A five-year study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice recently concluded that the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse crisis was in large part caused by the sexual revolution and changing social mores of the 1960s. It should come as no shock that the church oversaw this study and partially paid for the study.
The principal investigator, Karen Terry, concludes:
- Homosexuality was not to blame.
- Celibacy was not to blame.
- It wasn't a pedophilia problem, since most of the kids involved were older than 10, which the study used as the cutoff for pedophilia. (Most kids abused were older than 10.)
- Boys were abused more often because troubled priests had more access to them than girls
- Priests were affected by the broad-sweeping changes of the 60s.
Most articles I’ve seen commenting on this study cut right to the church criticism, which I believe is warranted. I think there are some valid points to this study that the church should take to heart. Most notably that homosexuality was not to blame. Pope Benedict has had a witch-hunt mentality toward gay priests, so I’m glad that this information has come to light.
I begrudgingly accept that celibacy isn’t to blame either. Although I think that celibacy is to blame for many other ills facing the church and threatening its viability as a force for good in the current millennium. And if we had married priests, Catholics could have their pick of many fine candidates for the ministry that they would otherwise never have. (They would also have more Catholics.)
The study also posits that celibacy has been church policy for more than 1,000 years, so that cannot explain why the 1960s saw a spike in abuse nor why there were fewer reports beginning in the 1980s.
According to Terry, psychological exams, intelligence tests, and developmental history information would predict which priests would become abusers.
I have several thoughts about this study and its conclusions, but I’ll stick to one for now. The widespread influence (until fairly recently) of high school seminaries, and generally shame-based attitudes about human sexuality, formed a deadly duo that caused the crisis.
High school boys’ brains are still forming, as are their sexual identities. It’s a time when healthy sexual development depends on flirting, courting, dating, and getting to know what females (or males, if you're gay) of the species look, smell, and feel like, up close. If this development is stunted, combined certain teachings equating masturbation with sin, sexual desire with the sin of lust, unhealthy introjection will follow. Carry an unlived youthful sex life through to adulthood and add contact with young boys and girls, combine with loneliness, and you have the perfect storm. (There could also be an authority complex that some of the priests were suffering too.)
Regrettably, there are still high school seminaries; the church is tragically behind in its own understanding and embracing of human sexuality, not to mention its advocacy for school-aged boys and girls. Specifically, the church needs to embrace that a heart-centered, adventurous sexual life is healthy for one’s psychological development. I know, I know. Not. Gonna. Happen.
It doesn’t mean telling kids to have sex. It means encouraging them to have fun, make out, not be ashamed of their bodies, and learn healthy boundaries such that they can understand the vulnerabilities and circumstances that come with sexuality. Kids are wired to carry out this exploration on their own. Can adults—can the church—consciously bless and prepare them for the perilous and delightful journey that lay ahead?
