Church Culpability and the International Criminal Court (A Catholic Holocaust?)--Chapter 11

Louise Haggett, 1997 and 2010, All Rights Reserved. We learn values as children from our parents, teachers and especially from those anointed by God in the religious denomination to which we may belong. These individuals bring us the Word of God and teach us what is right and wrong. This is the reason it is so difficult for me to face the reality of my beloved Catholic Church being involved in criminal behavior, especially involving our most innocent children. The global numbers of clergy sexual abuse victims is staggering, some say over one billion. There have been Class Action Suits against priests and bishops, legal accusations of collusion between the church and courts, Federal Racketeering charges in the U.S. because children were transported across state lines where sexual abuse took place, silencing and gag orders attempted against victims and attorneys; countersuing and wiretapping since 1993 (Wall Street Journal-1993), and countless cases involving obstruction of justice. The Catholic institution has also tried to avoid trial by claiming the First Amendment (separation of church and state in the U.S.) or by claiming that “priests are not employees of the institution” therefore not the church’s responsibility. Some of these tactics are still being utilized as the Vatican faces abuse cases in several European countries, closer to home than the United States. It was only a matter of time before the notion of the church’s culpability would reach the heights of the International Crime Court as recently suggested by high ranking United Nations (UN) Judge Geoffrey Robertson. He said, “the Pope should be prosecuted at International Criminal Court.”* It makes one wonder if these atrocities affecting millions of children (or maybe a billion as suggested by some) are similar to the Holocaust? Are the crimes of the church like the legacies of Nuremberg? Is the Vatican a “criminal state?” *(Yoshihara, http://www.c-fam.org/publications/pub_detail.asp?id=1606) In the broad spectrum, clergy sexual abuse is a crime against humanity too. It differs from Nuremberg however in that these crimes involve a “state of people” rather than a “political state.” What perhaps makes it more heinous is that the majority of its victims are the innocent children of the world. The following examines research conducted on bureaucracy as it related to the Holocaust, as well as the Catholic Church’s current NGO status (non-Member State Permanent Observer) with the UN. In a paper entitled The Legacies of Nuremberg, author David Luban says, “The framers of Nuremberg were confronted with a new offense, the bureaucratic crime, and a novel political menace, the criminal state. Limiting themselves to traditional legal concepts—sovereignty, individual criminal liability, conspiracy—and unwilling to question either the political system of nation-states or the character of responsibility in bureaucratic settings, they came to the brink of recognizing the novelty of criminal states but ultimately failed to comprehend this major challenge of our [20th] century (1987, p. 779). Nuremberg is seen by some as a “founding moment of the modern human-rights movement.” Are the crimes of a supposedly moral institution are also a “profound moment of the modern human-rights movement?” In order to put the notion of a Catholic Holocaust into perspective, it is necessary to examine the similarities between the Holocaust and the crimes of the Catholic Church. The Church as a Bureaucracy Let us first look at the issue of “bureaucracy.” Bureaucracy is the centralization of administrative power within major organizations or institutions so that its hierarchy—whether an individual or a committee—can control the individuals or groups in their influence. According to Alexis de Tocqueville, “bureaucracy or centralized administration, however, can lead to the suppression of internal dissent in an effort to further consolidate its power” (1995 p. 303). David Luban says, “The bureaucracy is a circle from which no one can escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The highest point entrusts the understanding of particulars to the lower echelons, whereas these, on the other hand, credit the highest with an understanding in regard to the universal; and thus they deceive one another” (ibid. p.814). According to Jack Katz, “In the white collar ranks of formal organizations, persons construct authority to govern internal relations by shielding members from external scrutiny and by declining to force members to accept their responsibilities according to externally defined norms.” (1977 p.3) This is how “cover-ups” happen. As an organization builds internal authority, collective integrity becomes a secondary focus which can result in deviant behavior. In its attempt to maintain internal authority, the bureaucracy covers up the crime to protect the honor of the organization and maintain control of the deviant. This pattern manifests itself to other members of the organization who see the deviance as acceptable until the problem becomes uncontrollable. It is also possible that because the norms that are violated do not take priority over other organizational issues, less concern is shown, giving a message to the deviant that his misbehavior is tolerated. Another reason that an organization will hide the criminal or cover up the crime may be to maintain the external economic, political or financial support it may depend on to sustain itself, especially if it is nonprofit. In this context, the church is a bureaucracy. Its organizational structure is similar. It operates from the top down, attempts to maintain internal control and has protected deviant individuals so that it can retain its honor. The deviant individuals, seeing that it is okay to act in that fashion, continue the process until they get caught. Countless media stories have reported that deviant priests have been moved from parish to parish, country to country, rather than being disciplined or released. The Church as a Criminal State David Luban’s statement regarding the “framers of Nuremberg” described the Third Reich as a “nation-state” or “criminal state” (p.779). Does the church view itself as a church or as a state? As the only world religion that enjoys a “non-Member State Permanent Observer” status at the UN indicates that the church considers itself a “state.” To put it into perspective, the only other “state” with the same UN status is Switzerland (Columbia Law Review 1996). In this role, the church has more political influence in the General Assembly than it would in a lesser “observer” role. It even has voting and veto power at world conferences even though it has a “non-member State Permanent Status.” Two other UN “non-member” affiliations are available, each, however, with less influence. The International Red Cross belongs to one of them. If the church is a state in the United Nations political arena, it is responsible for potentially global criminal action against humanity and is, therefore, a “criminal state,” subject to the status of The Third Reich. There appear to be other similarities with the Catholic institution and The Holocaust. The Third Reich’s crimes were moral crimes; the church’s crimes are moral crimes as well. Both are crimes against God. The difference is, however, that the church is upheld as one of the highest moral institutions in the world, honor in the highest degree. While the crimes committed by priest perpetrators may not be related to a major war, these deeds would fall under Classification 6c in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal which describes the category of “crimes against humanity” as follows: “…murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in executive of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated (p780). Of course, there are differences in the crimes of the Holocaust and crimes of the Catholic Church. In the case of the Third Reich bureaucracy, since no single individual performed the whole deviant act, no single individual could be responsible for the individual acts. The administrative authority was at fault. In the case of the church, however, individual blame is also possible because of the nature of the crime (one abuse at a time) and the added element of “cover-ups” by immediate supervisors (the bishops) is identifiable. At the administrative level, the Pope would be named as the defendant because the Vatican’s bureaucracy protects the other hierarchy. (Evidence of alleged cover ups by the Pope when he was Archbishop has also emerged recently.) Luban said that “if the law is to be anything humane, it must guide our moral imaginations; and since it is now imperative that our moral imaginations include awareness of criminal states, the law must also include awareness of criminal states” (p.785). It would, therefore, seem fortuitous that the broader campaign that was launched in 1999, aimed at stripping the Holy See of its permanent observer status at the UN, was unsuccessful. Otherwise, the International Criminal Court might not be an option. ### Louise Haggett 2010, All Rights Reserved Excerpt from unpublished paper entitled “Why Would a Moral Institution Engage in Criminal Behavior?”, Haggett, Louise, November 13, 1997. CSRI99@aol.com 207-729-7673 Bibliography: Abdullah, Yasmin. 1996. The Holy See at United Nations Conferences: State or Church? Vol. 96. Columbia Law Review. 7:1835-1875 (Wellesley College) Associated Press. 1993. Pope: Celibacy Not Essential. July 18. New York Times 1996. Woman Sues over Relationship with Priest. May 30. Allegheny Times. 1997. (Dublin, Ireland-no headline) Aug. 25) Internet. Connors, Fr. Canice. 1993. The Issue of Sexual Misconduct & the Clergy, as presented at the 25th Annual NFPC (National Federation of Priests Council) Convention & House of Delegates. May 3-7, 1993. Hyatt Regency, Chicago. Dummett, Michael. 1995. Is Scandal, not truth, the norm for cardinals? Feb. 11. The Tablet (London), as reported in Breadrising, June 25, Terry Dosh, editor. MN Economus, Fr. Thomas. 1995. Missing Link Newsletter. Vol. 4 Linkup Abuse Support Organization. Chicago. Franklin, James L. 1992. Catholic Bishops Vow to Step Up Efforts Against Clergy Sexual Abuse. June 25. Boston Globe. Geyelin, Milo. 1993. The Catholic Church Struggles with Suits over Sexual Abuse. Nov. 24. Wall Street Journal. P.A48 Glascott, Katherine. 1997. 100 Priests Forced Out Over Sex Abuses. Aug. 26. The Australian. Haggett, Louise. 1997. Why Would a Moral Institution Engage in Criminal Behavior? Nov. 13. Unpublished paper. Framingham State College. Katz, Jack. 1977. Cover-up and Collective Integrity. On the Natural Antagonism of Authority Internal and External to Organizations. Vol. 25. Social Problems. 1:3-17 (Wellesley College) Lacey, Michael. 1993. The Sins of the Bishop. Sept. 8-14. New Times. Likoudis, Paul. 1996. In NCCB Lawsuit to Mediation. July 11. The Wanderer. Luban, David. 1987. The Legacies of Nuremberg. Vol. 54. Social Research. 4:779-829 Matchan, Linda. 1993. Porter Victim Tells of Secret Agreement. Dec. 7. Boston Globe. Matt, A.J. Jr. 1996. Why The Wanderer Can’t Back Off. Vol. 129. The Wanderer. 28:4 McCaffrey, Joseph D., Monica Maske. 1993. 3 Men Sue South Jersey Priest for Sex Abuse. June 11. The Star- Ledger. P.10 Merriam, G. & C. Co. 1967. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Chicago: Rand McNally. Ostling, Richard N. 1991. “Handmaid or Feminist?” Vol. 138. Time Magazine. 26.66. 1993. “Sex and the Single Priest.” July 5. Time Magazine. Renner, Gerald. 1997. Jury Hears Bishop Defend Diocese. Aug. 16. Hartford Courant (Internet). Reuter, 1997. Internet. Shannon, Denise. 1991. Public Perceptions, The Bishops Lobby. Booklet. Catholics for a Free Choice. Simmel, Georg. 1898:680-683; 1955: 99:104; 1955b:163-166. As reported in “Cover-up” Ibid. Sipe, A. W. Richard. 1995. Clergy Sex Abuse: A Crisis of the Church System. Vol. 5. Bread Rising, edited by Terry Dosh. P.2 Steinfels, Peter. 1993. Clinton Signs Law Protecting Religious Practices. Nov. 17. New York Times. Turner, Jonathan H, Leonard Beeghley, Charles H. Powers. 1995. The Sociology of Emil Durkheim. The Emergence of Sociological Theory. P.346 Welsh, Patrick. 1993. Is Sexual Dysfunction Killing the Catholic Church? Aug. 8. Washington Post. P.c3 Yallop, David. 1984. In God’s Name. New York: Bantam Yallop, Richard. 1997. Faith No More. Sept. 26. The Australian

