TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

“Causes” of clerical child abuse in US revealed by new report

Catholic Church-funded study claims priest celibacy rules did not contribute to sexual attacks on minors – but instead blames increase in “deviant” social behaviours such as drug-taking, divorce and pre-marital sex.

Lead investigator Karen Terry releasing the report's findings today
Lead investigator Karen Terry releasing the report's findings today
Image: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

CATHOLIC PRIESTS WHO sexually molest children and teenagers are not driven by the pressures of celibacy or repressed homosexual desire, according to a  new inquiry into clerical abuses in the US.

Instead, the report – commissioned by US bishops and other Catholic organisations – released today blames social changes, suggesting that abuse was driven by a general rise in “deviant” behaviour in the 1960s and 1970s. Increases in drug use, premarital sex and divorce throughout society influenced “vulnerable” priests who became abusers, the document’s authors write.

The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010 was carried out by researchers at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Half of its $1.8million cost was put up by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, with other Church organisations providing most of the rest, Religion News Service reports. Among the main findings were:

  • Between 1950 and 2002, four per cent of US Catholic priests were subject to allegations of abuse.
  • Catholic rules on celibacy are not to blame. The study states that reported abuse cases rose in the 1960s and 1970s, then declined again in the 1980s, despite celibacy remaining a constant.
  • Whether a priest was homosexual did not make them more or less likely to become an abuser. That the vast majority of the victims – 81 per cent – were boys is simply down to priests having more contact with them. Abuse is “a crime of opportunity,” a summary of the findings states.
  • Most abusive priests were “not paedophiles”, if paedophilia is defined as having desires towards prepubescent children; and most of their victims were adolescents.
  • Stress was a factor, with many abuses by priests occuring “at times of increased job stress, social isolation, and decreased contact with peers”.
  • During the 1980s and 1990s, abusers were often given psychological treatment before being returned to ministry when they were deemed rehabilitated. Few were removed from the priesthood as this required “cumbersome canonical procedures”.
  • Information about alleged offences was strictly controlled, with scrutiny from “outsiders” from beyond the Catholic Church being rebuffed.
  • Church leaders responded to the crisis by developing a “human formation” curriculum in seminaries. After this was introduced abuse allegations declined, with a dramatic drop-off in the 1980s.

In a statement, lead investigator Karen Terry also stressed the importance of the twentieth-century ‘sexual revolution’. She said: “The increased frequency of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s was consistent with the patterns of increased deviance of society during that time… Social influences intersected with vulnerabilities of individual priests whose preparation for a life of celibacy was inadequate.”

The report was welcomed by social worker Diane Knight, chair of a group of lay Catholics who oversaw the project. Insisting that “the researchers found that the crisis of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is an historical problem,” she nevertheless added: “However, this in no way should lull us as a Church into complacency.”

The report states that the Catholic Church has undergone significant changes to safeguard children from abusive priests in future, but warns that the change “is not yet complete”. It recommends that Church leaders tackle the problem further by using educational programs to make it more difficult for priests to find opportunities for abuse; making it easier for allegations to be reported; and offering better support for priests to deal with stress. The authors also recommend that priests in general be given more opportunities to form “social friendships.”

Read next:

Comments (21 Comments)

  • A Church funded report into the causes of child sex abuse? Deep in their psyche, they can’t even accept that their members did anything wrong.

    Reply
  • Reports of seuxual abuse by priests go back to 309CE so how do they explain that?

    “The bishops first met at Elvira in 309CE and published in Power and Sexuality, to discuss and legislate against the sexual perversions of the clergy.

    The pope was also given a detailed report by Saint Peter Damian in 1051CE, The Book of Gomorrah, detailing the graphic evidence of the sexual activities of the clergy.”

    http://patrickjwall.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/10-common-myths-in-the-sexual-abuse-of-minors-and-vulnerable-adults-by-clerics/

    Reply
  • So they commissioned a report to come up with an excuse for raping children. Bravo you cowards, bravo.

    Reply
  • So the people who carried out this report are basically saying theses monsters who abuse children are victims?

    Reply
  • Once you abuse a child you ARE a pedophile. Everyone in society gets stressed at some point but that doesnt make us go out and abuse a child .
    These ‘priests’ were and always will be Pedophiles and its time that they were held accountable for the awful crimes they committed against children.
    The children NOT the perverts are the victims here.

    Reply
  • Ah yes, yet another example of the practise among university researchers; whatever the subject of the report, make sure that its findings mirror the expectations of those who are paying for it in the first place.

    It is nothing more than academic prostitution.

    And the church has done more than enough wishy washy heel dragging at this stage. They will never accept full responsibility, preferring to hide behind mealy mouthed excuses, centuries of “tradition”, and the weight of the devout, the ignorant, and the profane.

    Reply
  • Bought and paid for; you can can have any report you like if pay up!

    Reply
  • I didn’t think my hatred for the Catholic church could grow any more. This just proved me wrong.

