På denne bloggen har jeg nylig lest om ‘moralsk panikk’, som er når man tar opp gamle nyheter, forvrenger dem en hel, og bruker dem ikke for å beskytte offerne (det er altså IKKE for å hjelpe barn/ungdommer som er blitt misbrukt av katolske prester at dette kommer opp nå), men fordi man ønsker å oppnå en annen effekt av angrepene – i dette tilfellet å miskreditere pave Benedikt og Den katolske Kirke, som er en så sterk motkraft i den moralske relativiserings-bestrebelsen i vår moderne tid. Her er litt av innholdet:
Why is there talk again of paedophile priests, based on a case in Germany, which drags in people who are close to the Pope and now even the Pope himself? Does sociology have something to say about this or should we leave it completely to the journalists? I believe sociology has much to say, and it must not remain silent because of a fear of displeasing some.
The current discourse on paedophile priests – considered from a sociological perspective – represents a typical example of «moral panic». The concept was coined in the 1970s to explain how certain problems become the subject of «social hyperconstruction». More precisely, moral panics are defined as socially constructed problems that are characterised by a systematic amplification of the true facts in the media or in political discourse.
Two other characteristics have been cited as typical of moral panics. First, problems that have existed for decades are reconstructed in the media and political accounts as new or as the subject of a recent dramatic increase. Second, their incidence is exaggerated by statistics plucked from the air which, while not confirmed by academic studies, are repeated by the media and inspire persistent media campaigns. ….
Hele denne interessante artikkelen kan leser her – men jeg tar også med noen flere utdrag under.
Let there be no misunderstanding: at the origin of moral panics are objective and real dangers. They do not invent a problem; they exaggerate its statistical dimensions. In a series of excellent studies, Jenkins demonstrated how the issue of paedophile priests is perhaps the most typical moral panic. Two characteristic elements exist: a fact which serves as a starting point, and an exaggeration of this fact by moral entrepreneurs.
First of all, the fact which serves as a starting point. Paedophile priests exist. Certain cases are both unsettling and disgusting; they have resulted in convictions and the accused priests never even protested that they were innocent. These cases – in the United States, Ireland and Australia – explain the severe words of the Pope and his request for forgiveness from the victims. Even if there were only two cases – and unfortunately there are more than two – these would still be two too many. …
… To understand how from a tragically real fact one passes to a moral panic we must ask how many priests are paedophiles. The largest body of information has been collected in the United States, where in 2004 the US Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned an independent study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York. This is not a Catholic university and is unanimously recognised as the most authoritative academic institution of criminology in the United States.
This study concluded that from 1950 to 2002 4,392 American priests (of over 109,000) were accused of having sexual relations with minors. Of these, just over 100 were convicted in the courts. The low number of convictions is due to various factors. In some cases the true or alleged victims reported priests who were already dead, or for whom a statute of limitation barred the action. In others, the accusation and even the canonical sentence did not involve any violation of the law: such is the case, for example, in various American states where a priest has sexual relations with a consenting person over the age of 16.
But there have also been many sensational cases of priests who have been falsely accused. Indeed, these cases multiplied in the 1990s, when some legal firms recognised they could reap million dollar returns even on the basis of mere suspicion. Appeals for zero tolerance are justifiable, but there should also be zero tolerance for defaming innocent priests. Nor do the numbers change significantly from 2002 to 2010. The John Jay College study already noted a «significant decline» in cases in the 2000s. New investigations have been rare, and sentences extremely rare, as a result of more rigorous controls introduced by American bishops as well as the Holy See.
So, does the John Jay College study tells us then, as one often reads, that 4 percent of American priests are paedophiles? Not at all. According to the research, 78.2 percent of the accusations involved minors who had advanced beyond puberty. Having sexual relations with a 17-year-old is certainly not a beautiful thing, and much less so for a priest, but it is not paedophilia. Therefore, only 958 American priests were accused of true paedophilia over 52 years, 18 per year. There were only 54 convictions, a little less than one per year. …
… Now we come to an unpleasant question – because the simple raising of it appears defensive, and does not console victims – but it is an important one. Is being a Catholic priest a condition which involves a risk of becoming a paedophile and sexually abusing minors which is higher than the rest of the population? As we have seen the two things are not the same since abusing a 16-year-old is not paedophilia. Answering this question is fundamental to discovering the cause of the phenomenon and thus preventing it.
