Studie des JOHN JAY COLLEGE

John Jay Sexual Abuse 2004

*

Vorwort des Blogbetreibers:

Im Diskurs der letzten Jahre zu den Missbrauchsfällen in der katholischen Kirche ist es häufig zu verkürzten oder auch manipulierten Darstellungen der Fakten und ihrer Ursachen gekommen. So werden in den Medien gerne folgende „Ursachen“ genannt:

  • die zölibatäre Lebensform des Priesters
  • verbreitete Homosexualität und Pädophilie unter den Priestern
  • die katholische Morallehre zur Sexualität

Diese einseitigen Befunde sind besonders erschreckend angesichts der zahlreichen Untersuchungen der letzten 20 Jahre zum Thema. Vor allem die 2004 fertiggestellte Studie des JOHN JAY COLLEGE of CRIMINAL JUSTICE, New York, stellt eine tiefgehende und representative Untersuchung zu den amerikanischen Missbrauchsfällen zwischen 1950 und 2002 dar.

Die folgenden Auszüge wurden insbesondere unter dem Gesichtspunkt „Homosexualität“ ausgewählt. Der Grund dafür liegt im Bestreben, den oft erhobenen Pauschalvorwurf – „Zölibat und homosexuelle Hintergründe“ seien hauptverantwortlich für die Missbrauchsfälle in der katholischen Kirche“ – zu hinterfragen.

Das folgende Zitat verdeutlicht die verkürzte Darstellung in Medien, selbst auf katholischen Plattformen: Dr. Armin Schwibach (kath.net):

„Bereits im Jahr 2004 hatte das „John Jay College of Criminal Justice“ (New York) einen Bericht über sexuellen Missbrauch und Klerus veröffentlicht. Der Bericht analysierte die zwischen 1950 und 2002 in den verschiedenen Diözesen gegen Kleriker vorgebrachten Anzeigen wegen Missbrauchs und hatte festgestellt, dass der Großteil der Opfer, 81 Prozent, männlichen Geschlechts war. Die Studie des „John Jay College“ erklärte weiter, dass die Pädophilie, das heißt ein Hingezogensein zu Kindern in vorpubertärem Alter, das als psychiatrische Krankheit definiert wird, nur einen kleinen Teil des Problems der sexuellen Missbräuche ausmachte. Die Opfer waren zum Großteil Heranwachsende, die nicht mehr im vorpubertären Alter waren. Die viel zitierte „Geißel“ des sexuellen Missbrauchs von Minderjährigen und Schutzbefohlenen steht somit im Bereich der Kirche vor einem homosexuellen Hintergrund.“

Einige Resultate der Studie seien vorweg genannt:

  1. Etwa 4–5 % der geschätzten 100.00 Priester, die in den USA zwischen 1950 und 2002 tätig waren, wurden des sexuellen Missbrauchs beschuldigt.
    +
  2. Von den 4.230 Beschuldigten waren 25,1 % Priester (mit der Verantwortung für eine Pfarre) und 42,3% „associate pastors“ (einer Pfarre zugeteilte Priester, die mit dem verantwortlichen Pfarrer zusammenarbeiten).
    [Ergänzende Anmerkung: Ein Priester ohne direkte Verantwortung ist dieser Erhebung nach beinahe doppelt so anfällig für sexuellen Missbrauch wie der hauptverantwortliche Pfarrer – hier drängt sich die Frage eines zu prüfenden Verhältnisses zwischen Pfarrverantwortung und Seelsorge auf.]
    +
  3. 56 % der 4.230 Priester wurden beschuldigt, nicht mehr als ein Opfer missbraucht zu haben. 149 Priester (3,5%) waren für den Missbrauch von 2,960 Opfern verantwortlich, das sind 26% aller bekannten Fälle.
    [Die Mehrheit der beschuldigten Priester wird somit durch ein einmaliges, schweres Fehlverhalten charakterisiert, was schlimm genug ist, aber der medial erzeugten Wahrnehmung sexueller Wiederholungs- und Mehrfachtäter widerspricht.]
    +
  4. Die Missbrauchstäter wiesen zahlreiche psychische Auffälligkeiten oder Probleme auf; geringes Selbstbewusstsein, emotionale Kongruenz zwischen Täter und Opfer, abartige sexuelle Erregungsformen, Mangel an sozialen Kompetenzen, Enthemmung, Beziehungsverluste, Suchtverhalten.
    +
  5. Bei 32% der beschuldigten Priester wurden signifikante psychische Probleme und/oder Drogenmissbrauch festgestellt.
    +
  6. 78,2 % der Opfer waren zwischen 11 und 17 Jahren alt, nur 6% waren unter 7 Jahren.
    [Im Anhang genannte Studien (Sipe, 1990) bestätigen, dass Pädophilie nur bei 2 – 6% der Fälle festzustellen ist. Daher ist das auftretende Phänomen nicht mit Pädophilie, sondern mit Ephebophilie zu benennen, stellt auch Kafka (2004) fest.]
    +
  7. Die Missbrauchstäter stellen eine sehr heterogene Gruppe dar: sie waren heterosexuell, homosexuell oder bisexuell. In diesem Punkt konnten keine signifikanten Unterschiede zu Tätern ausserhalb der Kirche gefunden werden.
    [Diese Schlussfolgerung aus einer Grundgesamtheit von rund 100.000 katholischen Geistlichen in 52 Jahren bestätigt, dass eine Einengung der Täterschaft auf Homosexuelle nicht zulässig ist. Zudem wissen wir aus den Ergebnissen gesamtgesellschaftlicher Untersuchungen, dass Homosexualitat als entscheidende Verursacherin von Missbrauchsfällen, insbesondere der Pädophilie, nicht verantwortlich zu machen ist.]
    +
  8. 80,9 % der Opfer sind männlichen, 19,1 % weiblichen Geschlechts.
    [Im Anhang genannte Studien (z.B. Sipe, 1995) weisen darauf hin, dass die Dunkelziffer der weiblichen Opfer wesentlich höher ist, so dass sogar ein annähernd ausgeglichenes Verhältnis von männlichen und weiblichen Sexualpartnern vorstellbar ist. Loftus and Camargo (1993) erheben bei ihrer Untersuchung sexueller Beziehungen von 1.322 Priestern, dass 27,8 % aller Priester eine Beziehung mit erwachsenen Frauen, 8,4 % mit Minderjährigen eingegangen waren. Die Untersuchungon Sipe weist schließlich darauf hin, dass die Aufdeckung einer homosexuellen Beziehung vier mal so wahrscheinlich ist wie die mediale Berichterstattung über die heterosexuelle Beziehung eines Priesters.]
    +
  9. 64% der beschuldigten Priester hatten männliche Opfer, 22,6 % der Priester ausschließlich weibliche und 3,6 % sowohl weibliche als auch männliche Opfer, in 9,8 % der Fälle konnte das Geschlecht nicht erhoben werden.
    [Das Faktum, dass (nur) 64% der beschuldigten Priester männliche Opfer missbrauchten, wird meist nicht genannt; da wird viel lieber auf die Gesamtzahl der 81% männlichen Opfer verwiesen, um die Schlussfolgerung „eindeutig homosexuell motivierter Missbrauchsfälle“ etwas anschaulicher darzustellen zu können.]

