How Bishops Can Restore Faith in Their Ability to Lead, by Mollie Wilson O'Reilly, The Guardian, May 23, 2011

How Bishops Can Restore Faith in Their Ability to Lead

By Mollie Wilson O'Reilly
The Guardian
May 23, 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/23/abuse-bishops-church

'Bishops need a transparent, uniform policy for dealing with sexual allegations, and they need to commit to it without exception.' Photograph: David Cheskin/PA

"The 'crisis' of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is a historical problem," according to a just-released report by the John Jay College research team (The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010). Isn't this wishful thinking?

The Causes and Context report isn't claiming that abuse itself is a thing of the past. Its findings make clear that "sexual abuse of minors is a long-term societal problem that is likely to persist" in the church as well as outside it. What the researchers do observe is that the highest levels of reported abuse happened during the 1960s and 70s, followed by a sharp drop-off in the 80s to the present low level. There are weaknesses in the data, of course. There's no way to know how much unreported abuse actually took place at any given time. But when the report says the "crisis" is historical, it's pointing out that most of the cases that came to light in 2002 – the explosion that prompted the bishops to commission studies such as this one to learn exactly what happened and why – happened before 1990, and today clergy sex abuse happens less often than was the case several decades ago.

Here's hoping the data doesn't lie. But even if the peak of the abuse is in the past, the resulting crisis of confidence in church leadership is very much a present reality. The revelation that so many priests had abused minors was only part of the scandal; just as damaging was the discovery that bishops had spent decades prioritising the reputation of the church over the wellbeing of victims.

Social awareness of the long-term damage caused by sexual abuse grew dramatically during the period the study covers. During that time, church leaders' responses to abuse allegations tended to focus on the accused priests rather than the victims. This "absence of acknowledgment of harm was a significant ethical lapse", the study says, and such ethical lapses became more obvious, and more egregious, as the rate of reported abuse was dropping. The US bishops reacted slowly, with misplaced priorities and too little accountability. Even after 2002, when the Vatican approved new norms for responding to sexual abuse allegations, compliance remained uneven. At the same time, Causes and Context notes, the church lacked a "champion" who could motivate bishops to confront the sexual abuse crisis openly and directly. The obvious candidate for that role was Pope John Paul II. But no such leadership came from Rome.

As a result, revelations of mismanagement are still coming forward. A recent grand jury investigation into sexual abuse allegations in the diocese of Philadelphia resulted in criminal charges brought against four priests and the removal from ministry of more than 20 others. The grand jury found that diocesan leaders had failed to follow their own guidelines even after 2002, leaving known abusers in ministry to offend again and obstructing attempts to uncover the truth. For the church to recover from the scandal of sexual abuse, Catholics must trust the bishops to handle new allegations responsibly and transparently. What's happening in Philadelphia shows how far from that we are.

Responsible leadership is especially critical because, according to Causes and Context, abuse can't be prevented just by screening out "bad apples" or making sweeping changes to the priesthood. There is no basis for blaming abuse on gay priests, nor can the policy of mandatory celibacy explain the spike in abuse in the 1960s and 70s. The report found that "no single psychological, developmental, or behavioural characteristic differentiated priests who abused minors from those who did not". Solving the problem, then, is not just a matter of purging the priesthood of the obviously unholy. Prevention strategies must focus on reducing the likelihood that any priest will turn to abuse. Successful efforts so far include improvements in seminary formation and "safe environment" programmes that eliminate opportunities for abuse to occur. But that success still depends too much on bishops' individual initiative. Bishops need a transparent, uniform policy for dealing with sexual allegations, and they need to commit to it without exception.

If Causes and Context is correct, clergy sex abuse is happening less often now, it's reported more quickly when it does happen, and it's being dealt with more effectively. Some of this is the result of improvements the church has made. Much progress was due to journalistic and criminal investigations that forced the truth into the light. Most of all, as the report says, "it is the voices and narratives of victims that have confronted priests, enabled dioceses to act responsibly, and brought diocesan leaders to an understanding of the harm of abuse". Listening to the victims, and prioritising their needs, is the best way to prevent abuse in the church. It is also the only way for the bishops to restore faith in their ability to lead. The crisis won't be over until the perception that church leaders are more interested in preserving power than in serving their people is history.