Disgraceful, I couldn't finish this piece. and What i did read I thinght was wrong. Tell me where my maths is wrong...

"Of these, 50.9 per cent of alleged victims were aged between 11-14, 27.3 per cent were 15-17, 16 per cent were aged 8-10 and almost 6 per cent were aged under 7 (John Jay College of Criminal Justice).

Therefore, while a not insignificant proportion of alleged cases involve paedophilia, the majority of cases of clerical abuse of children cannot be classified in this way, and all cases of child sexual abuse should definitely not be called “paedophilia”. "

I make it 50.9% + 16% + 6% = 75% so 75% was on kids 14 and under but the author says that is not a majority? where did he learn math?

with 81% of the victims being quoted as boys and the catholic church not having female priests one wonders whether this article is trying to defend the actions of priests practicing homosexuality or just a play on terminologies. I doubt whether most victims care to much about these different terms given to the offenders. If it was men raping girls or women we would have no problem declaring these offenders as heterosexuals. Like with sex abuse that comes from elders in some cultures many seem more interested in being pc than caring about the kids. I am no fan of the Catholic church (who have murdered many believers in the past) but can't help but to observe that many of its attackers really don't give a stuff about the kids and really don't want to accept simple facts. All they want to do is somehow make the appalling efforts of the Catholic church somehow worse than the appalling actions of scouts, judges, MP's teachers and atheist who have fiddled with kids

OLO folk, might also be interested in a parellel thread which is discusssing the Benedict, JPII and the ex Boston Bishop now Arch Priest Law regarding paedophilia and Church cover-ups and what criminal action should be taken or not taken.

Please refer:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3565&page=24

For me there are several issues. All would agree that paedophilia is a crime. But some at OLO seem okay, with Benedict simply apologising
and issuing new directives. Others, would see that serving Bishops who protected the paedophiles and that the Church root out these people out, including Arch Priest Law, the current Pope. JP II is dead, so he seems to have escaped.

The Vatican and catholic churches international must had over all the clerics and any supportive correspondence to secular authorities.

The Catholic church's record on child abuse, more particularly on hushing it up, is simply indefensible. And the emphatic assertion that there is no correlation between paedophilia and homosexuality (no doubt true) seems rather defensive. Can there be any doubt that homosexuality is rife among consenting celibate clergy? They only have to square that with their God's ostensible law.
It's an appallingly anachronistic institution, like the monarchy, that should have been torn down years ago!

The term paedophilia has found common usage in the public domain. Likewise, many people use the the term paedogogy incorrectly, when in most cases the more accurate term is androgogy.

In the Bishop Law case, in Boston, it was argued that there was no compulsion to report a crime, akin to you or I, seeing a break-in.

One the other hand, in the case of the Catholic Church, the Bishops and Cardinals seem to have ejhoined themselves to the core criminals by proteting them (writing letters and facilitating transfers)and providing situations where they can re-offend. If know the person committed he robbery and provide a means of avoiding capture surely the situation has changed, leaning more towards criminality.

If memory, serves the Americans executed the doctor who saved the life of John Wilkes Booth, after the Lincoln assassination (I need check.)

Kenny, Runner, Squeers, Oliver, i am not so sure that the article author is trying to justify anything, so much as being a dry academic who could be expressing himself better.

But you are all, correct about the PC police getting locked up in doctrinal argument, while ignoring some of the ongoing abuse.

I once got nowhere in 2002 trying to report to the social workers at a catholic church NGO that a young, woman with intellectual disability was being used/abused by a "female" ex prostitute, who had deliberately infected her with herpes, was taking all her pension & was introducing her to new "Boy Friends".

Another matter i have heard nobody discussing in relation to this, is that Communists during the 1930's, following instructions from Moscow infiltrated the catholic church as priests.

http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/cs/perspective235.asp

i don't think of this as a convenient excuse for the church either as these revelations came out decades ago & the church obviously had little or nothing in the way of a vetting process, but it is food for thought. if these young men entering the seminary were there, not to do the bidding of god, but the USSR all along, have any of them been properly investigated?