Translate This Page
DECLARATION OF
THOMAS PATRICK DOYLE, O.P., J.C.D., C.A.D.C.
Ann Thompson vs. The R.C. Church in Christchurch, N.Z.
1. I am a Catholic priest, ordained in May, 1970. I have graduate degrees (M.A.) in philosophy, theology, political science, church administration and Canon Law. I have a Pontifical Doctorate in Canon Law, awarded in may, 1978. Graduate studies were pursued at Aquinas Institute of Philosophy and Theology, University of Wisconsin, Catholic University of America, St. Paul University (Ottawa, Canada), University of Ottawa and the Gregorian University, Rome. I have also pursued graduate studies in addictions at the University of Oklahoma and a the Naval School of Health Sciences, San Diego. I am a Certified Drug and Alcohol Counselor. I recently left the US Air Force after 18 years as an officer and chaplain.
2. Since ordination to the priesthood in 1970 I have served as a parish priest (1971-73), advocate and later judge on the Metropolitan tribunal of the Archdiocese of Chicago (1974-1981), part-time tribunal judge for the Dioceses of Scranton, PA and Lafayette, IN. I served as Secretary-Canonist a the Vatican Embassy, Washington D.C. from 1981-1986. I was a canonical consultant and tribunal judge for the Archdiocese for the Military Services, 1986-1990. Im have also served as a guest lecturer in Canon Law at Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, Catholic University of America and the Tribunal Institute of Mundelein Seminary, Chicago. I have served as a member of the Board of Governors of the canon Law Society of America (1978-1980). From 1983-85 and 1988-1990 I was a consultant to the Canonical Affairs Committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. In 1990 I entered active duty of the U.S. Air Force and have been assigned to Grissom AFB, Indiana (1990-93), Hurlburt Field, Florida (1993-95), Lajes Field, Azores (1995-97), Tinker AFB, Oklahoma (1997-2001), Ramstein AB, Germany (2001-2003) and Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina (2003-2004). I have also been deployed to Operation Joint Forge, Operation Southern Watch and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
3. I first became directly involved with the issue of Catholic clergy sexual abuse of children, minors and adults in the summer of 1984. At the time I was the secretary-canonist and the Apostolic Nunciature or Vatican Embassy in Washington, D.C. I have worked with victims and their families as both a canonical consultant and pastoral minister. I have worked with Dioceses and Religious Orders giving presentations and lectures and developing policies and procedures. I have been an expert witness and/or consultant in civil and criminal cases involving clergy abuse in cases throughout the Catholic dioceses of the United States. I have also served as a consultant in cases from Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. I have testified at eight trials in the United States, one in Canada and ten in Ireland. I have given approximately 350 depositions as an expert witness in civil trials. In addition to civil trials I have served as an expert witness in several criminal prosecutions in the U.S. I have also been asked to testify before the State Legislatures of Pennsylvania, California, Ohio, Illinois, Delaware, Maryland and the District of Columbia on matters related to child abuse, clergy reporting statutes and statutes of limitations. I have been a consultant and expert witness for 12 grand juries in the U.S. Since 2004 I have served as a consultant and/or expert witness for the three government inquiries that have taken place in Ireland: the Ferns Commission, the Ryan Commission and the Murphy Commission. I have published several articles and contributed sections of several books on the subject of clergy sexual abuse. I have also co-authored a book on the history of sexual abuse by clergy in the Catholic Church.
4. With this declaration I intend to demonstrate that the Catholic hierarchy have been aware of the existence of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy, by religious women and religious men for centuries. I will also demonstrate the fact that diocesan bishops have direct authority over the ministerial works of all religious orders in their dioceses and that the bishops have a special obligation to see to the moral and spiritual welfare of children in Catholic schools, orphanages and residential institutions.
5. Sexual abuse by Catholic clergy became the subject of widespread publicly in 1984 with the celebrated case of Father Gilbert Gauthe in Lafayette, Louisiana, a diocese in the United States. The population of this diocese is mostly Catholic of Franco-American origin. This led to numerous revelations of similar cases of abuse around the United States and in other countries as well. At the outset of the present era the crisis was erroneously referred to as a “pedophilia problem.” Experience has shown that only 20% of clergy perpetrators are true pedophiles while the majority are classified as ephebophiles since their victims are younger adolescents. The publicity generated from the abuse cases involving minor victims has also provoked revelations of widespread clergy sexual abuse of vulnerable adults, mostly women. In any event, the age and gender of the victim is irrelevant since the sexual encounter constitutes abusive behavior by a trusted clergyman perpetrated on one with less emotional strength and spiritual power than the priest and one who is in a vulnerable position from which he or she cannot mount an adequate defense.
6. Although clergy sexual abuse has been well documented from the earliest years of the Catholic Church the present era is unique. The victims of clergy abuse who found the courage to disclose their abuse had first turned to the Church authorities for help, expecting that the Church’s legal system, known as Canon Law, would provide processes whereby victims would be justly treated and perpetrators properly dealt with and prevented from continued ministry. The many investigations into Catholic dioceses and religious orders that have taken place in the U.S. and elsewhere over the past 25 years have revealed clear patterns of response by Church officials in every country where such investigations took place. It is important to first understand that independent research has revealed that a minority of sexual abuse victims ever come forward to disclose their abuse (approximately 37%). It as also been revealed that across the board, the average age at which minors are sexually abused in English speaking countries is 12 and the average age of disclosure among those who disclose is 42 which shows that in most cases the victim will not disclose for about 30years.
7. In the early years of the present era of revelation most victims or their families initially approached Church authorities to report the abuse and to receive pastoral assistance. The almost universal request of victims was that the perpetrator be prevented from ever hurting children again. In many instances Church officials simply ignored the complaints. Instead, Church officials routinely responded to victims by intimidating them in hopes of obtaining their silence. They also manipulated, stonewalled, deceived and threatened victims. Beginning in 1985, frustrated victims of clergy sexual abuse began to approach the civil courts for relief when the legal system of their own church failed to act. Thus for the first time in Church history the victims of the clergy turned to the secular legal system for relief. While it is historically true that the civil courts had seen clergy sex cases prior to 1984 1, there were virtually no instances where the Catholic laity had sued a bishop for civil damages resulting from clergy sex abuse. As the cases rapidly increased in courts throughout the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom and Ireland, the defendant dioceses and religious orders mounted a variety of defenses. Among these has been the recurring claim that this was a phenomenon new to the late 20th century. Further more many claimed that they had no way of predicting that clergy would sexually abuse since such an outbreak had never happened before. A variation on this claim sought to shift blame to the medical community, claiming that psychiatrists and psychologists admitted they knew little of pedophilia and related sexual disorders and therefore were not able to properly diagnose the disorder nor to provide competent prognoses for future behavior.
8. I wish to demonstrate three significant points:
a) Dysfunctional sexual behavior by Catholic clergy is predictable. This assertion is based on a consistent pattern of disciplinary legislation enacted by church authorities from the fourth century down to the present.
b) The Catholic church has never been successful in curbing clergy sexual abuse with its own disciplinary laws nor is there evidence that it ever provided any adequate pastoral care to victims.
c) There were adequate warnings from psychologists and psychiatrists about the potentially dangerous emotional state of a significant percentage of U.S. clergy. These warnings date back to the mid fifties and were ignored by the U.S. bishops.
d) Even without warnings from psychologists, as was the case in numerous other countries including New Zealand, the claim that the bishops were unaware of the damage done by sexual abuse perpetrated by an adult, male or female, is simply not credible.
9. These same propositions can be applied to the Catholic Church in other countries. Most information is available concerning the Church in English speaking countries. This is so because of two probabilities: the English speaking countries all use the Anglo-Saxon Common Law system rather than the traditional “Droit civile” used in most other countries. The Common Law system is more pragmatic and makes the pursuit of clergy sexual abuse cases more possible. The second reason is the probability that sexual abuse of minors, in general, has received more public attention and caused more public outrage than in non-English speaking countries. The presumption that clergy sexual abuse is a product of the U.S., or of other English speaking countries is false, as the news reports from other countries will easily show. The sexual abuse itself is caused by a variety of factors: clinically recognized conditions that result in sexual dysfunction (paraphilias) or emotional and sexual immaturity. These factors are not geographically exclusive. The other aspect of clergy sexual abuse is the reaction/response of the hierarchy. It has been amply demonstrated by the reports from several U.S grand jury investigations, several thousand civil trials as well as news investigations that the Catholic bishops knowingly covered up true reports of clergy sexual abuse, transferred abusive clerics from assignment to assignment and never reported reports of sexual abuse, a felony crime, to law enforcement authorities or to child protective agencies. This response has also been clearly demonstrated in the report issued by the National Review Board on February 27, 2003.2 Subsequent to the revelations on the U.S. the phenomenon of clergy sexual abuse has been acknowledged in other countries. The hierarchies in other countries have responded in a similar manner, that is, with cover-up, denial and attempts at manipulation. Finally, one of the common excuses offered by official church spokespersons is that this is a “new” problem and therefore they have been unprepared to deal with it nor to fully understand it.
10. The Catholic Church was officially recognized by Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century. With this recognition the religious leaders, soon to be known as the “clergy” gradually evolved into a separate, privileged class, the most exalted members of which were the bishops. Although celibacy did not become a universally mandated state for clerics of the western Church until the 12th century (2nd Lateran Council, 1139) various church leaders began to advocate it by the 4th century. The earliest recorded church legislation is from the Council of Elvira (Spain, 306 AD). Half of the canons passed dealt with sexual behavior of one kind or another and included penalties assessed for clerics who committed adultery or fornication. Though it did not make specific mention of homosexual activities by the clergy, this early Council reflected the church’s official attitude toward same-sex relationships: men who had sex with young boys were deprived of communion even on their deathbed.3
11. Other gatherings of bishops throughout the Christian world, which encompassed what is now western Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East and the British Isles, passed laws attempting to stamp out clerical concubinage, clerical fornication and homosexual activity.
12. The Catholic church is organized in geographic regions known as dioceses, from a Greek word meaning a “group.” The term was common from the 4th century. The head of a diocese has traditionally been a bishop. Early church legislation was passed by individual bishops for their own territory but the more important legislation with lasting historical impact, was that passed by groups of bishops who gathered at periodic meetings known as councils or synods which were generally named after the place where they occurred. Given the poor state of communications at the time it is remarkable that the various councils and synods produced disciplinary legislation similar in tone. Sexual violations by the clergy were not confined to any specific geographic area. Laws were passed throughout the Christian world. These laws, whether the product of individual bishops or groups, did not need the approval of the papacy. Although the pope had been respected as the first among bishops from the earliest years of Christianity, the centralization of power was not evident until the middle ages (12th-13th centuries) during which time several popes gradually reserved various powers to themselves. By the 9th century collections of the growing mass of legislation began to appear. These were unofficial and generally poorly organized attempts at putting at least some of the known legislation in the same place. Several of the more prominent and complete collections have survived as essential sources for the study of the development not only of church law but of the Christian life in general. The first truly systematic collection was produced by the monk Gratian in 1140. Known as the Concordance of Discordant Canons or more commonly as Gratian’s Decree it consisted of a wide spectrum of texts arranged in a dialectic method with Gratian’s own opinions added. Though never officially approved, Gratian’s decree became the most important resource for the history of Canon Law. Following the medieval period the major legislative sources were the popes themselves and the general or ecumenical councils, the most recent of which was Vatican II (1962-65).
