The John Jay report shows that the scandal peaked in the 1970s and that celibacy is not to blame, writes David Quinn.
An extremely important report was published last week in the United
States.
It is the first ever to systematically analyse the nature of the
clerical sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church.
A great deal of
what it has to say is completely applicable to the Church in Ireland.
The report was commissioned by the American bishops who put up most
of the $1.8m it cost to produce. But some of the money was provided by
the American government.
In addition, it was independently written by
the John Jay School of Criminal Justice in New York.
Ever since the abuse crisis came to public attention, certain
questions have been asked repeatedly -- for example, is the crisis
connected with priestly celibacy, or with the fact that only men can be
ordained?
Has it something to do with homosexuality?
Has it a connection
with the sex revolution? Was it the result of poor seminary formation?
Were most of the abusers paedophiles as such?
What the study finds, or rather confirms, is that the vast majority
of abuse cases that occurred between 1950 and 2010 -- a 60 year period
-- happened between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s with the peak period
by far being the 1970s.
There was a sharp and spontaneous drop-off from
1985.
This is the key to understanding the nature of the crisis.
For
example, if priestly celibacy or the male-only priesthood were to blame
then we would expect the number of abuse cases to be more or less even
over time.
This is because celibacy and the male-only priesthood have
existed for centuries and yet the crisis peaked in a very specific
time-period.
Therefore those who constantly point the finger at these factors
should stop doing so, but probably won't because in their campaign
against celibacy and male-only ordination the abuse crisis is a very
convenient weapon.
Is homosexuality to blame?
The report does note an increase in the
number of homosexuals joining the priesthood from the 1970s. It also
notes that 80 per cent of those abused were boys (the figure in Ireland
appears to be similar).
But it also points out that by the time many of these homosexual men
had been ordained and had entered active ministry, the abuse crisis
began to abate.
More controversially, the report says that only 5pc of those who
abused minors were paedophiles in the strict technical sense of that
term which means an attraction to pre-pubescent children.
The vast
majority of victims were above the age of 12.
Again, this appears to be
the case in Ireland.
What about the seminaries?
The report says that priests who received
poor 'human formation' were more likely to abuse than those who did not.
It also indicates that most priests abandoned further spiritual
direction within only a few years of being ordained.
In trying to explain why the scandals reached their peak in the
1970s, the report notes that this was a time of great social upheaval,
turbulence and experimentation and that the sex revolution was getting
under way in earnest.
It indicates that many priests, who were poorly
formed spiritually and psychologically, completely lost their bearings.
Specifically, it says: ''The rise in abuse cases in the 1960s and
1970s was influenced by social factors in American society generally.
This increase in abusive behavior is consistent with the rise in other
types of 'deviant' behavior, such as drug use and crime, as well as
changes in social behavior, such as an increase in premarital sexual
behaviour and divorce.''
No study has been undertaken in Ireland of when exactly the scandals
peaked and why. But an analysis of the report into the Dublin
archdiocese shows that the vast majority of cases occurred in the 1970s
and 1980s, as in the US.
The reason we didn't know about the scandals then is that they
weren't being reported, but in fact the abuse problem is mainly historic
in nature and about 4pc of priests active in that period were
responsible for the horrors that were perpetrated.
Of course, the finding that certain social factors were partly
responsible for the abuse crisis is controversial. It makes it look as
though the Church is blaming something other than itself even though the
report is independently written and, as mentioned, partly US
government-funded.
But those who doubt whether social factors were in any way to blame
need to come up with their own explanations as to why the scandals
peaked when they did.
This study extends far beyond analysing when and why the scandals
occurred.
For example, it devotes a great deal of space to why Church
authorities didn't react properly to the scandals when they were made
known to them.
For this, it partly blames the culture of clericalism and
compares Church authorities with police forces that cover up police
brutality.
Overall, the report requires and demands very close analysis by all
those interested in this crisis.
It should be read by every bishop and
religious superior in the country and by every journalist who reports
the issue.
In addition, the National Board for Safeguarding Children should see
if there is anything in it that can be incorporated into its next
report.
For example, it would be extremely useful for it to produce a
table showing when, based on known cases, the scandals peaked in this
country.
It would very likely find they peaked at much the same time
they peaked in the US.
The public has a right to this information.