It occurs to me with all the news on the PA scandal, and the others that preceded it, it might be really useful if some careful analysis on the perpetrators was done. Not that its’ going to get any light, but in order to really grasp a problem, that has to be done.
Maybe some of this has been done, but here’s what I’m curious about, and occasionally why I’m curious about it.
1. Is there a time line trend on these events, to the extent that we can reliably tell?
The reason I’d be curious about this is that its always portrayed as a current event, or if it is not, it tends to be portrayed in some quarters as a byproduct of a change of the 1960s. But is it? What are we seeing, if anything, regarding the number of events over time?
2. If did occur more frequently at one point in time over another, when did the perpetrators enter the Priesthood?
It will say one thing if most of the perpetrators came in more lately, as opposed to much earlier, but what exactly that says is another question.
Put another way, is there something that happened in the nature of seminaries at some point that resulted in what we’re seeing, in part or in whole? Or is there something about the recruitment of Priests that changed, or just in who was entering the Priesthood? Without knowing when they entered, we can’t really tell.
3. What are the ages and genders of the victims?
It’s constantly said that this doesn’t matter, but it really does in order to understand the behavior. Clearly some of these instances are men taking advantage of girls, but most of them seem to be in the nature of men taking advantage of teenage boys and young men.
That’s wrong and icky, I’m not saying otherwise, but if that is correct the common reply “this isn’t about homosexuality” is really wrong. At least prior to the current views on homosexuality, male homosexual “recruitment” of teenaged males was a well known phenomenon. Now nobody wants to admit that occurred, but it did occur. That’s pretty relevant to what we’re discussing, particularly in regards to what question no. 1 might reveal and might explain some of what we’re seeing and maybe no longer seeing (maybe).
A person ought to go where the data leads to help sort out answers and address a problem. So far, that doesn’t really seem to be the case. I wonder where the data actually leads?