*

Aus den genannten Punkten ergibt sich ein sehr differenziertes Bild der Missbrauchstäter, das zumeist psychisch gehemmte oder gestörte Menschen zeigt, die Missbrauch sowohl an Frauen als auch an Männern üben, jedoch nur zu einem verschwindend geringen Teil an Kindern unter 10 Jahren. Anzunehmen ist ferner, dass eine signifikante Zahl der Täter bereits vor ihrer Berufung in das Priesteramt psychische Anomalien aufwiesen. Unter Berücksichtigung der vorliegenden Studien ist es nachgewiesenermaßen eine grobe, unzulässige Verkürzung, die „Geißel des sexuellen Missbrauchs von Minderjährigen und Schutzbefohlenen im Bereich der Kirche vor einem homosexuellen Hintergrund“ zu sehen.

***

Update mit Ergebnissen einer aktuellen, allerdings sehr kleinen Studie (2012), die von der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz in Auftrag gegeben wurde. In der SZ werden die Ergebnisse wie folgt beschrieben:

„Im Zuge der Aufarbeitung ihres Missbrauchsskandals hat die katholische Kirche in Deutschland eine Analyse psychiatrischer Gutachten zu einem Teil der beschuldigten Priester vorgelegt. Sexueller Missbrauch durch katholische Geistliche ist demnach nicht auf eine besondere Häufung psychischer Störungen zurückzuführen. Sexuelle Störungen wie Pädophilie seien nur bei einer Minderheit der wegen Vorwürfen zu Übergriffen begutachteten Geistlichen diagnostiziert worden, sagte Prof. Norbert Leygraf, Forensischer Psychiater von der Universität Duisburg und Leiter der von der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz in Auftrag gegebenen Studie.

Die Studienmacher werteten Gutachten zu insgesamt 78 Geistlichen aus, die ihnen von den Bistümern vorgelegt wurden. Nur bei neun der Betroffenen war eine Pädophilie, bei fünf eine Ephebophilie (Neigung zu Jugendlichen) diagnostiziert worden. Einige Priester wiesen andere Persönlichkeits- oder sonstige psychische Störungen auf. Die Experten interpretierten diese Daten so, dass der Anteil der Priester mit einer sexuellen Präferenzstörung an der gesamten Priesterschaft „keinen bedeutsamen Unterschied“ aufzeigt zum Anteil der davon Betroffenen in der deutschen Allgemeinbevölkerung.

Ähnliche Ergebnisse hatten Experten des John Jay College of Criminal Justice der City University of New York Anfang 2011 veröffentlicht, die Missbrauchsfälle durch katholische Priester in den USA von 1950 bis 2010 untersucht hatten.

Die „vorgeworfenen sexuellen Übergriffe“ der Priester ohne solche Präferenzstörungen (Paraphilien) seien aus Beweggründen begangen worden, „die sich überwiegend dem normalpsychologischen Bereich zuordnen lassen“, erklärte Leygraf.“

***

Um selbst einen Eindruck zu gewinnen, ist es unumgänglich, den ausführlichen Report zu lesen. Der Blogbetreiber hat sich darüber hinaus die Mühe gemacht, eine Auswahl relevanter Teile der Studie zu zitieren, und wesentliche Stellen (rot gedruckt) hervorzuheben. Englischkenntnisse sind notwendig, denn eine zusätzliche Übersetzungsarbeit seitens des Blogbetreibers hätte die Kapazitäten dann doch gesprengt. Wer den vollständigen Bericht lesen will, folgt den entsprechenden Links.

***

AUSZÜGE AUS DER UNTERSUCHUNG DES JOHN JAY COLLEG E OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, The City University of New York:

+

The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002

First Printing, June 2004

ISBN 1-57455-627-4

Copyright © 2004, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.

