John Jay to U.S. bishops: homosexuality is not a predictor of clergy abuse (updated)
Big news from the AP:
A preliminary report commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops on the roots of the clergy sex-abuse scandal found no evidence that gay priests were more likely than heterosexual clergy to molest children, the study’s lead authors said yesterday.
The full $2 million study by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice won’t be completed until the end of 2010. But the authors said their evidence to date found no data indicating that homosexuality was a predictor of abuse.
UPDATE: Longer analysis by David Gibson over at Politics Daily.
“What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse,” said Margaret Smith, a researcher from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, which is conducting an independent study of sexual abuse in the priesthood from 1950 up to 2002. “At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and an increased likelihood of sexual abuse.”
A second researcher, Karen Terry, also cautioned the bishops against making a correlation between homosexuality in the priesthood and the high incidence of abuse by priests against boys rather than girls — a ratio found to be about 80-20.
“It’s important to separate the sexual identity and the behavior,” Terry said. “Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity.” Terry said factors such as greater access to boys is one reason for the skewed ratio. Smith also raised the analogy of prison populations where homosexual behavior is common even though the prisoners are not necessarily homosexuals, or cultures where men are rigidly segregated from women until adulthood, and homosexual activity is accepted and then ceases after marriage.
(…)
When asked by a bishop at Tuesday’s meeting whether homosexuality should be a factor in excluding men from the seminary, Smith responded, “If that exclusion were based on the fact that that person would be more probable than any other candidate to abuse, we do not find that at this time.”
Assuming that there are as many heterosexual priests as gay ones, does this imply that there are as manyp children abused by heterosexual priests as gay ones? If so, must we expect another avalance of scandals, this time about straight priests?
If so, I wonder how the Church here can survive as a credible institution. Or do I just not understand statistics?
Ann,
Your assumption is that gay priests molest boys and straight priests molest girls. What I believe the study to be saying is that just because someone sexually molests boys — a homosexual act — doesn’t make him a homosexual. I don’t think there is any question that the overwhelming majority of molestation cases of minors involve boys. But the reason is that young boys are much more available to priests than young girls.
You might think of prison sex or prison rape. It is often the case that heterosexual men enter prison, engage in homosexual sex in prison, and exit prison as heterosexuals who have no interest whatsoever in homosexual encounters. The important concept here might be faute de mieux. If heterosexual priests are molesting boys for the same reason that straight men have homosexual sex in prison — lack of anything better — it seems to me that might be at least one good argument against celibacy.
P.S. I don’t think the ancient Greek men who had sex with boys were “gay.”
I just hope this lays to rest the pernicious notion that the sexual abuse of children is somehow a homosexual problem, or that being gay makes one more likely to sexually abuse children.
I just hope this lays to rest the pernicious notion that the sexual abuse of children is somehow a homosexual problem, or that being gay makes one more likely to sexually abuse children.
Let us also hope it lays to rest the idea that “there are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), or, for that matter, in admitting candidates for the priesthood.
I agree with David on this; I also call attention to the SNAP statement, which I’m sure the hierarchy will brush off, but which contains a lot of truith; that what needs study is the issue of secrecy and its relationship particularly to secrecy in matters of sexuality concerning clergy in the Church.
David N – I agree with you. I don’t believe my children are endangered if their soccer coach or scout master is gay.
I hope this makes a difference to the Vatican but somehow I doubt it – the info that homosexuals are actually less likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals has been available for a while, and the same is true of the fact that same-sex parents have the same ability to be good parents as heteorsexuals ….
Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. — 200214, Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples, POSITION STATEMENT, American Psychiatric Association, 2004
I do not see how this will lay that issue to rest Jim.
I always figured that the quiet ordination in the early 70’s of gay priests (under a very mistaken notion of what celibacy is) was a big part of what led to the abuse scandal, and I would hazard a guess I am not alone. In fact anyone I have discussed this with feels basically the same way.
Regardless of what the Psychiatric experts say, hopefully common sense will prevail. Meanwhile it seems Pope Benedict XVI has set the Church on a good course regarding this.
Oh and my son would never be allowed to interact with a gay coach or Scout leader.
David and Jim; you cannot be serious.
You wouldn’t let your son “interact” with a gay coach or Scout leader? What does that mean? What about a gay priest?
I do not know of any gay priests, and I can honestly (and will honestly) say that I have never come across a gay priest in my 44 years.
In any case, the semenaries have been instructed by Rome to take care not to ordain gay men into the priesthood.
Mr. Gibson has a thread on this over at Daily Politics, and the coments are interesting in that there are many who refuse to beleive serious reseach in the area, preferring to cling to,IMO, their own biased views.
I thought one of the points here was if the sex abuse scandal had led Rome to rule out men for the priesthood who had a deep seated homeosexual orientation.
There’s also lots of reserach to show a goodly percentage of priests are gay, pace Ken’s personal experience.
So I guess part of the discussion is will the Roman view on this progress and will there be a more serious effort by the hierachy to look at the causes of the crisis, including whether they contributed thereto.
Ken, it is you who cannot be serious.
David and Jim; you cannot be serious.
Ken,
Not only am I serious; I am gay. And at age 62, I can say that of all the gay men I have ever known or even chatted with seriously on the Internet, I can think of only one who had any interest in underage boys. He was a married man with children of his own who was appalled that he felt attracted to young teens (say around 15) and never acted on it. Whether there was anything really “abnormal” involved I can’t say, since I would assume that a lot of straight men find “jail bait” attractive but would also never have sex with someone underage. Also, up until quite recently, the age of consent in Canada was 14, so exactly where one draws the line between what is forbidden and what is not is a matter of opinion.
Pedophiles tend to get themselves into positions where they have access to children, so I don’t think it is paranoid to be a little careful about coaches and scout leaders, but don’t be more comforted by the fact that they are married or even definitely heterosexual, or more worried by the fact that they are gay.
Ken: how do you know that you have not come across gay priests? Since they don’t clamor their sexual attraction on the roofs, are (I believe) celibate for the most part most of the time, and are discrete if they happen to be sexually active, how would you know?
Very few cases of clerical abuse of minors involved true pedophilia: the sexual abuse of pre-pubertal children. Pedophiles often claim not to be homosexuals, and they may well be correct is this claim, but pedophilia is not the main problem in clerical abuse.
Most cases involved children at or above the age of puberty, and the vast majority of the reported victims were male. Decades of studies by criminologists and psychologists have shown that boys are far less likely to report abuse than girls are, because boys fear the stigma of homosexuality and because males are supposed to suffer and not complain.
The John Jay report claims that is the abusive priests had equal access to females, they would have had equal number of male and female victims. This I doubt. I won’t go into the nature of the sexual acts that priest did with boys, but let us say that they were focused on the male genitals. Many abusers seem to have been initiated into the culture of abuse by other priests, often in the seminary.
The priesthood is not the equivalent of prison; most parishioners are female, and a heterosexual cleric who wants to can find many partners among young adult women, Homosexual priests have few young men at their disposal, since young men rapidly distance themselves from church. The only available males are, in general, married men and adolescent boys.
A homosexual priest may not be more likely to offend than a heterosexual priest. But when he does offend he is almost certain to have many more victims. Priest whose victims were males sometimes had scores, even hundreds, even thousands (Cardinal Groër) of victims. Again studies by psychologists have shown that homosexuals have far more partners than heterosexuals do, as one would expect, given the nature of male sexuality.
Political correctness should not prevent us from seeing the role that clerical homosexuality played in the abuse; but even more important was the failure of the bishops, including the bishop of Rome, to discipline criminal clergy and to protect children.
Lee Podles (Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church)
Lee wrote …. The John Jay report claims that is the abusive priests had equal access to females, they would have had equal number of male and female victims. This I doubt. I won’t go into the nature of the sexual acts that priest did with boys, but let us say that they were focused on the male genitals.
I was abused as a child by my heterosexual stepfather and his actions fit the profile you mention above. Research shows that there is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality – it seems as though you and Ken have some investment in a belief not supported by facts but by emotion.
David Nickol –
Thanks. I just read the addendum. I knew that straight men in prison engaged in sexual activity but had no idea the numbers were so great. I wonder whether the male urge to dominance has something to do with it.
Yes, it certainly seems to follow that celibacy is a factor in clerical abuse of children, at least in English-speaking cultures. Now we’ll have to see if clerical abuse in other cultures is as rampant as it has been here. Then we’ll have to see whether Rome takes notice. I fear it will take extremely clear evidence to open the Curia’s and the Pope’s collective eyes.
Research shows that there is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality
Crystal, as Lee pointed out, the abuse crisis was mislabeled a pedophilia crisis. Most cases involved not pedophilia, but homosexual abuse of postpubescent boys and young men. The abuse you suffered at the hands of your execrable stepfather has a bearing on helping us understand the suffering of the abused, but not on the question of whether the phenomenon of priestly sex abuse was largely homosexual or not.
Mark,
The reason I brought up my own situation was because Lee had written that one of the factors pointing to the abuse of minors being homosexual in nature was that the acts revolved around the perpetrator’s genitals (yikes – this is weird stuff to be posting about :) – I wanted to point out that not all sexual abuse by heterosexuals is other than that as well.
I’m a little shocked by Catholics who would not allow their kids to “interact” with gay people (though a scout master is unlikely to be gay, since they ban homosexuals).
The Church may find sexual activity among gay people “intrinsically disordered” because it cannot lead to procreation. In pretty much the same way that masturbation, withdrawal and the like are intrinsically disordered, if I understand the matter correctly.
But the Church does not drag into the Catechism drag societal stereotypes about gay men and women. Gay people are to be seen as persons with equal dignity to everyone else and to be treated with love.
In my view, a lot of people really want to keep that anti-homosexual rhetoric cranked up. As long as, say, an adulterer, can say, “Well, at least I’m not gay,” their own sins don’t look so bad.
“I always figured that the quiet ordination in the early 70’s of gay priests (under a very mistaken notion of what celibacy is) was a big part of what led to the abuse scandal, and I would hazard a guess I am not alone. In fact anyone I have discussed this with feels basically the same way.
“Regardless of what the Psychiatric experts say, hopefully common sense will prevail. ”
Ken – our feelings and our perceptions of common sense need to give way to data – to truth.
Crystal,
I think what Lee meant was that in contradiction to what David Nickol and others have written, a great preponderance of priestly sex abuse was focused on the uniquely male genitalia of victims (if you get my drift) rather than male body parts that might be seen as analogs for female body parts. If true, this indicates that such abuse wasn’t merely substitutionary, as it may be for a dominant men in prison, but rather it was focused on the maleness of the victim, which by definition would make it purely homosexual behavior.
To soften your own revelation, I will confess to having been sexually abused by an adult male cousin when I was 12, so like you I have some experience of this horror.
The John Jay report claims that is the abusive priests had equal access to females, they would have had equal number of male and female victims.
Lee,
Does the report actually say this? We haven’t seen the report. One of the researchers is reported as saying, “Terry said factors such as greater access to boys is one reason for the skewed ratio.” That is a far cry from saying if priests had equal access to boys and girls, the abuse victims would be 50 boys and 50 percent girls. I would have to say that this is such a careless statement about a scientific study that it puts everything else you say in question.
