-255x255.jpg "Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights")
In the aftermath of the media blitz in 2002 exposing sexual abuse by Catholic priests, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) commissioned researchers from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to study what happened. In 2004, the first studied the nature and scope of the problem, covering the years 1950-2002. Its latest study addresses the causes and context of abuse.
Both studies report that the crisis extended from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, peaking in the 1970s. This was a time of increased levels of deviant behavior in society, and the authors properly cite the role played by the sexual revolution in shaping the environment.
This is not a justification — it is an explanation.
It should be clear by now that the cultural winds of promiscuity that hit the larger society in the 1960s and 1970s came smashing through the windows of the Catholic Church; it is not an insular institution.
Celibacy as a cause is quickly dismissed, and pedophilia is similarly rejected as an explanatory variable. The report astutely notes that “Celibacy has been constant in the Catholic Church since the 11th century and could not account for the rise and subsequent decline in abuse cases from the 1960s through the 1980s.”
The logic is sound.
Importantly, pedophilia is discounted: Less than 5% of the abusive priests fit the diagnosis of pedophilia, thus, “it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as ‘pedophile priests.’”
Despite many strengths, what seriously mars the report is its ideological reluctance to deal forthrightly with the role of homosexuality.
Let it be said at the outset that it is not my position that homosexuality causes predatory behavior. Indeed, this argument is absurd. As I have said many times, while it is true that most homosexual priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been priests who are homosexual. Nothing in the report changes my mind, and indeed there is much in it that fortifies my position.
“Interestingly,” the report says, “an increase in the number of male victims occurred during the peak years of the abuse crisis. From my perspective, it would have made more sense to say, “Unsurprisingly” than “Interestingly.”
Here’s why. Four related events emerged at the peak of the crisis that account for what happened:
— There was an exodus of heterosexual priests after Vatican II, a large percentage of whom got married.
— The effect of this exodus was to leave behind a greater proportion of homosexual priests.
— A tolerance for sexual expression in the seminaries was evident at this time, leading many previously celibate homosexual priests to act out.
— And there was a surge of homosexuals into the seminaries.
It was the interaction of these four factors, I would argue, that accounts for the increase in male victims at the height of the sexual abuse crisis.
The authors insist that homosexuality played no role in the abuse crisis, but their own data undermine this conclusion. For example, they plainly admit that “81% of the victims [between 1950 and 2002] were male,” and that 78% were post-pubescent.
So if the abusers weren’t pedophiles, and the victims were mostly adolescent males, wouldn’t that make the victimizers homosexuals?
What else could we possibly be talking about if not homosexuality?
“What is not well understood,” we learn from the study, “is that it is possible for a person to participate in a same-sex act without assuming or recognizing an identity as a homosexual.”
Yes, it is entirely possible for a homosexual not to recognize that he is a homosexual. So what? Isn’t it behavior — not self-perception — that objectively defines one’s sexual orientation?
Here is a good example of the flawed thinking on homosexuality that colors the study: “More than three-quarters of the acts of sexual abuse of youths by Catholic priests, as shown in the Nature and Scope study, were same-sex acts (priests abusing male victims). It is therefore possible that, although the victims of priests were most often male, thus defining the acts as homosexual, the priest did not at any time recognize his identity as homosexual.”
It is a false segue to say “it is therefore possible.” Such twisted logic suggests a failure to confront the obvious.
Let us grant that it is possible for homosexual priests to think they are not homosexuals. It cannot be said more emphatically that this changes nothing. If someone eats nothing but vegetables and does not consider himself to be a vegetarian, this is surely an interesting psychological issue, but it does not change reality. Subjectively, the vegetarian may think of himself as carnivorous, but his behavior belies his self-perception. Homosexuals, like vegetarians, are defined by what they do, not by what they believe themselves to be.
The authors gathered clinical data from treatment centers, places where troubled priests were assigned. What they found was that “three quarters of the priests whom we have data had sexual relations with an adult and/or minor after ordination.”
