Dania- I guess it's because the church, and almost all religions are male dominated. A deviant young man might enroll to be a priest not driven by faith in the catholic god but to get at young boys. Few occupations gave so much latitude and tolerated abuse as the catholic church. Let's hope it's not possible now.

Colin, it could be, but we should keep asking. There is value in looking at the stats of this crime, we do not have full access to them, but from what we do have there seem to be particular trends and associations. For example, pederasty (rather than pedophilia) seems to be more common in particular organisations. That is, boys in a certain age range are involved, we have no clear explanation why this is so, and it is likely that the explanation may prove quite uncomfortable for certain radical interest groups holding the high political ground at the moment. I could be wrong, but I would like to be proven so with reference to open sets of data relevant to this issue. Besides, if there's nothing to hide ....

Michael, many thanks for taking an interest in, and providing a direct response to my question. My research indicates that there is a persistent theme and pattern within the abuse of children in Catholic-run institutions; your response seems to lend further support to the thesis that boys are more often the victims. Does not the figure of eighty-one percent which you quote tickle your scholar's sense of curiosity? Is it so easily dismissed by a finding that a third of allegations of misconduct by Catholic priests were of sexual assaults against women?
I am not sure why researchers continue to take a subjective stance on this kind of research, though I suspect that (understandably) there is much reluctance to challenge the prevalent dogma. You are obviously aware of possible implications, since you mention your view that "The Church has since used this study in an attempt to conflate homosexuality and paedophilia". If I was to claim the status of a researcher, I would be extremely careful not to make this argument. I would begin with the way I employ terminology; for instance, I would not equate pederasty with pedophilia, because I would consider this to be misleading. If, nevertheless, I was doing so, then I would ask myself - "Why am I doing this? Is it because I hold certain prejudices here?"
The study report you are quoting is, indeed, telling in other ways, because it contains some interesting insights which merit further exploration. For instance, isn't it striking that the majority (68%) of priests with allegations of abuse were ordained between 1950 and 1979? Why would this pattern emerge? If it was up to me, I would immediately recognise that this coincides with the 'sexual revolution' started by Alfred Kinsey. However, this is something that is often circumvented in current research on this and cognate issues. It seems curious that the researchers in this study also note, "...a very small percentage of accused priests are responsible for a substantial percentage of the allegations".
To reiterate, I am curious why it is that there continues to be a misuse of terms. So I would invite you to read the report you quote more closely, and perhaps you can explain why we continue to use the term pedophilia instead of pederasty? I would especially like to attract your attention to the context from where the figure you have quoted derives:
"The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14"
So, would you say that this describes pederasty as being more prevalent than pedophilia, Michael?
(And it's Dania)

Dania - the self-professed 'boy-lovers' that you referenced, don't perceive themselves to be Gay or even bi-sexual. Their beliefs about themselves have been expressed in great detail by J Z Eglinton (aka Walter Breen) in "Greek Love" published 1965 - and long before this by the likes of Adolph Brand & Benedict Friedlander. They claim to be normal, ordinary heterosexual men - many have been married and had children of their own - and that their sexual relationships with boys initiates them into heterosexual masculinity and "makes a man of them". They are often ultra-macho, viciously mysoginistic, and violently intolerant of males with effeminate characteristics. Gay youth are often the "victim of choice" for their sexual predation.

Predatory behaviour by androphiles - i.e., men attracted exclusively to other men - is too rare to even rate a separate statistic.

Thats disgusting, the reason we need a Royal Commission is because well intentioned people like you fail to understand how sexual abuse works.

This is victim blaming and for you to suggest that the investigation has gotten this far all due to a witch hunt - well this is the same hypocrisy and ignorance that George Pell is putting forward at the moment.

Errr....what precisely is disgusting? Presumably my suggestion that preventive interviewing and broadbased interviewing of children to get the earliest disclosure of abuse at specific age points.

