(Continued from page 356)
Inventing scapegoats, denial, or hiding their perverts, has always been Rome's methodology!
The Protestant Clergy Sex Abuse Pattern
You write: In addition, over 95% of the "abuse" is not by their invalid priests but by volunteers and other employees. In addition, over 90% of the accused invalid "priests" are dead, and the "abuse" misconduct covers a wide range of areas such as comments, looks, and gestures - and not what your perverted mind thinks of. Only 0.3% of the cases are pedophilia; the other 99+% are teenagers making allegations of so called misconduct.
TCE: Not only does 'The Huffington Post' report repudiate your mindless claims but, again, you have not supplied one credible source or fact to support your hopeful suppositions and your previous errors make it clear to a reasonable person that you have a serious problem handling any truth that is inconvenient to you!
The Papal Roman Catholic myth that 'pope Peter' started a long apostolic line of 'infallible' leaders who could never err in any way whatsoever has led to the situation that has clearly existed in your religion for many years - and probably from the beginning when Constantine started his cult!
If you believed the Bible instead of the 'traditions' of Papal Rome you would know (Romans 3:23) '...all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God' but 'we have not a High Priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but One that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin' (Hebrews 4:15). All other men who walk this earth are capable of sinning!
When we read testimonies such as the following, we do not doubt that this reaction is possible from any group that believes in an infallible leader, or group of leaders - regardless of their title and position or whether they are called popes, priests, presidents, prime ministers, or some other guru-type name:
'A boy who told his father about the abuse his younger brother was suffering was beaten to the point of unconsciousness. "Priests don't do that," said the father as he punished his son for what he thought was a vicious lie against the clergy '.
Since the website this came from is about as friendly towards Christianity as 'The Huffington Post' you would doubtlessly like to dismiss the claim as you dismiss every kind of evidence - whether real or not. Unfortunately, this kind of reaction often results from the un-Scriptural behaviour of the cult of Papal Rome - and it is just one example quoted by the disgusting 'clergygonewild' website that hates the Lord Jesus Christ! However, Satan has clearly been operating from the Vatican from its inception and the results are continuously seen in the behaviour of its members.
Clearly, if a father came to you and reported abuse you would also react with '"Priests don't do that '!
You write: I'm not defending the Post Conciliar Protestant Sect, but only demonstrating your raging bigotry. They have substantially the least, I repeat, the least amount of "abuse" misconduct, compared to all the other false sects and Protestant denominations, and humanist institutions etc. That's statistics.
TCE: Again, the only 'demonstrat[ion] [of] raging bigotry' you make is your own! And when you declare 'That's statistics' we can look at what some 'real statistics' show later. All you have done is make more wild claims. You are correct in only one thing here - you are not 'defending the Post Conciliar Protestant Sect ' because it is an invention of embarrassed Papal Roman Catholics who know that their cult is guilty of all of these crimes. This is what your 'Huffington Post' article reveals under the title:
(Posted: 09/28/2010 4:28 pm EDT Updated: 05/25/2011 5:50 pm EDT)
On 28 May, 2014, Pope Francis admitted Papal Rome's priests committed child abuse - 'like a satanic mass'!
One of the most striking aspects of the Protestant clergy sex abuse pattern is that most people don't realize it is a pattern. The Catholic Church has taken a well deserved beating in the courts and in the court of public opinion as former altar boys, orphans and ordinary parishioners come forward with appalling stories of sex abuse. Yet equally egregious violations by Protestant clergy fail to generate the same level of outrage. Why?
You might answer that the problems in the Catholic Church are uniquely widespread, but that would be the wrong answer. Last week's Eddie Long scandal, in which one of the nation's most politically connected and homophobic mega-ministers was accused of strong-arming gay sex out of teens, was just one tip of an enormous Protestant iceberg. The news monthly Freethought Today has a regular feature called "Black Collar Crime Blotter," typically a two-page sampler of fraud, theft, and sexual abuse taken from the media across the country. They just turned their archive over to the Kinsey Institute. A website called ClergyGoneWild.com provides links to recent crime stories, including child abuse (206 articles) and internet solicitation (18).
This problem is nothing new. The first book on clergy sex abuse in this country, Betrayal of Trust, was published in 1988. The perception that Catholic priests are overrepresented among offenders is correct. They do offend at a higher rate. But because this country is predominantly Protestant, more children are abused by Protestant ministers than by Catholic priests. In 1990, the Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a study on pedophilia by clergy. At that time, two clergy per week were being arrested in North America for sex crimes against children. Fifty-eight percent of them were Protestant.
Why do we largely overlook the horrific pattern of Protestant pedophilia and sexual exploitation? Here are a few factors to consider:
The Catholic Church is easier to think of as a monolithic entity. That means it is easier for the press to cohere the abuse incidents into a single story and our brains to grok it. The idea of one big conspiracy appeals to us: "The Church" did it and then covered it up.
The centralized hierarchy of Catholicism makes Catholic offenders easier to sue and guarantees deep pockets. The lawsuits in turn both generate their own news cycle and bring victims out of the closet.
Since most Americans are Protestants, the Catholic sex abuse scandal is a story about "them." Protestant Pedophilia is a story about "us," which makes it less gratifying and more uncomfortable.
Most Americans find the idea of celibacy peculiar at best. It makes for a more interesting narrative than a generic story about abuse of authority. Has the priestly pledge of celibacy contributed to a pattern of inappropriate and exploitative sex by Catholics? Probably. But a look at the behavior of politicians and Protestant ministers - even just those iceberg tips that actually emerge into daylight - should tell us that celibacy is a small part of the story. The reality is that power is arousing for many male humans (and that male power and status are arousing for many females). The pattern is plain as day in Hollywood dramas, rape statistics, sexual fantasies, D.C. dramas, and clergy sex abuse. (Where is the university research on the topic?) And yet we continue to delude ourselves that Protestant ministers are somehow exempt from the endemic, that the incidents are isolated. We say that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," and yet we give ministers a level of deference that is unparalleled - and expect our vulnerable children to do the same.
When Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote Betrayal of Trust 22 years ago, the pattern in Catholic congregations was to huddle the wagons around accused clergy. She quotes one defense witness who described the abuse as "one drop of ink in crystal clear water." Today, after years of repeated exposure, Catholics are less likely to rally to the side of pedophiles, turning potentially devastating ire and scorn on the victims. To Gaylor, the New York Times stories this week of Eddie Long taking the pulpit amidst standing ovations and catcalls of love is déjà vu. "Some Protestants are where Catholics were 20 years ago," she says. "We have a long ways to go."
TCE: Again, we can see the sentences that you choose to exaggerate and insist that this is how all 'Protestants' have behaved and reacted - particularly the 'stories this week of Eddie Long taking the pulpit amidst standing ovations and catcalls of love'! Where are the facts and figures in this article that support the skew you try to wrest from the articles? As we have warned on our homepage, we do not have the time to wade through links and the onus is on the writer (you!) to emphasise any points from such articles - not to launch into a grossly exaggerated and foolish tirade as you have done repeatedly! We have bothered to take the time to examine a few of these links and find that they not only totally fail to support your claims but, also, use abuse occurring in cults and sects (e.g. the Amish and Mormons) to try and prove points which support their clear agenda against all religions. Their reasoning is as flabby and lacking factual support as you have proven to be and the figures that you hoped to find to bolster Papal Rome simply do not exist in your references.
If you just Google questions about the number and percentage of 'Protestants' in the USA you find this false information:
'According to a 2014 study by the Pew Research Centre, 70.6% of the American population identified themselves as Christians, with 46.5% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant, and 20.8% professing Roman Catholic beliefs.'
When you read this page you find a good deal of mis-information, such as the claim that:
'New Protestant branches like Adventism emerged; Restorationists and other Christians like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Latter Day Saint movement, Churches of Christ and Church of Christ, Scientist, as well as Unitarian and Universalist communities all spread in the 19th century'.
No orthodox Christian would accept these cults being defined as 'Christian'! But, then, they follow your pattern of lumping everyone not defined as some kind of Roman Catholic into the 'Protestant' category.
Doubtlessly, the Jews who persecuted the apostles and the fledgling ekklesia of the New Testament days would have done the same as you and incorporated the heretics named by Paul (Hymenaeus and Alexander etc. in 1 Timothy 1:20; cf. 2 Timothy 4:14; cf. 1 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 1:15; 2:17 & 3:1; Titus 1:10-16) as being followers of the Lord Jesus Christ and equally worthy of punishment!
Having followed a large range of reported statistics from a variety of sources for over twenty years, we recognise that Wikipedia figures are far from accurate.
Over 20 years ago we wrote our page - 'Christ versus Religion' - and, referring to the facts which reveal the heart of Christianity, we wrote:
'The Resurrection is the very heart of Christianity. Yet according to the 1996 Barna poll, 30 percent of those who call themselves "born-again Christians" do not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ. Obviously, they lack the essential conviction that the Resurrection is a proven fact. Without that conviction, one is not a Christian! '
Note the significant detail: '30 percent of those who call themselves "born-again Christians" do not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ '. This is always a problem for those relying on labels and statistics to point to the truth they hope to find - these people liked the sound of 'born-again Christian' and therefore claimed it for themselves. But they lacked the knowledge to support their claim! This is what you find in most statistical analyses of supposed facts which are, in fact, dealing with emotions.
The 'Barna Study of Religious Change Since 1991 Shows Significant Changes by Faith Group' (Research Releases in Faith & Christianity - August 4, 2011) and we read - under the title 'Self-Identified Christians':
Most Americans - roughly four out of five (80%!) - consider themselves to be Christians.
Now only a minority of this group - 47% - can be found in church events during a typical week.
Less than one out of five (18%) now attend during a typical week.
Whereas 30% of the self-identified Christians volunteered at a church during a typical week back in 1991, that figure has declined to 22% today.
Those who embrace the label "Christian" for themselves are now ten percentage points more likely to be unchurched than was true in 1991.
The 31% who fit this profile have not attended any church service during the past six months, excluding special services such as weddings or funerals.
Bible reading dropped slightly over the last 20 years within this segment, going from 51% to 46%. This is another marker in which a majority of this group no longer participates.
The largest change in beliefs was the ten-point decline in those who firmly believe that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Only 43% of self-identified Christians now have such a strong belief in the Bible.
The percentage of self-identified Christians who meet the "born again" criteria - that is, those who contend they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today, and who also believe they will enter Heaven solely because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior - jumped by seven percentage points, to 48%.
This group's views about personal responsibility to evangelize and the importance of religious faith in their life did not budge over the past twenty years.
Born Again Christians - This category is comprised of people whose beliefs characterize them as born again; it is not based on people calling themselves "born again." This segment, which now stands at 40% of all adults in the U.S., experienced significant changes in relation to all six religious behaviours tracked by the Barna Group.
The largest shifts in behavior pertained to the 14-point decline in adult Sunday school attendance (now 26%) and the 12-point drop in volunteering at church (down to 29%).
Attendance at church services in any given week decreased by seven percentage points over the last two decades among born again Christians, falling from 66% to 59%.
The proportion of born again adults who read the Bible during a typical week, not including when they are at a church event, has decreased by nine percentage points since 1991. The weekly average now resides at 62%.
Two behavioural statistics increased since 1991, one for the worse and the other of little consequence. The unfortunate shift is the increase in the unchurched among born again adults, which has risen by five percentage points to 19%.
The neutral transition is the eight-point increase in born again adults who attend a large church (600 or more people).
Only one of the seven religious beliefs measured among 'born agains' shifted significantly in the last two decades. That was the nine-point drop in the percentage of those who firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. In 1991, three-quarters of born again adults held that view, but it has declined to two-thirds of them today (65%).
Roman Catholics in the U.S.
Roman Catholics continue to represent the largest religious denomination in the United States, at about one-fifth (20%) of the adult population. The Catholic population has experienced three statistically meaningful changes in religious behaviours and three in religious beliefs since 1991.
Catholics are now 10 percentage points less likely to attend church services than they were in 1991 (down to 49%) and 10 points less likely to volunteer at their church (down to only 9%). They are also more likely to be unchurched now than they used to be, increasing in this behavior from 20% to 29%.
