“Causes and Contexts” in Context.
A clear, balanced and thoughtful assessment of the new John Jay report from NCR.
Mary Gail Frawley O’Dea, an expert on sexual abuse, cuts to the chase:
1. It is not credible to link sexual abuse by priests to homosexual identity. It is a crime of opportunity.
2. Celibacy alone is not responsible either, though the indirect connection of celibacy to feelings of loneliness and isolation may play a role in abuse. (I would add the pressure on seminaries to pass along for ordination as many candidates as possible also contributes indirectly to abuse.) This in a priestly culture in which “celibacy is observed as much in the breach as in the practice.”
3. Since there are no tests that reliably identify abusers before they abuse, seminary and on-going formation and structures of accountability are crucial.
4. She tags the report on several shortcomings as well: its failure to be clear about the self-reported data they relied upon, the incredible assertion that bishops didn’t understand the scope or damage done by the crisis, blaming the media who reported the crisis rather than the leaders who tolerated and covered up for abusive priests, and the surprising lack of bibliography which would have helped readers educate themselves further.
In sum–she regards this report as one contribution–a valuable contribution–to an ongoing evaluation of sexual abuse by priests in the Church.
Thanks for posting this, Lisa. At the risk of stirring the hornet’s nest yet again, I largely agree with you and with Mary Gail.
(Buzzz.)
It seems like the report has been forgotten. Surprised?
What? By whom?
By all whose names fail to come up when you search for the John Jay Report on Google News.
Folks who care about the sex abuse issue will find this to be an intelligent and balanced appreciation moving forward.
Those who have biased views or think it’s allover will keep thinking that, except,
in the meantime there’s the Old Sod…..
Gerelyn: That makes no sense.
It may be a problem with my computer, but the NCR link to Frawley’s article in the posting above didn’t work for me. I do think Frawley’s piece is worth reading in full, so in case anyone else had my problem, here is a shot at another link:
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/john-jay-study-what-it-and-what-it-isnt
Here we go again! Just when it was safe to think that the John Jay study was quietly put on the library shelf where it could be thankfully ignored.
Before all the defenders of the John Jay study get worked-up into a froth, again, could someone please give us a citation where this study received an INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW in a professional journal capable of evaluating its research objectively?
As far as I can tell, that has yet to happen. And, the probability of it happening is next to nil.
The John Jay study will never be anything more than a very, very small fig leaf [Is this what you guys mean by "contribution?"] for the hierarchs, and their pliant supporters, until these issues and subjects are submitted to rigorous scientific methodologies by independent researchers who are not beholding to the hierarchs.
Let’s hope that O’Dea’s article at the very least opens to the possibility for more inquiry and research instead of grandstanding polemics and politics by parties who have a vested interest to defend.
I agree with Lisa Fullam and David Gibson. Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea’s piece is one of the best of the (oh so) many I have read on the John Jay report and the topic more generally. She addresses substantive, methodological, scholarly, and interpretive issues in a clear and even-handed manner. The title of her 2007 book, Perversion of Power, gets it exactly right.
The article has a sour-grapes feel. Clearly, the psychologist wishes the report had been done by psychologists, rather than criminologists.
David – you had other comments at NCR in which you accused her of bias because she used the researchers last name which you mistakenly thought was her first name. Would suggest that you have the sour grapes. She objectively and carefully covers your comment by stating that studies come from a variety of lenses; yet, she raises some points that have fair and objective value for any specific study.
Bill, my stupidity doesn’t cancel out her bias. And bias is fine – and in this case understandable and probably reasonable. What I objected to – or was trying to, clumsily – is that she lets it color her objections, rather than stating it up front. I think it would have been better if she’d prefaced her remarks with a statement that she regretted that John Jay didn’t include the psychological perspective, instead of just the criminological.
I have never been comfortable with designating “loneliness” as a causal factor in sex abuse. Many people are lonely and do not become abusers. I am not saying that loneliness is good or that celibates would not be happier people if they had more close, caring relationships. But to say loneliness contributes to abuse is to confuse causes with effects. Everybody is lonely at some time or another, most without having it morph into a pathology. On the other hand, if one is engaged in abusive relationships and is both hiding and struggling with this fact, I should think one would feel terribly lonely.
Mary Gail Frawley O’Dea in NCR: “Victims and advocates, on the other hand, lambaste the research as a dismissive invalidation of their pain.”
It would have been useful to know that Ms. Frawley-O’Dea identifies herself as a victims’ advocate and apparently serves as an expert witness against the Church. Such an affiliation doesn’t invalidate her views, of course, but it’s something that should be public acknowledged.
