NOTES
(1) See, among others, Emilie Lemmons, “Seminary Screening Early Step for Healthy Priesthood,” USCCB website, June 2007, available at: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/seminary-screening-early-step-for-healthy-priesthood.cfm.
(2) USCCB Committee on Clergy, Consecreated Life, and Vocations, Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in Seminary Admissions (Washington, DC: USCCB, 2015), 2, available at: http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/cclv-guidelines-psychology-admissions/files/assets/basic-html/page-7.html.
(3) USCCB, Program of Priestly Formation, Fifth Edition (Washington, DC: USCCB, 2006), §47, available at: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/vocations/priesthood/priestly-formation/upload/ProgramforPriestlyFormation.pdf.
(4) Dr. Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea, “The John Jay Study: What It Is and What It Isn’t,” National Catholic Reporter, July 11, 2011, available at: https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/john-jay-study-what-it-and-what-it-isnt. In her article, Dr. Frawley-O’Dea echoes the words of the study’s principal investigator, Dr. Karen Terry, who wrote, “Taken together, this means that there is no risk assessment instrument that could have weeded out the abusers before ordination.” See Karen Terry, “The Report on U.S. Priests’ Sex Abuse: What the Critics Got Wrong,” The Crime Report, June 23, 2011, available at: https://thecrimereport.org/2011/06/23/2011-06-the-report-on-us-catholic-priests-sex-abuse-what-the/.
(5) See The John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors By Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, 1950-2002 (Washington, DC: USCCB, 2004), 3, available at: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/the-nature-and-scope-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-and-deacons-in-the-united-states-1950-2002.pdf.
(6) Frawley-O’Dea, “The John Jay Study,” referencing John Jay College, Nature and Scope, and John Jay College, Causes and Context.
(7) John Jay College, Causes and Context, 3. See also, Terry, “The Report on U.S. Priests’ Sex Abuse.”
This statistic may be somewhat misleading. It’s important to note that Tallon and Terry are referencing the priests with multiple victims, looking to see if their multiple victims share age and gender characteristics with one another (which would indicate that the abuser had a specific target), or whether they are of diverse ages and genders (which would indicate that the abuser was a ‘generalist’). This is a perfectly valid approach, and it yields an important insight. However, it must be noted that the majority of priest abusers (55%), who had only one victim each, cannot be said to be non-specific in their choice of victim; all that can be said is that, since there is no set of victims to compare, we cannot know whether they are generalists or not.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Ibid. See also, Frawley-O’Dea, “The John Jay Study.”
(10) John Jay College, Nature and Scope, 44ff.
(11) Sr. Katarina Schuth, ”USCCB Webinar on Resources for Prevention of Sexual Abuse,” USCCB website, October 6, 2014, available at: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/reports-and-research.cfm.
(12) Msgr. Stephen J. Rossetti, “Learning From Our Mistakes: Responding Effectively to Child Sexual Abusers,” 9, USCCB website, available at: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/resources/upload/Rossetti-Learning-from-our-mistakes.pdf.
(13) This partial list of identified traits is assembled from: John Jay College, Causes and Context, 3-4; Sr. Katarina Schuth, “USCCB Webinar”; and Frawley-O’Dea, “The John Jay Study.”
(14) “Empirical studies on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are limited. However, a number of descriptive studies have been reported which have examined small, often clinical samples of clergy. These studies suffer from a number of methodological weaknesses, such as small, nonrepresentative samples, which limit their findings and make it impossible to draw any type of meaningful generalization about child sexual abuse in the Church.” See John Jay College, Nature and Scope, 37.
(15) Marie Keenan, Child Sexual Abuse & the Catholic Church: Gender, Power, and Organizational Culture (New York: Oxford, 2012), 52.
(16) Ibid., 33.
3. I’ve heard the Church screens seminary candidates more carefully than they used to. Won’t this keep abusers out of the priesthood?
The Good news: New Vigilance in screening
There is no question that the screening of seminary candidates has received a much greater emphasis in recent years than it ever had before. (1) The U.S. bishops’ official documents now clearly acknowledge that, “Psychological assessment by professional clinicians provides critical information that otherwise might not be obtained in the course of admissions interviews.” (2) And psychological assessment, in turn, forms just one part of a broader screening process that is now mandated by the Program of Priestly Formation: “Applicants must undergo a thorough screening process. Personal interviews with the applicants, evaluations from their pastors and teachers, records and evaluations from a previous seminary or religious community if applicable, academic records, standardized test scores, psychological evaluations, and criminal background checks are all components of an effective admission program and are weighed together with an assessment of the applicant’s motivation. Those who do not fulfill these entrance requirements of the seminary must not be admitted.” (3)
This new emphasis on careful screening is good news for abuse prevention.
