Why the Focus of Clerical Child Sexual Abuse has Largely Remained on the Catholic Church amongst Other Non-Catholic Christian Denominations and Religions

Clerical Child Sexual Abuse (cCSA) Focus and its Skew Towards the Catholic Church

This study investigates why clerical child sexual abuse (cCSA) is predominantly associated with the Roman Catholic Church, while overlooking similar issues in other Christian denominations and religions.

Abstract

The research analyzes media reports and case studies of cCSA in non-Catholic religious organizations, pointing out the shortcomings in current research. Key reasons identified for the Catholic Church's prominence in cCSA cases include:

  1. The centralized organizational structure of the Catholic Church.

  2. Political and media bias against the Catholic Church in Protestant-dominated countries.

  3. Legal systems seeking organizational accountability for compensation.

  4. Bishops silencing victims.

The study advocates for comparative empirical research across different denominations and religions.

Introduction

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1990) has helped recognize child sexual abuse (CSA) globally. The focus on cCSA gained prominence in the 21st century due to widespread cover-ups by the Catholic Church.

Initial Reports and Investigations

Reports of Catholic priest involvement in child sexual abuse led to numerous state-sponsored inquiries and investigations in the USA and other countries, including:

  • John Jay reports (2004, 2011)

  • Grand Jury Reports in Westchester County, New York (2002), and Suffolk County, New York (2003)

  • Reports of the Massachusetts Attorney General (2003)

  • Report of the Attorney General of the State of Maine (2004)

  • Report of the Grand Jury, Philadelphia (2005, 2011)

  • Report of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania (2018)

Similar inquiries were conducted in Canada (Winter Commission, 1990; From Pain to Hope, 1992), the United Kingdom (Nolan Report, 2001; Cumberlege Report, 2007; Mcllelan Report, 2015; Historical Inquiry into institutional abuse in Northern Ireland [HIA 2016]), Ireland (Ferns Report, 2005; McCullough Report, 2005; Mc Coy Report, 2007; Ryan Report, 2009; Murphy Report, 2009; Cloyne Report, 2011), Australia (House of Commons Select Committee Report, 1998; Towards Understanding, 1999; Whitlam Report, 2013; Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry, 2013; Cunneen, 2014; Royal Commission report into institutional responses to child abuse, 2017), Belgium (Adriaenssens Commission, 2010), and the Netherlands (Deetman Commission, 2011). Germany established the Hotline für Opfer Sexuellen Missbrauchs, 2013, and a research team identified at least 3677 victims of cCSA by 1670 perpetrators in the Catholic Church from 1946-2014 (AFP 2018).

The completion of these reports was facilitated by robust legal systems, social services, and child protection procedures in developed countries.

Media Coverage and Advocacy

cCSA cases in the Catholic Church were more frequently reported, leading to the formation of NGOs advocating for survivors, such as:

  • Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) in USA (1989), Australia, and Germany

  • One in Four in the United Kingdom (1999) and Ireland (2003)

  • Broken Rites (1992) in Australia

  • Ministers and Clergy Sex Abuse Survivors (MACSAS) in UK

These reports conveyed a public perception that cCSA was primarily a Catholic issue.

Recent Reports and Church Response

Recent reports in the USA, Germany, and Chile (2018) held the Catholic Church responsible for covering up abuse. The Attorney General of Pennsylvania (2018) reported at least 1,000 victims of cCSA by 300 priests over seven decades. A German research report confirmed 3,677 cases of cCSA perpetrated by 1,670 priests from 1946 to 2014 (Mayr, 2018). In Chile, all 34 bishops resigned amid cCSA scandals. Allegations also surfaced against Pope Francis for protecting abusers.

Pope Francis issued a “Letter to the people of God” (2018), acknowledging the issue and promising accountability. He also called for a summit of global Bishops’ conferences on the protection of minors in February 2019.

Crisp (2017) noted that the Australian Royal Commission was formed due to public anger over the Catholic Church's practices that facilitated cCSA.

cCSA in Other Religious Institutions

Several researchers have argued that cCSA is not exclusive to the Catholic Church (Jenkins, Parkinson, Briggs, Crisp). The Royal Commission inquiry (2017) found that most CSA allegations were against religious organizations, with 62% involving the Catholic Church. The Historical inquiry into institutional abuse in Northern Ireland (HIA) found that most abuse cases were from residential institutions run by Catholic religious orders.