Research Bibliography--Chapten 10 Addendum

Bingo! Clergy Sexual Abuse Research Bibliography: References in alphabetical order: Abel, Gene G. and Joanne L. Rouleau. 1995. “Sexual abuses. Special Issue: Clinical sexuality.” Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 1:139-153. AFP. 1995. “Tough Pedophilia Bill Derailed.” International Herald Tribune, November 8. Akerlind, Ingemar. 1992. Loneliness and alcohol abuse: A review of evidences of an interplay. Social Science & Medicine. 34:405-414. Akers, Ronald L. 1985. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. American Humane Association. 1996. Fact Sheet. Children’s Division, AHA. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV-TR. 2000. Washington, D.C. APA. ------. 1994. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV. Washington, D.C.: APA ------. 1987. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IIIR. Washington, D.C.: APA. Ames, M. Ashley and David A. Houston. 1990. Legal, “Social, and Biological Definitions of Pedophilia.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 4:333-342. Anderson, Kenneth N., Lois E. Anderson, and Walter D. Glanze. 1994. Mosby’s Medical, Nursing & Allied Health Dictionary. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Andrews, D.A., and James Bonta. 1994. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. Arnold, Regina. 1980. “Socio-structural determinants of self-esteem and the relationship between self-esteem and criminal behavior patterns of imprisoned minority women.” U.S. Univ. Microfilms International. 40(10A):5603. Arroyo, Raymond, narrator. 2004. “National Review Board Report on Clergy Sexual Abuse.” EWTN Television Network, February 27.Associated Press. 1998. Pentagon Estimates Viagra Costs $50M. The Union Leader. Manchester, NH, October 3. Babbie, Earl. 1995. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Barstow, Anne Llewellyn. 1982. Married Priests and the Reforming Papacy—The Eleventh-Century Debates. NY. Edwin Mellon Press Baumeister, Roy F., Laura Smart, and Joseph Boden. 1999. “Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem.” Pp. 257-272 in Self in Social Psychology, edited by Roy F. Baumeister. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Bates, Frederick and Katherine S. van Wormer. 1979. “A Study of Leadership Roles in an Alabama Prison for Women.” Human Relations. 9:793-801. Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. NY: Ballantine. Bennetts, Leslie. 1991. Unholy Acts. Vanity Fair, December. Berry, Jason. 1992. Lead Us Not Into Temptation. Catholic priests and the sexual abuse of children. NY: Doubleday. Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perceptions and Method. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bonnike, Frank J., James Gower and Louise Haggett. 1993. “The Movement, the Ministries & the Methods.” Workshop presented at the 25th Annual National Federation of Priests Council (NFPC) Convention & House of Delegates. Chicago, IL, May 3-7. Booth, Richard. 2000. Loneliness as a Component of Psychiatric Disorders. Medscape General Medicine. 2(2): posted 3/22/2002. Retrieved April 7, 2004. (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/430545). Brennan, Tim. 1982. “Loneliness at Adolescence.” Pp. 269-290, in Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, edited by Peplau, L.A. and Daniel Perlman. NY: Wiley. Briere, John and Marsha Runtz. 1989. “University Males’ Sexual Interest in Children: Predicting Potential Indices of ‘Pedophilia’ in a Nonforensic Sample.” Child Abuse & Neglect.13:65-75. Burkett, Elixir and Frank Bruni. 1993. Gospel of Shame. NY: Penguin. Cameron, P., W. Coburn, Jr., and H. Larson. 1986. “Child molestation and homosexuality.” Psychological Reports. 58:327-37. CBSNews Online. 2002. Priest suicides tied to sex charges? (http://www.CBSNEWS.com/stories/2002/05/23/national/main509970.shtmlshtml) Retrieved July 11, 2004. Celibacy. 2004. America Uncover. HBO-TV, June 28. Celibacy & the Church. 2004. MSNBC-TV, July 7. Connors, Fr. Canice. 1993. “The Issue of Sexual Misconduct & the Clergy.” Workshop presented at the 25th Annual National Federation of Priests Council (NFPC) Convention & House of Delegates. Chicago, IL, May 3-7. Coon, D. 2000. “Introduction to psychology: Exploration and application,” in Ami Rokach, “Perceived causes of loneliness in adulthood.” Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. 15:67-85. Coridin, James A., Thomas G. Green, and Donald E. Heintschel. 1985. The Code of Canon Law. A text and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Cozzens, Donald B. 2000. The Changing Face of the Priesthood. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Crosby, Michael H. 1996. Celibacy—Means of Control or Mandate of the Heart? Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press. CST. 2004. “Bishops accused of sexual misconduct.” (http://www.WFAA.com/s/dws/spe/2002/bishops/stories/061202dnmetbishide.1d 915.html). Dabrow, Allan M. 1970. “Comment—The Pros and Cons of Conjugal Visits in Prison Institutions.” Journal of Family Law. 9:436-440. Diamant, Louis. 1993. Homosexual issues in the workplace. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Dietch, James. 1978. “Love, Sex Roles and Psychological Health.” Journal of Personality Assessment. 42:626-634. DiTommasso, Enrico, Cyndi Brannen, and Lisa A. Best. 2004. “Measurement and Validity Characteristics of the Short Version of the Social and Emotional ‘Loneliness’ Scale for Adults.” Educational & Psychological Measurement. 64:99-119. Doyle, Thomas P and A.W. Richard Sipe. 2005. Priests, Sex, and Secret Files. (to be released August, 2005). Durkheim, E. 1951, 1897. Suicide. NY: Free Press. Economus, Thomas. 1995. Missing Link, Fall. Egerton, Books, Reese Dunklin. 2002. Bishops accused of sexual misconduct. The Dallas Morning News, June 12. Finkelhor, David. 1994. “Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse.” The Future of Children. Sexual Abuse of Children. 2:31-53. ------. 1989. “Early and Long-term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse: An Update.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 21:325-330. Finkelhor, David and Sharon Araji. 1986. “Explanations of Pedophilia: A four factor model.” Journal of Sexual Research. 22:145-161. Finkelhor, David and L. Baron. 1986. “High-risk Children.” Pp. 60-88 in A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. Edited by D. Finkelhor. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Finkelhor, David, G. Hotaling, I.A. Lewis and C. Smith. 1990. “Sexual Abuse in a National Survey of Adult Men and Women: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Risk Factors.” Child Abuse & Neglect. 14:19-28. Finkelhor, David and Lisa Jones. 2004. “Explanations for the decline in child sexual abuse cases.” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention/OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, January 2004. [Online] Retrieved February 27, 2004. Fischer, David R. 1975, in Peterson, Richard A. (1979). “Revitalizing the Culture Concept.” 1979 Annual Review of Sociology. Fraze, Barb. 1993. “Canadian Bishops move vigorously on sex abuse problems.” National Catholic Reporter, July 3. French, Laurence. 1979. “Prison Sexualization: Inmate Adaptations to Psycho-sexual Stress.” Corrective & Social Psychiatry & Journal of Behavior Technology, Methods & Therapy. 25:64-69. Freund, Kurt and Robin Watson. 1992. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles among Sex Offenders against Children: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 1:34-43. Geyelin, Milo. 1993. “The Catholic Church Struggles with Suits over Sexual Abuse.” Wall Street Journal, November 24. Gifis, Steven H. 1996. Law Dictionary. Happauge, NY: Barron’s. Gill, James. 2002. In Dean Hoge, The First Five Years of the Priesthood. A Study of Newly Ordained Catholic Priests. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Gill, Fr. James. 