THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS

BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND DEACONS

IN THE UNITED STATES 1950-2002

A RESEARCH STUDY CON DUCTED BY THE JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK • FEBRUARY 2004

Z
@
:c.
~
c;
;,..
'"
-.

"'0
i.llVliEP ,<)
b'
.-
'7
<'
:,
::'"
/)

FOR THE UNITED STATE S CONFE REI'-ICE OF CATHO LIC BISH O PS

Wa sh ing ton, D .C.

In June 2002 the full body of Catholic bishops of the United States in their General Meeting in Dallas
approved the Charter tor the Protection of Children and Young People . The Charter created a National
Review Board , which was assigned responsibility to commission a descriptive study, with the full coop­
eration of the dioceses/eparchies, of the nature and scope of the problem of sexual abuse of minors by
clergy. The National Review Board engaged John Jay College of Criminal Justice of The City University
of New York to conduct research, summarize the collected data, and issue a summary report to the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops of its findings. This report by the John Jay College is
authorized for publication by the undersigned.

Msgr. W~ lIiam P. Fay

General Secretary
USCCB

First Printing, June 2004

ISBN 1-57455-627-4

Copyright © 2004, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.
No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the copyright holder.
Contents
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................... 1

CREDITS: THE JOHN JAY COLLEGE RESEARCH TEAM ....................................... 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 5

PART ONE: The mandate for the study

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 11
1.2 Methodology: How the study was carried out.................................. 14
1.3 Study terminology .................................................................................. 20

PART TWO: Prevalence of abuse of youths under 18 by Catholic priests and

deacons

2.1 Estimation of prevalence of sexual abuse of youths under 18

in the United States ................................................................................ 23
2.2 Summary results: Prevalence of sexual abuse of youths under 18 by
Catholic priests and deacons.............................................................. 26
2.3 Detailed data on prevalence of sexual abuse of youths under 18
by Catholic priests.................................................................................. 28

PART THREE: The priests and deacons accused of sexual abuse

3.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 36
3.2 Summary results: Priests and deacons who have allegations of
sexual abuse ........................................................................................... 39
3.3 Demographic characteristics of priests and deacons accused of
sexual abuse of youths under 18 ......................................................... 40
3.4 Priests with behavioral problems.......................................................... 45
3.5 Priests and deacons and the allegations........................................... 51
3.6 Serial abusers: Priests with multiple allegations.................................. 57
3.7 Criminal prosecutions and penalties................................................... 59

PART FOUR: Incidents and allegations of child sexual abuse

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 66
4.2 Summary results: Characteristics of the incidents of alleged sexual
abuse by priests...................................................................................... 68
4.3 Characteristics of children who alleged sexual abuse by
Catholic priests ....................................................................................... 69
4.4 Characteristics of acts of sexual abuse by Catholic priests............ 72
4.5 Circumstances of the abuse allegations ........................................... 78

PART FIVE: The response from the dioceses and religious communities

5.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 84
5.2 Reporting of allegations of sexual abuse........................................... 89
5.3 Responses to child sex abuse allegations by dioceses and
religious communities ............................................................................ 94
5.4 Sex offender treatment ......................................................................... 99

PART SIX: Costs to dioceses and religious communities

6.1 Total costs .............................................................................................. 103

APPENDIX

A.1.1.1 Questions
A.1.1.2 Diocesan Profile
A.1.1.3 Religious Order Profile
A.1.1.4 Cleric Survey
A.1.1.5 Victim Survey
A.1.1.6 Written Instructions
A.1.1.7 Research Participation Statement
A.1.1.8 DHHS Letter

A.1.2.1 Regions
 Preface and Acknowledgements

John Jay College of Criminal Justice was honored to have been asked by the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops to undertake the critically important task of
obtaining a comprehensive description of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests.
From the beginning, the College well understood its profound responsibility: to describe
the dimensions of the abuse problem as accurately and completely as possible, to be
scrupulously objective in carrying out the study, and to report the facts in an honest,
forthright manner. The gravity of the assignment entrusted to the College cannot be
over-estimated.

Some advised the College to reject the request to do the study: it was too controversial;
it was too complicated; it could expose the College to lawsuits; and it could engender
negative publicity. After listening carefully to this counsel, I came to the conclusion that
despite the problems which might arise, the College had a civic obligation to use its
resources and academic talent to help provide facts about the sexual abuse
phenomenon which has been such a sad chapter in the history of the Catholic Church.
Because it is a significant part of the College’s stated mission to engage in research
dealing with public safety, I became convinced that we would be shirking our duty if we
turned down the opportunity to do research on the victimization of children which
hopefully will help protect them in years to come.

The administrators, faculty and students invited to participate in this endeavor shared my
conviction. They committed themselves to making the study a high priority, to immersing
themselves in the many tasks which had to be done, and to maintaining the highest level
of professionalism in carrying out the sensitive mandate entrusted to us. This was a “fast-
track” project, taking less than a year from start to finish, but the faculty nevertheless
faithfully adhered to the established norms of research ethics at every step along the
way.

The findings presented in this report are very disturbing. As we at John Jay College pored
over the data, we were deeply moved by the recitation of the large numbers of offenses
committed against children and the seriousness of their nature. But we are genuinely
hopeful that out of this excruciating inquiry will emerge not only a better understanding
of the abuse problem but a series of sensible, effective measures to reduce the possibility
that other children will suffer the kinds of abuses which we have uncovered.

I would like to thank the many men and women of good will without whose cooperation
this study would have been impossible to accomplish. I thank with special gratitude the
many Catholic bishops across the country who provided us in record time the detailed,
revealing data from their files. The remarkable 98% response rate which we obtained
from the dioceses is virtually unheard of in social science research. The National Review
Board, all of whose lay members have very demanding responsibilities, worked with us
endlessly as we met the various challenges that confronted us on an almost daily basis. I
must also acknowledge my deep appreciation of the efforts of Kathleen McChesney,

1
Executive Director of the Office of Child and Youth Protection of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops, and her staff who repeatedly walked the extra mile to
help us complete our assignment.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the staff at John Jay College who facilitated
the work of the team doing the study. Everything including finding space for the project
office, installation of computers, providing logistical support for meetings, and printing of
this report in record time happened because many individuals pitched in. This was truly
a collective endeavor of the College, and as President I would like to thank each and
every person who contributed to this historic social science research project.

The data which John Jay College collected will provide the basis for the development of
hypotheses and analyses which explain the causes of the distressing sexual abuse
phenomenon presented in this report. Even more important, it is my fervent hope that
the facts which the John Jay study presents will ultimately work to prevent recurrence of
such victimization of children in the future.

Gerald W. Lynch
President
John Jay College of Criminal Justice

2
CREDITS – THE JOHN JAY COLLEGE RESEARCH TEAM

PRESIDENT, JOHN JAY COLLEGE

GERALD W. LYNCH, PHD
President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice for 28 years. He received his Ph.D. in
clinical psychology in 1968 from New York University. He has been personally involved in
many scholarly inquiries dealing with controversial topics, including casino gambling and
policing in Northern Ireland. He is the editor of Human Dignity and the Police, a volume
which describes and analyzes a program designed by Dr Lynch and others for training
police officials about respecting the rights of citizens with whom they interact.

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR
JAMES LEVINE, PHD
Dean of Graduate Studies and Research at John Jay College of Criminal Justice where
he is also professor of government. He received his Ph.D. in political science from
Northwestern University in 1968. Prior to joining John Jay College in 1993, he was on the
faculties of Michigan State University, the University of Oregon, and Brooklyn College of
The City University of New York. He is the author of four books and fifty articles in the fields
of criminal justice, criminology, and policy analysis.

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
KAREN TERRY, PHD
Associate Professor in the Department of Law, Police Science, and Criminal Justice
Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Deputy Executive Officer
of the Doctoral Program in Criminal Justice, CUNY. She holds a doctorate in criminology
from Cambridge University and she has several publications on sex offender treatment,
management and supervision. She is also the Editor of the Sex Offender Law Report.

DATA ANALYST
MARGARET LELAND SMITH, ABD
Trained as a criminologist at Rutgers School of Criminal Justice, Margaret Smith is a
member of the Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics at John Jay College and the
Coordinator of the Prisoners Self Help Legal Clinic in Newark, New Jersey.

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
MICHELE GALIETTA, PHD
Assistant Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She received a
Ph.D. in clinical psychology and a M.A. in Religion from Fordham University in New York
City. Dr. Galietta is a researcher and clinician specializing in the assessment and
treatment of various offender groups.

MAUREEN O’CONNOR, JD, PHD

Chair of the Psychology Department at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She
received her law degree and her Ph.D. from the University of Arizona. Her research
interests are in the intersection of psychology, gender, and law. Prior to graduate school,
Dr. O’Connor worked for six years in the research and grants agencies of the U.S.
Department of Justice, specializing in crime victim issues.

3
STEVEN PENROD, JD, PHD
Distinguished Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He
received his law degree and his doctorate from Harvard University. He was formerly
Professor of Law and Psychology at the University of Nebraska, Professor of Law at the
University of Minnesota and Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin. His
primary area of research is legal decision making--with a particular emphasis on juries
and eyewitness reliability, and he has over 100 book and journal publications.

LOUIS SCHLESINGER, PHD

Professor of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a Diplomate in
Forensic Psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology. He received his
doctorate from the New School of Social Research. Dr. Schlesinger's area of expertise is
criminal psychopathology and sexually motivated antisocial acts, and he has published
numerous articles, chapters, and eight books on the topic.

WITH THANKS TO:

RICHARD LOVELY, PHD

Sociologist and Co-Director of Masters of Science program in Forensic Computing at
John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Fred Palm
Professor in the School of Public Management, he has an MBA from Baruch College and
previously served 25 years in the New York City Office of the Comptroller.

TIMOTHY STEVENS, PHD

Chair of the English Department at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He was one of
the editors of Criminal Justice Ethics from 1993-2002.

RESEARCH ASSISTANTS
Stephanie Adduci
Frank Coffaro
Kristina Cummings
Dana Everly
Jeannine Goff
Subena Gustave
Michael Hayes
Jennifer Leconte
Jason Malone
Jennifer McCarthy
Matthew Opesso
Meredith Patten
Bonnie Starfield
Jennifer Tallon
Brenda Vollman
Sue-Lin Wong
4
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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) unanimously 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, representing 98% all diocesan
priests in the United States, and 140 religious communities, 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

5
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 then calculated the 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 1960-2002. When we look at the time
period covered by the CARA database, the number of priests with
allegations of sexual abuse is 4,127. Thus, the percentage of priests

6
 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 actual 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.

7
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 $472,000,000. That figure is not the total paid by the Church to date—14% of
dioceses and religious communities 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, 10.4% were resident priests and 7.2% 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 (3.5%) who had more than ten allegations of
abuse were allegedly responsible for abusing 2,960 victims, thus accounting for
26% 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 17% 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.

8
 • The surveys indicate that 32% 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.

• Of the total number accused, 37% 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.

• Priests allegedly committed acts which were classified into more than 20
categories. The most frequent acts allegedly committed were: touching over the
victim’s clothing (52.6%), touching under the victim's clothes (44.9%), cleric
performing oral sex (26%), victim disrobed (25.7%), and penile penetration or
attempted penile penetration (22.4%). 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 90% of the reported
incidents for which we had specific offense details, 141 incidents, or one and
one half percent, were reported that included only verbal abuse and/or the use
of pornography.

• 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 (17.8%). Abuse allegedly occurred in
other settings, such as during counseling, school hours, and sporting events, in
less than 10% of the allegations.

9
 • In the 51% of cases where information was provided, half of the victims who
made allegations of sexual abuse (2,638, or 25.7% 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 various church activities.

REPORTING AND ACTIONS TAKEN

• To date, the police have been contacted about 1,021 priests with allegations of
abuse, or 24% of our total. Nearly all of these reports have led to investigations,
and 384 instances have led to criminal charges. Of those priests for whom
information about dispositions is available, 252 were convicted and at least 100
of those served time in prison. Thus, 6% 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.

10
 THE MANDATE FOR THE STUDY

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 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, 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 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

11
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, 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 A.1.1.1 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 John developed three data collection instruments, or surveys
(see Appendices A.1.1.2 – 5). The surveys were pre-tested, revised, and distributed to each of
the 202 United States dioceses and eparchies (i.e. Eastern Church dioceses). 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 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 (see also
Appendices A.1.1.6 – 7). 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.

12
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 the research context for
the understanding the data and continues with a summary of the findings and subchapters that
give detailed tables of 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 50
years will ground future research and reform efforts.

13
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 221 religious institutes, together comprising the population of Catholic priests in the
United States. The study had the full 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.

13
The Diocesan Profile. The first survey was the “Diocesan/Order Profile” (Appendices A.1.1.2 and
A.1.1.3). 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 unfounded 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 A.1.1.4). This instrument 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 A.1.1.5). 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

14
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 that had been shown to be false or were
withdrawn, or those 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 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 Gregory, President of the USCCB, alerting bishops
to the study, reminding them of the mandate to comply 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 religious orders then distributed the surveys to their provinces and
autonomous monasteries or abbeys. The organization of religious communities is such that the

15
files with the information being sought for the study were held in the provinces and autonomous
communities of many religious orders, 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 (see Appendix A.1.1.6) 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 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 concealing 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 directed by a data analyst,
working in consultation 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

16
complex confidentiality provisions. All study materials and documents were recorded when they
were 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.