*

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The study of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests and deacons resulting in this report was authorized and paid for by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) pursuant to the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (Charter) unanimously adopted by the USCCB at its June 2002 meeting. The Charter called for many responses to this victimization of minors within the Catholic Church. Article 9 of the Charter provided for the creation of a lay body, the National Review Board, which was mandated (among other things) to commission a descriptive study of the nature and scope of the problem of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Accordingly, the Board approached John Jay College of Criminal Justice to conduct such a study. The College assembled an experienced team of researchers with expertise in the areas of forensic psychology, criminology, and human behavior, and, working with the Board, formulated a methodology to address the study mandate. Data collection commenced in March 2003, and ended in February 2004. The information contained in this report is based upon surveys provided by 195 dioceses, representing 98% all diocesan priests in the United States, and 140 religious communities, representing approximately 60% of religious communities and 80% of all religious priests.

The mandate for the study was to:

1. Examine the number and nature of allegations of sexual abuse of minors under the age of 18 by Catholic priests between 1950 and 2002.

2. Collect information about the alleged abusers, including official status in the church, age, number of victims, responses by the church and legal authorities to the allegations of abuse, and other characteristics of the alleged abusers.

3. Collect information about the characteristics of the alleged victims, the nature of their relationship to the alleged abusers, the nature of the abuse, and the time frame within which the allegations are reported.

4. Accumulate information about the financial impact of the abuse on the Church.

Three surveys provide the data for this study:

1. A profile of each diocese, providing information about characteristics of the diocese including region and size, the total numbers of allegations, and the total expenditures occasioned by allegations of abuse.

2. A survey of church records relating to individual priests against whom allegations of abuse had been made.

3. A survey of church records relating to the alleged victims of abuse and the nature of the alleged abuse.

Based upon the inquiries and communications that we received from the dioceses, eparchies and religious communities, it is our impression that, despite the complexity of the surveys and the difficulties of identifying relevant church records, these data reflect a conscientious and good-faith effort to provide exhaustive and reliable information regarding allegations of abuse made to church authorities. Due to the sensitive nature of the abuse allegations, which form the core of this report, many steps were taken to assure the anonymity of alleged victims and priests who were the subjects of the study.

The study used a double-blind procedure in which all reports were first sent to Ernst & Young, an accounting firm, where they were stripped of information that could be used to identify the area from which they were sent. Ernst & Young then sent the unopened envelopes containing survey responses to the John Jay researchers. The data set is thus stripped of all identifying information that may be linked to an individual diocese, eparchy or religious community, priest or victim.

OVERVIEW OF PREVALENCE AND REPORTING

PREVALENCE

• Priest surveys asked for birth dates and initials of the accused priests in order to determine if a single priest had allegations in multiple dioceses, eparchies or religious communities. To maintain anonymity, this information was encrypted into a unique identifying number, and birthdays and initials were then discarded. We detected 310 matching encrypted numbers, accounting for 143 priests with allegations in more than one diocese, eparchy or religious community (3.3% of the total number of priests with allegations). When we removed the replicated files of priests who have allegations in more than one place, we received allegations of sexual abuse against a total of 4,392 priests that were not withdrawn or known to be false for the period 1950-2002.

• The total number of priests with allegations of abuse in our survey is 4,392. The percentage of all priests with allegations of sexual abuse is difficult to derive because there is no definitive number of priests who were active between the years of 1950 and 2002. We used two sets of numbers to estimate the total number of active priests and then calculated the percentage against whom allegations were made.

o We asked each diocese, eparchy and community for their total number of active priests in this time period. Adding up all their responses, there were 109,694 priests reported by dioceses, eparchies and religious communities to have served in their ecclesiastical ministry from 1950-2002. Using this number, 4.0% of all priests active between 1950 and 2002 had allegations of abuse.

o The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) reports a total of 94,607 priests for the period 1960-2002. When we look at the time period covered by the CARA database, the number of priests with allegations of sexual abuse is 4,127. Thus, the percentage of priests accused for this time period is 4.3% if we rely on the CARA figures assessing the total number of priests.

o If we examine the differences between diocesan and religious priests, then our numbers result in a total of 4.3% of diocesan priests with allegations of abuse and 2.5% of religious priests (Anm.: Ordenspriester) with allegations of abuse. The CARA numbers yield a total of 5% of diocesan priests from 1960-1996 with allegations of abuse and 2.7% of religious priests from 1960-1996 with allegations of abuse.

• Our analyses revealed little variability in the rates of alleged abuse across regions of the Catholic Church in the U.S.—the range was from 3% to 6% of priests.

A total of 10,667 individuals made allegations of child sexual abuse by priests. Of those who alleged abuse, the file contained information that 17.2% of them had siblings who were also allegedly abused.5

• It is impossible to determine from our surveys what percent of all actual cases of abuse that occurred between 1950 and 2002 have been reported to the Church and are therefore in our dataset. Allegations of child sexual abuse are made gradually over an extended time period and it is likely that further allegations will be made with respect to recent time periods covered in our surveys. Less than 13% of allegations were made in the year in which the abuse allegedly began, and more than 25% of the allegations were made more than 30 years after the alleged abuse began.

DISTRIBUTION OF CASES BY YEAR

• The distribution of reported cases by the year the abuse is alleged to have occurred or begun shows a peak in the year 1970. However, considering the duration of some repeated abusive acts, more abuse occurred in the 1970s than any other decade, peaking in 1980. But, these conclusions have to be qualified because additional allegations for those time periods may surface in the future.

• Alleged abuse sometimes extended over many years. In 38.4% of allegations, the abuse is alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.

• Approximately one-third of all allegations were reported in 2002-2003, and two-thirds have been made since 1993. Thus, prior to 1993, only one-third of cases were known to Church officials. The allegations made in 1993 and 2002-2003 include offenses that allegedly occurred within the full time period from 1950-1993 and 1950-2002. The distribution of allegations made in 2002-2003 resembles the distribution of offenses alleged at all other time periods—with the exception that allegations of abuse in recent years are a smaller share of all allegations.

