Catholic Clergy Abuse:
Parallels and Perspectives
Karen J. Terry
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Presented at: University of Michigan School of Social Work,
Safety of Minors on College and University Campuses
Abuse within Institutions
• Abuse prevalent in institutions where
adults mentor or spend time alone with
children and adolescents
• Two studies on sexual abuse of minors by
Catholic priests in the United States
– Nature and Scope
– Causes and Context
2
Abuse within the Catholic Church
• Annual meeting, June 2002
• The Charter for the Protection of Children and
Young People
• The Office of Child and Youth Protection
• The National Review Board
• Conduct two studies:
– Nature and Scope – understand what happened
– Causes and Context – understand why it happened
Nature and Scope Study
• Examine the characteristics and extent of
allegations of sexual abuse between 1950 and
2002
• Collect information about the alleged abusers
• Collect information about the characteristics of the
alleged victims
• Collect information about the financial impact of the
abuse on the Church
Nature and Scope:
Methodology
• Surveyed all dioceses and religious communities
about sexual abuse allegations against clerics
from 1950 to 2002
• Three surveys per diocese
– A profile of each diocese
– A survey for each priest with an allegation of abuse
in Church files
– A survey for each individual who made an allegation
of abuse against a priest
• Response rate: 97%
Nature and Scope:
Key Findings
• Number of abusers: 4,392 (approximately 4%
of priests in ministry during that time)
– Consistent across all sizes of dioceses and in all
regions (range = 3-6%)
• Number of victims: 10,667 (has since increased
with reports post-2003)
• Distribution of abuse incidents 1950 – 2002:
Rise in the 1960s, peak in the 1970s/ early
1980s, sharp decline by mid-1980s.
Distribution of Abuse Incidents
1950-2002
Distribution of Abuse Incidents
(Count of abuse incidents, JJC & CARA,1950-2002, 2004-2008)
2000
1800
1600
CARA
JJC
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1954 or 1955-19591960-19641965-19691970-19741975-19791980-19841985-19891990-19941995-19992000-20022004-2008
Earlier
Nature and Scope:
Reports of Abuse, by Year Reported
Characteristics of Priest
abusers
• Most were diocesan priests (approximately two-thirds)
and either pastors or associate pastors
• Range in age from mid-20s (in seminary) to 90 at first
incident of abuse
• Slightly more than half had one allegation of abuse;
about one-quarter had 2-3 allegations of abuse
• 3.5% of priests responsible for approximately 26% of
all sexual abuse acts against children (“career
criminals”)
• Most were “generalists” rather than specialists
Duration of Abusive Behavior
(where abuse is more than 1 year)
# Victims
1
2-3
4-9
10-19
20+
Overall
Mean Length of
Abuse (in years)
1.58
7.20
11.90
18.10
22.03
4.99
Range of Duration
in years
1-21
1-40
1-41
5-41
1-35
0-41
Nature and Scope:
Offender Types
Nature and Scope:
Victim Age and Gender
JJC & CARA Data:
Victim Age
50.3% 49.7%
CARA Totals
JJC totals
22.1% 22.4%
15.3%
12.3%
11.9%
< 9 yrs
10 thru 14
15 thru 17
16.0%
unknown
JJC & CARA Data:
Gender
JJC Data through 2002
80.9%
CARA DATA 2004 -2008
79.6%
20.4%
19.1%
Male
Female
Questions Raised
• What explained the peak of abuse behavior in the 1970s?
• Were there factors in society generally, or in the Catholic
Church, that led to the increase in abuse incidents?
• Are priest abusers unique, either to other priests or to nonclergy sexual abusers?
• Are there risk factors that might identify potential offenders?
• How has seminary education changed over this time period?
• What role did the Church leadership play in addressing the
abuse crisis, and when?
• What role did opportunity and situation play in the abusive
behavior?
• Why was the harm of sexual abuse not understood?
Causes and Context:
Methodology
Collected / analyzed multiple sources of data:
• Longitudinal analyses of data sets of various types of behavior
(for example, crime, divorce, pre-marital sex) (Historical analysis);
• Analysis of seminary education, history and the development of a
human formation curriculum, as well as information from
seminary leaders (seminary analysis);
• Surveys of and interviews with inactive priests with allegations of
abuse, and a comparison sample of priests in active parish
ministry who had not been accused (identity and behavior
survey);
Methodology (cont)
• Interview and primary data from the 1971 Loyola University study
of the psychology of American Catholic priests (baseline study of
priests at the peak of the abuse crisis);
• Surveys of survivors, victim assistance coordinators and clinical
files about the onset, persistence and desistance of abuse
behavior (victim and situational analysis);
Methodology (cont)
• Surveys of bishops, priests and other diocesan leaders about
the policies that were put in place after 1985; meetings with
victim advocates who played a role in responses to the abuse
crisis (leadership analysis); and
• Analyses of clinical data from the files from three treatment
centers, including information about priests who abused
minors as well as those being treated for other behavioral
problems (individual/psychological analysis).
