It’s time for a brief tutorial on the dynamics, in one regard at least, of child and adolescent sex abuse. I’ve wanted to take this up for a while. The Catholic Church- my church- has endured a still unfolding nightmare regarding the abuse of mostly boys by mostly male priests. It’s without a doubt the most heartbreaking thing I’ve ever experienced with regard to my faith. Perhaps the only thing more disturbing has been the reaction to it, both by many Catholics I know as friends and colleagues, and also by critics or downright haters of the Catholic Church, some of whom are even more off-base.
Everyone seems to have an idea as to how this scandal blossomed like a cancerous flower in some sun-starved basement, and how to prevent it in the future. Unfortunately, it usually comes down to one of two options, neither of which will accomplish anything. The first is to eliminate gay men from the priesthood. The second is to change the nature of the priesthood so as to somehow reduce “sexual repression” or some such thing that has adult priests seeking out children as sexual partners. The first is complete nonsense. I’m willing to bet the second is mostly vacuous also.
I want to start by saying I was raised Catholic, baptized and confirmed, and that I remain a practicing Catholic. There are many things I love, respect and admire about my Church. I believe that having a good priest as a close friend is a wonderful thing, and that having one in your home is a blessing. And I’m happy to say that priests were wonderful forces in my young life; my parents were personal friends with priests from our parish growing up, I was an altar boy for years, and I’ve never had a bad moment with a priest then or now. But the directions I see the Church tugged between, both by conservative groups within and other critics without, is taking it nowhere with regard to the issue of sexual abuse of children within the holy orders. And I know what I’m talking about.
Homosexuality and the Priesthood
Many Catholics, particularly conservative ones, mistakenly believe “gay priests” are to blame for the sex scandal. They believe that homosexuality simply equals sexual deviance, and therefore lends itself more readily to the abuse of children and underage adolescents.
The Church is doing nothing to dispel this view. In late 2005, the year I joined the Bronx DA’s Office child abuse unit, the Vatican released the Criteria for Discernment of Vocations for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies. The document draws a distinction between homosexual acts (grave sins) and homosexualtendencies. “Tendencies” are not grave sins, but are “objectively disordered.” And being saddled with these tendencies (which the document seems to acknowledge are not chosen by the affected person) disqualifies the affected from entrance to the holy orders.As it reads:
“Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”
There is no explanation of why, or specific examples as to how such people, if called to be priests or nuns, would bring about “negative consequences” to the Church or anyone the church touches. But even more mystifying, there’s also a restriction against supporters of “the so-called ‘gay culture.’” This confounds me. How is a supporter of the so-called gay culture even defined? I’m not about to seek entrance to a holy order, but I did give a toast at a gay wedding in San Diego last year. Am I done for?
But back to the larger point, how do any of these people, 1) those who have practiced a homosexual lifestyle but are now willing to be celibate, 2) those who have never been sexually active but have tendencies, or 3) the rest of us “supporters” present a danger to the Church in any way, particularly with regard to the sex scandal within the priesthood?
The answer that many buy into is the pernicious argument that “homosexuality is disordered, so homosexuals are dangerous.”Some of this is bigotry, plain and simple. These folks don’t like gay people and are happy to scapegoat them for anything remotely plausible. But much of it is also ignorance, which of course serves as bigotry’s father, mentor and biggest promoter.The more a person believes that even homosexual tendencies are a terrible sign of an “objectively disordered” mind, the easier it is to believe that such people pose a threat in various ways.
Generally favoring enlightenment over ignorance, I was thus thrilled to hear that The John Jay College of Criminal Justice (a school that was catty-corner to my last apartment in NYC, btw) is shedding much needed light on the subject. The school is apparently set to release a report demonstrating that homosexuality is not a predictor of the proclivity to commit child sexual abuse.
Yes, thank you. That makes perfect sense to those of us who aren’t bigoted or ignorant, or both. Still, the anti-homosexual crowd points to the apparent demographics of the perpetrators and victims. Why are the great majority of the child victims of priests male, when all priests are (of course) male? If the abuse is same sex, then how does being homosexual not explain it?