COSTS OF ALLEGATIONS

• The amount of money already paid by the Church, as a result of allegations, to victims, for the treatment of priests and for legal expenses reported in our surveys was $472,000,000. That figure is not the total paid by the Church to date—14% of dioceses and religious communities did not report dollar figures. In addition, survey responses were filed over a 10-month period and would not include settlements and expenses incurred after surveys were submitted. In addition, no diocese reported the recent and highly publicized $85,000,000 settlement. If we include the $85,000,000 reported settlement, the total cost paid by the church exceeds $500,000,000.

PRIESTS AND ACCUSERS

PROFILE OF PRIESTS WITH ALLEGATIONS

• The majority of priests with allegations of abuse were ordained between 1950 and 1979 (68%). Priests ordained prior to 1950 accounted for 21.3% of the allegations, and priests ordained after 1979 accounted for 10.7% of allegations.

• Over 79% of these priests were between 25 and 29 years of age when ordained. For priests whose age at the time of the first alleged abuse was reported, the largest group – over 40% was between 30 and 39. An additional 20% were under age 30, nearly 23% were between 40 and 49, and nearly 17% were over 50.6

• At the time abuse is alleged to have occurred, 42.3% of priests were associate pastors (Anm.: Kaplan), 25.1% were pastors, 10.4% were resident priests and 7.2% were teachers. Other categories (e.g., chaplain, eacon, and seminary administrator) were under 3% each.

• The majority of priests (56%) were alleged to have abused one victim, nearly 27% were alleged to have abused two or three victims, nearly 14% were alleged to have abused four to nine victims and 3.4% were alleged to have abused more than ten victims. The 149 priests (3.5%) who had more than ten allegations of abuse were allegedly responsible for abusing 2,960 victims, thus accounting for 26% of allegations. Therefore, a very small percentage of accused priests are responsible for a substantial percentage of the allegations.

• Though priests’ personnel files contain limited information on their own childhood victimization and their substance and/or alcohol abuse problems, the surveys report that nearly 7% of priests had been physically, sexually and/or emotionally abused as children. The surveys also indicate that nearly 17% had alcohol or substance abuse problems. There are indications that some sort of intervention was undertaken by church authorities in over 80% of the cases involving substance abuse.

• The surveys indicate that 32% of priests who were subject to allegations of sexual abuse were also recognized as having other behavioral or psychological problems.

OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS

• The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.

• Of the total number accused, 37% of priests with allegations of sexual abuse participated in treatment programs; the most common treatment programs were sex-offender specific treatment programs specifically for clergy and one-on-one psychological counseling. The more allegations a priest had, the more likely he was to participate in treatment. However, the severity of the alleged offense did not have an effect on whether or not a priest participated in a treatment program. Those who allegedly committed acts of penetration or oral sex were no more likely to participate in treatment than priests accused of less severe offenses.

• Priests allegedly committed acts which were classified into more than 20 categories. The most frequent acts allegedly committed were: touching over the victim’s clothing (52.6%), touching under the victim’s clothes (44.9%), cleric performing oral sex (26%), victim disrobed (25.7%), and penile penetration or attempted penile penetration (22.4%). Many of the abusers were alleged to have committed multiple types of abuse against individual victims, and relatively few priests committed only the most minor acts. Of the 90% of the reported incidents for which we had specific offense details, 141 incidents, or one and one half percent, were reported that included only verbal abuse and/or the use of pornography.7

• The alleged abuse occurred in a variety of locations. The abuse is alleged to have occurred in the following locations: in the priest’s home or the parish residence (40.9%), in the church (16.3%), in the victim’s home (12.4%), in a vacation house (10.3%), in school (10.3%), and in a car (9.8%). The abuse allegedly occurred in other sites, such as church outings or in a hotel room, in less than 10% of the allegations. The most common event or setting in which the abuse occurred was during a social event (20.4%), while visiting or working at the priest’s home (14.7%), and during travel (17.8%). Abuse allegedly occurred in other settings, such as during counseling, school hours, and sporting events, in less than 10% of the allegations.

In the 51% of cases where information was provided, half of the victims who made allegations of sexual abuse (2,638, or 25.7% of all alleged victims) socialized with the priest outside of church. Of those who did socialize with the priests who allegedly abused them, the majority had interactions in the family’s home. Other places of socialization included in the church, in the residence of the priest, and in various church activities.

REPORTING AND ACTIONS TAKEN

To date, the police have been contacted about 1,021 priests with allegations of abuse, or 24% of our total. Nearly all of these reports have led to investigations, and 384 instances have led to criminal charges. Of those priests for whom information about dispositions is available, 252 were convicted and at least 100 of those served time in prison. Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences to date.

Half of the allegations that were made (49.9%) were reported by the victim. In one-fifth of the cases (20.3%), the allegation of sexual abuse was made by the alleged victim’s attorney. The third most common way in which the abuse was reported was by the parent or guardian of the victim (13.6%). Allegations made by other individuals, such as by a police officer, a sibling, or another priest, occurred in 3% of cases or less. These allegations were most commonly made by calling the diocese (30.2%), in a signed letter to the diocese (22.8%), or in a legal filing (10.5%). All other methods by which the allegations were made, such as in person, by telling a trusted priest, or through the media, occurred in less than 10% of cases. Cases reported in 2002 had a similar distribution of types of reporting as in previous years.

The full report contains more detailed and additional analyses related to the information provided above.

This report is descriptive in nature. Future reports will examine the relationships among the variables described here in more detail and will be multivariate and analytic in nature.