1993. “Human Sexuality, the Priesthood, and a Mature Laity.” The American Catholic Northeast, October. Goldman, Alan H. 1977. “Plain Sex.” Philosophy & Public Affairs. 6:267-287. Gosselin, Henry. 1996. Who’s Sitting in the Pews? Church World. 35:4 Greenberg, David M., John Bradford, and Susan Curry. 1995. “Infantophilia—A New Subcategory of Pedophilia? A Preliminary Study.” Bull American Academy Psychiatry Law. 1:63-70. Groth, Nicholas A., William F. Hobson, and Thomas S. Gary. 1982. The Child Molester: Clinical Observations. NY: Barron’s. Grubin, Don. 1992. “Sexual Offending: a cross-cultural comparison.” Annual Review of Sex Research. (3)201-217. Hackney, H. and C. G. Wrenn, Eds. 1990. “The contemporary counselor in a changed world. In: Loos, Michael, The Synergy of depravity and loneliness in alcoholism: A new conceptualization, and old problem.” Counseling & Values. 3:199-212. Haggett, Louise. 2000. “Is a sexually abusing Roman Catholic priest a pedophile? The case for ephebophilia.” Presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Sociological Society, Baltimore Hilton, Baltimore, March 2-5. ------. 1999. ibid. Presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and Religious Research Association’s “What Do We Know about Religious Institutions and How Have We Come to Know It?” Swissotel, Boston, November 5-7. Haggett, Louise, Tara Hanson and Megan Solo. 1997. “What Factors Contribute to Catholic Priests Breaking Their Vows of Celibacy/Chastity?” Unpublished. Haywood, Thomas W., Howard M. Kravitz, Linda S. Grossman, Orest E. Wasylow, Daniel W. Hardy. 1996. “Psychological Aspects of Sexual Functioning Among Cleric and Non- Cleric Alleged Sex Offenders.” Child Abuse & Neglect. 20:527-536. Hensley, Christopher. 2001. “Exploring the Dynamics of Masturbation and Consensual Same- Sex Activity within a Male Maximum Security Prison.” The Journal of Men’s Studies. 1:59-71. ------.1997. “From Behind the Walls of Confinement: an Analysis of Mississippi Prisoners’ Attitude toward Sexuality.” Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences. 58:2857. Hermand, Pierre. 1965. The Priest: Celibate or Married. Baltimore: Helicon. Original French title (1963): “Condition du Prête et marriage ou célibat?” Paris: Calmann-Levy. Hill, C.T., Z. Rubin, and L.A. Peplau, L. A. 1976. “Breakups before marriage: The end of 102 affairs.” In Jones, Warren: “Loneliness and Social Behavior” in Loneliness. A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, edited by Lititia Anne Peplau and Daniel Perlman, . NY: Wiley. Hogan-Albach, Susan. 2004. USCCB committee bishops accused of abuse cover-up. 3 members of panel named in lawsuits; criticism called unfair. Dallas Morning News, January 19. Hoge, Dean R. 2002. The First Five Years of the Priesthood. A Study of Newly Ordained Catholic Priests. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. Humphreys, Laud. 1970, 1975. Tearoom Trade. Impersonal sex in public places. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Ibrahim, Azmy Ishal. 1974. “Deviant Sexual Behavior in Men’s Prisons.” Crime and Delinquency. 20:38-44. Jaffe, Richard M. 2001. Neither Monk nor Layman: Clerical marriage in modern Japanese Buddhism. NJ: Princeton University Press. Jenkins, Philip. 1996. Pedophiles and priests. Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis. NY: Oxford University Press. Jones, Warren H. 1982. “Loneliness and Social Behavior.” Ch. 15 in Loneliness. A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, edited by Lititia Anne Peplau and Daniel Perlman. NY: Wiley. Jones, W. H. and M.D. Carver. 1991. “Adjustment and coping implications of loneliness,” in: Jari-Erik Nurmi, Sari Toivonen, Katariina Salmela-Aro, and Sana Eronen. 1997. “Social Strategies and Loneliness.” Journal of Social Psychology. 137:764-778. Jones, Warren H., R.O. Hansson, and T.G. Smith. 1980. “Loneliness and love: Implications for psychological and interpersonal functioning, in Loneliness and Social Behavior.” Loneliness. A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, edited by Lititia Anne Peplau and Daniel Perlman. NY: Wiley Kalichman, Seth C. 1991. “Psychopathology and Personality Characteristics of Criminal Sexual Offenders as a Function of Victim Age.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2:187- 197. Kendall-Tackett, K.A., L. M. Williams, and D. Finkelhor. 1993. “Impact of Sexual Abuse on Children: A Review and Synthesis of recent Empirical Studies.” Psychological Bulletin 113:164-180. Kennedy, Eugene. 1993. “Sex Abuse and Catholic Clerical Culture.” National Catholic Reporter, March 19. Kennedy, Eugene C., V.J. Heckler, F.J. Kobler and R.E. Walker. 1977. “Clinical assessment of a profession: Roman Catholic clergymen.” Journal of Clinical Psychology. 33:120-128. Kercher, Glen A. and Marilyn McShane. 1984. “The Prevalence of Child Sexual Abuse Victimization in an Adult Sample of Texas Residents.” Child Abuse & Neglect. 8:495- 501. Kim, Oksoo. 1997. “Loneliness: A predictor of health perceptions among older Korean immigrants.” Psychological Reports. 81:591-594. Kornblum, Janet. 2005. For Steinem, these are the glory years. USA Today, February 2. Long, Gary Thomas. 1993. “Homosexual Relationships in a Unique Setting: The Male Prison.” Homosexual Issues in the Workplace, edited by Louis Diamant. 8:143- 159. Loos, Michael D. 2002. “The synergy of depravity and loneliness in alcoholism: A new conceptualization, and old problem.” Counseling & Values. 46:199-212. Lynch, Gerald W., Michele Galietta, Margaret Leland Smith, James Levine, Maureen O’Connor, Steven Penrod, Louis Schlesinger, Karen Terry. 2004 The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950- 2002. NY: The John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Magills Dictionary. 1998. Edited by D. Dawson. Westerville, OH: Hans & Cassidy. Marsa, Fiona, Gary O’Reilly, Alan Carr, Paul Murphy, Maura O’Sullivan, Anthony Cotter, and Davi Hevey. 2004. “Attachment Styles and Psychological Profiles of Child Sex Offenders in Ireland.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 19:228- 251. Marshall, Gordon. 1994, 1996. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. NY: Oxford U. Press. Marshall, W.L. 1989. “Intimacy, loneliness and sexual offenders,” in Rokach, Ami. 2001. “Criminal offense type and the causes of ‘loneliness’.” Journal of Psychology. 135:277-291. Maslow, Abraham H. 1987, 1954. Motivation and Personality. NY: Harper & Row. McCaffrey, Joseph D., Monica Maske. 1993. “3 Men Sue South Jersey Priest for Sex Abuse.” The Star-Ledger, June 11. McCarthy, James F. 2002. Bishop Quinn exits abuse panel. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 10. McLaughlin, Barbara R. 1994. “Devastated Spirituality: The Impact of Clergy Sexual Abuse on the Survivor’s Relationship with God and the Church.” Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity. 1 Medora, Nilufer P.; John C. Woodward. 1991. “Factors associates with loneliness among alcoholics in rehabilitation centers.” Journal of Social Psychology. 131:769-779). Money, John. 1980. Love and Love Sickness. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Moore, K., C. Nord, and J. Peterson. 1989. “Nonvoluntary Sexual Activity among Adolescents. Family Planning Perspectives.” 21:110-14. Morris, Charles R. 1997. American Catholic. NY: Vintage. Musolf, Gil Richard. 1992. “Structure, Institutions, Power & Ideology: New Directions within Symbolic Interactionism. Sociological Quarterly, 33:184. Nacci, Peter L., Thomas R. Kane. 1984. Inmate Sexual Aggression: Some Evolving Propositions, Empirical Findings, and Mitigating Counter-forces. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services & Rehabilitation. Special Issue: Gender issues, sex offenses, and criminal justice: Current trends. 9:1-20. ------. 1983. “The Incidence of Sex and Sexual Aggression in Federal Prisons.” Federal Probation. 47:31-36. National Opinion Research Center (NORC). 