Given that the minors were mostly male, and beyond puberty, is this not clearly an issue of homosexuality?
Here’s another example of skewed logic: They say, “After considering pre-seminary and in-seminary sexual behavior separately, only in-seminary (not pre-seminary) same-sex sexual behavior was significantly related to the increased likelihood of a male child victim.”
In other words, those studying for the priesthood who had sex with other seminarians — that would make them homosexuals — were more likely to abuse a child (male, of course) than gays who were active before they entered the seminary and then stayed celibate. Which means that all eyes should turn to the seminaries, a subject slighted by the authors.
The authors try to say that much of the abuse was situational, a function of opportunity. For example, they note that after girl altar servers were approved by the Catholic Church, there was a “substantial increase in the percentage of female victims in the late 1990s and 2000s, when priests had more access to them in the church.”
However, if having access only to boys accounts for the high number of male victims at the peak of the crisis, then this should have been a problem before things got out of control. But the report emphatically shows this was not the case.
“A review of the narratives of men who were seminarians in the 1950s, and of published histories of the seminaries themselves does not reveal any record of noticeable or widespread sexual activity by seminarians,” it says.
The reason it wasn’t a problem is because most priests put a lid on their libido in the 1940s and 1950s. When the lid came off in the 1960s, the crisis began.
There is too much evidence to plausibly conclude that there is no relationship between the overrepresentation of active homosexuals in the priesthood, and their overrepresentation in the sexual abuse scandal.
Bill Donohue is president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
John Zmirak: We Are All Islamists Now
Benjamin Wiker: The Church and the (Secular) State
Comments
Post a Comment
Lots of good points here, Mr.Donohue. I like your point about the lack of attention paid to the formation of seminarians. This should be foremost in any order/diocese - the vetting of candidates, so to speak.
Congratulations for your note. This matter seems to be taboo in our society. Apparently homosexuality, hidden or punished for a long time, is now an inocent “matter of sexual taste” and everything that opposes it, is politically incorrect and therefore shut off.
Bishops covered up clergy abuse before the mid-sixties until today. We can see the dreadful coverup of Bishop Finn in KC. Neither homosexuality or the 60s had anything to do with this present day coverup. And what about Philadelphia where civil authorities exposed child endangerment on a wide scale within the diocese. Cardinal Law had to flee the city to avoid possible charges.
Instead of using a scapegoat of homosexuality or minimize abuse because of the times I suggest the Mr. Donovan examine systematic coverups of the bishops that is ongoing. That would be a truly honorable quest. Or Mr. Donovan can encourage district attorneys and civil authorities to investigate clergy abuse and its coverup. Only then will children be protected.
It seems very clear, that John Jay went outof it’s way to persecute a particular group of people with same sex affiliations.
“After considering pre-seminary and in-seminary sexual behavior separately, only in-seminary (not pre-seminary) same-sex sexual behavior was significantly related to the increased likelihood of a male child victim.”
I missed that the first time around. So men who had either considered themselves homosexual or had “experimented” with same-sex stuff before going to the seminary, but either changed their minds (the “experiment” part) or decided to commit to celibacy did not abuse boys (or girls), but men who DID engage in homosexual acts while in the seminary just kept right on doing it.
Makes sense! BUT… wouldn’t one assume they would keep doing it with other men? The adolescent boy part is what’s strange. Who is likely to abuse adolescent boys? What is the literature on this?
Wow, only three comments until the irrational ranting began. In case you are a real person, timlennon, please remember that EVERYONE covered up abuse during those decades. That doesn’t excuse it, but it is a fact. Take a look at abuse rates in schools—abuse that is still going on and that no one is doing anything about. The Church is working hard to root this out, why don’t you take your concerns to the institutions who aren’t?
I believe there were many factors involved in the sex abuse scandal. Mr. Donohue says “This is not a justification — it is an explanation.” And it is indeed part of the explanation. And it is an explanation that fits. It does not excuse anyone, nor does it exonerate any criminals, but it sure does help in explaining why nothing was done until the 21st century.