17
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 diocesan staff and study 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 (DHHS) 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, DHHS in November 2003 declined not 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

18
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 A.1.1.7 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.
2The study website employed multiple levels of security to ensure that the public could not locate the site or access the
questions and answers. The identification name and password were sent directly to each bishop or major superior so that
he or his staff could access the website.
3 Although we worded the definitions carefully 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
responses 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 identify
priests who had been moved from one diocese to another) was encrypted prior to being sent to the study headquarters
so that California respondents did not transmit any identifying information.

19
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 necessary.
Boundary problems can be mild to moderate, such as the case of a therapist or teacher who
develops 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.

Incardinated
A priest who has been formally affiliated to a diocese is said to be incardinated in that diocese

Incidence
Used to convey the number of new events occurring in a specific time period.

20
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.

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

21
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

An administrative decision made by a bishop or major superior to limit the ecclesiastical and/or
parish or community functions of an individual priest.

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.

22
THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF YOUTHS BY PRIESTS

2.1 ESTIMATES OF THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF

YOUTHS UNDER 18 CHILDREN IN THE UNITED STATES

The estimation of any form of deviance in the general population is a very difficult task. It is
impossible to assess the extent of sexual offending, either in general or with children as targets.
Most estimates of the distribution of sexual offenders in the general population are derived from
forensic sources, that is, samples of those who are arrested or convicted for sex offenses. All
researchers acknowledge that those who are arrested represent only a fraction of all sexual
offenders. Sexual crimes have the lowest rates of reporting for all crimes. Not all potential
participants in such studies can be known or contacted, not all would use the same language
to describe their experiences, and not all are willing to share information. The sexual abuse of
children by Catholic priests and deacons is part of the larger problem of sexual abuse of
children in the United States. This chapter is a summary of the estimates of child sexual abuse in
the Catholic Church.

RESEARCH ESTIMATES

The prevalence of some event or behavior in a specific population represents the proportion of
a population which has experienced the event or behavior. Since it is not known how many
people in the United States experience a form of sexual abuse as children, some researchers
select groups, or samples, of individuals to study and direct questions to them. If the selection of
the group to be surveyed is not biased, the results of this study provide estimates of the
prevalence of sexual abuse in the population from which the group is selected. In order to
avoid bias in a sample, every person in the part of the population to be used as a framework for
selecting the sample must have an equal chance of being asked to participate. Researchers
use the data gathered from those who participate to estimate the proportion of the United
States population who are sexually abused during childhood.

Studies of the incidence, as opposed to the prevalence, of sexual abuse of children

concentrate on estimating the number of new cases occurring over a particular period of time
and on whether the number of events or incidents is increasing or decreasing. Scholarly studies
of both the incidence and the prevalence of sexual abuse of children in the United States
began emerging in the 1960s and gained greater urgency after the cluster of day care center
child abuse cases in the 1980s made the issue one of acute public interest. A look at
victimization studies that focus on the sexual abuse of minor children suggests that the scope of
this problem is extensive.

Although we do not have data reflecting the prevalence of abusers, there are data from
several studies reporting the prevalence of victimization. The prevalence rates reported in these
studies vary somewhat.

23
 • 27% of the females and 16% of the males disclosed a history of childhood sexual
abuse; 42% of the males were likely to never have disclosed the experience to
anyone whereas 33% of the females never disclosed.1
• 12.8% of the females and 4.3% of the males reported a history of sexual abuse during
childhood.2
• 15.3% of the females and 5.9% of the males experienced some form of sexual
assault.3
• Only 5.7% of the incidents were reported to the police; 26% of the incidents were not
disclosed to anyone prior to the study.4
• In summary, when compared with their male counterparts, females were more likely
to have been sexually abused during childhood. Furthermore, females were more
likely than males to disclose such information; however, disclosure rates are quite low
regardless of the victim’s gender.

Finkelhor and Jones have used data from National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
(NCANDS) to make a national estimate of the number of sexual abuse cases substantiated by
child protective service (CPS) for the period from 1992 to 2000. Using data from more than forty
states, they report that the number of substantiated sexual abuse cases peaked at
approximately 149,800 in 1992, followed by annual declines of 2 to 11 percent per year through
2000 when the number of cases reached a low of approximately 89,355.5

Professional opinion is divided about why this drop occurred and how much of the drop is real or
the result of factors such as changes in definitions, reporting and investigation by the states.
Finkelhor and Jones examined other indicia of sex abuse rates and conclude that, taken
together, they suggest that at least part of the drop in cases has resulted from a decline in
sexual abuse of children.6 The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)⎯which asks about
rape and sexual assault for victims ages 12 and older (including acts counted within the broader
definition of child sexual abuse)⎯shows that sex offenses against children ages 12-17 declined
56 percent between 1993 and 2000. Virtually all the decline, 72 percent, occurred in offenses
committed by known perpetrators (family and acquaintances) which declined.7 Finkelhor and
Jones observe that cases involving known perpetrators are the ones most likely to be
categorized as sexual abuse.8

Another source of self-report data on sexual abuse is the Minnesota Student Survey, which has
been administered to 6th, 9th, and 12th−grade students in Minnesota in 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998,
and 2001.9 Between 90 and 99 percent of Minnesota's school districts and more than 100,000
students have participated in the survey each year. The survey includes two questions about
sexual abuse. Results indicate that sexual abuse by family and nonfamily perpetrators showed a
slight rise between 1989 and 1992 followed by a 22-percent drop from 1992 to 2001.10

At the same time reports of sexual abuse have declined, there has been a significant drop in
crime rates and measures of family problems such as violence among adult intimates, and a
drop in out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies and live births to teenage mothers (some of which
are attributable to child sexual abuse)⎯all of these suggest a general improvement in the well-
being of children.

24
Additionally, Finkelhor and Jones suggest that rates of sexual abuse have perhaps been
reduced as a result of increased incarceration for sexual abuse offenders. They report that
surveys of state correctional facilities indicate that between 1991 and1997, the number of
individuals incarcerated in state correctional facilities for sex crimes against children rose 39
percent, from 43,500 to 60,700, having already more than doubled from 19,900 in 1986. They
further note that these totals do not include large numbers of sexual abusers who receive
sanctions which do not involve incarceration for a year or more.11

1 David Finkelhor et al., “Sexual Abuse in a National Survey of Adult Men and Women: Prevalence, Characteristics, and

Risk Factors.” Child Abuse & Neglect 14 (1990): 20-21.

2 Harriet L. MacMillan and Jan E. Fleming, “Prevalence of Child Physical and Sexual Abuse in the Community.” Journal of

the American Medical Association 278 (1997): 131-135.

3 K. Moore, K. Nord, and J. Peterson, “Nonvoluntary Sexual Activity Among Adolescents.” Family Planning Perspectives 21

(1989): 110-114.
4 Sue Boney-McCoy and David Finkelhor, “Psychosocial Sequelae of Violent Victimization in a National Youth Sample.”

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63 (Oct. 1995): 726-736.

5 Lisa Jones and David Finkelhor. “Explanations for the Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases.” OJJDP Bulletin. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2004).

6 Lisa M. Jones and David Finkelhor, “The Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases.” OJJDP Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2001); Lisa M.
Jones, David Finkelhor, and Kathy Kopiec. “Why is sexual abuse declining? A survey of state child protection
administrators.” Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001): 1139–1158.

7 Rennison, C.M. “Criminal Victimization 2000: Changes 1999–2000 with Trends 1993–2000.” Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001.

8 Jones, 2004.
9Harrison, P.A., Fulkerson, J.A., and Beebe,T.J. “Multiple substance use among adolescent physical and sexual abuse
victims.” Child Abuse & Neglect 21(1997): 529–539.

10Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning, Minnesota Department of Human Services. Minnesota
Student Survey: Key Trends Through 2001. Roseville, MN: Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning, 2001.
11 David Finkelhor and Richard K. Ormrod, “Factors in the Underreporting of Crimes Against Juveniles” Child Maltreatment

6 (2001): 219-230.

25
2.2 SUMMARY RESULTS: PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF
YOUTHS UNDER 18 BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND DEACONS

A paramount concern for all involved with the study has been the determination of the
prevalence of the problem in the Catholic Church in the United States. The survey responses
make it clear that the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95% of
dioceses and approximately 60% of religious communities. Of the 195 dioceses and eparchies
that participated in the study, all but seven have reported that allegations of sexual abuse of
youths under the age of 18 have been made against at least one priest serving in ecclesiastical
ministry in that diocese or eparchy. Of the 140 religious communities that submitted surveys, all
but 30 reported at least one allegation against a religious priest who was a member of that
community.

Researchers asked each diocese, eparchy and religious community to provide the total number
of priests who were active, or serving in ministry, between 1950 and 2002 so that the number of
the accused could be presented as a part of an overall total. In our effort to understand the
scope and distribution of the problem for the dioceses and eparchies, researchers collected
information on the region, a geographical division of the Catholic Church, the number of
Catholics per diocese, and the number of parishes per diocese. Dioceses and eparchies were
asked to indicate these numbers by choosing one of ten equal ranges for the number of
Catholic communicants and the number of parishes. The range, i.e., 88,501 – 122,000, 122,001 –
170,000, and so forth, in Catholic population, was used to ensure confidentiality of each study
participant. Religious communities were grouped into ten equal groups by their total
membership and clerical membership, as reported in the Official Catholic Directory 2002. These
different ways of looking at the scope of the problem were used to examine the extent of sexual
abuse of youths under 18 by Catholic priests and deacons.

• Dioceses and eparchies reported that allegations of child sexual abuse had been
made against 4,692 priests and deacons for incidents that took place while these
men were serving in ecclesiastical ministry. Individual survey forms were submitted for
4,557 of these priests. Of these, some surveys had to be eliminated because the
victim’s was 18 or older or the date of the alleged incident was prior to 1950 or after
2002.

• Religious communities reported that allegations of sexual abuse had been made
against 647 priests who were members of their communities. Dioceses reported
additional religious priests, for a study total of 929 religious priests.

• When the multiple surveys for the 143 priests who were the subject of allegations in
more than one diocese or religious community are condensed to a single record, the
total number of Catholic priests and deacons in the United States who have been
accused of sexual abuse of children is 4,392.

• When dioceses are grouped by the fourteen geographical regions of the Church,
the average percent of all incardinated priests in a region’s dioceses to have been

26
 accused of sexual abuse is consistent: all regions averaged between 3% and 6% of
priests accused.

• If the total number of priests in religious communities who have had allegations made
against them is presented as a percentage of all religious priests in ministry, as
estimated form the study data, the percentage accused of child sexual abuse is
2.7%.

The consistency of the findings in dioceses across the United States is remarkable: whether
region, number of Catholic communicants or number of parishes is used to array the dioceses,
the results show allegations of sexual abuse have been made against 2.5% to 7% of diocesan
priests. Similarly, whether religious priests are ranked by overall membership of religious clerical
membership, the percent of priests in communities who have been accused ranges from 1% to
3%, or approximately half of that of the diocesan priests.

To estimate the percentage of all priests in ecclesiastical ministry between 1950 and 2002 who
have been the subject of allegations requires a reliable overall total of priests in ministry during
that time period. This calculation was done two different way—first by using the data collected
through the Diocesan and Religious Order Profiles and then by using the estimates produced by
the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate1. These different methods both yielded the
same statistic: approximately 4% of Catholic priests and deacons in active ministry between
1950 and 2002 have been accused of the sexual abuse of a youth under the age of 18.

Surveys for 90% of the priests and deacons reported to have had allegations of child sexual
abuse included the year of ordination. If the yearly ordination totals for diocesan priests
accused are compared to the overall number of diocesan priests ordained in that year, the
percentages of accused priests range from a maximum of almost 10% in 1970, decreasing to 8%
in 1980 and to fewer than 4% in 1990.

These prevalence estimates alone do not describe the extent of the problem of sexual abuse.
Another way to understand the extent of the problem is to ask how many incidents of sexual
abuse were alleged to occur each year of the study period or, alternatively, to ask how many
priests were accused in each year. This distribution of alleged abuse events over time shows the
pattern of the reported sexual abuse. When the incidents recorded in the surveys are tallied for
each year of occurrence (of each incident), the resulting figure shows that 75% of the events
were alleged to occur between 1960 and 1984. This result should be considered together with
the declining percentage of priests ordained in each year. Additionally, understanding about
sexual abuse and the treatment of sexual offenders has changed markedly between 1950 and
2002, and as a result both reporting and response to the problem are like to have been
affected.

1 Bryan T. Froehle, “Numbers of Priests in the United States 1960 – 1996” (working Paper, Center for Applied Research in

the Apostolate, Georgetown University, Washington DC, 1997).

27
2.3 DETAILED DATA ON PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF
YOUTHS UNDER 18 BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS

The red (upper) line in Figure 2.3.1 represents the total incidents of alleged abuse for each year
of the study while the blue (lower) line charts the total number of priests accused in each year of
the study.

Figure 2.3.1
Annual Count of Incidents Reported
and Priests Accused, by Year
i nci dent s pr i est s
800 800
750 750

700 Annual totals 700

650 of incidents 650
600 600
550 550
500 500
450 450
400 400
350 350
300 300

250 250
200 Annual totals of 200
150 accused priests 150
100 100
50 50
0 0

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

year

The calculation of an overall percentage of priests in ministry was initially derived using
information from the Diocesan Profiles for total numbers of priests and deacons subject to
allegations compared to the total of those in ministry between 1950 and 2002. The surveys
reported 75,694 diocesan priests and approximately 34,000 religious priests in ministry with 4,392
accused of abuse. If the total of the accused priests (4,392) is divided by the total of all priests in
ministry between 1950 and 2002 (109,694), the result is 4%; for diocesan priests only,
(3,282/76,694), the percentage is 4.27% and for religious priests, (929/34,000), 2.7%.1

Alternatively, the total of priests in ministry estimated by the Center for Applied Research in the
Apostolate is 94,607 between 1960 and 2002. If the number of priests who had no allegations
after 1959 is removed (265), the total of surveys for priests and deacons with allegations of child
sexual abuse is 4,127, and the resulting percentage is slightly more than 4%.

