|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
1.1 Prevalence
The study of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests and deacons resulting in this report was authorized and paid for by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) pursuant to the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (Charter) adopted by the USCCB at its June 2002 meeting. The Charter called for many responses to this victimization of minors within the Catholic Church. Article 9 of the Charter provided for the creation of a lay body, the National Review Board, which was mandated (among other things) to commission a descriptive study of the nature and scope of the problem of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
Accordingly, the Board approached John Jay College of Criminal Justice to conduct such a study. The College assembled an experienced team of researchers with expertise in the areas of forensic psychology, criminology, and human behavior, and, working with the Board, formulated a methodology to address the study mandate. Data collection commenced in March 2003, and ended in February 2004. The information contained in this report is based upon surveys provided by 195 dioceses and eparchies of the United Statesand its territories, representing 97% all diocesan priests in the United States, and 140communities, representing approximately 60% of religious communities and 80% of all religious priests.
The mandate for the study was to:
1. Examine the number and nature of allegations of sexual abuse of minors under the age of 18 by Catholic priests between 1950 and 2002.
2. Collect information about the alleged abusers, including official status in the church, age, number of victims, responses by the church and legal authorities to the allegations of abuse, and other characteristics of the alleged abusers.
3. Collect information about the characteristics of the alleged victims, the nature of their relationship to the alleged abusers, the nature of the abuse, and the time frame within which the allegations are reported.
4. Accumulate information about the financial impact of the abuse on the Church.
Three surveys provide the data for this study:
1. A profile of each diocese, providing information about characteristics of the diocese including region and size, the total numbers of allegations, and the total expenditures occasioned by allegations of abuse.
2. A survey of church records relating to individual priests against whom allegations of abuse had been made.
3. A survey of church records relating to the alleged victims of abuse and the nature of the alleged abuse.
Based upon the inquiries and communications that we received from the dioceses, eparchies and religious communities, it is our impression that, despite the complexity of the surveys and the difficulties of identifying relevant church records, these data reflect a conscientious and good-faith effort to provide exhaustive and reliable information regarding allegations of abuse made to church authorities.
Due to the sensitive nature of the abuse allegations, which form the core of this report, many steps were taken to assure the anonymity of alleged victims and priests who were the subjects of the study. The study used a double-blind procedure in which all reports were first sent to Ernst & Young, an accounting firm, where they were stripped of information that could be used to identify the area from which they were sent. Ernst & Young then sent the unopened envelopes containing survey responses to the John Jay researchers. The data set is thus stripped of all identifying information that may be linked to an individual diocese, eparchy or religious community, priest or victim.
OVERVIEW OF PREVALENCE AND REPORTING
PREVALENCE
• Priest surveys asked for birth dates and initials of the accused priests in order to determine if a single priest had allegations in multiple dioceses, eparchies or religious communities. To maintain anonymity, this information was encrypted into a unique identifying number, and birthdays and initials were then discarded. We detected 310 matching encrypted numbers, accounting for 143 priests with allegations in more than one diocese, eparchy or religious community (3.3% of the total number of priests with allegations). When we removed the replicated files of priests who have allegations in more than one place, we received allegations of sexual abuse against a total of 4,392 priests that were not withdrawn or known to be false for the period 1950-2002.
• The total number of priests with allegations of abuse in our survey is 4, 392. The percentage of all priests with allegations of sexual abuse is difficult to derive because there is no definitive number of priests who were active between the years of 1950 and 2002. We used two sets of numbers to estimate the total number of active priests and estimated this percentage against whom allegations were made.
o We asked each diocese, eparchy and community for their total number of active priests in this time period. Adding up all their responses, there were 109,694 priests reported by dioceses, eparchies and religious communities to have served in their ecclesiastical ministry from 1950-2002. Using this number, 4.0% of all priests active between 1950 and 2002 had allegations of abuse.
o The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) reports a total of 94,607 priests for the period 1960-1996. When we look at the time period covered by the CARA database, the number of priests with allegations of sexual abuse is 4,085. Thus, the percentage of priests accused for this time period is 4.3% if we rely on the CARA figures assessing the total number of priests.
o If we examine the differences between diocesan and religious priests, then our numbers result in a total of 4.3% of diocesan priests with allegations of abuse and 2.5% of religious priests with allegations of abuse. The CARA numbers yield a total of 5% of diocesan priests from 1960-1996 with allegations of abuse and 2.7% of religious priests from 1960-1996 with allegations of abuse.
• Our analyses revealed little variability in the rates of alleged abuse across regions of the Catholic Church in the U.S.—the range was from 3% to 6% of priests.
• A total of 10,667 individuals made allegations of child sexual abuse by priests. Of those who alleged abuse, the file contained information that 17.2% of them had siblings who were also allegedly abused.