The beliefs that have shifted in the minds of Catholics include an eight-point decline in those who firmly believe the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. That position has diminished among Catholics from one-third (34%) to one-quarter (26%). The other shifts were growth in the number who say they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is important in their life today (up seven points to 60%) and an eight-point increase in the proportion of Catholics who meet the born again criteria (now up to 24%).
Changes among Protestants
Protestants are also redefining the nature of their faith, as seen in the fact that all six religious behaviours changed significantly, and five of the eight religious beliefs tracked followed suit.
The four major church-related behaviours have all suffered in the past two decades. Church attendance in a typical week has dropped by five percentage points (down to 52%); adult Sunday school attendance has declined 11 points, to 25%; volunteerism is off by 11 points (now standing at 26%); and being unchurched has risen from 17% to 24%.
The likelihood of attending a large church (600 or more people) grew by seven percentage points. Fourteen percent of Protestant adults now align with such a church. That's double the proportion discovered in 1991, but unchanged from a decade ago.
Personal Bible reading undertaken apart from church events has dipped by seven percentage points since 1991, now down to 57%. The good news is that this represents a rebound from the 48% registered in 2001.
Perhaps surprisingly, four of the five changes in the religious beliefs of Protestants represent change for the better.
The number of Protestants who have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that they consider to still be important in their life today has risen by eight percentage points, to 86%.
Protestants are eight points less likely to agree that Satan is merely a symbol of evil, not a living entity, than they were in 1991. About half of them (47%) accept that characterization of Satan.
Adopting a personal responsibility for evangelism has increased slightly among Protestants, from 33% to 38% over the past 20 years.
The proportion of Protestant adults that meets the "born again" criteria has risen from 53% to 65%.
The notion that the Bible is completely accurate in all of the principles it teaches is less popular among Protestants today. In 1991, 61% strongly believed that notion; today, 56% hold that belief.
In addition to analyzing the research for this Update, George Barna has also posted further commentary on these findings on his blog site (www.georgebarna.com), as he has done in conjunction with the release of each of the five prior Updates on the state of the Church during the past week.
TCE: These figures reveal that an incredible number of people in the USA believe they are Christians and, of the 80% who make this claim, 20% claim to be Roman Catholics, 40% are believed to qualify as 'born-again Christian' - meaning 20% who believe themselves to be Christian are too Biblically ignorant to know that Jesus made it clear (John 3v3) that 'unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God' - so they are not Christians! Although the claim to be 'born again' increased (even among Roman Catholics), many of the other statistics [concerning church attendance (apart from weddings and funerals); involvement in church life; interest, reading and belief in the Bible as the Word of God; personal responsibility to evangelize and the importance of religious faith in their life] all declined!
Regarding the Huffington Post, if Valerie Tarico and Janet Heimlich are only using these articles to persuade the ignorant and unstable to buy their books - and you believe you will find support for your claims in their works - then supply us with these facts. But you should be warned of the obvious fact that also oozes out of these articles - these writers are God-haters who believe all religions are the same (beliefs embraced by your last two papal incumbents), as revealed in the quote from:
'Heimlich: ... as I was doing my research and telling people about the subject of the book, I found that liberal believers strongly agreed that religious child maltreatment is real and a serious problem. I can't tell you how many people have expressed relief that I wrote this book. On the other hand, conservative believers have tended to reject the notion that anything bad could come from religion. Rather, they want to only blame individuals rather than seeing the systemic problems that plague communities, generation after generation. Many apologists say that people who abuse children in a religious context are not "true" believers, so we should ignore religion as an influencing factor. My feeling is, many of those naysayers are rather ignorant about what is contained in religious texts and doctrines, as some seem to condone authoritarian parenting if not abuse. But, more importantly, is anyone truly qualified to determine what makes a "true" Christian, a "real" Jew, or a perfectly devout Muslim? I think we'd be a lot better off if we focused less on judging people's religiosity and focused more on whether children's needs are being met in religious environments.'
When you consider their other claims for Christianity it is easy to recognise that they are in no position to answer the questions concluding this paragraph, for it is clear that 'feelings' and supposition passes for logic and facts in their world, and no 'true Christian' would seek the opinion of such people. Even the way in which they utilise the 'naysayers' slur so loved by the 'religious' who constantly prove themselves to be 'ignorant and unstable' (2 Peter 3v16), points to the mind-set of the deceived.
You are clearly incapable of making sense of figures and prefer your own interpretations regardless of the facts which show that they are referring to figures from books published over 20 years ago:
'The first book on clergy sex abuse in this country, Betrayal of Trust, was published in 1988. The perception that Catholic priests are overrepresented among offenders is correct. They do offend at a higher rate. But because this country is predominantly Protestant, more children are abused by Protestant ministers than by Catholic priests. In 1990, the Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a study on pedophilia by clergy. At that time, two clergy per week were being arrested in North America for sex crimes against children. Fifty-eight percent of them were Protestant.'
TCE: Clearly these writers are as hopeless with statistics as you are 'Herman', not least because they do not take into account that the vast majority of Papal Roman Catholic clergy were totally shielded and hidden by the Vatican - as our later figures reveal!
But the fact that one recent survey reveals that '70.6% of the American population identified themselves as Christians, with 46.5% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant, and 20.8% professing Roman Catholic beliefs' fails to take into account the fact that the identification as Christian is spurious, the label of 'Protestant' is also dubious (since these surveys include Amish, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, any church that includes 'Christ' in their denominational name, etc. as 'Protestant'), and the 'attendance' claimed is very occasional (particularly among historical 'Protestants' compared with Papal Roman Catholics), means that, at best, the 1990 figures reveal that, if 'two clergy per week were being arrested in North America for sex crimes against children', then, out of 104 clergy, just over 60 were some kind of 'Protestant' (since 'Fifty-eight percent of them were Protestant ') and 44 were Papal Roman Catholics. This does not equate to a 'predominant' figure.