13. The practice of individual confession of sins to a priest started in the Irish monasteries in the latter sixth century. With individual confession came the Penitential Books, another valuable source for church history. These were unofficial manuals drawn up by various monks to assist in their private counseling with penitents in confession. These books listed the various and sundry acts which the church considered sinful and provided guidance on the acceptable penance to be imposed. The Penitentials provide a vivid glimpse into the darker side of Christian life at the time. Though it is not known exactly how many such books were written, the more prominent ones have been preserved, studied and translated. Several of these refer to sexual crimes committed by clerics against young boys and girls. The Penitential of Bede (England, 8th century) advises that clerics who commit sodomy with young boys be given increasingly severe penances commensurate with their rank, the higher ranking (bishops) receiving harsher penalties. The regularity with which mention is made of clergy sex crimes shows that the problem was not isolated, was known in the community and was treated more severely than similar acts committed by lay men. The Penitential Books were in use from the mid 6th century to the mid 12th century.4
13. The most dramatic and explicit condemnation of forbidden clergy sexual activity was the Book of Gomorrah of St. Peter Damian, completed in 1051.5 The author had been a Benedictine monk and was appointed archbishop and later cardinal by the reigning pope. Peter Damian was also a dedicated Church reformer who lived in a society wherein clerical decadence was not only widespread and publicly known, but generally accepted as the norm.6 His work, the circumstances that prompted it and the reaction of the reigning pope (Leo IX) are a prophetic reflection of the contemporary situation. He begins by singling out superiors who, prompted by excessive and misplaced piety, fail to exclude sodomites (chap. 2). He asserts that those given to “unclean acts” not be ordained or, if they are already ordained, be dismissed from Holy Orders (chap. 3). He holds special contempt for those who defile men or boys who come to them for confession (chap. 6). Likewise he condemns clerics who administer the sacrament of penance (confession) to their victims (chap. 7). The author also provides a refutation of the canonical sources used by offending clerics to justify their proclivities (chap. 11, 12). He also provides chapters which assess the damage done to the church by offending clerics (chap. 19, 20, 21). His final chapter is an appeal to the reigning pope (Leo IX) to take action.
14. The pope’s response, included in the cited edition, is an example of inaction similar to that of contemporary church leaders. Pope Leo praised Peter Damian and verified the truth of his findings and recommendations. Yet he considerably softened the reformer’s urging that decisive action be taken to root offenders from the ranks of the clergy. The pope decided to exclude only those who had offended repeatedly and over a long period of time. Although Peter Damian had paid significant attention to the impact of the offending clerics on their victims, the Pope made no mention of this but focused only on the sinfulness of the clerics and their need to repent.7
15. The repeated violations of clerical celibacy were documented in the canonical collections of the medieval period. Mandatory celibacy, decreed by the 2nd Lateran Council in 1139, was not received with universal obedience. Clerical concubinage was commonplace. Adultery, casual sex with unmarried women and homosexual relationships were rampant. Gratian devoted entire sections to disciplinary legislation which attempted to curb all of these vices. He demanded that the punishment for sexual transgressions be more severe for clerics than for lay men. His treatment of same-sex activities was less extensive than that of other celibacy violations, yet his attitude is evident because he cited the ancient Roman law opinion that stuprum pueri, the sexual violation of young boys, be punished by death.8
16. From the 4th century to the end of the medieval period it is clear that violations of clerical celibacy were commonplace, expected by the laity and highly resistant to official disciplinary attempts to curb and eliminate them. Referring to concubinage for example, one noted scholar said:
From the repeated strictures against clerical incontinence by provincial synods of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, one may surmise that celibacy remained a remote and only defectively realized ideal in the Latin West. In England, particularly in the north, concubinage continued to be customary; it was frequent in France, Spain and Norway. 9
17. Clerical sodomy continued to be a known problem though it did not attract as much legislative attention as clerical concubinage and this quite possibly because of the on-going attempts to eliminate clergy marriages. The 4th Lateran Council (1215) repeated the previous council’s condemnation of celibacy violations. It added however a specific mention of homosexual sex by clerics and decreed that those found guilty of this transgression were either to be dismissed from the clerical state or confined to a monastery for life. The former amounted to social exile and the latter to imprisonment.10
18. The documentation from the Medieval period indicates that although homosexual liaisons were not uncommon among the secular or diocesan clergy, most celibacy violations involved heterosexual forms of abuse. Illicit sexual activity by the monks was another matter. Although concubinage and even illicit marriages occurred among the monks, the fact that they took vows of chastity precluding marriage and lived a common life theoretically isolated from women meant that their sexual outlets would be considerably restricted. The monks became known for the frequency of homosexual activity especially with young boys. Many monasteries passed local regulations in attempts to curb the rampant abuses. In his Rule, Benedict commanded that no two monks were to sleep in the same bed. Night lights were to be kept burning and the monks were to sleep clothed. Many monasteries enacted their own rules forbidding various kinds of sexual behavior and added punishments that were often more severe than those meted out to the secular clerics.11 So common was clerical same-sex activity that some scholars have concluded that homosexual relationships were commonly associated with the clergy.12
19. There are two aspects of the ecclesiastical legislation and overall attitude toward clerical sexual activity that stand in marked contrast to the contemporary period. The first is the documented fact that in addition to a stringent admonition by Peter Damian in the Book of Gomorrah, at least two general or ecumenical councils took direct aim at church leaders who supported errant clerics by their failure to take decisive action.13 The 4th Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Basle (1449) both recognized the fact that curbing the vices depended on cooperative superiors. The canon from the Lateran Council is succinct:
Prelates who dare support such in their iniquities, especially in view of money or other temporal advantages, shall be subject to a like punishment.14
20. The other unique feature of this period is the collaboration of the church with secular authorities in the enforcement of ecclesiastical laws. The Catholic church was the only Christian denomination and the dominant social force in the medieval period. Separation of church and state was unheard of which meant that the boundaries between the secular and religious were often blurred. Church authorities considered celibacy violations to be more than a purely religious matter. They caused some degree of scandal and therefore were a matter of public interest. To enhance the opprobrium the church often tried accused clerics in the ecclesiastical tribunals and then turned them over to secular authorities for additional prosecution and punishment. Penalties were harsh and sometimes included execution.15
21. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was sustained by much more than the controversy over the sale of indulgences. Luther and the other major reformers such as Zwingli and Calvin, all rejected mandatory celibacy.16 The rejection was motivated in great part by what the reformers saw as widespread evidence that clerics of all ranks commonly violated the obligations with women, men and young boys. In reference to life in the monasteries on the eve of the 16th century Protestant Reformation, Abbott says that the monks’ “lapses” with women, handsome boys and each other...became so commonplace that they could not be considered lapses but ways of life for entire communities.” 17 Up to this time the Church’s leaders continued to advocate the long standing remedies of legislation, spiritual penalties, physical penalties and warnings, none of which worked. Living in the
midst of a clerical world of non-celibate behavior, the reformers believed that this supposedly celibate world caused moral corruption:
The sexual habits of the Roman Catholic clergy, according to reformers, were a sewer of iniquity, a scandal to the laity, and a threat of damnation to the clergy themselves.18
22. No prior reform movement in the Catholic church had an impact equal the 16th century Protestant Reformation. In spite of attempts to propagate revisionist versions of the Reformation, the Church’s primary reaction, the ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563), was itself proof of the deeply entrenched and wide-ranging corruption in the Church. Secular princes had urged a reforming council but the popes resisted until 1545 when Pope Paul II summoned one to be held in the Italian city of Trento.19 The council met in 25 sessions with several periods of adjournment. It ended in 1563 after session 25 when most of the major reforms were enacted.
23. The re-affirmation of clerical celibacy did not conclude without strong opposition from a significant number of bishops who argued that mandatory celibacy was simply not working and accomplished no more than denying priests’ “wives” and children a share in their estates.20 A canon was proposed which would have permitted marriage for clergy but this was rejected and mandatory celibacy re-enforced. The canon upholding celibacy was followed by one which extolled it as superior to marriage:
If anyone says that the married state excels the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is better and happier to be united in matrimony than to remain in virginity or celibacy, let him be anathema.21
The council also dealt with concubinous clerics in the final session. The detailed canon describing the procedures to be followed by bishops and the penalties prescribed for guilty clerics are clear proof that the definitive legislation of the Fourth Lateran Council was indeed not that definitive in practice. The canon of Trent mentioned not only priests but guilty bishops.22
24. In spite of the reforming legislation and the establishment of mandatory training, education and formation for priests, the bishops at Trent were no more successful at curbing celibacy violations than their predecessors. Illicit sex with women, men and young boys continued but for a time were much less obvious. By 1566, in the first year of his pontificate, Pope Pius V (1566-72) recognized a need to publicly attack clerical sodomy. The constitution Romani Pontifices promulgated legislation against a variety of actions and practices, including the ‘crime against nature.” This short canon condemned all who committed this crime and prescribed that they be handed over to secular authorities for punishment. Clerics however were to be first degraded, presumably by an ecclesiastical court, and then handed over to secular authorities.23
25. Two years later the same pope apparently found it necessary to fire another salvo at clerical sodomy. The constitution Horrendum specifically named clerics who committed “the sin against nature which incurred God’s wrath” (“quae contra naturam est, propter quam ira Dei venit in filios diffidentiae.”) and stipulated that they be punished with deprivation of income, suspension from all offices and dignities and in some cases, degradation.24
26. Summarizing the medieval period, it is clear that the bishops were not as preoccupied with secrecy as they are today. Clergy sexual abuse of all kinds was apparently well known by the public, the clergy and secular law enforcement authorities. There was a constant stream of disciplinary legislation from the church but none of it was successful in changing clergy behavior. In spite of a millennia of failure, the popes and bishops never gave serious thought to the viability of mandatory celibacy. The variety of spiritual punishments was joined, in the later period, with severe corporal penalties, inflicted by secular authorities. Finally, and most important, at certain periods, church authorities recognized that the problem was not only dysfunctional clerics, but irresponsible leadership.
27. Solicitation in the Confessional
In spring, 2003 the American media drew attention to an obscure Vatican document issued in 1962 which prescribed special procedures for processing cases of an especially vile form of clergy sexual abuse: solicitation of sex in the confessional. The Pope and various regional bishops issued a series of disciplinary laws against solicitation, beginning in 1561 and extending to 2001. Papal laws were promulgated in 1561, 1622, 1741, 1917, 1962, 1983 and 2001. In addition to the legislation itself, the church courts prosecuted individual cases in great numbers. The most complete records have been found in the Spanish and Mexican tribunals and reveal a shockingly high volume of complaints from women and men, accusing priests of solicitation and sexual abuse in a variety of forms. The most complete study of cases from the Spanish tribunals revealed that between 1723 and 1820 3775 cases were completed and sentences handed down. The author concluded that this number represents a small portion of the actual cases in that it reflects only those completed and not the total number started and later abandoned.25
28. After the promulgation of the Code in 1917, the Vatican issued no legislation about solicitation or any other form of clergy sexual crime until 1962 when Pope John XXIII approved the publication of special procedural norms for processing solicitation cases. Unlike all previous papal legislation on this subject, this document was buried in the deepest secrecy. Although it was promulgated in the ordinary manner and then printed and distributed by the Vatican press, it was never publicized in the official Vatican legal bulletin, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.26 The document was sent to all bishops in the world. The dispositive section of the document is preceded by an order whereby the document is to be kept in the secret archives and not published nor commented upon by anyone. No explicit reason was given for this unusual secrecy nor is any justification given for the document or some of the surprising changes contained therein.
