A comment in response to my post on Pope Benedict’s meeting with the Irish Bishops (“Clerical Abuse:Vatican Blame Game, Revisited”) queried my claims that part of the blame lies deeply embedded in the rules, institutions and culture of the Church itself. The same comment also raised a perception of disproportionate treatment on this site of matters of Vatican theology, and Vatican adminstration. That issue I will return to later. However, the question of the church’s institutional responsibility for the abuse problems world wide, including abuse of adults as well as children, is one I have investigated and explored at length at my home site, Queering the Church. I have previously promised to summarise those arguments here, but have not yet done so. Accordingly, I felt obliged to respond to David’s comments at some length.
Reflecting further overnight, it seems to me that my response is sufficiently complete to represent the summary I promised earlier. As not all readers go into the comments, particularly not after the first appearance of a post, I though it could be helpful to post the exchange here, in full.
(With thanks to David, for clearly formulating the questions.)
How did the Vatican rules, cultures, and procedures create the conditions? Are you suggesting that children wouldn’t have been abused if the Vatican had different teachings on sexuality? Or, are you suggesting that if a priest had better sexual outlets that they wouldn’t have abused children? Draw the connection for me.
With regard to the secrecy and cover-up, I think there is plenty of blame to go around. I think we forget that victims and/or their families didn’t want to report, and that theories about the acceptability, causes, and treatment of sexuality deviancy were very different in the not so distant past. Contraception, abortion, and homosexuality were all crimes when I was growing up.
But, more to the point, I don’t see how this goes to the Vatican. It is not as if the Vatican was approving of pedophilia or trying to subvert the law. I am not aware of a single case where it is claimed that law enforcement was informed of a crime and the Vatican tried to stop an investigation.
And my response:
David, there have been many analyses of how the church has created these conditions. The one I know best is “Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church” by Bishop Robinson. He was the key person investigating the problem for the Australian Bishops Conference, so he has both an insider’s view, and also a bias to see things from the point of view of the church, not of its critics. His conclusions were clear, and largely coincide with the conclusions of other observers with knowledge of the workings of the church, and professional expertise. Richard Sipe is the best known of these, followed by Gary Wills (Papal Sin) but there are a whole series of them.
It’s not about the church’s teaching on sexuality, but about its institutional procedures and culture. In summary, these are:
Selection and training:
At bottom, the problem lies with individuals with inadequate psychosexual development. The Vatican insistence on compulsory celibacy discourages heterosexual men who have a fully developed, conventional interest in sex, and also deliberately excludes homosexual men who have honestly faced and dealt with their orientation. This leads to a disproportionate number of candidates who have do not have fully formed psychosexual maturity, including gay men who are in denial, and heterosexual men whose sexual development has been malformed. The problem is exacerbated by inadequate education in sexuality in the seminary. The situation has improved, but numerous priests’ memoirs report that they entered the minor seminaries aged 12 or 13, and emerged 12 or so years later having had neither formal instruction in any aspect of sex, nor even the opportunity to discuss it with peers – any talk of sex was strictly forbidden. Tom McMahon, a former priest who later trained in psychotherapy, writes a series on “the psychology of the priesthood” at the Australian e-zine, “Catholica”. He wrote of his experience that on his ordination aged 25, he had the sexual understanding of a twelve year-old – his age at entering the minor seminary.
Control & Secrecy.
Bishop Robinson describes how the Church’s culture of power and hierarchical control leaves some priests, who are at the bottom of a chain of control, with an attitude that they are in a corresponding position of power over the lay people in their own congregations, especially the children. For them, using this power is way of compensating for their own perceived powerlessness when dealing with the bishops. Robinson agrees that this is not the way it is supposed to work: there is in theory a collegial relationship between bishop and priests, as their is in theory between pope and bishops. However, as Robinson and a wide range of other commentators have observed, this supposed collegiality in many instances just does not exist. The culture of secrecy and cover-up is embedded in official documents, and has been widely observed in all the press reports, and the Murphy Report, since the stories of clerical abuse first began to surface.
If it is true, as shown above, that the priesthood includes a disproportionate number of men who have not reached psychosexual maturity, then it reasonable to suppose that some of those who are unable to keep strictly to their vows of celibacy may look to find relief in unhealthy ways. Whatever the explanation, the fact of a correlation (at least) is clear from the evidence: why else would the incidence be so much higher for Catholic priests than for other groups of men? Some Church spokesmen have denied that the incidence is any higher, claiming that “only” 3-5% of US priests were implicated. This ignores though, the fact you raised yourself, that only a small proportion of cases were reported, and that some of those reported were simply not investigated. Making allowances for these factors, the true figure for Catholic priests will definitely be somewhat higher. In my own study of the John Jay report (which was commissioned by the bishops themselves), I concluded that a figure of around 15% might be more accurate.
As for the victims and families “not wanting” to report the abuse, there was certainly plenty of that. (This is why the Church’s quoted figures that “only” 3- 5% of US priests were implicated is way off the mark: underreporting is substantial, as it is in all cases of abuse. For the population at large, it is estimated that possibly only 10% of abuse cases are reported). The rate of underreporting of the church is unknown, but for the early cases at least, it is unlikely to be any better than for the general population. Your remark also ignores the evidence, from the church’s own records and from survivor networks, that in many dioceses, there was pressure applied on complainants to withdraw their allegations. In other cases, complaints were lodged but simply ignored. Frequently, in the US and in Ireland, the response of some in the church implied that the victim was at fault, suggesting that their “sins” (i.e. the victims) could be forgiven. Detailed procedures specified in a key Vatican document on dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct made no provision for any kind of legal, therapeutic or pastoral support for the victims, nor do the reports of the John Jay survey (in the US) or the Irish reports, tell of any such support having been given in practice. None of this exactly encouraged victims or the families to make complaints. If the families did not do say, are they to “blame”? And where the children themselves kept it secret from their parents, as is commonplace in all cases of child abuse, are they to accept a share of the “blame” too?
As for the Vatican and the law, there are numerous cases of the Vatican tying to impede investigation. Notoriously, the Irish Papal Nuncio himself refused all co-operation with the Murphy commission. Earlier, the US bishop of Bridgeport went to court to try to prevent records being made public. It may be true (but I am not sure that it is) that church authorities have never tried to stop or interfere with a police investigation, but there are certainly cases where they have been less than co-operative. This also misses the point. There are a plethora of instances where the church knew of serious crimes which had been committed, but failed in their duty to inform the police themselves. (A duty which they now recognise themselves, largely as a result of the public outcry over earlier failures.)
I agree completely that the Vatican was not “approving” of pedophilia: but in its actions, it has clearly helped to protect many of the perpetrators, particularly those of most senior rank, and to shield them from punishment.
I know that my claims above are unsubstantiated, but I assure you I have substantiated them elsewhere. This is a reply to a comment, and it is now late – way beyond midnight here in the UK. If you want more details for my assertions, read some of my posts on the topic over at “Queering the Church“. Start with “The Church, Power and Abuse“, then “The Tyranny of the Clerical Closet“. Go on to “How We Are All Victims“, and its later counterpart, “How We are all the Solution”. For the US Bishops’ own investigation into the problem, see my remarks on the John Jay study, at “Vatican Blame Game, Updated, for which I studied the John Jay report in full, and commented on exactly the problem of underreporting you raised.” Then end with “Pope Shares outrage, Shame atMurphy Report: What About The Blame?”, in which I discuss Prope Benedict’s personal culpability .
There is more too – just use the search box, and type in “clerical abuse”.
Gary Wills: Papal Sin