An interesting and once again a well-written piece this Tom.
The use of the term “Father” is interesting. As Freud observed, the term ‘father’ encourages obedience and respect to an authority figure. Whenever I hear Catholics call a priest by his first name such as ‘Shane’ say, you get the impression that they have a little liberated glow - ‘aren’t I being cheeky’ - going on inside them.
Then reinforcing terms such as ‘flock’ ‘shepherd’ and ‘sheep’ provides a heavy emphasis on obsequiousness.
Related terms I’d like to see introduced are “fleeced” and being “shorn” of authority. Now moving on from the ovine:
I hope it’s okay to raise another thought here about the ‘bad apple’ theory. I came across this paragraph in an article in the Economist:
“Estimates from around the world, from a variety of scholars, have found that 6-9% of priests and members of celibate orders, such as monks, may be abusers. Statistics on the general population are hard to pin down, but Britain’s National Crime Agency estimated that 1-3% of adult men have urges to abuse children; a much smaller share act on their urges.”
July 14th 2022
Using the Economist data, clerical celibates are over 3 times more likely to be pedophiles than the average adult male: 6-9% versus 1-3%.
My own figures for Castleknock and the Vincentians in the 1970’s is higher than this - a small sample admittedly of around 12 or 13 clerics - but it was above a third. At least 4 were pedophiles. All 4 of them escaped censure and 3 have already died comfortably in their beds.
It ought to be feasible to get numbers on the proportion of clergy for some of the orders who have had sexual abuse abuse claims made against them and have this expressed as a percentage of that particular order. I take your point that there are different categories of allegations and some have allegations which already have been considered as ‘credible’ - which is a term I am not greatly enamoured with as the implication is that other accusations are less than credible but I accept that the term ‘credible’ in this context has a specific meaning.
I think the language deployed is often interesting: “father” “credible” etc.
The ‘bad apple’ interpretation is one that needs some - and possible lends itself to - statistical scrutiny and context. A quick AI calculation by ChatGPT suggests over 30 per cent of Jesuits in Ireland were ‘bad apples’. As I said to you before, the term Dutch Elm disease might be a more apt description if that happens to be closer to the pedophile prevalence and such data ought to inform the government’s discussions with the religious orders.
It should not need stating: the higher the prevalence of pedophilia within the orders, the closer we get to recognising wilful negligence and conspiracy by them. It would also suggest long spoons for those dealing with their representatives. A third eh?
Thank you, Tom, for this thoughtful response. Working out how many members of an order were active paedophiles is difficult but I would not be surprised to find that the figures would be way beyond the general average. The escape issue is pretty well universal. Some Jesuits accused are still alive but, of course, have not been named and will not be prosecuted because they are too old.
An interesting and once again a well-written piece this Tom.
The use of the term “Father” is interesting. As Freud observed, the term ‘father’ encourages obedience and respect to an authority figure. Whenever I hear Catholics call a priest by his first name such as ‘Shane’ say, you get the impression that they have a little liberated glow - ‘aren’t I being cheeky’ - going on inside them.
Then reinforcing terms such as ‘flock’ ‘shepherd’ and ‘sheep’ provides a heavy emphasis on obsequiousness.
Related terms I’d like to see introduced are “fleeced” and being “shorn” of authority. Now moving on from the ovine:
I hope it’s okay to raise another thought here about the ‘bad apple’ theory. I came across this paragraph in an article in the Economist:
“Estimates from around the world, from a variety of scholars, have found that 6-9% of priests and members of celibate orders, such as monks, may be abusers. Statistics on the general population are hard to pin down, but Britain’s National Crime Agency estimated that 1-3% of adult men have urges to abuse children; a much smaller share act on their urges.”
July 14th 2022
Using the Economist data, clerical celibates are over 3 times more likely to be pedophiles than the average adult male: 6-9% versus 1-3%.
My own figures for Castleknock and the Vincentians in the 1970’s is higher than this - a small sample admittedly of around 12 or 13 clerics - but it was above a third. At least 4 were pedophiles. All 4 of them escaped censure and 3 have already died comfortably in their beds.
It ought to be feasible to get numbers on the proportion of clergy for some of the orders who have had sexual abuse abuse claims made against them and have this expressed as a percentage of that particular order. I take your point that there are different categories of allegations and some have allegations which already have been considered as ‘credible’ - which is a term I am not greatly enamoured with as the implication is that other accusations are less than credible but I accept that the term ‘credible’ in this context has a specific meaning.
I think the language deployed is often interesting: “father” “credible” etc.
The ‘bad apple’ interpretation is one that needs some - and possible lends itself to - statistical scrutiny and context. A quick AI calculation by ChatGPT suggests over 30 per cent of Jesuits in Ireland were ‘bad apples’. As I said to you before, the term Dutch Elm disease might be a more apt description if that happens to be closer to the pedophile prevalence and such data ought to inform the government’s discussions with the religious orders.
It should not need stating: the higher the prevalence of pedophilia within the orders, the closer we get to recognising wilful negligence and conspiracy by them. It would also suggest long spoons for those dealing with their representatives. A third eh?
Thank you, Tom, for this thoughtful response. Working out how many members of an order were active paedophiles is difficult but I would not be surprised to find that the figures would be way beyond the general average. The escape issue is pretty well universal. Some Jesuits accused are still alive but, of course, have not been named and will not be prosecuted because they are too old.