A homosexual priest may not be more likely to offend than a heterosexual priest. But when he does offend he is almost certain to have many more victims. . . . Again studies by psychologists have shown that homosexuals have far more partners than heterosexuals do, as one would expect, given the nature of male sexuality.
You are saying that gay men tend to have many more partners than straight men. That may well be true, but I would not say that makes it highly probable that gay men who molest young teenagers molest many more than straight men do. That is leaping to a conclusion for which there is no evidence. The gay man who molests children may have more in common with the straight man who molests children than he does with the average gay man who does not molest children. So you are drawing a conclusion for which you have no evidence.
but pedophilia is not the main problem in clerical abuse
Pedophilia is used rather loosely in these discussions to refer to those who engage in sex with those under the age of consent. You are correct about the technical definition of pedophilia. But what this study seems to be indicating is that as with true pedophilia, sexual abuse of young teenage boys by priests is not a matter of sexual orientation. In the past, those who want to blame the sex-abuse crisis on homosexuality have, when presented with the evidence that true pedophilia is not more closely associated with homosexuals than heterosexuals, responded, “But the sex-abuse crisis is not about pedophilia! The victims are most frequently young teen boys! It is about homosexuals in the priesthood.” This study, from the reports we have seen so far, is looking at the data of who has been abused, who has done the abusing, and saying homosexual orientation doesn’t seem to be a factor. So it doesn’t matter whether what is under discussion is pedophilia or not.
“The abuse you suffered at the hands of your execrable stepfather has a bearing on helping us understand the suffering of the abused, but not on the question of whether the phenomenon of priestly sex abuse was largely homosexual or not.”
We already know that the preponderance of victims of sexual abuse were young men, and that there may well have been a homosexual aspect to that abuse. The first study commissioned by the bishops, released several years ago, established as much. As it’s reported here, I don’t see that this newest research sheds any additional light on that question.
But …
… in the wake of the crisis, all homosexual priests were tarred, perhaps in a way similar to how Mafia movies and television shows unfairly tar all Italian-Americans This latest research may be helpful in removing an undeserved stigma from gay priests, and gay people in general.
Please do not be too shaocked Jean, and please do not put words into my mouth.
I did not say I would not allow my son to “interact with gay people”.
In your defense, I might not have been clear. Please allow me to explain (defend?) myself.
I meant I would not knowingly place them in a situation where a gay coach or scout master wielded authority over them. In other words I would not knowingly place my son in a situation where for example, he and a gay coach would be alone, or where he would be camping with the only adult around being the gay scout leader.
A parent deciding to not knowingly allow their son to be in a situation where a gay man has authority over them and where no other parents or adults is around, is definitely not the same as saying one would not allow interaction with gay people.
A very imperfect analogy is drinking. And before anyone jumps up and notes that social drinkers and alcoholics are both drinkers, I know that; I understand this is an imperfect analogy, but it is the best I can do. When someone say the sort of thing I just said, others often demand an explanation; here is my attempt at one.
I realize my son will encounter booze and will for most of his life, be around people who drink. However if I have a relative who is an out of control boozer (and in our family we have had that; thankfully it is under control now), no matter how much I love that relative, I would not ask them to watch my son for a week while my wife and I went somewhere.
Not wanting to leave my son under the direct authority of a drunken adult relative is not the same as saying I would not allow him to interact with drinkers.
I know my son will interact with gay people; that is just part of life. I am simply trying to say that I would not knowingly place him under the sole authority of a gay person for any prolonged period of time.
I know this explanation is not perfect; few things are. I have said this before; these things are more complicated than they first seem; they do not fit neatly on a bumper sticker.
If true, this indicates that such abuse wasn’t merely substitutionary, as it may be for a dominant men in prison, but rather it was focused on the maleness of the victim, which by definition would make it purely homosexual behavior.
Mark,
First, I would say that any sexual behavior between two males is “purely homosexual behavior.” Otherwise, you would have to classify the “dominant” (not purely accurate, but I suppose we don’t want to get too graphic) partner in any homosexual act as not engaging in purely homosexual behavior, because he was “lying with a man as with a woman” (as opposed to lying with a man as a woman) and the act might be “substitutionary.” I am not sure it is correct to call prison sex “substitutionary.” But that is another discussion. (Pretty much all my thoughts about prison sex come from watching the series Oz, and I would have to say that aside from out-and-out rape, every other sex act had a dominant and a submissive partner. So I don’t see how both parties could be engaging in “substitutionary” sex.)
Your assumption is that a man who engages in sex with another male in a certain way — focusing on his genitals — must have a homosexual orientation, because if he didn’t, he would try to use the other male as a woman. That strikes me as a hypothesis, but I don’t see why it should be accepted without evidence (which may be in the study). If you take a tour of the Internet, you will find that many men who identify themselves as straight or bisexual, along with the ever-expanding number who call themselves “bicurious,” are quite interested in things that are very distinctly male.
Well, I’ve reached the point of discomfort in this conversation :-)
Ken: you’re just being a vigilant parent. A better analogy might be, if you had a daughter, to be equally wary of leaving her under the sole supervision of an adult (probably heterosexual) man, and you would not place her in a situation where, for example, she and her adult male coach would be alone.
In fact, although I was not aware of it then, I realize now that I cannot recall a single instance during my childhood of going to the church rectory alone. I understand now that it must have been parental common sense on the part of my parents.
It is normal for us parents to be protective of our children. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.
I agree with David that the issue of pedophilia or sex abuse with boys has more to do with access than it does with homosexuality. Supporting his view is a few incidents in Canada of male hockey coaches abusing boys on road trips. Still I think we still need to keep this entire issue in perspective.
I think that analyzing statistics and probabilities in relation to sexual abuse is a sensitive topic. There are numerous studies that show that the chances of a girl being sexually abuse raise exponentially when there is a divorce and remarriage. All kinds of reasons for this – predatory behaviour on the parts of males, access to vulnerable girls, desperate women, etc.
But we don’t see pages and pages of this factual information being presented in the media and in churches all in the interests of keeping children safe. Well over 70% – probably closer to 80% of sexual abuse is committed by someone known and trusted by the family and within the immediate family.
And again, the risk factor increases with second marriages.
PS
I realize this is the John Jay report and i don’t mean to take anything away from the discussion. However, this is a very interesting report and it will be interesting to see how Rome responds in terms of interpreting the document about priestly formation a couple years ago wiht the whole “deep seated” distinction foregrounded.
Ken,
I have no problem with what you say. But I would say that probably the last thing an openly gay coach or scout leader wants to happen is for him to be alone with his young male players or scouts. An openly gay coach or scout leader is probably more trustworthy than someone whose sexuality is unknown to you (and a wedding ring means nothing — even if the guy is married). Probably many straight coaches or scout leaders would not want to be alone with young men (or women) either. An adult male friend of mine who gets a yearly, full-body dermatological exam from a male doctor told me that the doctor required a third party to be in the room as a chaperone. I believe this is not uncommon for many intimate medical exams. I would rather be alone with my doctor (male or female), but of course the chaperone is not to protect the patient but rather the doctor.
Also, according to Wikipedia, “Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.” Now, that doesn’t rule out coaches or scout leaders, but when 30% of the abuse is by relatives, it means you have a lot more to worry about than you might think.
I would like to start off by saying that my post in no way condones the behavior of the abusive priests. But there were some things I wanted to add to your discussion. I believe that it is the current teaching of the Catholic Church to welcome all people, whether classified as gay or straight. The question of ethics comes in during the sexual act of homosexuality. So in that line of thinking, whether someone is considered gay or straight, if they engage in homosexual behavior then they are committing a sin. This means that even prisoners engaging in this activity would fall in this classification. I don’t think anyone should judge so harshly as is being done here, and especially on the blog of David Gibson – so many stones being thrown, I had no idea how many perfect people we have here. Whatever you choose to believe, more and more research is coming out that is showing that there is no such thing as a black and white issue when it comes to sexual tendencies. There are varying degrees to one’s sexual interests from just seeing someone of the same sex as attractive to solely engaging in homosexual behavior. Regardless, I don’t see a link in any data between homosexual behavior and the molestation or rape of another human being of any age.
As Christians, we have to be open to developing understandings of the messages contained in the Scriptures; otherwise we are not different than the stubborn Pharisees of Jesus’ day. To say that the Church is trying to back pedal based on a new thrust for gay rights acceptance could in a way be accurate. The Church has to be willing to change – to grow. It has done so in the past (with changes on the scriptural interpretations of such issues as women’s rights, slavery, etc.) and will in the future. T
hankfully, events such as Vatican II have allowed more power to be handed over to the lay people which has allowed them to question such horrendous behavior on behalf of a SMALL percentage of priests. Prior to Vatican II it would be near heresy to challenge the behavior of a priest, however I have no doubt that this behavior has been in existence well before the Church even became an official body. It does not seem to be linked to celibacy (since married men engage in molestation as attested to some of your posts) so I am not sure that married priests would solve this problem. And the fact that this study pre-dates the “quiet ordination in the early 70’s of gay priests” and still shows a constant number of incidences, I have doubt that there is a link to homosexual desire alone. But I am even more grateful to the Church’s support of all of us sinners since it is acting as the sacrament of God’s fidelity to His people.
Bless this report! The truth shall make us all free.
Hearken back to these words in Commonweal:
“The Pharisees’ sin has come to be called ’scotosis,’ a deliberate and willful darkening of the mind that results from the refusal to acknowledge God’s presence and power at work in human stories. If the neglect of Scripture is a form of sin, John suggests, a blind adherence to Scripture when God is trying to show us the truth in human bodies is also a form of sin, and a far more grievous one. Both our own sense of integrity as Christians, and our hope of entering into positive conversation with those who disagree with us, obligate us to engage Scripture with maximum devotion, love, and intelligence. If it is risky to trust ourselves to the evidence of God at work in transformed lives even when it challenges the clear statements of Scripture, it is a far greater risk to allow the words of Scripture to blind us to the presence and power of the living God”
Luke Timothy Johnson, Commonweal, June 15, 2007
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1957
Or, to put it another way,
“Heterosexuality is such an enormous assumption to have glided so silently into the foundation of our thought.”
Adrienne Rich, source unknown.
David Nickol,
I think you do no service to either the truth or the gay rights cause to ignore the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the priestly sex abuse crisis. Ninety percent of the victims were postpubescent boys or young men, and 100% of the perpetrators were men. How you can call that anything else … well, only ideology can make someone that blind.
Does that mean all homosexuals are predators? Of course not. Does it mean more homosexuals than heterosexuals are predators? Certainly not. Does it mean that homosexuals can’t be good priests? I should hope not, for the sake of the Church. Last, does it mean that homosexual (I use “homosexual” instead of “gay” for several reasons upon which I could elaborate) … homosexual priests should be persecuted, shunned, censured or defrocked. Heaven forbid.
But none of that changes the fact that the sex abuse crisis, at least as it’s been revealed, was a largely homosexual affair. Sorry if common sense and the plain truth are uncomfortable or at odds with the narrative you feel compelled to construct.
I admit that I really, really don’t want the sex-abuse crisis in the Church to be attributable or attributed to gay men. I believe that I can be reasonably objective, though, when presented with the evidence. But I may be biased.
What I don’t understand is why many people — or so it seems to me — to want the abuse crisis to be attributable to gay men.
