Posted on 05/19/2010 8:11:51 AM PDT by markomalley
The John Jay Report indicated that 4.0% of all priests in the US between 1950 and 2002 had been accused of sexual abuse of a minor. This datum, and the numerous commentaries surrounding the horrific news of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, have been cited as evidence against the discipline of celibacy in the Roman Catholic clergy. Prominent psychotherapists, such as Richard Sipe, have argued that celibacy has been a factor contributing to criminal sexual conduct by clerics over the last half-century. Even Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna recently suggested that the issue of priestly celibacy should not be ignored in discussions of the sex-abuse scandals in Europe.
The argument against priestly celibacy-- the argument that celibacy is a contributing factor in sexual abuse-- has never been examined in the context of statistics showing abuse rates in other clerical populations that do not require celibacy. Such a comparison between clergy populations is critical, because if celibacy were a major factor in the abuse over the last half-century, then one would expect to see much lower abuse rates in the clergy of other communions. If on the contrary celibacy were unrelated (or even a safeguard against abuse) then the other clergy groups would likely show comparable or even higher levels of abuse.
Suppose a population of non-celibate male clergy, say Australian Anglican clergy, over an 18-year period displayed an abuse rate of 3.8%: just 0.2% lower than the 4% rate found among American Catholic priests. What would such a finding tell us about celibacy as a causal factor in clerical sex abuse? Not much, unless you’re willing to stake your argument against celibacy on 2/10s of 1%.
Consider that the most rigorous scientific test on whether celibacy contributes to sex abuse of minors can never be performed. Such a test would require random assignment of men to religious communions for the purposes of training and ministry—obviously, an impossible test to undertake. Absent such an experiment, we are left to examine statistical reports of abuse rates between different communions. A good comparison might be between Roman Catholic clergy who are celibate, and the Eastern Catholic clergy in the same countries, many of whom are not celibate. Unfortunately, such a report does not exist. Our next best comparison might be found with the Anglican clergy. Here too, no report provides the exact abuse rate comparisons between Roman and Anglican clergy. However, one report does provide the number of abusive Anglican clergy over an 18-year period. Here’s how this writer used that report to reach the 3.8% figure noted above:
In May 2009, a little-publicized report was issued by the Australian Anglican Church, entitled Child Sexual Abuse in the Anglican Church, by Parkinson, Oates & Jayakody. The report obtained information on abuse charges from 17 of the 23 Australian Anglican dioceses between 1990 and 2008. According to its authors, the report analyzed a survey of:
…all concluded cases of reported child sexual abuse since 1990 within the church by clergy and church workers. The study did not include reported cases from Anglican schools or Anglican children homes. Accused persons were categorised in the survey as either clergy, candidates for clergy, pastoral employees or volunteers... A complainant was defined as less than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged sexual abuse. [p. 13]
The Anglican report gives considerable attention to the question of patterns of abuse between Anglican and Catholic clergy:
A key finding of this study is the similarities in pattern of abuse found between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. Similarities were found in patterns of male victim characteristics, location and types of abuse, accused person characteristics, and delayed reporting and disclosure of abuse.
This similarity is despite significant differences in the nature of clergy vocations (the Anglican Church does not require singleness or celibacy). The similarity between the Anglican and Catholic churches is also despite significant differences in ministry involving children. [p. 39—parentheses in the original]
Curiously, the Anglican report does not address any direct comparison between the levels or rates of abuse in the Australian church and other churches, and it does not provide statistical data for the percentages of abusive clergy compared to the population of all Australian Anglican clergy. However, this writer was able to estimate a range of rates of clergy abuse based on several authoritative sources, including the Australian government census data on the number of male Anglican clergy, as well as reports by the Church of England on the rates of attrition and ordination of male clergy between 1990 and 2007.
Here are the basic data: the 1991 Australian government census of Anglican clergy counted 2,029 male clergy. We do not have the rates of ordination and attrition for the Australian Anglican clergy but we do have the Church of England statistics between 1991 and 2007, which show an average male ordination rate of 2.3% per year, and male attrition rate of 3.8% per year (overall, the male clergy in England declined by 1/3 from 1990 to 2007.) If the ordination rate can be used as a surrogate for all newly installed clergy, then this rate when applied to the church in Australia would yield an estimate of 720 additional clergy over the 18 years. This nets an estimate of 119.5 male clergy per diocese for the reporting period. Parkinson et al. data suggest that there were 4.6 male clergy abusers per diocese between 1990 and 2008, which yields an estimated clergy abuser rate of 3.8% (4.6 / 119.5). The ordination and attrition rates come from all British Isles dioceses, and these may not yield the best estimates for Australia. For estimating the abuser rate, the more important of the two is the ordination rate. Hence it would be useful to create a range of ordination estimates; cutting the rate in half, yields an abuser rate estimate of 4.4%, whereas doubling the ordination rate yields an abuser rate estimate of 3.0%. The range in values contains the Roman Catholic rate of 4.0%, and in either extreme is not far distant from it.
If we use the Catholic – Anglican comparison of clergy abuse rates as one instance in the surrogate for the Celibate – Not Celibate comparison, the difference in the abuser rates is very small indeed. If we further take into account the decades over which the abuse is occurring, the abuser rate for Celibates may be somewhat lower than that of the non-Celibates, but this analysis has yet to be made.
[Richard W. Cross is a psychologist and an educational researcher.]
NO!!!!!!!!
The celibacy issue is a straw man argument, imho.
>>Does Celibacy Contribute to Clerical Sex Abuse?<<
Is the Pope Catholic?
Hahaha! I crack myself up!
How about -- if homosexuals were kept out of positions of leadership, there would be less abuse of teenage boys?
The problem is homosexuality, not celibacy.
Celibacy never stopped monks in 16th century England from having lots of fun...plus wives.
As for today, a lot of liberal Catholics make this argument; but I think for priests with strong vocations, it just isn’t a problem.
I actually think it has some validity. Paul said, and I use the Robroy translation, “it is best to be single like me, but if you’re horny, get married.”
Statistics and the psychology of peer pressure dictate that at least SOME that have taken a vow of celibacy are horny and are gonna strongly regret that vow at some point in their life.
I am a man, and I know the heart of man. Especially those that actually have a sex drive. “A man’s gotta know his limitations” - Dirty Harry
Bingo!!!
There are tens of thousands of priests. Only a tiny fraction of one percent are sexual abusers. The idea that celibacy is responsible is ridiculous.
If priests were fooling around with other women, I’d say there was logic to your argument, but how does getting married stop homosexual priests from fooling around with young boys?
I think the problem is more likely tied to homosexuality in the ranks of priests rather than celibacy specifically. Your average heterosexual male is not going to turn to teenage boys if overtaken by urges while celibate.
However, whether Christians with homosexual proclivities seek refuge in the priesthood due to celibacy is a somewhat different question.
SnakeDoc
So when you get "horny" do you start trolling for young boys? I hope that isn't your logic.
Double BINGO!
If the abusing priests actually had been celibate, there would have been no abuse. So, no, it’s not celibacy that’s causing the problem.
This skips right past the nature of the abuse itself. Are we talking about a majority of priests being overcome by physical urges, entering into an otherwise unremarkable sexual union with an adult female? If this were to be the case, then perhaps difficulty in maintaining celibacy could be a plausible explanation.
But, no, there seems to have been (and seems to still be albeit at a reduced rate) an element of betrayal of trust, of abusing minors, and largely not even female minors but males.
As a result, it’s ludicrous to claim that the vow of celibacy is driving errant priests into subjecting minor males to sex acts. There is something else at work, here. They’re homosexuals, and they like pubescent males. Why such individuals are in the priesthood to begin with, and why they’ve ever been allowed to remain, is a very significant contributing factor in the greater controversy.
The whole argument is just as convoluted as saying that abstinence is a failure, that it “doesn’t work.” Well, clearly, by definition it does work. Those who become pregnant or acquire an STD failed to be abstinent. It’s a misplaced attribution of “failure,” there, at a minimum.
No. But homosexuality and pederasty do.
I think the disconnect is that the vast majority of abuse victims are teenage boys ... not girls. Heterosexuals with natural urges are not going to turn to boys when failing at celibacy. They’ll fail with adult girls.
The root problem is homosexuality ... and the better question is, at least in my mind, whether celibacy leads men who are otherwise Christian, and attempting to resist homosexual urges, to seek refuge in the priesthood.
SnakeDoc
From another article:
No researcher so far has assessed that more than 50 percent of Roman Catholic clergy at any one time are in fact practicing celibacy.
Sexual abuse of minors is only one type of clerical sexual activity. The 2004 John Jay Report concluded from a survey of church files that 6.5 percent of priests ordained between 1960 and 1984 were involved in sex abuse of minors. My study from ethnological data concluded that 6 percent from that same period were abusers.
Celibacy was voluntary until the 1100s. Mandated celibacy does not appear to me to be working.
Celibacy is not of the creator of the universe. It is not prescribed by YHvH; it is Proscribed by YHvH. Celibacy is only found in Pagan religions worshiping the Evil One. Of cause it does.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
This article starts out with 4% being “accused.” I stopped reading right about there.
To make any sort of case, we need to know how many were guilty. The best we could do is know how many are “convicted.”
Anyone can be “accused,” and the RC church has deep pockets. They are an obvious target for fraud.
I have no doubt that many priests have molested over the years, using their robes as a cloak for their evil. However, the number of priests “accused” is not helpful to analyze the celibacy question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.