• It is impossible to determine from our surveys what percent of all cases of abuse that occurred between 1950 and 2002 have been reported to the Church and are therefore in our dataset. Allegations of child sexual abuse are made gradually over an extended time period and it is likely that further allegations will be made with respect to recent time periods covered in our surveys. Less than 13% of allegations were made in the year in which the abuse allegedly began, and more than 25% of the allegations were made more than 30 years after the alleged abuse began.
DISTRIBUTION OF CASES BY YEAR
• The distribution of reported cases by the year the abuse is alleged to have occurred or begun shows a peak in the year 1970. However, considering the duration of some repeated abusive acts, more abuse occurred in the 1970s than any other decade, peaking in 1980. But, these conclusions have to be qualified because additional allegations for those time periods may surface in the future.
• Alleged abuse sometimes extended over many years. In 38.4% of allegations the abuse is alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.
• Approximately one-third of all allegations were reported in 2002-2003, and two-thirds have been made since 1993. Thus, prior to 1993, only one-third of cases were known to Church officials. The allegations made in 1993 and 2002-2003 include offenses that allegedly occurred within the full time period from 1950-1993 and 1950-2002. The distribution of allegations made in 2002-2003 resembles the distribution of offenses alleged at all other time periods—with the exception that allegations of abuse in recent years are a smaller share of all allegations.
COSTS OF ALLEGATIONS
• The amount of money already paid by the Church, as a result of allegations, to victims, for the treatment of priests and for legal expenses reported in our surveys was $422,000,000. That figure is not the total paid by the Church to date—14% of dioceses and religious orders did not report dollar figures. In addition, survey responses were filed over a 10-month period and would not include settlements and expenses incurred after surveys were submitted. In addition, no diocese reported the recent and highly publicized $85,000,000 settlement. If we include the $85,000,000 reported settlement, the total cost paid by the church exceeds $500,000,000.
PRIESTS AND ACCUSERS
PROFILE OF PRIESTS WITH ALLEGATIONS
• The majority of priests with allegations of abuse were ordained between 1950 and 1979 (68%). Priests ordained prior to 1950 accounted for 21.3% of the allegations, and priests ordained after 1979 accounted for 10.7% of allegations.
• Over 79% of these priests were between 25 and 29 years of age when ordained. For priests whose age at the time of the first alleged abuse was reported, the largest group—over 40% was between 30 and 39. An additional 20% were under age 30, nearly 23% were between 40 and 49, and nearly 17% were over 50.
• At the time abuse is alleged to have occurred, 42.3% of priests were associate pastors, 25.1% were pastors, 10.5% were resident priests and 7.1% were teachers. Other categories (e.g., chaplain, deacon, and seminary administrator) were under 3% each.
• The majority of priests (56%) were alleged to have abused one victim, nearly 27% were alleged to have abused two or three victims, nearly 14% were alleged to have abused four to nine victims and 3.4% were alleged to have abused more than ten victims. The 149 priests (3.4%) who had more than ten allegations of abuse were allegedly responsible for abusing 2960 victims, thus accounting for 27% of allegations. Therefore, a very small percentage of accused priests are responsible for a substantial percentage of the allegations.
• Though priests’ personnel files contain limited information on their own childhood victimization and their substance and/or alcohol abuse problems, the surveys report that nearly 7% of priests had been physically, sexually and/or emotionally abused as children. The surveys also indicate that nearly 19% had alcohol or substance abuse problems. There are indications that some sort of intervention was undertaken by church authorities in over 80% of the cases involving substance abuse.
• The surveys indicate that 23% of priests who were subject to allegations of sexual abuse were also recognized as having other behavioral or psychological problems.
OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS
• The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.
• Nearly 40% of priests with allegations of sexual abuse participated in treatment programs; the most common treatment programs were sex-offender specific treatment programs specifically for clergy and one-on-one psychological counseling. The more allegations a priest had, the more likely he was to participate in treatment. However, the severity of the alleged offense did not have an effect on whether or not a priest participated in a treatment program. Those who allegedly committed acts of penetration or oral sex were no more likely to participate in treatment than priests accused of less severe offenses.
• The types of offenses allegedly committed were classified into more than 20 categories. The most frequent acts alleged against priests are: touching under the victim's clothes (57.3%), touching over the victim’s clothing (56.8%), victim disrobed (27.5%), cleric performing oral sex (27.3%) and penile penetration or attempted penile penetration (25.1%). Many of the abusers were alleged to have committed multiple types of abuse against individual victims, and relatively few priests committed only the most minor acts. Of the 73.4% of the incidents reported in which we had specific offense details, no incidents were reported that included only verbal abuse or pornography. Only 3.0% of the acts included exclusively touching over the victim’s clothes.