1972. The Catholic priest in the United States: Sociological investigations. Andrew Greeley and Richard A. Schoenherr, principal investigators. Washington, D.C.: US Catholic Conference. NewYork Times.1993. “Pope: Celibacy Is Not Essential to the Priesthood.” July 18. Nurmi, Jari-Erik, Sari Toivonen, Katariina Salmela-Aro, and Sana Eronen. 1997. “Social Strategies and Loneliness.” Journal of Social Psychology. 137:764-778. The Official Catholic Directory. 1996. Edited by Kenedy, P.J. & Sons. New Providence, NJ: Reed. Ostling, Richard N. 1993. “Sex and the Single Priest.” Time, July 5. Ostling, Richard N. 1991. “Handmaid or Feminist?” Time, December 30. Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Pub. Peplau, Lititia Anne, Daniel Perlman, eds. 1982. Loneliness. A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy. NY: Wiley Peters, S.D., G.E. Wyatt, and D. Finkelhor. 1986. “Prevalence.” Pp. 15-59 in A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse, edited by D. Finkelhor. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Powers, William T. 1973. Behavior: The Control of Perception. Chicago: Aldine. Quinn, A. James. 1991. NCCB Guidelines and other considerations in pedophilia cases. Presented in 1990 in Columbus, Ohio, at the Midwest Canon Law Society. Rice, David.1990. Shattered Vows. Priests Who Leave. NY: Triumph Books. Rich, Vera. 1999. “Marry now…or not at all.” London Tablet, October 23. Richardson, John D. 2004. “Isolating frequency scale effects on self-reported loneliness.” Personality & Individual Differences. 36:235-244. Rokach, Ami. 2001. “Criminal offense type and the causes of loneliness.” Journal of Psychology. 135:277-291. ------. 2000a. “Offense type and the experience of ‘loneliness’.” International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology. 44:549-563. ------. 2000b. “Perceived Causes of Loneliness in Adulthood.” Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. 15:67-85. ------. 1990. “Surviving and coping with ‘loneliness’.” Journal of Psychology. 124:39-54. Rokach, Ami, Heather, Brock. 1997. Loneliness: A multidimensional experience. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior. 34(1):1-9. Rokach, Ami, Koledin, Spomenka. (1997). “Loneliness in jail: A study of the loneliness of incarcerated men.” International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology. 4:168-179. Rook, K.S. “Research on social support loneliness and social isolation: Toward an integration,” in: Akerlind, Ingemar. 1992. “‘Loneliness’ and alcohol abuse: A review of evidences of an interplay.” Social Science & Medicine. 34:405-414. Rossetti, Stephen J. 1994. “Priest Suicides and the Crisis of Faith.” America Magazine, October 29. Rothenberg, Robert E. 1995. The Plain Language Law Dictionary. NY: Penguin. Rubinstein, C. and Shaver, P. 1980. “Loneliness in two northeastern cities,” in The Anatomy of Loneliness, edited by J. Hortag and J. Andy. NY: International Universities Press. Russell, D. 1983. “The Incidence and Prevalence of Intrafamilial and Extrafamilial Sexual Abuse of Female Children.” Child Abuse & Neglect. 7:133-146. Russell, Daniel. 1982. “The Measurement of loneliness.” Ch. 6, in Loneliness. A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, edited by Peplau, Lititia Anne, Daniel Perlman. NY: Wiley Russell, Daniel, L. A. Peplau, and C. Cutrona. 1980. “The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence,” in Jones, Warren H. (1982). Loneliness and Social Behavior. Ch. 15 in Loneliness. A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, edited by. Lititia Anne Peplau and Daniel Perlman. NY: Wiley.. Schaeffer, Pamela. 1997. “Breaking Silence: Priests with AIDS Are Eager to Talk.” National Catholic Reporter, April 18. Schneider, Hans. 1997. “Sexual abuse of children: Strengths and weaknesses of current criminology.” International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology. 41:310-324. Schoenherr, Richard A. and David Yamane. 2002. Goodbye Father. NY: Oxford. Schoenherr, Richard and Lawrence Young. 1993. Full Pews and Empty Altars. Madison, WI: U. of Wis. Press. ------. 1990. “Quitting the Clergy: Resignations in the Roman Catholic Priesthood.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 29:463-481. Sedlak, A. 1991. National Incidence and Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect:1988. Revised Report. Rockville, MD: Westat. Simmel, Georg. 1995, 1903. “The Web of Group Affiliations.” The Emergence of Sociological Theory, edited by Serina Beauparlant. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Simpson, J.A. and E. S. C. Weiner. 1989. The Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sipe, A. W. Richard. 2003. Celibacy in Crisis. A Secret World Revisited. NY: Brunner Routledge. ------. 1995. Sex, Priests and Power. Anatomy of a Crisis. NY: Brunner Mazel. ------. 1990. A Secret World: Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy. NY: Brunner Mazel. Sullivan, Richard. 1970. “Comment—The Pros and Cons of Conjugal Visits in Prison Institutions.” Journal of Family Law. 9:436-440. Staff Reports. 2004. Bishops accused of sexual misconduct. CST, January 21. http://www.wfaa.com/s/dws/spe/2002/bishops/stories/061202dnmetbishside.1d915.html) Retrieved March 14, 2004. Stravinskas, Rev. Peter M. J. 1991. Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing. Sutherland, Edwin H. 1992. “Sutherland’s Theory: An Example of a Socialization Theory.” Sociology of Deviant Behavior, edited by Marshall B. Clinard and Robert F. Meier. FL: Harcourt. Thomas, Gordon. 1986. Desire and Denial: celibacy and the church. Boston: Little, Brown. Thomas, Judy. 2000. “Report Explores AIDS, Priests.” Associated Press in Kansas City Star. Kansas City, MO., January 29. (http//www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/37743133.129.html).Retrieved January 20, 2000. Tomasello, Michael, Ann Cole Kruger, Hilary Horn Ratner. 1993. “Cultural Learning.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16:495-552. Turner, Jonathan H. 1995. Sociological Theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Van Wormer, Katherine, Frederick L. Bates. 1979. “A Study of Leadership Roles in an Alabama Prison for Women.” Human Relations. 32:793-801. Ward, David A. and Gene G. Kassebaum. 1964. “Homosexuality: A Mode of Adaptation in a Prison for Women.” Social Problems. 159-177. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law. 1996. Springfield, MA: Merriam Webster. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. 1969. Springfield, MA: Merriam Webster. Weiss, R.S. 1982. “Issues in the study of loneliness.” Ch. 5 in Loneliness. A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, edited by Lititia Anne Peplau and Daniel Perlman. NY: Wiley ------. 1973. “Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation.” In: Jones, Warren H. 1982. “Loneliness and Social Behavior.” Ch. 15 in Loneliness. A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, edited by Lititia Anne Peplau and Daniel Perlman. NY: Wiley. West, Donald A., Robert Kellner and Maggi Moore-West. 1986. “The effects of ‘loneliness’: A review of the literature.” Comprehensive Psychiatry. 27:351-363. Wilkes, Paul. 1991. “Profiles. The Education of an Archbishop II (Rembert Weakland).” The New Yorker, July 22. Wimberley, Dale W. 1989. “Religion and Role Identity: A Structural Symbolic Interactionist’s Conceptualization of Religiosity.” The Sociological Quarterly, 30:130. Winter Report, The. 1990. Archdiocese of St. John’s. Newfoundland, Canada, 36. Wood, V. Wylie, M.F. and Shaefor, B. 1969. An analysis of short self-report measures of life satisfaction: correlation with rater judgments. Journal of Gerontology. 2:465-469. World Almanac. 2005. NY: World Almanac Books. World Book Encyclopedia. 2005. Chicago: World Books, Inc. Wyld, Henry Cecil & Partridge Eric H. 1969. Complete and Unabridged the Little & Ives Webster Dictionary. NY: J.J. Little & Ives Co. Zonana, H., Gene Abel, John Bradford, Steven Hoge and Jeffrey Melzner. 1998. APA Task Force Report on Sexually Dangerous Offenders. Unpublished. ************************