28
Figure 2.3.2 DISTRIBUTION OF ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF ABUSE,
BY DATE OF FIRST INSTANCE

500

400

300

200

100
Count

0
1950 1956 1962 1968 1974 1980 1986 1992 1998
1953 1959 1965 1971 1977 1983 1989 1995 2001

Year Alleged Abuse Began

The tables that follow show in detail the distribution of the allegations of child sexual abuse for
each diocese or religious community, arrayed by a series of demographic variables. The results
are fairly uniform across each of the three diocesan tables: the percentage of incardinated
priests and deacons accused of child sexual abuse is consistently between 3% and 6% and the
overall average is 5%. For the religious communities, a similar uniformity is evident although it is
approximately half of the diocesan level. The tables that follow do not include priests who have
been exonerated, or those who were determined to be ineligible for the study because they did
not meet the protocol criteria.

Table 2.3.1 shows the average number of incardinated clerics who have been accused of
sexual abuse and the percentage of accused clerics within the total number of incardinated
clerics in an individual diocese, grouped by Catholic Region. These tables also show the
dioceses with the lowest number (and percentage) of accused priests in a Region and the
dioceses with the highest number (and percentage). Table 2.3.2 shows the United States
dioceses grouped by the size of the Catholic population and Table 2.3.3 repeats this display by
the number of parishes.

Tables 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 show the average number of religious community members who have
been accused of sexual abuse, grouped by the overall membership of the community and then
by clerical membership.

29
The average number of incardinated clerics in individual diocese or eparchy who have been
the subject of an allegation of sexual abuse is 19. Another way of expressing this statistic is that
the average diocese or eparchy had records or knowledge of allegations against 19 clerics. The
total number of accused clerics incardinated to an individual diocese or eparchy, between
1950 and 2002, ranges from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 165.

Table 2.3.1. PERCENT AND NUMBER OF INCARDINATED CLERICS PER DIOCESE

OR EPARCHY ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ABUSE, GROUPED BY REGION

Accused Clerics as a Percent of All Number of Incardinated Clerics

United States
Accused of Abuse Accused of Abuse
Dioceses
Grouped by Average Average
Catholic Region Per Minimum Maximum per Minimum Maximum
Diocese Diocese
1 5% 0% 10% 40.42 0 165
2 4% 1% 9% 38.22 4 73
3 5% 0% 24% 26.13 0 69
4 5% 0% 10% 17.00 0 46
5 5% 0% 11% 8.24 0 30
6 3% 0% 8% 17.71 0 93
7 4% 1% 7% 24.47 5 116
8 5% 2% 16% 13.45 3 26
9 3% 1% 5% 16.50 2 64
10 5% 0% 19% 7.44 0 31
11 4% 1% 9% 15.07 1 71
12 4% 2% 9% 6.80 2 21
13 6% 0% 11% 9.89 0 24
14 5% 1% 10% 8.38 2 12

30
Table 2.3.2. PERCENT AND NUMBER OF INCARDINATED CLERICS PER DIOCESE
OR EPARCHY ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ABUSE, GROUPED BY CATHOLIC
POPULATION

United States Accused Clerics as a Percent of All Number of Incardinated Priests

Dioceses Incardinated Priests, 1950 - 2002 Accused of Sexual Abuse
Grouped by
Average
Catholic Average
In Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
Population In Diocese
Diocese
Group 1
4% 0% 9% 3.00 0 10
(5,000 - 45,000)
Group 2
4% 0% 11% 5.00 0 12
(45,001 - 66,000)
Group 3
6% 0% 19% 9.35 0 41
(66,001 - 88,500)
Group 4
3% 0% 6% 7.63 0 23
(88,5001 – 122,000)
Group 5
5% 0% 10% 12.53 0 35
122,001 – 170,000)
Group 6
4% 0% 10% 15.55 0 34
(170,001 – 239,000)
Group 7
4% 1% 9% 21.17 3 52
(239,001 – 350,700)
Group 8
4% 2% 7% 18.31 1 39
(350,701 – 475,000)
Group 9
5% 0% 24% 23.85 0 64
(475,001 – 778, 700)
Group 10
(788,701 – 4% 0% 10% 45.47 0 165
4,500,000)

31
Table 2.3.3. PERCENT AND NUMBER OF INCARDINATED CLERICS PER DIOCESE
WHO HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ABUSE, GROUPED BY
NUMBER OF PARISHES

United States Accused Priests as a Percent of All Number of Incardinated Priests

Dioceses Incardinated Priests, 1950 - 2002 Accused of Sexual Abuse
Grouped by
Average
Number of Average
in Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
Parishes In Diocese
Diocese
1
3% 0% 9% 1.10 0 3
(1 - 35)
2
5% 0% 11% 4.36 0 12
(36 - 46)
3
4% 0% 19% 5.73 0 23
(47 – 56)
4
5% 0% 12% 8.41 0 31
(57 – 71)
5
3% 0% 7% 7.42 0 17
(72 – 84)
6
5% 1% 9% 15.37 3 41
(85 – 97)
7
6% 2% 24% 16.80 5 35
(98 – 119)
8
5% 1% 10% 23.67 6 52
(120 – 138)
9
4% 1% 8% 27.04 9 93
(139 – 185)
10
4% 2% 8% 55.67 11 165
(186 + )

32
Table 2.3.4 PERCENT AND NUMBER OF ALL CLERICS IN RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ABUSE, GROUPED BY THE OVERALL
MEMBERSHIP

U.S. Catholic Accused Priests as a Percent of All

Number of Religious Priests Accused
Religious Priests in a Religious Community,
of Abuse
Communities 1950 - 2002
Grouped by Average Average
Overall Per Minimum Maximum Per Minimum Maximum
Membership Community Community
1
-0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
(1 – 10)
2
2% 0% 9% .67 0 3
(11 – 20)
3
2% 0% 5% 1.55 0 4
(21 – 30)
4
3% 0% 13% 2.10 0 7
(31 – 40)
5
3% 0% 8% 2.71 0 9
(41 – 75)
6
3% 0% 7% 6.62 0 17
(76 – 110)
7
1% <1% 2% 4.38 1 8
(111 – 150)
8
2% <1% 5% 10.19 1 21
(151 – 305)
9
1% <1% 4% 16.00 4 55
(306 – 540)
10
1% <1% 1% 10.50 6 15
541 +

33
Table 2.3.5 PERCENT AND NUMBER OF ALL CLERICS IN RELIGIOUS
COMMUNITIES ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ABUSE, GROUPED BY THE
CURRENT CLERICAL MEMBERSHIP

U.S. Catholic Accused Clerics as a Percent of All

Number of Religious Clerics Accused
Religious Clerics in a Religious Community,
of Abuse
Communities 1950 - 2002
Grouped by Average Average
Clerical Per Minimum Maximum Per Minimum Maximum
Membership Community Community
1
2% 0% 9% .17 0 1
(1 – 6)
2
2% 0% 7% 1.57 0 4
(7 – 14)
3
2% 0% 5% 1.00 0 2
(15 – 21)
4
3% 0% 13% 2.45 0 9
(22 - 35)
5
2% 0% 5% 2.71 0 6
(36 – 57)
6
3% 0% 7% 5.58 1 17
(58 – 80)
7
2% 0% 5% 6.30 0 17
(81 – 110)
8
2% 0% 5% 9.41 1 21
(111 – 176)
9
2% 0% 4% 13.93 1 55
(177 – 399)
10
1% 0% 1% 8.67 4 15
(400 +)

34
FIGURE 2.3.3 PRIESTS ACCUSED AS A PERCENT OF ALL ORDINATIONS, BY YEAR

12.0%

10.0%

8.0% Diocesan Priests

All Priests
6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

This figure shows the percentage of all priests ordained in each year from 1960 to 2002 who were
subsequently accused of child sexual abuse. Data was not available for the total number of
Catholic priests ordained for the years 1950 through 1959. The upper, or darker, line represents
the percentage of ordained diocesan priests and the lower, or lighter, line is the percentage of
all who were ordained. The Official Catholic Directory and the Center for Applied Research
were the sources for the total numbers of yearly ordinations.

1
Surveys were included in the study for 181 priests who were reported by their dioceses to have had allegations, but
whose clerical status was not reported. The total number of individual priests and deacons includes the diocesan
priests, the religious priests and those who status was not identified.

35
THE PRIESTS AND DEACONS ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ABUSE

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

BY ADULT MEN
For many years, scholars and practitioners have attempted to describe and categorize adult
men who engage in sexually abusive behavior with children under the age of 18. One clear
finding is that child sexual abusers are a heterogeneous population of individuals. There are
sexual offenders in all racial, ethnic, age, and socioeconomic categories. In describing child
sexual abuse, researchers in this area have focused on the characteristics of the abusers
themselves (e.g., static personal variables, such as sexual attraction preferences, and
personality) and variables related to the context in which the abuse occurs (e.g., access to
victims, isolation of the offender, and presence of substance abuse) as well as personal and
situational characteristics of their victims in an effort to create typologies of abusers for
assessment and treatment purposes.1

One way of categorizing offenders, for example, is by the type of victim they choose. Some
child sexual abusers are diagnosed as pedophiles, meaning that they exhibit recurrent, intense,
sexually arousing fantasies, urges or behaviors related to sexual contact with a prepubescent
child over a period of at least six months duration.2 However, not all sexual abuse occurs with
young children, and not all child sexual abusers fit this clinical diagnosis. Some researchers have
identified a similar condition, ephebophilia, which refers to individuals who exhibit these same
fantasies, urges or behaviors towards post-pubescent youths.3 While some offenders evidence
a clear preference for particular types of victims with regard to age and gender, many do not.
Individuals who molest children may be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual with regard to
victim selection. Child sexual abusers who prefer female victims are more likely to be diagnosed
as pedophiles than those who prefer male children while child sexual abusers who prefer male
victims tend to target boys who are slightly older.4

A second way of categorizing offenders is based on the factors believed to produce the
offending behavior. The most widely accepted classification of child molesters follows a
dichotomous model consisting of fixated offenders and regressed offenders.5 A fixated offender
is characterized as having a persistent, continual, and compulsive attraction to children. In
contrast, regressed offenders are individuals who are primarily attracted to adults, but who are
perceived to engage in sexual activity with children in response to particular stressors (e.g.,
marital problems and unemployment) or contextual variables (e.g., stress or loneliness).6
Subsequent research has demonstrated that while these two concepts are still important in
terms of describing sexual abusing types, this classification alone is not sufficiently nuanced to
describe the complexities of child sexual abusers.7 Instead, fixation can be understood to exist
on a continuum, meaning that all offending behavior is likely to result from some varying
degrees of a combination of stable personal characteristics (e.g., substance abuse) with
contextual variables (e.g., depression). 8 It is clear that multiple subtypes of offenders exist within

36
the population of sex offenders; however, there is no single classification system that has strong
empirical support.

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, non-
representative samples, which limit their findings and make it impossible to draw any type of
meaningful generalization about child sexual abuse in the Church. This literature, however, has
focused attention on a number of important topics to be considered in studying the issues within
the Church, including the difference between sexually offending and non-offending priests,9 the
difference between sexually offending priests and sexual offenders in the general population,10
personality characteristics or backgrounds of sexually offending priests,11 the link between child
sexual abuse and substance abuse,12 and the emotional or psychological development of
abusive priests.13 The survey instrument completed for each priest against whom allegations of
abuse had been made incorporated questions associated with these topics.

The followings sections of the report present information about the priests and deacons alleged
to have committed child sexual abuse.

1 Robert A. Knight & Raymond A. Prentky, "Classifying Sexual Offenders: The Development and Corroboration of

Taxonomic Models." in Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories, and Treatment of the Offender, 3rd ed., ed. William L.
Marshall (New York: Plenum Press, 1990), 23-52; and Barbara K. Schwartz, "Characteristics and Typologies of Sex
Offenders." in The Sex Offender: Corrections, Treatment and Legal Practice, 2nd ed., ed. Barbara K. Schwartz and Henry
R. Cellini (New Jersey: Civic Research Institute, Inc, 1995)
2 American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV (Washington, DC:

American Psychiatric Association, 1999).