According to studies by Jenkins, if one compares the Catholic Church in the United States to the major Protestant denominations, one discovers that the presence of paedophiles – depending on the denominations – is from two to ten times higher for the major Protestant denominations compared to Catholic priests. The question is important because it demonstrates that the problem is not celibacy. Most of the Protestant pastors are married.
In the same period in which about 100 American priests were convicted for sexually abusing minors, the number of gym teachers and coaches of junior sporting teams – also mainly married – who were convicted of the same crimes in the US reached about 6,000. The examples could continue, not only in the US. And above all, according to regular US government reports, two-thirds of sexual abuse against minors does not come from strangers or educators – including priests and Protestant pastors – but from family members: stepfathers, uncles, cousins, brothers and, unfortunately, even parents. Similar facts exist for numerous other countries. …
Journalister og historikere benytter ulike arbeidsmetoder. Mens journalister har lov å være «uansvarlige», må historikere holde seg til strenge kriterier – derav ordet «kritisk». Dagens journalister fråtser i anklager som obskure grupper fremsetter mot paven og andre høytstående kirkeledere. Før eller senere havner denne bølgen av anklager på historikernes bord, og da vil nok konklusjonene se annerledes ut enn i dagens sladrepresse.
To relevante spørsmål:
(1) Er katolske prester overrepresentert blant seksuelle overgripere?
(2) Er overgrep mer utbredt blant katolikker enn blant baptister, jøder, muslimer osv.?
All tilgjengelig statistikk viser at svaret er nei i begge tilfeller. Jeg mener man derfor kan snakke om «skittkasting», uten å håne ofrene. Hva vi nå er vitne til, er klassisk anglo-amerikansk anti-katolisisme i fri dressur.
Mange takk for den artikkel du har lagt ut. Den forekommer meg svært aktuell for situasjonen Kirken er oppe i per i dag. Den er også svært aktuell mht mine egne interesser om at vi ikke må la oss lure av journalisrter som «letter fra bakken» og evt har sin egen kake å mele. For blant ærlige journalister fins også dem som har sin private agenda mot KIRKEN.
Amen!
«(2) Er overgrep mer utbredt blant katolikker enn blant baptister, jøder, muslimer osv.?»
Ble det ikke nylig lagt fram en rapport som sier at det foreligger 300 anmeldelser om slike saker de siste 13 år fra kristelige miljøer i lille protestantiske Norge?
Dette må da i så fall bekrefte din konklusjon.
Betimelig innlegg, Pastor!
Og – jeg holder så absolutt med Benthe H.
N. Gombert; Bravo!
Tor
Hei p. Oddvar – artig at du har funnet Massimo Introvigne. Jeg sendte tre linker til p. Harams blogg igår, deriblant den. Her legger jeg ved en av de to andre linkene http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/printable/8360/
Den er skrevet av redaktøren for et ateistisk/humanistisk webmagasin og var forunderlig lesning for en person vokst opp i Norge med Human-Etisk Forbund. Det går altså an å beholde hjernen inntakt selv om man definerer seg som ateist og humanist. Begrepet «new atheismn» var nytt for meg. Interessant er det også å få nyttig bakgrunnstoff og tall fra Irland, samt at det alltid er nyttig å få hengt bjeller på noen katter: The New York Times, Irland Times og det britiske The Guardian.
Dessto mer jeg setter meg inn i denne saken, dessto verre blir den. Med saken mener jeg kjøret mot Kirken.
Sjekk også ut de andre artiklene om samme og beslektet tema.
Jeg tror jeg skal sende den til Informasjonstjenesten også. De bør snart begynne å ta inn litt kontinental info.
Sånn for moro skyld kan det påpekes at Massimo Introvigne har vært i Norge minst én gang, invitert av Human-Etisk Forbund for å holde foredrag på en internasjonal humanistkonferanse. Han var en hyggelig fyr. Det han brukte fritiden på var å besøke vikingskipene på Bygdøy og å lete etter norske utgaver av Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Meg bekjent har ikke Human-Etisk Forbund i noen utsrakt grad kommentert overgrep innenfor Den katolske kirke. Personlig synes jeg angrepene på kirken er blåst ut av alle dimensjoner.