+

+

PART THREE: The priests and deacons accused of sexual abuse

+

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE BY ADULT MEN

While some offenders evidence a clear preference for particular types of victims with regard to age and gender, many do not. Individuals who molest children may be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual with regard to victim selection. Child sexual abusers who prefer female victims are more likely to be diagnosed as pedophiles than those who prefer male children while child sexual abusers who prefer male victims tend to target boys who are slightly older.4

Empirical studies on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are limited. However, a number of descriptive studies have been reported which have examined small, often clinical samples of clergy. These studies suffer from a number of methodological weaknesses, such as small, nonrepresentative samples, which limit their findings and make it impossible to draw any type of meaningful generalization about child sexual abuse in the Church. This literature, however, has focused attention on a number of important topics to be considered in studying the issues within the Church, including the difference between sexually offending and non-offending priests,9 the difference between sexually offending priests and sexual offenders in the general population,10 personality characteristics or backgrounds of sexually offending priests,11 the link between child sexual abuse and substance abuse,12 and the emotional or psychological development of abusive priests.13

3.2 SUMMARY RESULTS: PRIESTS WHO HAVE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE

Priests who have allegations of sexual abuse of minors are a heterogeneous group of individuals. This is also the case with the general population of child sexual abusers, who have no consistent pattern of age, socioeconomic status, race or psychological problems.

The majority of priests with allegations of abuse are diocesan. Religious priests have slightly more than half as many allegations as diocesan priests. Additionally, religious priests have fewer multiple allegations and fewer allegations of “severe” offenses (e.g., those with penetration).

Surveys indicated that some priests with allegations of sexual abuse also showed a variety of behavioral problems, the most common of which were personality problems.

Table 3.3.6

AGE OF PRIEST AT FIRST INSTANCE OF ALLEGED ABUSE

Age in Years Count Percent

18 – 24 105 3.3%

25 – 29 541 17.0%

30 – 34 718 22.6%

35 – 39 570 17.9%

40 – 44 406 12.8%

45 – 49 316 9.9%

50 – 59 345 10.9%

60 – 69 125 3.9%

70 – 90 50 1.6%

Totals 3,176 100.0%

3.4 PRIESTS WITH BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS

Mental health and treatment professionals have found that it is not uncommon for those who engage in child sexual abuse to demonstrate other behavioral and psychological problems as well. Studies on co-occurrence of sexual offending and other problems have consistently found high rates of personality dysfunction1 as well as major mental disorders such as anxiety or depression.2 Similarly, alcohol or substance abuse problems are frequently present among those who engage in child sexual abuse.3

The files for 68 priests included information indicating that they had experienced more than one form of abuse during childhood.

When there was a history of childhood abuse, the most frequent abuser was an adult man. As shown in Table 3.4.2, of the 274 priests reported to have been abused themselves, nearly half of them were abused by someone in their family. Thirty-five percent were abused by a parent and 25 percent by a father.

Table 3.4.2

PRIESTS WITH A HISTORY OF VICTIMIZATION,

BY TYPE OF ABUSE

Decade Count % of Total

Mother 25 9.36%

Father 67 25.09%

Sibling 14 5.24%

Other family 24 9%

Teacher 5 1.87%

Peer/acquaintance 31 11.61%

Authority figure 23 8.61%

Priest 47 17.60%

Deacon 1 .38%

Other 30 11.24%

Total 267 100%

+

3.5 PRIESTS AND DEACONS AND THE ALLEGATIONS

Statistics from recent United States Justice Department studies of the prevalence of youth victimization confirm what other surveys have found: a startling proportion of young people experience sexual victimization1 In a sample of 4,023 adolescents ages 12 to 17 across racial and ethnic groups, the lifetime prevalence for sexual assault is 8.1%2

54% of diocesan priests had a single allegation compared to 61% of accused religious priests;

• 14.7 of diocesan priests have 4-9 allegations, compared to 10.9% of the accused religious priests;

• 4.2% of diocesan priests have ten or more allegations, compared to 1.5% of the religious priests.

Table 3.5.3

+

GENDER OF ALLEGED VICTIMS, BY NUMBER OF ALLEGED ABUSERS

Gender Count Percent of all

Male and Female 157 3.6%

Female only 991 22.6%

Male only 2,805 64%

Gender unknown 429 9.8%

Total 4,230 100%

+

3.6 SERIAL ABUSERS: PRIESTS WITH MULTIPLE ALLEGATIONS

However, there is a much smaller number of serial sex offenders who act out not as a result of the effects of external stress or a weakening of inhibitory controls; instead, they behave in a more methodical fashion using a high degree of planning.

+

+

PART FOUR: Incidents and allegations of child sexual abuse

+

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO INCIDENTS AND ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD

SEXUAL ABUSE

When considering why men sexually abuse children and adolescents, researchers have identified a number of preconditions to child sexual abuse. These include, but are not limited to:

the offender’s “emotional congruence” to youths (the link between the offender’s emotional needs and the children’s characteristics), low self esteem, deviant sexual arousal, “developmental blockage” (the failure to develop the appropriate social skills and selfconfidence necessary to form effective intimate relations with adults), “situational blockage” (when an adult’s sexual interests are blocked from normal sexual expression owing to the loss of a relationship or some other transitory crisis), and disinhibition (the factors that help a child sexual abuser overcome his inhibitions so that he allows himself to abuse a child or adolescent, e.g., use of alcohol or other substances).1 These preconditions are each variable in strength; while some abusers may act out as a reaction to transitory stress, others seem to be driven by such a strong compulsion that situational factors play only a minor role, if any at all.

+

4.2 SUMMARY: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INCIDENTS OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS

The study produced some important findings about the nature of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

• Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly. In fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five alleged victims being male.

• The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.

• The allegations of sexual abuse involved a variety of sexual acts, and most of the priests involved were alleged to have committed multiple acts per victim. Indeed, much of the sexual abuse reported involved serious sexual offenses.