3 Martin P. Kafka, "Sexual Molesters of Adolescents, Ephebophilia, and Catholic Clergy: A Review and Synthesis,” in

Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: Scientific and Legal Perspectives, ed. R. Karl Hanson, Friedemann Pfäfflin, and
Manfred Lütz (Vatican: Libreria Editrico Vaticana, 2004).
4 American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV.
5 A. Nicholas Groth, William F. Hobson, and Thomas G. Gary, “The Child Molester: Clinical Observations,” in Social Work

and Child Sexual Abuse, ed. Jon R. Conte and David A. Shore (New York: Haworth, 1982).
6 Groth, Hobson, and Gary; David Finkelhor, Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, (New York: The Free Press,

1984).
7 Lenore M. Simon, Bruce Sales, Alfred Kaszniak, and Marvin Kahn, “Characteristics of Child Molesters: Implications for the
Fixated-Regressed Dichotomy,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7 (2, 1992): 211-225.
8 Simon, 211-225. .
9Robert J. Camargo, "Factor, Cluster, and Discriminant Analyses of Data on Sexually Active Clergy: The Molesters of
Youth Identified," American Journal of Forensic Psychology 15 (2, 1997): 5-24.
Thomas W. Haywood et al., "Psychological Aspects of Sexual Functioning Among Cleric and Non-cleric Alleged Sex
10

Offenders," Child Abuse & Neglect 20 (6, 1996): 527-536; and R. Langevin, S. Curnoe, and J. Bain, "A Study of Clerics Who
Commit Sexual Offenses: Are They Different From Other Sex Offenders?" Child Abuse & Neglect 24 (4, 2000): 535-545.
11Calvin S.L. Fones et al., "The Sexual Struggles of 23 Clergymen: A Follow-up study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 25
(1999): 183-195; Richard Irons and Mark Laaser, "The Abduction of Fidelity: Sexual Exploitation by Clergy- Experience with
Inpatient Assessment." Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity 1 (2, 1994): 119-129; and Thomas G. Plante, "Catholic Priests Who
Sexually Abuse Minors: Why Do We Hear So Much Yet Know So Little?" Pastoral Psychology 44 (5, 1996): 305-310.
12 Mary F. Ruzicka, "Predictor Variables of Clergy Pedophiles," Psychological Reports 80 (1997): 589-590.

37
13 Eugene C. Kennedy, Victor J. Heckler, and Frank J. Kobler, "Clinical Assessment of a Profession: Roman Catholic

Clergymen," Journal of Clinical Psychology 33 (1, 1977): 120-128; and Thomas P. Doyle, "Roman Catholic Clericalism,
Religious Duress, and Clergy Sexual Abuse," Pastoral Psychology 51(3, 2003): 189-231.

38
3.2 SUMMARY RESULTS: PRIESTS WHO HAVE ALLEGATIONS
OF SEXUAL ABUSE

Priests who have allegations of sexual abuse of minors are a heterogeneous group of
individuals. This is also the case with the general population of child sexual abusers, who
have no consistent pattern of age, socioeconomic status, race or psychological
problems. The purpose of this chapter is to explain the characteristics of these priests,
including their demographic characteristics (e.g., age at time of ordination and offense),
their status in the Church, any behavioral and psychological problems they have
experienced and any criminal penalties resulting from the allegations of abuse.

The study produced a number of interesting findings:

• The majority of priests with allegations of abuse from 1950-2002 were ordained
between the 1950s and 1970s.

• The majority of priests with allegations of abuse are diocesan. Religious priests
have slightly more than half as many allegations as diocesan priests. Additionally,
religious priests have fewer multiple allegations and fewer allegations of “severe”
offenses (e.g., those with penetration).

• Surveys indicated that some priests with allegations of sexual abuse also showed
a variety of behavioral problems, the most common of which were personality
problems.

• Few incidents were reported to the police. It is possible to speculate that one
reason for this is because of the delay in reporting of abuse; consequently, the
abuse was alleged beyond the statutes of limitation in many instances.

• When allegations were made to the police, they were almost always
investigated, and about one in three priests were charged with a crime. Overall,
few priests with allegations served criminal sentences; only 3% of all priests with
allegations served prison sentences. The priests with many allegations of abuse
were not more likely than other priests to be charged and serve prison sentences.

39
3.3 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIESTS AND
DEACONS ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF YOUTHS UNDER 18
This chapter is based on survey data that describes 4,392 individual men ordained as Catholic
priests or deacons. The following steps were taken to achieve that number:

• 4,627 surveys were submitted based on files of individual priests and deacons.
• 68 surveys were removed as ineligible for the study.
• 143 priests were accused of sexual abuse of minors in more than one diocese or
religious community. These individuals were identified as having identically
encrypted initials and birth dates. All were also confirmed by ordination year and
seminary. The information about these men from multiple surveys has been collected
into a single entry, and the duplicate entries deleted.
• There were 41 permanent deacons, 20 transitional deacons and 22 seminarians (who
were later ordained) among the group of men accused of sexual abuse of minor
children. Since there were few deacons, it should be understood that they are
included when priests are mentioned.
• Not all questions were answered on each survey; as a result, each table shows the
available responses, and the total will change from table to table.

Birth dates of the clerics accused of sexual abuse of minors during the study period span more
than a century–from 1867 to 1973 (Table 3.3.1). The ordination dates show a similar range, from
1890 to 2000 (Table 3.3.2). However, the majority of men in this study were born between 1920
and 1950, and were ordained in their mid- to late-twenties. Almost 50% of these men were
ordained at ages 26 or 27, and 75% were ordained between the ages of 26 and 30. The majority
were ordained after 1950.

Table 3.3.1 DECADE OF BIRTH

Decade Count Percent Cumulative

1860 - 1899 88 2.2% 2.2% The year of a priest or
1900 - 1909 189 4.7% 6.9% deacon’s birth was
provided for 4,019
1910 - 1919 430 10.7% 17.6% individuals, or 91.5% of
those reported in the
1920 - 1929 839 20.9% 38.5% surveys.
1930 - 1939 1,049 26.1% 64.6%
1940 - 1949 1,003 25.0% 89.5%
1950 - 1959 336 8.4% 97.9%
1960 - 1969 80 2.0% 99.9%
1970 - 1979 5 .1% 100.0%
Total 4,019 100.0%

40
Table 3.3.2 DECADE OF ORDINATION

Decade Count Percent Cumulative

1890 - 1919 33 .8% .8%

The year of ordination was
1920 - 1929 79 2.0% 2.8% provided for 4,034 priests
1930 - 1939 245 6.1% 8.8% and deacons, or 91.6% of
those reported in the
1940 - 1949 501 12.4% 21.3% surveys.
1950 - 1959 931 23.1% 44.3%
1960 - 1969 1,021 25.3% 69.7%
1970 - 1979 791 19.6% 89.3%
1980 - 1989 339 8.4% 97.7% Canon law establishes the
1990 - 2002 94 2.3% 100.0% age for ordination.
In 1983, Canon Law
Total 4,034 100.0% established the minimum
age for ordination as 24. In
earlier years, it would have
been possible to be
The average age at the time of ordination of those included in this ordained to minor orders at
study did not change between 1880 and 1979, but has risen a younger age. With
significantly in the last 20 years to 35 in the period between 1990 respect to those ordained
before the mid-1950s, we
and 2002. This change in age at time of ordination, observed in
cannot be sure how those
this subset of all men ordained to the Catholic priesthood, is who completed the surveys
consistent with an overall trend in the Catholic Church. If all are understood ordination date
considered, the average age at the time of ordination for a and whether the date
reported is ordination to a
diocesan priest in this study is 28 and for a religious priest, 29.
minor order or ordination to
the priesthood.

Table 3.3.3 AGE AT TIME OF ORDINATION

Age Count Percent

18 - 24 175 4.4% The age at ordination was
calculated by subtracting
25 - 29 2,837 71.9% the year of birth from the
30 -34 649 16.4% year of ordination.
Information on both ages
35 - 39 172 4.4% was available for 3,945
priests and deacons.
40 - 49 77 2.0%
50 - 59 28 .7%
60 + 7 .2%
Total 3,945 100.0%

41
Only 1% of the men in this study were married at the time an
allegation of sexual abuse was made against them.
The deaconate is the first
stage of ordained ministry.
Table 3.3.4 CLERIC’S MARITAL STATUS Both married and
unmarried men may be
ordained as permanent
Status Count Percent
deacons.
Married 51 1.2%
Not Married 4,218 98.8%
Total 4,269 100.0%

Some priests held more

The clerical status at the time the allegation was made is shown than one clerical position
below in Table 3.3.5. 172 individual priests held more than one during the period of
alleged abuse. Twelve
status during the period covered by the accusation of abuse. priests held the status of
Overall, 69.4 % of the accused priests were diocesan priests and bishop at some point during
22.1% were religious priests. the period of alleged
abuse. Nine bishops who
were the subject of
Table 3.3.5 CLERICAL STATUS AT TIME OF ALLEGATION allegations held more than
one clerical status.
Clerical status Count Percent

Diocesan Priest 2,915 69.4%

Seminarians or brothers who
Religious Priest 929 22.1% had been the subject of
Extern Priest 208 4.9% allegations before they
were ordained were
Eparchian Priest 14 .3% included in the study as
Transitional long as they proceeded to
19 .5% ordination.
Deacon
Permanent
42 1.0%
Deacon The total of 4,211 shown in
Bishop 12 .1% Table 3.3.5 is less than the
overall total of 4,392
Seminarian 21 .5% because not all survey
Other 51 1.2% forms provided information
about clerical status.
Total 4,211 100.0%

As a whole, the known population of sexual offenders is older than

the population of other types of offenders. However, those who
have more victims and are more serious offenders tend to have an
earlier age of onset. Paraphilias often develop prior to adulthood,
and adult sex offenders who had sexual convictions as
adolescents generally commit both more offenses and more
serious offenses as adults when compared with those who were
not juvenile-onset offenders.

42
Table 3.3.6 AGE OF PRIEST AT FIRST INSTANCE OF
ALLEGED ABUSE

Age in Years Count Percent

18 – 24 105 3.3%
25 – 29 541 17.0%
30 – 34 718 22.6%
35 – 39 570 17.9%
40 – 44 406 12.8%
45 – 49 316 9.9%
50 – 59 345 10.9%
60 – 69 125 3.9%
70 – 90 50 1.6%
Totals 3,176 100.0%

Table 3.3.7 AGE OF PRIEST AT FIRST INSTANCE OF

ALLEGED ABUSE, DIOCESAN & RELIGIOUS

Age in Diocesan Diocesan Religious Religious

Years Count Percent Count Percent

18 - 24 86 3.4% 18 3.1%

25 – 29 488 19.3% 45 7.7%

30 – 34 587 23.3% 112 19.2%

35 – 39 438 17.4% 123 21.1%

40 – 44 308 12.2% 89 15.3%

45 – 49 229 9.1% 77 13.2%

50 – 59 259 10.3% 75 12.9%

60 – 69 95 3.8% 28 4.8%

70 - 90 32 1.3% 15 2.6%

Total 2522 100.0% 582 100.0%

43
The average age of a priest at the first incident or allegation of
child sexual abuse is 39 if all surveys are considered, and the
median is 35. The average and median both rise gradually from
late 30s to late 40s between 1950 and 2002.

Table 3.3.8 CHANGE IN AGE AT FIRST INSTANCE OF

ALLEGED ABUSE, 1950 – 2002 BY DECADE

Time Period Average Age Median Age

1950 - 1959s 38 36

1960 - 1960s 37 35

1970 - 1970s 37 35

1980 - 1980s 42.5 39

1990 - 1990s 47 45

2000 - 2002 48 48

Overall 39 35

44
3.4 PRIESTS WITH BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS

Mental health and treatment professionals have found that it is not uncommon for those who
engage in child sexual abuse to demonstrate other behavioral and psychological problems as
well. Studies on co-occurrence of sexual offending and other problems have consistently found
high rates of personality dysfunction1 as well as major mental disorders such as anxiety or
depression.2 Similarly, alcohol or substance abuse problems are frequently present among those
who engage in child sexual abuse.3 Studies which have examined clergy who sexually abuse
minors with co-occurring problems have found them to exhibit fewer psychological problems
than other sex offenders.4 However, methodological limitations preclude firm conclusions about
groups of clergy who offend.

To examine the co-existence of child sexual abuse and other problems, the study instruments
inquired about other types of problems that were evident from a priest’s files. The question
asked specifically about whether the priest had a history of abuse that was either indicated in
the record or known to the diocese; whether he had a history of substance abuse; whether
there had been questions raised about his fitness for ministry and whether he had manifested
other behavioral problems. Records of 1,400 priests and deacons, nearly one in three of those
against whom allegations of sexual abuse of a youth under 18 were made, showed a history of
substance abuse, questions about his “fitness for ministry” or behavioral problems.

According to information contained in Church records, very few priests accused of sexual abuse
had themselves been victims of abuse. It should be kept in mind, however, that unless a priest
self-disclosed his own prior abuse or it had been specifically raised as an issue, there might not
have been an indication of abuse in Church files. Of the 4, 392 priests and deacons, 279, or 6.8%
of the total number, were reported to have been abused (see Table 3.4.1 for breakdown of this
number by type of abuse). Of these, a smaller number, 67 reported multiple forms of abuse.
Almost half of the priests whose records indicated prior sexual or physical abuse also suffered
verbal and emotional abuse.

45
Table 3.4.1 PRIESTS WITH A HISTORY OF VICTIMIZATION,
BY TYPE OF ABUSE

Type of Abuse Count % of Total The files for 68 priests

Physical abuse 40 14.60% included information
indicating that they had
Sexual abuse 178 64.96% experienced more than
one form of abuse during
Physical & Sexual 20 7.3% childhood.
Emotional abuse 32 11.68%
Other 4 1.46%
Total 274 100%

When there was a history of childhood abuse, the most frequent

abuser was an adult man. As shown in Table 3.4.2, of the 274
priests reported to have been abused themselves, nearly half of
them were abused by someone in their family. Thirty-five percent
were abused by a parent and 25 percent by a father.

Table 3.4.2 PRIESTS WITH A HISTORY OF VICTIMIZATION,

BY TYPE OF ABUSE

Decade Count % of Total

Mother 25 9.36%
Father 67 25.09%
A total of 48 priests were
Sibling 14 5.24% reported to have been
Other family 24 9% abused by a priest or
deacon. This illustrates that
Teacher 5 1.87% 18 percent of priests with
allegations of abuse had
Peer/acquaintance 31 11.61% themselves been abused
Authority figure 23 8.61% by a priest or deacon.