It will be interesting when we get to see the full report.
Any parent should protect a child of either sex from any possible predators. No one who is involved with a child should proceed in any manner except the utmost transparency. Any guardian of children has to be quite vigilant with anyone with whom the child comes into contact; even relatives. Trust must always be earned. In general too many liberties are taken with children and children resent the breach even though they may be intimidated into expressing their disapproval.
The statistics of child abuse, mostly by relatives, are too staggering for parents or guardians not to err on the side of extreme caution and watching everyone. One should be discreet, of course, but not to be quite vigilant is irresponsible.
But none of that changes the fact that the sex abuse crisis, at least as it’s been revealed, was a largely homosexual affair. Sorry if common sense and the plain truth are uncomfortable or at odds with the narrative you feel compelled to construct.
Mark,
I am writing here not so much about my own personal view of this, but of the reports of the study, which I fully admit I hope to be accurate.
Of course when a man sexually molests a boy, that is a homosexual act. What we are being told from the study, however, is not to assume that a man who commits a homosexual act is — as the Church would say — a “homosexual person.” That’s not just my opinion. That’s exactly what one of the researchers told the press:
If you think that’s bunk, and something disingenuously concocted to get gay people off the hook, I can explain to you why I believe it’s perfectly plausible. But it is not a narrative I am constructing. It is the conclusion of the John Jay College Report.
I too would make a distinction between “homosexual” and “gay,” for reasons that are quite relevant here. I wouldn’t refer sex between men in prison or sex between young men in cultures where they are strictly segregated from women as “gay.” I wouldn’t say these were temporarily gay/homosexual men who became straight/heterosexual. I wouldn’t say that Achilles and Patroclus were a gay couple. Just because men engage in homosexual behavior doesn’t make them gay (or “homosexual persons”).
Just a last comment about the idea Mark champions that the clergy sex abuse is homosexual in nature because most of the victims were male (as were the perps). From what I’ve read, sex abuse is mostly a crime of opportunity – the sex of the victim is not what matters to the predator, what matters is who is available, whether they be male of female. I know you’re saying this isn’t pedophilia, but in the case of pedophilia, most pedophiles don’t discriminate between male or female vistims, they approach the victim who is approachable (same for sex in prisons). This does not make the perpetrator gay (if it is male/male sex), it makes him a person who preys on the vulnerable ……
[...] the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as “fixated;” 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women….There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180) …….
In scandals involving the Catholic church, the victims of sexual abuse were often adolescent boys rather than small children. Similarly, the 2006 congressional page scandal involved males who were at least 16 years old.
These are cases in which the term pedophilia – referring as it does to attractions to prepubescent children – can cause confusion. Rather than pedophilia, the accusations stemming from these scandals raised the question of whether gay people shouldn’t be trusted in positions of authority where there is any opportunity for sexually harassing or abusing others. Here again, there is no inherent connection between an adult’s sexual orientation and her or his propensity for endangering others. Scientific research provides no evidence that homosexual people are less likely than heterosexuals to exercise good judgment and appropriate discretion in their employment settings. There are no data, for example, showing that gay men and lesbians are more likely than heterosexual men and women to sexually harass their subordinates in the workplace. Data from studies using a variety of psychological measures do not indicate that gay people are more likely than heterosexuals to possess any psychological characteristics that would make them less capable of controlling their sexual urges, refraining from the abuse of power, obeying rules and laws, interacting effectively with others, or exercising good judgment in handling authority …….
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
I do rather doubt if the prevalence of sexual misbehavior with male minors can be attributed in any large degree to question of access and pseudo-homosexual behavior as in prisons. Priests are not in prison, and in the modern world can easily contact persons of the opposite sex. I think the gaying of the priesthood is a very real phenomenon, aided by the massive withdrawal of heterosexual priests.
In the 1970s many gay men, including priests, were intoxicated by the sexual revolution, and did not necessarily distinguish between the attractions of minors and those of adults (especially in states or countries where both forms of sexual behaviour were illegal). The report presented to the bishops found that pedophilia in the strict sense is a minority pathology that has remained static over the decades. Ephebophilia where there is a strong temptation to act out is also a minority matter. The normal sexual attraction that draws a man to a teenage girl or boy would not be acted on by mature people, especially today, and this holds now as strictly for gays as for heterosexuals. But the clergy in the 1970s may have forgotten the canons of maturity in this area — clergy of all ages, many formed in pre-Vatican II style seminaries.
So there is no mystery. Priests are ordinary men (though there is a small minority of pedophiles or pathological ephebophiles, as in every population). They dropped the ball during the sexual revolution and had sex with minors — some in quasi-homosexual exploitation of access, but most in genuinely homosexual infatuation with or lust for minors, perhaps assisted by the absence of adult partners, by their own delayed adolescence and by the culture of the clerical closet.
Now everybody has wised up all round, thanks in part to moral awakening, but thanks in larger part to litigation and media attention.
The 2006 report is here: http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/JohnJayReport.pdf
Spurred by this blog discussion, I took a look at it and I am struck by the number of 1-time offenders. There seem to be a large number of people in the clergy (about half of all offenders!) who, one single time, behaved inappropriately with a 15-to-17 years old teenager -and never repeated their single offense. Now, in no way do I want to defend abusers, and I know that as a group they got away with crime for far too long, but, seeing those numbers, I can’t help but wonder if it is just possible that, with the single-strike absolute rule, the pendulum might have gone, hum, a bit too far in the other direction?
I know I’m going to get a lot of heat for daring to voice that possibility, and I’m the last one to want to side with secrecy etc., but that’s just a question that comes to mind when looking at the detailed statistics in that report.
Mark Gordon, Ken (and everyone else, I guess),
Two points:
1) The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a research study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice entitled, “The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States.” On page 70 of this study, in table 4.3.2, it is reported that 60.07% of those abused indicated that the first instance of abuse occurred at age 13 or younger.
2) On the website MedicineNet.com the following appears as the definition of pedophilia: “People with pedophilia have fantasies, urges or behaviors that involve illegal sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).”
From those two points, I conclude that statements like “the majority of victims,” or “over 90 percent of victims” of sex abuse by clergy are postpubescent are simply false.
Sorry, just amazed that they paid so much for a study that reveals nothing new in terms of the root of sexaul abuse; the nature of abusers; etc. Read any of the studies and documentation by Richard Sipe; Thomas Doyle, the works by Jason Berry; in depth studies by McGill.
Also, trying to limit abuse to those ordained between, say 1965-1980, is ridiculous. Facts indicatee that at least 40% of all convicted priests were ordained before 1970. Those who posit the 60′s-70′s as why things happened are living in a dream world. Try reading the Ryan Report from Ireland – details exhaustively voluminous sexual abuse by both priests and nuns starting in the 1930′s until 2000. Look at the result of the investigations of the homes run by religious orders in Australia, England, Canada, New Zealand – it has nothing to do with the 60′s-70′s.
Podles makes a valid distinction between victims younger than 12 and victims older than 12 but not legally adults. Again, the numbers would indicate that the majority of victims were male teenagers – and that most of this is a result of the stunted emotional and sexual development of seminarians/priests/bishops. Sorry, do not agree with his bias or conclusion that this is “hidden” homosexuality. It is evident that the sexual identity of these priests and religious is maldeveloped…..often behaviors emerge after ordination and after the first few years of their initial assignment with the removal of the seminary structure, oversight of deans, having to make ordination requirements. These guys are often sexually confused and are working out their identity via teenage victims – because that is the psychologically stage they are also in.
Bishops and the medical/psychological community were both guilty of treating these maldeveloped priests in the 60′s, 70′s, 80′s as if they could be cured – studies indicate that many of the accused were one time violators (lots of issues with this given the nature of sexual abuse and victimology). Bishops also confused the criminal acts with “sinful”acts – this is the part some of you are highlighting – the John Jay Study only addresses the actual pedophile behaviors not the cover-up.
The larger issue now is the cover-up; it impacts credibility; it continues to cost diocese financially; it impacts seminarys/formation; it creates a ripple effect in diocese trying to pay out settlements; fighting in the courts about releasing personnel files, etc. This is the area where we need a real John Jay Study – but, the Dallas Charter, and all subsequent and on-going episcopal/Rome behavior will never allow this to be done.
That is the sadness and why the presentation by these two John Jay folks was interesting but misses the point.
What an absurd twisting and bending and skewing to reach a predetermined conclusion.
While we’re at it, let’s be clear on this also — Nidal Malik Hasan being a radical Islamist had nothing to do with his attack at Fort Hood.
What an absurd twisting and bending and skewing to reach a predetermined conclusion.
Agreed. And as for Nidal Malik Hasan, we should do with him exactly what everybody is saying we are going to do with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Give him a fair trial and execute him.
Sentence first – verdict afterwards!
Bill de Haas — I think the report, from what I gathered from the segment of the USCCB meeting I watched, agrees with most of your points.
“I am struck by the number of 1-time offenders. There seem to be a large number of people in the clergy (about half of all offenders!) who, one single time, behaved inappropriately with a 15-to-17 years old teenager -and never repeated their single offense.”
If so, we have been the victim of an appalling myth about inevitably recidivist pedophiles. Behaving inappropriately with a 17 year old, once — merits a sentence of lifetime opprobrium?
“I can’t help but wonder if it is just possible that, with the single-strike absolute rule, the pendulum might have gone, hum, a bit too far in the other direction?”
Indeed.
Bill de Haas used the phrase “as if they could be cured” — but in the case of these one-time offenders there is probably no pathology demanding cure — unless perhaps a general immaturity that cures itself with years and experience. This certainly puts the alleged “cover-ups” in a more understandable light and makes me suspect that bishops too have in large part been the victims of witch-hunt thinking.
And yes, isn’t it interesting that we heard so much about Eugene Kennedy and Andrew Greeley but so little about Richard Sipe, martyred for his very valuable and pioneering exposes.
“What an absurd twisting and bending and skewing to reach a predetermined conclusion.”
Perhaps you’re referring to the people who still want to believe that this happened because of “the quiet ordination in the early 70’s of gay priests”? I suppose these people conveniently missed the Irish child abuse commission report, and for that matter forgot about St. Peter Damian from the 11th century.
The Catholic Church: Abusing people in Jesus’ name for thousands of years.
Now back to our regularly scheduled “Science vs. Ignorance, Superstition, and Bigotry: Round 328729864″.
I think that the politics of political correctness has so infiltrated these issues that we will never really understand or know what’s true.
As to the actual pedophiles, who were a minority, I think this conclusion is correct, mostly because it is consistent with what we know about pedophiles generally. Most, but not all, have or had heterosexual relationships so we know they aren’t exclusively homosexual. The problem with the conclusion here is that the single largest group of victims was post pubescent boys, and they were abused in proportions far higher than they are in the population at large – by which I mean that if you look at offenses against young teenagers, girls are more likely to be victims if the offender is a teacher or a relative or anyone other than a priest.
The answer can’t simply be access. That doesn’t make sense. These men aren’t in prison. We are to believe that a teen boy was more than 7 times more likely to be vicitimized than a teenage girl because of access? I know, for example, in most of the parishes I have attended over the last twenty years there are far more girls than boys active in youth activities.
