Most victims of the priest scandal are male. Most priests are homosexual. It is more difficult for a homosexual to be celibate. The primary problem is not pedophilia or celibacy. The primary problem is homosexual priests. The popes knew this. The bishops ignored the directives to no longer ordain them.
We've been in this conversation before, so I'm just going to paste from one of my responses.
The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010
First, the victims:
pg. 10
Most sexual abuse victims of priests (51 percent) were between the ages of eleven and fourteen, while 27 percent were fifteen to seventeen, 16 percent were eight to ten, and nearly 6 percent were under age seven. Over 40 percent of all victims were males between the ages of eleven and fourteen. It is worth noting that while the media has consistently referred to priest-abusers as “pedophile priests,” pedophilia is defined as the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Yet, the data on priests show that 22 percent of victims were age ten and under, while the majority of victims were pubescent or postpubescent.
A couple things here: First of all, 11-14 is a broad range, and it's reasonable to consider the possibility that the category is weighted toward the younger age. Looking to see if that cohort had ever been more narrowly defined, I found this:
Second, there's a caveat to the term pedophilia as it pertains to this study:
p. 134
Pedophilia is a diagnosable disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (discussed at length in Chapter 3). However, these data are based on the behavior exhibited by priests rather than diagnoses. The behaviors are consistent with that which would be exhibited by an individual diagnosed with this disorder.
In other words, the study makes clear that there was not an attempt to clinically diagnose the priests with the disorder, but they're exhibiting the behaviors of the disorder.
On to the priests, and whether or not homosexuality was the driving factor in abuse:
pg. 63
Priests who identified themselves at the time of treatment as gay/homosexual, bisexual, or confused, were more likely to have post-ordination sexual behavior than those who considered themselves to be heterosexual, though the nonheterosexual priests were more likely to participate in sexual behavior with adults.
Priests with positive views toward homosexuality were most likely to have post-ordination sexual behavior, followed by those with a negative view and then those with a neutral view. Priests with positive views toward homosexuality were also more likely to have adult sexual partners, whereas priests with negative views toward homosexuality were more likely (but not significantly) to have minor victims than those with positive or neutral views.
pg. 64
The data do not support a finding that homosexual identity and/or pre-ordination same-sex sexual behavior are significant risk factors for the sexual abuse of minors.
pg. 119
The clinical data do not support the hypothesis that priests with a homosexual identity or those who committed same-sex sexual behavior with adults are significantly more likely to sexually abuse children than those with a heterosexual orientation or behavior.
I'd referred upthread to the abuse being a crime of opportunity, and that it's notable that during those peak years of abuse, there were no girl altar servers yet. And here it is:
pg. 102
In sum, the Nature and Scope data indicate substantial situational impact on abuse. There is consistency in how male and female victims met the priests who abused them, where the abuse occurred, and under what circumstances the abuse took place. This consistency is evident despite the substantial difference in the percentage of males and females abused. Overall, the constancy of the data indicates that opportunity plays a significant role in the choice of victims.
pg. 100
Table 5.2 shows the gender of victims by five-year intervals. Interestingly, an increase in the number of male victims occurred during the peak years of the abuse crisis. Two explanations for this trend are possible: first, it can be hypothesized that priests would have been seeking out male victims to abuse, or alternatively, it can be hypothesized that priests would have been abusing the victims to whom they had access. If the first hypothesis is supported, an indication of this activity would be found in the clinical (individual-level) data. In other words, more men would be driven by pathologies related to the sexual abuse of minors. The clinical data do not support this explanation (see Chapter 3). If the second hypothesis is supported, then priests would have had more access to males and would have been committing more offenses with those to whom they had access. Though it is difficult to test this hypothesis with retrospective data, this assertion is supported by additional data, shown below in Table 5.2 and Figure 5.2. The data show that the highest percentage of males were abused at the peak of the crisis. This finding also corresponds with the highest levels of alcohol/substance use during the abuse time period, which is consistent with the literature on “situational” abuse of minors.459 Additionally, it should be noted that altar servers could only be male until the promulgation to the revisions of canon law in 1983 (and confirmed through letters from Pope John Paul II in 1992). The Table and Figure below show the substantial increase in the percentage of female victims in the late 1990s and 2000s, when priests had more access to them in the church.
1. The John Jay report clearly refutes the contention that "the problem does seem to be mainly homosexuality."
2. It's disingenuous and incorrect to say the majority of victims were post-pubescent (again, as if that made the abuse any less reprehensible).
3. Yes, the report says saying "pedophile priests" is inaccurate, but as academic research it's drawing a distinction the general public isn't going to: that the a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia is beyond the purview of the paper - yet still going on to say that
"The behaviors are consistent with that which would be exhibited by an individual diagnosed with this disorder."