• According to the allegations of sexual abuse, the most frequent context of the sexual incidents occurred during a social event. Additionally, many of the priests with allegations of abuse socialized with the family of the alleged victim.

• The most common place of occurrence was the residence of the priest though incidents of abuse allegedly occurred in a wide variety of locations.

+

4.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN WHO ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS

This chapter is based on survey data that describes 10,667 incidents of alleged sexual abuse of youths under 18 by a Catholic priest or deacon, at least part of which occurred between the beginning of 1950 and the end of 2002.

Table 4.3.1

+

GENDER OF ALLEGED VICTIM

Gender Count % of Total

Male 8,499 80.9%

Female 2,004 19.1%

Transsexual 2 .0%

Total 10,505 100.0%

98.5% of surveys reported the gender of the alleged victim.

Table 4.3.3

+

VICTIM’S RESIDENCE / LIVING SITUATION

Count % of Total

Mother only 843 11.2%

Father only 81 1.1%

Both parents 5,905 78.6%

Brother(s) 29 .4%

Sister(s) 14 .2%

Other guardian 17 .2%

Grandparents 53 .7%

Boarding school 172 2.3%

Foster parents 29 .4%

Orphanage 159 2.1%

Home of priest 67 .9%

Church-related

residence 53 .7%

Other 92 1.2%

Total 7,514 100%

+

4.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS

Many efforts have been made to assess the abuse experiences of those who have been victims of child sexual abuse, from attempts to collect population data at the national level to small clinical studies done with a few survivors of sexual abuse. These studies generally tend to chronicle the types of behaviors engaged in by child sexual abusers, and primarily report percentages of the sample that experienced each form of abuse (e.g., intercourse, oral sex, fondling, pornography). A number of studies have compared male and female victims, although most of the male victim samples have been too small to allow for broad generalizations.

Looking at Table 4.4.1, it is clear that many of the allegations of abuse include more than one type of sexual act1. Several points are significant:

• The categories are not mutually exclusive. In other words, the abusers could have committed multiple types of abuses.

• Very few priests have allegations of only the least severe of the abuses. Only 148 priests (2.9%) allegedly committed act of verbal abuse and/or pornography offenses without more severe offenses. Only 395 priests (9.0%) allegedly committed offenses involving touching over the clothes only without also committing a more severe offense.

• Touching under the victim’s clothes is the most common act alleged. However, only 695 (15.8%) priests committed that as the only or the most serious of their alleged offenses. This means that when this abuse was alleged, it usually included a more serious offense as well.

• There are 69 incidents for which the most serious act alleged is sexual talk. These incidents represent seven-tenths of one percent, or .7% of the 9,630 surveys that reported details about the behavior that was alleged to have taken place. If sexual talk and the use of pornography are counted together, for cases where no further sexual abuse was alleged, there are 141 incidents, or 1.5% of the total.

• If talk and/or pornography use are considered together with either touching under the priest’s or victim’s clothing, and nothing more serious is alleged, the total number of such incidents is 1,196, or 12.4% of the total.

If hugging and kissing, the removal of clothing, or masturbation is counted along with the acts outlined above, the total number of incidents jumps to 4,167, or 43% of the total.

If incidents that include acts of oral sex or sexual penetration are counted alone, they total 3,280, or 34%.

The majority of allegations of sexual abuse were made against priests who were accused of having committed abusive acts more than one time. Only slightly more than one quarter (29%) of the allegations involve only a single instance of abuse.

Child sexual abusers who plan their abusive acts indulge in what is termed “grooming” behavior. Grooming is a pre-meditated behavior intended to manipulate the potential victim into complying with the sexual abuse. Some methods by which child sexual abusers approach and initiate sexual activity with their victims include verbal and/or physical intimidation, seduction, emotional blackmail, and the use of enticements such as candy, money, or other gifts.

If, however, some resistance is encountered, the offender may either change the tactic and/or become more forceful in his endeavor.

Table 4.4.3 shows the number of priests who allegedly threatened those who accused them of abuse, and Table 4.4.4 shows the type of threat that was used. Both tables display the information by gender.

+

4.5 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ABUSE ALLEGATIONS

The following section describes characteristics of the alleged abuse. Information from this section was obtained through the surveys of the incidents completed for each allegation of abuse of a child by a priest or deacon. These data present contextual factors associated with the reported incidents including where and when the event took place. This section also describes the social relationships of the priests with the alleged victims‘ families: their Church assignment at the time the abuse was alleged to have occurred; their relationship (if any) with the family of the child involved; and any relationship with the siblings of the alleged victim.

Table 4.5.2

PRIEST’S PRIMARY FUNCTION AT TIME OF

ALLEGED INCIDENT

Priest’s Function Count Percent of accused

priests

Pastor 2,463 25.1%

Associate Pastor 4,150 42.3%

Resident Priest 1,023 10.4%

Teacher (grades 1-8) 55 .5%

Teacher (grades 9-12) 654 6.7%

Seminary

Administrator/Faculty 184 1.8%

Chaplain 264 2.7%

Bishop, Vicar,

Cardinal, Chancellor. 33 .3%

Deacon or Seminarian 77 .8%

Other Parish Roles 883 9%

Relative of alleged

victim 39 .4%

Total 9,822 100%

+

+

LITERATURE REVIEW

+

ESTIMATES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

CATHOLIC CHURCH

The prevalence of sexual misconduct within the Catholic Church has been estimated by a number of social scientists. In an empirical investigation of treatment efficacy, Loftus and Camargo (1993) concluded that in their clinical sample of 1,322 priests and brothers, 27.8% reported having engaged in a sexual relationship with an adult woman while 8.4% reported sexual misconduct with a minor. Another researcher, Anthony Sipe (1990), showed that 2% of priests engage in pedophiliac behavior while an additional 4% of priests are sexually preoccupied with adolescent boys or girls. Sipe also concluded that 20% to 40% of priests engage in sexual misconduct with adults.