My big question will always be: Why didn’t the parents report it to the civil authorities?
If someone could answer that question, I would appreciate it very much.
Mr. Donohue has performed a valuable service by his analysis that shows the John Jay study for what is is, a whitewash. We do not know if the study was flawed due to inexperienced researchers or the influence of the Church hierarchy and Donohue does not attempt to assign blame. But, we know for certain that the study failed to reach a conclusion and that let the bishops off the hook as far as specific corrective action is concerned.
Nevertheless, anyone who has read the New Testament knows that Christ intended the Church as a transformative body that would change the world by showing others His love. Sadly, the Church in the U.S. ended up being transformed by our hedonistic culture into a worldly institution focused on solving social problems instead of showing the love of Christ. For that the leadership of the Church will be held accountable.
Excellent article. Everyone is terrified of the homosexual terrorists and their wrath. Takes courage to speak the truth.
tim, you missed the whole point. We need to get at the source of the abuse to truly eradicate it. Some priests whop abuse will stop if they know people are more vigilant, but an even better way to prevent abuse is to eliminate the causes. By focusing on the causes, we can have a more lasting, good solution.
An excellent response by William Donohue. While the John Jay study did have its merits, It’s sad that the need to be politically correct takes a forefront to their investigation. It is high time that political correctness is swept aside and investigators have the courage to call a spade a spade - not just in this study, but in all aspects of society where the reluctance to hurt someone’s feelings trumps truth.
The coverup continues, as is obvious by the dissemblers at John Jay College. It’s odd how PC language creeps into certain subjects. Perhaps not so odd, since certain cultural choices are defended by organizations (like GLAAD - The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). Laws and attack swarms are enlisted to crush open debate on certain subjects. Defamation is a statement that gives a negative impression of a person, company, group, product, government, or country. If we are prohibited from giving a “negative impression”, we no longer have free speech.
Three quick comments: 1. I know men who were in the seminary in the 80s. There was pressure put on them to behave improperly with other seminarians, else they be removed. Thanks be to God, that type of seminary experience is disappearing, although not disappeared. 2. The last I have seen from credible sources, Bp. Finn was not part of a cover-up. 3. While I agree that cover ups should be investigated (I’m reminded of Abp. Weakland, here, as well as Cd. Law), we should also remember the difference in the times for many of these cases. From what I have read, in the 70s and 80s, there was psychiatric agreement that such illicit behavior with minors was “reformable” through rehabilitation clinics, and police organizations themselves encouraged such. I am willing to be corrected on any of this, but I really wanted to offer a comment for Bp. Finn. My family lives in his diocese, and he is rightly well-loved. I say this as a man whose own family at times assisted at Masses celebrated by the imprisoned priest. At any rate, we can certainly all pray for a speedy resolution to these horrible crimes and a purification of the priesthood, as these few horrible seeds (may they be converted) do a great disservice to the multitude of fine, holy men. God bless
If only it was this simple Donohue.
I was in the seminary and never saw or was presured into any sexual behavior.
Can we blame all the priest pedophilia in the Thirties, Forties, and Fifties on the Sixties? My husband’s uncle was raped by a priest in the Thirties. My classmates were raped by three priests living in the same San Franciso rectory in the fifties. Children were constantly being put in harm’s way by catholic priests all over the globe, while the episcopal hierarchy continued blithely cashing the checks of our faithful parents.. What happened in the Sixties, Mr. Donahue, is that people started talking about sex, bringing sexuality out of the closet. Because of this cultural change, the priests are no longer getting away with the serial rape of children ( our children are all those under eighteen), at least, we hope, with less success. Of course, clerics now travel all over the world quite freely, and have even more access to vulnerable Third World kids. That these men, those who abused and those who covered it up ( read MOST)were still performing religious ritual, writing liturgies, hearing confessions, and preaching homilies to unsuspecting parents, has nothing to do with the sexual revolution, Mr. Donahue. It is despicably dishonest to pretend that it does.