Priest 47 17.60%
Deacon 1 .38%
Other 30 11.24%
Total 267 100%

46
A history of substance abuse was reflected in the files of slightly
fewer than one in five of the priests and deacons accused of
sexual abuse. Alcohol abuse was reported much more
frequently than drug abuse, implicated in 96% of the 753 priests
with substance abuse information in their records.
The survey did not ask for a
formal diagnosis of
Table 3.4.3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE HISTORY substance abuse or
dependence. It was
deemed sufficient that the
Substance Count % of Total personnel file included an
Alcohol only 669 89% indication that the problem
of substance abuse had
Drugs only 23 3% been observed.
Alcohol & drugs 61 8%
Total 753 100%

Table 3.4.4 COMPARISON OF PRIEST VICTIMS

Abuse History No Abuse History Priests who had themselves

Substance been victims of abuse were
Abuse 93 34.4% 646 17.4% twice as likely to have a
history of difficulties with
No alcohol, illegal drugs or
Substance 177 65.6% 3024 82.6% both.
Abuse
270 100% 3660 100%

For those priests with information about substance abuse

problems in their files, nearly 72% were referred for evaluation or
treatment, with no action reported for nearly 16% (see Table
3.4.5). However, it should be noted that evaluation and
treatment referrals are likely to have been documented in the
files whereas less formal handling of substance abuse issues
might not have been included in the files, so these numbers
need to be interpreted cautiously in terms of efficacy. Of those
who were referred for treatment, Table 3.4.6 shows that more
than 85% were sent for treatment outside of the diocese (76%
of whom were referred for inpatient treatment).

47
Table 3.4.5 CHURCH RESPONSE TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Action by Church Count % of Total

Referred for evaluation 317 45.7% Table 3.4.5 shows the initial
response undertaken by
Referred for treatment 180 25.9% dioceses and religious
Provided spiritual communities to care for a
12 1.7% priest with a substance
counseling
abuse problem. In the
Recommended
9 1.3% majority of cases, more
spiritual counseling
than one response was
Provided intervention 10 1.4% made. According to data
from the surveys, 63% of
No action taken 109 15.7% those priests recognized to
have a substance abuse
problem were referred for
Other 57 8.2%
treatment.
Total 694 100%

Table 3.4.6 SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT Table 3.4.6 includes all

instances of treatment
% of instances reported in the surveys.
Type of treatment Count
of SA treatment
Forty six priests were treated
Inpatient / twice for substance abuse
46 9.8%
in diocese problems and four were
Inpatient / outside treated three times.
357 76%
the diocese
Outpatient /
71 15.1%
in diocese
Outpatient / outside
44 9.4%
diocese
This is a Multiple Response Table. The categories are not mutually
exclusive, since an individual may have participated in substance
abuse treatment more than once.

Church records for 476 priests, or 10.9% of the total in the study,
raised questions about those priests’ fitness for ministry. Another 774
were identified as having behavioral problems. The handwritten
notes documenting these problems indicated they were largely
psychological in nature (82.2% of those with noted behavioral or
fitness for ministry problems were described as having
psychological problems). If fitness and behavioral problems are
considered together with other noted problems,1,400 priests and
deacons, or 32% of those who were later the subject of an
allegation of sexual abuse had been recognized as having
behavioral problems.

48
Table 3.4.7 CLASSIFICATION OF FITNESS AND/OR
BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS
% of all
Classification of Problem Count
responses Table 3.4.7 provides a
Sexual Relationship classification of the types of
Problems problems that were
described in the surveys.
Coercive Sex with Males 18 .8%
Coercive Sex with
10 .4%
Females
Sex with Adult Women 131 5.8%

Sex with Adult Men 164 7.3% Table 3.4.7 includes

information about 1,400
Other Sexual Behavior 53 2.4%
priests.
Mental Health Problems

Suicide 12 .5%

Depression 75 3.5%

Bipolar Symptoms 16 .7%

Other Axis 1 75 3.3%

Anxiety / Stress 36 1.6%

Personality Problems
Social Inhibition,
78 3.5%
Immaturity
Boundary Problems 479 21.3%

Narcissism 38 1.7%

Hostility 170 7.5%

Other Problems

Substance Abuse 149 6.6%

Financial / Gambling 45 2%

Medical 90 4%

Legal -- Civil or Criminal 275 12.2%

The table is a Multiple Response Table. The categories are not

mutually exclusive, as a priest may have exhibited multiple problems.

49
1 Lisa J. Cohen et al. “Personality Impairment in Male Pedophiles,” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 63 (10, 2002): 912-919
2Peter J. Fagan, Thomas N. Wise, Chester W. Schmidt Jr., and Fred S. Berlin. “Pedophilia,” Journal of the American
Medical Association 288 (19, 2002): 2458-2465; and Nancy C. Raymond, Eli Coleman, Fred Ohlerking, Gary A.
Christenson, and Michael Miner. “Psychiatric Comorbidity in Pedophilic Sex Offenders,” American Journal of Psychiatry
156 (5, 1999): 786-788.
3Stephen H. Allnutt, John M.W. Bradford, David M. Greenberg, and Susan Curry. “Co-morbidity of Alcoholism and the
Paraphilias,” Journal of Forensic Sciences 41 (2, 1996): 234-239.
4 Martin P. Kafka, "Sexual Molesters of Adolescents, Ephebophilia, and Catholic Clergy: A Review and Synthesis,” in Sexual

Abuse in the Catholic Church: Scientific and Legal Perspectives, ed. R. Karl Hanson, Friedemann Pfäfflin, and Manfred
Lütz (Vatican: Libreria Editrico Vaticana, 2004).

50
3.5 PRIESTS AND DEACONS AND THE ALLEGATIONS
Statistics from recent United States Justice Department studies of the prevalence of youth
victimization confirm what other surveys have found: a startling proportion of young people
experience sexual victimization1 In a sample of 4,023 adolescents ages 12 to 17 across racial
and ethnic groups, the lifetime prevalence for sexual assault is 8.1%2
Of all female victims of forcible rape whose ages were reported to enforcement
agencies in 1992 (from 15 states), girls under the age of 18 represented approximately half of the
victims.3 The younger the victim, the more likely that she knew the person who assaulted her.4
When similar research was done with data on all victims of sexual assault known to law
enforcement between 1991 and 1996, juveniles represented the large majority of all victims of
forcible fondling (84%), forcible sodomy (79%), and sexual assault with an object (75%)5 One in
seven victims of a reported sexual assault was under the age of six.6 The single age with the
greatest proportion of sexual assault victims among all victims reported to law enforcement was
age 14.7

Table 3.5.1 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PRIEST / DEACONS,

GROUPED BY NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS
Number of
Count Percent
Allegations The Cleric Survey asked for
the total number of victims
1 2,411 55.7% who made allegations in
the reporting diocese and
2-3 1160 26.9% for the total number off
potential allegations that
might be made about a
4-9 600 13.9% particular priest or deacon.
Respondents were also
asked to complete a Victim
10+ 149 3.5%
Survey for each person
making an allegation.
Total 4,311 100.0%
Table 3.5.1 is based on the
data from the Cleric Survey.
If accused diocesan and religious priests are compared using the
above classification into four groups, the results do not differ
greatly

• 54% of diocesan priests had a single allegation

compared to 61% of accused religious priests;
• 14.7 of diocesan priests have 4-9 allegations,
compared to 10.9% of the accused religious priests;
• 4.2% of diocesan priests have ten or more allegations,
compared to 1.5% of the religious priests.

51
Question 23 on the Cleric Survey asked the respondent to report
the number of victims who had made formal allegations known to
.
the diocese and religious community about an individual priest.
These allegations are referred to in Table 3.5.2 as “Formal
Allegations.” The following survey question asked “Is there any
indication that the cleric has abused more victims than the official
allegations made?” The affirmative responses, and the numbers
associated with them, are referred to as “Potential Allegations.”

Table 3.5.2 FORMAL AND POTENTIAL ALLEGATIONS

AGAINST PRIESTS, IN FOUR GROUPS
Number of
Count Percent of all
Allegations

1 2,154 50%

2-3 1138 26.4% If the formal allegations

made against an individual
priest or deacon are added
4-9 767 17.8% to the potential allegations
known to the diocese or
10+ 252 5.8% religious community, the
result is shown in Table 3.5.2.

Total 4,311 100%

Table 3.5.3 GENDER OF ALLEGED VICTIMS,

BY NUMBER OF ALLEGED ABUSERS

Gender Count Percent of all Table 3.5.3 shows the

percentage of all priests
Male and Female 157 3.6% with allegations, grouped
by the gender of the
person who made the
Female only 991 22.6% allegation.

Male only 2,805 64% In 429 surveys, the gender

of the alleged victim was
not identified.
Gender unknown 429 9.8%

Total 4,230 100%

52
Table 3.5.4 ALLEGED VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE INCIDENTS,
GROUPED BY GENDER AND AGE

Gender 1 – 7 years 8 – 10 years 11 - 14 years 15 – 17 years

203 992 4,282 2,892

Male
41.7% 71.4% 85.4% 85.2%

284 398 734 502

Female
58.3% 28.6% 14.6% 14.8%

Total per group 487 1,390 5,016 3,394

% of all incidents 5.8% 16% 50.9% 27.3%

The data for Table 3.5.4 are drawn from the Cleric Surveys. The question on that survey that asked for a
listing of alleged victims’ ages and gender was not completed for all surveys. Therefore the totals in Table
3.5.4, when summed, are not the same as the total number of alleged incidents.

Figure 3.5.1 GENDER RATIO OF ALLEGED VICTIMS,

BY DECADE OF ACCUSATION

Gender Ratio, 1944 - 2002

3000

2500
Allegations

2000
Males
1500 Females
1000

500

0
1944 1960 - 1970 1980 - 1990 -
- 1959 1969 -1979 1989 2002

The year 1944 appears in this figure because one incident of abuse began in 1944, along with
others that began in the late 1940s, but continued after 1950. The years of abuse before 1950
are not counted when the totals by year are derived, but are included here.

53
Table 3.5.5 ALLEGED MALE VICTIMS, AGE AT FIRST INSTANCE OF ABUSE
BY DECADE

Decade Ages 1 - 7 Ages 8 - 10 Ages 11 - 14 Ages 15 - 17 Decade Total

20 115 266 87 488

1950 - 1959
4.1% 23.6% 54.5% 17.8% 100%

74 298 950 314 1636

1960 - 1969
4.5% 18.2% 58.1% 19.2% 100%

80 354 1461 668 2563

1970 - 1979
3.1% 13.8% 57% 26.1% 100%

48 170 818 585 1621

1980 - 1989
3% 10.5% 50.5% 36.1% 100%

10 29 141 222 402

1990 - 2002
2.5% 7.2% 35.1% 55.2% 100%

Table 3.5.6 ALLEGED FEMALE VICTIMS, AGE AT FIRST INSTANCE OF ABUSE,

BY DECADE

Decade Ages 1 - 7 Ages 8 - 10 Ages 11 - 14 Ages 15 - 17 Decade Total

79 87 89 24 279
1950 - 1959
28.3% 31.2% 31.9% 8.6% 100%

92 129 207 98 526

1960 - 1969
17.5% 24.5% 39.4% 18.6% 100%

46 97 164 119 426

1970 - 1979
10.8% 22.8% 38.5% 27.9% 100%

28 48 110 75 261
1980 - 1989
10.8% 18.5% 41.7% 29% 100%

11 16 75 43 145
1990 - 2002
7.5% 11% 51.7% 29.7% 100%

The information in Tables 3.5.5 and 3.5.6 is taken from the Victim Surveys and available only for
those surveys that included answers to the three questions about gender, date of incident and
age at the time of the incident. Complete responses were received for 82%, or slightly more
than four out of five, of the incident-level surveys.

54
Table 3.5.7 SUMMARY OF ALLEGED ACTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE
Number of
Number of incidents Percent of priests
priests accused reported accused of each act
Verbal Abuse 626 1,105 15.2%

Victim Disrobed 1,057 1,442 25.17%

Priests Disrobed 695 1,129 16.9%

Touching over Victim's

2,161 3,600 52.6%
Clothes
Touching over Priest’s
494 968 12.0%
Clothes
Touching under Victim's
1,848 4,022 44.9%
Clothes
Touching under Priest’s
553 968 13.4%
Clothes
Shown Pornographic
107 150 2.6%
Video
Shown Pornographic
149 240 3.6%
Magazine/Photo

Photos of Victim 126 202 3.1%

Masturbation 466 741 11.3%

Mutual Masturbation 587 1,089 14.3%

Manual Penetration 283 389 6.9%

Penetration with Object 64 87 1.6%

Cleric Performed Oral

1,068 1,477 26.0%
Sex
Victim Performed Oral
585 922 14.2%
Sex
Penile
920 1,219 22.4%
Penetration/Attempt

Hugs and Kissing 339 501 8.2%

Other 363 580 8.8%

No Record 754 991 18.3%

Unspecified Sexual
853 1,184 20.7%
Abuse
Sexual Games (Strip
78 104 1.9%
Poker, Skinny Dipping)
Group Sex or Coerced
14 52 0.3%
Sex w/ Others
This table is a Multiple Response Table. The categories are not mutually exclusive,
as an individual may have participated in more than one act during the course of an incident.