According to Jenkins (1995), the emphasis upon sexual abuse committed by the clergy is a result of a shift in media coverage beginning during the 1980s. As a result, the image of the “pedophile priest” (Jenkins, 1996) was created and endorsed by the media and special interest groups in order to further their causes. While the media has portrayed this “crisis” as being centered solely in the Catholic Church, Jenkins offers evidence through the citation of liability insurance that illustrates that there were several hundred cases of sexual abuse involving non-Catholic clergy.

Researchers from John Jay College of Criminal Justice (2004) conducted a descriptive study of the nature and scope of the problem, seeking information from all dioceses and religious communities in the United States. They found that 4,392 priests and deacons had allegations of child sexual abuse from 1950-2002 against 10,667 children, representing approximately 4% of all priests in the United States in that time period.

A recent attempt to place the issue of sexual abuse and the clergy into a proper perspective was undertaken by Kafka (2004) at the behest of the Vatican. Through a critical review of the available literature, Kafka stated that the typical child sexual abuser in the Catholic Church is a diocesan priest who is an ephebophile. Though primary knowledge is from clinical samples, clergy offenders seem to differ from offenders in the general population. Studies that have examined clergy with co-occurring problems have found them to exhibit fewer psychological problems than other sex offenders. However, methodological limitations preclude firm conclusions about groups of clergy who offend.

+

THEORIES AND ETIOLOGY OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE BY MALES

THEORIES OF OFFENDING BY CLERGY

There is no clear consensus as to why some priests molest children and others do not. Hands also hypothesizes that the steps the Church has taken to discourage the formation of close friendships between priests, under the pretense that it may lead to homosexual behavior, have also played a role in the creation of a pro-offending environment.

Sipe (1995) has proposed a model of clergy offending which consists of four specific categories. Those in Sipe’s Genetic Lock find that their sexual attraction is inherently determined. The Psychodynamic Lock consists of priests who, as a result of their childhood experiences, have been locked at a level of psychosexual development that makes them prone to offending. Sipe hypothesizes that combinations of genetic and psychodynamic factors contribute to one another and interact with cognitive factors. All of these variables combine in such a manner as to influence the priests to sexually abuse a child. In the Social/Situational Lock, the priest is otherwise healthy, but the experience of celibacy suspends psychosexual development. Similar to the theory of primary genital phobia, sex is externally denied, but internally explored. Sipe concludes that offending behavior in this model is of a developmental nature and can be resolved once the offender psychologically matures. The Moral Lock displays no clear explanation for the offending behavior other than the individuals in this model make a conscious choice to commit sexual abuse.

The Church also engages in neutralization tactics in order to protect these offending priests and the image of the institution. In turn, this gives the pedophile approval from superiors to continue offending and establishes an environment in which the behavior can persist.

+

TYPOLOGIES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSERS

(see p.174ff.)

ESTIMATES OF ABUSE WITHIN SPECIFIC SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Homosexual and heterosexual offenses are evenly distributed, but Sipe contends that the homosexual contact is four times more likely to come to the public’s attention. Sipe also asserted that these pedophiles have an attraction to children prior to ordination, but rarely act out extensively prior to entering the priesthood.

The Church has also discouraged the formation of close friendships among the clergy for fear that it might lead to homosexuality.

In this article Pallone states that the crisis of sexual misconduct in the Roman Catholic Church is in fact homosexual statutory rape. Along this line, Pallone also states that a majority of the victims were not of “pre-pubescent age” as specified in the DSM IV; therefore the offenders cannot be considered pedophiles. It is a new disorder, considered ephebophilia, and he presents an in-depth explanation of the disorder based on “Fenichel’s (1945) speculations about the genesis of psychosexual pathology among (sexually inexperienced but palpably) narcissistic adult males and incorporating the contribution of Catholic doctrine on the Virgin birth”.

In studying the celibacy patterns of Catholic priests, the Sipe postulated that 20% have engaged in heterosexual relationships and behaviors, 10% have engaged in homosexual behavior, 4% have had adolescent partners and 2% are pedophiles. Sipe asserted that child molestation is a result of the flawed celibate/sexual system of the Church. Since the Church has not developed a clear understanding of human sexuality in general, they were unable to formulate a response to this issue. This is coupled with the fact that the teachings of the Church were not always followed by those in power.

After having reviewed the histories of 473 abusive priests, it was found that 70-80% of priests were sexually abused as children and 10% were approached by a priest while studying in the seminary.

+

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO SEXUAL ABUSE BY CLERICS

ROSSETTI, S.J. (2002).

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE. AMERICA, 186 (13), 8-16.

This article addressed some common misconceptions concerning clergy sexual abuse.

The myth that all child molesters are incurable pedophiles who engage in chronic abuse is discussed. Rossetti (2002) claims that there is some truth to this myth, however not all abusers are pedophiles and relapse has been reported at 2.9%.

The second myth that priests abuse children because they are celibate is dismissed. Rossetti acknowledged that some dysfunctional individuals may join the clergy in order to manage their behavior through celibacy, but he cautioned against generalizing this theory. He also warned that we do not yet know whether or not priests or more likely to be child abusers than other individuals.

The third myth that the priesthood attracts homosexuals and that this is the reason why it has so many child abusers was dismissed on the grounds that there is no common link between homosexuality and true pedophilia. He proposed that the Church attracts stunted/regressed homosexuals and that this is a possible reason why there may be abuse.