• The alleged abuse occurred in a variety of locations. The abuse is alleged to have occurred in the following locations: in the priest’s home or the parish residence (40.9%), in the church (16.3%), in the victim’s home (12.4%), in a vacation house (10.3%), in school (10.3%), and in a car (9.8%). The abuse allegedly occurred in other sites, such as church outings or in a hotel room, in less than 10% of the allegations. The most common event or setting in which the abuse occurred was during a social event (20.4%), while visiting or working at the priest’s home (14.7%), and during travel (14.0%). Abuse allegedly occurred in other settings, such as during counseling, school hours, and sporting events, in less than 10% of the allegations.
• In the 51% of cases where information was provided, half of the victims who made allegations of sexual abuse (2621, or 25.6% of all alleged victims) socialized with the priest outside of church. Of those who did socialize with the priests who allegedly abused them, the majority had interactions in the family’s home. Other places of socialization included in the church, in the residence of the priest, and in church-day activities.
REPORTING AND ACTIONS TAKEN
• To date, the police have been contacted about 640 priests with allegations of abuse, or 14% of our total. Nearly all of these reports have led to investigations, and 226 instances have led to criminal charges. Of the 217 priests for whom information about dispositions is available, 138 (63.5%) were convicted and at least 100 of those served time in prison. Thus, 3% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences to date.
• Half of the allegations that were made (49.9%) were reported by the victim. In one-fifth of the cases (20.3%), the allegation of sexual abuse was made by the alleged victim’s attorney. The third most common way in which the abuse was reported was by the parent or guardian of the victim (13.6%). Allegations made by other individuals, such as by a police officer, a sibling, or another priest, occurred in 3% of cases or less. These allegations were most commonly made by calling the diocese (30.2%), in a signed letter to the diocese (22.8%), or in a legal filing (10.5%). All other methods by which the allegations were made, such as in person, by telling a trusted priest, or through the media, occurred in less than 10% of cases. Cases reported in 2002 had a similar distribution of types of reporting as in previous years.
The full report contains more detailed and additional analyses related to the information provided above. This report is descriptive in nature. Future reports will examine the relationships among the variables described here in more detail and will be multivariate and analytic in nature.
|
PART
ONE |
1.1 INTRODUCTION
In June 2002, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) met in Dallas, Texas, and promulgated the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, in order to address the problem of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests. This Charter included a commitment to provide a thorough accounting of the nature and scope of the problem within the Catholic Church in the United States. Through the Charter, the USCCB formed two entities to address the problem of child sexual abuse in the Church: a group of lay Catholics who would comprise the National Review Board and the Office of Child and Youth Protection (OCYP), led by Dr. Kathleen McChesney, who served as executive director. The two groups would share a mandate to investigate and review the prevalence of sexual abuse in the Church, the causes of the abuse, and the procedures for responding to clergy who have been accused of abuse.
To carry out this mandate, the USCCB Charter indicated that two studies would be conducted -- the first to describe the nature and scope of the problem and the second to examine its causes and context. This first study, entitled, “The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Children by Catholic Priests and Deacons within the United States,” was commissioned by the National Review Board and funded by the USCCB. The objectives of this study were to collect, organize, and summarize information available in Church files about the sexual abuse of minors (children under 18 years of age) by priests and deacons in the Catholic Church of the United States from 1950 through 2002. Specifically, Article 9 of the Charter states:
The work of the Office for Child and Youth Protection will be assisted and monitored by a Review Board, including parents, appointed by the Conference President and reporting directly to him. The Board will approve the annual report of the implementation of this Charter in each of our dioceses/eparchies, as well as any recommendations that emerge from this review, before the report is submitted to the President of the Conference and published. To understand the problem more fully and to enhance the effectiveness of our future response, the National Review Board will also commission a descriptive study, with the full cooperation of our dioceses/eparchies, of the nature and scope of the problem within the Catholic Church in the United States, including such data as statistics on perpetrators and victims.
In December 2002, Dr. Kathleen McChesney, Director of the OCYP, approached the president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Gerald Lynch, Ph.D., to discuss the feasibility of the college conducting the first of the two mandated studies, as established by the Charter. The college was selected because it is a secular institution, with a national reputation in the fields of criminal justice, criminology, and forensic psychology.
President Lynch convened a group of faculty with relevant expertise who met with Dr. Kathleen McChesney and representatives of the USCCB to discuss the framework for the study on the nature and scope of child sexual abuse by priests in the Catholic Church. After a number of discussions, a contract was signed by USCCB and the Research Foundation of the City University of New York on behalf of John Jay College to conduct the study. Funding for the study was provided by the USCCB, with oversight by the National Review Board. The overall purpose of the study was to provide the first-ever, complete accounting, or census, of the number of priests against whom allegations of child sexual abuse were made and of the incidents alleged to have occurred between 1950 and 2002.
