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 ###
