From Crisis Magazine (not on Web yet)

Dear Friend,

I just left a press conference with the USCCB's National Review Board where they released the findings of their report on clergy sex abuse. You'll remember that a little over a month ago, the bishops' conference released a different study on the performance of the various American dioceses in implementing the nationwide abuse charter.

Reporters came out in droves for the results of that audit, but everyone knew that the real news would be coming today. This morning, we got all the data that the previous report didn't cover... the number of accusations of sexual abuse... the number of priests charged with or convicted of abuse... every reported case since 1950.

And not only that... the Review Board was also slated to release their assessment of the true cause of the scandal.

This, of course, is the Big Question. So what did the Board find?

First, they presented the numbers from the survey conducted by John Jay College. The organization had a 98% response rate from the various dioceses and eparchies they contacted for information, which is unheard of for this kind of study. This gave them an accurate overall picture of the abuse situation.

As for the specific results, they found that, since 1950, 4,392 priests had credible allegations of abuse brought against them -- about 4% of priests. The number of reported victims of abuse is 10,667. Not counting Boston's recent $85 million settlement (and about 14% of dioceses who still had settlements pending), the Church to date has spent approximately $572 million in payment to abuse victims.

That's the big picture. Now let's take a closer look at the numbers. I have a feeling you won't see much of the following in the mainstream media reports...

Not surprisingly, the occurrence of abuse peaked in the 1970s and the year 1980 specifically. The greatest number of abusers came from priests ordained in the 1960s, and the highest number of abusers came from the class of 1970.

The report also broke down the facts regarding the victims -- and this is revealing. Overall, 81% of abuse victims were male, and 78% were at or past the age of puberty. In general, the highest rate of abuse occurred among males aged 11 to 14.

In other words, most of the abuse involved gay priests molesting teenage boys. This is called homosexuality, not pedophilia.

After the numbers were laid out, Bob Bennett, the Washington attorney who headed the National Review Board's research committee, stood to present the board's interpretation of the data. Bennett explained that they were most interested in two questions: How could such a high number of predators exist in the priesthood, and how did some of them remain in office after the allegations of abuse were made known?

Regarding the first question, the Board concluded that two main factors contributed to the existence of these abusers in the Church: one, dioceses and orders didn't screen priestly candidates properly (and so sexually and emotionally immature men were admitted to the priesthood).

The other main factor was poor seminary formation, where seminarians were not properly prepared for the rigors of celibacy in a hypersexualized world and in the all-male environment of the seminary. Bennett pointed out that many seminaries lost their way in the 1970s, and that this surely contributed to the problem.

This is all true enough, but what he said next was particularly encouraging.

He explained that any evaluation of this data must be mindful of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the abuse was homosexual in nature. What does that mean, then, for the way we screen, accept, and train seminarians? Furthermore, he was careful to point out that celibacy was clearly not the problem, calling it instead a gift to the Church.

As for the bishops and their roles, the Board came down hard. They noted that the crisis was "a failing not simply on the part of the priests who have sexually abused minors but more significantly on the part of bishops and other church leaders who did not act effectively to preclude that abuse in the first instance or respond appropriately when it occurred."

They concluded that bishops too often placed the interests of their priests above the victims, relied on a certain amount of secrecy, and were in general unwilling to confront or correct other bishops and hold them accountable for their own actions. Bennett spoke bluntly, saying they "put their heads in the sand."

The Board's report includes some recommendations for the future. Those include better screening of candidates for the priesthood, "increased sensitivity" responding to abuse allegations, greater bishop accountability, better relations with the civil authorities in reporting abuse, and further study into all these areas.

While they were harsh with the hierarchy, the Board also made it clear that the bishops are moving in the right direction now and are beginning to take more responsibility... this study was itself an important first step.

Bennett concluded by saying that the "ultimate resolution" of the crisis would be found in an "abiding commitment to faith and morality."

Here's what I think of the Board's results...

Above all, I congratulate them on a job well done. I'm both impressed with their work and (I must confess) a little surprised. This was an extremely thorough report that wrestled with a lot of the tough questions, and for the most part, they came out on top. The majority of the concerns you and I had were addressed.

First and foremost, the board was honest about the homosexual question. This data now proves what we've long suspected: The sex abuse scandal has more to do with homosexuality than with pedophilia. The report points out that, "given the nature of the problem of clergy sexual abuse of minors, the reality of the culture today, and the male-oriented atmosphere of the seminary, a more searching enquiry is necessary for a homosexually oriented man by those who decide whether he is suitable for the seminary and for ministry. For those bishops who choose to ordain homosexuals, there appears to be a need for additional scrutiny...."

The Board was also honest about the root causes of the scandal, giving a full and nuanced analysis. They didn't blame it on celibacy, or the hierarchy, or any of the other tired excuses that Voice Of The Faithful and friends like to trot out. They were clear that "celibacy did not cause the crisis, but the Church did an inadequate job both of screening out those individuals who were destined to fail in meeting the demands of living a celibate life and forming others to meet those demands."

The board was also critical of the bishops for the right reasons. This was NOT bishop bashing, but simply an honest recognition that many bishops didn't exercise enough oversight or responsiveness to credible allegations of abuse.

And finally, the Board took a critical look at the seminaries, an area that has long needed a thorough housecleaning. This was a crucial point to make, and I'm glad they made it.

In the end, a lot more work needs to be done to get a clearer picture of the problems and solutions. But if this study is a sign of things to come, we have every reason to be hopeful.

By the way, if you want to read the reports for yourself, you can see them online at:

http://www.catholicreviewboard.com/report01.html
http://www.catholicreviewboard.com/johnjaypdfindex.html

Have a great weekend,

Deal

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004

Answers

Sorry for the length, it seemed important.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Correcting Links http://www.ca tholicreviewboard.com/report01.html

http:/ /www.catholicreviewboard.com/johnjaypdfindex.html

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.