The Mandatory Celibacy/Clergy Sexual Abuse Research and Findings--Chapter 10

Louise Haggett, 2010, All Rights Reserved 1. The Priest Study*--1997 2. The Victim Study*--1999 3. The Adult Victim Study*-1999 4. Homosexuality and Clergy Sexual Abuse* 5. What Were His (Priest) Needs?* 6. The Loneliness Study*--2003 7. General Conclusion* *Featured in The Bingo Report: Mandatory Celibacy and Clergy Sexual Abuse 1. The Priest Study-1997 Intersubjectivity best describes the team conducting the Priest Study at Framingham State College in 1997. Like the public perception of clergy sexual abuse, the team, whose leader was non-Catholic with a 4.0 GPA and led by a Jewish Sociology professor hypothesized that clergy sexual abuse was the same as general population abuse. I, of course, saw differences. These opposing views lent more credence to the research and helped make our findings “objectively true,” probably the best scenario when researching something so controversial." Are factors in a celibate priest committing the act of sexual abuse the same as general population sexual abuse?" became the sociological question. Using Georg Simmel's social “Learning Theory" provided the background for our hypothesis regarding influence on the subculture of the priesthood that might lead to deviance of vows/promises of celibacy/chastity. Was it the subculture of the priesthood or earlier socialization (families and society in general) that dictated sexual attitude and/or behavior? The self-administered questionnaire was sent to 248 random priests from a random list in The Official U.S. Catholic Directory (Kenedy 1996). Thirty-one percent (N=77) responded.