The Bad News: The Limitations of Screening
It is a common misconception that priests who abuse minors must suffer from some psychological pathology, and that such pathologies can be detected through psychological testing. Quite to the contrary, the John Jay reports commissioned by the U.S. bishops confirmed what has been found repeatedly in other studies of sexual offenders, namely:
“There are no tests that reliably predict who will abuse and, on standard psychological assessments, abusers do not look more pathological than a ‘normal’ population.” (4)
In other words, it isn’t possible to simply screen out seminary candidates who are likely to become abusive priests. How can that be? The following findings from the John Jay studies are instructive:
Most abusive priests in the study were not confirmed pedophiles (i.e., consistently attracted to pre-pubescent children). And, indeed, most victims of abuse by clergy were not pre-pubescent children. In the overwhelming majority of clergy abuse cases, then, it is not accurate to speak of ‘pedophile priests’ (5)—and it would not solve the church’s problem to just screen for pedophiles (even if that were possible).
Most abusive priests in the study were also not confirmed ephebophiles (i.e., consistently attracted to pubescent and post-pubescent teens). This is true despite the fact that most victims of clergy sexual abuse were pubescent or older minors. (6)
Nearly half (42%) of the abusive priests in the study were ‘generalists’—i.e., men who chose their victims on the basis of availability, not on the basis of gender or age. (7)
Priests in the study who abused minors did not suffer more from diagnosable psychological maladies, like personality or mood disorders, than priests who did not abuse. (8)
Most priests in the study who abused minors did not have a record of abuse when they entered the seminary (9). In fact, most did not begin abusing minors until more than six years into priestly ministry. (10) This means that criminal background checks would not have screened out the vast majority of abusive priests.
Sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy is a dynamic problem—that is to say, it takes on new forms in new times and places. Internet relationships and pornography are two forms of abuse that we couldn’t have imagined in the past, and future forms of abuse will likely be things we can’t imagine today. (11) Alas, what we screen for will almost always be yesterday’s problems, not tomorrow’s.
Taken together, what all this means is that there is no screening process that can act as a silver bullet against sexual abuse by clergy.
Effective Screening Requires Ongoing Study
So, is there any point to screening seminary applicants? Yes. According to psychologist Msgr. Stephen Rossetti, a leading expert on the clergy sexual abuse crisis in the United States, the most effective tool available to us at present is a thorough psychosexual history done by professionals. (12) But it’s far more complicated than many people think.
While there are no clear predictors of those who will abuse, studying priests who have engaged in abusive behaviors can allow us to identify some red flags that might not immediately disqualify a candidate, but that would point to issues demanding careful exploration before the candidate could be admitted to seminary. Some of the characteristics already identified in existing studies are: (13)
Backgrounds characterized by rigidity and dysfunction
Being a victim of sexual abuse
Sexual experience at a young age
Low self-esteem, social isolation, or a lack of identity
Intimacy deficits and lack of healthy relationships
Confused sexual identity or psychosexual immaturity
Theological misunderstandings (such as those that diminish the sense of personal responsibility or those that confer a sense of entitlement on clergy)
Reliance on inappropriate means of stress relief (such as the abuse of alcohol or other drugs)
Growing up in an environment where sex was viewed negatively or wasn’t discussed at all
These are just some of the risk factors that have been identified by studying the stories of priests who have committed acts of abuse. Seminary admissions personnel should be on the lookout for these traits; and when they see them, they should engage in an in-depth exploration of the issues with the candidate who exhibits them. But there’s still so much we don’t know. Developing a clearer picture of the traits that should be red flags in seminary admissions requires far more extensive research with priests who have offended than what has been done to date. (14)
That’s why the Dulles Research Institute has undertaken an extensive qualitative study taking life histories of 50 priests accused of sexual malfeasance—the largest study of its kind.
Through in-depth life-history interviews, the DRI team of researchers will identify common themes that can be used in future screening of candidates for seminary.
Screening addresses only one part of the problem
It is common to view the sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church as being the responsibility of isolated individuals—a ‘few bad apples’ who have infiltrated the ranks of an otherwise good clergy. “This disclaimer reinforces the assumption that abusiveness comes entirely from outside the ecclesiastical system and that better screening will prevent the ‘dysfunctional’ people from getting in.” (15) Dr. Marie Keenan challenges this approach:
“The history suggests that an approach to the problem of sexual violations that sees it as one of individual failing alone is essentially part of the problem.” (16)
After all, we know that the abuse of minors and vulnerable adults (whether in the church or in any other part of society) takes place at the intersection of three sets of factors:
Personal factors,
Situational factors, and
Environmental/Organizational factors.
To expect that an improved screening protocol will solve the abuse and harassment crisis all on its own is to presume that men arrive at seminary already hard-wired to be abusers. But that’s not always the case. What about the ways that abusive behavior is enabled by aspects of seminary formation, clerical culture, church leadership deficits, excessive stressors in ministry, priests’ living situations . . . and countless other situational and organizational factors? These, too, need to be explored.
Screening of seminary candidates is a crucial element of the church’s abuse prevention efforts. But it is only one element.
The Dulles Research Institute is committed to exploring all aspects of this crisis, whatever they may be.