29. It introduced several significant elements including an exceptional degree of confidentiality imposed on the document itself and the persons involved in processing cases. Compared to previous papal documentation confronting clergy sexual abuse this document contains several significant changes which reveal the church’s policy on clergy sexual crimes.
This legislation introduced the following innovations in church policy:
a. Jurisdiction: Local ordinaries (bishops and heads of religious orders) have the right to process cases included in this document. However they retain the option of sending such cases to the Vatican’s Congregation of the Holy Office for prosecution.
b. Secrecy-officials: Tribunal and other church personnel who are involved in processing cases are obliged to maintain total and perpetual secrecy and are bound by the church’s highest degree of confidentiality, known as the Secret of the Holy Office. Those who violate this secrecy are automatically excommunicated and the absolution or lifting of this excommunication is reserved to the pope himself.
c. Secrecy-parties and witnesses: The accuser and witnesses are obliged to take the oath. The penalty of automatic excommunication is not attached to the violation of the oath. However the official conducting the prosecution can, in individual cases, threaten accusers and witnesses with automatic excommunication for breaking the secret.
d. Anonymous denunciations. Anonymous accusations are not automatically ruled out though they are generally to be rejected. They are to be considered and acted upon if circumstances require and if there appears to be some semblance of veracity to the accusation.
e. Other sex crimes. Title V of the document specifically included homosexual acts between clerics and members of their own sex, bestiality and sexual acts of any kind with children. The document uses the Latin word “impuberibus” which means “before the age of reason.” This is defined in canon 88 as one who is seven or under. The Code also contains a canon prohibiting sex with minors which is defined in canon law as one sixteen or under. A careful reading of the relevant paragraphs of the 1962 document (par. 71-73) leads to some confusion as to whom the crimes apply to. It is clear that sex with children is included and sex with males of any age, as well as sex with animals. The only category of possible victims that is unclear is sex with young girls.
30. The other sex crimes included under Title V are not crimes connected with solicitation but the actual sexual abuse itself. These are to be processed in the same manner as crimes of solicitation. Thus the three classes of clergy sexual abuse were cloaked in the highest degree of secrecy.
31. Reference to the decree was included in the recent Vatican legislation on sex crimes issued in 2001. This Letter was sent to all bishops from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on more grave crimes reserved for consideration to that same Vatican office.27 The 1962 document was issued prior to the promulgation of the revised Code of Canon law in 1983 and therefore would, under ordinary circumstances, have lost its legal force. The recent letter however clearly indicates that it had been in force until May of 2001. When this document‘s existence was publicly revealed in March, 2003, it surprised many bishops and canon lawyers who claimed not to have known about it. Furthermore there is little if any evidence that the document was ever referred to in any of the hundreds of civil cases brought against dioceses and religious communities over the past 15 years.
32. The 1962 document is significant because it reflects the church’s urgent desire to maintain the highest degree of secrecy and strictest degree of security about the worst sexual crimes perpetrated by clerics. The document does not include any background information about why it was issued nor is there any reasoning available for the imposition of extreme secrecy and the inclusion of the crimes in Title V. One can only presume that cases or concerns had been brought to the attention of the Vatican authorities which prompted the decree.
33. Since the archives of the Holy Office, now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, are closed to outside scrutiny it is impossible to determine the number of cases referred to it between 1962 and the present. The other factor impeding a study of cases is the prohibition of local dioceses from ever revealing the very existence of cases much less the relevant facts.
34. The public exposure of clergy sexual abuse of youth which began in the mid-eighties was mistakenly believed by many to be a new phenomenon which if course it is not. In spite of a series of high profile cases from around the world the Vatican issued no disciplinary documents until 2001. Although the pope had made several statements about clergy sexual abuse this was the first attempt by the Vatican to take concrete steps to contain the problem. The document, which is a set of special procedural norms, is not exclusively about sex abuse although that is the predominant theme. It is about the processing of certain crimes considered by the Vatican authorities to be so serious that prosecution of them is reserved to the Vatican itself.
35. The 2001 document reflects much that is found in the 1962 procedural norms. There are significant developments however:
a. The bishop or other superior is obliged to send the results of the preliminary investigation of an allegation of sexual abuse to the Vatican congregation. The officials there decide if the case will be processed in the Vatican or returned to the local diocese for prosecution.
b. The canonical age of a minor was raised from 16 to 18.
c. The statute of limitations is extended to 10 years. In the case of sexual abuse of a minor this time begins to run from the victim’s 18th birthday.
d. All officials involved in processing cases must be priests
e. Files of cases completed on the local levels are to be sent to the Vatican for retention.
f. The Pontifical Secret, formerly known as the Secret of the Holy Office, is imposed on all officials connected to any cases. No mention is made of imposing the secret on accusers or witnesses.
36. The Contemporary Era
It cannot be disputed that the bishops as individuals and as a group were aware of the probability of sexual abuse of children and adolescents by clerics by late 1984 and certainly early 1985 in light of the national publicity given to the celebrated case of Fr. Gilbert Gauthe in Lafayette, Louisiana. The claims that they were unaware of clergy sexual abuse or the serious nature of such abuse prior to this time are empty and contrived in light of information that has been uncovered in the various civil and criminal trials since 1985, documents issued by church authorities and various studies conducted under church auspices over the past 50 years.
37. The following is a chronological listing of various indicators:
a. 1952: Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the Paraclete Order and associated treatment facilities for priests located in New Mexico, Missouri and California, wrote to Bishop Robert Dwyer of Reno, NV, about priests afflicted with sexual disorders that cause them to abuse young boys. This letter indicates that Fr. Fitzgerald had already treated a “handful” of men charged with such abuse. He shared his recommendation that such men be laicized since they would never be free of the temptation to act out. This letter is remarkable in that it clearly assesses both the disorder and the risks. He warns against the very solutions that many bishops resorted to in the ensuing years: “Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal.” Fr. Fitzgerald’s efforts at helping troubled priests were unique and quickly became known to all US bishops. It is safe to assume that his opinions about sexually abusing priests were know to most if not all bishops. (See Fitzgerald letter, dated Sept. 12, 1952, as attachment 1.)
b. 1957: Again, Fr. Fitzgerald writes to Archbishop Edwin Byrne (Santa Fe) that he thought it unwise to “offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls.” He went on to utter an eery prophecy of the future:
If I were a bishop I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary laicization. Experience has taught us these men are too dangerous to the children of the parish and the neighborhood for us to be justified in receiving them here....They should ipso facto be reduced to lay men when they act thus.28
c. 1961: The Sacred Congregation for Religious issued an official document entitled, “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and sacred orders,” 2 Feb. 1961. The document states that one of the common causes of “defection’ or departure from the priesthood is “...sexual tendencies of a pathological nature...” which refers to homosexual tendencies. Later in the document reasons for dismissal are listed. The following statement is found:
“Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.29
d. 1966: A workshop for psychologists engaged in the assessment of candidates for the priesthood and religious life is held at the School of Nursing of the Saint Vincent’s Hospital and Medical Center in New York. One of the participants stated : Perhaps the most troublesome and most frequent appearing sociopathic features or disturbances in assessment work concern the high incidence of effeminacy, heterosexual retardation, psychosexual immaturity, deviations or potential deviations of the homosexual type….A recent study of 107 male candidates, for example, shows that 8% of these were sexually deviant, whereas 70% were described as psychosexually immature, exhibiting traits of heterosexual retardation, confusion concerning sexual role, fear of sexuality, effeminacy, and potential homosexual dispositions.”30
e. 1967: The first public discussion of priest sexual abuse of minors took place at a meeting sponsored by the National Association for Pastoral Renewal held on the campus of Notre Dame University in 1967. All U.S. Catholic bishops were invited to that meeting.31
f. 1971: Dr. Conrad Baars and Dr. Anna Terruwe presented a scholarly paper to the 1971 Synod of Bishops at the Vatican and to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Citing 40 years of combined psychiatric practice treating about 1500 priests, they concluded that 20-25% of U.S. priests had serious psychiatric difficulties and 60-70% suffered from emotional immaturity. They concluded that the psychosexual immaturity manifested itself in heterosexual and homosexual activity.32
g. 1972: Dr. Eugene Kennedy published a psychological study of U.S. priests commissioned by the Bishops’ Conference. His findings concurred with those of Baars and Terruwe and concluded that American priests were
7% psychologically and emotionally developed
18% psychologically and emotionally developing
66% underdeveloped
8% maldeveloped.33
Kennedy and Heckler stated that the underdeveloped and maldeveloped priests (74%) had not resolved psychosexual problems and issues usually worked through in adolescence. “Sexuality is, in other words, non-integrated into the lives of underdeveloped priests and many of them function as a pre-adolescent or adolescent level of psychosexual growth.”34
h. 1983: The revised Code of Canon Law is promulgated, which includes a canon (1395, 2) which explicitly names sex with a minor by clerics as a canonical crime.
I. 1984: The Times of Acadiana published a series by Jason Berry exposing the mishandling of the case of Fr. Gilbert Gauthe in Lafayette Louisiana.
j. 1985: In January Rev. Mel Balthazar is sentenced to seven years for child molestation in a Boise, Idaho court. The presiding judge said at sentencing: “I think the church has its own atonement to make as well. They helped create you and hopefully will help to rehabilitate you.” 35
k. 1985: In May The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Manner, commonly known as “The Manual” is written by Michael Peterson, Thomas Doyle and F. Ray Mouton.36 The 100 page detailed handbook was prepared in on the initiative of the three authors with the support and input of a number of influential bishops. The U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, though aware of the manual, dismissed it as unnecessary claiming that it already possessed all the data contained in it and had policies and procedures in place by 1985.
l. 1993: The Pope issues his first public statement on clergy sexual abuse in a letter directed to the Bishops of the United States. The bishops form the first ad hoc committee to study the sexual abuse issue. The committee published a three part manual in 1994, 95 and 96 successively.
m. 1994: The Vatican published the official Catechism of the Catholic Church which contains a remarkable paragraph about child sexual abuse: “Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing.”37
n. 1995: The late Bishop Bernard Flanagan, former bishop of Worcester MA, states in a deposition (June 6, 1995) that in 1971 he had heard of clergy sexual abuse in dioceses other than his own and that bishops were privately discussing this issue.38
o. 2004: On February 27 the final reports of the survey conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the study done by the National Review Board are released. Both reports were commissioned by the U.S. Bishops in 2002.. The John Jay survey reveals almost 4500 clergy perpetrators reported by dioceses since 1950 as at least 10,000 known victims. The National Review Board report places blame for the widespread scandal directly on the bishops’ negligence.
