"The 'crisis' of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is a historical problem," according to a just-released report
by the John Jay College research team (The Causes and Context of Sexual
Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010).
Isn't this wishful thinking?
The Causes and Context report isn't
claiming that abuse itself is a thing of the past. Its findings make
clear that "sexual abuse of minors is a long-term societal problem that
is likely to persist" in the church as well as outside it.
What the
researchers do observe is that the highest levels of reported abuse
happened during the 1960s and 70s, followed by a sharp drop-off in the
80s to the present low level. There are weaknesses in the data, of
course.
There's no way to know how much unreported abuse actually took
place at any given time.
But when the report says the "crisis" is
historical, it's pointing out that most of the cases that came to light
in 2002 – the explosion that prompted the bishops to commission studies
such as this one to learn exactly what happened and why – happened
before 1990, and today clergy sex abuse happens less often than was the
case several decades ago.
Here's hoping the data doesn't lie. But
even if the peak of the abuse is in the past, the resulting crisis of
confidence in church leadership is very much a present reality.
The
revelation that so many priests had abused minors was only part of the
scandal; just as damaging was the discovery that bishops had spent
decades prioritising the reputation of the church over the wellbeing of
victims.
Social awareness of the long-term damage caused by sexual
abuse grew dramatically during the period the study covers. During that
time, church leaders' responses to abuse allegations tended to focus on
the accused priests rather than the victims.
This "absence of
acknowledgment of harm was a significant ethical lapse", the study says,
and such ethical lapses became more obvious, and more egregious, as the
rate of reported abuse was dropping. The US bishops reacted slowly,
with misplaced priorities and too little accountability.
Even after
2002, when the Vatican approved new norms for responding to sexual abuse
allegations, compliance remained uneven. At the same time, Causes and
Context notes, the church lacked a "champion" who could motivate bishops
to confront the sexual abuse crisis openly and directly.
The obvious
candidate for that role was Pope John Paul II.
But no such leadership
came from Rome.
As a result, revelations of mismanagement are still coming forward. A recent grand jury investigation into sexual abuse allegations in the diocese of Philadelphia
resulted in criminal charges brought against four priests and the
removal from ministry of more than 20 others.
The grand jury found that
diocesan leaders had failed to follow their own guidelines even after
2002, leaving known abusers in ministry to offend again and obstructing
attempts to uncover the truth.
For the church to recover from the
scandal of sexual abuse, Catholics must trust the bishops to handle new
allegations responsibly and transparently. What's happening in
Philadelphia shows how far from that we are.
Responsible
leadership is especially critical because, according to Causes and
Context, abuse can't be prevented just by screening out "bad apples" or
making sweeping changes to the priesthood.
There is no basis for blaming
abuse on gay priests, nor can the policy of mandatory celibacy explain
the spike in abuse in the 1960s and 70s. The report found that "no
single psychological, developmental, or behavioural characteristic
differentiated priests who abused minors from those who did not".
Solving the problem, then, is not just a matter of purging the
priesthood of the obviously unholy. Prevention strategies must focus on
reducing the likelihood that any priest will turn to abuse. Successful
efforts so far include improvements in seminary formation and "safe
environment" programmes that eliminate opportunities for abuse to occur.
But that success still depends too much on bishops' individual
initiative.
Bishops need a transparent, uniform policy for dealing with
sexual allegations, and they need to commit to it without exception.
If
Causes and Context is correct, clergy sex abuse is happening less often
now, it's reported more quickly when it does happen, and it's being
dealt with more effectively. Some of this is the result of improvements
the church has made.
Much progress was due to journalistic and criminal
investigations that forced the truth into the light. Most of all, as the
report says, "it is the voices and narratives of victims that have
confronted priests, enabled dioceses to act responsibly, and brought
diocesan leaders to an understanding of the harm of abuse".
Listening to
the victims, and prioritising their needs, is the best way to prevent
abuse in the church. It is also the only way for the bishops to restore
faith in their ability to lead.
The crisis won't be over until the
perception that church leaders are more interested in preserving power
than in serving their people is history.