To guide the study, Dr. Kathleen McChesney, on behalf of the USCCB, gave the College a specific set of questions to be answered, which defined the scope of the study. The questions focused on four specific areas of concern (see Appendix 1.1a for a complete list of the questions). The first category involved information about the alleged offenses themselves (e.g., the number of allegations, the location in which the behavior is alleged to have occurred). Information about the priests against whom allegations were made was the focus of the second category of questions. These included questions about the age, status and duties at the time of the alleged offense, background information about the priest, whether the Church took action in response to the allegation, and what form that response took. The third category focused on information about those who made the accusations (e.g., their age at the time of the offense, their gender, the time between the offense and the report). Finally, information about the financial impact of these allegations on the dioceses and religious communities was requested.
In response to this mandate, a team of criminologists, forensic psychologists, and methodologists drawn from the John Jay faculty developed three data collection instruments, or surveys (see Appendices 1.1b-e). The surveys were pre-tested, revised, and distributed to each of the 202 United States dioceses and eparchies including missions. The Catholic Church in the United States also includes 221 religious orders of men, formally called Religious Institutes of Men. Many of these groups are divided into provinces and include autonomous cloistered communities, monasteries or abbeys. The religious communities were not mandated to participate in this study. However, the major superiors (leaders of the religious institutes) agreed to participate and sent the survey materials to the individual provinces or communities, where files on individual priests are kept. As a result, survey responses were submitted by three different types of religious communities: by religious institutes; by provinces of religious institutes; and by autonomous monasteries or abbeys. In this report, all three kinds of communities will be referred to as religious communities, to be understood in contrast to the dioceses and eparchies.
The John Jay College faculty developed detailed procedures to ensure complete confidentiality of the survey responders, which are discussed in chapter 1.2. The faculty worked with the USCCB to maximize compliance with the survey by actively responding to questions and developing procedures to ensure that state-level confidentiality laws were not violated by any institution participating in the study. Surveys were returned by 195 of the 202 dioceses and eparchies, which constitutes a 97% compliance rate. Surveys were returned by approximately 60% of religious communities representing 80% of the religious priests in the United States.
The remainder of this report will describe in detail the findings of the study. The next sections of Part One explain in detail the methodology used in this study, the limitations of the study design, and the terminology used. Part Two presents an overview of the findings about the overall number and distribution of allegations. Part Three focuses on the characteristics of the accused priests themselves and Part Four provides details about and circumstances of the allegations. Parts Five and Six discuss the reporting of these allegations and the actions taken by the dioceses and religious communities. Each Part begins by introducing research context forunderstanding the data, a summary of the findings, and subchapters that give detailed tables of the data. Appendices to each Part contain additional statistical information.
In presenting these findings in as clear, objective, and comprehensive manner as possible, it is the hope of the study team that an accounting of the scope of the problem over the last 52 years will ground future research and reform efforts.
1.2 METHODOLOGY - HOW THE STUDY WAS CARRIED OUT
The specific research questions posed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) (see Appendix A1.1.1) required a careful and thorough accounting at the national level of the number of priests against whom allegations of child sexual abuse had been made as well as the number of overall allegations that had come to the attention of the Church over the last 50 years. The study team had a unique opportunity to solicit this information from all 202 dioceses and eparchies (including missions) and 221 religious institutes,together comprising the population of Catholic priests in the United States. The study had thefull backing of the USCCB to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, full cooperation from all levels of church hierarchy throughout the country.
STUDY APPROACH
It was clear from the outset that the study team would not itself have access to the confidential Church files, nor did we have sufficient time to conduct a study that would reach all 50 states including every diocese and religious community within the United States, and cover a 52-year timeframe. Given this framework, the research team decided to collect the data necessary by constructing survey instruments and mailing them to each diocese, eparchy and religious institute in the country. Such a population-based survey approach provided the optimum strategy for fulfilling the mandate of the study to produce as complete a census as possible of the scope of the problem of sexual abuse of minors within the Catholic Church. Additionally, such an approach could make a significant contribution to the literature on child sexual abuse since no previous population-based research had been conducted. While research on child sexual abuse in the general population by professionals and academic researchers is substantial, there has been, to date, no population-based research on the characteristics or patterns of behavior of sexual abuse in any single population. The information that was previously available on child sexual in the Catholic Church had been obtained from small samples, largely clinical samples, focused on a specific sub-population (e.g., one parish or diocese) or taken from public records. Therefore, it was our hope that by taking this approach, we would both fulfill the mandate of the Charter and make a significant contribution to this important literature.