The demographics were well balanced so we had a good cross-section of priest respondents:

• 8% had been ordained between 1-10 years, every other ten-year period up to 41+ years had between 21-27%.
• 25% had entered seminary between 13-15 years old; 42% between 16-19 years old; 17% between the ages 20-29 years old; and only 6% over 30+ (probably second-career priests).
• 69% had dated prior to seminary.
• 67% were diocesan priests and 31% religious order, almost identical to the actual priest census--66.1% diocesan and 33.9% religious order.

Priest respondents were surveyed regarding their beliefs with follow-up questions to see if their actual behavior correlated with their beliefs. We asked whether they believed that priests in general were divine beings; did they adhere to the vow or promise of celibacy/chastity?; did they believe in divine retribution for breaking vows (was it a sin) and did priests adhere to the vow(s) because of their belief or not. They were then asked if priests in general broke their vows because of sexual freedom in society or because of their own sexual needs.

A separate section dealt with how much the church knew that priests broke their vows. If there was knowledge, how—if at all--were priests disciplined. Lastly, priest respondents were asked if they believed in optional celibacy and whether or not priests should be allowed to marry. This was essentially the same question, following the pattern used for other variables throughout the questionnaire.

Our findings were significant. Of particular interest were the unexpected contradictions from priests in general. Worthy of note was the dichotomy that existed in responses between the attitudes of respondents toward adhering to their promises or vows in contrast with their behavior regarding breaking them. While they said they believed in one thing, the action reported contradicted what they said they believed. For example,

• Do you adhere to your vows? 87% said yes.
• Do you occasionally not adhere? 43% said yes.
• Do priests break their vows? 93% said yes.
• Do you break your vows? 87% said no.
• Do you believe in Divine Retribution [sinful] for breaking vows? 68% said no.

The Likert Scale which goes from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree was very telling in some of the more difficult questions below such as “sexual needs,” as well as in the responses that might have implicated the Catholic institution regarding what the hierarchy knew, prior to the 2002 revelations. The option “Neither Agree/Nor Disagree” – a noncommittal response – highlighted these variables.

• Do priests have sexual needs? 94% said yes.
• Do priests break their vows because of sexual needs? 47% were non-committal* or said no.
• Does the church acknowledge that priests break vows? Of those who responded, 94% said yes.
• Does the church discipline priests who break vows? Of those who responded, 55% said yes and 45% were non-committal or said no.
• How often does the church discipline priests who break vows? Of those who responded, 15% said "frequently," 56% said "occasionally" and 29% said, "not often, never or only when it becomes public knowledge," the latter response written in.

The most significant finding of this study, however, came in the open-ended question that asked about "other factors" that would make priests break their vows. The answers included:

59% because of loneliness, lack of intimacy, marriage and family* 16.9% because of weakness 6.8% because of lack of prayer 6.8% because priests were frustrated with church policies regarding mandatory celibacy 6.8% because of substance abuse 1.7% because of societal pressures 1.7% other issues

*As little as 10% in a "written-in" response is considered significant in quantitative studies, 59%, therefore is very noteworthy.

The research team anticipated a measurable difference in attitudes and behaviors among priests based on their degree of socialization--whether or not it made a difference if they entered seminary before or after puberty, whether or not they dated prior to entry, whether or not the length of stay would solidify their vocation, whether or not they lived in community with other priests (religious order priest) or in a parish house in a more public environment (diocesan priest).

We discovered that the length of time a priest was in the priesthood made more of an impact on his attitude and behavior than any other factor and that it didn't matter if he was a diocesan or religious order priest. We concluded that the long-term socialization pattern within the subculture of the priesthood and not prior socialization (general population) played a major role in the behavior of priests and that their behavior was different from their attitude.

2. The Victim Study-1999

The Loneliness factor in the priest survey—a latent variable—did not become a highlight until 2003 when the findings from the Priest study and the 1999 Victim study were compared in preparation for The Bingo Report manuscript. Because CITI Ministries was continuing to grow and was now subject to a full advisory board comprising over 20 members, the research was beginning to take a back seat to the everyday demands of our website http://www.rentapriest.com/.

After Fr. Tom Economus, National Coordinator of The Linkup (victim support organization) read the Priest Research Report in 1999, he suggested that a study be conducted among Linkup's victim membership because it had never been done. Based on his experience in providing support to victims, he also believed that the victim demography might be different than general population child sexual abuse victims. He offered to take a questionnaire and send it confidentially to the victims on his list. By then, a compatible working relationship had been established with Framingham State College professor Lucille Lawless, a sociologist and criminologist. Prof. Lawless had a keen interest in the subject matter since one of her prior theses many years before had been on the subject of married priests. She offered to mentor me through the Victim Study, something I would have never attempted alone. The Center for the Study of Religious Issues was formed so that the research could be conducted in an independent setting.

I continued to wonder if claims by the church that clergy sexual abuse was the same as general population abuse would bear themselves out if a target population of clergy victims were to be segregated from other sexual abuse victims. The investigation for prior research on child sexual abuse uncovered a 25,000 general population sample from a compilation of 19 prior retrospective studies that was collected by David Finkelhor, a Professor and Director of the Family Research Laboratory now Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. These demographics provided the basis for our study.

I took the project to Professor Lawless and she helped me devise a 29-question survey instrument that would be mailed by Fr. Tom to his list. Eight demographic questions would determine who the respondents were, and the remaining questions would be about their abuse experience. We also included a section on "how much the church knew and what they did about it."

The survey was mailed to 959 reported victims, of which 131 valid instruments were returned. Even though the questionnaires had been sent confidentially, the majority of responses included contact information and many thanked us for our interest in hearing what victims had to say. Surprisingly, 31% of the respondents had been abused as adults so it was necessary to provide a separate report since the Finkelhor's 19-study population ended at 18 years old.

The sociological question was: "Is a Sexually Abusing Roman Catholic Priest a Pedophile?" One of our hypotheses was that victims of priest perpetrators were older than victims among the general population, therefore would not fall into the “pedophilia” category--generally pre-pubescent. The American Psychiatric Association's (APA) 1993 edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) gave no distinction for pedophilia between victims who were four or 15 years old. The word "ephebophilia" (post-pubescent/adolescent victims) had already been coined by Johns Hopkins Sexologist John Money (Love and Love Sickness, 1980) and was currently being used by many researchers.