Changes in Abuse Patterns Over
Time
• Identified a seminary cohort effect - differences in the patterns
of abuse for men ordained each decade:
– Time to first incident of abuse
•
•
•
•
•
1940s – 17 years
1950s – 12 years
1960s – 8 years
1970s – 5 years
1980s – 3 years
– Type/number of victims (e.g., 1940s/1950s “generalists”,
e.g., Father Maciel; 1960s “serial predators”)
– Pre-ordination sexual experience
Seminary Education and Influences
• Expansion of seminaries post-war
• Diocesan priests who would later abuse were
predominantly trained in major national seminaries
• Almost all major national seminaries graduated priests
who would later abuse minors
• Priests who attended minor (high school) seminaries not at
a significantly higher risk of abusing
• Evaluated the changes in seminary education over this
period of time; significant developments in teachings of
human formation (see Sr. Katarina Schuth)
Individual-Level Factors
• Are clergy with allegations of sexually abusing minors
distinguishable from non-abusers based upon:
– History of sexual abuse
– Developmental stressors (severe family disruption, i.e.,
death of a family member)
– Psychological and/or mental health problems
– Intimacy deficits (difficulty developing healthy emotional
relationships with others)
– Intelligence
– Sexual identity and / or pre-ordination sexual behavior
Clinical Data
• Priests treated for sexual abuse of a minor:
– More likely to have a history of sexual abuse (significant in
one clinical sample)
– Exhibited intimacy deficits, often emotional congruence with
adolescents, and often other problems (e.g., stress, obesity,
alcohol, gambling)
– No more likely that others to have diagnosable
psychological disorders
– 5% clinically diagnosed as pedophiles in two separate
clinical samples; abusive priests more likely to be
“generalists”
Psychological Testing Data
• MCMI: No significant differences were found on any of
the scales, which measure personality disorder traits
• WAIS: No Significant differences in WAIS (IQ) scores
were found between the three main treatment groups
• MMPI: No significant differences on primary scales.
The only clinically elevated MMPI subscale that
significantly differentiated clergy who abused minors
from clergy who had inappropriate relationships with
adults was Over-Controlled Hostility
Clinical Data:
Sexual Identity/ Behavior
• Most priests who sexually abused minors also had participated
in sexual relationships with adults (80%)
• Homosexuality and sexual abuse of minors
• Sexual experience – heterosexual or homosexual – before ordination
predicts sexual behavior after ordination, but with adults – not minors
• Sexual behavior was most often varied (in regard to age and gender)
• Most incidents of abuse occur before the 1980s – when homosexual
behavior in seminary reportedly increased
• Homosexual orientation alone is not a significant predictor of sexual
abuse of minors
• “Confused” sexual identity critical in 1940s/1950s cohorts
Organizational and Structural Factors:
Abuse
• Organizational factors played a role in abuse opportunities
• “Cultural” factors
–
–
–
–
–
–
−
−
−
High levels of isolation, discretion
Power/authority
Little direct supervision
Low level of peer support
Job-related stress
Negative feelings, behaviors
Loneliness, lack of intimacy
Poor self-care
Inappropriate relationships
Organizational and Structural Factors:
Responses to Abuse
• Hierarchical but decentralized organization; much autonomy
by diocese
• “Police” own bad behavior; little external oversight
• Similar to other organizations, e.g., police
–
–
–
–
–
–
“Rotten apples”; Individual, not organizational problem
Internal affairs bureaus
Lack of transparency in response to complaints
Developed external review boards (accountability to the community)
Commissions after highly publicized negative events
Highlight institutional nature of bad behavior; tolerated by peers,
leaders
Leadership Factors
• Gilbert Gauthe in 1985; led to widespread discussions
about sexual abuse of minors by Church leaders
• By 1985, sexual abuse cases had been reported in
slightly more than half of the dioceses
• Priest Councils or Priest Senates were active
participants in the early discussion in two-thirds of the
dioceses in the late 1980s
• Approximately 25% of the dioceses engaged a clinician
to help understand the problem
• Creation of the “Five Principles”; published in 1993
The Five Principles
(1) Respond promptly to all allegations of abuse where there is
reasonable belief that abuse has occurred;
(2) If such an allegation is supported by sufficient evidence, relieve the
alleged offender promptly of his ministerial duties and refer him for
appropriate medical evaluation and intervention;
(3) Comply with the obligations of civil law regarding reporting of the
incident and cooperating with the investigation;
(4) Reach out to the victims and their families and communicate
sincere commitment to their spiritual and emotional well-being; and
(5) Within the confines of respect for privacy of the individuals
involved, deal as openly as possible with the members of the
community.