Moreover, we have examples of some of the most eggregious abusers have been homosexual. Paul Shanley comes to mind. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that there is a significant homosexual subculture that focuses on the pursuit of and sexualization of youth by older men.
That there is not a one-to-one correlation or that this is s definitive predictor – ok, I buy that. But that there is absolutely no correlation? That’s hard to buy.
“bishops too have in large part been the victims of witch-hunt thinking.” I don’t see that. At this point some priests have been suspended indefinitely, barred from all ministry, laicized. Where are the bishops who have been demoted or retired for mismanagement? It has not happened, and that’s precisely why we are so suspicious of bishops in general. There is no accountability, therefore anything is possible and we are distrustful of all of them.
I think that the politics of political correctness has so infiltrated these issues that we will never really understand or know what’s true.
Sean,
If you amend your statement to read “political correctness and the revulsion so many people feel about gay people,” then I would agree with you. This is a topic about which few people are neutral and dispassionate.
Also, there is overwhelming evidence that there is a significant homosexual subculture that focuses on the pursuit of and sexualization of youth by older men.
Would you care to cite some of that overwhelming evidence? Are we talking NAMBLA here? Because if we are, I have a lot of examples of significant heterosexual subcultures that sexualize youths. Some of the clothing lines for preteen and young teen girls could be sold in porn shops.
Bishops forced to retire for mismanagement include Bp Brendan Comiskey and Bp John McGee in Ireland.
I just checked in on this thread and haven’t read it all exhaustively, having mainly glazed over at attempts to explain away the actual data.
I would suggest that rather than focusing on heterosexual/homosexual labels and categories as to who did what, the overriding factor contributing to violations of boundaries was poor formation and human development of both straight and gay men in seminary and beyond. It may be difficult to impossible to go back and assign a label of straight or gay to many if not most offenders. Obviously we understand today about the spectrum of sexuality, but a one time homosexual act by an adult male doesn’t tell us much, and the man, if he is still alive, may not be able to tell us mch as he may not understand his own orientation to this day.
The bottom line seems to be that too many of these men were ill-prepared on sexuality issues, and when the 60s and 70s rolled around, they were overwhelmed. Hence the average length of time between ordination and first abuse–13 years–for men trained in the 40s and 50s. That gap shrinks to 4 years later on. The paradox that few seem to want to explain is why the vaunted spike in the number of gay priests coincides with a sharp decrease in the sexual abuse of minors. Better formations seems to be one good explanation.
That doesn’t mean the presence of a large number of self-identified homosexual priests cannot create problems or challenges internal to the priesthood, such as cliques and particular friendships, as they say. But shoving guys back into the closet is clearly not the answer.
On one other point Sean H recently raised, regarding access to boys not being a suffiicent explanation–recaling your own experience, or mine, of the last 20 or 25 years may not be particularly relevant (apart from the fact that it is singular) in that the rate of abuse began diminishing sharply around 1980 as policies started to take effect and seminary formation greatly improved as regards psychosexual development.
Fr, O’Leary – would agree but not that most abusers were one time. This is where the story gets complex and very gray. The 5-6% clerical abusers found guilty are more than one time abusers (understand that this percent is an average – specific years, seminaries, and dioceses have shown rates as high as 10% of more in a given ordination class – e.g. Camarillo, Boston seminaries)
Picking up Mr. Brazier’s point and using his 13 yr. old cut off – 60%+ abused 13 year olds are younger – this is a significant aberration and can not be explained away as part of a sexual development need by a man who is a cleric and 30 years old. Unfortunately, bishops never developed a way to handle, manage, or deal with actual pedophiles (esp. those who targeted 14-18 yr. olds) and maldeveloped priests who may have acted out impusively one or two times. Also, given the cover up; legal battles; and fairly comprehensive misunderstanding of how victims are impacted and when they eventually come forward, any list or tracking system is skewed because stats and experience would say that 50% of all abused do not come forward. So, bishops ignored criminal statutes; let MDs or treatment centers make personnel decisions; let insurance companies, diocesan priest councils, etc. make decisions based on incomplete data.
John Jay merely confirms that homosexuality did not cause the pedophile crisis. What did? Bishops don’t seem to be interested in exploring that arena – why don’t they resurrect the Kennedy studies from the early 1970′s – it would be a good starting point (e.g. finding that 70% of all ordained priests were emotionally immature; 18% were psychologically unfit; etc.). These studies never saw the light of day and are buried in each bishop’s safe.
I hope that there is data forthcoming.
Were abusers asked their sexual orientation in a scientific study? If so, is this data available? If not, how do researchers overcome fairly safe argument that abusers were probably sexually attracted to the teenage boys they sexually abused?
Or is there an existing longitudinal study that shows that seminarians who self-identified as homosexual did not abuse in greater proportions than seminarians who self-identified as heterosexual?
Since there were some questions about translating the statistics into normal talk, and since I’m currently taking classes in quantitative methods, let me give my best guess as to what their methodology. It may help clear some things up:
Rates of abuse among homosexuals (measured as, say, average % of offenders in that population) do not differ from rates of abuse among heterosexuals. So, if 9% of all homosexuals are abusers, approximately 9% of all heterosexuals are also abusers.
If you take as true, then, the estimate that somewhere between 3-10% of the population are homosexuals, the absolute number of offenders will be predominantly (90-97%) heterosexual.
I’m fairly sure that in terms of the question of rates of male vs. female victims, you would want to show evidence that, given “access” (ugh) to an equal number of male and female victims, both heterosexuals and homosexuals would abuse males and females approximately half the time, each. (I may be wrong on this piece of it.) This kind of thing is MUCH harder to establish, because social factors play such an important role, as some have noted above.
Also, for those who haven’t heard of him, James Alison, a gay Catholic theologian, has done some excellent work on questions of natural law & homosexuality. He claims that the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality are self-contradictory.
I haven’t read his papers in some time, but his core arguments are available online, and certainly worth a read: jamesalison.co.uk
Alison’s work is based on that of Rene Girard, which is also quite lacking in data.
As an aside, this probably should be said more frequently than it is: David G., your piece at Politics Daily is outstanding – better than outstanding.
“Where are the bishops who have been demoted or retired for mismanagement?”
Plenty have been harassed with “visitations”, forced to take coadjutors, and had their authority diminished in various other ways. That is, only if they are known for taking even the most mild “liberal” positions. This has been going on ever since Rome decided to throw the book at Raymond Hunthausen in 1983. For the Vatican, the rape of hundreds of children is but dust on the scales compared to the possibility that someone somewhere is committing a “liturgical abuse”.
Isn’t one of the big problems in studying the abuse in the Catholic Church attirbutable to the fact that most Catholic priests don’t have a well-developed sexuality? Of course it varies — before and during the priesthood, and obviously, some priests secretly have “adult” sexual relationships that amply clarify their sexual orientation.
But most priests don’t have adult sexual relationships, which makes it very hard to understand the sexual activity that they engage in with minors of both sexes — whether it is opportunity, orientation, desperation, or what have you. When you layer onto this problem the fact that many abusers were themselves abused, you also don’t quite know whether you are seeing learned behavior that has nothing to do with sexuality of any kind, but a particularly pernicious form of control or acting out to ease psychological suffering and a sense of victimization.
I think this is actually an interesting point that makes historical assessment of any kind of homoerotic behavior problematic, whether it involves Greek men or William Shakespeare, because when the stakes of engaging in transgressive, heterosexual behavior are particularly ominous, and the opportunity quite limited, as they certainly have been throughout history, homosexual acts can very definitely not signify adult homosexual orientation.
I had a close friend in high school whose father was (and still is) a Presbyterian minister. He abused all six of his children, boys and girls alike, but I don’t know how old they were when the abuse stopped.
Also, when we say post-pubescent, we are really talking about an average age at which we assume boys must have achieved a certain level of maturation, but this varies widely — many boys don’t get facial hair, for instance, until they are practically college age. So even a 14 year old boy could be “childlike.”
Jim P, would you cc that to my boss?!
Bill DeHaas, the John Jay researchers are actually making good use of the Kennedy surveys from 1970, and cited and defended them in their presentation to the bishops.
Also, the researchers said–in direct response to a question from a bishop–that they are exploring the reasons behind the bishops’ decisions on abusers and will include them in the final report. That could be enlightening or problematic or both.
Again, these are preliminary findings, and there will always be a good deal of ambiguity (it seems to me) and interpretation given the nature of sexuality and celibacy and such over so many decades.
In sorta-related news, it appears that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is now fracturing over the issue of sexually active homosexual clergy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_re_us/us_lutherans_gays
I will indulge the temptation to snark – nothing personal, Kathy – by pointing out that both Augustine & Aquinas was also lacking in data. They seemed to come close to the truth of things; Girard & Alison do too.
Can the Lutheran Provision be far behind…? :-)
Of course it is important that the Church commissioned this study. Those responsible for overseeing the investigation into this scandal will read the report in its entirety and put the information they glean from it to good use.
I am glad that the Church woke up (albiet very late) to this problem and is now dealing with it; that is important.
Thankfully, it seems the Pope and the Vatican finally have this matter in hand.
That the Church will not knowingly ordain gay men as priests seems a good start but obviously, there is more to all this and quite a bit of work left regarding it.
I’m sure there will be nuances aplenty in the final report, and I don’t see the preliminary results exonerating or condemning anyone in particular, except from the worst of the stereotypes, hopefully. But many comment do bring to mine a vivid image: Child on floor with hands over his ears talking loudly so as not to hear parents saying it’s time for bed.
Thomas, the interesting parallel is the blind eye which Girard turns to most of the biblical evidence, before making arguments from silence.
That the Church will not knowingly ordain gay men as priests seems a good start . . . .
Ken,
So you say you don’t buy the findings of the report as explained by the researchers?
David – agree with your initial post above – very well summarized and, as a former formation director, you hit the nail on the head.
Did not realize that John Jay was using the Kennedy data – are you sure about that? Realize that they have one final report that may answer our questions but I am skeptical given the inside (fox in the henhouse) approach between the USCCB and John Jay.
No one has mentioned prior members of the USCCB Charter board who have resigned or ended their terms and spoke out about how bishops have resisted; been passive aggressive; threatened; etc. in terms of the board’s need to be independent and objective.
Bill DeHaas–I didn’t realize you were a formation director, so you know this terrain better than I do, certainly.
But yes, the researchers in their presentation specifically cited the Kennedy reports and praised them for their rigor and trustworthiness. FWIW, the John Jay staff seems quite independent even as they are very respectful of the bishops and aware of the cooperation and service they are providing–or have provided. There’s not much the bishops can do about the research now, as the data is into John Jay, and the federal government has donated money as well and so has an interest.
The John Jay study and the NRB-USCCB relations are really separate at this point, I think.
David – I did not say that at all. What would make you think that?
Sorry – that was for David Nickol.
David N., To clarify; here (again) is what I think:
——————————————————
Of course it is important that the Church commissioned this study. Those responsible for overseeing the investigation into this scandal will read the report in its entirety and put the information they glean from it to good use.
I am glad that the Church woke up (albiet very late) to this problem and is now dealing with it; that is important.
Thankfully, it seems the Pope and the Vatican finally have this matter in hand.
That the Church will not knowingly ordain gay men as priests seems a good start but obviously, there is more to all this and quite a bit of work left regarding it.
