WS MoreOrLess: The prevalence of paedophilia?

Summary

Podcast Summary: More or Less – The Prevalence of Paedophilia?
BBC World Service | Aired: July 26, 2014
Host: Wesley Stevenson

---

Overview

This episode of More or Less investigates the prevalence of paedophilia, prompted by the Pope's widely reported claim that 2% of Catholic clergy are paedophiles. Host Wesley Stevenson breaks down the complexities of understanding and comparing paedophilia statistics—both in the general population and within the Catholic Church—by speaking with leading researchers in the field and analyzing various studies and methodologies.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Pope’s 2% Claim and Initial Reactions

• Wesley Stevenson introduces the main question: “Is 2% a big number?” when applied to paedophilia among Catholic clergy, and how does it compare elsewhere?

  “Obviously life would be better if none of the Catholic clergy were paedophiles, but how does the 2% figure compare to the population at large?” (00:38)

2. Challenges in Defining and Estimating Prevalence

• Dr. James Cantor (Psychologist & Sexual Behaviour Scientist, University of Toronto) explains why accurate prevalence is so elusive:
  • Paedophilia is highly secretive; few admit such tendencies.
  • Surveys are unreliable, and ethical research is severely limited.
  • The definition of “paedophile” is fluid:
    • Attraction to under-14s brings up higher estimates than the stricter clinical definition (prepubescent children only).

    “If we say that a pedophile is somebody attracted to 14 and under...we're going to get a larger estimate...if we use a very strict definition...it's probably much lower than a percent.” (01:55)

3. What the Research Says: Surveys and Ranges

• Dr. Michael Seto (Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, Royal Ottawa Healthcare Group) discusses findings from population surveys:
  • Older surveys: 3–5% of men admit thoughts, fantasies, or behaviors.
  • These upper ranges likely overestimate, since not all thoughts are persistent or recurrent.
  • Revised estimate in most recent work: probably no higher than 3%; 1% is a “reasonable estimate.”

    “If we pull together the different studies...a 1% prevalence seems reasonable. It's obviously a guess...but it seems like a reasonable estimate based on those converging data.” (04:06)

4. Terminology Confusion: Public vs Clinical Definitions

• The term "paedophile" is often used imprecisely:
  • Public/media: Often denotes anyone who sexually abuses under-16s.
  • Clinical: Refers specifically to sexual interest in prepubescent children (usually under 11–12 years).
  • This distinction significantly affects estimates and public understanding.

    “I think it's important to be precise...the definition of paedophilia is about sexual interest in prepubescent children...children under 11 or 12.”
    (Dr. Michael Seto, 04:52)

5. Comparing the Catholic Clergy and General Population

• Prof. Philip Jenkins (Institute of Studies of Religion, Baylor University) discusses leading research:

  • The John Jay College Study (US, 1950–2002) found:

    • 4.2% of priests had been plausibly accused of abuse (includes both prepubescents and adolescents).
    • The prevalence was not stable: 40% of allegations occurred between 1975–1980, inflating overall figures.

    “It looks as if we have a very unusual period there that massively inflated the overall figures.” (07:09)

  • Using the clinical definition reduces the estimate from 4.2% to about 1–2%.

  • Prof. Jenkins adds:

    • The Pope seems to have chosen his wording to reflect stricter clinical definitions.
    • US data may not reflect global Catholic clergy—conditions differ across regions.

    “I think he is speaking correctly. One question I would have is whether he is speaking historically...or of events today.” (07:51)

6. Limitations and Problems with the Numbers

• Survey methodology, definitions, and timescales vary.
• Clergy study tracks accusations, not necessarily proven cases.
• General population studies conflate thoughts, images, and actions.
• The statistics are in the same “ballpark” but are both imperfect—direct comparisons are fraught with caveats.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Dr. James Cantor:
  “There's no meaningfully ethical way of...hooking [people] up to detectors, showing them pictures...and seeing how many respond most to children.” (01:21)

• Dr. Michael Seto:
  “Someone might say yes because they once had a fantasy...our understanding...would be that that person recurringly has sexual thoughts and fantasies about children.” (03:33)

• Prof. Philip Jenkins:
  “40% of all those plausible allegations...occurred in just six years between 1975 and 1980.” (07:09)

