The results from two major studies of the recent revelations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests have just been released. There's a lot of data, but for the moment I want to focus on one statistic.
More than 80 percent of the alleged victims were male and over half said they were between ages 11 and 14 when they were assaulted.As I see it, there are two possibilities, both of which may be true.
1) Homosexuals are over-represented among Catholic priests compared to the population as a whole.
2) Homosexual Catholic priests are more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual Catholic priests.
Of course, no matter what their sexual orientation, all Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate.
Approximately 3% of the general population is homosexual, so if the truth is exclusively (1) then homosexuals are over-represented among Catholic priests by almost 2700%. That's an astounding figure. If the 3% number is accurate and the US has around 280 million people, there are 4.3 million homosexual men in the country. There are approximately 110 thousand priests in the US, and if 80% of them are homosexual then they account for 2.1% of the total number of homosexual males.
Which brings us to (2). Considering that 28% of the population is Roman Catholic, it's not impossible that 2.1% of homosexuals are Catholic priests -- but it is unlikely since only 0.28% of Catholic males in general are priests.
There is some data missing from this report. Half of the abuse victims were between ages 11 and 14; presumably some were younger, and some were older. Minors over age 14, however, cannot be properly characterized as "children" and shouldn't be counted when discussing pedophilia (which only refers to an attraction to prepubescent children). All my numbers are based on the assumption that victims of homosexual and heterosexual abuse are distributed evenly across the age spectrum.
Personally, I think reality is a mixture of (1) and (2). The nature of the priesthood (public celibacy) would appear to select for men who have issues with normal sexuality. (Whatever your political persuasion, you have to admit that homosexuality is not statistically normal.) Further, there is other statistical evidence that suggests homosexual males are more likely to sexually abuse a child per capita than heterosexual males.
- Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.- Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
- The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
- Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
- Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
- Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."
(Of course, the Family Research Council has an agenda, but it doesn't generate it's own statistics. They also tend to count teenagers as "children" in some cases, which is inaccurate with regards to pedophilia, as I mentioned above. Check its sources.)
Update:
Clayton Cramer has more.
Couple of problems, which may just need clarification, in your post.
First while 4% of priests were accused that doesn't mean 4% were in fact abusers. As a matter of fact it guarantees they weren't as there had to be some false accusations.
"...110 thousand priests in the US, and if 80% of them are homosexual..." I don't think you mean this. Only 4% of priests were accused, so even they were all homosexual that would be only 4% or 4,392.
I may just be reading you wrong.
Ron: You are reading me wrong. The 4% statistic has nothing to do with any of my points. I didn't refer to it at all, and I didn't even quote it.
If homosexual priests are no more likely to abuse children than heterosexual priests, then that means sexual abusers are evenly distributed throughout the priesthood. 80% of priests must be homosexual, given than 80% of abuse victims are male.
If, however, homosexual priests are more likely to abuse, then less than 80% of priests are likely homosexual.
I'm too busy to even think of allowing my brain to pick at the actual reports, but just a note: the recent CNN report said that 78% of the children were between 11 and 17. Thus, with roughly 50% between 11 and 14, 28% were between 15 and 17.
Frankly, one reason that I know the numbers will trap me and sap my time is that I'm intrigued to figure out the implied motivations of the people compiling these numbers. The CNN report broke out the ages as 7 and under, between 8 and 10, and between 11 and 17. Why the huge category on top? Now we get the 11-14 breakout, but why 14? If I were dividing these numbers on the fly, 14 would go with its fellow ages in high school.
But skip that. Assuming 50% for the group as given, and assuming it divides evenly by year, that's 12.5% each. If that's the case, the total for high school agers is 40.5% of all alleged victims. However, my guess is that the percentage trends upward such that (as I estimated when the CNN report came out) 50% or so of the total were 14 or older.
One other tidbit, relevant to your discussion with this post: earlier today (somewhere), I saw that, in Boston, some ridiculous number of the cases (half or more) were attributable to just 7 priests. It would seem probable that these are true pedophile predators (for one thing, older teenagers would be riskier at such high rates). What this would do, if it holds as a rule across the country, is to weight the numbers in such a way that the greatest number of priests (as opposed to accusations) by far involved one case of abuse with a child in high school. And the fact that the peak was during the 70s, with a drastic drop-off after 1980, seems very relevant, in that case.
I'm not by any means excusing any abuse, or any coverups of abuse. However, it makes for interesting reading once you spot all the ways that the mainstream media (deliberately, it would seem) hides this conclusion.
I think you missed an obvious 3) Male victims are more accessible than female ones allowing for more victims per predatory priest. What with the traditionally male-only role of altar boy still in existence at the beginning of the reports coverage, and the mere mechanics of male molestation being easier and requiring less time than female, I would expect there to be more male victims per predatory priest.
As to your 1) you are correct - estimates say that from 33%-45% of the Roman Catholic priesthood is homosexual. "http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm" That with the easier access that male victims presented could explain a great deal of the 81% male abuse victims. Actually from the way the media has biased about the male victims, I was surprised that 20% were female. Never have known that from the media coverage.
Also of note is that the decline of abuse pretty much goes along with the growing 'gay rights' movement. Possibly young gay catholics no longer try and solve their 'problem' by 'just becoming celibate' - (yeah, like that would work). Sexuality is like water under pressure - try to just bottle it up and all you will get is leaks in all sorts of places you'd rather they not be.
I am neither homosexual nor Catholic (although I spent 12 years of my youth at a Catholic school for boys --- enough said), but what I am wondering is what percentage of these abuse cases represents "opportunistic homosexual behavior" --- sodomy by otherwise preferentially heterosexual males seen in all-male environments (e.g. prisons) or extremely misogynic cultures. And of course a behavior once learned is hard to unlearn ;-)
The term "opportunistic" is used here as in biology, not morals --- for instance, a Mediterranean tortoise is normally vegetarian, but will "opportunistically" feed on meat if no lettuce, dandelion leaves,... are available.
The Family Research Council claims that homosexuals die at an average age of 43, but it seems that their methodology for coming to such a conclusion is very suspect. Paul Cameron doesn't have a reputation for being an unbiased researcher, either.
Regarding the issue of access to Male vs. Female victims, my reading of the newspaper article indicates that there was a gender shift from females to males during the 60s and 70s. This would seem to strengthen the argument made in the post.
Actually you can go download the actual report at http://www.usccb.org/nrb/index.htm Interesting reading. One thing of note is the median age of abusing priests rises as the study period goes on, starting at 36 years of age at first abuse allegation in the 50's up to 48 y/o in the 90's. So most priests that offended were ordained from the 50's to the 70's. And there was a remarkable decrease in abuse cases in the 90's - about a quarter of the previous decade.
All: Yes,there are a lot of ways to look at the numbers, and a lot of possible interpretations. Also, of course, the statistics available may not tell the whole story. Thanks for the further ideas.