Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm also willing to go with my original, in the spirit of granting as much concession in favor of your position as the numbers allow.
"A study released in February by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops found that allegations of sexual abuse had been made against 4,392 priests from 1950 to 2002. But the survey did not identify individual clergy." -- http://www.bishop-accountability.org/about-us/2004-10-30-Swanson-ChurchAbuse.htm
approximately halfway through the article.
...[text shortened]... umbers I find will lead to an incidence rate in the population not signficantly less than 1.3% ?
I don't need you to do me any favours - just be rational.
In the meantime, is it your claim that the numbers I find will lead to an incidence rate in the population not signficantly less than 1.3% ?
No (and apologies if I made statements to that effect). The correct statistic is that the incidence rate in the population of married males is not significantly less than 1.3%.
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerLOL. You're changing your story a great deal now.
No (and apologies if I made statements to that effect). The correct statistic is that the incidence rate in the population of married males is not significantly less than 1.3%.
Do you now acknowledge that a random priest is several times more likely to have molested a child than a random male (or a random single male) living in the U.S. ?
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLOL. You're changing your story a great deal now.
LOL. You're changing your story a great deal now.
Do you know acknowledge that a random priest is several times more likely to have molested a child than a random male (or a random single male) living in the U.S. ?
So be it. Would you rather I stick to my guns?
Do you [now] acknowledge that a random priest is several times more likely to have molested a child than a random male (or a random single male) living in the U.S. ?
I'm not sure.
EDIT: I'll clarify that last bit. The 4.3% figure is based on allegations against priests. The numbers you've presented are based on convicted sex offenders. Given that most child sexual abuse cases go unreported (especially since most of the offenders are family members); and the fact that not all accusations result in convictions, I have no way of knowing that 4.3% is several times higher than 0.2%*X.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'd rather you just admit you were wrong, and stop appealing to the commensurate incidence argument when the church is being attacked on the grounds of the molesters that it has harbored.
[b]LOL. You're changing your story a great deal now.
So be it. Would you rather I stick to my guns?[/b]
I don't understand where your lingering uncertainty comes from. Do you doubt the numbers, or the methods of calculating the incidence rates?
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut this cuts both ways. Given that most abuse cases go unreported, the 4.3% also derives from an underestimate of the total of real incidents and false charges. The unreported cases are immaterial, since presumably they would occur at the same rate in either class.
EDIT: I'll clarify that last bit. The 4.3% figure is based on allegations against priests. The numbers you've presented are based on convicted sex offenders. Given that most child sexual abuse cases go unreported (especially since most of the offenders are family members); and the fact that not all accusations result in convictions, I have no way of knowing that 4.3% is several times higher than 0.2%*X.
You'll note that early in my calucluations, I said I was willing to concede that half of the charges against priests were bogus. I'll let you take 2.15% if you want. The offer of 1% is still on the table as well, which is effectively granting that only one-fourth of the charges are legitimate (although I'm only willing to grant the 1% for other reasons; I'm not willing to concede that only one-fourth of the charges are legitimate).
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm not appealing to the commensurate incidence argument (except when the proposed solution is a married priesthood).
I'd rather you just admit you were wrong, and stop appealing to the commensurate incidence argument when the church is being attacked on the grounds of the molesters that it has harbored.
I don't understand where your lingering uncertainty comes from. Do you doubt the numbers, or the methods of calculating the incidence rates?
What I am appealing to is common sense perspective. 19 out of every 20 priests have nothing to do with the abuse - there is no reason for their profession to be dragged through the mud. I see nowhere near this kind of behaviour when it comes to [male] teachers, for instance, who would (I guess) have a similar incidence rate.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe unreported cases are immaterial, since presumably they would occur at the same rate in either class.
But this cuts both ways. Given that most abuse cases go unreported, the 4.3% also derives from an underestimate of the total of real incidents and false charges. The unreported cases are immaterial, since presumably they would occur at the same rate in either class.
You'll note that early in my calucluations, I said I was willing to concede tha ...[text shortened]... other reasons; I'm not willing to concede that only one-fourth of the charges are legitimate).
That can be disputed. It is one thing to report abuse by a priest (especially these days) - quite another to report abuse by a parent or sibling.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is hardly a compelling defense of the profession. I have shown elsewhere that on average, a priest molestation occurs between once and twice a week in the U.S.
19 out of every 20 priests have nothing to do with the abuse.
I do not hear reports of teachers molesting children at this rate. Either it's not happening, or it's not being reported. And I'm quite sure there are many more male teachers than priests in the U.S. I doubt that the media is so corrupt that it would cover up such an evil against its audience if it were in fact taking place.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerCardinal Law hid and protected abusers, enabling them to repeat and
Bernard Law is "out of commission", so to speak.
The ordination of a priest or a bishop is about what you are, not what you do. It's not a "job" they can be "dismissed" from - any more than you can erase all traces of your parents in your being.
repeat their offenses.
Cardinal Law remains in the employ of the RCC.
What's the confusion here? He should be dismissed, period. I'm not
talking about the ontological changes here. I'm talking how the Church
is protecting his interests.
I can't think of a single other business that would keep a child-abuse
enabler on their payroll.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut 4.3 is 20 times higher than .2%. If you're going to explain the discrepency based on underreporting, you have to claim that parental abuse is 20 times less likely to be reported. Do you have any evidence for this?
[b]The unreported cases are immaterial, since presumably they would occur at the same rate in either class.
That can be disputed. It is one thing to report abuse by a priest (especially these days) - quite another to report abuse by a parent or sibling.[/b]
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI do not hear reports of teachers molesting children at this rate. Either it's not happening, or it's not being reported. And I'm quite sure there are many more male teachers than priests in the U.S. I doubt that the media is so corrupt that it would cover up such an evil against its audience if it were in fact taking place.
This is hardly a compelling defense of the profession. I have shown elsewhere that on average, a priest molestation occurs between once and twice a week in the U.S.
I do not hear reports of teachers molesting children at this rate. Either it's not happening, or it's not being reported. And I'm quite sure there are many more male teachers th ...[text shortened]... orrupt that it would cover up such an evil against its audience if it were in fact taking place.
Google "teacher student sexual abuse".
This is the first story that comes up:
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/13298584.htm
Three former students have sworn in affidavits that administrators did nothing to stop a well-known and clear pattern of sexual abuse at Beaumont Junior High School and Lafayette High School in the late 1970s.
Kentucky.com is the only site covering this story. What are the chances of that if it were a Catholic priest?
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's a 25 year old local story, containing only allegations. What do you expect? It's simply not national news.
[b]I do not hear reports of teachers molesting children at this rate. Either it's not happening, or it's not being reported. And I'm quite sure there are many more male teachers than priests in the U.S. I doubt that the media is so corrupt that it would cover up such an evil against its audience if it were in fact taking place.
Google "te ...[text shortened]... is the only site covering this story. What are the chances of that if it were a Catholic priest?[/b]
It might make national news if it were a Catholic school, because the church is a worldwide organization that people around the country have an interest in.
Alternatively, if it were occuring a few years ago at a rate of up to twice a week, with numerous court proceedings, I would expect it to be national news.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt doesn't need to be 20 times less likely to be reported.
But 4.3 is 20 times higher than .2%. If you're going to explain the discrepency based on underreporting, you have to claim that parental abuse is 20 times less likely to be reported. Do you have any evidence for this?
With a conviction rate of, say, 25% (not improbable - there is little physical evidence in these cases), it needs to be only 5 times less likely to be reported.