AW
@Chris June 6, 4:21 PM (EDT):“It seems very clear, that John Jay went out of it’s way to persecute a particular group of people with same sex affiliations.”
“persecution” would consist in denying a person civil rights. Homosexuality is not a person but a condition of untreatable arrested development suffered by persons. By considering themselves “persecuted” because of their condition points to the fact that homosexuals believe that their condition makes them less than human or sovereign persons, and this is not the case as all men will be judged by God for the good they do and how they live their lives.
@Paul Bennett “Defamation is a statement that gives a negative impression of a person, company, group, product, government, or country. If we are prohibited from giving a “negative impression”, we no longer have free speech.”
Only truth has freedom of speech. Two witnesses are required to establish a judicial fact, the rest is hearsay or worse, perjury in a court of law. Only persons have civil rights that are held in trust for them by our Creator, almighty God.
Homosexual behavior is an expression of despair, despair in loving the other person’s soul into heaven, despair in bringing forth offspring, despair in caring for one’s own soul. Homosexual behavior is lust given free reign to consume and destroy. Sloth is not caring for one’s neighbor and his soul. Greed is taking more than what is allowed by civil law. Envy of the virgin innocence possessed by the other. There is nothing good of any homosexual act. Homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered as it denies the existence of the human soul and man’s responsibility to Our Creator.
Donohue is incorrect to argue that behavior and not self identification defines who or who is not a homosexual. Sexual orienation has more to do with emotional attraction than with sexual behariors. Men in prison engage in homosexual behavor, but that does not make them homosexuals. Priests who abuse adolescent males are not homosexual in the sense of a healthy integration of their sexual identiy, but are immature sexual persons who deny or are conflicted about thier homosexual identification and do not represent the majority of gay clergy who are self accepting, integrated, celibates (or strugglig as are all celibates) who do not seek adolescent males for sexual gratification.
Those priests the report identifies as “vulnerable” surely include these latter kind of “homosexual” priests whom Donohue blames. The fact that 80% of priests in treatment centers (not all for sexual issues) have had sexual relationships with adult men and women ought force us to consider just how successful the celibacy requirment is being lived out in reality in the non-offending clergy; If 80% of these priests are sexually involved with other adults, what does that say about all the other priests who are not in tratment centers?
I absolutely disagree with William Donahue. Mr Donahue likes to say that because most of the abuse wasn’t pedophilia- which the John Jay report says, then the problem must be homosexuality. Puberty in many reports says it begins after the age of 10. Mr Donahue time and time again seems to link anything after the age of 10 as a homosexual act. NO. It is still child abuse whether the child is 9 or 12 or 13 or even 15 or 17. It is not OK and it does not constitute a homosexual act. This is sexual abuse of a child whose parents trusted the priest, and the child was told to trust the priest. A person who is gay is no more likely to abuse a child than someone who is straight. The other point Mr Donahue makes, time and time again, is to say well, why aren’t we looking at all the other organizations, they did it too. If I did something wrong as a child (say lied to my Mom), telling her others are lying too never cut it. Aren’t we as Catholics supposed to march to a higher standard? I’m not saying if others are guilty of pedophilia or sexual abuse of a child that it is oK. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like a priest or bishop. But why are we saying we aren’t the only ones doing it??? How does that in anyway make it better?
@Tim, absolutely agree.
@ EC Dodge, I’m glad Bishop Finn is well loved, but he absolutely blew it with Father Ratigan. He was warned a full year before his arrest by a detailed letter sent by the principal of the Catholic Elementary School. Bishop Finn-short of alerting the police, was the only one who had any power to confront Father Ratigan. Bishop Finn was his direct superior. He didn’t read the letter until AFTER the arrest of Father Ratigan. Shame on him. The USCCB has put very specific guidelines in place and they are not being followed. Maybe what we need to do is not to alert the bishop, but to alert the police.