David
My puzzlement and skepticism about this report is based on facts, not any sense of revulsion. As I have said many times on these comboxes, in the universe of sin I don’t think homosexual behavior is any more eggregious than many other sins. My problem is that the numbers just don’t make sense. In the abuse crisis, there was a more than 80/20 split in victims male to female, and moreover the most vulnerable group of victims were boys aged 12-15. How can this pattern be explained if sexual orientation had nothing to do with it in light of the following from a July 2000 DoJ analysis of actual reported and confirmed incidents in the nation at large using data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System?
Based on the NIBRS data, the year in a male’s life when he
is most likely to be the victim of a sexual assault is age 4
(figure 4). By age 17 his risk of victimization has been cut
by a factor of 5. A female’s year of greatest risk is age 14.
Her risk drops to half the peak level by age 17 and to a fifth
of the peak level by age 27. At his peak victimization age of
4, a male’s risk of sexual assault victimization is just half that
of females of the same age. In the later juvenile years (ages
14 to 17), the female victimization rates are at least 10 times
greater than the male rates for similar age groups.
In that same report, it indicates that 90% – that’s right 90% – of all child sexual assaul victims between the ages of 12-15 were girls, yet the first John Jay clergy report states that over 80% of victims in the same age group were boys. What couls possibly explain that disparity?
David – I did not say that at all. What would make you think that?
Ken,
The study as I understand it says that gay priests are no more likely to molest than straight priests. So why would keeping gay men out of the priesthood be a “good start” in dealing with abuse by priests?
What could possibly explain that disparity?
Sean,
First of all, I am not accusing you personally of being biased against gay people. I am only saying that it is not just people who are “politically correct” (and presumably want to get gays off the hook) who are likely to be biased. I don’t think that you would deny, whatever your own feelings are, that anti-homosexual prejudice exists in the United States.
Now, if the study has truly taken a representative sample of abusers, and has truly identified their sexual orientation, then their findings may seem to fly in the face of common sense, but nevertheless they would be empirical data. If heterosexual priests are just as likely to abuse boys as homosexual priests (which is what the study is saying) it would mean that heterosexual men commit homosexual acts for reasons probably nobody understands. It is already well accepted that true heterosexual pedophiles will target boys as well as girls.
The researchers suggest one reason why boys are more likely victims — access. But they do not say access is the only reason. Lee Podles, although I have many disagreements with what he has said, made this remark: “Many abusers seem to have been initiated into the culture of abuse by other priests, often in the seminary.” If true, that could be another reason for the abuse targeting males primarily. If the “culture of abuse” started in an all-male atmosphere, then I see no reason why it might not continue to be predominantly male. I think we’ll need to see the study to see its full explanation, but I don’t think we can cite statistics to “disprove” the study before we have seen the study.
I think it is probably an oversimplification to think that classifying people into only two groups — heterosexual and homosexual — is an adequate description of sexuality. John Money, the psychologist and sexologist, once said, “There are as many sexual orientations as there are people.” I think if someone could do a very thorough, anonymous survey of human sexual behavior (including people’s fantasy lives) that would be confirmed, and people would be astonished (and probably appalled) by the results, which would include a lot that none of us even imagine. I think we’re in an area here that nobody knows very much about, so I am not so surprised by surprises.
I’ve tried to refrain from being a multiple poster here – I can’t blame Ken who I find to be a naif who thinks all Mother church does is good and grand and all for the best.
But I’m saddened by a lot of the discussion which says because most vistims (known) were male it’s a homosexual problem, or, it’s just a report to the Church that’s politically correct.
Much of that is don’t confuse me with facts argumentation.
Having worked in the past professiuonally with John Jay and knowing folks there in criminal justice, i think they represent a high level of professionalism as opposed to those who shoot from the lip.
The history of canon law shows that this is not a new problem at all -canons hae existed for centuries to deal with it.
The Church didn’t just become aware of the problem either then; a ht to the recently honored Jasson Berry who brought some of this into the open with the Gauthe affair; and when poor Fr. Doyle suggested da good course foward, leadership (such as the redoubtable Cardinal Law) stomped him -probably due to clericalism and wanting to protect the institution. I also tend to agre that solid research (like Sipe) that doesn’t fit the convenience of the hierachy gets pushed aside.
The leadership is happy to see the issue on “pedohelia”, not sex abuse in general, with all it connotes about a misuse of power in relaionships -so we can argue about the age of victims.
So at botom, I think keeping gays out of seminaries is not only not an answer, but in the current situation, won’t work and will probably be counterproductive.
Of course, that would entail a healthy discussion of sexuality in general and of clergy sexuality in the Church; which I view as not very likely at this time.
A preliminary report commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to investigate the clergy sex abuse scandal has found no evidence that gay priests are more likely than heterosexual clergy to molest children, the lead authors of the study said Tuesday. – news
That is the fact we’re working with. A comment to this that I saw at another blog stated in response …
Schismatic websites will now denounce this study as scientifically flawed, unreliable, poorly written, heretical, impossible, crypto-Buddhist, intolerant, politically correct, conspiratorial and oppressive, which all goes to show that Obamacare will destroy liberty and the American way of life. Or somethin’.
We seem to be proving his point :(
David
I agree that neat identification of sexual orientation is not really possible, but I still can think it is impossible to reject homosexual orientation as a factor in the clergy sex abuse situation. What possible explanation is there for the fact that a 12-15 year old girl is more than 10 times more likely to be a sex abuse victim in society at large but four times less likely to be a victim if the abuser is a priest? How can sexual attraction to one sex, in this case male, be a non-factor? It doesn’t pass the straight-face test.
There are a lot of all male or male dominated subcultures in society, but I have never heard of the same types of behaviors being present, for example, in military units, warships and submarines, or all male schools. Seminarians are not in prison, and I don’t believe they are in more constant or close contact with an all male environment than these other groups. The whole access and aculturation argument can’t possibly account for a more than ten fold preference of priest abusers for male victims as opposed to society at large.
The study as I understand it says that gay priests are no more likely to molest than straight priests. So why would keeping gay men out of the priesthood be a “good start” in dealing with abuse by priests?
The study says that abusers lacked affective maturity – they hadn’t integrated their sexual feelings as an adult would.
The Church says that homosexuals lack affective maturity – they are “objectively disordered” because they haven’t integrated their sexual feelings as an adult would.
Not everyone who lacks affective maturity is “gay” (I hate the word; it’s reductionist; but so be it). But everyone who is “gay” lacks affective maturity.
In other words, keeping “gay” men – that is, men who define themselves in light of their experience of same-sex attractions – out of the priesthood will not stop abuse. But it’s a step in the right direction.
The researchers suggest one reason why boys are more likely victims — access. But they do not say access is the only reason.
Agreed. It’s true that priests spend time with males and females of all ages and that priests develop improper relationships with folks of either gender. But it’s also true that priests spend a lot of time with altar boys and have easiest access to them, which is perhaps why teenaged boys are vastly more likely to have been abused than members of any other age/gender group.
“Not everyone who lacks affective maturity is “gay” (I hate the word; it’s reductionist; but so be it). But everyone who is “gay” lacks affective maturity.”
I’m extremely skeptical of that explanation of what it means to be homosexual. It seems to imply that ihomosexuality is a “stage” that people would typically “grow out of”.
everyone who is “gay” lacks affective maturity.
Why do you believe this?
Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.
– American Psychological Association
How can sexual attraction to one sex, in this case male, be a non-factor? It doesn’t pass the straight-face test.
Sean,
All we know so far of the study is what the researchers have revealed, and they have said one (of presumably many) factors is access. I don’t think you can pass judgment on the study until it is published. All you can say is that, based on what you know now, you are highly skeptical.
There are a lot of all male or male dominated subcultures in society, but I have never heard of the same types of behaviors being present, for example, in military units, warships and submarines, or all male schools.
Most of your examples involve adult males. There are no boys to molest in military units, warships, and submarines. Regarding schools, have you ever heard about English Boarding Schools???
We are dealing here with a situation of men who are trained in an all-male environment and then made authority figures with access to children. I am trying to think of a situation analogous to the Catholic priesthood, but nothing comes to mind. What other group is pledged to celibacy, educated in an all-male environment, and then put in a position of authority (and often great loneliness)?
It seems to me that the ancient Greeks are an interesting example, and they weren’t the only culture in which men were involved sexually with boys. There is little reason, in my opinion, to believe that the majority of the Greeks who had boy lovers were “homosexual persons.” The same is true in the pre-modern Arab world. Whether or not the seminary and the priesthood is like being in prison, nevertheless people in prison who are not “homosexual persons” engage in homosexual acts. Young teenage boys who are not “homosexual persons” engage in certain sexual behaviors that probably only adult “homosexual persons” would engage in.
I think people have in them the capacity for all kinds of sexual behavior that culture has suppressed, and I don’t find it all that surprising, therefore, that straight men might have sex with boys. Actually, from what I remember of Freud, he believed that the reason we had culture was because a whole range of sexual impulses were suppressed. They are not gone. It is not surprising that they manifest themselves occasionally.
Now, here is an excellent question that you and I can probably agree on. How could the researchers know the sexual orientation of the priests? Did they use some kind of objective test? Or did they rely on the priests’ self-identification? That seems to me to be the crucial question, and I can only hope and pray the researchers have very solid reasons for classifying some of the priests as gay and others as straight. There are undoubtedly men who are “homosexual persons” who claim to be (and maybe even think they are) heterosexual. And there are others who are more comfortable describing themselves as bisexual. So it seems to me if there is a point on which the study’s conclusion may be considered extremely dubious, it is how they classified priests as gay or straight.
In other words, keeping “gay” men – that is, men who define themselves in light of their experience of same-sex attractions – out of the priesthood will not stop abuse. But it’s a step in the right direction.
Joe,
It seems to me that the logical conclusion is that all men who enter the priesthood must lack affective maturity. If the findings of the study are true, and gay priests are no more likely to molest children than straight priests, and the rate of molestation is an indicator of the rate of lack of affective maturity, then the rate of affective maturity must be equal in both gay and straight priests. And since you say that all gay priests lack affective maturity, then all straight priests must lack affective maturity as well.
I would say that the Church’s pronouncements on homosexuality are theoretical and/or moral, not psychologic or psychiatric. Homosexuals are said to be lacking in affective maturity because they are homosexuals, and the Church’s definition of affective maturity is heterosexuality. In fact, if you Google “affective maturity,” all you get is sites about homosexuals in the priesthood.
Mr. Gibson – attempting to steer this discussion in a different direction. As someone who has spent more than 30 years in behavioral health, the above posts indicate a remarkable degreee of “just plan” ignorance about human growth, stages of growth, sexuality, and how the psychological fields of studies have defined these sexual conditions, factors, etc.