55
1 Dean G. Kilpatrick, Benjamin E. Saunders, and Daniel W. Smith. Youth Victimization: Prevalence and Implications. NIJ

Research in Brief. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2003), 1.
2 Kilpatrick, 7.
3Patrick A. Langan and Caroline Wolf Harlow, Child Rape Victims, 1992, (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992, Washington, D.C.), 1.
4 Langan., 2.
5 Howard N. Snyder, Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender

Characteristics, NIBRS Statistical Report, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Bureau
of Justice Statistics, 2000), 2.
6 Snyder, 2.
7 Langan, 2.

56
3.6 SERIAL ABUSERS: PRIESTS WITH MULTIPLE ALLEGATIONS
Many individuals who commit a sexual offense, such as child sexual abuse, do so as a result of
situational or impulsive factors. These are often single-victim offenders who may never repeat
their crime or may repeat the act only if the same or similar circumstances recur. For example,
such individuals may only act out when their controls are reduced due to intoxication, when
experiencing significant situational stress, or when an opportunity is present. Thus, their behavior
is often unplanned and considered a "regression," triggered largely—but not entirely-—by
external conditions.

However, there is a much smaller number of serial sex offenders who act out not as a result of
the effects of external stress or a weakening of inhibitory controls; instead, they behave in a
more methodical fashion using a high degree of planning. In these cases, there is a strong
compulsion to act-—a compulsion derived from a fixation on the type of victim desired and the
type of acts performed. These offenses are often preceded by years of intense fantasy in which
the act is rehearsed and strategies are developed. Offenders of this type have a very high
potential to repeat their crimes. Such individuals can be quite manipulative in the way they
approach victims and in the methods they employ to avoid apprehension. Because their crimes
are highly planned and often target particular types of victims, they may abuse large numbers
of children before they are apprehended.

Those priests who have been accused of abusing a large number of young people have
attracted significant, often sensationalized, nationwide attention. These cases are frequently
discussed along with the cases of those priests who have been transferred from diocese to
diocese and who have continued to be accused of sexual abuse of youth under 18. Data from
this study has found these two groups to be different in many aspects. Those priests who have
ten or more allegations differ in many respects from the average for all priests in the study, but
this is not as true for the group having allegations in more than one diocese or religious
community. The study received 149 surveys for priests who had ten or more allegations of child
sexual abuse—although if potential allegations (from potential victims known to the diocese) are
included, the number of priests is 252. After careful analysis, 143 priests out of the total number
of 4,392, were identified as having been the subject of allegations in more than one diocese. Of
that group, nine had allegation made in three dioceses and one priest was accused of sexual
abuse in four dioceses.

• The group of 149 priests, the “10+ group,” account for 26% of all incidents reported in the
study. The 143 priests who were accused in more than one diocese, the “Transfers,” had
a lower rate of accusation, but account for 8.7% of all incidents reported in the study
(see Table 3.6.1).

• The group of 143 priests who received accusations in at least two dioceses or religious
communities were more likely to be identified with substance abuse and behavioral
problems and more likely to be reported to the police. Overall, 64% of the “Transfer”
group saw their ministry restricted.

57
Table 3.6.1 PRIESTS WITH MULTIPLE ALLEGATIONS:
COMPARISON OF TWO GROUPS
Transfers 10+ Group All Priests
(N=143) (N=149) (N=4,392)
These data are taken
992 2,960 11,404 from the Cleric
Total Allegations Surveys. The total
number of
8.7% 26% 100% allegations reported
there exceeds the
Median for
number of Victim
Allegations, 4 14 1
Surveys received.
per Priest

Allegations And 1,078 3,248 4,840

Potential
Allegations 9.5% 28% 100%
The Cleric Survey
asked for the total
Substance Abuse 30% 22% 18.7%
number of
allegations that had
Behavioral been made against
36% 33% 23%
Problems
a priest or deacon in
Ministry the responding
64.5% 53.7% 27% diocese or religious
Restricted
community. It also
asked for the number
Police Contact 7,6% 4% 14%
of other incidents not
Charged with a yet reported that
Crime 4.6% 3% 3% were associated with
or suspected of a
particular priest.

The distribution of the number of allegations per priests is similar for

diocesan and religious priests except with respect to 10+ group.
There are only 14 religious priests in the 10+ group of 149.

Table 3.6.2 SERIAL ABUSERS BY CLERICAL STATUS

No. of
Diocesan Priests Religious Priests
Allegations

1 1,752 54% 558 61%

2-3 883 27.2% 244 26.7%

4-9 476 14.6% 99 10.8%

10+ 135 4.2% 14 1.5%

Total 3,246 915

58
3.7 CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND PENALTIES
Despite the gravity of the crime of child sexual abuse and the public policy interest in dealing
effectively with it, very little systematic data has been collected that would provide a clear
profile of those who are prosecuted, convicted or incarcerated for child sexual abuse.1 As a U.S.
Department of Justice publication explains, despite a few highly publicized cases of sexual
assaults of young children, “there is little empirically-based information on these crimes.”2 The
National Crime Victimization Survey, for example, collects data on victims over the age of 12.
There is reason to believe, however, that sexual assault crimes against juvenile victims comprise
a large proportion of sexual assaults handled by law enforcement agencies.3

In the last ten years or so, a new reporting system has been in place, the National Incident-
Based Reporting Systems (NIBRS), which has the potential to provide much more detailed
information about those who are arrested for sexual assaults against children and the methods
of arrest clearance.4 However, it is limited in representativeness because law enforcement
agencies are not mandated to participate; for example, data from a July 2000 report draws
from only 12 states.5 Nevertheless, it does provide relevant contextual information. It reports
that, in general, sexual assaults of juvenile victims were more likely to result in an arrest (29%) than
were adult victimizations (22%) although rates were lower for victims under 6 (19%) versus
approximately 32.5% for victims ages 6 to 17.6 Overall, these results indicate that juvenile victims
of sexual assault who were reported to law enforcement agencies were more likely to be male
(18%) than were adult victims (4%); nearly one-fourth of the victims under 12 were male. Sexual
assaults of children under the age of 6 were “the least likely of all such crimes to result in arrest or
be otherwise cleared.”7 Law enforcement was able to identify the offender in just a third of the
sexual assaults of children under age 6 and 45% of those for victims between 6 and 11.8

The following tables summarize whether each particular incident or allegation of abuse against
a priest led to follow-up in the criminal justice system. Of course, the range of behaviors
described in the allegations varied substantially (see Table 4.4.1), which might have affected
whether law enforcement contact was initiated or resulted in any follow-up. Overall, fifteen
percent of priests were reported to the police by a victim. A much smaller number were
reported by a diocese or religious community.

A report to the police resulted in an investigation in almost all cases (see Tables 3.7.1 and 3.7.2).
Only 384 of the 4,392 priests and deacons were criminally charged (see Table 3.6.3). The
comparative percentages for diocesan, religious and extern priests investigated by the police
and subsequently charged are generally equivalent.

59
Table 3.7.1 ABUSE REPORTED TO THE POLICE, BY
CLERICAL STATUS

Diocesan Religious Extern Total According to the

Police information in the Church’s

778 191 54 1,021 files, approximately 24% of
Report
25.2% 20.6% 26% 24.2% priests accused of abuse
were reported to the
No
police 2298 738 174 3,190 police, and some were
report independently detected.
74.8% 79.4% 74% 75.8%
Tables 3.7.1 – 3.7.4 report
information on 4,211 priests
and deacons, the total
Table 3.7.2 ABUSE INVESTIGATED BY POLICE
number for whom data was
available on both clerical
Diocesan Religious Extern Total
status and police contact.
Police
709 174 56 939
investigation
23.1% 18.7% 26.9% 22.3%
No police
2,365 755 152 3,272
Investigation
76.9% 81.3% 73.1% 77.7%

Table 3.7.3 PRIEST CHARGED WITH A CRIME

Diocesan Religious Extern Total

Priest
285 70 29 384
charged
9.3% 7.5% 13.9% 9.1%
Priest
not 2,789 859 179 3,827
charged
90.7% 92.5% 86.1% 90.9%

Overall, 9.1% percent of priests were charged with a criminal

offense (see Table 3.7.3). Although this is 41% of those cases in
which a police investigation was carried out, the percentage of
charges that proceeded to adjudication would be smaller.

60
Of the 384 priests who were charged with a crime, a majority (252)
were convicted.

Table 3.7.4 PRIESTS CONVICTED OF A CRIME

Table 3.7.4 is based on a
Diocesan Religious Extern Total total number of 4,211
priests.
Priests
193 48 11 252
convicted
6.3% 5.2% 5.3% 6%
Not
2,881 881 197 3,959
convicted
93.7% 94.8% 94.7% 94%

Of those who were convicted (priests), the following table

summarizes the type of sentence the priest was given for the
offense. Criminal penalties are specific to localities or jurisdictions,
and the charges against the priests varied widely.

Table 3.7.5 CRIMINAL PENALTIES

Three men were sentenced
Penalty Number of Priests Percent
to spend the rest of their
Prison 100 73% lives in prison, and two
others were required to
Jail 61 44% register as sex offenders.

House arrest or
7 5%
electronic monitoring
Probation 122 88%

Fine 25 18%

Community service 18 13%

Other 28 20.5%

This is a Multiple Response Table. The categories are not mutually

exclusive, since an individual may have been sentenced to several
different penalties by the court.

61
Table 3.7.6 PRIESTS, BY NUMBER OF INCIDENTS CHARGED

Incidents Count s Percent Cum. Percent

1 166 62.2% 62.2%
2 49 18.4% 80.5%
3 12 4.5% 85%
4 16 6% 91%
5 8 3% 94%
6 2 .7% 94.8%
8 3 1.1% 95.9%
9 1 .4% 97.3%
10 - 19 5 1.9% 98.1%
20 - 33 3 1.1% 99.2%
55 1 .4% 99.6%
131 1 .4% 100.0%
Total 226 100%

In trying to better understand the types of incidents that led to

criminal justice system involvement, the allegations made against
priests have been divided into two categories: those involving
direct sexual contact either by mouth to genitals (e.g., oral sex,
penetration or masturbation) and those without such direct sexual
contact (e.g., hugging, kissing or sex talk). The type of incident did
not seem to influence whether the alleged victim contacted the
police or whether the priest was ultimately charged or convicted
(see Tables 3.7.7, 3.7.8 and 3.7.9).

Table 3.7.7 POLICE REPORT BY SEVERITY OF

ALLEGATION

Severity of Offense
Acts Involving Acts Not Tables 3.7.7 – 3.7.9 show the
Row Total comparative criminal
Sexual Involving Sex
justice system contact for
Police
437 620 1,057 priests accused of acts or
Contacted attempts involving
penetration or oral sex and
28.4% 21.7% 24.1%
those involving an act of
Police Not masturbation. All other
1,103 2,232 3,335 incidents, including those
Contacted
with allegations of
71.6% 78.3% 75.9% unspecified “ sex abuse” or
“other” abusive behavior
1,540 2,852 4,392 are counted in these tables
Total as not involving sex.
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

62
Table 3.7.8 CRIMINAL CHARGE BY SEVERITY OF
ALLEGATION

Severity of Offense

Acts Involving Acts Not

Row Total
Sex Involving Sex
Priest
173 223 396
Charged

5.1% 4.9% 5.0%

Priest Not
1,367 2,629 3,996
Charged

94.9% 95.1% 95.0%

1,540 2,852 4,392

Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 3.7.9 CRIMINAL CONVICTION BY SEVERITY OF

ALLEGATION

Severity of Offense

Acts Involving Acts Not

Row Total
Sex Involving Sex
Priest
107 152 259
Convicted

6.9% 5.3% 5.9%

Priest Not
1,433 2,700 4,133
Convicted

93.1% 94.7% 94.1%

1,540 2,852 4,392

Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

63
If the accused priests are grouped not just by the number of
formal allegations, but by the number of actual and potential
allegations (to include the number of potential victims) the results
show that investigation, arrest, and conviction are more likely for
priests with more allegations.

Table 3.7.10 POLICE INVESTIGATION–ALLEGATIONS

PLUS POTENTIAL VICTIMS

Allegations and Potential Victims per Priest

1 2-3 4-9 10+

The term “potential victims”
refers to Question 24 on the
Police
357 264 232 110 Cleric Survey, which asks for
Investigation any third-party allegations
noted in the records. Tables
16.5% 23.2% 30.3% 43.7% 3.7.10 - 3.7.2 include both
actual and “potential”
No Police allegations.
1,807 874 534 142
Investigation

83.5% 76.8% 69.7% 56.3%

2,164 1,138 766 252

Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 3.7.11 PRIEST CHARGED - ALLEGATIONS AND

POTENTIAL VICTIMS

Allegations and Potential Victims per Priest

1 2-3 4-9 10+

Priest
117 113 105 59
Charged

5.4% 9.9% 13.7% 23.4%

Priest Not
2,047 1,025 661 193
Charged

94.6% 90.1% 86.3% 76.6%

2,164 1,138 766 252

Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

64
Table 3.7.12 PRIEST CONVICTED—ALLEGATIONS PLUS
POTENTIAL VICTIMS

Allegations and Potential Victims per Priest

1 2-3 4-9 10+

Priest
69 72 72 44
Convicted

3.2% 6.3% 9.4% 17.5%

Priest Not
2,095 1,066 694 208
Convicted

96.8% 93.7% 90.6% 82.5%

2,164 1,138 766 252

Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 David Finkelhor and Lisa M. Jones. “Explanations for the Decline In Child Sexual Abuse Cases,” ODJJP Bulletin,

(Washington, DC: OJJDP, January 2004): 11.