Reports of cCSA have emerged from non-Catholic churches and religious groups, but this area lacks scientific research. Studies include church-sponsored reviews by the Church of England in UK (Meeking Report, 2009; Butler Review, 2011; Cahill Inquiry, 2014; Elliot Review, 2016; Kendall House review, Proctor, Cohen, & Galloway, 2016; Ball Review, 2017) and an Independent Methodist Review UK (2015). Studies have also been conducted on cCSA in the Anglican Church of Australia (Parkinson, Oates, Jayakody, 2009, 2012; Morrison, 2005).

The Royal Commission (2017) findings on cCSA in non-Catholic religious institutions were shocking to the Australian community. An independent inquiry into CSA in state/church institutions in England and Wales is underway (IICSA, 2018).

Importance of the Study

cCSA differs from general CSA due to its spiritual abuse, causing long-term religious, emotional, and psychological consequences (SNAP, 2012). It can negatively impact beliefs, trust, and spiritual growth. Religious figures' power can hinder law enforcement and child protection. Conflicts may arise between religious and civil laws (SNAP, 2012), affecting the socio-legal and political structure of society.

The Royal Commission (2017) highlighted the troubling failures to control CSA in religious institutions, which play a unique role in children's lives. Perpetrators were seen as representatives of God, trusted by children and parents. cCSA can be intergenerational, causing mistrust and alienation within families. Berry (1992) and Jenkins (1998) noted that while cCSA is often associated with Catholic priests, the pattern of CSA differs from the general population (Kafka, 2004). The John Jay Report (2004) identified 81% of church victims as male, and Parkinson et al. (2009) reported that 75% of Anglican Church (Australia) victims were boys. Reasons cited include the perception that sexual relations with boys did not undermine the oath of celibacy (Lothstein, 2004) and easy accessibility (Terry, 2008; Parkinson, Oats, Jayakody, 2012).

Impact of cCSA on Organized Religion

cCSA scandals have decreased confidence in religious leaders and interest in organized religion (Bibby, 1993). Only 26% of people in Canada mentioned the importance of religion in their lives, down from 60% a decade earlier. The influence of the institutional church in Europe, Canada, and the USA has waned (Beyer, 1997). Beal (2005) reported incalculable damage to the Church due to a tarnished image, criminal charges, financial losses, and lawsuits. Doyle (2018) termed the twentieth-century cCSA scandal the most devastating crisis since the Protestant reformation.

Focus on the Catholic Church

cCSA occurs in various religious faiths (Neustein, 2008), but mainstream media primarily focuses on the Catholic Church (Death, 2013; Jenkins, 2003). The public perception is of Catholic priests as abusers and the Catholic Church as liable (Kafka, 2004). However, CSA is not limited to Catholicism (Isely & Isely, 1990; Shupe, 1998; Rochford, 1998). Morrison (2005) found cCSA across a spectrum of Anglican churches.

Jenkins (2001) argued that thousands of children have been abused by clergy from various denominations, including Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, Episcopalians, Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus (Briggs, 2010; Jenkins, 2003; John Jay Report, 2011). Court verdicts against Protestant churches have exceeded millions of dollars (Love & Norris, 2008). Stetzer (2012) reported that 4% of Protestant churches had received cCSA reports. Paulson (2002) highlighted cases in the Jewish community.

Love (2012) concluded cCSA is not limited to a single denomination or religion. Sharp (2010) termed ignoring cCSA beyond Catholicism as irresponsible, and Touma (2017) reported scandals in the Orthodox Church of Romania.

Christian Cults

Wooden (1980) highlighted widespread cCSA in the “People’s Temple” cult. The “Children of God” cult was described as promoting free sex, CSA, and incest (Namugoji & Lubega, 2008; Jones, 2007a; Buhring, Jones, & Jones, 2007). The founder of the “Mormon Church” was convicted for polygamy with children (Pilkington, 2011). Similar patterns were seen in the “Waco Branch Davidians” and “Kingston Group” cults (Ross, 2007; Bacca, 2013).

Hindu Gurus

Hubner and Gruson (1990) alleged sexual molestation of male children by clerics within the “International Society for Krishna Consciousness” (ISKCON). Muster (1997) testified to widespread cCSA at ISKCON. Rochford (1998) estimated that 20–75% of children experienced cCSA in ISKCON institutes. The extent of cCSA of girls through the “devdasis” system in India is significant (Kent, 2004). Miriam (2004) reported that ISKCON clerics involved in CSA operated without accountability. Parallels have been drawn between the Catholic Church and ISKCON for shifting abusers (Bryant & Ekstrand, 2004; Nagelberg, 2004; Wolf, 2004). Das (2012) drew parallels between ISKCON and the Catholic Church for denying cCSA. Testimonies against the Hindu Guru Sathya Sai Baba detailed male CSA (Bailey, 2000; Brown, 2000). Sampath (2007) estimated countless victims. Kamath (2010) observed that Sathya Sai Baba abused to convert children into lifelong devotees. Uppuluri (2012) claimed Sai Baba used organized rape and sodomy. Other Hindu Gurus have also been convicted of sexual molestation (Dutt, 1988; Jonson, 2012).