38. In spite of claims to the contrary, the canonical history of the Catholic church clearly reflects a consistent pattern of awareness that celibate clergy regularly violated their obligations in a variety of ways. The fact of clergy abuse with members of the same sex, with young people and with women is fully documented. At certain periods of church history clergy sexual abuse was publicly known and publicly acknowledged by church leaders. From the late 19th century into the early 21st century the church’s leadership has adopted a position of secrecy and silence. They have denied the predictability of clergy sexual abuse in one form or another and have claimed that this is a phenomenon new to the post-Vatican II era. The recently published reports of the Bishops’ National Review Board and John Jay College Survey have confirmed the fact of known clergy sexual abuse since the 1950's and the church leadership’s consistent mishandling of individual cases.
39. The bishops have, at various times, claimed that they were unaware of the serious nature of clergy sexual abuse and unaware of the impact on victims. This claim is easily offset by the historical evidence. Through the centuries the church has repeatedly condemned clergy sexual abuse, particularly same-sex abuse. The very texts of many of the laws and official statements show that this form of sexual activity was considered harmful to the victims, to society and to the Catholic community. Church leaders may not have been aware of the scientific nature of the different sexual disorders nor the clinical descriptions of the emotional and psychological impact on victims, but they cannot claim ignorance of the fact that such behavior was destructive in effect and criminal in nature.
40. Clergy sexual abuse has been a major problem for the Catholic church since its earliest decades. In our present era it became a major public issue from 1984 on yet there had been public cases prior to the Lafayette case of Father Gauthe. At least three U.S. priests had been criminally charged (1978, 1979, 1983) and their trials reported in the press but this caused no widespread public outcry. The culture itself was not ready to challenge institutionalized religion in the manner and to the degree necessary. The immense size, power and influence of institutionalized Catholicism has been the single most important factor in preventing a far-reaching and effective response to the issue of clergy sexual abuse. No other organization, private or public, would be allowed to “get away” with allowing, aiding and abetting and covering up a widespread epidemic of sexual molesters of children and vulnerable adults by its essential personnel. Although traditional theology and Vatican Council II hold that the “church” is not simply the institution but the entire People of God, secular society still recognizes the power of the clerical leadership and identifies the “church” with professional churchmen. This is both theological incorrect but worse, it is detrimental to the church as a Christian community and it is destructive of the concept of justice and due process. Because of the influence of the hierarchy and clergy upon the judiciary, law enforcement and the secular media in the U.S. and in other countries, clergy abuse has been treated differently. Judges and law enforcement officials regularly “looked the other way” when priests were caught in compromising situations. There has been little if any regard for the victims who were themselves often treated as if they were criminals. Civil prosecutors often feared bringing charges against priests for fear of the hierarchy’s reaction. Judges have regularly ruled against those bringing suit against bishops or dioceses. What is it about institutionalized religion, especially Catholicism and about clerics that causes people to react in such a way? What is it that allows responsible leaders of our society and vast numbers of lay people in our churches to believe that the protection of the institutional church and the protection of bishops and clerics is so important that it justifies the sexual devastation of children, minors and vulnerable adults. The reason for such bizarre responses to clergy abuse by civic leaders, church authorities, lay people and even victims themselves is an inter-related mix of the concepts of clericalism, religious duress and traumatic bonding. Bishops in the U.S and elsewhere had direct knowledge of the clergy sexual abuse problem at least by 1984.
CLERICALISM, RELIGIOUS DURESS AND TRAUMA BONDING
41. Predictability of Catholic clergy sexual abuse is based on two basic sets of facts: the first is the historical evidence dating from the fourth century which shows that mandatory celibacy has been consistently violated by Catholic clerics through sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults. The second set of facts is the contemporary psychological data from 1952 (the Fr. Fitzgerald letters) at least but especially from 1971 (Baars and Kennedy reports) that demonstrate that a significant percentage of Catholic clerics are emotionally and psychologically immature and that this immaturity manifests itself through inappropriate sexual acting out. The Catholic bishops and other religious leaders have known these facts for the duration of the contemporary era.
42. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has known that Catholic clerics and religious order members have engaged in sexual activities with children, adolescents and vulnerable adults for centuries as the historical data clearly demonstrate. In our own era, especially since 1984, revelations of thousands of cases of clergy sexual abuse have shown that the Catholic hierarchy had a standardized method of responding to reports and accusations of clergy sexual abuse. With rare exceptions, the alleged perpetrators were surreptitiously moved from one assignment to another with no warning to the receiving parish or community. The documentation from thousands of cases from the past two decades has also shown that such cases were never reported to Child Protective Services or the equivalent nor did Church authorities ever report abuse cases to the civilian law enforcement authorities. The pattern and practice had been to handle such cases internally with no reference to law enforcement authorities. A significant aspect of the way the church authorities handled them was the manner of dealing with the victims and their families. Often these persons were encouraged or persuaded or even intimidated into remaining silent, not approaching civilian law enforcement authorities, civil attorneys or making public reports.
43. The public scrutiny of clergy sexual abuse cases over the past two decades has also revealed a distinct pattern of response by the institutional church and its hierarchy. This pattern has several distinctive levels:
a) denial of the accusation usually until the facts became well known,
b) minimization of the abuse with a focus on the perpetrator and not the harm done to the victim
c) blame-shifting in an attempt to place blame anywhere but on the institutional church, its clerical establishment or one or the other aspect of the ecclesial culture
d) de-valuation of the victims, their families or their supporters
44. Recent experience with known clergy and religious sexual abusers has shown that Church officials have consistently either been culpably ignorant of the compulsive dimension of the sexual disorders that have afflicted clergy and religious abusers, or they have ignored the warnings of medical experts. The result has been a pattern of moving known abusers from one assignment to another or, in some cases, placing known abusers back in active ministry after a period of therapy or even incarceration. Such actions have not taken into account the propensity of sexual abusers for recidivism nor the impact of such re-integration on the community. Traditionally Catholic religious leaders, both male and female, have been deeply suspicious of the behavioral sciences, especially psychiatry and psychology. Human sexuality was viewed almost exclusively from a moral perspective and in a two dimensional manner. That is, it was studied from a cognitive approach with all forms of sexual acting out residing in the will. There had been little substantive appreciation or acceptance of the advances made by behavioral science into human sexuality. Hence in many instances bishops and religious superiors were not only unaware of these scientific advances, but when theories, ideas or explanations of behavior were presented, they often rejected them outright. In the realm of sexual abuse by male clerics and male and female religious, bishops and superiors often dismissed suggestions or theories that such acting out could be the result of a highly compulsive disorder. Rather, they remained convinced that all sexual behavior, other than that allowed in marriage, was not only illicit, but immoral and the substance of grievous sin.
45. The intense public pressure brought on the hierarchy from early in 2002 caused US Catholic bishops to propose a policy that ruled out return to ministry for such clerics. This policy, with its widely discussed “Zero Tolerance” clause, went into effect in 2002. Prior to this time the standard procedure was to transfer clerics with little or no medical/psychological intervention. If such clerics were provided treatment, then they often were placed back in ministry at the completion of residential care with minimal or no supervision.
46. In spite of claims to the contrary, the canonical history of the Catholic church clearly reflects a consistent pattern of awareness that celibate clergy regularly violated their obligations in a variety of ways. The fact of clergy abuse with members of the same sex, with young people and with women is fully documented. At certain periods of church history clergy sexual abuse was publicly known and publicly acknowledged by church leaders. From the late 19th century into the early 21st century the church’s leadership has adopted a position of secrecy and silence. They have denied the predictability of clergy sexual abuse in one form or another and have claimed that this is a phenomenon new to the post-Vatican II era. The recently published reports of the Bishops’ National Review Board and John Jay College Survey have confirmed the fact of known clergy sexual abuse since the 1950's and the church leadership’s consistent mishandling of individual cases.
THE FEAR CAUSED BY RELIGIOUS DURESS
47. Religious duress is an objective reality, experienced by reasonable people who are so influenced by the power of their religious beliefs that the will is unduly and unjustly constrained to perform or omit an act that the person would otherwise intend to do. Religious duress is the internal pressure experienced by a person as a result of certain religious beliefs. These beliefs are about the reaction of an unseen supreme being to something the person either does, or conversely, does not choose to do. In short, religious duress is a very special kind of fear. The ultimate source of this fear is an unseen but all-powerful supreme being. Between the individual and this supreme being are religious personages who function as advocates or buffers. Most recently in the U.S., psychiatrists have begun referring to the negative impact of religious experiences and toxic beliefs as a form of PTSD (Post traumatic stress disorder).
48. From the dawn of history men and women have created religious belief systems and religious societies whereby they attempted to communicate with the unseen god or gods. Some scholars have opined that the concept of religion really came as a result of meteorological phenomena that were regularly observed but not understood by people. They did not know the origin of such phenomena, especially the more spectacular and destructive ones such as thunder, lightning, tornadoes, tidal waves or hurricanes. In their naivete, people attributed such power to angry supreme beings and sought ways to control or at least influence them so as to ensure their safety. In his book Religion Explained, scholar Pascal Boyer sums up the theories of many:
Most accounts of the origin of religion emphasize one of the following suggestions: human minds demand explanations, human hearts seek comfort, human society requires order, human intellect is illusion-prone. 39
49. Religion is a creation of mortal men and women and not a creation of the unseen deities, imposed by them on humans. It is found throughout history and in every culture in many different forms. As people share their ideas about the unseen powers they are naturally led to theories about the nature and causal powers of these nonobservable beings.
50. Although religious systems have been created to relieve or displace the fear engendered by the unknown, these same systems have themselves been the origin of fear. In some instances well intentioned religious leaders induce or provoke the fear to influence people to avoid wrong-doing. In other cases the fear is both unjust and irrational in that it is induced by religious personages who claim it to be of supernatural origin when in reality the object of the fear is not obedience to angry gods but control by humans. Thus the world of some organized religions can be every bit as terrifying as a world controlled by unseen angry supernatural forces. The gloom and fear that seem fundamental to some religions including expressions of Christianity, can be as mysterious as the unseen supernatural powers. The Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote of the psychological tenor of Christian revelation in such works as The Concept of Anguish and Fear and Trembling.
51. Religious concepts are connected to human emotional systems. These systems react to life-threatening situations such as the power of nature or any other force that threatens a person and cannot be readily controlled. Returning to Boyer, we read:
It is probably true that religious concepts gain their great salience and emotional load in the human psyche because they are connected to thoughts about various life-threatening circumstances. So we will not understand religion if we do not understand the various emotional programs of the mind. 40
52. A logical progression leads to human speculation on how to influence the superhuman entities in order to avoid their wrath and to gain their benevolence. Hence the notion of sacrifice which is central to primitive and ancient religions as well as to Christianity. Mortals gave the first and best crops, the fatted calf, money and various promises of good behavior to the gods in return for their benevolence. There is even evidence of human sacrifice in several religious systems. With the notion of sacrifice comes the concept of priesthood.
