Forum: The Catholic Church, Paedophiles and Child Sexual Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout 2002, a striking number of cases of child sexual abuse by priests in the Catholic Church in the United States were identified through media reporting. There was a growing national concern over such incidents - which often dated back a long while, as well as concern about the ways in which the Catholic Church had often concealed such acts. Among the many issues that it raised was the nature and extent of abuse, the problems of sexuality - especially celibacy - in the Church, the shifting legitimacy of the Catholic Church, and the resurgence of attacks on gays (who were sometimes equated with paedophiles). This forum takes the form of six contributions to the debates which all take different angles. Donileen Loseke looks at the elements through which the public story of the paedophile priest came to be told, the outrage it generated and the ways in which many linked questions became silenced. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and John Devine provide a wide ranging analysis of the nature and extent of child abuse, before focusing on the Catholic responses to it - especially through the prior panics in Newfoundland and the Winter report. It argues the case for a Truth Commission. John Gagnon provides some personal reflections on his early Catholicism and suggests that much of what we see as child abuse in the Church could be fruitfully located within a framework of occupations, work and professions. Colin Samson has conducted pioneering work with the Innu in Canada and here provides case material to show that abuse by the Catholic Church is far from limited to the United States. Benjamin Shepard debates whether the concern over the church is indicative of a moral panic, or whether it is better analysed through a framework of institutional denial, claiming the latter. Finally, Andrew Yip looks with more focus on the issue of homosexuality, and the problems of a church committed to moral absolutism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".