This is what I find fascinating about a subsection of people who have strong views on this. They seem to rather enjoy the discomfort of the Catholic church, they enjoy it so much that one sometimes get the feeling that the abuse of children is an acceptable price to pay. A symptom of such people is they never ever suggest a practical steps to try and prevent abuse, preferring to luxuriate in the horror of it all.

Incidentally, I have previously revealed on The Conversation that as an underage male I had an elderly [gay man/paedophile????] sexually molest me, albeit in a rather minor way. And I certainly don't see myself as a "survivor" of "abuse." There was never a question of me submitting in any way and fighting it off was rather trivial.

Curiously, when I did reveal this on The Conversation, I received a lot of criticism from academics here and other liberally minded folk. The general consensus was that I should not have mentioned this incident and kept it secret.

Perhaps if the offender had been a Catholic priest they would have been more supportive?

Sean, Most victims take a very long time to talk. The abuse being talked about is repeated, systematic, by groups, organised, protected by people with social power, violent , threats of violence, and also now a couple of small boys who were murdered. Many have had significant problems with substance abuse and depression. I can't talk about your experience, and you can't talk about the victims of abuse being discussed. How would you prove that there will be "enormous potential" for "false accusations". Is this because you believe people who have mental illness and substance abuse problems can't be trusted to tell the truth. Do Royal Commissions rely on falsehoods, or check.

Well, Kinsey is referred to as the 'father of the sexual revolution' by just about anyone familiar with the topic. And his methods are abhorrent to researchers everywhere, they are not simply imperfect (all social research methods are imperfect, in my view), they were unethical and extremely biased. Here is an online summary I like (for its simplicity): http://www.culture-war.info/Kinsey.html Or, if you prefer a more sympathetic one to Kinsey, here's one from the NY Times (a book review): http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/02/reviews/971102.02rhodest.html
Make no mistake about it, Kinsey's so-called "work" on sexuality (he was also an expert on wasps) has had extraordinary impact in changing society and culture. I compare the magnitude of its effects to that of Marxism, though not many people are as aware of its impact on their lives.

Hi Peter; I am afraid that Ratzinger has a policy of covering up to protect the reputation of the Roman church. Read Geoffrey Robertson QC,"The Case of the Pope" to discover the official policy. Then get hold of Hungry Beast Series 2(?) second last episode that documented 1,000 years of pedophyle activity by priests.

Are we not discussing the abuse of power, particularly where no or very little recourse is available to the victims?
When I was growing up in the 50's the scoutmaster was the bad guy (pace Tom Lehrer) and the summer camp director (in USA, pace Alan Sherman). And teachers of very small children.
In the 70's I had two daughters at a Catholic parish school where the parish priest molested several girls who reported this to their parents. The girls were slapped down, some literally, but little else ensued. I believe that the priest was quickly transferred to Ireland where he died not long after..I thank God my girls were too young to have been of interest to the man.
Confession does not involve handing over your conscience to another. In fact if penance is not involved and pursued, then the person is not shriven. Should anyone offend another the penance can be to reconcile with that other. Why cannot the penance for a confessed serious crime then be to report it to the party offended (parents in the case of child abuse) or to the police? The confessor could, perhaps should, accompany the malefactor to the appropraite authorities or asume the duty of so informing the authorities.
Celibacy is of course a big problem. As a (Catholic) friend and I agree: "Celibacy is just a waste of f.....king time." Why not celibacy in the Orthodox traditions where priests are permitted to marry but cannot progress up the hierarchy? There are sufficient stories set in 19th Century English ecclesiatical circles where the bishop's wife makes Captain Bligh seem like a softy.

Linus Bowden’s comments appear to be confused: a civilisation (or society) plays host to the religion which, as a consequence of its need to appeal to or be accepted as non-threatening to the dominant group or individual within the society, is obliged to be a conservative or retarding force in that society.