The avalanche of cases against the hierarchy and priests of Papal Rome since 1998 totally swamps the figure of 'Fifty-eight percent ... Protestant' - even assuming these figures were in any way accurate at that time! And this is before we begin to consider the fact that Papal Rome is the 'monolithic entity' engineered by Satan to hide the abuse that they perpetrate against children and adults through their un-Scriptural 'confessional' and threat to excommunicate and punish those who dare to expose their 'priesthood'.
Another factor that you and others will never take into account is the equivalent of Papal Rome's method of indoctrination that leads people to think that belonging to the Papal Roman Catholic Church means you are assured of heaven - eventually (while the truth is far more tragic). A numbers-oriented supposed soul winning methodology that has been used by many 'Protestant' churches for about 40 years has proved to be no more effective in gaining true-believers for Christ than the more recent follow-up - the 'Alpha Course'. After running people through "the Romans Road" to "get a decision for Christ," leading them in a sinner's prayer, assuring them they are thus 'saved' and then maybe recording them as a statistic, these 'Protestant' churches do not, in the vast majority of cases, bother following up these 'converts' when they fail to turn up in church (as the statistics show is the case more often than not) after perhaps a small number of appearances. The same pattern is witnessed in the 'Billy Graham Crusades' which for years even promised Papal Rome that any of its proselytes that turned up to the meetings and made 'a commitment to Christ' would be returned to the local Catholic church! A bonus of 'Two-Faced' Billy is that many more were deceived into thinking that Papal Rome was just another Christian denomination - instead of recognising it as the cult that it has proved to be.
The result is that countless people have been given a false hope of heaven and they been inoculated against true salvation but, when approached by statisticians, know enough to claim to be 'born again' or to belong to a 'Protestant' church. But try asking these 'converts' from any of the methodologies a few pertinent questions about God, salvation, the New Testament etc. and you will be lucky to get one correct answer. In many places where this methodology has been plugged by local churches you can knock on their doors and try to talk to them about Christ and find a considerable number of people who claim to be saved! 'Oh yes - I've accepted Jesus into my heart' they quickly respond as they begin to close the door on you. Invite them to church and you find any number of excuses and recognise that they can't wait to shut the door and return to their hedonistic, Christless lifestyles. Not surprisingly, asking those who claim to be Catholics the same simple questions about Christianity results in the same Biblical ignorance and, more often than not, the response - 'Accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour? I've already done that - I'm a Catholic - we all believe the same don't we?' Ask them when they last went to their church and the answer is more often than not a guilty admission to having missed Mass for quite a while, but...............!
Thus you try and make use of these facts and many other flawed figures and write:
'The reason the Liberal media doesn't make a fuss about this is because over 70% of America are Protestants, which is a clear majority, and professing "Catholics" are a minority; and it serves the Leftist agenda of dividing the population into hostile groups and nurturing their bigotry and gaining an avid audience of Anti-Catholic bigots. Abuse will always happen in the sects of false religions, like yours, but the Post Conciliar Protestant Sect has the least amount, of all the sects of false religions. Of course, such things never happen in the Catholic Church, for it is the one True Religion.'
Again, trying to invent a new 'Catholic Church' where 'such things never happen' while tacitly defending the only real Papal Roman Catholic Church - which is obviously indefensible despite your attempt to prove it 'has the least amount' - simply will not wash.
Of course, you would hate people to know that your link leads to another on the book, Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment by Janet Heimlich, which includes these 'Publisher Comments':
High-profile cases such as the child sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church and "faith healing" deaths in certain fundamentalist Christian congregations have made the public aware that religion can sometimes mask deviant and harmful behavior. But the extent of the problem is far greater than most people realize. This revealing, disturbing, and thoroughly researched book exposes a dark side of faith that most Americans do not know exists or have ignored for a long time; religious child maltreatment. After speaking with dozens of victims, perpetrators, and experts, and reviewing a myriad of court cases and studies, the author explains how religious child maltreatment happens. She then takes an in-depth look at the many forms of child maltreatment found in religious contexts, including biblically-prescribed corporal punishment and beliefs about the necessity of "breaking the wills" of children; scaring kids into faith and other types of emotional maltreatment such as spurning, isolating, and withholding love; pedophilic abuse by religious authorities and the failure of religious organizations to support the victims and punish the perpetrators; and religiously-motivated medical neglect in cases of serious health problems. In a concluding chapter, Heimlich raises questions about children's rights and proposes changes in societal attitudes and improved legislation to protect children from harm. While fully acknowledging that religion can be a source of great comfort, strength, and inspiration to many young people, Heimlich makes a compelling case that, regardless of ones religious or secular orientation, maltreatment of children under the cloak of religion can never be justified and should not be tolerated.
The high-lighted sections reveal the true nature of the writer's comparison with the widely recognised 'child sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church and "faith healing" deaths in certain fundamentalist Christian congregations'! As we have seen earlier in the quoted examples of 'Christian' and ''Protestant' groups by this writer - and now have it confirmed here - she is incapable of making factual and educated assessments as to the nature of 'Christian groups', particularly in telling the difference between a 'Protestant' group and a 'Christian cult'. We are also given little reason to expect that her 'in-depth look' at 'biblically-prescribed corporal punishment' might be considered with logic and understanding. Under the heading 'Book News Annotation' we read:
Heimlich, formerly a reporter for National Public Radio and now an independent journalist, describes four commonly accepted forms of religious child maltreatment in the US: physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, and medical neglect. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all examined, but most material is on Christianity, with examples from the Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Followers of Christ, and the Remnant Fellowship Church. The author draws extensively on interviews with victims, perpetrators, and psychologists, as well as analysis of court cases and research. The book begins with four introductory chapters defining religious child maltreatment and surveying the church's denial of the problem, then discusses religious authoritarianism and explores Biblical passages related to child maltreatment. Subsequent chapters are grouped in sections on the four types of abuse. There is also a chapter devoted to child exorcism, and a chapter on male and female circumcision and the secret history of female genital cutting in America. Final chapters recommend repealing religious exemptions related to faith healing and eliminating abuse statutes of limitations. While the book contains detailed chapter notes and a list of books and websites, there is no subject index.