A couple of comments and concerns:
a) some are saying the since 1985 we have seen an overall decrease in pedophile clerics. Well, if you track and compare ordination numbers nationally pre-1985 to post-1985, it is a no brainer that if pedohilia runs around 5-7% of all clerics, then the total number of reported, accused, and confirmed priests pedophiles will drop significantly;
b) much of what we have seen since 2000 is “catch up” for the under-reported; not yet reported; or side settlements and movement/protection of priests that continues to go on;
c) as we move forward, seminaries are few and far between; formation has increased its knowlege, testing, and experience but there remain too many diocesan seminaries with unskilled staff, lack of resources, etc. to completely change the currrent patterns;
d) present and future challenges – seminaries now have classes with more than 50% of candidates from overseas or first generation – the focus is on education, learning English, American cultural ways, etc. Again, we see formation as a lesser priority. Also, the standards for entracne as a candidate have decreased drastically. What this means for the future? Unknown but we are starting to see some indications – foreign priests who have not been adequately vetted; foreign students who come from cultures that are very different in terms of understanding and living celibacy e.g. acceptance that local clergy have wives;
So, yes, we will continue to deal with the historical repoorted pedophilia events – the wave has nit and is slowly passing but pedophilia, lack of appropriate formation, and the huge number of victims who are just becoming old or mature enough to come forward will continue to challenge our bishops, dioceses, and church.
To answer your question David: “Ken – The study as I understand it says that gay priests are no more likely to molest than straight priests. So why would keeping gay men out of the priesthood be a “good start” in dealing with abuse by priests?”
First of all, after all that has happened, you cannot be serious about suggesting we begin ordaining gay priests. Still, for now I can humor you and will play along.
One reason homosexual men cannot be priests, is that they cannot take the same vows that a heterosexual man takes. Homosexual men have a different concept of celibacy than heterosexual men do. Celibacy is more complicated that most realize.
If they cannot take the same vows, they cannot be the same thing.
A heterosexual man who wants to be a priest and takes a vow of celibacy gives up the chance of sexually loving a wife and having and raising a family. He wants a love relationship with a wife and he wants to raise a family, but he gives that up for God. His call to the priesthood is strong, and so he sacrifices family life for it; a very big sacrifice indeed.
A heterosexual man who wants to be a priest does not want to sexually love a wife or to sire children in the first place. He wants sexual love with another man. When he takes a vow of celibacy then, he is giving up having the sexual love of another man. He wants to have a love relationship with another man, but gives that up for God. He may have a strong wish to become a priest, but his sacrifices is not the same as the sacrifice the heterosexual man makes.
I hope this helps David.
I hope this helps David.
Ken,
Not in the least! :-)
That’s in case I don’t get time for a detailed response.
if pedohilia runs around 5-7%
Five to seven percent???
David -
If the findings of the study are true, and gay priests are no more likely to molest children than straight priests
We don’t know the findings of the study. All we know is what a reporter wrote about one study author’s off the cuff response to one bishop’s question. My guess is that the study itself says nothing one way or the other about whether “gay” priests are more likely to molest than “straight” priests. The oral off the cuff answer suggested that the study authors didn’t keep track of priests’ orientation.
Homosexuals are said to be lacking in affective maturity because they are homosexuals
The Church says no such thing. If you insist on drawing a bright line between “gay” and “straight” you will misunderstand Church teaching. The Vatican’s 2005 document on the issue is titled “Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies.” Not “homosexuals” but “persons with homosexual tendencies.” See the difference?
The Church has not and will not define people by their sexual acts: in her eyes, teenage boys are not “masturbators”; men who perform sex acts with men are not “homosexuals”; and couples who perform sex acts with one another outside of marriage are not “fornicators”: they are all simply sinners in need of the healing that only Christ can bring.
The 2005 document suggests that candidates for priesthood who engaged in sex acts with men at some point in their distant past, or who experience transitory desires to engage in such acts, can indeed be ordained; but that candidates who define themselves by their sex acts – which the Church says not to do but which you insist on doing – should not be ordained. Why not? Because in defining themselves by their desires or by giving themselves over to them, they exhibit a lack of affective maturity that will inevitably surface following ordination.
In short, your premise (study shows that gay & straight priests are equally likely to abuse teens) is wrong, and your “logical” result of that premise (gay & straight priests are equally lacking in affective maturity) is also wrong.
Some of the commenters above pointed to research suggesting that some seminarians were so lacking in affective maturity that they didn’t have defined sexual desires at all: while most of us know that we experience desire for the same or the opposite sex most of the time, these poor guys were not even at that stage yet. If you insist on dividing the world up into gay and straight you will not only misunderstand Church teaching but also this research as well.
The study indicates that the majority of the victims were males because the priest-abusers had more access to males. I wonder if one reason for that is that Catholics themselves, before the sex abuse crisis, were more comfortable with priests associating with males than with females. I think there was a double standard at work there. Father X could associate more freely with males in a variety of situations, but were he to do that with females, eyebrows might have been raised. It does not necessarily mean that the priests were gay, only that they and the Church at large were more comfortable if they associated with males.
The access part makes a lot of sense. Parents were more likely to trust a priest alone or overnight with boys than with girls. Nowadays that has changed drastically because of this experience. In the instances where girls were abused the parents were woefully naive or trusting.
We don’t know the findings of the study. All we know is what a reporter wrote about one study author’s off the cuff response to one bishop’s question.
Joe,
Agreed we don’t have the final report, but one of the researchers made a speech to the USCCB:
The Church says no such thing. If you insist on drawing a bright line between “gay” and “straight” you will misunderstand Church teaching. The Vatican’s 2005 document on the issue is titled “Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies.” Not “homosexuals” but “persons with homosexual tendencies.” See the difference?
I see the difference, but paragraph 2359 of the Catechism refers to “homosexual persons,” and the distinction you claim the Church is making is not even to be found even in the titles of the following documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, let alone the body of the documents:
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (1986)
Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons (1992)
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons (2003)
candidates who define themselves by their sex acts – which the Church says not to do but which you insist on doing – should not be ordained.
The document to which you refer says the Church “cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’” Two of those three are voluntary behaviors, but those who “present deep-seated homosexual tendencies” are clearly the “homosexual persons” mentioned in the other documents. Someone with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” need not ever have engaged in homosexual behavior or support gay culture. They are excluded from the priesthood solely because of their sexual orientation.
If you insist on dividing the world up into gay and straight you will not only misunderstand Church teaching but also this research as well.
Quoting myself from my message of 3:13 pm today: “I think it is probably an oversimplification to think that classifying people into only two groups — heterosexual and homosexual — is an adequate description of sexuality. John Money, the psychologist and sexologist, once said, ‘There are as many sexual orientations as there are people.’”
First of all, after all that has happened, you cannot be serious about suggesting we begin ordaining gay priests. Still, for now I can humor you and will play along.
Ken,
You’re too kind. :-)
Here’s what I don’t understand.
1. You say you don’t disagree with the study.
2. The study (or at least the speech by the researcher) says that gay priests are no more likely to molest children than straight priests.
3. You say keeping gay men out of the priesthood is a “good start” in dealing with the abuse crisis.
4. I ask why.
5. You respond that I can’t be serious after all that has happened.
Now, if gay men were more likely to molest children than straight men, then obviously screening out gay men would lower the incidence of abuse. But the researcher says gay men are not more likely to be abusers. That means that the rate of abuse would be the same if you had all heterosexual priests, all homosexual priests, or half and half.
I can only assume you feel homosexual priests have been disproportionately responsible for the abuse crisis, but you claim you don’t disagree with the researcher, and the researcher says gay priests have not been disproportionately responsible. So I am confused by your position.
He may have a strong wish to become a priest, but his sacrifices is not the same as the sacrifice the heterosexual man makes.
Ken,
I suppose, then, that the Pope is mistaken to accept priests from the Anglican Communion into the Catholic priesthood without making them give up their wives.
I have read Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders, and I do not see your argument in it. Perhaps I didn’t read carefully enough. Can you point to an authoritative statement in that document or elsewhere on homosexuality, celibacy, and the priesthood that says gay men cannot be priests because they cannot be sacrificing in the same way that straight men do?
Kathy accuses James Alison of being an ideologist who ignores empirical data.
In fact Allison’s thought corresponds to ALL the empirical data of the last 150 years of testimony of gay experience (including Alison’s own) and of psychological study thereof. Alison also takes biblical sources fully into account.
His latest piece is absolutely brilliant, speaking the truth with poise and force:
http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng59.html
Yes David, as I said, screening out homosexuals is a first start, but one could almost say that is a no-brainer. However of course the problems that led up to the sexual abuse scandal are more complicated, and it is important that we not just slap some sort of feel-good band aid on it. The bishops already tried to wallpaper over this, to very sad and bad results.
I am no psychologist, but I imagine that in seminaries, some sort of personality screening and psychological evaluation is more or less routine. We do not want to ordain lunatics, for example, or raging alcoholics, hysterical ninnies, drug addicts, overbearing megalomaniacs, or men with any number of serious mental or psychological problems. I should add that excluding these men from the seminary does not mean punishing them. They must be encouraged to serve God in other ways, to properly discern their individual vocation as per their particular condition and station in life.
This may seem obvious enough, but the priesthood is very important, and regarding candidates for the priesthood, we need to keep in mind that in addition to offering mass, these men are supposed to serve the communities in which they live. Think of Father Damian and the lepers he served. If he had been some sort of fragile nit wit, he would have simply given up.
As such, in addition to everything else (their individual callings, the personal sacrifice they make, schooling, etc.), priests need to have some reasonable balance to their personalities and control over their faculties. In my mind this is one reason a priest (any priest I meet) commands my highest respect. Before he arrives anywhere, he has already given up so much for God and has passed many trials. Even if he is just a young guy, I know the priest has already given more of himself to God and God’s community than I ever will.
You mention the Anglicans, and you are correct. My point was certainly not perfect, but it was what I thought of at the moment.
Certainly the Vatican has made exceptions for Anglican ministers who now want to be Catholic priests. My opinion on the matter is not important; I am sure the Pope is correct. In fact if the Pope wakes up one fine day and declares that we will begin ordaining gay clergy; that will that and I will be Ok with it. The Pope is Vicar of Christ and is guided in such decisions by the Holy Spirit; I am not.
“I think that the politics of political correctness has so infiltrated these issues that we will never really understand or know what’s true.”
I weary of appeals to “political correctness” as the Great Satan of our Culture of Death. Yeah, I know I’m exaggerating Sean’s point here, and I apologize in advance.
I teach at two colleges, one of which is ensconced in a rural, conservative Catholic bastion of the state. I’m getting at least five research papers in favor of gay marriage and discussions about this topic in class for the purposes of honing argumentation illicits very little furor. (Far different case with the debate over the end of the world in 2012 or Creationism, topics which are getting students plenty riled up and yelling at each other.)
Why? Because they’ve seen homosexuals portrayed sympathetically in the media or because the Sesame Street told them Gay is Good?
No.
BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY KNOW SOME GAY PEOPLE. They live with gay roommates, they talk openly about being gay or straight, and they don’t see anything to fear or threaten.
Ditto what Jean said. When my husband’s mostly conservative Protestant congregation has to defend its position on gay marriage to the children of its long-time members, you know that something very profound has changed in the attitudes towards gay people. It’s not an abstract issue for them — they are friends and roommates and co-workers of gay people they know, like, and respect.
Parenthetically, and not directly relevant to the discussion of abuse by priests, the entire culture has become more openly sexually predatory — and it is not a liberal/conservative divide. It’s a lot to ask someone growing up looking at continual sexual exploitation by the media of, in particular, young girls, to think that sexually predatory conduct is mostly a gay problem. It is not that far off to say that, even if a lot of abuse directed at boys was engaged in by gay priests, if priests had the same access to girls as boys, a lot more girls would have been abused. I think if there is any role played by the notion of “increased access” this is it, and it shows how important it is to enact physical space and other policies that control and limit access between one child and one adult at a time.