Hence the call to mythology & tradition in contemporary matters such abortion, divorce, same-sex relationships, the status of women and related modern issues.

The role of the cleric in this relationship is a confused mix of suppression of the masses (in the service of the dominant) and compensatory pastoral care of the same masses. Insert institutionalised cognitive dissonance & schizophrenia here!

None of this means that the priests are any better than anybody else with regards to the normal stuff of life: in fact, as the clergy emerge from the feudal male-dominated environment insulated and protected from the real world as described in Michael’s work, the counter argument is clearly able to be carried: the clergy are probably the most ill-equipped to help us through life!

Linus is correct in this: the religious growth areas are in Africa, Asia, and South America: why is this? I suggest that that is where the greater body of the world’s undereducated, disenfranchised & unsophisticated poor live, ready to be ‘converted’ into the next generation of victims and carriers of the religious parasite.

Seren
Sorry for the delayed response. I am not saying that the abusers are Kinseyans, but that the values of society have been influenced by Kinsey, and this has provided a context in which abusers may feel justified in their disgusting acts. The idea that children have sexual rights is out there, thanks to Kinsey, who helped promote it by providing so-called 'scientific proof' in support. This provides a reason for child abusers who call their abuse 'love' to go on and abuse children. After all, Kinsey 'measured' how often children are able to reach what seemed to him (and the pedophiles he hired to do his research for him) as orgasms, for some as young as a year old, and over extended periods of time (yes, disgusting, I know - but why are we never talking about these 'experiments' which helped 'spark' our so-called 'sexual revolution'?). And the indisputable fact that abuse of children in the Catholic Church is perpetrated mainly on boys (around 80%, and on boys of the ages preferred by pederasts, who are homosexuals as the research shows), the fact that there are often regional 'clusters' of such abuse, that there are often organised groups of priests who abuse boys, and that the figures show that the majority of abuse against children was perpetuated during the so-called 'sexual revolution' - all this ought to be taken into account and at least considered, don't you think? But I daresay that the homosexual activists don't want this, just as they didn't want to hang out with their best mates, the boy/man love 'gays' even after these mates of theirs helped them start their 'gay liberation movement'. This group is epitomised by NAMBLA, which the gay liberation movement dropped when they realised that they will get nowhere if they associated with them.
There is also another facet to this which seems never to be discussed, as the moral panic set about by articles that focus on the individuals rather than the context rage, to the delight of the media and weak academics, who are too lazy and incapable to undertake deep analyses. Despite the incredible harm suffered by the Catholics (and other Christian religions) from pederast and pedophile and pederast groups and individuals which have infiltrated their institutions and ranks, the basic values held by Christians are that at no time should children be harmed, and they should be nurtured, loved and protected from harm. Christians believe that children should be protected from, and taught about the harm of sex before they are mature enough to make informed decisions about the sexual aspects of their lives - they see this as a sacred obligation of parents. By contrast, Kinsey advocates that children have sexual 'rights', which have been subsumed to the heterosexual norm derived from Christian 'dogma', which is taken by Kinseyans to be constraining and harmful to the 'normal' development of children. They then 'logically' extend this to the proposition that children be allowed to 'benefit' from 'loving' sexual relationships with adults. For my money, I rather have the Christian values inform how we live in society, than the sexual revolution principles invented by Kinsey and his pedophiles. Your aunty was on to something, though I suspect instinctively, and perhaps didn't have the resources I (and you, if you genuinely interested in learning more) have at hand.

I'm sorry, Dania, I can't continue this conversation. To have the gay friends I know and love deeply slurred in this way is too difficult to comprehend.
I will try and hope against hope that I am able to make some difference by stating my belief - stemming from meeting real people who are homosexual - that homosexual love is a beautiful expression of human care and devotion, in no way connected or similar to the rape of a twelve year old boy by an adult into whose care they are entrused.

Quite a fusillade there Pat, but. Rape is most commonly but not exclusively perpetrated by males.