Can we have any confidence in a book when the 'Annotation' claims there are 'four commonly accepted forms of religious child maltreatment in the US' ('commonly accepted' as occurring, or as being 'acceptable'?!) admits 'Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all examined, but most material is on Christianity, with examples from the Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Followers of Christ, and the Remnant Fellowship Church'? And if this statement is true we can be sure that the study will not be balanced regarding 'Christianity, Judaism, and Islam' for it is admitted that only these cults - 'the Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Followers of Christ, and the Remnant Fellowship Church' - are used to supply 'examples'. None of these groups are 'Christian', let alone 'Protestant'! The beliefs of the latter cults can be discovered at:
We could also ask why the writer admits that 'Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all examined, but most material is on Christianity'. What would cause her to do this? If it was possible to examine all religions equally why concentrate on Christianity - or Christianity as she perceives it from her position of ignorance?
We find the answer in the claim of 'the church's denial of the problem ... and Biblical passages related to child maltreatment.' We do not need to read the book to be fairly certain of the kind of 'passages' that are likely to be claimed to prove the 'church' guilty of such 'maltreatment'. We can also be sure that the book will have little, if any, understanding of the huge variance between behaviour in genuine Bible-believing churches and the groups they mistakenly perceive to be 'Christian' - never mind the other religions they have lumped into their 'investigation'? The admission that 'There is also a chapter devoted to child exorcism, and a chapter on male and female circumcision and the secret history of female genital cutting in America' also makes clear the kind of 'surveying' to be found in the book. Can anyone really believe this book is going to honestly and fairly examine all these issues when it admits that 'Final chapters recommend repealing religious exemptions related to faith healing and eliminating abuse statutes of limitations'?
It is the extreme of irony to find such people attempting to attack true Biblical Christianity, which has protected the weak and defenceless for over two thousand years, while those responsible for the 'abuse [of] statutes of limitations' have murdered millions of innocent unborn children in the womb for fifty years through their indiscriminate policy of abortion on demand!
When you have seen the images of the babies ripped from wombs with forceps, after having their skulls crushed to destroy their lives, and you then compare these millions of innocent deaths with those wrought by clumsy back-street abortionists of limited abilities, it is still hard to justify the tremendous swing from one evil act to another. That these women suffered the awful pain of losing a child that was a large part of their genetic inheritance (even when the pregnancy was the result of a horrendous crime, such as rape) and then often suffered even more horrendous pain as haemorrhages and infections brought more danger and even death to them does not alter the fact that these writers are falsely accusing people who believe in the Biblical instruction to discipline their child out of love so that they do not stray far from sound teachings designed by a loving God to correct our naturally evil ways, e.g.:
Proverbs 3:11-12 (NASB) - 11 My son, do not reject the discipline of the LORD Or loathe His reproof,
12 For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.
Proverbs 13:24 (NASB) - 24 He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.
Hebrews 12:4-11 (NASB) - 4 You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; 5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, "MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM; 6 FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES." 7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. 11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.
Job 5:17-18 (NASB) - 17 "Behold, how happy is the man whom God reproves, So do not despise the discipline of the Almighty. 18 "For He inflicts pain, and gives relief; He wounds, and His hands also heal.
Every Christian knows that there is a world of difference between the father who follows the instruction of God to carefully discipline children so that they do not follow their natural tendency which is to sin. Watch any child growing up and you will notice that even the most adorable will find ways to exhibit behaviour that they never learnt from copying their parents. The shock of seeing their child biting another child when they know that they have never learnt this from the parents or mixed with another child to learn it by copying makes it clear to a good parent that the source of the problem is an inherited nature called sin. We read earlier:
'A boy who told his father about the abuse his younger brother was suffering was beaten to the point of unconsciousness. "Priests don't do that," said the father as he punished his son for what he thought was a vicious lie against the clergy '.
No true Christian parent would beat any child to the 'point of unconsciousness' and you will meet many children who have been smacked appropriately by their parents and can hardly remember it as adults because it was both appropriate and recognised by the child as deserved! Even gentle smacking with a rod will not inflict colossal pain on a child of appropriate age and we have many examples in contemporary society of children who were neglected in every way by their parents who proved by their lack of discipline that they did not love the child but, rather, hated them! By their lack of loving discipline they refuse to bring even basic ideas of justice to the child who grows up severely damaged and extremely likely to damage others who get in the way of their self-made morals and laws.
The God of the Bible has this to say to such evil people - both the parents and their progeny - while comparing those who love God:
Revelation 22:11 - 'He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still'.
What do the facts reveal about the paedophile clergy of Papal Rome in the USA?!
On 28 May, 2014, your Pope Francis made a tacit admission that Papal Rome admits to child abuse - 'like a satanic mass'! He warned that 'the Catholic Church will show zero tolerance to priests who abuse children'. He then revealed that three bishops were being investigated for matters related to sexual abuse and that there would be no privileges for senior figures, adding: 'Sexual abuse is such an ugly crime - because a priest who does this betrays the body of the Lord. It is like a satanic mass. We must go ahead with zero tolerance.' Francis had just returned from a visit to the Middle East and also told reporters he would meet eight abuse victims at the Vatican 'early next month'. The planned meeting was also to be attended by Cardinal Sean Patrick O'Malley, the American archbishop heading a commission investigating the sexual abuse crisis in Papal Rome.
TCE: Pope Francis meets 'eight abuse victims' - EIGHT! What a fabulously magnanimous number of victims to meet! When there are literally thousands and thousands of victims this wretched little creature deigns to meet just EIGHT of them. Could it be that meeting more would make the scale of the abuse too obvious?
Seán Patrick O'Malley OFM Cap (born June 29, 1944) is an American cardinal of the Catholic Church. He serves as the Archbishop of Boston, and was elevated to the cardinalate in 2006. O'Malley is a member of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, commonly known as 'the Capuchins'. O'Malley was considered a contender to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, who resigned on February 28, 2013, until Pope Francis was chosen on March 13, 2013. On April 13, 2013, Pope Francis appointed Cardinal O'Malley to an advisory board of eight cardinals to help the Pope govern the Catholic Church and reform its central administration.
