First off, I'm not doubting that abuse occurred and it is terrible for the victims involved.
What sampling method did they use to arrive at this estimate? What is the error range and 95/99% confidence intervals? I haven't been able to find the original report online.
From some articles: The commission found evidence of 2,900 to 3,200 abusers – out of a total of 115,000 priests and other clerics – but said this was probably an underestimation.
We would really need to see what the method they used to arrive at the numbers - this smells like major hyperbole.
UPDATE: a better article is available in French:
https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/les-cinq-chiffres-c...
The number they gave is cases over 70 years, which is a weird way of reporting it. Annually, it is about 2900-3000 priests per year. The article also mention that the current rate in about 1/4 of the rate in the 1970's, showing that some of the church reforms have actually worked. If you compare the French stats to what is being reported here, the anti-church media bias is flagrantly clear.
What sampling method did they use to arrive at this estimate? What is the error range and 95/99% confidence intervals? I haven't been able to find the original report online.
From some articles: The commission found evidence of 2,900 to 3,200 abusers – out of a total of 115,000 priests and other clerics – but said this was probably an underestimation.
We would really need to see what the method they used to arrive at the numbers - this smells like major hyperbole.
UPDATE: a better article is available in French: https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/les-cinq-chiffres-c...
The number they gave is cases over 70 years, which is a weird way of reporting it. Annually, it is about 2900-3000 priests per year. The article also mention that the current rate in about 1/4 of the rate in the 1970's, showing that some of the church reforms have actually worked. If you compare the French stats to what is being reported here, the anti-church media bias is flagrantly clear.