53. Priesthood is the most ancient form of religious office. The priest has traditionally but not exclusively been male. It is an office or role given to one who is thought by the community to be in a special, privileged position in the estimation of the unseen powers. The priest is the special person deputed by the community and favored by the gods to lead worship services but especially to offer sacrifices on behalf of individuals and the community. The earliest known religions have priestly offices. Because of their closeness to the deities the priests themselves have traditionally been thought to have special powers.
THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD WITHIN CATHOLIC CULTURE
54. In the Christian tradition Catholicism is the oldest and in many ways, the prototype for Christian denominations. The priesthood has been central to Catholic theology because of the essential concept of sacrifice. Catholic theology is firmly structured around the belief that the Mass, or the Eucharist as it is called, is the only acceptable sacrifice to God, having replaced all forms of sacrifice that preceded it. The notion of sacrifice presumes a belief that there remains a need for intercession and advocacy before God by mortals. The Mass is the center of Catholicism. The priest is essential to the Mass for without the priest there can be no Mass and without the Mass, there could be no Catholicism:
The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life. "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch. (N. 1324, The Catholic Catechism).
The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering . (N. 1368, The Catholic Catechism) 41
Thus far we have made a connection between the concepts of an unseen and often stern supreme being, humanity born into sin and continuously prone to sin, the essential need for a way to appease and influence the supreme being and a class of men who are set apart to act as the advocates for sinful men and women. In Catholic terminology we have a just God viewing created humans who are capable of sin and in need of a means of justification. That means is the Mass and sacraments. Essential to the Mass and sacraments are priests who are therefore essential to safe passage from this world to the next.
55. The Church has traditionally taught the radical distinction between the “priesthood of the laity” which imputes a calling on all persons who confess belief in Jesus Christ, and a special office of priesthood bestowed on selected men through the ceremony of ordination. To this office are attached the powers that are essential for Catholics to attain the fundamental goal of Christianity and indeed most religions and that is safe deliverance of the soul to the afterlife. The two major powers of Catholic priests are the power to celebrate Mass or to re-enact the Last Supper and the power to forgive sins in the name of God. Catholicism teaches that both are essential for salvation and fundamental to the very nature and life of the church. The Church claims that the unique priesthood of Catholicism and the powers attached thereto are derived from Christ Himself. Such claims must be understood within the context of a body of critics, especially from the various Protestant denominations, which denied the uniqueness of the Catholic concept of priesthood. Consequently Catholic theologians took great pains to connect the priesthood and its powers with the Lord Himself:
Accordingly, the Catholic priesthood has the indisputable right to trace its origin in this respect also to the Divine Founder of the Church. Both sides of the priesthood were brought into prominence by the Council of Trent (loc. cit., n. 961): "If any one shall say that in the New Testament there is no visible and external priesthood nor any power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of the Lord, as well as of remitting and retaining sins, but merely the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, let him be anathema." Far from being an "unjustifiable usurpation of Divine powers", the priesthood forms so indispensable a foundation of Christianity that its removal would entail the destruction of the whole edifice. A Christianity without a priesthood cannot be the Church of Christ. 42
56. Essential and central to Catholic teaching is the belief that the Mass is the ceremony whereby the Lord Jesus becomes really present under the appearances of bread and wine. Only a valid priest can make this happen. Hence the concept of the priest as the “alter Christus” or the “other Christ.” The 16th century Council of Trent, cited in the above quote, summarized the Church’s traditional teaching about priesthood and sacrifice:
Sacrifice and priesthood are by Divine ordinance so inseparable that they are found together under all laws. Since therefore in the New Testament the Catholic Church has received from the Lord's institution the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist it must also be admitted that in the Church there is a new, visible and external priesthood into which the older priesthood has been changed. 43
57. The life of the Catholic church is built around a sacramental system. To understand the power of the priesthood and the fear that this office can create one must understand the concept of sacrament. A sacrament is a ceremony or ritual that results in an invisible expression of Divine Power for the recipient. The seven sacraments of the Catholic church all are related to key moments or aspects of life such as birth, death, advancement to adulthood, propagation, leadership and forgiveness. The Church teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation in the next life and for membership and participation in the Church community in this life. The necessity of the sacraments has been the subject of theological debate yet the institutional church has determined that this necessity is evident:
This truth theologians express by saying that the sacraments are necessary, not absolutely but only hypothetically, i.e., in the supposition that if we wish to obtain a certain supernatural end we must use the supernatural means appointed for obtaining that end. In this sense the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. 4) declared heretical those who assert that the sacraments of the New Law are superfluous and not necessary, although all are not necessary for each individual. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men. 44
58. The sacraments, especially Eucharist and Penance, are essential for salvation. The sacraments are controlled by the priests and bishops who are also the ministers whose powers are essential to the celebration or “happening” of each sacrament. Although the actual ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the spouses themselves, Catholic church law requires that a cleric be part of the ceremony as the “official witness.” The only other exception is with baptism for the Church teaches that in a true emergency any person can validly administer this sacrament. Yet for the rest, the presence and action of a priest or bishop is essential. Not only is the ministry of the cleric essential, but access to the sacraments is controlled by the clerics. Though they are bound to follow Church law and theology which theoretically assure a degree of objectivity and equity, the practical application is left with the individual priest or bishop.
59. The concept of sin has been and continues to be fundamental in maintaining the stature of the priest. Christian theology defines a sin as an offense committed by a mortal person against the immortal God. Catholic tradition speaks of three kinds of sin: original sin which is a negative spiritual condition which all are born with and which can only be relieved by baptism. The traditional teaching held that those who died in original sin would never enjoy heaven but rather would be consigned to a bland state called limbo wherein the person remained for eternity without the possibility of enjoying the presence of God. Venial sin is defined as a less serious offense against God and one which results in a temporary sentence in purgatory, a kind of mild version of hell but from which there is hope of eventual release into heaven. Finally there is mortal sin which is a grave offense against God and which results in eternal damnation in hell if the sinner dies without having been absolved of this sin. Original sin is eliminated by baptism, usually administered by a priest. Venial sins are absolved through confession and future penalties attached to them can be reduced or eliminated by doing a variety of good works or performing various spiritual exercises. Absolution from the effects of mortal sin requires remorse, a purpose of amendment and the intercession of a priest. Fear of divine wrath and everlasting damnation are motivation for believers to change their ways, abandon the acts that result in sin and seek the ministry of a priest. The power of the priest is evident in that he is believed to control deliverance for the errant believer. Added to the already powerful role of the ordained cleric is the fact that the church’s leadership, all male clerics, claim the authority to define which acts constitute mortal or venial sins. Although the reality of the leadership’s role in defining sin is complex, the fact remains that this claim to power has been exaggerated in the minds of believers for centuries. The common belief has invested bishops and especially popes with the God-given authority to determine which human actions are or are not serious sins.
60. Like their historical counterparts from pre-Christian societies, Catholic priests and bishops are cloaked with an aura of mystery and power. Traditionally they have lived apart from the laity. They have dressed differently and been held in a unique form of esteem by religious and secular society. There is no question but that the institutional church has created and sustained this priestly mystique by its official teaching, its regulatory or legal system as well as by a complex collection of mythical stories and traditions surrounding priests and bishops. Mandatory celibacy has served to reinforce this mystique that Catholic priests are somehow removed and above other people, especially the Catholic laity.
61. The Catholic Church has taught for centuries that priests are men set apart and above others. The difference begins with the reception of the sacrament of Holy Orders, commonly referred to as “ordination.” At that moment, by divine action, the man is made a priest and is joined to Christ in such a way that he is substantially different from other men. The official Catechism of the Catholic Church (No. 1581) describes it thus:
This sacrament configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ's instrument for his Church. By ordination one is enabled to act as a representative of Christ, Head of the Church, in his triple office of priest, prophet, and king.
62. The Catechism restates a doctrine that has been an essential part of Catholic belief for centuries, namely that priests represent Jesus Christ in a very special way.
In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis [in the person of Christ, the head]. It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi). Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ. (N. 1548)
The ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ - Head of the Church - before the assembly of the faithful, but also of acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice. (N. 1552)
63. The doctrine stated in the Church’s contemporary catechism is a continuation if that which has been standard through the centuries. The Catechism of the Council of Trent contains statements that basically summarize the Church’s understanding of the priesthood as it was taught up to the era of Vatican Council II (1963-65). The present official understanding is much akin to that found in this document although couched in terms that are less triumphalistic.
In the first place, then, the faithful should be shown how great is the dignity and excellence of this sacrament considered in its highest degree, the priesthood.
Bishops and priests being, as they are, God’s interpreters and ambassadors, empowered in his name to teach mankind the divine law and the rules of conduct and holding, as they do, His place on earth, it is evident that no nobler function than theirs can be imagined. Justly therefore are they called not only Angles, but even gods, because of the fact that they exercise in our midst the power and prerogatives of the immortal God.
In all ages priests have been held in the highest honor; yet the priests of the New testament far exceed all others. For the power of consecrating and offering the body and blood of our Lord and of forgiving sins, which has been conferred on them, not only has nothing equal or like it on earth, but even surpasses human reason and understanding. 45
64. The Code of Canon Law of 1917 put into legislation the practical application of traditional teaching on the priesthood. In the first place, only clerics could hold the power of jurisdiction or actual power, in the Church. Only clerics could hold ecclesiastical offices. In general this is repeated in the revised Code. In addition, several other canons or sections of canons point to this exalted position.
All the faithful owe reverence to clerics according to their various grades and offices; and they commit a sacrilege if they do real injury to a cleric,” (Canon 119)
Clerics could not be summoned before civil courts unless special permission was obtained to do so. (Canon 120)
65. The Catechism of the Council of Trent expressed in more florid terminology the same truths that were expounded to Catholics who received their primary religious education during the years immediately preceding, during and right after the momentous Vatican Council II (1963-65). The Baltimore Catechism was the text used for Catholic religious education from the pre-Vatican II era into the seventies and is still the preferred text in some circles. Concerning the priesthood the Catechism says:
Q 280. How should Christians look upon the priests
of
the Church ?
A. Christians should look upon the priests of the
Church as the
messengers of God and the dispensers of His
mysteries
Q. 997. How do we know that the priests of the Church are the messengers of God?
A. We know that the priests of the Church are the messengers of God, because Christ said to His apostles, and through them to their successors: "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you"; that is to say, to preach the true religion, to administer the Sacraments, to offer Sacrifice, and to do all manner of good for the salvation of souls.
Q. 999. Why should we show great respect to the priests and bishops of the Church? A. We should show great respect to the priests and bishops of the Church:
(1) Because they are the representatives of Christ upon earth, and
(2) Because they administer the Sacraments without which we cannot be saved.
Therefore, we should be most careful in what we do, say or think concerning God's ministers. To show our respect in proportion to their dignity, we address the priest as Reverend, the bishop as Right Reverend, the archbishop as Most Reverend, and the Pope as Holy Father.