The fourth myth is that the Bishops are covering up these cases. Rossetti asserts that the Bishops are not reporting child sexual abuse because the law requires that suspected incidents be reported only if the victim who comes forward is a minor.

The final myth addressed was that the safest step to take in managing child sexual abuse is to defrock (Anm.: Amtsenthebung) the priest, which the Church has failed to do.

Rossetti agreed with the steps the Church has taken in treating priests and raised the issue that by defrocking priests, they do not receive treatment and are free to continue offending.

In conclusion, the author asserted that the Church has failed to appear “humble and chaste” and until it does, the media will continue to vilify the Church. He recommended that the Bishops handle these cases in a public manner and revamp their teachings concerning human sexuality.

*

Table of Content

.

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

.

PART ONE: The mandate for the study

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.2 Methodology: How the study was carried out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.3 Study terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

.

PART TWO: Prevalence of abuse of youths under 18 by Catholic priests and deacons

2.1 Estimation of prevalence of sexual abuse of youths under 18 in the United States . . . . . . . 23

2.2 Summary results: Prevalence of sexual abuse of youths under 18 by Cath. priests & deacons 26

2.3 Detailed data on prevalence of sexual abuse of youths under 18 by Catholic priests . . . . . 28

.

PART THREE: The priests and deacons accused of sexual abuse

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.2 Summary results: Priests and deacons who have allegations of sexual abuse . . . . . . 39

3.3 Demographic characteristics of priests & deacons accused of sexual abuse of youths under 18 . 40

3.4 Priests with behavioral problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.5 Priests and deacons and the allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3.6 Serial abusers: Priests with multiple allegations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3.7 Criminal prosecutions and penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

.

PART FOUR: Incidents and allegations of child sexual abuse

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4.2 Summary results: Characteristics of the incidents of alleged sexual abuse by priests . . . . 68

4.3 Characteristics of children who alleged sexual abuse by Catholic priests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4.4 Characteristics of acts of sexual abuse by Catholic priests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4.5 Circumstances of the abuse allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

.

PART FIVE: The response from the dioceses and religious communities

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.2 Reporting of allegations of sexual abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

5.3 Responses to child sex abuse allegations by dioceses and religious communities . . . . . . 94

5.4 Sex offender treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

.

PART SIX: Costs to dioceses and religious communities

6.1 Total costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

APPENDIX

A.1.1.1 Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

A.1.1.2 Diocesan Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

A.1.1.3 Religious Order Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

A.1.1.4 Cleric Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

A.1.1.5 Victim Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

A.1.1.6 Written Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.1.1.7 Research Participation Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

A.1.1.8 DHHS Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

A.1.2.1 Regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

.

LITERATURE REVIEW *

.

PART I—LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

.

ESTIMATES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Criminal Justice and Social Service Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Research Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Reporting Child Sexual Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Victim’s Relationship to the Perpetrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Severity of Sexual Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Developmental and Cognitive Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Fear of Negative Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Gender Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Child Sexual Abuse within Specific Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Boy Scouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Big Brother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Athletic Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Child Caregivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

The Catholic Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

.

THEORIES AND ETIOLOGY OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Biological Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Psychodynamic Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Behavioral Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Attachment Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Cognitive-Behavioral Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Integrated Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Theories of Offending by Catholic Priests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

The Offense Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Grooming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

TYPOLOGIES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

The Fixated/Regressed Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

The FBI Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

The MTC:CM3 Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Other Typologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Characteristics of Child Sexual Abusers in the Catholic Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

.

EVALUATION OF SEX OFFENDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

.

MODELS OF TREATMENT FOR SEXUAL OFFENDERS WHO ABUSE CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment and Relapse Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Deviant Sexual Behavior and Interests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Social Skills Deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Cognitive Distortions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

The Relapse Prevention Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Treatment Efficacy Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Pharmacological Treatments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Sex Offender Treatment for Priests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

.

VICTIMS OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE BY PRIESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

.

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

.

PART II—ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

.

ESTIMATING THE PREVALENCE OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

National Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Statewide Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

.

ESTIMATES OF ABUSE WITHIN SPECIFIC SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Catholic Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Other Religious Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Boy Scouts of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Big Brother Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Athletic Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Child Caregivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

.

THEORIES OF SEXUAL OFFENDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

General Theories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Theories of Offending by Clergy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

.

TYPOLOGIES OF THE SEXUAL OFFENDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Typologies of Offenders Who Abuse Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Characteristics of Clergy Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

.

THE EVALUATION OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Evaluative Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

Evaluative Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Abel Screening Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Static-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Violence Risk Appraisal Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Evaluating Cleric Sexual Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

.

MODELS OF TREATMENT FOR OFFENDERS WHO ABUSE CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Overview of Sex Offender Treatment Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy & Relapse Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Holistic Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Pharmacological Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Cleric Sex Offenders and Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

.

ASSESSMENT OF SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

General Recidivism Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Overview of Treatment Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Cleric Offenders and Treatment Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

.

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO SEXUAL ABUSE BY CLERICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

Avenues of Legal Redress for Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Historical Church Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

Testimony of Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

.

LITERATURE REVIEW: CHARTS, FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure1: Child sexual abuse rates 1992-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Figure 2: Percent of child abuse victims 1992-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Figure 3: The fixated/regressed typology continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Table 1: Summary of theories on child sexual abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Table 2: Characteristics of fixated and regressed child sexual abusers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Table 3: FBI typologies of child sexual abusers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Table 4: The MTC: CM3 classification of child sexual abusers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

*

Der Report einschließlich Literaturanhang ist hier zu finden (Link aus engl.WIKI).

*
(Hervorhebungen in Farbe bzw. Fettdruck wurden vom Blogbetreiber gesetzt)
*

*

Wir freuen uns über deinen Beitrag:

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s