Our victim study findings indicated vast differences between clergy sexual abuse victims and general population victims when compared to the Finkelhor 19-study compilation of 25,000 general population child sexual abuse victims. For instance,

Duration of Abuse: 68.5% of General population victims were abused only once, compared to 17.5% of the victims of clergy sexual abuse. 56.7% of Clergy sexual abuse victims were abused one year or longer.

Age of Victim: Average general population victims of child sexual abuse were between 7-13 years of age (pedophilia).On the other hand, the average clergy sexual abuse victim was 10-15 years old (ephebophilia).

Gender of Victim: Under 18 years of age, 80% of the general population victims were female. Clergy victims under 18 years old were 93% male.

Age of Perpetrator: Average age of general population sexual perpetrators was early 30s with 33% under 18 years old, whereas 47% of the clergy perpetrators over 40 years old.

Our conclusion recommended that further research be conducted among the priest subculture and that the American Psychiatric Association adopt correct definitions for pedophilia and ephebophilia in new printings of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) as follows:

(excerpt from The Bingo Report: Mandatory Celibacy and Clergy Sexual Abuse [p110].)

DSM-IV-TR (2000) acknowledges various forms of "pedophile" sexual perpetrators such as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, regressed (attracted to children at times of stress), fixated (primarily attracted to prepubescent children), and incestual and nonincestual perpetrators. The concept of rape, also included in DSM-IV-TR, has reached a consensus among the disciplines and creates no confusion regarding related research or treatment or incarceration.

Since there are new definitions available and in common use among the research community regarding child sexual abuse, and since there is documentable evidence that not all child sexual abuse has the same characteristics, it seems appropriate to: 1. Accept and include the following as universal terminology in future printings of DSM to describe child sexual abuse, as well as in sociological and other scientific dictionaries and encyclopedias: A. Infantophilia: Sexual activity, whether physical or otherwise, with an infant child or children (generally age 0-5). (The Bingo Report reviews research by Kalichman [1991], Ames and Houston [1990], and Greenberg, Bradford and Curry [1995] to support this statement.) B. Pedophilia: Sexual activity, whether physical or otherwise, with a prepubescent child or children (pre-pubescent 6-12 [see note below*]). C. Ephebophilia: Sexual activity, whether physical or otherwise, with a post-pubescent or adolescent child or children (post-puberty 13-18).

*New data appearing in Magill’s Dictionary (Dawson 1998) speaks of "precocious puberty" beginning at ages 8 for girls and 9 for boys, where normal puberty onset is indicated for females between the ages of 10-12 and boys between the ages of 12-14. If this is adopted as the norm, it may place many more victims in the "ephebophilia" category.

Until such time as the APA considers more suitable terminology to remedy the current confusion regarding the relevant concepts being discussed, we recommend that the proposed distinctions of infantophilia, pedophilia, and ephebophilia be adopted by the scientific community at large so that future studies can be more reliable.

We also recommended that the APA

2. Subcategorize study populations for future research on child sexual abuse.

3. Use consistent methodology especially regarding demographics and peculiarities being studied.

(The APA reported in January, 2010 that "ephebophilia" would be considered for the next printing of DSM.)

3. The Adult Victim Study

The Adult Victim statistics produced significant findings. Since our general population frame of reference was child sexual abuse ending at age 18, the adult findings were provided as a separate report in The Bingo Report, as stand-alone observations.

The most notable statistic was the dramatic shift from male to female victims among victims beyond 20 years of age--94.5% female and 5.5% males, compared to 93% clergy sexual abuse male victims in the adolescent category. While there was very little research available on sexual abuse in other religious denominations in 1999, which could be compared to Catholic clergy abuse, we found one study which indicated that, "all the Protestant survivors (among the study population) were abused as adults and all were women" (1994 McLaughlin)

Based on our findings, therefore, the only clergy sexual abuse perpetrators or victims that can be compared to general population abuse would be the abuse of adults by priests. Our research findings, therefore, disprove that child sexual abuse by priests is the same as general population abuse. Additional data is available in The Bingo Report: Mandatory Celibacy and Clergy Sexual Abuse (available through Amazon.com or via the bookstore at http://www.rentapriest.com/.

4. Homosexuality in Clergy Sexual Abuse

We investigated homosexuality as a possible factor in clergy sexual abuse for our Victim Report. The only papers we were able to find in 1999 regarding deviant sexual activity in same-sex institutions reported that in prisons the prevalence of homosexual behavior was 69% versus 13% among the general population, and that 90% of the prisoners who engaged in homosexual activity in prisons were heterosexuals who began that practice in the prison system and who reversed to heterosexual activity once released (Ward and Kassebaum 1964).

According to Christopher Hensley (2001) of the Institute for Correction Research & Training in Kentucky, "Men immersed in single-sex environments, such as boarding schools, the military, remote work sites and correctional institutions, have been long known to engage in sexual activities with one another, yet staunchly maintain a heterosexual identity. Sexual activities with other men are defined as simply a response to the deprivation or a lack of mixed-sex interactions. General belief holds that most men engaged in situational same-sex activities would return to heterosexual sexual activities once removed from the segregated environment."

There is further research referred to in The Bingo Report that supports these statements. John Jay College of Criminal Justice has conducted its own research on possible causes of clergy sexual abuse has also indicated homosexuality is not a factor (AP,2009). With reference to priests and male children, logic would tell us that in the era of our study population (victims abused in the 1960s-1980s), there were no female altar servers making young male altar servers more convenient. The fact that girls were “off limits” and boys were okay was also admitted by Fr. Canice Connors at the 1993 NFPC Conference. We therefore conclude that homosexuality is not a factor during the period of our study population.

5. When Was Abuse Reported?

At the time of our Victim Study in 1999:

• 18% of our total respondents (children and adults) still had not told anyone about their sexual abuse by priest perpetrators.
• 39% took 20 or more years to tell anyone.
• 5% reported it twice with many years in between because no one believed them the first time.
• 3% reported it when it happened.

65% of the respondents said they told two or more people. We concluded that once the secret was out, the more people who were told, the better the healing. Of the people who were told, 28% were church officials, 9% legal authorities, 10% professionals (counselors, etc.), 9% media and only 2.7% parents.

6. What Were His (Priest's) Needs?

The options for response to the priest perpetrator’s needs were Biological (described as natural sexual need), Emotional (loneliness), Authoritarian (abuse of power) and Other (open ended). The respondents were asked to check off as many "needs" as they felt applied.

Over 50% of the victim/survivor respondents retrospectively indicated that the needs their perpetrator(s) had included Biological (natural sexual need) and Emotional (loneliness). A large percentage of clergy victims/survivors today hate not just their perpetrators, but all priests as a result of their own victimization, so we found significant that victims would have any kind of sensitivity towards priest perpetrators.

7. The Loneliness Study--2003

That 60% of priest respondents and over 50% of victim/survivor respondents would acknowledge "loneliness" and "lack of intimacy" as reasons for either breaking celibacy vows or in the case of victims, needs of the priests, suggested further research prior to the publishing of The Bingo Report. A literary review of books and articles on the celibate priesthood was therefore pursued in 2003.