O'Malley was appointed co-adjutor bishop of the Diocese of Saint Thomas on May 30, 1984 by Pope John Paul II. He received his episcopal consecration on the following August 2 by Bishop Edward John Harper, CSsR, with Archbishop James Hickey and Bishop Eugene Marino, SSJ, serving as co-consecrators.
He served as co-adjutor for one year and then succeeded Bishop Harper as Bishop of Saint Thomas on October 16, 1985, upon Harper's resignation. While in the Virgin Islands, he worked with the homeless, and opened a home for people with AIDS. He was made an honorary chaplain of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta in 1991.
On June 16, 1992, Bishop O'Malley was chosen to head the Diocese of Fall River and installed on August 11, 1992. As Bishop of Fall River, O'Malley first attempted to settle the sexual abuse scandal in Fall River diocese. In Palm Beach, he also tried to overcome the abuse scandal there. He also worked closely with the Portuguese and Hispanic population, which make up a large percentage of the Catholics in the United States.
In 1998 John Paul II appointed O'Malley to the Special Assembly for Oceania of the Synod of Bishops. Known as a fixer in various Roman Catholic dioceses plagued by sexual abuse scandals, he became the Archbishop of Boston in 2003, succeeding Cardinal Bernard Law, who had resigned as a consequence of the sexual abuse scandal there.
In November 2007, Cardinal O'Malley said that the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to pro-life groups and that the fact many Catholic voters support Democratic candidates "borders on scandal." In a November 2008 interview he said that, unless the Church formally excommunicated them, he would not deny Communion to Catholic politicians in his diocese who support legal abortion. Despite criticism from conservative Catholics, including Raymond Arroyo of Eternal Word Television Network, for his participation in the funeral service for Senator Ted Kennedy, a long-standing supporter of legal abortion, O'Malley assisted at the funeral Mass and led a prayer. He called for less contentious political dialogue: "We will not change hearts by turning away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss." He said he appreciated the Senator's work for social justice, but that "there is a tragic sense of lost opportunity in his lack of support for the unborn".
In another example of Papal Rome's belated actions to deal with her paedophile priesthood, O'Malley has settled 101 abuse claims and claims to have instituted one of the first comprehensive sexual abuse policies in the Roman Catholic Church with a 'zero-tolerance policy' through a pontifical approved commission.
In case any Papal Roman Catholics think O'Malley is an example of their kind of (un-Biblical) 'Saint' they should consider the survey conducted by the Boston Globe dealing with Catholic hospitals refusal to participate directly in providing abortion and an arrangement that would allow Caritas Christi Health Care [which the Archdiocese of Boston owned] to deliver much-needed services to the poor. The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts criticized the arrangement vehemently: "With Caritas Christi now thoroughly embedded in the culture of death, we are now facing the end, in Massachusetts at least, of Catholic medical resistance to abortion and contraception. This tragic state of affairs is the personal responsibility of the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Sean O'Malley".
The usual mish-mash of dubious Scriptural and moral decisions followed and, in June 2009, Caritas Christi, at O'Malley's insistence, terminated its partial ownership of CeltiCare. But, as ChristianNews Wire wrote at http://www.remnantfellowship.org/ABOUT-OUR-CHURCH/What-We-Believe/The-Essence-Of-God:
Caritas Christi Abortion Scandal - More Questions, No Answers from Boston's Cardinal
Contact: Katie Walker, American Life League, 540-659-4942, firstname.lastname@example.org
WASHINGTON, June 12 /Christian Newswire/ - Judie Brown, president of American Life League, issued the following reply to Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley's June 10 statement regarding the Caritas Christi scandal in Boston:
"While Catholics and pro-lifers around the country await a definitive statement from the Archdiocese of Boston indicating that it will not participate in or facilitate abortions or other procedures contrary to Catholic teaching, Cardinal O'Malley's latest statement raises even more questions.
"The archdiocese has acknowledged that an agreement has been reached with Celtic Group, Inc. - a subsidiary of St. Louis-based Centene Corporation - for a joint healthcare venture. We know that CeltiCare includes abortion and 'family planning services' in its coverage and has promised to continue this policy after July 1.
"The archdiocese's statement also acknowledged that the agreement requires modification. This is a positive step, but certainly not acceptable as a final answer.
"What is disconcerting is that Cardinal O'Malley and the Boston archdiocese have thus far failed to clearly explain how abortion and 'family planning services' will not occur in Catholic healthcare facilities. The terms of CeltiCare's contract with the state government specifically require coverage for abortions and other 'reproductive health' services. How then could Caritas Christi - which owns 49 percent of the for-profit CeltiCare - justify its involvement and direct connection with this business while adhering to the Catholic Church's unequivocal teachings on abortion, contraception and sterilization?'
O'Malley reportedly said: 'Throughout this process, our singular goal has been to provide for the needs of the poor and under-served in a manner that is fully and completely in accord with Catholic moral teaching. By withdrawing from the joint venture and serving the poor as a provider ... upholding Catholic moral teaching at all times, they are able to carry forward the critical mission of Catholic health care'.
Anti-abortion activists groups varied in their responses, some praising O'Malley's decision, but others continuing to object that, even if Caritas refused to provide abortions, as a participant in Commonwealth Care, it was still required to engage in abortion referrals.
An almost identical situation exists in the realm of Catholic Charities and 'gay' (homosexual) adoption, e.g., between about 1985 and 1995, Catholic Charities of Boston, which accepted state funds in support of its adoption services program, placed 13 children with 'gay' couples out of 720 adoptions although, as their President Rev. J. Bryan Hehir explained: "If we could design the system ourselves, we would not participate in adoptions to gay couples, but we can't. We have to balance various goods." Goods?! Presumably he meant balancing the 'good' against the 'bad' in such decisions making? Although, in December 2005, the lay-dominated board of Catholic Charities of Boston voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions, on March 10, 2006 (after unsuccessfully seeking help from Governor Mitt Romney in obtaining an exemption from the state's anti-discrimination statute), O'Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities announced that the agency would terminate its adoption work effective June 30, rather than continue to place children under the guardianship of homosexual couples. Hehir commented: "This is a difficult and sad day for Catholic Charities. We have been doing adoptions for more than 100 years."
