by Kimberly Blaker

Ongoing revelations of the extent of sexual abuse that’s occurred in the Boston Catholic Archdiocese continue to rock the nation, especially as it becomes apparent that the Catholic leaders guilty of protecting the church at the expense of abused children will suffer little, if any, repercussion for their inaction.

Last week it was reported that at least 1,000 children have been victimized during the past 60 years by approximately 250 priests and church workers, in the Boston archdiocese alone. But the State’s hands are now tied in the vast majority of cases, insofar as doling out penalties and sentences to those guilty of protecting the molesters, because prior to 2002, Massachusetts law didn’t require clergy to report known abuse cases.

For this reason, a chief recommendation of child advocacy groups, among others, has been to enact laws requiring that church leaders report sexual abuse even when it’s discovered through the confessional. This partial answer to addressing clergy sexual abuse seems obvious and justifiable; yet today, only 4 states mandate that church officials report known cases of abuse even when the information is obtained through the confession booth.

While the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom extends to all the right to freely practice religion, even outlandish and sometimes dangerous rituals including those that are indirectly related to child sexual abuse, it doesn’t allow any of us, including the religious, to sidestep our civil laws.

Have outdoor lighting fixtures make your opinion of this stuff by yourself While most agree that the business of the church is not the business of the state, nor vice versa, most also agree that such freedom exists only to the extent that religious practices do not directly violate or circumvent our laws. U.S. regulations against murder prohibit human sacrifice; laws against illicit drug use forbid religious practitioners from doing so; and prohibitions against child sexual abuse disallow the exploitation of children, even when such practices are mandated by religious belief.

Laws in many states require teachers, physicians, counselors, and other professionals to report known or suspected cases of abuse; and as with other laws, our churches and religious leaders should not be exempt.

Of course, this is only one of the necessary steps to addressing a complex issue. And because the free exercise of religion must be upheld, much of the needed change can only take place from within the church.

Despite those who argue to the contrary, there is evidence that the required vow to celibacy likely plays a role in the degree to which sexual abuse occurs in the church.

David Finkelhor, Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, outlined what is referred to as the “Four Preconditions Model,” defining the factors for sexual abuse to take place. The last three of these are: use of drugs or alcohol by the perpetrator to overcome inhibitions; child availability; and child vulnerabilities.

The first factor, motivation, may stem from any or all of the following and seem highly relevant to the vow of celibacy.

One motivator is the emotional satisfaction that the sexual relationship with the child offers, and because priests cannot marry, they lack the needed intimacy that goes hand-in-hand with marriage. Another motivator is sexual arousal from child contact. Since sexual desire is such an integral part of human nature, it seems safe to say that when normal sexual feelings are repressed that they may present themselves in inappropriate situations.

The final motivator Finkelhor outlines is that either alternative sources for sexual gratification are less satisfying or (and perhaps the most relevant to the priest problem), there are barriers to appropriate alternatives. Thus some priests use inappropriate outlets to act out their desires.

In addition, evidence to support the relationship between celibacy and sexual abuse has been found in studies that reveal drastic differences in the ways that clergy sexual abuse is played out.

Ultimately, Catholic lay people have the power to mandate the needed change in the Church. Despite its autocratic and patriarchal structure, the Catholic Church is only able to maintain its unreasonable requirements because Catholics remain with the church in spite of serious problems that its leaders refuse to address. As a church loses membership, it loses financial support and ultimately its power. Unfortunately, sometimes it is only when the offering plate starts returning near empty that those in power will do what’s right for their practitioners.
 

Kimberly Blaker’s The Wall™ appears weekly. She is editor and coauthor of the The Fundamentals of Extremism: the Christian Right in America. Send your comments to Kimberly Blaker: TheWall@TheWall-OnChurchAndState.com  © 2002, Kimberly Blaker