First, terms need to be defined and understood: Homosexuality is not the same thing or even related to pedophilia. Pedophiles are not homo or hetero, they’re pedophiles. Their sexual attraction, even if they are exclusive, is not considered to be toward ‘men’ or ‘women’ but toward prepubescent children. If a male pedophile happens to be exclusive toward male children, he’s not a ‘gay pedophile.’ He’s a pedophile, exclusive to males.
Hebephilia (a sexual attraction to adolescents) is a little different. The more physically developed the target child, the less pathological it is for the man to be attracted to the child (and the more we can say that his attraction fits a sexual orientation, either homo or hetero. Most adult males could fairly be described as having some hebephilic traits, meaning most men will find a hot 16 y.o., well…hot. A normal and law-abiding man knows not to actually put his hands on a minor, but he’s not abnormal if he’s a straight male who finds a teenage girl to be attractive- as long as she has fully developed secondary sex characteristics (breasts, pubic hair, etc).
In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense for a straight male to be attracted to an adolescent girl who is in or approaching the most fertile period of her life. What more or less defines a hebephile (a term not in the DSM but recognized as a paraphilia of sorts) is a guy who only wants teenagers, and has no sexual interest in an adult even if she’s Beyonce Knowles or Jessica Alba. That guy has a problem. It’s okay to be 30 and be aroused by a 16 year-old pop star as long as you know not to touch her. But if she ceases to be attractive to you upon reaching legal adulthood, you’ve got a deeper issue.
So basically, pedophillic priests are simply pedophiles, and they go after little boys mostly because they’re easier targets.Hebephillic priests who commit sexual abuse against physically developed adolescent boys, on the other hand, probably do have a basically homosexual orientation.
This is where the homophobes claim victory with regard to their thinking. And sure, it begs the question: If there are many more boy victims, and a large percentage of them are adolescents, then can’t we say that homosexual priests are responsible, at least for the abuse of the adolescents?
The short answer is yes, but not because of anything related to their homosexuality. Having a sexual orientation toward men does not predispose a guy to sexually abuse an adolescent boy any more than having a sexual orientation toward women predisposes a guy to sexually abuse an adolescent girl. An adult male soccer coach going after his 15 year old female players is a criminal and probably a hebephile. But he hasn’t crossed the line because he’s straight. He’s crossed it because he’s immoral, irresponsible, anti-social, possibly mentally ill and God knows what else. Instead, folks, the reason we see more boys as victims from male offenders within the priesthood is for the following three reasons, all of them a product of simple common sense:
1. Priests (male) have more ready access to boys and much less to girls. This is still true today, but was much more the case in preceding generations.
2. Boys are even less likely to report sex abuse than girls, so they make safer targets.
3. Pedophiles and hebephiles who infiltrate the priesthood are probably most often attracted to males exclusively. This is because the Church offers a better environment for men to abuse boys than other circumstances outside of the priesthood. But even pedophile priests who are non-exclusive still go after boys much more- they make more sense for the above two reasons.
In a nutshell, that’s it. There’s nothing lurking inside the mind of the homosexual that’s bringing about this evil. If the Church believes differently, it’s because she is confusing an objectively disordered sexual orientation (pedophilia) with a non-disordered one (homosexuality). In so doing, the Church is preventing untold numbers of potentially holy men and women more than willing to give up their sexual lives in order to serve. Worse, they’re continuing to attract exactly what they don’t want, which are predators sneaking under the wire of scrutiny because of the diversion the church is on toward homosexuals.
“Sexual Repression” and the Priesthood
I’m a lawyer, not a psychologist, but I don’t buy what many have written about the “sexually repressive nature of the priesthood” causing priests to “turn into” predators, or the “unnatural state of human celibacy” somehow driving them to sexual deviancy with children and adolescents. There’s simply no psychological evidence that child sex abuse springs somehow from the demand of celibacy or anything related to the duties associated with being celibate clergy. Sexual deviancy and anti-social acts stem from many things, but sexual orientation isn’t one of them, and neither is the life and restrictions of a priest or nun.