Jewish Rabbis

Alessi and Zevi (2010) reported media attention on cCSA by Jewish Rabbis starting in 2009. Coren (2011) quoted Rabbi Scaefer stating that cCSA occurred at the same rate within organized Judaism as within Protestantism. Judaism used silence to preserve order and control reputational harm. Osborne (2013) reported 19 cases of cCSA by Rabbis within the orthodox Jewish community in Britain. Aviv (2014) detailed the ordeal of a Hasidic Jew in New York who reported sexual abuse of his child, resulting in him becoming an outcast. Similarities were drawn with the Catholic Church cover-up. Wolfson (2016) also reported widespread cCSA in the Hasidic Jewish community. The Royal Commission in Australia (2017) confirmed widespread cCSA by Rabbis within the Orthodox Jewish community (Marr, 2015).

Buddhist Monks

Cahill (2012) highlighted that cCSA by Buddhist monks had occurred for centuries. The BBC (2012) reported that 110 monks had been charged with cCSA in Sri Lanka from 2002 to 2012. Monks have also been arrested in Bhutan (Arora, 2013), Thailand (Strange, 2013), and the Netherlands (Pieters, 2015). A Buddhist Monk in the USA was sentenced for fathering a child with a 15-year-old girl (Strange, 2013). A Buddhist monk wanted on cCSA charges was extradited from the USA to Thailand (Satienlerk & Thepgumpenat, 2017).

Muslim Imams

Reports of cCSA regarding Muslim Imams have emerged in digital media in the UK. A Quranic teacher was convicted of sexually abusing children (Telegraph, 2014). Chamberlain (2013) reported the ordeal of a Muslim girl abused by her Quranic teacher. A Muslim cleric was convicted for assaulting a 16-year-old boy (Hakim, 2015). The BBC (2017) reported on a Muslim Imam convicted of CSA in Cardiff. Pazzano (2014) reported the conviction of a Muslim religious teacher on 15 counts of child sex abuse in USA. Apuzzo (2015) noted allegations against a Muslim Imam in Illinois (Houde, 2016). Cahill (2012) concluded that the Muslim community has been in denial regarding cCSA at mosques and madrassas.

Denial, Silence, and Sheltering of Perpetrators

The response to cCSA disclosures in many religious denominations has been similar to that of the Catholic Church. The Royal Commission (2017) found similar organizational responses including denial, failure to report, and transferring alleged clerics. Actions sought to limit legal and financial liability and disregard victims' welfare. Jones (2007b) noted that the Church of England had ignored cCSA complaints. Tchividjian (2013) criticized the silence of Evangelical leaders. Cromidas (2010) highlighted similar strategies adopted by the Greek Orthodox Church. Sirigos (2010) urged stricter measures to tackle cCSA.

Threats, Cover-ups, and Lack of Care for Victims

Charlton (2013) highlighted cCSA cases in the Reformed Evangelical Church of Sovereign Grace Ministers where authorities covered up abuse and threatened victims. The Royal Commission in Australia (2017) held the Dioceses of Grafton in the Anglican Church responsible for insensitivity toward victims. The Commission confirmed 1,115 complaints against 702 perpetrators from 1980 to 2015. Allegations have been leveled against Jehovah’s Witnesses’ authorities for sheltering abusers and punishing victims (Crichton, 2001; Cutrer, 2001). The Royal Commission in Australia (2017) recorded 1,066 allegations against members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses since 1950. Batty (2013) cited the failure of the Archbishop of York to report CSA allegations. The Meeking Report (2009) concluded that victims in the dioceses of Chichester were denied justice. The Cahill Inquiry into the dioceses of Manchester and York (2014) established cCSA allegations and a cover-up (Davies, 2014).

Failure to Implement Safeguarding

The Elliot Review report (2016) in the Church of England found systemic failures in implementing safeguarding policies. Sherwood (2016) observed that the Church only made selected parts of the review public. The Kendall House Review (Proctor, Cohen, & Galloway, 2016) established allegations of systemic sexual abuse of girls from 1967 to 1986. The Peter Ball Review (Gibb, 2017) confirmed sexual abuse and highlighted the cover-up by clerical authorities.

Political Influence to Avoid Action

Angelovski (2010) reported on cCSA within the Serbian Orthodox Church, identifying political influence in the acquittal of accused clergy. Sindelar, Trivic, Arnautovic, and Jelin (2013) described accusations against one Bishop as extreme. Other cases have resulted in the Church's inaction being blamed for continuing harm to victims (Chalk, 2013; Kocic, 2013).

Protestant Countries, Secular Legal Systems, and Media Bias

Culturally Roman Catholic countries have been least likely to hold clerics accountable. Secular and Protestant-dominated countries have been more active in implementing secular laws (Hakim, 2015; Pazzano, 2014; Pilkington, 2011; Satienlerk & Thepgumpenat, 2017; Strange, 2013). Jenkins (2001) noted that cCSA legal cases against Pentecostal and Baptist Protestant ministers were not highlighted in the press. Tarico (2010) suggested that negative opinions against clerical celibacy within the Catholic Church have persisted due to Protestant dominance. Jenkins (2003) noted that criticism against the Catholic Church was led by Catholic media itself (Peter, 2003). Shaw (2012) commented that the media had made gross abuses. Jenkins (1996) observed that mainstream media ignored larger numbers of cCSA in the Protestant denominations, partly to criticize celibacy.

Catholic Church Management

Bieszad (2017) highlighted the independent structures of Protestant churches compared to the Catholic Church. Donohue (1996) identified the centralized organizational system of the Catholic Church as a key difference. Catholic dioceses possessed large insurance covers, increasing the likelihood for litigation. Jefferson (2007) highlighted that data collection for cCSA by Protestant clergy was difficult due to the decentralized structure. Morris (2007) and Moyer (2007) also identified the decentralized structure of Protestant Churches as a reason for insufficient data collection. Charlton (2013) raised the need for similar scrutiny on Protestant denominations. Tarico (2010) argued that there was no central authority to hold responsible in Protestant churches. May (2013) identified that the absence of a central representative body in Jewish and Muslim communities was a reason for non-reporting. Burket and Brunie (1993) argued that the Catholic Church's ability to bury cases organizationally led to widespread scandals.

cCSA can be seen as related to the history of abusive sexuality in human societies rather than any single religious faith (Deetman Commission, 2011).

Conclusion

cCSA is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church. Clerical authorities from various denominations tend to silence victims for institutional reputation. Religious context and power dynamics provide a space for perpetration. Specific characteristics of religious institutions act as a barrier to disclosing abuse. Reasons for the over-focus on the Catholic Church include accessibility of boys, the centralized nature of the Church's management, anti-Catholic bias, secular legal systems, and institutionalized power for secrecy.

The fact that much of the media criticism has remained focused in the USA may be indicative of an anti-Catholic bias that has continued into secularism. The Roman Catholic Church can also be perceived as a significant economy with global financial resources for insurance companies and lawyers.

It is easier to hold a large organization like the Roman Catholic Church responsible than smaller independent religious denominations.

Recommendations for the Future

The extent of cCSA across denominations and religions is poorly researched. Comparative studies are needed across non-Catholic Christian denominations and other religions to determine the degree to which the extent and nature of cCSA and organizational responses differ, and to develop best practice for safeguarding children, while being in care of clerics.

Numerical and Statistical Data

  • 62%: Percentage of CSA allegations involving the Catholic Church among religious organizations.

  • 81%: Percentage of church victims identified as male in the John Jay Report (2004).

  • 75%: Percentage of Anglican Church (Australia) victims who were boys, as reported by Parkinson et al. (2009).

  • 3,677: Number of confirmed cCSA cases perpetrated by 1,670 Catholic priests in Germany from 1946 to 2014 (Mayr, 2018).

  • 1,000: Estimated minimum number of victims of cCSA by 300 Catholic priests over seven decades in Pennsylvania (Attorney General of Pennsylvania, 2018).

  • 20–75%: Estimated range of children who experienced cCSA in ISKCON institutes in the USA and India (Rochford, 1998).

  • 4%: Percentage of Protestant churches that had received reports of cCSA (Stetzer, 2012).

  • 110: Number of monks charged with cCSA in Sri Lanka from 2002 to 2012 (BBC, 2012).

  • 1,115: Number of complaints of cCSA made against 702 perpetrators in the Anglican Church of Australia from 1980 to 2015 (Royal Commission, 2017).

  • 1,066: Number of allegations of child abuse against members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses since 1950 (Royal Commission, 2017).

Acknowledgements

Faisal Rashid is an academic scholar on clerical child sexual abuse. Ian Barron is a Director of the Center for International Education, University of Massachusetts.