“Dr. Frawley-O’Dea’s response to the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church led her to assume a more public role as victim’s advocate. She . . . has served as an expert witness for plaintiffs in litigation with the Church, and testified before the Alaska State Senate Judiciary Committee in support of legislation removing the civil statute of limitations for sexual abuse.“
http://alumni.adelphi.edu/frawleyadea.php
Dr. Frawley O’Dea’s review deserves to be read completely and with care since it is a thoughtful, dense critique. Having read the study, I found this a valuable summary, especially as augmented by her special knowledge of the subject. It is particularly useful in sorting out the major strengths and weaknesses of the study which define the limits of any future value it may have. Validation of her views can be carried out by laying her paper and the study down side by side and comparing what the two say, item by item.
She usefully starts with the positive study contributions and significant findings. Her second half covers important faults and deficiencies of the study. It was interesting on a second reading to begin with the last half. My comfort level on then re-reading the positives was noticeably lower with the substantial methodological limitations fresh in mind than it had been on a first look.
In particular, the sloppiness in characterizing data uncertainties and consequent uncertainties in the study conclusions and the lack of a literature review used as Frawley O’Dea describes (“Seminal Sources”) are important limitations on the utility of the study. The first affects the significance to be attributed to key numerical and logical arguments and their conclusions. The second affects the role to be attributed to this study relative to the work that has gone on before, which it may confirm, contradict, or extend in a variety of ways. The latter requires further work, preferably soon.
@Patrick Molloy: she also addressed the USCCB in 2002, a talk which can be found on the USCCB website: http://www.usccb.org/bishops/frawley.shtml. So it seems incomplete, at best, to imply that she is simply “an expert witness against the Church.” She is also an expert witness TO the Church, or at least the magisterium. She concluded that talk with this hope:
“The Catholic Church and you, its American shepherds, are at a crossroads. Like the recovering victim of sexual abuse, you can choose to defend, deny, retrench, and rigidify. …But, as is the case for so many sexual abuse survivors, another road can be chosen. …This conference could become a new epicenter from which ripples the revitalization and restoration of souls. It is a matter of your will which road is taken. May great grace walk with you and guide you in the days to come. It has been a great grace to me to address you today.”
Thanks for that quote, Lisa. She seems to have a rather grand idea of herself – lecturing bishops on their care of souls.
The proposed guidelines that that 2002 conference came up with were, as I recall, rejected by the Vatican as being a too-harsh overreaction, failing to protect the rights of the accused – a fleeing in fear of an angry public. Maybe the bishops gave her too much credence.
I despair………………………nothing has changed.
Up here in Canada we had the recent case of a Bishop involved in the settlement negotiations, discovered coming through Canada Customs with kiddy porn on his laptop.
The continued foot dragging in the negotiations with victims.
You have the recent Grand Jury report.
The Cloyne report in Ireland paints a picture of the church officials lying to every state official, with the collusion of the Vatican
When will everyone realise that this is the true face of evil, not holiness.
Prime Minister Enda Kelly harshly criticized the Vatican on July 20, saying that Church leaders are steeped in a climate of “narcissism” and sought to defend their institutions as opposed to protecting children.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/spokesman-vatican-didnt-aid-irish-abuse-cover-up/#ixzz1Spbs34q5
I agree with Jim Jenkins and Jack Barry.
My respect for the John Jay College has plummeted.
“I have never been comfortable with designating “loneliness” as a causal factor in sex abuse.”
Me too. I think the sought-for quality is “isolation” combined with immaturity. I don’t know if that means that immature clergy are less free to offend when living in a community that will check their urges. Or if too many priests are thrust unprepared into a pseudo-eremitic life situation (the modern parish) when they’ve been trained in a largely semi-monastic life in a seminary community.
My own sense is that sex abuse and its institutional cover-up has a strong whiff of addiction. Maybe you can explain abusive clergy as lonely guys pining away for self-satisfaction, but what about the bishops? I wouldn’t be naive enough to think every instance of abuse and cover-up can be explained away by sexual addiction and codependency, but at the very least, a person expert in addiction should be consulted in any serious study. We know that the demands of ministry–and I speak of both laity and clergy–are prime environments for many of us to gain weight (my hand is up), indulge in alcohol or drugs, have affairs or be tempted by sex, or act out emotionally through anger, controlling behaviors, intimidation, passive aggressiveness, etc..
Sexual abuse in many cases may be a result of an addictive inclination, immaturity, emotional upheaval, and a lack of support for a healthy lifestyle that combine in various ways in vulnerable people. The assessment that it is hard to predict who will be an abuser indicates multiple possible factors leads me to think this is something closer to how and why people become addicts. Or at the very least this tack should be more seriously examined.
The Jay Study strikes me as akin to primitive science. Ptolemy’s epicycles explained planetary motion, but in a somewhat contorted way. It wasn’t until Copernicus forwarded the notion that the planets orbited the sun–not Earth, and Kepler refined laws of planetary orbits, that the intricacies of what we observed in the skies was largely and logically explained.