2 Howard N. Snyder. Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender

Characteristics, (Washington, DC: U.S Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2000), 1.
3 Snyder, 12.
4 Snyder, 1.
5 Snyder, 1.
6 Snyder, 11.
7 Snyder, 13.
8 Snyder, 13.

65
INCIDENTS AND ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO INCIDENTS AND ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD

SEXUAL ABUSE
Child sexual abuse is complex problem that encompasses psychological, social and legal
considerations. Research and theory have sought to understand the various motivations for
abuse as well as characteristic offender behaviors that lead up to and occur during abuse. In
order to understand child sexual abuse, it is important to understand the motivation to begin
offending (the preconditions to child sexual abuse), how child sexual abusers get children to
participate in sexual activity (“grooming”), and how and why the abusers are able to maintain
this course of abusive actions through rationalizations of the behavior.

When considering why men sexually abuse children and adolescents, researchers have
identified a number of preconditions to child sexual abuse. These include, but are not limited to:
the offender’s “emotional congruence” to youths (the link between the offender’s emotional
needs and the children’s characteristics), low self esteem, deviant sexual arousal,
“developmental blockage” (the failure to develop the appropriate social skills and self-
confidence necessary to form effective intimate relations with adults), “situational blockage”
(when an adult’s sexual interests are blocked from normal sexual expression owing to the loss of
a relationship or some other transitory crisis), and disinhibition (the factors that help a child sexual
abuser overcome his inhibitions so that he allows himself to abuse a child or adolescent, e.g., use
of alcohol or other substances).1 These preconditions are each variable in strength; while some
abusers may act out as a reaction to transitory stress, others seem to be driven by such a strong
compulsion that situational factors play only a minor role, if any at all.

In order to get the children to go along with the abuse, many child sexual abusers indulge in
what is termed “grooming,” or premeditated behavior intended to manipulate the potential
victim into complying with the sexual abuse.2 Grooming tactics include verbal, emotional
and/or physical intimidation, seduction, and the use of enticements such as candy, money, or
other gifts. Emotional manipulation and verbal coercion seem to be the most common tactics
used by offenders to groom their victims, including doing favors for the victim in exchange for
sex and/or emotionally blackmailing the victim into compliance.3

In order for the child sexual abuse to continue, child sexual abusers often rationalize their
behavior through “cognitive distortions,” or distorted thinking patterns. Like any other type of
offender, child sexual abusers may subconsciously use a “neutralization technique” to defuse
any feelings of remorse or guilt they have for committing the abusive act or for the
consequences of that act.4 They do so by excusing or justifying their actions, often
acknowledging their guilt but not taking responsibility for the acts. Commonly, they blame the
victims for their offenses or justify their offenses through the victims’ actions.

66
We used the extensive body of research findings that describe offender characteristics and the
circumstances of childhood victimization as a guide in crafting the questions (e.g., the type of
enticements used to “groom” children and to understand this sub-group of abusers.

1 David Finkelhor, Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research (New York: The Free Press, 1984).
2 American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV TR (Washington, D.C.:

American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

3 Douglas W. Pryor, Unspeakable Acts: Why Men Sexually Abuse Children (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1996).
4Greshan M. Sykes and David Matza, “Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency,” American Sociological
Review, 22 (1957):664-670.

67
4.2 SUMMARY: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INCIDENTS OF
ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS

One of the most important tasks of this report is to provide a better understanding of the
situations in which sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests occurred. The purpose of
this chapter is to describe who has alleged child sexual abuse in the Church, his or her
situational characteristics (e.g., age, gender and family situation), the relationship
between the priest and the accuser. and the circumstances of the abuse (when and in
what situation the abuse allegedly occurred). Through an appreciation of these
characteristics, the Church would be better able to design policies aimed at removing
opportunities in which such abuse could occur.

The study produced some important findings about the nature of child sexual abuse in
the Catholic Church.

• Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly. In
fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five
alleged victims being male.

• The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small

percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.

• The allegations of sexual abuse involved a variety of sexual acts, and most of the
priests involved were alleged to have committed multiple acts per victim.
Indeed, much of the sexual abuse reported involved serious sexual offenses.

• According to the allegations of sexual abuse, the most frequent context of the
sexual incidents occurred during a social event. Additionally, many of the priests
with allegations of abuse socialized with the family of the alleged victim.

• The most common place of occurrence was the residence of the priest though
incidents of abuse allegedly occurred in a wide variety of locations.

Whatever the motivation of men to sexually abuse children, the abuse is less likely to
occur if there are fewer opportunities for the abuse to happen. This chapter paints a
picture of priests who are friendly with the families of their alleged victims and who spend
much social time with those they allegedly abused. Several of the priests allegedly
bought gifts or gave other types of enticements (e.g., let the youths drive cars or took
them to sporting events) to those who made allegations against them. Thus, like in the
general population, child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church appears to be committed
by men close to the children they allegedly abuse. Many appear to use grooming
tactics to entice children into complying with the abuse and the abuse frequently occurs
in the home of the alleged abuser or victim.

68
4.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN WHO ALLEGED SEXUAL
ABUSE BY CATHOLIC PRIESTS
This chapter is based on survey data that describes 10,667 incidents of alleged sexual abuse of
youths under 18 by a Catholic priest or deacon, at least part of which occurred between the
beginning of 1950 and the end of 2002. The following steps were taken to achieve that number:

• Dioceses, eparchies and religious communities submitted 10,822 incident-level

surveys based on files for individual priests and deacons who had been accused
of child sexual abuse.
• Allegations determined to have been documented by more than one survey
have been unified as a single incident-level file.
• 155 surveys that were submitted for allegations made about acts that occurred
when the person making the allegation was 18 or older, and about alleged
events that occurred or ended before 1950, or that were associated to
seminarians or religious brothers not eligible for the study were deleted and
diocesan/religious community totals corrected.
• Not all questions were answered on each survey; as a result, each table shows
the available responses, and the totals change from table to table.

The extent of childhood sexual victimization is difficult to estimate though it is a phenomenon

that has been studied extensively over the last few decades. Despite the claim by many that it
occurs in epidemic proportions, most of these studies have disagreed with respect to the true
prevalence figure. Prevalence estimates of childhood sex abuse range from 2 to 62 percent,
depending largely upon the methodology used in the research design (including the definition
of child sexual abuse, sampling procedures, type of questions asked during one-on-one
interviews, and gender of the respondents). One analysis of the various studies on victim
prevalence found that the overall prevalence for male children who are sexually abused is 13
percent, and the prevalence of female children who are sexually abused ranges from 30 to 40
percent.1 This study also identified three significant explanations as to why there is such a wide
range in childhood sexual victimization rates, including the number of screening questions used
to identify abuse victims, the size of the sample, and the year in which the study was
conducted.2

The results of our study indicated that of all victims whose gender was reported, (Table 4.3.1) 81%
were male and 19% were female.

Table 4.3.1 GENDER OF ALLEGED VICTIM

Gender Count % of Total

Male 8,499 80.9%
Female 2,004 19.1%
Transsexual 2 .0%
Total 10,505 100.0%

98.5% of surveys reported the gender of the alleged victim.

69
Table 4.3.2 represents the age of the alleged victim at the time of the alleged event. If the event
continued for multiple years, this table represents the age at which the abuse allegedly began.
Each alleged victim is only represented once. Therefore, this table does not represent the
duration of abuse or the ages of the alleged victims throughout the time they were abused. For
instance, if a child was sexually abused from the age of three to nine, he or she is represented in
this table at age three.

The majority of victims are males between the ages of 11-17, and just over half (50.7%) of all
individuals who made allegations of abuse were between the ages of 11-14. The average age
of all alleged victims is 12.6. This number has increased over time, however. In the 1950s, the
average age was 11.5; in the 1960s it was 12; in the 1970s it was 12.87; in the 1980s it was 13.2;
and by the 1990s it was 13.87.

Table 4.3.2 VICTIM’S AGE AT FIRST INSTANCE OF ABUSE

Age in Years Count % of Total
1 4 .0%
2 11 .1%
3 22 .2%
4 41 .5%
5 82 1.0%
6 158 1.8%
7 220 2.5%
8 369 4.1%
9 362 4.0%
10 752 8.4%
11 895 10.0%
12 1,323 14.7%
13 1,141 12.8%
14 1,188 13.2%
15 1,042 11.6%
16 769 8.6%
17 577 6.5%
Total 8,956 100%

Eighty-four percent of surveys included the age of the alleged victim at the time the abuse
occurred or at the time the abuse began. It is important to understand that in retrospective
studies, particularly where there is a delay in the reporting of the events, the possibility that
alleged victims did not remember the specific dates correctly must be considered. (See Section
5.1 for a review of the research on this phenomeon, called “telescoping.”)

70
The substantial majority of alleged victims of child sexual abuse, or
almost four out of five, lived with both parents. Information about
the residence of the alleged victim was provided on 70% of the
Victim Surveys.

Table 4.3.3 VICTIM’S RESIDENCE / LIVING SITUATION

Count % of Total

Mother only 843 11.2%

Father only 81 1.1%

Both parents 5,905 78.6%

Brother(s) 29 .4%

Sister(s) 14 .2%

Other guardian 17 .2%

Grandparents 53 .7%

Boarding school 172 2.3%

Foster parents 29 .4%

Orphanage 159 2.1%

Home of priest 67 .9%

Church-related
53 .7%
residence

Other 92 1.2%

Total 7,514 100%

1 Rebecca Bolen and Maria Scannapieco, “Prevalence of Child Sexual Abuse: A

Corrective Metanalysis” Social Service Review (1999): 281.

2 Bolen and Scannapieco.

71
4.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY CATHOLIC
PRIESTS
Many efforts have been made to assess the abuse experiences of those who have been victims
of child sexual abuse, from attempts to collect population data at the national level to small
clinical studies done with a few survivors of sexual abuse. These studies generally tend to
chronicle the types of behaviors engaged in by child sexual abusers, and primarily report
percentages of the sample that experienced each form of abuse (e.g., intercourse, oral sex,
fondling, pornography). A number of studies have compared male and female victims,
although most of the male victim samples have been too small to allow for broad
generalizations.

Looking at Table 4.4.1, it is clear that many of the allegations of abuse include more than one
type of sexual act1. Several points are significant:

• The categories are not mutually exclusive. In other words, the abusers could have
committed multiple types of abuses.

• Very few priests have allegations of only the least severe of the abuses. Only 148 priests
(2.9%) allegedly committed act of verbal abuse and/or pornography offenses without
more severe offenses. Only 395 priests (9.0%) allegedly committed offenses involving
touching over the clothes only without also committing a more severe offense.

• Touching under the victim’s clothes is the most common act alleged. However, only 695
(15.8%) priests committed that as the only or the most serious of their alleged offenses.
This means that when this abuse was alleged, it usually included a more serious offense
as well.

• There are 69 incidents for which the most serious act alleged is sexual talk. These
incidents represent seven-tenths of one percent, or .7% of the 9,630 surveys that reported
details about the behavior that was alleged to have taken place. If sexual talk and the
use of pornography are counted together, for cases where no further sexual abuse was
alleged, there are 141 incidents, or 1.5% of the total.

• If talk and/or pornography use are considered together with either touching under the
priest’s or victim’s clothing, and nothing more serious is alleged, the total number of such
incidents is 1,196, or 12.4% of the total.

• If hugging and kissing, the removal of clothing, or masturbation is counted along with the
acts outlined above, the total number of incidents jumps to 4,167, or 43% of the total.

• If incidents that include acts of oral sex or sexual penetration are counted alone, they
total 3,280, or 34%.

72
Table 4.4.1 ALLEGED ACTS OF ABUSE, BY GENDER
Behavior Alleged GENDER Combined
Males Females Totals
Verbal (sexual talk) 885 215 1,100
11.5% 12% 11.6%
Shown Pornography 223 9 232
2.9% .5% 2.4%
Shown Porn videos 142 6 148
The category of “other”
1.8% .3% 1.6% includes a wide array
Touch Over Cleric’s 704 165 869 of behaviors, including
Clothes voyeuristic and sadistic
9.1% 9.2% 9.2%
acts. Unspecified sex
Touch Over Victim’s 2,862 691 3,553 act refers to surveys
Clothes
37.2% 38.6% 37.4% that indicate sexual
Touch Under Victim’s 3,280 701 3,981 acts but do not identify
Clothes particular acts.
42.6% 39.2% 42%
Cleric Disrobed 944 177 1,121
12.3% 9.9% 11.8%
Victim Disrobed 1,112 303 1,415
14.4% 16.9% 14.9%
Photos of Victim 169 32 201
2.2% 1.8% 2.1%
Sexual Games 96 8 104
1.2% .4% 1.1%
Hugging & Kissing 324 175 499
4.2% 9.8% 5.3%
Masturbation 663 71 734
8.6% 4.0% 7.7%
Mutual Masturbation 1,049 29 1,078
13.6 1.6% 11.4%
Cleric Perform Oral Sex 1,186 274 1,460
15.4% 15.9% 15.4%
Victim Performed Oral Sex 799 115 914
10.4% 6.4% 9.6
Manual Penetration 192 195 387
2.5% 10.9% 4.1%
Penetration with Object 61 26 87
.8% 1.5% .9%
Penile Penetration 990 213 1,203
12.9% 11.9% 12.7%
Group or Coerced Sex 48 4 52
.6% .2% .5%
Unspecified Sex Act 942 204 1,146
12.2% 11.4% 12.1%
Other 490 87 577
6.4% 4.9% 6.1%
This is a Multiple Response Table. The categories are not mutually exclusive.

