…what does explain the rise in abuse? A major reason, she says, was the 1960s.
“There’s a sexual revolution, there’s an increased amount of drug use, there’s an increase in crime, there’s an increase in things like premarital sex, in divorce,” [Karen] Terry says. “In a number of factors, there’s change. And the men who are in the priesthood are affected by these social factors.”
Terence McKiernan calls that the Woodstock defense.
“A lot of us went through the ’60s, and very few of us reacted to the pressures of that interesting decade by sexually abusing children,” McKiernan says.
The full report is here: http://usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context.shtml
A priest and clergy sexual abuse victim responds:
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/18/136436732/catholic-priest-talks-about-sex-abuse-report
I watched the press conference and presentation by the bishop and the psychologist who did the study. I came away with these observations.
1 – Both the bishop and psychologist and the press carefully avoided defining or asking for a clear definition of the term ‘deviant’
2 – No one clarified what was meant by the term ‘human formation’ that was said to be lacking in the abusive priests seminary education. Was this a course, a year long or a weekend seminar, or a kind of mentoring? How would the success of this ‘human formation’ be measured and/or graded as sufficient?
3 – Every psychology student knows that statistics can be skewed in a number of ways and are, according to the outcome desired by who pays for the studies. Studies that do not show what the sponsor wants them to show are ‘put in a drawer’ and that ‘drawer effect’ affects every other review and gathering of data in future studies. Drug studies are corrupted the same way. Science is not beyond the reach of political and financial pressure and pollution.
I did not feel convinced and some longtime Catholics agree:
Dear Catholic Church, Are you kidding me??? http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/05/19/dear-catholic-church-are-you-kiddin-me/
Boston Globe – http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/05/19/the_churchs_poor_excuse/ (a number of good comments)
Bishops and psychologists are engaging in circular thinking, poor logic and denial, while walking within the PC line (by denying the homosexuality/pedophilia connection).
They are also in denial about the bishops’ guilt and collusion in covering up and perpetuating the sexual abuse crimes.
They are trying to toss the Sex Abuse/Cover-up grenade where they think it will do the least damage and estrange the least number of people. They have a number of people, clergy and laity, within the organization who have fallen for the ‘straight/gay dichotomy’ propaganda. It is likely that this number exceeds the number of those who were abused and their advocates.
Do the math.
The truth is still far from them.
Confessor, here’s the thing. What folks who are making the homosexual connection fail to take into account is the factor of access. The reason that the numbers are so skewed for boys is that those priests had access to boys. Only boys were altar-servers, so they would be alone with the priest in the sacristy. Priests could go on trips with boys with church groups or boy scouts, take them camping, or even travel with them alone. They could have them in the rectory without raising the kind of suspicions that having girls there would have raised. Particularly in that age group of 12-17 (which covers a very significant portion of the kids abused), there is no way a priest would have the same access to teenage girls as he would have for boys. So, I think that this was more a factor of it being a crime of opportunity and access than it is having anything to do with homosexuality. Just my 2 cents…
#4 advocate – I’ll see your two cents and raise you two bits. 🙂
I disagree. Your thoughts make sense from the mid-1990’s on. However, my recollection is that there was little sense prior to that time that male priests (or doctors or teachers or other professionals) should not be alone in professional situations with girls of that age.
I find some of the methodology of this report questionable. I read the entire thing from the link in comment 1 above. I also have not read any of the comments or media speculation that No. 2 suggests, so I have no doubt some of this has been discussed already by others. That having been said, my initial thoughts on reading the actual study are thus:
The graphic shown on page 8 of the report shows Incidents of Sexual Abuse by Year of Occurrence, 1950-2002. It seems to rise exponentially from 1952 and crests around 1980 and then drastically declines. I am curious as to those 1950s numbers. That seems skewed to me, seeing as the methodology only tackles known and reported cases. My question would be, “How many cases in the 50s went unreported?” If there were a bunch of cases unreported (which seems to be highly likely in my opinion), then that puts the conclusions based on a 70’s peak, into question.
Page 15 also throws a weird knuckleball, which discusses Sex Offender Typologies and Multimodal Explanations of Behavior. Basically it lays out the evolution of modern psychology’s understandings of what causes abusive sexual behavior. The study admits that it was not until the 1970s that
[blockquote]Researchers began to understand that deviant sexual
behavior was not simply caused by deviant sexual attraction; rather, other factors such as cognitive distortions,
poor social skills, low self esteem, weak self-concept, negative emotional attitudes, poor attachments, delayed psychosexual development, and other related issues also contributed to the likelihood of child sexual abuse.[/blockquote]
If you read on, they basically retroactively apply those newer understandings to older cases and reports (from a time when it was not understood as such). That methodology also seems to throw off the logic of the conclusions.
I would also note that the deeper one gets into the report, the more the “psychobabble” and sociological jargon and buzzwords comes out. This is also in direct proportion to an increase in the various statistics and colorful graphic charts. This always makes me suspicious, particularly when the report starts blaming power/privilege dichotomies and alcoholism.
When the report says, “No single ’cause’ of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is identified as a result of our research,” and makes no mention of “individual responsibility” or “sin,” I am at a loss as to explain how or why exactly this is a Christian or Churchly response.
My only other initial thought is around this quote, which occurs early on in the report:
[blockquote]”Less than 5 percent of the priests with allegations of abuse exhibited behavior consistent with a diagnosis of pedophilia (a psychiatric disorder that is characterized by recurrent fantasies, urges, and behaviors about prepubescent children). Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as “pedophile priests.” [/blockquote]
I think this is the breakdown that simply won’t jive with ordinary people. I think most folks would categorize anybody who abuses any underage minor as a pedophile. I understand this is clinical psychology, but I think this report would have been more accepted by the laity in the church had they not used Politically Correct terms for the “priest-abusers.”
Let’s be honest, this is a 143 page report analyzing dirty old men. Sometimes to help people move on, you need to call a spade a spade.
It also worth noting that the Episcopal Church is mentioned in a complimentary manner on Page 20.
[blockquote]Episcopal
The Episcopal Church has promulgated its detailed policies
regarding responses to child sexual abuse.
97
Such publication of the church’s policies was spurred by a 1991 event
in which a Colorado woman accused an Episcopal diocese
and presiding bishop of concealing sexual misconduct by
her priest; the church was found liable and paid $1.2 million to the victim.
98
Though this case involved sexual misconduct with an adult victim, the church responded by
establishing formal policies on all types of sexual abuse,
including but not limited to training, guidelines, videos,
and discussion of abuse. The Episcopal Church requires
that all priests, staff, and laity who work with children participate in this program. Furthermore, the church reports
the names of priests suspended or dismissed in their annual
yearbook and informs congregations of misconduct by
priests. The Episcopal Church’s policies and enforcement
surrounding child sexual abuse have served as models
for other mainline Protestant denominations, including
Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans.[/blockquote]