I think we’re in a similar situation today. We’re about as advanced in the psychology/pathology of sex abuse and cover-up as 15th century astronomers were in their field. There are reasons why clergy abuse and their bishops cover up. We just don’t grasp the whole picture yet.
I thought the important point re “loneliness” was that the (awful) crimes were crimes of opportunity (by stunted individuals.)
I think Mr. Smith’s continued cries about bias are, as others point out, signs of his own bias.
How dare an expert in the field, invited by bishops to speak to them, chasdtise them?
What a narrow point of view!
But as just pointed out above, the issue has moved beyond this to Ireland and to Rome.The defenders of the hierarchy and curia there are bringing out standard brands defenses about look at the other guy(se how bad the government’s role was) or it’s those naxty Irish anticlericals.
I think its good that Rome be brought up short as well as the US hierachy.
Smoothing things over and blaming the other guy are old apologetic games that do nothing to improvet hings.
I think O’Dea’s evaluation is both “fair and balanced” (and I am not being sarcastic).
[...] the recent dotCommonweal thread I commented on the Frawley-O’Dea assessment of the Jay study. Many commenters there [...]
Todd, Rita, Bob – would suggest that she is using the term “loneliness” in a very broad sense. Yes, it is connected to the salient point that most of these “crimes” seemed to be crimes of opportunity.
We do see much written about seminaries and psycho-sexual maturity and training. What is not mentioned much is that too many seminaries today continue to be separate, free standing environements – academics may or may not be connected to a large theological university with a diverse student and professor population.
There has always been a tension in seminary education between those who advocate for a separate almost monastery training period and those who see theology and priest education that goes hand in hand with other populations that may be studying liturgy, music, theology, etc. – lay, female/male, etc.
she is touching on a point that has been written about by Cozzens, etc. – seminaries creatae an “artificial” environment – they live, learn, study, etc. in a separate world that may include short spans of summer internships, weekly community involvement, etc. but they have a built in support system – both classmates and teachers. They are the “center” of the seminary existence.
Once ordained, this system disappears quickly. In addition, depending upon their placements, they run into negative push back; folks who may criticuze them; lack of support systems; they may be hundreds of miles from both seminary classmates and their own family. Currently, with a few exceptions (as she explains) the new priest is in a “sink or swim” model……note that most abuse occurred after the initial five years of ordination. By then, a new priest has either learned to swim or he may be sinking in a variety of ways – this can lead to isolation (to use Todd’s term) and poor decision making.
This is an area that needs much more USCCB and episcopal attention. Our Christian partners see this same phenomenon in rural or very small church appointments – even if they are married they lack professional support system which leads to poor decisions at times.
There is a trend in some areas in France to move from the model where each priest is alone in his rectory to the model where a group of three or four priests live together in the same rectory and jointly serve a cluster of (many) parishes. That seems to me to offer potential for mutual support.
I get the impression that in the Us. there are a number of parishes with lots of priests yet – but they tend to be rather well off.
Especialy of some ar ehelping out with other duties.
Whether that is good use of manpower is another question.
But Bill’s issue about seminaries and how our future parish priests are trained is indeed germane.
People keep talking about “crimes of opportunity” as if opportunity itself were a motive. That’s a red herring. Opportunities are merely conditions of possibilities of crimes. If there is an opportunity for a crime and the crime is committed, it’s because there was some *motive* for acting on the opportunity. Let’s not over-simplify.
Ann O. –
Good point. “Crime of opportunity” is a label introduced here intended to reflect the study finding that most abusing priests do not pick preferentially either younger or older children as victims. Most (42%) will abuse children from either age group if presented with an opportunity to do so. (Are there crimes of non-opportunity?) The label is misleading at least.
Frawley O’Dea’s next section, unfortunately labelled “Therefore”, goes on to mention “minimizing the opportunities for a priest to abuse” and “examples of opportunity-reducing actions”. There, the word makes sense.
Errata?
I just accidentally noticed a footnote on p.1 of the first printing of May 18:
“* The National Institute of Justice was incorrectly identified as a funder of this report released on May 18, 2011. We regret this error and any confusion it may have caused.”
This raises the question of whether other corrections are being inserted without the customary Errata notification to recipients of the original. I have no intention of searching to find out.
http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf
Is there any equivalent of Frawly- O’dea’s description of the abused on the abuser?
delete ” the abused on the”
I think it’s a mistake to call a lot of abuse crimes of opportunity. I am struck when reading some of the narratives of abuse against children, not just by priests, how many abusers create opportunities for abuse. In other words, they don’t just happen to be alone with a kid and lose their heads. In many cases, they established means and plans for being alone, often the same means over and over again — e.g., offering to take a boy living with a single mother on a camping trip, etc. One of the things that, in my view, tripped up some of the early responses to incidents of abuse was to view it as a crime of passion or, as you say, opportunity, rather than a manifestation of a deep pathology that would find means to express itself, along with excuses to justify itself.
