Brad DeLong wrote:
>
> > > 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...
Your figures contain the assumption there was no more than one
settlement case per priest. I find it more likely to believe that you'd
have multiple cases settled for the same priest, given the reprehensible
practice of just moving a molesting priest from one parish to another.
> 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.
This pattern is what leads me to believe that, given that a priest
molested, he likely molested enough children that more than one
settlement would be made on his behalf.
(Other that questioning the statistical analysis, I'm in complete
agreement with you, at least from what I have seen you post so far.)
Julia
