Does the John Jay report stand up to the rigis Ake test...a professional peer review test, is it unbiased, considering who funded it and supplied much of the information? Does it justify Akes conclusions as to homosexuality of abusers? You be the judge...From the NY Times

"The report* contains a wealth of data about the nature of the abuse, its prevalence and the profiles of abusers. In hindsight, Professor Terry said, she wishes that the team had explored more deeply the sexual orientation of the abusive priests, whose victims were overwhelmingly male. Most sexual abuse victims in the general population are female.

Other researchers have praised the John Jay study, but cite shortcomings.

Because all of the data was provided by the nation's dioceses and based on existing files, for example, the John Jay team had no way to standardize definitions or know how the dioceses had chosen which information to include.

''This is the equivalent of a couple of good, interesting articles in a scientific journal,'' said David Finkelhor, a professor at the University of New Hampshire and another expert in the field.

Professor Terry said she and her colleagues planned to publish peer-reviewed academic articles. ''This is the only database of a population of sex offenders anywhere in existence,'' although plenty of other studies look at samples, she said. ''There's a lot you can do with that.''


*(The Report)
The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors
by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States
A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice




http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/nyregion/public-lives-a-dispassionate-look-at-the-wolf-in-priest-s-clothing.html