Church in
Crisis
Times survey compiles thousands of abuse cases
By NCR STAFF
The New York Times, following a months-long study, reported
Jan. 12 that a total of 1,205 priests have been accused of sexual abuse of more
than 4,000 minors during the last six decades.
The survey contains the names and histories of the priests, most
of them ordained “between the mid-1950s and the 1970s, a period of
upheaval in the church, when men trained in the traditional authoritarian
seminary system were sent out to serve in a rapidly changing church and social
culture,” said the story, written by Laurie Goodstein.
According to the Times report, most of the abuse occurred
during the 1970s and 1980s, although some reports stemmed from as early as the
1930s, with accusations of abuse against priests dropping sharply by the 1990s.
Accused priests were found in all but 16 of the country’s 177 Latin-rite
dioceses, according to the report.
The survey is significant because while various experts and
factions within the church have debated the dimensions of the scandal, the
church has resisted compiling data on the number of priests and victims since
the problem was first reported nationally in the mid-’80s.
The Times survey is not the final word, nor does it claim
to be a complete listing of all priests credibly accused. But it is the most
thorough to date publicly compiled survey, given the limits it placed on the
information it was gathering.
“The Times survey counted priests from dioceses and
religious orders who had been accused by name of sexually abusing one or more
children. It determined that 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to
2001 had been accused of abuse.
“But the research also suggested that the extent of the
problem remains hidden,” the story said. “In dioceses that have
divulged what they say are complete lists of abusive priests -- under court
orders or voluntarily -- the percentages are far higher. In Baltimore, an
estimated 6.2 percent of priests ordained in the last half-century have been
implicated in the abuse of minors. In Manchester, N.H., the percentage is 7.7,
and in Boston it is 5.3.”
The findings, then, raise the question of how many more cases
would surface if pressure were brought to bear either by the courts or news
coverage in other dioceses.
Goodstein said in a phone interview that the figures are
“very conservative,” and emphasized that the paper did not include a
number of accusations that did not appear credible, nor did it include cases
that dioceses counted in their own records but for which they would not supply
a name. In some cases, she said, dioceses would not give names for several
reasons, including if the priest had died.
The paper also reported that some experts contend the drop in
accusations in the 1990s was due less to the efforts of the church than to the
reluctance of victims to come forward immediately.
According to the Times story, the information used was
“culled from newspaper clippings, court records, church documents and
statements, and were checked against public lists of accused priests created by
victim advocacy groups. Dioceses across the country were called to fill in
missing details and to gather information about abuse cases and actions taken
by the church against accused priests.”
Availability of information varied from diocese to diocese
“depending on public awareness of the scandal and the willingness of
church leaders to provide names and details of accused priests.”
National Catholic Reporter, January 24,
2003
|