Q. 1002. How do we know that there is a true priesthood in the Church?
A. We know that there is a true priesthood in the Church:
(1) Because in the Jewish religion, which was only a figure of the Christian religion, there was a true priesthood established by God;
(2) Because Christ conferred on His apostles and not on all the faithful the power to offer Sacrifice, distribute the Holy Eucharist and forgive sins.
Q. 1003. But is there need of a special Sacrament of Holy Orders to confer these powers?
A. There is need of a special Sacrament of Holy Orders to confer these powers:
(1) Because the priesthood which is to continue the work of the apostles must be visible in the Church, and it must therefore be conferred by some visible ceremony or outward sign;
(2) Because this outward sign called Holy Orders gives not only power but grace and was instituted by Christ, Holy Orders must be a Sacrament.
Q. 1004. Can bishops, priests and other ministers of the Church always exercise the power they have received in Holy Orders?
A. Bishops, priests and other ministers of the Church cannot exercise the power they have received in Holy Orders unless authorized and sent to do so by their lawful superiors. The power can never be taken from them, but the right to use it may be withdrawn for causes laid down in the laws of the Church, or for reasons that seem good to those in authority over them. Any use of sacred power without authority is sinful, and all who take part in such ceremonies are guilty of sin.
66. The official church teaching was reflected in popular literature which supported the belief that the priest was a man set apart who was entitled to deference and respect. Popular Catholicism encouraged the exalted role of the priest and surrounded it with an exaggerated form of piety and respect. An excerpt from the writings of St. John Vianney, a 19th century French pastor who is considered the patron saint of all parish priests:
What is a priest! A man who holds the place of God -- a man who is invested with all the powers of God. "Go, " said Our Lord to the priest; "as My Father sent Me, I send you. All power has been given Me in Heaven and on earth. Go then, teach all nations. . . . He who listens to you, listens to Me; he who despises you despises Me. " When the priest remits sins, he does not say, "God pardons you"; he says, "I absolve you. " At the Consecration, he does not say, "This is the Body of Our Lord;" he says, "This is My Body. "
If I were to meet a priest and an angel, I should salute the priest before I saluted the angel. The latter is the friend of God; but the priest holds His place. St. Teresa kissed the ground where a priest had passed. When you see a priest, you should say, "There is he who made me a child of God, and opened Heaven to me by holy Baptism; he who purified me after I had sinned; who gives nourishment to my soul. " At the sight of a church tower, you may say, "What is there in that place?" "The Body of Our Lord. " "Why is He there?" "Because a priest has been there, and has said holy Mass.46
67. The sentiment expressed by this19th century priest is still alive among Catholics today. It is expressed in a variety of popular writings including utterances of Pope John Paul II:
The
ordained ministry, which may never be reduced to its merely
functional aspect since it belongs on the level of "being,"
enables the priest to act "in persona Christi" and
culminates in the moment when he consecrates the bread and wine,
repeating the actions and words of Jesus during the Last Supper.
Before this extraordinary reality we find ourselves amazed
and overwhelmed, so deep is the humility by which God "stoops"
in order to unite himself with man! If we feel moved before the
Christmas crib, when we contemplate the Incarnation of the Word,
what must we feel before the altar where, by the poor hands of the
priest, Christ makes his Sacrifice present in time? We can only fall
to our knees and silently adore this supreme mystery of faith. 47
68. Priests are members of the clerical state, a kind of sub-culture within the church. The Church has long maintained that the division between clerics and laity is itself of divine origin. This stratified and unequal society has served to protect the belief that priests are special, removed and exempt from much of the social and legal accountability expected of lay persons. The present Code of Canon Law defines the church as a society made up of the laity and, by divine origin, the hierarchy. 48 The hierarchy is made up of deacons, priests and bishops who, in order to function as such, must be members of the clerical state. The stratification of the ecclesial society has been an integral part of Catholic teaching for centuries and is well summed up in an excerpt from a 1906 encyclical letter issued by Pope Pius X (later declared a saint):
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led and, like docile flock, to follow the Pastors.
69. The survival of an attitude of superiority on the part of the clergy is not surprising in light of the fact that the very political structure of the Church was a natural parent. Early on in its history the institutional church began to construct a theology of sacred orders (deacon, priest, bishop) that supported the isolation of clerics into a special caste and easily led to the negative philosophy of clericalism. The common conception, evident from theological and catechetical writings, church law and liturgical practice, is that bishops are direct descendants of the apostles and both bishops and priests are ontologically different from lay persons because they have been singled out by God to take the place of Jesus Christ on earth. In spite of the lack of concrete scriptural and historical evidence of such singularity, this theology developed, filling the scriptural gaps with such assertions as “it is the constant tradition that....”
70. Clericalism is the label given to the radical misunderstanding of the place of clerics (deacons, priests, bishops) in the Catholic Church and in secular society. This pejorative “ism” is grounded in the erroneous belief that clerics form a special elite and, because of their powers as sacramental ministers, they are superior to the laity. These spiritual powers have historically led to a variety of social privileges which in turn have regularly resulted in different levels of corruption.49 The distorted notion of the power and standing of clerics is not new. The negative impact of the clerical culture has been acknowledged for centuries. Well known Catholic writer Russell Shaw says:
Yet the clericalist mind set does fundamentally distort, disrupt, and poison the Christian lives of members of the church, clergy and laity alike, and weakens the church in her mission to the world. Clericalism is not the cause of every problem in the church, but it causes many and is a factor in many more. Time and again...it plays a role in the debilitating controversies that today afflict the Catholic community in the United States and other countries.50
Following the Second Vatican Council many clergy and Catholic laity hoped that the power of clericalism would wane, especially in light of the Council’s emphasis on the role of lay members in Church life. Yet recent studies indicate that the present generation of young priests see themselves as essentially different from the laity and as men set apart by God.51 It appears from this and other indicators that Catholic clericalism is not only alive but malignant. The clericalism of the past and its present-day expressions, have a common goal which is the retention of the power, prestige and image of the members of the clerical elite, especially the bishops. As such it is not difficult to see clericalism as an enabler of the contemporary clergy abuse scandal. In spite of promises to the contrary, the Catholic hierarchy, supported by significant numbers of the laity, will remain defensive. The tension is well expressed by theologian and psychologist Donald Cozzens, a priest of the Diocese of Cleveland, Ohio:
Until we take to heart the understanding of the church as fundamentally the baptized communion of Jesus’ disciples....the laity will continue to encounter suspicion and mistrust from church authorities. And the church itself, even after promising transparency and accountability as the American bishops did in the wake of the clergy sex abuse scandal, will continue to practice denial. Dissimulation and deception. These characteristics flow, quite naturally, from an understanding of the church as a society made up of unequals.
THE IMPACT ON VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE
71. The popular belief and official teaching of the exalted role of the priest carries the potential for much good if it is used rightly, for the benefit of all, and is accompanied by a conviction of respect for those served by priests. Experience has also demonstrated that this belief and its supporting theology can result in great harm to believers. Victims of clergy sexual abuse regularly exclaim that they were paralyzed and numb when the abuse occurred because of their disbelief that so sublime a personage would stoop to harm them. For many Catholics any and all expressions of sexuality outside of marriage were considered mortal sins, carrying the potential for eternal damnation. The emotional and psychological turmoil triggered by abuse at the hands of a cleric is difficult to describe or even imagine. The priest represented the divine presence to many victims. The priest was the enforcer of the church’s stringent moral code and he was also the source of relief from the sins committed against this moral code. Catholics are taught from the outset that all expressions of sexuality in thought, word, deed or desire are mortally sinful outside of marriage. The confusion is compounded when the abuser is a priest. The youthful Catholic often believed the priest can do no wrong therefore the sinfulness of any sexual actions must be attributed to the victims. It has not been unusual for victims to blame themselves for the abuse and to feel guilt at having led a priest into sin.
72. The impact on Catholic victims is unique and, in the opinion of some experts, particularly devastating precisely because the abuser is a priest. Catholic victims, brought up in a church dominated by clerics, believe the teaching that priests take the place of Christ. In the minds and emotions of the victims the priest is much more than a pastor or minister. He is a very special father figure and the earthly representative of God Himself. Many victims experience a kind of toxic transference and experience in their sexual abuse a form of spiritual death. Dr. Leslie Lothstein of the Institute for the living graphically describes it:
The difference is that the role of the priest puts the priest in close connection with Jesus and with god. And what you hear from the victims - and I’ve heard this from priests who have been victims - is that they feel that their soul has been murdered. It’s soul murder, soul murder, and they can never get over the guilt and shame of what their responsible role was - why was I chosen, how did this happen to me, and can I ever be reconnected with god?52
73. Victims describe the spiritual impact of abuse by a priest in many ways but the common denominator is spiritual devastation and, as Lothstein puts it so well, soul murder. For many the aftermath is a lifetime of painful spiritual loss and acute emptiness. These victims were almost universally devout, believing, and in most cases religiously naive Catholics. Sexual abuse by God’s personal representative is often described as a ripping away of their souls. For others their lives are filled with a painful anger that roars to life whenever they see a priest or some other reminder of their abuse. Victims regularly report panic attacks when in or near a church, nausea and violent anxiety reactions to seeing or hearing a priest and even anger at God that He has somehow violated them and then abandoned them.
74. In nearly every case of Catholic clergy sexual abuse the victim is devout, believes in all church teaching without question and is the product of a practicing Catholic family. Such victims have been subjected to a special form of indoctrination from their earliest years which has left them incapable of questioning, doubting or criticizing the word of the priests and bishops for fear of incurring divine wrath. The church teaching, imparted by the clerics and other official representatives, is fortified by the parents who themselves have been raised to treat the church officials with a mixture of fear, awe and respect. They validate the official teaching and encourage their children to defer to clerics by their words but especially by their own attitudes of servility and fear.
75. The stratified ecclesial society with its projection of the superior authority of the clergy can easily prevent Catholics from ever achieving a psychologically healthy and spiritually mature degree of participation in the church. In short, Catholic adults are expected to be docile and obedient and to accept as true all utterances of the priests and bishops much less the popes. Though St. Paul, in his first letter to the Christians in Corinth urged them to maturity, the constant attitude projected by official Catholic leadership has been quite the opposite. Nevertheless the words of Paul are still valid: “ Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil, be infants, but in your thinking be adults” (1 Cor 14:20-21). This serious lack of religious maturity has had disastrous results for the victims of clergy sexual abuse as well as for their families. As many victims have matured past the age of their abuse they have remained trapped in a cocoon of fear that prevented them from disclosing the abuse. Parents and other family members have often fallen prey to the deceptive manipulations of clerics when they have disclosed their children’s abuse. Their religious immaturity and childish reaction in their communications with clerics have filled them with the irrational fear that disclosure would result in serious sin on their part. Far too many have feared to question the clerics who enjoined their silence by a variety of means ranging from convincing but false solicitude to pleading to intimidation and finally threats. The clerical system has persuaded and intimidated them into believing that the clerical leaders always have the last word and that word is correct. Such naive Catholics are taught that to disagree with, disbelieve or dispute the word of a priest or bishop is a sign of weak faith and probably a sin. They are unable to distinguish between their justifiable anger at clerics, especially abusive clerics, and their faith in God. The seeds of this confusion have been planted by the church’s own teaching and nurtured by the clerical elite.
