disorders, legal settlements, even criminal convictions.
Among the 111 are all eight cardinals who lead American archdioceses, bishops in at least 40 states, and most members of the bishops committee that drafted the policy up for discussion. Many members of the predecessor committee—the bishops have been studying this matter for more than a decade and got their first detailed report on it in 1985—also have employed accused priests.

- The report goes on. But thats enough for you just to read it and shut the fuck up. But you won't. Speaking of people with personal emotional issues, you've made your's clear enough to everyone browsing this blogsite. You should learn some manners little girl. And thats all the attention your foul mouthed whiney-ass self will get from Me.

No thanks, Michele. Some... (Below threshold)

No thanks, Michele. Some of us have higher goals in life. I always find your type of comment pathetic.

But thanks for taking precious moments out of your busy day to respond to each and every one of them! Love ya!

Speaking of people with ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Speaking of people with personal emotional issues,

Like yourself? You want somebody to shut the fuck up? Then start with yourself.


But thanks for taking pr... (Below threshold)
julie:

But thanks for taking precious moments out of your busy day to respond to each and every one of them! Love ya!

No problem. There was only one and besides, it took no time at all. Smooch!

Jay Tea...not to add to you... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Jay Tea...not to add to your workload, but something I wonder about as to statistics and all is, what percent among the male human population engages in sexual abuse?

As in, perhaps the larger, more accurate picture here is the problem of sexual abuse (by males since that's usually the most egregious sort and also is most often, to a high percentage, the gender among sexual predators who escalate their violence upon victims over time) among the human race?

Sexual predators seek out situations wherein they can gain greater access to their potential victims. Not a surprise there but it's also the reason why there are more sexual predator numbers by individual among certain professions: authority figures wherein an assumption of trust is delivered by the function they perform, with access to victims (teachers, law enforcement [if they can manage that], caretakers, families by one means or another, group leaders [in all the permutations wherein potential victims as followers are present, and that includes 'ministry' unfortunately).

Just saying, perhaps the focus should be on the problem of sexual predators and off one among many areas in which they have been found -- it suggests that the area is the problem and not the predation itself.

Is there a way to filter ou... (Below threshold)
Joe Mormon:

Is there a way to filter out posts by Jay Tea? The whole Mormon bashing going on here has really turned me off. Too bad that April fool's joke wasn't true. It would be nice to get some new blood in here. Mormons are the LARGEST group of right-minded thinkers on the planet. Bashing them repeatedly on your right-minded blog is not the best idea. In fact, it's rather ignorant.

In other words, it is not a... (Below threshold)
-S-:

In other words, it is not a problem of "CATHOLIC Sex Abuse..." but of sexual abuse.

As in, there's no such thing as "Catholic Sex Abuse..." but there IS a thing and a terribly problematic thing as "sexual abuse" among human behaviors, in almost all walks of life, wherever a predator can do his/her thing or believes they are "safe" from restrictions to their awful behaviors. They seek out lines of work that provide both 'cover' and protection from glaring suspicion.

I'm wondering..."Catholic Sex Abuse..." and wondering what that could possibly be, in the literal sense.

Joe Mormon....I'm thinking ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Joe Mormon....I'm thinking that it's more a case of denigration about religious more than anything, by a highly vocal few.

It's not something inherently related to "right-minded blog(site)(orbloggers)" but about those making comments and obvious individuals who have issues not yet fully explained as to things religious, of whatever type.

It creates problems for most people of any religious belief. Usually when the issue is pro-atheist, people are most comfortable, unfortunately.

- S - I would think your pr... (Below threshold)

- S - I would think your premise certainly makes sense, in that abberent behavior of this sort seems to find focus in typical social groups which involve children. At the same time, albeit any activity of this sort is equally repugnent and patently wrong and damaging to young minds and lives, finding it in such abundance in what preports to be the very citadel of morality, tends to amplify the criminality in peoples minds. Seeing the church leadership choose to engage in "damage control" rather tha swift and accurate house cleaning simply makes trusting your child to their care untenable.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy