The conclusions of the study were immediately challenged by victims of abuse, their advocates, and those who maintain an enormous archive of documentation related to the scandal. Among the reasons they say the report should be approached with caution or skepticism:

• Questions persist about the reliability of the basic data that underpins both the most recent study, as well as one on the nature and scope of the scandal that was released in 2004, because the researchers relied principally on reporting by bishops. The reliability of such reporting is called into question on a number of fronts and was most recently challenged by a grand jury report that claimed that officials of the Philadelphia archdiocese had not reported dozens of credibly accused priests. Doubts about the reliability of the numbers were even given credibility by one of the John Jay researchers in a recent interview.
• The conclusion that priests' behavior was influenced by and reflected turmoil in American culture during the 1960s and 1970s is called into question, or at least qualified, say experts, given revelations of similar widespread scandals in the United Kingdom and several European countries. The dimensions of the scandal in those countries surfaced in recent months, at a point when the John Jay researchers were concluding research on the U.S. church.
• The lack of any in-depth look at institutional dynamics, particularly clerical/hierarchical culture, an element some think is integral to understanding why and how abuse of children was covered up and tolerated for so many years.

Continue reading the analysis Fundamental questions not answered by John Jay report

Source

• Image: Catholic-Sun

Some victims claim the report is a whitewash and further evidence of an institutional coverup.

"Predictably and conveniently, the bishops have funded a report that tells them precisely what they want to hear: it was all unforeseeable, long ago, wasn't that bad and wasn't their fault," said David Clohessy, executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).

"America's bishops hope this will be their 'Mission Accomplished' moment, like George W. Bush on the aircraft carrier prematurely and conveniently declaring victory in Iraq. Their plan is to act as though the crisis has been clarified and is now past. It's deceptive and disingenuous, but shrewd public relations."

He said the study was based on self-reporting by bishops who are "far more reluctant to report recent crimes by young priests who still face prosecution and litigation versus older priests for whom the criminal and civil statute of limitations has expired."

"The reason this crisis is happening in the Church is because the criminals are hidden and coddled and promoted rather than ousted as in other institutions," Clohessy said.

David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, said he found much of value in the report. Mr. Finkelhor said there was a parallel spike in society in general of sexual abuse of minors in the 1960s and '70s. But he said it might simply be evidence that sexual abuse began to be more widely reported in those years.

"We did see that," he said, "but we said these are cases that have always existed, and we are just hearing about them at the time."

Report defended

Spokesperson for John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and the report's principal investigator Karen Terry defended the report, saying the report was published after interviews with hundreds of priests and a separate evaluation of larger societal trends including divorce rates, illegal drug use, crime, and premarital sex shaped the researchers' conclusions.

She cautioned that the causes of abuse are complex and can't be linked to a single factor. It wasn't simply that social mores were changing in that era, she said, but that priests had not received instruction in human sexuality and emotional relationships. And episodes of abuse, Terry said, often happened among priests who felt isolated and under stress.

"What's important is this convergence of factors," Terry said.

"What is clear to us was that in many cases the bishops did respond, but they were responding to their priests," Ms. Terry said. "They were looking to help the priest, to treat the priest, to help him overcome his sickness. What they did not do was focus on the victims and the harm to the victims."

Sources

• Reuters
• NY Times
• Boston Globe