76. Religious duress and the irrational and deep fear that it engenders are both a direct product of a deviant religious indoctrination that is epitomized by clericalism. The impact on victims of clergy sexual abuse is fourfold:
a. Seduction and grooming. It is considered a great honor when the priest singles out the child of such a family for particular attention. Parents are completely unsuspecting of the attention paid to a young son or daughter and have even unwittingly enabled the abuse by allowing and encouraging overnight trips and the like. This process is commonly referred to as “courtship” or “grooming.” Eventually the cleric makes the first sexual move and the young victim is, more often than not, stunned into disbelief.
b. Moral confusion. Victims reared in an atmosphere that accepted the traditional Church teaching on sexuality were convinced and could not question the belief that any form of sexual expression, be it thought, word or especially deed, is mortally sinful. Furthermore they were taught that homosexuality is officially deemed unnatural, homosexual people “fundamentally disordered” and all sexual expression particularly sinful. In the face of this the priest, the personification of this stringent sexual morality and one who is theoretically devoid of any potential for sexual temptation, is the very one leading the victim into a forbidden sexual act. The victim is now caught in a powerful dilemma. He or she has been groomed and led along to a place of significant trust. Now, something forbidden has happened. Confusion, guilt and shame set in after the shock begins to wear off . The guilt and confusion is especially toxic if the young victim has experienced pleasurable sexual feelings. The moral theology taught by the clerical world came forth from a source that did not understand much less accept the complex nature of the sexual response. This plunges the victim into deeper confusion. The clerical world has also taught the victim that the only acceptable relief from the guilt of sin is confession and absolution given by the priest. But the very source of relief from sin is also the efficient cause of the sin so the victim is immobilized and the guilt, shame and trauma only intensify.
c. Non-resistence to prolonged abuse. Extensive clinical and legal evidence shows that most sexual abuse is not limited to an isolated act. Perpetrators often claim it only happened once but subsequent investigation generally discovers patterns of abuse over days, weeks and sometimes years. Observers often wonder, and rightly so, how some victims remain in such “relationships.” Many victims have later reported that they felt trapped and increasingly powerless as the abuse continued. Some reported being conscious of a sort of bond with the abuser which of course further confused the issue by increasing ambivalence and guilt. Uninformed critics have frequently claimed that in such cases the victim was indeed a willing participant and perhaps even an aggressor. The pathological dynamic of the relationship suggests that such suggestions are far from the truth and constitute only defensive, wishful thinking by those incapable of accepting the reality of the scandal.
d. Failure to report. The existence of the trauma bond also explains why so many victims failed to report abuse after it started and even for months or years after it had ended. They did not report because they could not report. Apart from the fear and shame that often arose from sexual abuse, victims had to deal with the entire Catholic institution that loomed before them. Many believed their abusers who convinced them that no one would believe them. Still others succumbed to implied or direct intimidation and threats from church authorities. The clerical elite, incapable of seeing a victim’s report of sexual abuse as anything more than a threat to the Church’s security, often responded in a predictable manner. The victim was often turned into a potential victimizer and made to feel guilty for contemplating an action that would embarrass a priest.
77. The inability to resist prolonged abuse is best explained by the psychological phenomenon known as the trauma bond. Dr. William Foote, a psychologist from Arizona and a medical expert on several clergy sexual abuse cases, has explored the phenomenon whereby a kind of relationship or bond is created between a clerical sexual abuser and his victim. The term was first used by Dr. David Dutton, a Canadian psychologist who had done extensive research on domestic violence and child abuse. According to Dr. Foote, Dutton describes traumatic bonding as:
...the development of strong emotional ties between two persons, with one person intermittently harassing, beating, threatening, abusing or intimidating the other. Dr. Dutton notes that this phenomenon is based on the existence of a power imbalance wherein the maltreated person perceives him or herself to be subjugated to be dominated by the other.53
78. Catholic victims, conditioned by their religious indoctrination, look on the clergy-abuser with a mixture of awe and fear. The cleric’s attitude of superiority and power elicit a certain degree of emotional security in the victim. These strong feelings of security and awe at the clerical state often impede victims from recognizing the seductive patterns the abuser is using to court them. The awe, fear and wonder experienced by the victim is best described as religious duress. This is a kind of fear inspired in victims that so constrains them that they cannot extricate themselves from abusers. In many ways religious duress is similar to the notion of reverential fear, a well established category in Catholic Canon Law. This is a fear that is induced not from an unjust force from without but from the respect, awe or reverence one has for an authority figure. The victim experiences such fear of causing the displeasure or even wrath of the authority figure that the will is significantly impeded. Child or adolescent victims are especially vulnerable to a priest-abuser. First, the priest is an adult with automatic power over the victim. He is also a priest with vast spiritual authority. Another component that often enters into the relationship is secrecy. The seduction process has created a secret and special relationship that entraps the victim.
79. The trauma bond becomes stronger and even more pathological as the exploitive relationship continues. It is often affirmed in the victim’s view, by the Church’s apparent approval of the priest’s behavior. The clerical world, unwilling or unable to proactively confront clergy sexual abuse, appears to the victim to be unconcerned. The victim feels trapped until either the abuser ends the relationship or some other event from without causes it to terminate. In some instances the abuse had grown so repulsive to the victims that they broke the bond and fled.
80. The reality of religious duress and the abject fear it causes is not subjective to some few individuals who may be predisposed to it due to other emotional or psychological issues. This reality is objective and found across a broad spectrum of Catholic people regardless of educational or familial background, economic or cultural status or age. The emotional and psychological reaction to the institutional church and to some or all clerics is the result of a systematic pattern of religious indoctrination. This indoctrination is grounded in established teachings and beliefs held by the official church. When these beliefs, epitomized in the belief that priests are sacred personages who stand in the place of God, become interwoven with the natural fear and wonder of the unknown, the result can be a fear so grave that it impedes the normal evaluative thought processes and constrains the will from choosing to act in circumstances that would benefit the individual. The fear that arises from the threat of displeasure of religious officials carries over to a fear of displeasing God and this fear can be overpowering and immobilizing.
81. The Constitution of the United States contains the First Amendment which says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The sentiments contained in this amendment are reflected in the laws and cultures of many other nations, especially English speaking nations with the Common Law tradition. In the U.S. and in other countries the First Amendment and similar legislation or cultural belief, has regularly been misunderstood and erroneously applied in such a way that organized religious bodies and professional religious leaders have been accorded a privileged position in society. The protections given to religion have led to the totally erroneous belief that religion, religious bodies and religious leaders are incapable of doing harm to people or to society. Furthermore, this belief protects such entities and persons when harm is actually done. It often seems as if religious bodies and leaders are held to a different set of legal standards. Many actually believe that their First Amendment protections (or similar protections in other countries) provide immunity from investigation or prosecution. The flood of civil and criminal cases related to clergy sexual abuse in the U.S. and elsewhere has caused a serious re-examination of the true meaning of the First Amendment. Organized religious bodies in the U.S. and elsewhere have been protected by societal authorities in great part because of the impact of clericalism, religious duress and the attendant fear of offending organized religion in any way. In the U.S. courts today, there is a growing trend to move away from any form of favoritism accorded to religious leaders. The First Amendment protections are being re-examined. No doubt the same trend has begun or should start in other countries as well.54 Although the civil courts in the U.S. (and in many other countries as well) shy away from considering Canon Law or other Church policies for fear of giving the appearance of actually interfering with internal religious practices, they are willing to take an objective look at Church Law and policies to help them understand the internal workings of the Catholic and to see if there is consistency between the policies published by the Church, promises made to the laity by Church leaders as well as the Church’s own internal regulatory system (Canon Law). In many instances the court validates the findings of the media and the allegations of victims and others, to wit, that the Catholic Church has not, in fact, followed its own internal regulations nor its recently published policies concerning clergy sexual abuse. In short, though there has been some minimal level of compliance, the reality speaks for itself. The Church authorities in the U.S. and elsewhere continue to try to manipulate the judiciary, law enforcement, the Catholic lay faithful and the public in general.
82. This inconsistency has become evident in the U.S. and in other countries where the secular media has had the courage to expose it. The result has been a series of grand jury investigations in the U.S. as well as serious interest by federal legislators in public inquiries and possible federal investigations into the clergy sexual abuse phenomenon. The socio-cultural sentiments that have led to the protection and privileged position of the institutional church in the U.S. and elsewhere have also led to widespread miscarriage of justice and lack of due process as well as a societal failure to recognize the clergy sexual abuse phenomenon for the horror that it really is.
84. Little has been said about the problem in countries other that the U.S. in this declaration. In Ireland there has been significant progress in the investigation and prosecution of clergy sexual abusers and the exposure of bishops and cardinals who covered up. The Ferns Commission issued a hard hitting report in May, 2005. In 2009 the Ryan Commission issued a scathing report covering extensive sexual and physical abuse inflicted on Irish children in orphanages and residential schools throughout Ireland. That same year the Murphy Commission revealed a long pattern of sexual abuse by priests of the Archdiocese of Dublin which was systematically covered up by archbishops and bishops until very recently. A number of accused clerics have faced criminal charges. Courageous journalists have exposed the horrors of the Catholic convent schools, boarding schools and industrial schools. The enabling clericalism of the Catholic laity, who for decades gave total support to anything the clergy said or did, evaporated rapidly in the face of the horrors of widespread sexual abuse. A significant report on clergy sexual abuse was published and received widespread acceptance throughout the country. 55
85. In Australia the fearless work of Brother Barry Coldrey has been responsible for exposing the legacy of institutional abuse and religious duplicity.56
86. In all those countries where the clergy abuse of the young has been challenged by the courts and by society in general, the pattern has been the same:
-aggrieved victims and their families attempt to find justice within the Church system but are thwarted;
-the secular media begins to publish stories of abuse and coverup in spite of pressure from official church entities
-law enforcement and judicial officials become less “forgiving” toward clergy abusers and their superiors.
-the Catholic and general public gradually change from a dominant attitude of disbelief to one of belief and then anger at clergy abuse.
87. This process has been common with some variations in most English speaking countries. Some are further along than others. In Australia for example, the media exposure has lagged behind that of other countries (the U.S., Ireland, The U.K.) This has also been true of Canada in spite of the massive scandal that exploded in Newfoundland in the late 1980's surrounding the Christian Brothers and Mt. Cashel Orphanage in St. John’s Nfld. In New Zealand it appears that the process is still in its early stages, with the hierarchical leadership still benefitting from a significant degree of protection from civil government and a compliant society.
88. The Archbishop of Wellington, Cardinal Thomas Williams, was briefed on the clergy abuse situation in the United States by this author in December, 1989. The visit took place at the Cardinal’s residence in Wellington. Shortly after the visit the New Zealand bishops issued a one page protocol on clergy sexual abuse. Since that time the New Zealand bishops have issued a subsequent document with policies and procedures. A Path to Healing was published in 2001. It appears that to date no independent study has been done to determine if the principles and protocols have been followed. On the contrary, it appears that in spite of the public position, the church is, when dealing with individual cases, still operating with a siege mentality. This is not unusual. In the U.S. the Catholic bishops have responded only because they have been forced to respond. In spite of public statements and an expensive and carefully created public relations policy, victims consistently report cold and demeaning treatment from diocesan lay review boards as well as brutal tactics when engaged in the legal process.