The following quotes appeared in various publications:

• Dean Hoge 2002: "Among priests who resigned their clerical ministry, the only thing in common in the four sets of reasons for leaving was loneliness" (102).
• James Gill (Hoge, 2002): "...13 stresses that priests have. Number one was loneliness" (102).
• Donald Cozzens 2000: "Among priests who came to [him] to announce leaving, few expressed anger at Church, pastor or of unforgiving parishioners. Not one mentioned loss of faith...many did, however, speak of loneliness and a desire for intimacy" (25).
• Schoenherr and Young 1993: "NORC [National Opinion Research Center] found resignations more frequent among young priests who found loneliness a personal problem" (222).
• A.W. Richard Sipe 1990: "The depth of the aloneness that must be embraced to support celibacy cannot be minimized" (63). "Lonely is one of the most frequent replies when one asks a celibate how he feels" (260). "The person who cannot tolerate true aloneness cannot move beyond this level of celibacy and therefore remains vulnerable to sexual compromises even after years of discipline" (261).
• A.W. Richard Sipe 2003: "for priests in for 22-27 years [37-42 years of age--see age of perpetrator], it is lack of companionship rather than sexual discharge that threaten the celibate commitment" (298).*
• Archbishop Rembert Weakland to The New Yorker 1991: "Men who leave the priesthood because of loneliness are not weak. They are simply good men who have fallen in love with good women" (53)

*Sipe’s research supports our findings in both the Priest Study and the Victim Study in terms of the longer a priest remains in the priesthood, the more he struggles with loneliness (Priest Study); as well as the average age of priest perpetrators (Victim Study).

Further, general research on persistent intense loneliness clearly demonstrates strong correlations with low self-esteem (in some instances, high self-esteem leading to an authoritative nature), substance abuse, suicide, and crime (Rokach 2001, 2000b, 1990, Kim 1997, Nurmi et al. 1997, Jones and Carver 1991, in Nurmi et al. ibid, Jones 1982, Weiss 1982, Brennan 1982). Researchers also agree that, "Voluntary solitude is not synonymous with loneliness. Lonely people do not voluntarily enter into that emotional state; rather they 'find themselves' feeling sometimes desperately lonely for reasons even they may not fully understand. Loneliness is fundamentally debilitating" (Booth 2000).

One of the reasons “loneliness” may not have been considered, or acknowledged, in the causal factors is that for the hierarchy or for a priest—a male—to admit intense loneliness would be to admit weakness among a subgroup whose persona projects authority and spiritual strength. The idea of being weak makes the priest fallible in a culture that has idealized him as a divine being and puts him on a pedestal with other Catholic icons such as Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is a difficult role to play, tough even for some priest researchers though not so tough when they are reporting on one of their priest research subjects.

Prior to 1993, the American Psychiatric Association's DSM listed "intense loneliness" as a "differential diagnosis" under the heading of "pedophilia." It was eliminated in future editions, however.

Loneliness is discussed in more detail in The Bingo Report.

8. General Conclusion

The church is not questioned when it claims that clergy sexual abuse is the same as general population abuse. Its authority is still believed in some circles. Yet there is so little research on the subculture of the priesthood using mandatory celibacy as a variable that is not present in general population sexual abuse nor other research on same, and the church hierarchy has done a good job discouraging it as previously stated.

Evidence in The Bingo Report indicates that both the demographic profiles of the majority of priest perpetrators and the characteristics of sexual abuse victims that they inflicted are too different to suggest any similarities between clergy sexual abuse and sexual abuse in other segments of society. The only exception would be the sexual abuse of female adults (approximately one-third of female clergy abuse victims among our study population), characteristics of which mirror the general population studies.

We conclude that just as loneliness/depression/low self-esteem/substance abuse/crime/suicide are overlapping problems in general society, the problem of clergy sexual abuse is related to loneliness made more intense because of mandatory celibacy, not celibacy that was freely chosen. Our data indicate that for the majority of priest sexual perpetrators, the abuse is more a result of the length of time they are forced to live a lifestyle without an intimate relationship, be it male or female, than it is a pre-existing condition. This would be consistent with the Gratification Theory coined by behavioral scientist Abraham Maslow, in which he lists as the first level of basic needs necessary for an individual to reach self-actualization [self-esteem]: food, water, sleep and sex (Maslow 1954:16).

We also conclude that, with the exception of a few extreme cases, the majority of perpetrators are neither pedophiles nor ephebophiles when they first enter into the priesthood. In a transcribed speech given in 1990 to the U.S. Conference of Bishops and used in part in several U.S. clergy sexual abuse trials and other published pieces, civil and canon lawyer Bishop A. James Quinn states that there were biological (sex drive) and psychological (loneliness) consequences of mandatory celibacy. An older report that pre-dates the celibacy discussions in the year 1139 indicates that Bishop Imola of Italy told the Council in his efforts to stop the Council’s vote on mandatory celibacy, “When celibacy is imposed, priests will commit sins far worse than fornication. Since some men cannot live by the council [sic] of perfect chastity, they will seek sexual release wherever they can find it” (Barstow 1982:112). More recent research regarding celibate Japanese monks has provided evidence that over a hundred years ago at the turn of the twentieth century, the Japanese government abolished mandatory celibacy among Japanese monks because of the deviant behavior that was taking place among them (Jaffe 2001). The church has therefore been aware for many years of the connections between mandatory celibacy and clergy sexual abuse in the United States and elsewhere. The unfortunate victims have been our innocent children.

Finally, there may be accusations of bias regarding this research and report because of my association with CITI Ministries, a married priest ministry. The only reason for my involvement in the research was that I was unable to find anyone in or out of the church or academia who was willing to study clergy sexual abuse as a subculture in order to examine possible differences between that abuse and general population abuse. All studies conducted to date (1996), with the exception of those regarding Infantophilia, combined all victims making it impossible to find potentially hidden statistics and demographic disparities. I had not been prepared to give up a career that would reduce drastically our family’s income and was also not able to obtain research grants due to the controversial nature of the subject matter. I realized, however, that if I did not follow up scientifically on my earlier observations, children would continue to be sexually abused by priests and the pattern might not be broken.

It was crucial that whatever research was to be conducted be both valid and reliable. A diverse academic research team at Framingham State College with the help of Sociology Professor Dr. Marion Cohen, and later the Center for the Study of Religious Issues with sociologist and criminologist Lucille Lawless as consultant and mentor, gave the work the integrity it needed. In particular, Professor Lawless’ assistance was invaluable. My discoveries had been rejected by church reform organizations as was the whole issue of clergy sexual abuse. In fact, one such organization forced me to sign a document that I would not tie my CITI work with the research. There also was resistance at Framingham State College during the Priest Study--threatening calls to Dr. Cohen from church officials trying to stop the study on the basis of the First Amendment, an argument they are still using in some court cases.

“But if any of you causes one of these little ones who trusts in me to lose his faith, it would be better for you to have a rock tied to your neck and be thrown into the sea” (Matthew 18:6). The Bingo Report: Mandatory Celibacy and Clergy Sexual Abuse, the scientific research from which the above was written is available through Amazon.com and the http://www.rentapriest.com/ bookstore. Louise Haggett, 2010 All Rights Reserved. CSRI99@AOL.COM 207-729-7673 ###