STUDY DESIGN
As with any study, the questions to be answered drove the construction of the survey instruments. The study mandate suggested that we needed to address three specific targets: the dioceses/eparchies/religious communities, the priests against whom allegations had been made, and the incidents described in those allegations. Thus, each diocese, eparchy or religious community would complete one survey focused on their institution as a whole, one survey for each priest against whom allegation(s) of abuse had been made, and one survey for each alleged incident(s) of abuse connected with each priest. As a result we were able to construct three separate surveys, which taken together, provided a more comprehensive assessment of the scope of the problem.
The Diocesan Profile. The first survey was the “Diocesan/Order Profile” (Appendices A1.1.2 and A1.1.3). The aim of this survey was to establish aggregate numbers for the particular diocese/eparchy or religious community – the number of priests against whom allegations had been made and the total number of individuals making allegations. We were able to obtain a census of active and retired priests in the diocese/eparchy/religious community during the study period, 1950 – 2002. The survey consisted of ten questions, half of which provided us with demographic information about the units, and the other half, a profile of the scope of the problem within that unit. Dioceses and eparchies were asked to indicate the church region, the Catholic population, and the number of parishes within their boundaries. Religious communities were asked for the total number of members in the community. Because survey responses contained no identifying information (see our discussion of confidentiality issues later in this section), the broad demographic characteristics, presented in deciles, assisted us in evaluating the survey response rate. The survey then asked for a global number, based on the review of the church records, of the number of priests against whom allegations of abuse had been made and, of those, how many had been completely exonerated. It also requested the total number of individuals who made the allegations and asked specifically for the number of those allegations that had been shown to be false or that had been withdrawn. These false or withdrawn allegations were not included in any further reporting.
The Cleric Survey. The second survey sent to study respondents was the “Cleric Survey” (Appendix A1.1.4). It included 17 questions, with 18 follow-up questions, and focused on individual priests. It was to be completed from existing files and records for each and every priest who had been named in a complaint or allegation of sexual abuse of a minor that was known to a diocese, eparchy or religious community. We were seeking answers to several types of questions in this survey. First, we wanted information related to the history of the individual priest who was accused of abuse, including specifications of the seminary he attended and the history of where he ministered in the Catholic Church (e.g., whether the priest had been transferred within or between dioceses). The relevant history also included information from the file concerning whether he himself had been abused and whether he had a known substance abuse problem or other medical/psychological conditions. The next set of questions related to the individuals who had made allegations against this particular priest, including their number, their age(s) and gender(s). The final section of the “Cleric Survey” focused on the actions taken by the Church in response to the allegations of abuse against this particular priest. These questions focused on the action taken by the church in response to the allegation (e.g., whether the priest was reprimanded, referred for treatment, or removed from duty). They also asked more specifically whether the priest participated in and/or completed any type of treatment, and the years in which those interventions would have occurred. The responses to the three sets of questions in this survey thus provided information on the scope and nature of the problem, information about those against whom allegations were made, and information about the church’s response to the alleged offenses.
The Victim Survey. The third survey, titled the “Victim Survey,” focused on incidents of alleged abuse. The aim of this survey was to capture information about each allegation that was made against a particular priest (Appendix A1.1.5). In other words, for every priest against whom allegations were made, a separate and unique third survey was completed for each one of the alleged incidents. So, for example, if the “Cleric Survey” indicated that this particular priest had five allegations made against him, then five incident surveys would have been completed and submitted as part of the package of material on that particular priest. Surveys were neither requested nor submitted for those allegations which had been shown to be false, which were withdrawn, or for which the priest had been exonerated. This survey included 36 questions, with 18 follow-up questions. Like the “Cleric Survey,” it was to be completed based on the information about the victim in the alleged abuser’s file.
This incident survey was divided into two sections. The first section of the survey sought basic information on the person who brought an allegation against this particular priest1 and about the incident or incidents themselves. This included information on the individual’s gender; age at both the time of offense and time the offense was reported; method by which the allegation and follow-ups to the allegation were made; timeframe and type of alleged incident(s); threats, gifts, or enticements used to coax or coerce the individual into participating in sexual conduct and action(s) taken by the Catholic institution and/or civil authorities as a result of the incident(s). The second part of the survey sought information on the financial impact of the incident or incidents of alleged abuse reported in the preceding section. These questions asked about monies paid for treatment of both the victim and the priest, legal fees associated with the incident(s), and overall compensation to the accuser.
Pilot Testing of Surveys. During the development of the survey instruments, in February and March 2003, the research team consulted with many individuals associated with the Church, including members of the National Review Board, the Office of Child and Youth Protection, as well as numerous diocesan and religious priests who agreed to provide feedback to us on the content and wording of the survey instruments. Numerous meetings were held in which terminology and categories of responses were refined, e.g., types of responses a diocese might have taken and manners in which allegations might have come to the Church’s attention.