Yes Barbara and Jean, American society is more accepting of gay folks now than before. However the Vatican often does not look to majority American opinion when making decisions. Americans don’t like this, but the Church is not a democracy. On any number of Church matters, we American Catholics must routinely submit to the authority of Rome.
“Parenthetically, and not directly relevant to the discussion of abuse by priests, the entire culture has become more openly sexually predatory — and it is not a liberal/conservative divide.”
I agree with you Barbara, and sadly, this coarsening of our society is demeaning to everyone and in fact is the sort of thing Pope Paul VI predicted in Humanae Vitae so many years ago:
From Humanae Vitae – “…Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. …”
“The 2005 document suggests that candidates for priesthood who engaged in sex acts with men at some point in their distant past, or who experience transitory desires to engage in such acts, can indeed be ordained; but that candidates who define themselves by their sex acts – which the Church says not to do but which you insist on doing – should not be ordained. Why not? Because in defining themselves by their desires or by giving themselves over to them, they exhibit a lack of affective maturity that will inevitably surface following ordination.”
The document seems to say, in a short space, a good deal more than this. From what I am able to glean:
* It states that priests must possess the quality of “affective maturity”.
* What is “affective maturity”? THe JPII document on priestly formation, Pastores Dabo Vobis, describes it in paragraphs 43-44. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html
It is a subset of human formation that allows a person to understand her sexuality and sexual desires, and integrate them in a responsible way into interpersonal relationships. Part of this is understanding the “nuptial meaning” of the body (JPII theology-of-the-body-speak)
* Persons with homosexual inclinations cannot relate correctly to men and women in the way that a priest should. But in making this prescription, the link to affective maturity in this provision, if it exists, is not explicitly made.
Re: The church is not a democracy. I wonder if the Pope has ever heard the expression “you’re not the boss of me.” It might as well be the generational motto for those born after 1990.
Jim and others: here is a paper by Richard Sipe that outlines many of the issues discussed above. Link: http://www.richardsipe.com/2009-09/US%20Catholic%20Bishops%20-%20Are%20They%20Gay.pdf
Obviously, it was written before the latest talks summarizing the recent John Jay Study. But, it outlines a context within which you can better understand the Study points.
Some highlights:
“The pattern of sexual activity within the clerical system is woven into a clerical culture that despite verbal protestations and written directives does not really exercise informed discretion in the selection of its candidates; and most importantly the church does not educate its members for celibate living. Bishops and religious superiors are singularly resistant to explicit sexual and celibate training for clerical candidates; they rely on the tutelage of confessors and spiritual directors and the seminary schedule—horarium—to inculcate spirituality and the discipline of celibacy. The system fails in too many instances and those failures expose a flawed system based in part on a defective understanding of human sexuality.
Sex is the central and key problem of the Roman Catholic Church in this 21st Century—for lay and clergy alike.
The sexual abuse crisis confronting the Roman Catholic Church is important, but it is merely one aspect of the unaddressed sexual concerns of the Church. It is clear from the response and cover-ups of the hierarchy to the clergy abuse crisis that they cannot deal with the sexual problems in their own ranks. One reason is the fear of exposing their sexual proclivities and practices.”
“Many clerics resent any discussion of their sexuality as an intrusion even if they agree that it is factual and accurate; and as one archbishop wrote: “it [A Secret World] certainly corresponds with so much I learned these twenty-seven years as a [superior]…[priests] are indeed tired and a bit angry at priests who have resigned and who seem then to take advantage of the knowledge they have to lower the reputation of those who stayed. That perception is out there and it is unfortunate. I guess there is a kind of voyeurism about the sex life of clerics and I wonder if it is really so healthy for the whole of society.” When I reviewed some of the results of my study prior to publication with a priest in Baltimore his only response was: “Prove it.” When I talked about the same material with a psychiatrist who had many years treating over 300 Catholic religious he said: “What you say is true, but they [the Church] will crucify you if you say so.” I admit that my work has intruded and challenged the most secret world of Catholic clergy.”
“
Persons with homosexual inclinations cannot relate correctly to men and women in the way that a priest should. But in making this prescription, the link to affective maturity in this provision, if it exists, is not explicitly made.
Jim,
The concept, to me, implies that “homosexual persons” (persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies) are somehow emotionally crippled or handicapped, because they do not have a capacity that “normal” people have. This prevents them from being good priests. Of course, according to various reports, somewhere between 10% and 50% of priests are “homosexual persons.” So going with a rough average of the estimates, of the inadequate supply of priests in the United States, 30% are “homosexual persons” afflicted with affective maturity who are not up to the job of priest and should not have been ordained.
It seems to me the notion of “affective maturity” is basically a Vatican code word for homosexuality. It seems to be a purely theoretical concept, like phlogiston, or the ether wind, or the four humors of the body.
It does seem ironic that one of the principal measures of a man’s fitness to be a priest is his capacity to do something he must swear not to — have a marital relationship with a woman.
One has to ask in what other areas of life “affective maturity” is a necessary quality. If you can’t be a good husband to a wife, you can’t be a priest. But if you become a priest, you may never be a husband at all.
Should a wise heterosexual avoid attempts at friendship with a “homosexual person,” since “homosexual persons” cannot relate correctly to men and women?
” If you can’t be a good husband to a wife, you can’t be a priest. But if you become a priest, you may never be a husband at all.”
Don’t mean to sound flippant David, but that sentence just about sums up the matter.
Another way of saying could be: If a man is homosexual, he cannot be a priest. Also; if he becomes a (heterosexual) priest, he cannot take a wife.
In this and other ways, Catholic priests make big sacrifices when they take their vows.
Well, your continued ignorance about both psychology and the church amazes me. So, where does that leave the other half of the Catholic Church’s priesthood in the Eastern Rite?
Have they had deficient priests for two thousand years? How about the Western Rite experience until 1100?
Sorry, your points and discussion are so far from facts, reality, and what we know from the science of psychology – it becomes amusing.
“One has to ask in what other areas of life “affective maturity” is a necessary quality. If you can’t be a good husband to a wife, you can’t be a priest. But if you become a priest, you may never be a husband at all.”
If we separate “affective maturity” from the specific question of ordaining gay men, and look at it as more of a general concept, I think there is a lot to be said for it. As a matter of fact, I do think that men and women who wish to marry one another should be “affectively mature”, so that, for example, the husband doesn’t hit on his wife’s hot best friend (or sister) the moment they’re alone in a room together. There are definitely 20-somethings in my office whom I wish were affectively mature in their dealings with their coworkers.
But how it applies to gay persons in a different way, I don’t see.
Don’t mean to sound flippant David, but that sentence just about sums up the matter.
Ken,
I fully expected you to agree with the way I put it!
If a man is homosexual, he cannot be a priest.
I think as things now stand, it would be correct to say, “If a man is a homosexual, he may not become a priest.” That is, at the moment the Church has said it will not ordain “homosexual persons.” However, the Church has not said that the considerable number of “homosexual persons” who have already been ordained were not validly ordained and hence are not priests, or that they should be exposed and defrocked. According to the current word from Rome, a woman cannot be a priest, but a homosexual man seeking the priesthood is not permitted to become a priest.
One can only imagine how homosexual priests currently serving feel about this situation. Of course, they may have no feelings due to their “affective immaturity.”
Jim,
If you do a Google search using
“affective immaturity”
you get 5,320 hits, which is not really a lot. If you do a Google search using
“affective immaturity” -Catholic
which is a search for documents containing “affective immaturity” but not “Catholic,” you get 1,040 hits. So by far most of the documents on the Internet about affective immaturity are related in some way to Catholics.
Now, if the Church used something like “emotional maturity,” one could weed out inappropriate candidates for the priesthood by focusing on that. But clearly the Church considers all homosexual persons to suffer from “affective immaturity” because of their sexual orientation. Homosexual persons are, by very definition, affectively immature because their sexual orientation does not allow them to be sexually and romantically in love with a member of the opposite sex.
Of course, it raises questions in my mind about someone who is truly bisexual. One would have to say, I think, that a bisexual man has “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” as well as “deep-seated heterosexual tendencies,” and he is also capable of loving a woman in the same way as a heterosexual man. So do bisexual men suffer from affective immaturity? I am betting the Church would consider them unfit for the priesthood, because it is not (IMHO) the inability of a man to relate to a woman heterosexually that the Church truly considers to be “affective maturity,” but rather it is the capacity of a man to relate sexually to another man that renders him unfit for the priesthood.
“But clearly the Church considers all homosexual persons to suffer from “affective immaturity” because of their sexual orientation. ”
See, this is where that 2005 document is maddeningly unclear. Does it in fact say that? It’s difficult to say. There’s a section on affective maturity. Then there’s a separate section on homsexuality. That particular section concludes with the prescription that men with deep homosexual inclinations, or who actively engage in homosexual acts, can’t be admitted to seminaries or ordained. But it seems to be because of their inclinations and actions, not their affective maturity.
If a man is homosexual, he cannot be a priest.
Ken, this is not true.
Here’s a bit from a past Tablet article by Timothy Radcliffe OP, Can gays be priests? ….
“TWO WEEKS AGO I was in Nova Scotia, giving a retreat for the bishops and priests of eastern Canada. A priest sent up a piece of paper with a question that he was too shy to ask publicly: “Will this document on the admission of gays to the priesthood mean that I am not welcome anymore? Does it mean that people like me are second-class priests?” I have heard this same question, in one form or another, from priests all over the world. The forthcoming Vatican document on homosexuality and the priesthood (see page 40) is the focus of intense anxiety ….. a vocation is a call from God. It is true that, as the document says, it is “received through the Church, in the Church and for the service of the Church”, but it is God who calls. Having worked with bishops and priests, diocesan and religious, all over the world, I have no doubt that God does call homosexuals to the priesthood, and they are among the most dedicated and impressive priests I have met. So no priest who is convinced of his vocation should feel that this document classifies him as a defective priest. And we may presume that God will continue to call both homosexuals and heterosexuals to the priesthood because the Church needs the gifts of both …..”
Another interesting read on the subject – Letter of response to friends in the aftermath of the Vatican Instruction of 29 November 2005 by Fr. James Alison
My understanding is that the connection of “affective immaturity” to homosexuality is found in Freud’s concept of psychosexual development. Not the only, nor even the most commonly held, theory, to say the least.
What is the above, posted at November 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 am, supposed to indicate? I thought the convention, if another blog is linking to, discussing, or using excerpts from this thread on dotCommonweal, for the “posted by” to provide a link to the other blog.
My understanding is that the connection of “affective immaturity” to homosexuality is found in Freud’s concept of psychosexual development.
Lisa,
I suppose it’s possible, but having read a number of passages using affective maturity, affective maturation and affective immaturityfound by searing vatican.va, it just doesn’t seem so. An example is Pastores Dabo Vobis.
I really can’t see how the Church can subscribe to the sexual maturation theories of Freud, which would include things like the Oedipus complex:
I just can’t imagine the Church believes this is how God intended for men to become heterosexual!
I know it seems like a stretch (when so much of the magisterium’s teachings on sexuality are 13th century, not 19th-20th!) and I’m not saying it’s policy. The connection isn’t a direct one at all; for what it’s worth, it’s via French Jesuit Tony Anatrella, a psychoanalyst, therefore, unless the term is misapplied, a Freudian of some stripe.
This from CNS on the no-gay-priests document, and the commentary about it in L’Osservatore Romano: “The article — the only explanatory text the Vatican published with the document — was written by French Msgr. Tony Anatrella, a psychoanalyst and consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family….
While “sexual transgressions” are a particular concern, he said, there are “collateral effects inherent” in accepting gay men into the seminary and ordaining them to the priesthood because of “typical behaviors and expressions on the part of these personalities.”
He said they tend to have few friends, to close themselves off from others in “a clan of persons of the same type,” to resent the claims on their time made by parishioners, to encourage other gay men to enter the priesthood and to deal with authority predominantly as a matter of “seduction and rejection.”
A “commitment in holy orders presupposes that the candidate has attained a sufficient affective and sexual maturity coherent with his masculine sexual identity,” the article said.
“He must, in principle, be suitable for marriage and able to exercise fatherhood over his children. And it is under those mature conditions that he renounces exercising them in order to give himself to God in the priesthood,” the monsignor wrote…
“A homosexual person would have difficulty incarnating this symbolic reality of the spousal bond and spiritual paternity,” he said.
Msgr. Anatrella provided a long list of warning signs that should alert seminary rectors and staff members to the possibility that a seminarian is homosexual.
Among worrying signs, he listed: students who had trouble relating to their fathers; are uncomfortable with their own identity; tend to isolate themselves; have difficulty in discussing sexual questions; view pornography on the Internet; demonstrate a deep sense of guilt; or often see themselves as victims.
A man with homosexual tendencies, he said, “should not be accepted for formation or, if he was accepted before being aware of his situation, his formation must be interrupted.”
So, no, Freud isn’t the official spokesperson for the Church’s understanding of sexuality, but he may have crept in, not unlike the way Augustine made Platonism the “go-to” philosophy for Christendom for all those centuries…
Oh, yes, Anatrella was later suspended on allegations of abuse of a male patient.
David, I deleted the “comment” from 9:01 — it was a pingback, automatically generated — and from a spam blog. False alarm.
Oh, yes, Anatrella was later suspended on allegations of abuse of a male patient.
Well, I guess he knows what he’s talking about, then!
Thanks for the explanation. It does seem clear to me that as the Church sees it, someone with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” is a “homosexual person.” It also seems clear to me that the Church considers a “homosexual person” to be “affectively immature” by definition. Presumably there are other ways to be “affectively immature.” So not everyone who is “affectively immature” is a “homosexual person,” but everyone who is a “homosexual person” is “affectly immature.” Consequently, there is little hope of appealing to psychological and psychiatric studies of gay men and how they function in the role of father, or partner, or priest to argue that they are not “affectively immature.” In the Church’s understanding of human sexuality, being predominantly oriented toward choosing members of ones own gender to have loving sexual relationships with just is “affective immaturity.”
I did find that the complaint against Anatrella was later dropped by the French prosecutor.
Would suggest that the best description and explanation of these issues is by Donald Cozzens in his book, “The Changing Face of the Priesthood”. Cozzens has the experience to back up and support his findings and conclusions. He is not biased not homophobic. He does realistically lay out concerns in seminaries, dioceses, and parishes where the percent of gay priests or candidates continues to increase.
He puts his concerns more in the context of some of the Roman documents cited above – what happens when you have gay pastors/priests in a church that expects them to preach, teach, and live with statements such as “intrinsically disordered”; almost less than fully human; not able to have healthy, developed relationships. It can create a subculture (from T. Radcliffe) in a seminary or a diocese; it can create an atmosphere that drives heterosexual candidates away from ministry (from Cozzens’ own experience).
Richard McBrien also wrote an excellent essay about 12 years ago – “Homosexuality and the Priesthood: Questions We Can’t Keep Out of the Closet”. The Dominican leader, Donald Goergens, of the Sexual Celibate questioned the impact when gays must remain “closeted” – it impacts their ability to live a healthy, full life.
All of these folks are not biased – they raise questions about the current pattern and trends in church leadership that are unwilling to face the actual issues; unwilling to discuss or dialogue and close off all attempts to face the issues. They all see this as a crisis in the church and are asking that it be allowed to be discussed in an open and frank way. They find the last seminary investigation and some of the recent documents to either be unhelpful or vague about the actual issue.
I remember a formation study by the Detroit archdiocesan seminary staff in the early 1989′s on gay orientations – the tone and conclusions and biases are not much different from Anatrella but its main point was that gay people were unable to constitutionaly remain faithful to one promise, person, church. When I reflect back on that, the lack of depth, the conceit about their authority to draw “perfect” conclusions is embarrassing. In many ways, what we see today in terms of “judging” gays parallels the conclusions about blacks in the 19th and early 20th century.
Obviously the Church has ordained priests with gay tendencies, and nobody is talking about a witch hunt.
The point is that the Church should try to refrain from ordaining homosexual priests; should try to ordain men whose tendencies are within the bounds of normality.
“The connection isn’t a direct one at all; for what it’s worth, it’s via French Jesuit Tony Anatrella, a psychoanalyst, therefore, unless the term is misapplied, a Freudian of some stripe. ”
Lisa, thank you for researching that abot Anatrella – hadn’t run into that before.
Of course, the question now is, ‘is this guy off on some weird tangent, or is this respectable and mainstream psychology?’
Ken,
What do you mean “normality”? Do you mean with regard to sexual orientation? If so, why. given that there’s no reason to link homosexuality causally with abuse, or, indeed, any other “misbehavior”? Indeed, most contemporary research is coming to see homosexuality as a normal variation in human populations, like left-handedness or blue eyes.
How about the straight priest I know who develops serial relationships with women that involve a sexual component, then dumps them if they infer that he wanted a full adult relationship?He has never had a close personal relationship (male or female) in his life, keeping everyone at a distance, even those he’s sexually involved with. Oh yeah, he likes to engage in public nudity when he can get away with it. He’s OK because he’s not gay?
In other words, let’s ask the real questions about affective maturity, personality disorders, and the disorders Cozzens mentions: unrecognized anger, obsessive-compulsive trait, depression, etc. There seems to be a crisis in the mental health of priests, but it isn’t about homosexuality.
Lisa – I mean that most people do not consider homosexuality to be nomral.
Regardless of how many times (or how loudly) you and others who agree with you claim that homosexuality is somehow normal, it is not. Sure it has been around for centuries, but so has alcoholism and drug addiction, along with any number of various other abnormalities. That something has been around has nothing to do with whether or not it is normal. Cruelty has been around since Cain slew Abel, but to be cruel is not considered either normal or good.
Of course you are correct in that this topic is larger than homosexuality; that is my point as well. We need our priests to have some decent balance to their personalities, and that involves much more that sexual tendencies.
Homoseuxality then, is just one of many abnormalities that the seminaries need to keep in mind when assessing candidates for the priesthood.
This is not “about homosexuality”, I do not understand why some keep dragging that into the discussion. The Pope has clearly indicated the Church will not knowingly ordain gay men as priests. This is about helping the priests we have, and about the proper selection and formation of the priests of tomorrow.
Ken – your position only reinforces my comments above. It makes about as much sense scientifically, medically, genetically as classifying african-americans as a lesser class of human beings.
Almost no responsible professional scientific studies or resources support your bias or conclusions. There is an ongoing debate about homosexuality in terms of “nature vs. nurture” – even this debate has moved more and more towards a conclusion that homosexuality happens genetically through the process of conception and maturation until birth.
The Pope can say whatever he wants – the church continues to knowingly ordain gay men to the priesthood. Your interpretation of the papal documents is not supported by practice or explanation by current seminary formation directors.
Bill – I do not understand your point.
1 – The Vatican does not approve of ordaining homosexuals, and seminaries are not to knowingly ordain homsexuals.
2 – Homosexuality is not the norm and never has been. That it has been around for eons does not make it normal.
3 – Your bringing Black Americans into this is nonsensical and not worth comment.
Please clarify. You obviously disagree with me, but are you saying that the Church does openly ordain gay men? Are you saying then, that homosexuality is normal? Regarding homosexuals, do you think the Church should ordain them priests? If so, why? What positive result do you predict from that?
What point (or points) are you trying to make?
Ken,
You have as yet failed to explain a contradiction in your own position. You seem to believe what the John Jay researchers have said — that being a “homosexual person” does not make a priest any more likely to engage in sex abuse than being a “heterosexual person.” And yet you say that screening out homosexual persons is a “good start” in dealing with the abuse crisis. I understand that you believe homosexual persons are not “normal.” I could understand why you might maintain that only “normal” men should become priests. You might have any number of reasons (that I would probably disagree with) for excluding homosexual men from the priesthood. But you have yet to say why it is a “good start” in dealing with the abuse crisis.
One obvious way of dealing with the abuse crisis is keeping men out of the priesthood who are likely to become abusers. But if you actually believe that homosexual priests are not more likely to abuse than other priests, then screening them out will not cut down on the rate of abuse.
Every time you have been asked to explain your position, your response has been something like, “You can’t be serious.” If you would say, “I simply don’t believe what the researchers are saying. It is obvious that homosexual priests have contributed to the abuse crisis by being disproportionately responsible for cases of abuse,” then you would be making sense. This is what Sean is saying in his post of Ken,
You have as yet failed to explain a contradiction in your own position. You seem to believe what the John Jay researchers have said — that being a “homosexual person” does not make a priest any more likely to engage in sex abuse than being a “heterosexual person.” And yet you say that screening out homosexual persons is a “good start” in dealing with the abuse crisis. I understand that you believe homosexual persons are not “normal.” I could understand why you might maintain that only “normal” men should become priests. You might have any number of reasons (that I would probably disagree with) for excluding homosexual men from the priesthood. But you have yet to say why it is a “good start” in dealing with the abuse crisis.
One obvious way of dealing with the abuse crisis is keeping men out of the priesthood who are likely to become abusers. But if you actually believe that homosexual priests are not more likely to abuse than other priests, then screening them out will not cut down on the rate of abuse.
Every time you have been asked to explain your position, your response has been something like, “You can’t be serious.” If you would say, “I simply don’t believe what the researchers are saying. It is obvious that homosexual priests have contributed to the abuse crisis by being disproportionately responsible for cases of abuse,” then you would be making sense.
David,
You raise a good point and I apologize for not being clear.
I said screening out homosexuals is a “good start” because the Vatican’s position is that the Church will not knowingly ordain gay men as preists, and so the Pope has directed seminaries to try and screen for these men, and not allow them to proceed to ordination.
By “a good start”, I mean I think it is good to bring the processes of the seminaries in line with the dictates of Rome.
I have said over and over that this abuse problem has very complicated roots, and so of course more study is needed and more needs to be done. I am confident the proper Church authorities will read the John Jay study in its entirety and will apply the results accordingly.
However it seems that meanwhile, the most basic thing the seminaries in the USA can do is submit to the dictates of the Vatican. In fact that seems almost the least they can do.