The scandals in Europe and with the Legion of Christ also raise questions and challenges to the conclusions of the John Jay study, though not the ones Mr. Donohue raises. (His are generally typical of him, blame the gays, not the hierarchy, and “the sixties made them do it.”) Blaming the sixties is awfully convenient, but I agree with those who feel that there was simply more reporting of these atrocities starting in the sixties, when it became more acceptable to actually talk about sex. The Irish scandal goes back too many decades to blame it on the cultural revolution of the sixties, and the Legion scandal goes back long before that too. The basic flaw of the study is that it relies on reports that the church made to the civil authorities on these crimes. The pattern of reporting or not reporting should be researched, and all dioceses and achdioceses should be required to open ALL their records on for study. That would provide a better picture than the John Jay study.
What strikes at the heart of the crisis is not homosexuality or the times. No. No. What is striking is that the church hierarchy historically, systematically and consistently covered up the abuse of children. Whether it is LA or Boston or Philadelphia or Chicago, the bishops covered up clergy abuse and moved abusers around and around to avoid consequences.
Mr. Donohue the issue is clear, Protect Children! You should worry about those who endanger children and those in the church hierarchy complicit in endangering children.
~How can the bishops be credible when they fail to criticize or fail to sanction other bishops found covering up abuse, ie Boston, Philadelphia, LA, KC, etc?
~How can we take seriously the church hierarchy when they reward Cardinal Law with a Vatican position when he fled Boston due to his complicity in endangering children?
~How can we accept the integrity of the bishops when 55 dioceses fail to take even minimum measures to protect children as outlined by USCCB?
~How can you justify a report that fails to demand full disclosure of all the clergy involved in abuse of children and the vulnerable? How can families protect their children when information is hidden?
~Lastly, how can we receive justice within the church given the decades long history of coverup that continues today? Clearly, civil investigation is necessary in every diocese.
They also fail to identify the fall of the Jesuit order into the gay movement, and its critical role in catholic institutions of higher learning including seminaries as another cause.
Its common knowledge that a lot of priests were compromised into this lifestyle that is why even after repentance they cannot speak up for fear of being ‘outed’ ..
Many of the comments are attributing statements or thoughts to Mr. Donohue that are just not in his article. I suggest that these commenters check their own agendas and then reread the article.
Donohue simply says that the John Jay conclusion that abuse problem in the Church was primarily due to increased levels of deviant behavior in society in the 1960s to the mid-1980s, peaking in the 1970s is not supported by the data. He points out that the increase in homosexual behavior by clergy and the increase in post-pubescent victims during that period were largely ignored by the John Jay study conclusions.
Maybe it’s because I have (thank God) never suffered the temptation to the types of acts described, but I don’t see how a man, seeing intimate contact with another male, whether 10 years old or 30, could be seen as not having a homosexual element.
Is it the belief of people like Claire above that a man who seeks sexual contact with males of 10 years old is still 100% heterosexual?
Look at it another way: if a man who is declared to be homosexual seeks out intimate contact with 10 year old GIRLS, we would say that he is at least BI-sexual. Why is the perception different in the other situation? I don’t think it makes any sense.
Fr. Robert Nugent, SDS, states: “Priests who abuse adolescent males are not homosexual in the sense of a healthy integration of their sexual identiy, but are immature sexual persons who deny or are conflicted about thier homosexual identification and do not represent the majority of gay clergy who are self accepting, integrated, celibates (or strugglig as are all celibates) who do not seek adolescent males for sexual gratification.”
Father Nugent’s presupposition is that homosexual men are capable of an integrated personality, and those who abuse are simply not integrated homosexuals. This is contrary to both Christian anthropology and the explicit Church teaching that the orientation is a disorder, and thus, ipso facto, not capable of healthy integration. Clearly, he continues to hold the same positions that led to his censure by the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith in the 1990s.