A formal pre-test was also conducted in one diocese. For this pre-test, a high-ranking official within the diocese, at the direction of the presiding bishop, completed the draft survey instruments using actual data from diocesan files, and provided detailed comments to the principal investigator about their content, readability and accessibility. These comments and suggestions were used to refine the study instruments.
STUDY PROCEDURE
In April 2003, a package containing one copy of each of the three separate survey instruments was sent to all 202 dioceses and eparchies in the United States. Prior to that mailing, a letter was sent to all dioceses and eparchies from Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, President of the USCCB, alerting bishops to the study, reminding them of the mandate tocomply with the study as stated in the Charter, and requesting full compliance with it.
Unlike the dioceses and eparchies, whose participation was mandated by the Charter, the religious communities of men were invited to participate in the study. When their agreement was given in June 2003, the survey materials were sent to the 140 religious institutes of men in the United States. These religiouscommunities then distributed the surveys to their provinces and autonomous monasteries or abbeys. The organization of religious communities is such that the files with the information being sought for the study were held in the provinces and autonomous communities of many religious communities, rather than at their central offices, so this second level of distribution by the religious institute was required.
Reliability of Data. With so many separate entities within the Catholic Church in the United States preparing to complete the surveys, a number of affirmative steps were taken to maximize the reliability and consistency of the data. First, the surveys were mailed to each diocese, eparchy and religious community with a packet of information that included two forms of instruction - written instructions (Appendix A1.1.6) and, a videotape with detailed instructions about how to fill out the surveys, how to handle the process of mailing the surveys once they were completed, and how to obtain additional guidance and information if needed during survey completion. Second, the research team provided anonymous telephone and email support five days a week from 10 am to 6 pm, adding an 800 number during the summer months. A number of research assistants were specially trained to answer the telephone and to keep a log of all calls, each of which was reviewed by a member of the study team. Notes were kept on the caller's questions, and written responses were regularly updated. Third, as the volume of calls grew during the summer and a pattern of questions was discerned, a highly secure website with answers to frequently asked questions2 was made available in July 2003. The telephone, email and web site support was continued throughout the study period until February 2004. Fourth, members of the John Jay College research team attended the biannual meeting of the USCCB in St. Louis to meet with the bishops and answer any questions they had about the study. And, finally, the structure of the survey instruments themselves assisted in ensuring reliability. The three surveys employed multiple measures of the same information, thus providing additional internal reliability checks for the results.3
Survey Responses. The data collection process lasted approximately eleven months. At first, many bishops and religious superiors had reservations about the study, and some explicitly opposed it. Through discussion, consultation, and the exchange of questions and responses, the research team was able to resolve the concerns of most of the bishops and major superiors, especially their worries about revealing the identities of accused priests. Because all states present unique legal issues, the research team also worked with diocesan attorneys around the country to reduce their concerns and to ensure that the data collection process would not affect pending or potential law suits involving the Catholic Church.4 Ultimately, 97% of the dioceses and eparchies returned the surveys, an extraordinarily high response rate for any type of survey research, though perhaps not surprising given the mandate from the Charter and the significant efforts made by all parties to guarantee confidentiality and alleviate concerns. In general, the surveys were complete and showed careful attention to detail, as indicated by the many specific comments provided in the surveys. There was not, however, uniformity in terms of the amount of support, staff and resources that were available around the country, and so the responses did vary in terms of completeness and level of detail provided.
Data Entry. All aspects of data coding, entry, and analysis were overseen by a full-time data analyst, working directly with the study’s principal investigator. Actual coding and data entry were done by 16 research assistants. All research assistants were thoroughly trained by both the principal investigator and data analyst, not only in the specific procedures for dealing with the survey data, but, most importantly, to equip them to understand the importance of the study’s complex confidentiality provisions. A log was maintained of all study materials received by John Jay College during the entire study period. Information from the surveys was recorded in files using both statistical and database software.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Ensuring the confidentiality of individuals mentioned in the Church’s files was an important element that influenced the design of the study and, ultimately, allowed dioceses and religious communities to participate fully in the study. The research team was concerned about the confidentiality of and risks to those individuals who reported sexual abuse; their friends and family members; priests and deacons against whom allegations had been made; Church employees and the dioceses and religious institutes themselves.
A number of steps were taken to ensure confidentiality. The first decision was that no one on the John Jay College team would have direct contact with the files or records that were the property of the Church. The only persons who had any direct contact with the Catholic Church files used to complete the survey instruments were those persons designated by their bishop or major superior.
Secondly, the study team put into place complex procedures to ensure that no identifying information about any individual who made an allegation of abuse, any priest against whom an allegation had been made, nor any individual diocese, eparchy or religious community would be included on any study materials that came to John Jay College.