---

Important Segments (Timestamps)

• 00:38–01:13 — Introduction of the Pope’s 2% figure and key question posed
• 01:13–02:22 — Dr. Cantor on estimation challenges and definition nuances
• 02:40–04:21 — Dr. Seto on survey data and revised prevalence estimates
• 04:52–05:15 — Importance of clinical definitions vs public/media interpretations
• 06:06–07:28 — Prof. Jenkins on the John Jay Study (US clergy statistics and time trends)
• 07:28–07:51 — Why Pope’s 2% claim may reflect careful word choice
• 08:24–end — Closing summary on the limits of available data and the difficulty of direct comparison

---

Conclusion

Bottom line:

• Most credible estimates for paedophilia in the general male population range from 1–2%, depending on definitions.
• The oft-quoted 2% figure among Catholic clergy is within this range but must be treated cautiously due to differences in study methods, definitions, and periods analyzed.
• Both sets of statistics are imperfect, and direct comparisons are difficult.

Takeaway:
The prevalence of paedophilia—whether in society at large or among Catholic clergy—is lower than some public fears, but precise numbers remain elusive due to ethical, methodological, and definitional complexities.

(To suggest a topic or statistic for future shows, email [e-mail])

Transcript

[A]

This is the short edition of More or Less, first broadcast on the BBC World Service. Thank you for downloading from the BBC. For details of our complete range of podcasts and our terms of use, go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts hello, welcome to another edition of More or Less on the BBC World Service. I'm Wesley Stevenson. Now this week, some comments made by the Pope got us thinking. He was reported to say that the number of paedophiles among the Catholic clergy was around 2%. And unsurprisingly, this has caused a bit of a storm. The revelation was made in a somewhat disputed interview with an Italian newspaper, but was reported worldwide with a sense of shock. But the thing that we were wondering was, is 2% a big number? I mean, obviously life would be better if none of the Catholic clergy were paedophiles, but. But how does the 2% figure compare to the population at large? One man who studies this kind of thing is Dr. James Cantor. He's a psychologist and sexual behaviour scientist at the University of Toronto. But he says it's a difficult question to answer.

[B]

2% is a probably reasonable guess for the number of pedophiles in society. In general, because pedophilia is so secretive and that so few people are willing to admit it, there really is no meaningful way to get a reliable estimate. There's no way to conduct a survey. There's no meaningfully ethical way of taking pick a number 200 men, hooking them up to detectors, showing them pictures of adults and children and seeing how many respond most to children. There's just simply no way to do that. The other problem is exactly what cutoff one uses in trying to define pedophilia. It's very common, for example, for regular men to be attracted to 18 year olds and 20 year olds. Nobody would bat an eyelash. It's not unusual for a typical 16 year old to be attractive to many men. And the younger we go, the fewer and fewer men are attracted to that age group. So if we say that a pedophile is somebody attracted to 14 and under, either early puberty or pre puberty, then we're going to get a larger estimate than if we use a very strict definition and say pedophilia refers only to the attraction to prepubescent children, which is probably much lower than a percent.

[A]

Now another figure that I've seen quoted in some of the reporting surrounding the Pope's comments is, is 5%. And this comes from a book written by a guy called Dr. Michael Seto, who's a clinical and forensic psychologist at the Royal Ottawa Healthcare Group. He told me how he came to this figure.

[C]

There were a number of surveys that have been completed of men in the general population asking questions about their sexual interest in children. For example, whether they had sexual fantasies about children, whether they had sexual thoughts about children, whether they'd engage in sexual behavior involving children. And. And typically those surveys were finding estimates such as 3, 4, 5% of men admitted to having those kinds of thoughts, fantasies or behavior. Now, what I said in my book was that 5% was probably the upper limit estimate for pedophilic sexual interests, because what those surveys don't include are questions about the intensity of those thoughts or fantasies, whether they were repeated or not. So someone might say yes because they once had a fantasy. But our understanding of pedophilia would be that that person recurringly has sexual thoughts and fantasies about children. And so I suggested in the book that that was an upper limit. The better estimate of the prevalence of pedophilia would be lower than that. In my more recent book published in 2013, focusing on online offending, particularly individuals using Internet technologies to access child pornography or or to sexually approach minors online. There have been some more recent studies and I refined that upper limit estimate to about 3%. What I've said in my presentations on the topic is that if we pull together the different studies using different methodologies and different samples from North America and Europe, that a 1% prevalence seems reasonable. It's obviously a guess, not a precise estimate from epidemiological research, but it seems like a reasonable estimate based on those converging data.

