> > That's because every priest who committed such a crime over the past 60
>> years is being mentioned - but in terms of the rate of abuse, it is not
>> much different, AFAIK, than that of the general population.
>>
>> The real scandal is the truly absurd way in which this was handled.
>>
> > JDG
Well, we really don't know, do we? Information released by bishops
and cardinals has not been... sytematic.
But we can do a little math. The _Boston Globe_ reports that the
Archdiocese of Boston settled 70 clerical child sex abuse cases in
the 1990s. The Archdiocese of Boston has 900 priests. Assuming
steady-state and a 40-year career, that means 22 new priests each
year. If those 70 are out of the population of all priests who have
served in Boston since (say) 1980, that means 70/1350 = 5% have had
child sex abuse cases settled on their behalf by the Archdioceses.
And this 5% is a lower bound--surely there are a considerable number
of unreported cases as well. That seems to me to be three times the
1.5% figure that I have heard thrown around for the general male
population...
More worrisome, however, is the administrative *pattern* in Boston:
the number of high officials in the Archdiocese for whom it was a
matter of course to shuffle the offending priest off to a new parish.
Not only Bernard Law, but auxiliary bishop Thomas Daily (now bishop
of Brooklyn), auxiliary bishop John McCormak (now bishop of
Manchester), auxiliary bishop Robert Banks (now bishop of Green Bay),
Gilbert Phinn (sometime directory of clerical personnel) who
explicitly told pedophile priests shifted to new parishes *not* to
tell the pastors of their new churches about their past crimes.
Consider how many people worked with those 70 for whom settlements
were made in the 1990s. Consider how many hands any piece of official
paperwork moves through. Consider the normal human tendency to hang
from the gossip vine. From the numbers, it seems clear to me that
most diocesan priests in Boston knew or had to work hard not to know
that there was something dodgy about Bernard Law's child abuse
policies.
Yet did any of those who knew or ought to have known go to the Globe
or the Herald? No. Did any protest to Bernard Law that his policies
were unwise, offensive, sinful, un-Christian? I have found only one
who did: John D'Arcy, now bishop of South Bend.
The most horrifying thing to me is that the policy was not the work
of one man, but accepted operating procedure throughout the whole
hierarchy. And that those who did not agree with it nevertheless kept
their mouths shut...
Brad DeLong
--
"Burke ever held, and held rightly, that it can seldom be right to�
sacrifice a present benefit for a doubtful advantage in the future�.
It is not wise to look too far ahead; our powers of prediction are
slight, our command over results infinitesimal. It is therefore the
happiness of our own contemporaries that is our main concern; we
should be very chary of sacrificing large numbers of people for the
sake of a contingent end, however advantageous that may appear�. We
can never know enough to make the chance worth taking. There is this
further consideration that is often in need of emphasis: it is not
sufficient that the state of affairs which we seek to promote should
be better than the state of affairs which preceded it; it must be
sufficiently better to make up for the evils of the transition�"
--John Maynard Keynes
____________________
J. Bradford DeLong
Department of Economics
U.C. Berkeley, #3880
Berkeley, CA 94720-3880
(510) 643-4027
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/