Michael Cowtan at 7/22, 7:21 am:
I am not in favor of making comments that have already been posted elsewhere, But just this once, and I promise that I won’t do it again. (And i have made a few changes.)
Increasingly, the present pontificate and the pontificate of Pope John Paul II have asserted, in contradiction to what I believe is the more nuanced teaching of the Second Vatican Council, a “universal jurisdiction.” Bishops appointed since the mid-1980s on appear, for the most part, to have acquiesced in this retreat from the Council’s understanding of the local bishop’s role, and even to have accepted their appointments on those terms. But when a difficult situation, such as the Irish bishops now face, arises, Rome seems quick to place the blame and the need to respond on the local episcopate. You can’t, it seems to me, have it both ways.
Can the Roman Curia (and the papacy) really claim to have every answer under heaven for a universal Church of a billion people? What, after all, is the role of national conferences of bishops and of local bishops in their dioceses?
The present Irish government is no longer beholden to episcopal approval as was the case until fairly recently. It should not be held responsible for its predecessors’ submission to a hierarchy, with power to make or break political careers, as was too often the case from the establishment of the Republic till some years ago. Kissing rings in obsequious deference is now seen by the people of Ireland as an embarrassing anachronism.
Enda Kenny, according to recent polls, is at present the most popular politician in Ireland. He represents a new generation that has broken with the theocracy of the past. To label him “anti-clerical” is a hyperbolic (and convenient) overstatement, an exaggeration in recent days perpetuated by ecclesiastical apologists, both in Ireland and in England. As well as in the US.
for “overstatement” in the final paragraph READ “charge”
John Page ==
Fine post.
Might I note for the conservatives here: if you look carefully at posts such as John’s above, you’ll see that the liberals are not calling for the abolition of either the papacy or the bishops. We liberals are Catholics because we choose to be, and that includes a respect for the offices of bishop and pope. We are NOT anti-authoritarian, we are pro-legitimate authority. We even defend, as John does above, the prerogatives of one authority over another.
Complexity, complexity.
P. S. While I’m at it, thanks to you conservatives here who take the time and make the effort to dialogue. God will bless you for it, I’m sure.
Apropos Ann’s comment above, maybe this is true more time than not:
“A progressive is someone who keeps making the same mistake, while a conservative is someone who prevents a mistake from ever being corrected.”
G. K. Chesterton
“Can the Roman Curia (and the papacy) really claim to have every answer under heaven for a universal Church of a billion people? What, after all, is the role of national conferences of bishops and of local bishops in their dioceses?”
John P. ==
Rome seems to assume that it can do that very thing. This is why it appoints as bishops the “company man” type of person, someone who is a conformist by nature and who follows all orders and does so cheerfully.
Vatican II threatened this ecclesiology. That’s why there is all this nonsense coming out of Rome aboutt “continuity not rupture”. It wants to pretend that the Council did not make some very emphatic statements about the independent powers of bishops and the necessity for collegiality among them. Forget freedom of conscience, new views of Jews and Protestants, and the other things VII is famous for. It is the affirmation of the powers of individual bishops as *not* deriving from the pope that has made the Vatican dig in, back into the absolute monarchy which the Council rejects. The old boy network is fighting for its life.
Jimmy Mac –
Cons. Rule 2 – Never do anything for the first time.
Therefore, continuity, not rupture.
Imagine the Church if Jesus and apostles and the Councils felt that way.
Frawley-O’Dea has written a very good article. Her admonition of the bishops is right on target and is in the spirit of Catherine of Siena. The response to “She’s telling the bishops how to do their jobs,” is, for me, “Since they aren’t doing their jobs, perhaps they need to be told how.” They are supposed to be servant leaders, not little gods whose words and deeds cannot be questioned.
There is an interesting passage here:
“Jones and Finkelhor report that child sexual abuse declined 53 percent in America between 1992 and 2007 for a variety of reasons, including advances in mood-stabilizing and impulse-controlling psychopharmacologies; a booming economy that lessened stress on individuals and families; increases in the numbers of law enforcement and child protection personnel; more aggressive prosecution and incarceration policies; growing public awareness about the problems; and new treatment options for family and mental health problems.”
Many of these factors point toward Catholic social teaching on economic justice as a factor in preventing abuse: the availability of medication and of treatment to all, not just those who can pay high fees upfront: a just living wage for families; adequate taxation to pay for those who care for children, do research, educate, and do law enforcement. With all those things in peril in the current economy, I fear the numbers will begin to rise again.
Very interesting, c’s.d.