    Reply
  • So, technically the priests aren’t actually abusers? Just abuse facilitators?

    Reply
  • The numbers are all skewed by the bishops and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice! As a general rule psychologists use age 13 as the beginning of puberty — the report says it is 10 years of age. Naturally a LOT of the victims fell in the 10-13 years old category — so using the 10 year the numbers are all showing a lower percentage of pedophile priests.

    Who can trust the bishops to give ACCURATE and HONEST figures? Case in point, Philadelphia! For years we were told there are no priests with accusations against them in active ministry – and then suddenly last February the grand jury discovers thirty-seven!!! Bishops also try to tell us that 4% of priests were abusers — the actual numbers counted at http://www.bishopaccountability.org is closer to 10%!!!

    As for blaming society and “the 60′s!” I was raped in 1970 by a priest who was ordained in the early 1950’s — certainly his moral ethics were well established by the time the 60′s rolled around. His history of abuse runs from the 1950’s until just 2 months before his death in 2006 at the age of 82! After my rape I reported to my deacon supervisor — another priest in the same parish. Remember, this was 1970. Nothing happened because he was diagnosed in 1957 s having a psycho-pathological personality and was STILL playing with mentally ill teen aged girls. He, too, was ordained in the early 1950’s. By the time the 1960’s rolled around these two priests were WELL into their 40′s — and at that time would be considered “old” and not part of the “current age.”

    As for the bishops’ honesty in numbers — when I brought my case back to Boston I was informed that “I was the only one” — that there were no other accusations against my perp. I managed to get hold of the investigation and found THREE letters dating back to the 1990’s accusing him of sexual abuse. If the bishop (cardinal) can nget away with lying to me as a priest — how much easier is it to lie to a lay person?

    The Hierarchy of the church (all the way to Rome) needs to come clean, be honest, transparent etc. LIST THE NAMES of all perpetrators who have been credibly accused. They cannot be taken to court because of the statutes of limitations. They are still just as dangerous and society in general needs to know about them. Our society is is so migrant! A priest who abuses in Boston can also abuse in Minnesota, or Nevada or anywhere. The names need to be public and accessible.

    Reply
  • “social relationships” should include the right to have a normal life and pursue a relationship with a woman. To say that celibacy has no impact on the fact that abuse occurred would seem to be illogical.

    Reply
  • Ha! What a joke! This is like something you’d read in The Onion.

    Reply
  • i guess we have every excuse in the book and still the two true ones being, you do not abuse children or vulnerable adults, married, single, celibate, priest or otherwise. No. 2, to do so is a criminal offense, oh No. 3 homosexuality does not lead to increased abuse of minors or otherwise, this third a fact and always a fact. we are dealing with paid excuses and more excuses not to face up to the fact…these guys sinned in the name of god and humanity, not only sinned, but ruined lives, behaved crimminally, hid behind the cross of the church and if they were anyway christian, moral or otherwise, they would have known right well what they were doing was depraved, self satisfying and evil. evil i say, evil. Look into those eyes of brendan smith and i dont think anyone would be in any doubt.

    Reply
    • They didn’t only hide behind the cross of the church, the church helped cover it up. The policy was to change a priest to a different parish upon an allegation. Some punishment. I agree with everything you have said here, I just wanted to point out that the church are just as guilty for this crimes as the individuals, if no more so.

      Reply
  • A complete travesty of the word “inquiry” – more an opportunity to cause even more hurt and anger to those abused by clerics.
    Never heard such nonsense in my life as excusing these perverts from being named “paedophiles” as they targetted “adolescents” over 10 years of age – Whatever happened to the crime of statutory rape (correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Roman Polanski arrested for same decades after the event so where was the statute of limitations there?)
    Basicallly, the richest organisation in the world is again protecting it’s assets, concocting this ridiculous “report” and condoning the most evil of wrongdoings in the process. Disgraceful.

    Reply
  • “Few were removed from the priesthood as this required “cumbersome canonical procedures”. So it was too much trouble so instead you moved t hem around from church to church. That makes the Catholic Church and accomplice to child molestation. SHAME ON YOU!

    Reply
  • Bloody sickening. Happier reading it as an atheist though..

    Reply
  • There is much talk ( justified) of the survivors of abuse, but what about all those that didn’t survive, many of whom took their lives because they couldn’t deal with what was perpetrated on them. This report is one big excuse for deviancy. It seems for many high status personalities, once caught in extra marital affairs, they “find” God. Pervert priests can’t that so a sociologically empirical report is offered. Everybody happy now? For me it just makes the the whole organisation more pathetic.

    Reply
  • em…. so it was societies fault? I was trying to be objective until I read that the research was funded by the US Bishops and other ‘Church’ organisations to the tune of 1.8 million dollars. It sounds like it might be somewhat biased, and that’s an understatement. I wonder if they would be willing to have the research validated by an independent group of researchers? Now that’s probably just wishful thinking.

    Reply

Add New Comment