Learning lessons from John Jay College study
By Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone
On May 18, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
released its “Report on the Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of
Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010,” as
called for by the U.S. bishops in the Charter
for the Protection of Children and Young People in 2002. (See story.)
For those of us who have been involved in dealing with this issue over
the last several years, the report is enlightening but did not present
anything too terribly surprising with regard to what were and were not
the causes of this problem. Nonetheless, it serves as a reminder to us
Catholics in this country of the deep soul-searching we have done over
the last several years in coming to terms with this scourge on society.
By the grace of God — and despite the impressions some might have
— we Catholics can take confidence that our Church has led by example
in putting decisive measures in place to effectively deal with this insidious
problem. It is no exaggeration to say that, at this time in the history
of our country, there is no safer place for a child to be than in the
company of Catholic clergy, religious and lay leaders. Of course, this
is no time to gloat. As the John Jay Study indicates, there are no tell-tale
character traits that indicate who will and will not be an abuser. We
must, therefore, continue to exercise vigilance in this regard, for we
cannot deny that this is a heinous crime that has been a deep betrayal
of trust and inflicted deep wounds on its victims. I therefore wish to
repeat my apology to all those who have suffered such abuse from Catholic
Church leaders, and give assurance that we will continue to do all that
we can to prevent this from ever happening again.
There is, of course, much to learn from the John Jay Report. I would like
to highlight some of the more significant points here.
• The frequency of abuse began to increase in the 1960s, peaked
in the 1970s, and dramatically decreased in the early 1980s. Seminaries
were not prepared to respond to the rapid social changes during and, obviously,
prior to those years in order to give adequate screening and formation
to those preparing to serve as priests at that time.
• The abusers most consistently revealed an underdeveloped sexual
identity, with those who were sexually abused themselves when they were
minors being more likely to abuse as adults. Moreover, the crime is often
one of opportunity, with priests having had more opportunities to be with
boys than with girls. Thus, the problem was not specifically one of sexual
orientation.
• Nor is clerical celibacy the cause of the problem. This is seen
not only in the low frequency of abuse before and after the crisis period
(the latter especially being thoroughly demonstrated by scientific studies),
but even more so by the fact that the vast majority of male abusers in
society are married or otherwise involved with an adult partner. (At this
point the report speaks of celibacy being “constant in the Catholic
Church since the 11th century.” While this is not the place to delve
into the topic, it should be pointed out that research by Cardinal Alphons
Stickler and others has demonstrated that the “law of continence”
for even married clerics has its roots in Christian antiquity, with evidence
that its origins go back even to apostolic times. For more on this, the
reader is referred to: “The Case for Clerical Celibacy,” by
Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler [Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995]; “Apostolic
Origins of Priestly Celibacy,” by Fr. Christian Cochini, SJ [Ignatius,
San Francisco, 1990]; “Celibacy in the Early Church,” by Father
Stefan Heid [Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000]; and the exhaustive series
of articles published in “Priesthood and Celibacy” [Editrice
Àncora, Milan]).
• Another cause of the problem was that bishops were making decisions
based on what was (and was not) known about child sexual abuse at the
time. By the 1980s, the typical approach bishops took was to send the
offender for therapy, and not restore him to ministry until a qualified
psychotherapist deemed him sufficiently rehabilitated.
The bishops now, of course, have adopted a “zero tolerance”
policy for sexual abuse of minors by Church ministers, and have put into
place thorough safe environment programs to protect youth and children
and prevent abuse from happening. The Diocese of Oakland, in particular,
has been at the forefront of this effort from early on, and effectively
so. I remain deeply grateful to my predecessors in leadership here for
their foresight and determination in this regard.
Of all of the lessons to be learned from the John Jay Study, perhaps the
most valuable comes from this finding: the rise
of deviant behavior in the Church in the 1970s paralleled that of society
in general. Thankfully, this changed in the 1980s. It should teach
us, though, how careful we must be not to fall into that trap of gullibility.
Many leaders in our Church at various levels were swept up in the revolutionizing
of sexual mores in the ‘60s and ‘70s, failing to foresee the
dire consequences that would come back to haunt us. We must not make that
mistake again, with regard to the whole range of issues involving faith
and morals. We must resist the temptation to swallow wholesale the latest
popular cultural trend, but rather critique the culture through the lens
of faith. As Christians, we are aided by the light of revelation; thus,
it is our duty toward society to offer this critique, affirming what is
positive, correcting what is defective, and adapting whatever any given
culture has to offer for furthering our mission of knowing Christ better
and making him better known. This is what will make us happy, healthy
and holy — in short, truly human.
back
to top
home
|