The darker, more complex explanations of twisted rules and antiquated standards birthing hideous desires are tempting, I’m sure. But I’m sorry to disappoint the Church haters and Dan Brown-esqe enthusiasts when I say this is mostly bunk.
Again, I’m not a psychologist. Can an argument be made that an obsession with sex, driven by the denial of it to a naturally sexual being, produces negative emotional consequences? Perhaps.Could such consequences include sexual acting out of some sort?Again, perhaps. But sexual acting out either between priests or with lay adults is a much more likely option for an adult-oriented man looking to release repressed sexual desire- particularly when that desire focuses on adults in the first place.
Once again, there are three simple reasons why sexually deviant men are not created by the priesthood, but far too often flock to it instead: The priesthood has, tragically, been the target of predators for centuries because for centuries the Church has unwittingly but continuously given them what all child predators need:
1. Continued access to trusting and vulnerable victims (this is especially true for child predators because part of their pathology is that once the child passes out of their attraction zone and into adulthood, they are no longer attractive).
2. A cover, if they have no sexual interest in adults.
3. An institution that will protect them, and move them around when they are suspected of child abuse in a particular location.
His Holiness John Paul II once said plainly that the sex abuse scandal was a “great evil.” He was correct about the predators and what they’ve done to countless victims who came to the Church for the opposite of what they received. But the true tragedy is the inadvertent use of the Church for their purposes.That, my friends, is the darkest evil we’ve faced in how this scandal has played out. The abuse was awful. The discovery by predators, individually and over the centuries, of how hospitable this otherwise noble and glorious institution would be to them, was worse. The great majority of priests are decent, honorable and holy men. Like many institutions that value trust, loyalty and honor, and that often involve interaction with vulnerable victims, the priesthood has been targeted by predatory infiltrators for eons.The saddest fact is how easy the Church has unwittingly made it for them.
© 2009 – 2010, Roger Canaff. All rights reserved.
Roger, your article is right on point. I sat in on one of your lectures over here in Iraq on August 19, 2009; and you really rang the most salient point home with one of your jarring comments to your eagerly listening and learning audience of practitioners of law:
‘How many cocktails or beers would it take for a normal person, say you or you; to find a 2-year old sexually attractive…The answer is that there is no amount of alcohol on earth that could make a normal person find a 2-year old sexually attractive! It is a sickness and we have got to take to trial and convict those that perpetuate their sickness on innocent and helpless victims!
Thanks for the comment, Reg; it’s definitely a sickness. And it’s very, very hard for those not afflicted to understand it. But the worst thing anyone can do is pretend it doesn’t exist or that it can be “cured” or even managed easily. The behavior can be controlled, I think, and the urges can be managed. But it’s a hard slog and requires a lot of support (not easy to do for a despised population) and a lot of money.
Iraq was an amazing experience- an eye-opening look at the difference between what we take for granted here every day and what the rest of the world is often composed of. And of course that difference is the US military. Thanks for your service, and get home soon!
I am a Catholic as well, though not allowed to partake of the Holy Sacrament. Although I agree with most of your points Roger, I have to say that I believe that you are mistaken about the abuses of boys being significantly higher than that of girls. I know that I personally spent much time alone with our parish priests (our church also had female alter servers), where as my brothers did not spend any time alone with them, even as alter boys. There were also many girls that helped out at the church unsupervised by anyone other than the priests, where as the boys were always in the company of other boys, at least. The priesthood believes that the sexual abuse of a girl by a priest is not an “abnormal” act, only the abuse of a boy. In some misogynistic way, that it’s okay because girls are “made” for that kind of act. As far as my research has shown, both boys & girls are equally reluctant to report abuse & that it’s when girls are taken to the doctor at a certain age for their first of many annual exam, that particular doctor will know if penetration has occurred. Unfortunately the majority of girls in the world do not have the opportunity to see a doctor once they have entered puberty, & even if they do, doctors are not allowed to share such information with the parents. Also in many societies the “blame” will be laid upon the female victim, so the girls will not tell their parents due to the public shame that they will then have to endure. Of course we all know that there doesn’t have to be penetration for there to have been sexual abuse to either girls or boys. So far, I have also found that it’s much more likely for a priest to start his abuse with girls before moving onto boys.
