A front-page news article in today's New York Times reports from Vatican City: "Cardinal Castrillon, who leads the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy and is considered a leading candidate to succeed John Paul, seemed inclined to minimize the problem. For example, he said one point that he wanted to emphasize was that there had not yet been any good studies on what percentage of priests are pedophiles, compared to people in other lines of work."
Compare that report with one in the column "The Big City," which runs on the front page of the metro section of today's New York Times. That column reports that Philip Jenkins, a professor who has written a book on the topic and who "is not an apologist for the Catholic church," "says there is no evidence that the rate of pedophilia among Catholic priests is higher than among other clergy or other professions." The Times column also reports, "Jenkins pointed to a study in Chicago a decade ago that concluded that about 40 of 2,200 priests, a little less than 2 percent, had committed sexual misconduct with a minor. But only one priest of the 2,200 was classified as a pedophile."
In a 1996 article in the journal First Things, Professor Jenkins wrote, "The most solid assessment of clerical sexual problems is found in the Chicago study, commissioned by Cardinal Bernardin, that examined the personnel files of all 2,252 priests who had served in the archdiocese between 1951 and 1991. Between 1963 and 1991, fifty-seven priests had been accused of sexual abuse, in addition to two visiting clerics. The commission reviewed all charges, not by the standard of criminal cases (which insists on proof beyond a reasonable doubt), but on the less stringent civil criterion of the preponderance of evidence, including legally inadmissible hearsay. Eighteen cases were judged not to involve sexual misconduct, leaving charges against forty-one priests, or about 1.8 percent of clergy. Only one instance probably involved true 'pedophilia,' the sexual molestation of small children."
There are some distinctions and contradictions worth noting here. The news article quotes unchallenged the assertion that "there had not yet been any good studies," and characterizes that assertion as an attempt "to minimize the problem." The metro-section column refers to the Chicago study without mentioning that it was Church-commissioned and says "there is no evidence that the rate of pedophilia among Catholic priests is higher than among other clergy or other professions." Well, these are two distinct claims. One claim says there are no good studies; the other claim could easily be interpreted as a meaning that there has been a good study and that it showed no evidence of a particular priestly pedophilia problem.
It's nice to see that the Times is open to a variety of opinions on this topic. But for a reader trying to figure out what the facts of the matter are, today's coverage is confusing. A news article comprehensively examining and summarizing the state of research on the topic would be a help. As it is, Times readers are left wondering whether in fact there have been any good studies on the matter.
Can't Spell: A dispatch from Washington in the national section of today's New York Times reports that "Bert Neuborne, former legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union," will be among those on the legal team defending the political-speech limitation legislation recently passed by Congress under the guise of campaign finance "reform." The correct spelling of Professor Neuborne's first name is Burt, with a "u," not an "e."