89. The leaders of the Catholic Church in New Zealand, the U.S. and elsewhere has yet to internalize the very painful truths that have emerged from the clergy abuse phenomenon and which continue to emerge. One of the most important truths is that organized Churches, especially the Catholic Church, are not above the civil law and cannot use their stature to avoid accountability for felony crimes committed by the clergy. A second truth is that the laity are better educated, more mature and much less prone to unquestioned obedience and docility. A third is that the victims of clergy sexual abuse, be they young or old, have been deeply harmed and grievously traumatized and have a determination to achieve justice no matter how long it takes nor what resources are required.
90. Most of the attention in the sexual abuse phenomenon that has emerged since 1984 has been focused on abuse by priests. Widespread sexual abuse by Catholic Brothers and Catholic nuns and sisters has also been uncovered, especially abuse of defenseless children in Catholic orphanages. The experience of Ann Thompson is an example of this abuse. Children in orphanages were even more vulnerable than children living in family environments. They had no one to tell and nowhere to run to. The sisters had the same psychological effect on them as the priests did on their victims. When confronted with the sexual and physical abuse inflicted by sisters of yesteryear, the leadership of many religious orders has reacted to victims in much the same way as have the bishops. They have re-victimized the victims by manipulating them, refusing to fully acknowledge their abuse and stonewalling any attempts by victims to receive justice.
91. Bishops and religious superiors have used a variety of techniques to try to control, stonewall or dissuade victims from pursuing justice. In this case the bishop extracted an agreement from Ann Thompson. If she would abandon her legal efforts he would conduct a thorough investigation into the accused priest. Ann abandoned the case and the bishop kept his end of the bargain in name only: he conducted a superficial and cursory investigation. Without going into the details, it is clear that this maneuver falls into a similar pattern experienced by victims in other locations and in other countries. In my extensive experience which reaches back to 1984, I have been directly involved in hundreds of cases in which victims have been manipulated in various ways by church officials. The victims often are impeded from taking
an aggressive posture with the church. The psychological barriers they experience are caused by the PTSD or Religious Duress discussed in foregoing paragraphs. In other words, the victims have little choice but to accept the Church’s actions.
92. A number of conclusions arise from these considerations. The most important one however is that which pertains directly to Ann Thompson. Without question she was sexually abused by a priest and the abuse continued by the nuns.
October 5, 2010
Vienna, VA 22182
Thomas P. Doyle, M.A., M.S., M.Ch.A., J.C.D., C.A.D.C.
1 In the 16th and 17th centuries there is evidence that church authorities often subjected accused clerics to canonical trials after which they were turned over to secular authorities for additional punishment. In the 20th century at least two civil trials received limited local publicity: Fr. Bruce MacArthur (El Paso, TX, 1979) and Fr. Mel Balthasar (Boise, ID, 1983-84).
2 The final report of the National Review Board, commissioned by the U.S Bishops, A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States is available from the website of the U.S. Bishops Office of Child and Youth Protection. This and other reports are provided on this web site. See www.usccb.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nrbreport.pdf .
3 John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 42.
4 See Pierre Payer, Sex and the Penitentials (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984).
5 Pierre J. Payer, “Introduction” to The Book of Gomorrah (Waterloo, Ontario, Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1982), p. 5. “The Book of Gomorrah stands out as a carefully planned and eloquently executed discussion of the subject reflecting both a legalistic concern with correct ecclesiastical censure and a passionate pastoral concern for those caught up in the behavior.’
6 John Boswell, op. cit., p. 187: “There is in fact a considerable body of evidence to suggest that homosexual relations were especially associated with the clergy. Some Christian authors have rather defensively rejected this idea but with little supporting documentation.”
7 Vern Bullough, Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church, p. 61.
8 Decree of Gratian, D. 1, de pen., c.15 in Decretum Magistri Gratiani, editio Lipsiensis Secunda, editor, A.L. Richter,( Graz, Friedberg, 1879, 1959). (The manner of citing Gratian is unique. The citations here noted refer to the first part of the Decretum, and each number refers to a section known as a distinctio.)
9 John Lynch, “Marriage and celibacy of the clergy: the discipline of the western church: an historico-canonical synopsis,” Jurist 32(1972): 199-200.
10 Canon 11, 3rd Lateran Council in H.J. Schroeder, editor, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, (St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co. 1937) , p. 224.
11 John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 188.
12 Michael Goodich, “Sodomy in Ecclesiastical Law and Theory,” in Journal of Homosexuality 1(1976), p. 427: “in the 13th century, the few references to homosexuality suggest that it was generally regarded as a clerical vice. Both the manuals of penance of the early Middle Ages and the conciliar and synodal legislation initiated in the 12th century placed greater emphasis upon the prevention and suppression of sodomy among the clergy.”
13 See Peter Damian, Book of Gomorrah, chapter 2, p. 30: “ And some rectors of churches who are perhaps more humane in regard to this vice than is expedient absolutely decree that no one ought to be deposed from his order on account of three of the grades which were enumerated above....Consequently when someone is known to have fallen into this wickedness with eight or even ten other equally sordid men, we see him still remaining in his ecclesiastical position. Surely this impious piety does not cut off the wound but adds fuel to the fire. It does not prevent the bitterness of this illicit act when committed, but rather makes way for it to be committed freely.”
14 Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils , p. 256.
15 See Richard Sherr, “A Canon, A Choirboy and Homosexuality in Late 16th Century Italy: A Case Study,” in Journal of Homosexuality 21(1991), p. 1-22. This is an interesting story of a priest accused of sodomizing a 13 year old choirboy in the town of Loreto. The priest was tried by the church court, defrocked and then turned over to civil authorities who sentenced him to death by de-capitation. The victim was whipped and banned from the papal States.
16 Elizabeth Abbott, A History of Celibacy (Cambridge, DaCapo Press, 1999), p. 108, 113 and John Lynch, “Marriage and Celibacy of the Clergy: The Discipline of the Western Church: An Historico-Canonical Synopsis,” Jurist , 32-2(1972), p. 207.
17 Elizabeth Abbott, op. cit., p. 102.
18 Ibid., p. 554.
19 See Cross and Livingstone, op. cit., p. 1050. Pope Paul III himself had three sons and a daughter yet promoted the reform.
20 Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society, p. 568.
21 Canon 10, Session XXIV in H.J. Schroeder, editor, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, (St. Louis, B. Herder, 1941), p. 182.
22 Session XXV, canon 24 in Schroeder, p. 247-48.
23 Pope Pius V, “Romani Pontifices, 1 April 1566, in P. Gasparri, editor, Codicem Iuris Canonici Fontes , Vol. 1, (Vatican, Typis Polyglottis, 1926), p. 200 (Hereinafter identified as Fontes.)
24 Pope Pius V, “Horrendum” Papal Constitution, 30 August 1568 in Fontes p. 229.
25 Charles Henry, a History of the Inquisition in Spain.( New York, MacMillan, 1907), p. 135.
26 Acta Apostolicae Sedis or Acts of the Apostolic See is the official periodical that contains Vatican legislation. Canon 9 of the 1917 Code states that official publication takes place through the Acta.
27 “Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela,” May 18, 2001, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 93(2001), p. 785-788.
28 Jason Berry, Vows of Silence (New York: The Free Press, 2004), p. 97-98 citing Eileen Welsome, “Founder Didn’t Want Molesters at Paraclete,” Albuquerque Tribune, April 2, 1993.
29 Sacred Congregation for Religious, “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and sacred orders,” 2 Feb. 1961 in Canon Law Digest, Vol. 5, p. 471.
30 W.J. Coville.” Basic issues in the development and administration of a psychological assessment program for the religious life.” In W.J. Coville, P.F. D’Arcy, T.N. McCarthy, and J.J. Rooney, editors, Assessment of candidates for the religious life: Basic psychological issues and procedures (Washington, DC: Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, 1968), p. 28-29.
31A.W. Richard Sipe, “Affidavit,” Doe v NOSF, District Court of El Paso, Texas, Feb. 9, 2004, . 19, p. 5-6.
32 Conrad Baars, M.D., “The Role of the Church in the Causation, Treatment and Prevention of the Crisis in the Priesthood.” Unpublished, 1971.
33 Eugene Kennedy and Victor Heckler, The Catholic Priest in the United States: Psychological Investigations. (Washington, D.C., U.S. Catholic Conference, 1972).
34 Ibid., p. 11.
35 Jason Berry, Lead Us Not Into Temptation (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), p. 30
36 Thomas Doyle, F. Ray Mouton and Michael Peterson, The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Manner. 1985. (Private)
37 Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York, Doubleday, 1995), no. 2389, p. 574.
38 Deposition of Bishop Bernard Flanagan, June 6, 1995, Barry vs. Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, a Corporation Sole and Thomas A. Kane, defendants. C.A. No. 93-02438, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, p. 152-153.
39 Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained, (New York, Basic Books, 2001), p. 5.
40 Ibid., p. 23.
41 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Washington DC, United States Catholic Conference, 1994).
42 J. Pohle, “Priesthood,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York Benziger, 1911), vol. 11.
43 Council of Trent, Session XXIII, cap. 1.
44 D.J. Kennedy, The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. XIII.
45 McHugh and Callan, editors. Catechism of the Council of Trent, (New York. 1923)
46 St. John Vianney. Catechism on the Priesthood.
47 Pope John Paul II, “Letter to Priests-Holy Thursday, 2004".
48 Code of Canon Law, C. 207, 1: “Among the Christian Faithful by Divine Institution there exist in the church sacred ministers, who are called clerics in law, and other Christian Faithful, who are called laity.”
49 See J. Sanchez, Anti-clericalism: A Brief History (Notre Dame, Notre Dame University Press, 1972), p. 7.
50 Russell Shaw, To Hunt, To Shoot, to Entertain (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1993), p. 13.
51 Dean Hoge, The First Five Years of Priesthood. (Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press), 2002. P. 27. Hoge found that the majority of priests ordained ten years or less believed that there is an ontological difference bestowed on priests at ordination which sets them apart from lay people.
52 Katherine DeGiulio, Interview with Dr. Leslie Lothstein. National Catholic Reporter Website, August 9, 2002.
53 William Foote, Ph.D. Affidavit, Does I,II, III vs. Catholic Diocese of El Paso, Father Irving Klister, October 9, 1998. N. 11
54 See Marci Hamilton, God vs. The Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
55 Helen Goode, Hannah McGee, Ciaran O’Boyle, editors. Time to Listen: Confronting Child Sexual Abuse by Catholic Clergy in Ireland (Dublin, The Liffey Press, 2003).
56 Barry Coldrey, Religious Life Without Integrity (Melbourne, Tamanirak Press, 2000), The Scheme: The Christian Brothers and Childcare in Western Australia (Melbourne, Argyle-Pacific, 1994), A Christian Apocalypse: The Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Catholic Church, 1984-2004 (Melbourne, Tamanaraik Press, 2004).