{"id":4450,"date":"2010-04-05T14:51:56","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T12:51:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aomoi.net\/blog\/arkiv\/2288"},"modified":"2010-04-05T14:51:56","modified_gmt":"2010-04-05T12:51:56","slug":"moralsk-panikk-er-ikke-sa-veldig-nyttig","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aomoi.net\/blogg\/2010\/04\/moralsk-panikk-er-ikke-sa-veldig-nyttig\/","title":{"rendered":"Moralsk panikk er ikke s\u00e5 veldig nyttig"},"content":{"rendered":"

P\u00e5 denne bloggen<\/a> har jeg nylig lest om ‘moralsk panikk’, som er n\u00e5r man tar opp gamle nyheter, forvrenger dem en hel, og bruker dem ikke for \u00e5 beskytte offerne (det er alts\u00e5 IKKE for \u00e5 hjelpe barn\/ungdommer som er blitt misbrukt av katolske prester at dette kommer opp n\u00e5), men fordi man \u00f8nsker \u00e5 oppn\u00e5 en annen effekt av angrepene – i dette tilfellet \u00e5 miskreditere pave Benedikt og Den katolske Kirke, som er en s\u00e5 sterk motkraft i den moralske relativiserings-bestrebelsen i v\u00e5r moderne tid. Her er litt av innholdet:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The current discourse on paedophile priests \u2013 considered from a sociological perspective \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

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. …. <\/font><\/i><\/p>\n

Hele denne interessante artikkelen kan leser her<\/a> – men jeg tar ogs\u00e5 med noen flere utdrag under. <\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2013 in the United States, Ireland and Australia \u2013 explain the severe words of the Pope and his request for forgiveness from the victims. Even if there were only two cases \u2013 and unfortunately there are more than two \u2013 these would still be two too many. …<\/p>\n

… 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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. …<\/p>\n

… Now we come to an unpleasant question \u2013 because the simple raising of it appears defensive, and does not console victims \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2013 depending on the denominations \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2013 also mainly married \u2013 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 \u2013 including priests and Protestant pastors \u2013 but from family members: stepfathers, uncles, cousins, brothers and, unfortunately, even parents. Similar facts exist for numerous other countries. … <\/font><\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

P\u00e5 denne bloggen har jeg nylig lest om ‘moralsk panikk’, som er n\u00e5r man tar opp gamle nyheter, forvrenger dem en hel, og bruker dem ikke for \u00e5 beskytte offerne (det er alts\u00e5 IKKE for \u00e5 hjelpe barn\/ungdommer som er blitt misbrukt av katolske prester at dette kommer opp n\u00e5), men fordi man \u00f8nsker \u00e5 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-generelt","category-katolsk"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aomoi.net\/blogg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4450","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aomoi.net\/blogg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aomoi.net\/blogg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aomoi.net\/blogg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aomoi.net\/blogg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/aomoi.net\/blogg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aomoi.net\/blogg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aomoi.net\/blogg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aomoi.net\/blogg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}