[A]

So clinically, even people who have thoughts but don't act on them can be referred to as a paedophile. And this highlights a problem. What actually is a paedophile? How do you define the term? It's quite widely used, but it means different things to different people. The public and the media often use it to point to anyone who sexually abuses a person under 16. But given that in some countries and even some states in America you can marry below the age of 16, this becomes a tricky cutoff. The clinical definition is different to this.

[C]

I think it's important to be precise in how we're defining paedophilia from a clinical and research perspective. The consensus is the definition of paedophilia is about sexual interest in prepubescent children. So typically children under the ages of 11 or 12. And I think that's important because certainly in public discussion and media coverage, sometimes there's a bit of confusion.

[A]

About that the change in definition would affect the prevalence in the general population. But whether that figure is half a percent or 1%, you can be assured that in any group of people, whether they be politicians, entertainers, or Catholic clergy, then you're likely to find some paedophiles. If we are to compare the number of paedophiles in society with those in the Catholic Church, though, we need to know what definition the Pope was using. But the figure reportedly given by the Pope was. Wasn't really surrounded with a lot of detail, but there may be a clue. There isn't a lot of research about the prevalence of paedophilia among Catholic clergy, but one study stands out in this area, and it's one done in the usa. I spoke to Professor Philip Jenkins from the Institute of Studies of Religion at Baylor University in Texas. He's written about sexual abuse and the Catholic clergy.

[D]

In 2002, there was a big crisis within the US Catholic Church, and they appointed a major, sweeping, very searching study by John Jay College of Criminal justice in New York City, which is a highly respected institution. And they had widespread powers to go to each diocese and religious order and find plausible accounts of abuse. What they did was they looked at all clergy who served in the United States between 1950 and 2002, and obviously, as with any study, it's not perfect, but it's as good as we get. And they found that 4.2% of those clergy had been plausibly accused of abuse. One of the problems with the study or one of the findings that throws a little bit of doubt on what the Pope was saying. The charges were not equally spread over time. There were some periods that were much more likely to produce abusive clergy than others. And one of the real oddities that we still have to explain is that 40% of all those plausible allegations over a 50 year period occurred in just six years between 1975 and 1980. So it looks as if we have like a very unusual period there that massively inflated the overall figures.

[A]

So the John Jay College study came up with the figure of 4.2%. But as Dr. Phillips points out, their study includes not just abuse against prepubescent children, but also adolescence. And if you look at the strict definition of paedophilia, then the number of paedophiles identified by this survey is actually closer to 1 or 2%. And it's this that makes Dr. Phillips think the Pope chose his words carefully.

[D]

If he was using a different word, like, you know, abusive clergy, then I think he would be going for a higher figure. So I think he is speaking correctly. One question I would have is whether he is speaking historically based on the John Jay study or of events today. And of course, I would add one other thing, which is the United States is not a microcosm of the whole world, however much it would like to think of itself as such, and conditions might be very different in European churches, in African churches, or indeed the rest of the world.

[A]

Obviously, there are still problems with the comparison. The John Jay study identified people accused of abuse, and the figures quoted by Michael Seto include a wide range of actions, from thoughts and fantasies, the viewing of images of child sex abuse, to abuse itself. The John Jay Study figures are also skewed massively by a period of abuse accusations from the 1970s, and it's likely that a lot of those perpetrators are no longer active in the clergy. So in this case, the only conclusion that we can draw about the figures is that although they're in a similar ballpark, they're both imperfect and comparisons are very difficult. And that's all for this week. Don't forget to email us at more or lessbc.co.uk if you have any numbers you want us to investigate. And if you want to listen to previous editions of the program, you can go to bbcworldservice.com More or less

[C]

there

[A]

are dozens of different podcasts now available from the BBC, including news, documentaries, science, business, arts and sports. For details of them all, go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts.