BALTIMORE (RNS) Gay Catholics and victims of clergy sexual abuse are hailing preliminary results of a study commissioned by U.S. Catholic bishops that says gay priests are no more likely than straight clergy to sexually abuse minors.
Still, some bishops gathered here for the final day of their semi-annual meeting said it is premature to say whether the church leaders who had asserted such a link were wrong.
Researchers from New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice on Tuesday (Nov. 17) presented initial findings from their multi-year study of the clergy sexual abuse scandal, which has resulted in some 14,000 claims of abuse and cost the U.S. Catholic Church about $2.6 billion in settlements since 1950.
The study, which is due to be completed next year, was commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops after the scandal overtook the U.S. church in 2002.
In a presentation to the bishops on Tuesday, Margaret Smith of John Jay said: “What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse. At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now.”
Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of the gay Catholic group DignityUSA, called the report “very welcome news for gay people, gay priests, and our families and friends.”
She said the John Jay report confirms other studies in concluding that sexual orientation is not connected to pedophilia or other sex crimes. “We hope that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church will finally accept this finding, since it has been borne out through their own study,” Duddy-Burke said.
Some bishops, however, said it is too early to draw conclusions about the researchers’ findings.
“I wouldn’t put a lot of credence in it,” said Archbishop John Nienstedt of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
After the abuse crisis rocked the church in 2002, Nienstedt helped lead a Vatican investigation of U.S. seminaries aimed at rooting out homosexuality, and served on a committee that drew up new sex abuse prevention policies for U.S. dioceses. He has also written that homosexual orientation is the result of childhood trauma.
Smith and her co-author, Karen Terry, stressed on Tuesday that access to young boys, rather than a homosexual orientation, was largely responsible for the high percentage of male abuse cases. “It’s important to separate the sexual identity and the behavior,” Terry said. “Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity.”
Still, Nienstedt said “a priest has to be accessible to all his people, and someone with a strong same-sex attraction would not be good to have in the pastoral care of people.”
Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston said Wednesday that the researchers’ conclusions still “need to be teased out.”
“I think it needs to be explained better then it was,” he said. “I think that’s why you saw some of the bishops challenge (the researchers).”
In 2005, the Vatican issued new guidelines barring men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from the priesthood. Bishop Edward Braxton of Belleville, Ill., asked Smith and Terry on Tuesday whether homosexuality should continue to be a factor in excluding some clergy candidates.
“If that exclusion were based on the fact that that person would be more probable than any other candidate to abuse, we do not find that at this time,” Smith responded.
But the view that gay men are largely responsible for the sexual abuse scandal pervades the church hierarchy, said David Gibson, a Catholic journalist and author, and will not necessarily be overcome by the John Jay study.
“I think it will give cover to the bishops who want to continue to admit gay men into the seminary, as I think a majority of them want to do,” Gibson said. “For those bishops dead-set against having any homosexuals in the priesthood, it won’t make a difference.”
David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, said that “the fixation on gay priests” as the cause of the sex scandal “is part of a long litany of simplistic, wrong-headed solutions and scape-goating,” by the Catholic hierarchy.
“Sadly, many Catholics have already reached that conclusion though, due to the bishops’ spin,” Clohessy said. “The real issue continues to be the bishops’ bad behavior.”
By DANIEL BURKE
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted November 18, 2009 at 10:22 pm
posted November 18, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Since this is the first attempt to study whatever connection exists between sexual orientation and sexual abuse, it is not the case that “church leaders who asserted such a link” were merely mistaken. They were making it up. Back when I was a kid, this was called lying.
posted November 19, 2009 at 10:33 am
Same gender sexual acts ARE/IS homosexuality.
And . . . the New Testament no where supports, encourages, condones, celebrates or sanctions same-gender sexual behavior.
There is no such thing as same sex marriage anywhere in the New Testament.
posted November 19, 2009 at 10:50 am
David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi.
posted November 19, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Trying not to laugh at the “leaders”(Bishops) who are self- appointed experts and find that there is more study needed etc. Does anyone think they are going to change their minds? Do they think that the molesting priests were all homosexual? Need a scapegoat, so blame it on the homosexual priests, after all…no heterosexual priest would molest a child! In the real world (outside the RCC) the child molesters are more often than not heterosexual. Dads, Uncles, male “friends of the family”, and the girls in the family as an example.
Mere_Christian:
It really makes no difference if the Bible has an example of homosexual marriage or not. This world isn’t run by the Bible…fortunately. It’s called equal rights…and what difference would it make in your life if two men or two women marry each other? Absolutely none. Has no impact on your life at all. At one time, and I’m sure you’re aware, there were laws against interacial marriage. Well guess what…that was just as wrong as denying 2 same gendered folks to commit to each other in marriage.
posted November 19, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Let’s not cloud the issue with facts…
posted November 19, 2009 at 6:53 pm
The Roman Catholic priesthood is a predominantly gay profession. Most Catholics still in the pew are not aware of this or block it from their perception of reality when they get a peek behind the curtain. The last thing that closeted gay men hiding and sexually enjoying their orientation in the priesthood want is any type of exposure. This study is self serving and will not have long term effectiveness. There are multiple leaks in the dike. Check out this new website: http://www.Churchouting.org
posted November 19, 2009 at 8:55 pm
“There is no such thing as same sex marriage anywhere in the New Testament.”
Nor being an astronaut nor being a computer programmer nor being a social worker (I’m guessing on that one, but I’d need chapter and verse to convince me).
If we didn’t do anything not in the Bible we’d be mighty limited and if that had been the case none of us would be alive now since the world would have been so very, very different and our parents would not have existed to meet, certainly would not have met. There may be parts of the world that would have been much the same as they are, but not many and very possibly none.
All our existences are incredibly contingent: Our parents had to meet and have intercourse at almost the exact time they did or we’d be replaced by our (non-existent, as it happened) brothers or sisters or half sibs or ?? Same for our grandparents, etc. etc. all the way back to the pond scum or whatever we’ve descended from.
We are all incredible accidents. But if we weren’t here other people (or other critters) would be and the world would have gone on.
posted November 20, 2009 at 1:21 am
“There is no such thing as same sex marriage anywhere in the New Testament.”
nnmns’ response, “Nor being an astronaut nor being a computer programmer nor being a social worker (I’m guessing on that one, but I’d need chapter and verse to convince me)”
nnmns I often wonder what the hell are you on. You do know there are clear instructions in the bible on marriage. Also there is much wisdom on being a balanced, God worshipping, happy person regardless if you are a shepard or astronaut.
posted November 20, 2009 at 11:50 am
There are also clear instructions on how to treat your slaves, how to stone people to death, how to deal with those that work on the sabbath, and how to treat those that wear clothes of 2 different threads. Your arguments are worthless. The sad thing is we all know what you’re on ck. You suffer from an addiction to ignorance which has led to a self-imposed delusional state and a case of extreme self-righteousness. Seek help.
posted November 20, 2009 at 12:17 pm
There are no laws in the Bible about married women leaving their children and going off to war, that I remember reading along with other updated movements of married women in 2009.
posted November 20, 2009 at 1:56 pm
YN you rip out portions of scripture without knowing much, so according to you we can’t eat shellfish or pork. Fred Stanford would say “you big dummy.” Read the whole book.
posted November 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm
What am I supposed to know?? It’s all literal truth right?? Or am I supposed to ‘interpret’ those passages differently and ONLY take all the hateful stuff aimed at other people literally. Yawn. You bore me.
posted November 22, 2009 at 12:03 am
MN I’ve found in life that whenever I hear someone claim they are bored it is because they are boring.
posted November 22, 2009 at 2:10 am
Once again ck you choose to verbally attack instead of answering the question. Show me what I don’t know. What am I missing? They should be simple questions for someone as obviously intelligent as you. For once answer the question. Enlighten me oh great bigot. Why does the stuff you and other Christians don’t like about the bible have to be taken in context of the time and interpreted differently so you can make it go away but the stuff that condemns entire groups of good people to being hated, hunted, and reviled by morons like yourself are to absolutely be taken literally? Answer it. I will be attending a candlelight vigil on Sunday to pay my respects to two gay teenagers killed last week because the hate you and yours spew makes it socially acceptable to attack them. The policeman questioned about one of the killings told reporters that people that choose “that lifestyle” should expect these things to happen. I guess pretty girls in short skirts deserve to get raped as well by that logic. You help make stupidity like that a reality. I suggest you put your compassion where your big ignorant mouth is and attend a vigil. Also I have read the bible, the whole thing, cover to cover, several different versions. So stop taking shots at me when you know nothing about me. You don’t get it. You and the hate-mongering liars like you are messing with real people’s lives and you will be judged and judged harshly for it.
posted November 22, 2009 at 4:00 am
Also I didn’t say I was bored. I said you are boring. Maybe that’s where your problem comes from. You have no reading comprehension skills so how could you possibly understand the bible??
Here’s something I’ve found in life. Whenever I am met with hate, prejudice, or intolerance there is usually someone claiming to be a true Christian behind it.
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” ~ Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
posted November 22, 2009 at 10:22 pm
MN you are boring not for what you don’t know but for what you claim to know. I did nothing to mess up your life you do that well enough yourself stop going around trying to place blame. It is sad when people are murdered I know because I come from a place that endures more murders than there are days in the year. So how come you don’t go to candlelight vigils for all murdered folk or feel the same for all deaths: who exactly is the bigot
posted November 23, 2009 at 1:28 am
Still with the insults and no answers. I haven’t claimed to know anything. I have asked you to enlighten me. You still haven’t answered my questions. Teach me what I don’t know. I don’t think you can because you’re the definition of a loser.
posted November 23, 2009 at 1:35 am
I wasn’t going to dignify it with a response but I really can’t leave your stupidity unanswered. How exactly do you know I don’t attend other vigils? You don’t. I have. I call you a bigot because you choose to attack minority groups of humanity based on nothing but prejudice. You have demonstrated it on these boards many times over. You call me a bigot based on nothing but the need to draw attention away from your obvious intellectual inadequacies. You make things up in your head and then believe them to be fact. You are definitely Christian. The sad thing is you actually believe you are a good person. You sir simply are not.
posted December 1, 2009 at 6:04 am
This is a VERY promising report indeed.
The main finding is unsurprising. The sexuality of a priest, and the risk of abuse by a priest, are two completely different issues.
The news from Ireland is that child abuse has been inflicted by priests on both boys and girls. Boys at about double the rate of girls.
The most contentious statement is this:
‘ Smith and her co-author, Karen Terry, stressed on Tuesday that access to young boys, rather than a homosexual orientation, was largely responsible for the high percentage of male abuse cases. “It’s important to separate the sexual identity and the behavior,” Terry said. “Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity.” ‘
Intutively I would have thought males who sexually abuse boys would almost certainly be homosexual. I wonder what evidence they would have of this?
Peter W