Unfortunately the current Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, was the one who was in charge of seeing that these kind of things did not happen or continue to happen under the reign of Pope John Paul II. That was the position that Cardinal Ratzinger held in his office, as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. He had the sexual abuses swept under the carpet by stating that it was a homosexual issue (negating the abuse of girls), moved the offending priests into new parishes where they inflicted more pain on more families, & when he became Pope he had secured criminal pardons for the entire Catholic Church from U.S. President G.W. Bush. The current Pope was & is a dismal failure in keeping the children of the Catholic Church safe.
I have to make a comment you used the word pedophile in general but a man that is attracted to the same sex is called a pederast, a pedophile is exclusively attracted to minor girls.
hebophilia , well there is a lot to do about that subject.
The thing I have learned is that in greece being a gay hebophile was being applaused! Though these men were heterosexual guys that were married, outside their marriage they had relationships with pubescent boys, sometimes not sexual though.
(some pederast or gay hebophiles like children but they do actually have sex with them)
But if you were a heterosexual hebophile in the old greece and also later on that was seen criminal!!
It has always been something the church has been trying to hide but it is actually pretty normal for a straight men to have relationships with other man(on a mutual base) It makes perfect sence because men have a higher sexual libido and it this way they do not bother women, this was the exact reason why gay hebophilia was being applaused in the old greece.
I think that men who were gay especially in the old days when they were young were attracted to the idea of becoming a priest, even if it was just to escape marriage with a women!!! But most priests though are probably not gay.
Thanks to both of you for the comments.
Becky, I understand your belief that girls might under-report as much as boys, but generally research suggests that boys are more reticent to report (although to be fair the research is, I believe, generally focused and not on abuse by priests specifically). I can tell you that there is no “virginity test” meaning that as a general rule no doctor can determine if a girl’s vagina has been penetrated by a penis. Of course, physical injury or compelling physical evidence of trauma to the area might suggest penetration, but not necessarily by a penis. And most of the time, absent some compelling trauma, there’s just no way to tell at most stages of life whether a vagina has been penetrated. I agree completely that many, many girls carry the secret of their abuse for the reasons you state across the lifespan. Unfortunately, I can’t say I blame them.
Saskia- I believe the term “pederast” is still in use in America and you are correct that it refers to adult male upon child male anal sex. But the term is not used with regard to the definition of pedophilia as found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases and Disorders (the DSM) which is the primary authoritative resource for psychologists and psychiatrists in this country. Pedophiles can be exclusive to boys, exclusive to girls, or non-exclusive according the DSM IV-TR (the current version).
When was referring to the term pederast , i was trying to say that not all pedophiles of boys actually do something criminal to a child. the ones that almost always act criminal towards a child are pedophiles exclusive to girls.
In the group pedophiles exclusive to boys it also exist that they do not have real sex they just want to spend time with the boys. It is much more common than we actually know from statistics because only when they do something criminal hey are catched, if they never do something criminal they live in silence
I think you are the first man to admit that all men have some hebophile traits.
For some reason I had to think of britney spears, I think she was only 16 or even younger when she was singing sexual songs and all men liked her.
I think that there are a lot of men who actually cross the line and sleep with say 16+ girls( I amnot talking rape) that are never reported probably.
How about girls who are just 12 who looks and dress like 18,
something which has become pretty common.
that must be confusing for a “”normal” man who knows the law but yet has hormones to cope with.
It might be confusing, Saskia, but while virtually all men probably do have hebophilic traits, non-offending men know to avoid compromising situations and never act on those impulses with minors. Younger girls are dressing to appear older, but this doesn’t change the fact that if they are too young for sexual contact, they should be left alone by adult males. Thanks for the comment-
Most men probably try to keep away from minor girls, that is if they know the age of a girl!
here in Europe people are allowed to enter a club from the age of 16. Dressed up like adults most men do not know if they are minor, at the end of the night too drunk to ask also.
I do not agree with you that most men can control their impulses. Most men will defintely not attend in sex with a minor but they will feel it is ok to make sexual comments or “be touchy“ around them.
I have seen that a lot ,in high school for example.