In June 2010, after the Ryan Report and Murphy Report on the abuses by the Church in Ireland, Cardinal O'Malley was named as the Visitor to the Archdiocese of Dublin and its suffragan sees, Ferns and Ossory and Kildare and Leighlin. As one of those named to oversee the apostolic visitation of various dioceses and seminaries in Ireland, O'Malley will report back to the 'Holy See' (the central governing body of the Catholic Church) on action taken since the reports were issued and further recommendations.
How did O'Malley get these positions when the sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese was part of a series of Catholic sex abuse cases in the United States and Ireland. In early 2002, Boston Globe coverage of a series of criminal prosecutions of five Roman Catholic priests thrust the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests into the national limelight and coverage of these cases encouraged other victims to come forward with their allegations of abuse resulting in more lawsuits and criminal cases. As it became clear that there was truth to many of the allegations and that there was a pattern of sexual abuse and cover-up in a number of large dioceses across the USA, what had originally appeared to be a few isolated cases of abuse exploded into a nationwide scandal. The resulting scandal created a crisis for the Catholic Church in the United States, encouraging victims in other nations to come forward with their allegations of abuse, thus creating a global crisis for Rome.
Ultimately, it became clear that, over many decades in the 20th century, priests and lay members of religious orders in the Catholic Church had sexually abused minors on a scale such that the accusations reached into the thousands. Although the majority of cases were reported to have occurred in the United States, victims have come forward in other nations such as Ireland, Canada and Australia. A major aggravating factor was the decisions of Catholic bishops to keep these crimes secret and to reassign the accused to other parishes in positions where they had continued unsupervised contact with youth, thus allowing the abusers to continue their crime.
In 2002, criminal charges were brought against five Roman Catholic priests in the Boston area of the United States (John Geoghan, John Hanlon, Paul Shanley, Robert V. Gale and Jesuit priest James Talbot) which ultimately resulted in their conviction and prison sentencing. The ongoing coverage of these cases by The Boston Globe thrust the issue of "sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests" into the national limelight and the coverage of these cases encouraged other victims to come forward with their allegations of abuse which resulted in further lawsuits and criminal cases.
In 2003, the series of articles in the Boston Globe received a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service "for its courageous, comprehensive coverage ... an effort that pierced secrecy, stirred local, national and international reaction and produced changes in the Roman Catholic Church." Documents revealed how Cardinal Law covered up incidents of sexual misconduct of his priests and had moved Paul Shanley and John Geoghan from parish to parish within the diocese despite repeated allegations of molestation of children under the priests' care. Later, it was discovered that 'Father' Shanley even recommended the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Under questioning, the cardinal admitted that, when a priest committed a sex crime against a child, his practice was to seek the analysis of psychiatrists, clinicians and therapists in residential treatment centres before deciding whether a priest should be returned to the pulpit.
At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report#cite_note-JJReportExec-1 you can read a full account of the horrific abuse:
The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, commonly known as the John Jay Report, is a 2004 report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States [John Jay College of Criminal Justice (2004), "Executive Summary", The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002 (PDF), United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, ISBN 1-57455-627-4, retrieved February 7, 2012]. The initial version of the report was posted on the Internet on February 27, 2004, with corrections and revisions posted on April 16. The printed version was published in June 2004 [John Jay College of Criminal Justice (2004), The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002 (PDF), United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, ISBN 1-57455-627-4, retrieved February 7, 2012]. The church's own John Jay Report is online at John Jay Report:
The report determined that, during the period from 1950 to 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, the dioceses had been able to identify 6,700 unique accusations against 4,392 clergy over that period in the USA, which is about 4% of all 109,694 ordained clergy i.e. priests or deacons or members of religious orders, active in the USA during the time covered by the study. Roughly 4% of them were accused. However, of these 4392 accused, only 252 (5.7% of those accused or less than 0.1% of total clergy) were convicted. The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s, and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.
The surveys filtered information provided from diocesan files on each cleric accused of sexual abuse and on each of the clerics' victims to the research team so that they did not have access to the names of the accused clergy or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed. Of the 4,392 clergy accused, 3,300 were not investigated because the cleric had already died. Of the remainder 1,021 were reported to police and of those, 384 were charged, resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences; In total, out of the 109,694 priests who were surveyed, 100 were imprisoned.
Thus, 6% of the 4,392 clergy against whom allegations were made (252 priests in total or <0.25% of all clerics ) were convicted and about 2% of the 4,392 accused priests (100 clerics or <0.1% of all clerics) received prison sentences. According to the report, one-third of the accusations were made in 2002 and 2003 and another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001. Over the same period there were about 1,000 new clergy ordained per year in the 1960s declining to about 500 per year in 2014 and about 60,000 clergy at any one time.  Thus one can say there were over 100,000 newly ordained and existing Roman Catholic clergy (109,694 John Jay p. 4) in the USA over the fifty-year period of the John Jay Report. The 100 convicted clergy therefore represent less than 0.1% of the total number of US based Roman Catholic clergy over the period. Of the 4,392 accused clergy, 3,300 of these accusations (~3.3% of clergy) were not investigated due to the accused having already died. Of the accusations that were investigated, 93% were reported. Of those reports, 37% were charged and of those 66% were convicted, making a total of 23% of the still alive being convicted. Of the convictions, 40% received prison sentences.
In summary, over a 50-year period, out of more than 100,000 priests deacons and religious order clergy, 4,392 (~4.4%) were accused of sexual abuse, 252 (<0.26%) were convicted and 100 (<0.1%) sentenced to prison.
The study was based on surveys completed by 97% of the Catholic dioceses in the United States. The surveys provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims. That information was filtered, so that the research team did not have access to the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.
Nature of the problem 
The John Jay study analyzed allegations of sexual abuse gathered via surveys of Catholic dioceses.
The period covered by the John Jay study began in 1950 and ended in 2002. The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.
Of the 11,000 allegations reported by bishops in the John Jay study, 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. 6,700 allegations were substantiated, leaving 1,000 that could not be substantiated.
According to the John Jay Report, one-third of the accusations were made in 2002 and 2003. Another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001.