“We can see the dreadful coverup of Bishop Finn in KC.”
This is slander, unless of course you have proof that the bishop knew about this priest’s pornography collection and willfully obstructed a police investigation into the matter.
The scandal should be called the homosexual scandal; not the pedophile scandal. It is another scandal - that it is not termed correctly. It shows that most of the bishops are not really trying to stop it. If we end up having a shortage of priests, so be it. I’ll travel 50 miles to go to mass if that is what is necessary due to the shortage of priests. Don’t “dumb down” the priesthood. Accept only heterosexual and NON ACTIVE homosexuals to the priesthood. If they become sexually active, laicize them.
@Mike in KC, I am not saying that someone who seeks sex with males older than 10 years old are still 100% heterosexual. What I am saying is that sexual abuse of children of ANY age is abhorant but gays are no more likely to do this than someone who is straight. The John Jay Report states more males were sexually abused because they were more available-as alter boys etc. Statistics say that 90% of murders are committed by men. Your analogy would say that because men are responsible for most of the murders, then men are murderers. Not so.
I celebrate someone so well informed is on the side of defending the Church with rational arguments. True reason is the best prescription of the ideological non-sense of the times, or for every time for that matter.
The John Jay Report is a laughable exercise in political correctness at the expense of transparency. Yes, we who are able to think these issues through without emotional ranting and raving get it that the problem is not a pedophilia problem. And yes, we know there is no link whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia. Then the Report goes on to tell us that for the most part young children were not abused, and the vast majority of victims (claimants) were teens and young adult men at the time of the alleged abuse. To suggest, then, that homosexuality is not the source of sexual attraction to young men is ludicrous and insulting.
Secondly, the Report makes no distinction between abusers and priests who have been merely accused, without corroboration, in the wake of a Church PR disaster in which Church officials felt very motivated to financially settle any and every claim regardless of merit. To gain some perspective on this Report readers should also spend some time at the “Special Reports” on http://www.TheseStoneWalls.com Clea.rly, the putative victim is not always the real one.
Everyone is missing the most important point:
THE PROBLEM IS IMMORALITY
No matter who one is targeting for their sexual pleasure, even alone, this act is a SIN and IMMORAL
These people need to go to their spiritual advisor and seek help to turn from sin.
Why is are bishops blamed when until (I believe) 1985, “pedophilia” was considered a moral fault. Until that time most psychologists and psychiatrists did not consider this behavior as being incurable for the most part. Bishops reassigned priests to get them out of the occasion of sin—an attraction to a particular boy or boys. This is why a few bishops got into trouble with the Church. They ignored the change in thinking brought up at one of their annual meetings in 1985. Some people conveniently forget this change in thinking when attacking the Church.
[If I am in error on this, please ignore my email or edit it. Thank you.]
About the Sixties, I want to quote a book published after the War, “Christ stopped at Eboli” about the author’s experiences as an internal exile under Mussolin. There he meets the parish priest. This parish priest has been exiled to a small town, among impoverished peasanst, because he had “taken liberties” with boys. Child abuse was nothing new in Mussolini’s Italy, nor was the customary coverup - sending the offending priess to parishioers who were too poor and downtrodden to complain.
It is not that there is more abuse now, it is that it is harder to hide it.
It’s simple. If sex outside of marriage is a sin, then all the rapes/molestations committed by priests are sins regardless of sexual orientation of the predator or age of the victim. The cover-up is a sin. Silence, by the rest of the priests who heard rumors, is a sin. It makes you all complicit in the crime. Intimidation by the Vatican is a sin. The rot has spread from the inside - the devil was there the whole time and either the Church ignored him - or they made a deal. I cannot forgive or forget what has happend. The hair on one child’s head is more precious than the whole institutional Church. I went to Catholic school for 12 years and believed all the crap I was taught. No more. The whole thing needs to crumble down and be re-built.
Adriana - thank you.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.