Our files contain no personal identifying information beyond age at the time of the alleged incident and gender for those persons who made allegations of abuse against priests. The information for the surveys was taken from existing files, so no new contact was initiated with any person who reported abuse by a priest or any member of his or her family.
With respect to the priests against whom allegations had been made, a challenge arose because one interest of the USCCB was to determine whether individual priests had allegations of child sexual abuse in more than one diocese, eparchy or religious community. In order to answer this question, the researchers needed to be able to give a unique identifying number to each priest, which would then permit us to track information about him from more than one diocese. To do this accurately the researchers needed to collect, at a minimum, the initials and date of birth of each priest who had been the subject of an allegation.
Given this necessity, the following steps were taken to protect the confidentiality of each priest and his community:
1. No survey, nor any study communication of any kind bearing a postmark, was sent directly to John Jay College from any Catholic Church group. An independent auditor, a certified public accountant at a nationally known accounting firm, was designated to receive all communications from Catholic Church representatives.
2. Clear instructions were provided to respondents that all completed survey instruments were to be placed in blank envelopes that were then sealed. Those sealed, blank envelopes were then placed in another envelope or box with a piece of diocesan or religious community stationary and sent to the auditor. When these packages were received by the auditor, the outer envelope and the letterhead were used to make a record of the sender, for purposes of response rate calculation only. A random code number was then assigned to each respondent unit of the Catholic Church. The codes were recorded on the blank envelopes, and the materials boxed and sent to John Jay College. From the time of receipt by John Jay College, the materials were only known by their code numbers. Only the completed surveys that had been placed in sealed envelopes and mailed were seen by the John Jay College research team.
3. All external envelopes, packaging and records that linked the sender to the survey data were destroyed by the auditor.
4. The study’s principal investigator opened each one of the envelopes. She recorded the identifying information for each priest—initials and birthdate—and then removed that page from the survey. The identifying data was immediately encrypted and the surveys numbered with a unique numerical code for each priest. The pages with initials and dates of birth were segregated in a secure location, separate from the study office, until data collection was complete. These paper records, and the digital record, have been destroyed.
5. The principal investigator carefully inspected all surveys for accidental disclosure of sensitive or identifying data. If there was any identifying information written on the survey itself, this information was immediately redacted before the surveys were given to the research assistants for coding.
6. Although the formal procedures made it very unlikely that any accidental disclosure of sensitive data would occur, it is always possible that there would be a lapse and sensitive data about victims or abusers be transmitted. Accordingly, the study design included several levels of training in confidentiality protections for research assistants in order to reduce the possibility of accidental exposure.
The John Jay College research team sought and was granted approval to conduct the study by the College’s Institutional Review Board which oversees protection of human subjects in research. Additionally, the team applied for a Certificate of Confidentiality, which can be granted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to protect against “compelled disclosure of identifying information about subjects of biomedical, behavioral, clinical, and other research.” The certificate protects the researchers against involuntary disclosure about the identities of research participants and is understood to bar any legal demand for testimony in court. Such a certificate does not prevent any individual priest, victim, diocese or religious community from voluntarily releasing data. After a number of meetings and discussions, HHS in November 2003 declined to grant a Certificate of Confidentiality for the study. A major reason for denying the certificate was the determination that the John Jay College researchers had taken adequate measures to ensure that all identifying information would be removed and the surveys would be confidential, thereby precluding the need for a certificate. Additionally, since the primary purpose of the certificate is to protect human subjects who have given their consent to participate in research related to confidential matters that may adversely affect them, this framework did not apply to the John Jay study since the priests were not voluntary research participants, and their consent had not been sought nor granted. Therefore, they were uncertain as to whether it was legally possible to issue a certificate, which is primarily used as a vehicle to encourage human subjects to participate in a research project. In their letter explaining the rejection of a certificate, it was stated that the confidentiality plan for the study “includes multiple and wide-ranging protections for subject identifiers” and as such, “a certificate is not necessary to achieve your research goals.” (See Appendix A1.1.7 for a copy of the letter.)
1 The survey did not request any personal information about those making the allegations, other than age and gender.
2 The study website employed multiple levels of security to ensure that the public could not access the questions and answers. The identification name and password were sent to each bishop or major superior so that he or his staff could access the website.
3 Although we worded carefully the definitions to ensure that those filling out the questionnaires would do so in a uniform manner, in a study of this type, it is impossible to create an infallible operational definition with criteria so specific that everyone supplying the information would do so in exactly the same way. Therefore, some degree of variance in the counting of “credible allegations” is inevitable.
4 For instance, California law prohibits the disclosure of any identifying information related to sexual behavior. As a result, we worked out complicated procedures whereby identifying information (which was used only to allow us to track priests who had been moved from one Diocese to another) was encrypted prior to arriving at the study headquarters so that California respondents were not providing any identifying information.