Profile of the alleged abuses 
The John Jay study found that, "Like in the general population, child sex abuse in the Catholic Church appears to be committed by men close to the children they allegedly abuse." According to the study, "many (abusers) appear to use grooming tactics to entice children into complying with the abuse, and the abuse occurs in the home of the alleged abuser or victim." The study characterized these enticements as actions such as buying the minor gifts, letting the victim drive a car and taking youths to sporting events. The most frequent context for abuse was a social event and many priests socialized with the families of victims. Abuses occurred in a variety of places with the most common being the residence of the priest.
The John Jay report catalogued more than twenty types of sexual abuse ranging from verbal harassment to penile penetration. It said that most of the abusers engaged in multiple types of abuses. According to the report, only 9% of the accused performed acts limited to improper touching over the victim's clothes. Slightly more than 27% of the allegations involved a cleric performing oral sex and 25% involved penile penetration or attempted penile penetration, reported the study. Most of the allegations involved touching over or under clothing.
The study said sexual abuse "includes contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used as an object of sexual gratification for the adult." The report categorized allegations of sexual abuse even if the allegation did not involve force or genital or physical contact.
The alleged acts of abuse were in detail specified as follows:
Profile of the victims 
The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male; and of all the victims, 22% were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages of 15 and 17 years.
Profile of the abusers 
Half the priests were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse. Fewer than 7% of the priests were reported to have experienced physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19% of the accused priests had alcohol or substance abuse problems, only 9% used drugs or alcohol during the alleged instances of abuse. Almost 70% of the abusive priests were ordained before 1970, after attending pre-Vatican II seminaries or seminaries that had had little time to adapt to the reforms of Vatican II.
Of the priests who were accused of sexual abuse, 59% were accused of a single allegation. 41% of the priests were the subject of more than one allegation. Just under 3% of the priests were the subject of ten or more allegations. The 149 priests who had more than 10 allegations against them accounted for 2,960 of the total number of allegations.
Diocesan awareness of the problem 
In response to criticism that the Catholic hierarchy should have acted more quickly and decisively to remove priests accused of sexual misconduct, contemporary bishops have responded that the hierarchy was unaware until recent years of the danger in shuffling priests from one parish to another and in concealing the priests' problems from those they served. For example, Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, said: "We have said repeatedly that ... our understanding of this problem and the way it's dealt with today evolved, and that in those years ago, decades ago, people didn't realize how serious this was, and so, rather than pulling people out of ministry directly and fully, they were moved."
Diocesan response to allegations 
Some bishops have been heavily criticized for moving offending priests from parish to parish, where they still had personal contact with children, rather than seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood. Instead of reporting the incidents to police, many dioceses directed the offending priests to seek psychological treatment and assessment. According to the John Jay report, nearly 40% of priests alleged to have committed sexual abuse participated in treatment programs. The more allegations a priest had, the more likely he was to participate in treatment.
The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about some of the alleged crimes committed, but reassigned the accused instead of seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood. In defense of this practice, some have pointed out that public school administrators engaged in a similar manner when dealing with accused teachers, as did the Boy Scouts of America.
In response to these allegations, defenders of the Church's actions have suggested that in reassigning priests after treatment, bishops were acting on the best medical advice then available, a policy also followed by the U.S. public school system when dealing with accused teachers.
Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling. Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned. Critics have questioned whether bishops are necessarily able to form accurate judgments on a priest's recovery. The priests were allowed to resume their previous duties with children only when the bishop was advised by the treating psychologists or psychiatrists that it was safe for them to resume their duties.
According to the John Jay study, 3% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences.
From a legal perspective, the most serious criticism aside from the incidents of child sexual abuse themselves was by the bishops, who failed to report accusations to the police. In response to the failure to report abuse to the police, lawmakers have changed the law to make reporting of abuse to police compulsory. For example, in 2002 Massachusetts passed a law requiring religious officials to report the abuse of children.
Factors contributing to the abuse problem 
The John Jay report identified the following factors contributing to the sexual abuse problem:
Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem.
Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal.
Use of unqualified treatment centers.
Misguided willingness to forgive.
In 1984, John Brendan McCormack became Secretary for Ministerial Personnel in the Archdiocese of Boston. McCormack was Cardinal Law's point person on hearing complaints against priests accused of sexual misconduct and removing some of them from active duty and was later accused of taking too little action in handling John Geoghan, a Boston priest who allegedly molested over 130 children during his ministry. In 1990, after receiving complaints from an alleged victim, he removed one priest from duty and sent him for treatment, only for the same priest to later serve as a hospital chaplain. He also wrote conciliatory letters to 'priest' Shanley who was found guilty of paedophilia and also failed to notify the diocese to which he was transferred of these crimes.
According to Leon Podles, in his book Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, in late 1993, Shanley was sent to the Institute of Living in Hartford, Connecticut, for evaluation. The Boston archdiocese has refused to release this evaluation, but other released files show that Shanley admitted to nine sexual encounters, of which four involved boys, and that he was diagnosed as "narcissistic" and "histrionic." Shanley admitted that he was "attracted to adolescents" and on the basis of this confession, the Boston archdiocese secretly settled several lawsuits against Shanley. The archdiocese of Boston in 1993 had to admit to the diocese of San Bernardino part of the truth about Shanley, and the bishop of San Bernardino immediately dismissed him. In February 2005, Shanley was found guilty of indecent assaults and the rape of a male minor and received a sentence of 12 to 15 years in prison.
Cardinal Law's term as Archbishop of Boston declined into upheaval as allegations and reports of sexual misconduct by priests in his Archdiocese became widespread causing other dioceses in the United States to investigate similar situations in their province. Law's actions and inactions prompted public scrutiny of all members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the steps they had taken in response to past and current allegations of sexual misconduct by priests until the evidence exploded into a national Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.
Law's public statements and depositions during the abuse crisis claimed that the Cardinal and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston did not initially have the expertise to understand paedophilia and ephebophilia (the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19) and relied upon doctors' recommendations. In January 2002, Law stated, "I promulgated a policy to deal with sexual abuse of minors by clergy [which] went into effect on Jan. 15, 1993". Incredibly, he claimed that the "policy has been effective."
(Continued on page 358)