Principles and Practice
Positive Reactions to Abuse Discussions:
• Leadership from Cardinal Bernardin
• Work of the AdHoc Committee
• Five Principles created
However:
• Five Principles not implemented consistently across dioceses
• Lack of consistency in responses to abuse, except for the
treatment of the priest (especially in 1990s); little transparency
• “Insiders” were engaged, but “outsiders” were rebuffed;
information was tightly controlled.
Failing the Spirit of the Five Principles:
1993 - 2002
• Diocesan leaders in many instances failed to meet with victims directly
• Reports from family members did not result in any follow-up from the
diocese
• Priests were sent for treatment, then returned to ministry; parishes
were not notified of the history of abuse
• Communication with civil authorities only in the most severe cases of
repeated abuse
• Some diocesan leaders who gave testimony under oath in civil cases
denied they had knowledge of abuse
• Focus on priests; lack of recognition of responsibility for harm to victims
Change in Diocesan Practices
• Change has happened, but slowly
• Lack of understanding of the timing of abuse incidents (in the
1960s & 1970s) and reports of abuse (in the 1990s and 2000s)
complicates diocesan explanations
• Understanding of the harm of abuse came slowly
• Delay in appropriate response was pronounced in large and
influential dioceses
• Dioceses must continue to provide for safe environment
education, be held accountable, and increase transparency in
response to abuse
Parallels Between the Catholic
Church and Other Institutions
• Not just a Catholic problem
• Abuse occurs in other religions, sports and
social organizations, schools
– Religion: Jewish, Protestant, Southern Baptist,
Episcopal, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormon
religions
• Extent of the abuse is unknown; anecdotally,
reports indicate widespread patterns of abuse
Schools and Childcare Settings
• Shakeshaft report
– Sexual abuse of children widespread in schools,
woefully understudied
– Teachers most likely to commit abuse were those
who spent individual time with the students
• Finkelhor and Williams
– Abuse most likely to occur with low staff presence
and in informal care settings
Social Organizations
• Boy Scouts of America, Big Brothers/Big
Sisters
– Boy Scouts – released files of approximately
1,800 abusers 1970 – 1991
– Organizational activities provided
opportunities for abuse to occur
Sports Organizations
• University
– Penn State: Individual (Sandusky) and
organizational (administrative) problems
• National Teams
– USA Swimming, Hockey, Olympic sports (e.g.,
weightlifting)
– Unique mentorship, individual attention, fear of
reporting
US Olympic Committee Response
• Created SafeSport Guidelines, with minimum
standards for athlete protection
• Required all sporting organizations to
implement guidelines by December 2013
USOC Minimum Standards Policy for
Athlete Protection
The athlete safety program shall include, at a
minimum, the following components:
1. Prohibited Conduct - A policy which
prohibits
and defines the six types of
misconduct
2. Criminal Background Checks
3. Education and Training
4. Reporting
5. Enforcement
Six Types of Misconduct Addressed by
SafeSport
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bullying
Harassment
Hazing
Emotional Abuse and Misconduct
Physical Abuse and Misconduct
Sexual Abuse and Misconduct
Conclusions
• Situational factors provide opportunity for
abuse in institutions with mentoring of
adolescents by adults
• Most organizations have implemented safe
environment training programs, but youth
are still at risk
• Cannot eliminate individual mentorship
Conclusions (cont)
• Lack of timely reporting
• Repercussions
– Organizational (e.g., legal, reputation)
– Individual (e.g., ostracized, leave institution)
• Shortcomings of background checks,
psychological tests
• Constraints of organizations to respond
Questions
• Difference in abuse by type of institution
– How do abusive relationships develop?
– Do situational factors differ?
– Role of oversight, organizational and cultural
factors?
• Decrease in sexual abuse since 1990s
– Effect of safe environment policies on abuse
within institutions?
Next Steps: John Jay Researchers
• Coding BSA files for situational factors
• Goal: Understand the situations in which
positive mentoring relationships
developed into abusive relationships
• Identify high-risk situations, “boundary
violating” behaviors
Thank you
Karen Terry
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
kterry@jjay.cuny.edu