1.3 STUDY TERMINOLOGY
Allegation : Any accusation that is not implausible (see definition below). This includes allegations that did not necessarily result in a criminal, civil or diocesan investigation and allegations that are unsubstantiated.
An implausible allegation is one that could not possibly have happened under the given circumstances (e.g., an accusation is made to a bishop about a priest who never served at that diocese). Erroneous information does not necessarily make the allegation implausible (e.g., a priest arrived at the diocese a year after the alleged abuse, but all other facts of the case are credible and the alleged victim might have mistaken the date).
Boundary Problem: Inability to maintain a clear and appropriate interpersonal (physical as well as emotional) distance between two individuals where such a separation is expected and ecessary. Boundary problems can be mild to moderate, such as a therapist or teacher developing a personal relationship with his/her student or patient; or, they may be severe, as in the development of an intimate relationship.
Canon law: According to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm, canon law is the body of laws and regulations made by or adopted by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Christian organization and its members. The word adopted is here used to point out the fact that there are certain elements in canon law borrowed by the Church from civil law or from the writings of private individuals, who as such had no authority in ecclesiastical society.
Diocese: A geographical division of the Catholic Church led by a bishop that includes Catholic communicants (“the faithful”) and parishes.
Eparchy : A Catholic Church jurisdiction, similar to a diocese, of Eastern-rite Catholics living in the United States.
Ephebophile (also called hebophile) : A clinical term (though not included in the DSM-IV) that denotes one who is sexually attracted to adolescent or post-pubescent children.
Extern: A priest who has not been incardinated to the diocese where he is working and living.
False allegation: An allegation that was proven to be untruthful and fabricated.
Institutional Review Board (IRB): Each institution engaged in research involving human subjects that is supported by a department or agency to which the Federal Policy applies must establish an IRB to review and approve the research. Under the regulations, an institution can also establish more than one IRB, which may be necessary or appropriate, depending on the structure of the institution or the kinds of human subjects research that is performed at that institution. Alternatively, an institution can designate another institution's IRB to review its research upon approval of the appropriate department or agency. If the research is supported by the Department of Health and Human Services, such designations must have the prior approval of the Office for Protection from Research Risks
Incidence: Used to convey the number of new events occurring in a specific time period.
Incardinated: A priest who has been formally affiliated to a diocese is said to be incardinated in that diocese
Laicization: Conversion from an ecclesiastical to a lay condition.
Mean : The average value of a set of numbers.
Median: The mid-point in a set of numbers. In other words, fifty percent of cases fall above and fifty percent of cases fall below the median.
National Review Board (NRB): Established by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002 to commission a study on the "nature and scope" of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. See http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/nrb.htm.
Ordained/Ordination: The sacramental rite by which a "sacred order" is conferred (diaconate, priesthood, episcopacy). The ceremony of consecration to the ministry.
Permanent Deacon: According to the Official Catholic Directory (A-14), they are sometimes referred to as "married deacons," although the permanent diaconate is open to both married and unmarried men, with the understanding that after ordination, they may not marry even after the death of a spouse. Under the authority of the diocesan bishop, they perform the same functions as transitional deacons while, at the same time, retaining their roles in society as family and business men.
Prevalence: The total number (or estimate of the total number) of cases or events at a given time.
Region (of the Catholic Church in the United States): One of fourteen geographical areas, or divisions, of the Catholic Church in the United States.
Reliability: Data that is consistent, yielding the same or similar results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials
Religious community: A group that may include ordained clerics and/or non-ordained brothers who are professed members of a religious order, and who live subject to the rules of that order. This term is used in this study to include members of religious orders or institutes as well as those who reside in cloistered communities, monasteries, and abbeys.
Restricted ministry/ restricted faculties: To be added
Seminary: An educational institute for men that are preparing for the Holy Orders. Major seminary--A school for the spiritual, academic, and pastoral education and formation of priesthood candidates. Focus is on philosophical and theological teachings. Minor seminary--A prerequisite to the major seminary. Focus is on required courses in the humanities and the sciences.
Sexual abuse of a minor: As per the Charter, sexual abuse includes contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used as an object of sexual gratification for the adult. A child is abused whether or not this activity involves explicit force, whether or not it involves genital or physical contact, whether or not it is initiated by the child, and whether or not there is discernible harmful outcome.
Suspension (in Canon Law): Usually defined as a censure by which a cleric is deprived, entirely or partially of the use of the power of orders, office, or benefice.
Transitional Deacon : The diaconate is the first order or grade in ordained ministry. Any man who is to be ordained to the priesthood must first be ordained as a transitional deacon (also see Permanent Deacon). Deacons serve in the ministry of liturgy, of the work, and of charity (see A-14 of The Official Catholic Directory)
Universe The set of individuals, items, or data from which a statistical sample is taken.
This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 2005