73
The majority of allegations of sexual abuse were made against priests
who were accused of having committed abusive acts more than one
time. Only slightly more than one quarter (29%) of the allegations
involve only a single instance of abuse.

Table 4.4.2 NUMBER OF TIMES ABUSED, PER VICTIM

Question 8 on the Victim
No. of times abused Count Percent Survey asked how many
times the victim was
Once 2,759 29% abused. The choices were
‘once,’ ‘more than once,’
More than once 1,734 18.3% and ‘numerous.’

Numerous times 5,002 52.7%

Total 9,493 100%

Child sexual abusers who plan their abusive acts indulge in what is
termed “grooming” behavior. Grooming is a pre-meditated
behavior intended to manipulate the potential victim into
complying with the sexual abuse. Some methods by which child
sexual abusers approach and initiate sexual activity with their
victims include verbal and/or physical intimidation, seduction,
emotional blackmail, and the use of enticements such as candy,
money, or other gifts The tactics used by offenders depend
somewhat on the potential victim’s response to the tactic. If an
offender encounters little to no resistance from the potential
victim, he will continue to use the same tactic repeatedly. If,
however, some resistance is encountered, the offender may either
change the tactic and/or become more forceful in his endeavor.
Table 4.4.3 shows the number of priests who allegedly threatened
those who accused them of abuse, and Table 4.4.4 shows the type
of threat that was used. Both tables display the information by
gender.
Approximately half of the
incident-level surveys
Table 4.4.3 THREATS BY VICTIM’S GENDER (5,761) included information
on the use of threats. Table
4.4.3 is therefore based on
Victim Threatened? Male Female Total only 50% of the reported
incidents. If the number of
527 208 835 incidents that involved a
Yes threat to the victim is
14% 16.8% 14.6% expressed as a percentage
of all reported incidents,
3,853 1,033 4,886 7.8% of all alleged victims
No were threatened in some
86% 83.2% 84.5% way.

Gender Totals 4,480 1,241 100%

74
Table 4.4.4 TYPE OF THREATS BY VICTIM’S GENDER

GENDER

Type of Threat Male Female Totals

Physical Threat with 30 13 43

Weapon
3.6% 5.0% 4.0%

Physical Threat 74 21 95
without Weapon
8.9% 8.1% 8.7%

Verbal (Harm to 179 65 244

Victim)
21.6% 25% 22.4%

Verbal (Harm to 34 8 42
Cleric)
4.1% 3.1% 3.9%

Threatened Family 26 12 38

3.1% 4.6% 3.5%

Threatened Exposure 65 24 89

7.9% 9.2% 8.2%

Spiritual Manipulation 173 55 228

20.9% 21.2% 21%

Other 128 40 168

15.5% 15.4% 15.4%

All of the Above 128 22 141

14.4% 8.5% 13%

Gender Totals 828 260 1088

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

The use of gifts and other enticements to participate is sexual

behavior is a common method of grooming potential victims.
Tables 4.4.6 and 4.4.7 show the extent of and types of gifts and
enticements made to alleged victims of sexual abuse by Catholic
priests and deacons.. Gifts and enticements were recorded
separately, and surveys showed that in 837 alleged incidents, a gift
had been given. Accused priests used enticements in 1,834
incidents, or 17% of the total number of reported incidents.

75
Table 4.4.5 GIFTS TO VICTIMS

Gifts Given to Victim? Count Percent

Yes 837 18.2%

No 3,769 81.8%

Total 4,606 100%

Table 4.4.6 ENTICEMENTS OFFERED BY PRIEST

Type of Enticement Count Percent of

Incidents
Allowed to Stay Up 130 7.1%

Allowed to Drive 148 8.1%

Access to Pornography 151 8.2%

Special Church Activities 89 4.9%

Alcohol/Drugs 712 38.8%

Taken to Sports/Rec. Events 427 23.3%

Stay Overnight with Cleric 559 30.5%

Sports-Related 22 1.2%

Travel 67 3.7%

Food 33 1.8%

Toys, Other Gifts 7 .4%

Money 377 20.6%

Other 281 15.3%

This is a Multiple Response Table. The categories are not mutually

exclusive, as a priest may have employed more than one form of
enticement. Percentages are of the 1,834 incidents involving
enticements.

If the number of incidents that involved gifts is added to the

number of incidents that involved enticements, the results is 2,231
incidents, or 20.9% of all reported incidents of abuse.

76
Some sex offenders in the general population use alcohol or drugs
as a disinhibitor, or as a way to reduce their inhibitions and allow
them to offend with reduced feelings of guilt and shame. Some
sex offenders also offer drugs and/or alcohol to their victims to
entice them to participate in sexual behavior. Tables 4.4.8 and
4.4.9 display drug/alcohol use by alleged offenders and victims
respectively.
Question 31 on the Victim
Survey asked whether the
Table 4.4.7 DRUG/ALCOHOL USE BY PRIEST victim was under the
influence of alcohol or
drugs at the time of the
alleged incident, and
Priest Used Drugs/Alcohol Count Percent
Question 32 asked about
the accused priest or
Yes 988 21.6%%
deacon. The study does
not have detailed
No 3,596 78.4%
information about the
source or type of intoxicant
Total 4,584 100%
used.

Table 4.4.8 DRUG/ALCOHOL USE BY VICTIM

The percentages in Tables
Victim Used Drugs/Alcohol Count Percent 4.4.7 and 4.4.8 are based
on the total number of
surveys that included
Yes 854 15.1%
answers to the Questions 31
and 32.
No 4,789 84.9%

Total 5,643 100.0%

1
A very substantial number of surveys recorded sexual acts without giving any
further information about them.

77
4.5 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ABUSE ALLEGATIONS
The following section describes characteristics of the alleged abuse. Information from this
section was obtained through the surveys of the incidents completed for each allegation of abuse
of a child by a priest or deacon. These data present contextual factors associated with the
reported incidents including where and when the event took place. This section also describes
the social relationships of the priests with the alleged victims' families: their Church assignment at the time
the abuse was alleged to
have occurred; their relationship (if any) with the family of the child involved; and any relationship
with the siblings of the alleged victim.

These variables paint a picture of the circumstances surrounding reported incidents of abuse,
which may aid clinicians in their understanding of such behaviors in the population of priests who
abuse children. Most importantly, however, these factors may be useful in designing policies and
procedures to prevent abuse from occurring in the future. Table 4.5.1 represents the decades in
which the abuse allegedly occurred, or the date it began if it occurred over multiple decades.

Table 4.5.1 ALLEGED INCIDENTS, BY DECADE

Cumulative
Decade Count Percent
Percent

1950s 913 9.94% 9.94% This table summarizes the

total numbers of acts
alleged by the decade
1960s 2,402 26.14% 36.08% when they began. It is
important to note that it
does not include the
1970s 3,245 35.32% 71.4% duration of the alleged
abuse if it occurred in more
than one time period.
1980s 2,048 22.29% 93.69%

1990s 500 5.44% 99.13%

2000-2002 80 .87% 100%

Total 9,188 100.0

78
As Table 4.5.2 makes clear, the majority of priests, approximately
67%, were serving as either the pastor or associate pastor in their
parish when the abuse was alleged to have occurred. A little over
10% of priests were resident priests at the time and approximately
9% were serving in the parish in some other capacity. Thus, the bulk
of incidents were reported to have occurred in the context of the
priest serving in leading capacity within the parish. Other roles,
such as teacher in a school, were present as well but characterize
far fewer incidents.

Table 4.5.2 PRIEST’S PRIMARY FUNCTION AT TIME OF

ALLEGED INCIDENT
Percent of accused
Priest’s Function Count
priests

Pastor 2,463 25.1%

Associate Pastor 4,150 42.3% Some priests were serving

multiple functions in the
community at the time
Resident Priest 1,023 10.4% allegations were made
against them. This list,
Teacher (grades 1-8) 55 .5% however, included the
primary function of the
priests at the time of their
Teacher (grades 9-12) 654 6.7% allegations.

Seminary
184 1.8%
Administrator/Faculty

Chaplain 264 2.7%

Bishop, Vicar,
33 .3%
Cardinal, Chancellor.

Deacon or Seminarian 77 .8%

Other Parish Roles 883 9%

Relative of alleged
39 .4%
victim

Total 9,822 100%

79
Table 4.5.3 contains categories representing reported incidents of
abuse, some of which were single- instances and others based
upon multiple instances of abuse over a period of time. Therefore,
some incidents reflect abuse in more than one location. However,
the most commonly reported location where the incident took
place was the priest’s residence/parish residence. This was the
location of at least one instance of abuse for 41% of reported
allegations. Incidents were reported to have occurred in the
church in approximately 16% of the cases, and in the victim’s
home in approximately 12% of the cases. In almost one quarter of
the cases, no record of location was reported.

Table 4.5.3 LOCATION OF ABUSE

Place Count Percent of cases

In school 939 10.3%

In a hotel room 675 7.4%

Retreat house 133 1.5%

Priest’s home / Parish
3730 40.9%
residence
Vacation house 941 10.3%
Other residences
49 .5%
(friends, family, etc.)
Congregate
51 .6%
residences
In victim’s home 1131 12.4%

Priest’s office 685 7.5%

In church 1483 16.3%

In the hospital 75 .8%

In a car 897 9.8%

Outings (camp, park,
757 8.3%
pool, etc.)
Other location 571 6.3%

No record of location 2109 23.1%

This is a multiple response table. The categories are not mutually

exclusive since an incident of abuse may have taken place over
time and in more than one place,

80
Table 4.5.4 shows the situations when the abuse allegedly
occurred. These varied widely. Social events were the most
common context (20%), followed by travel with the priest (17.8%)
and visiting or working at the rectory or priest’s place of residence
(approximately 15%), and travel with the priest to church-related
activities. It should be noted that 168 (or almost 2 percent of
incidents) were alleged to have occurred during the sacrament of
reconciliation. No record of the situation when abuse occurred
was present in 30% of cases.

Table 4.5.4 SITUATIONS WHEN THE ABUSE ALLEGEDLY

OCCURRED

Count Percent of cases

During a retreat 100 1.0%

Church service (before,
687 7.2%
during, after)

During travel 1702 17.8%

During counseling 677 7.1%

During social event 1953 20.4%

During reconciliation 168 1.8%

During sporting event 442 4.6%

Outings 296 3.1%

School hours 492 5.1%

Church service/training 39 .4%

Priest visited home of
394 4.1%
alleged victim
Hospital visit 13 .1%
Visiting/working at
1405 14.7%
priest’s home/rectory
Other 752 7.9%

No record of location 3035 31.8%

This is a multiple response table. The categories are not mutually
exclusive, since an incident of abuse may have taken place over
time and in more than one place.

81
Table 4.5.5 indicates the relationship between the allegedly
abusive priest and the family of his alleged victim. In a little less
than half of the cases, no relationship was reported, but in just over
one quarter of the cases, records indicated that the priest
engaged in a social relationship with the alleged victim’s family.

Table 4.5.5 PRIEST/FAMILY SOCIAL RELATIONS

Did the priests socialize
with the alleged victim’s Count Percent
family?

Yes 2,638 49.6%

No 2,657 50.4%

Total 5,295 100%

Table 4.5.6 describes the way in which the priests socialized with
the families of their alleged victims. In cases where there was
information in the records to indicate that the family of the child
socialized with the priest, the majority of socializing, approximately
80%, reportedly occurred in the family’s home. A little under half
off the socializing was reported to have occurred at the church or
in activities sponsored by the Church. Records indicated that in
almost a quarter of reported incidents, families socialized with the
priest in his residence. It should be noted that these were not
mutually exclusive categories, so many families saw the priest
socially in one of several contexts.

82
Table 4.5.6 TYPE OF PRIEST/FAMILY SOCIALIZING

Type of socializing Count Percent

In the church 702 27.5%

In his residence 620 24.3%

Vacations/social
436 17.1%
activities

Church day activities 537 21.0%

In family’s residence 2,031 79.6%

Other 152 6.0%

This is a multiple response table. The categories are not mutually
exclusive, since priests may have socialized with the family of the
alleged victim in more than one way.

Table 4.5.7 describes the number of alleged victims whose siblings

were also allegedly abused. This information was available in
about 60% of reported cases. In 1,842 cases, or 29% of all surveys
with a response to this question, siblings of the alleged victim were
also alleged to have been abused by a priest. If this number is
expressed as a percentage of all incidents of abuse reported in
the study, 17% of victims reported abuse of a brother or sister by a
priest.

Table 4.5.7 SIBLINGS ABUSED

Were any of the alleged
Count Percent
victim’s siblings abused?

Yes 1,842 29%

No 4,508 71%

Total 6,350 100.0%

83
 THE RESPONSE FROM DIOCESES AND RELIGIOUS
COMMUNITIES

5.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORTING OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

Every published empirical study on the disclosure of child sexual abuse indicates that a high
percentage of those child sexual abuse victims who report their abuse to authorities delay
disclosure of their abuse and that a significant number of children do not disclose the abuse at
all1. The delay between the initial occurrence and the subsequent disclosure of the abuse varies,
depending on a number of factors such as the abused child’s age at the time of abuse, the
relationship between the perpetrator and the child, the gender of the child, the severity of the
abuse, developmental and cognitive variables related to the abused and the likely
consequences of the disclosure.

Consequently, child sexual abuse is significantly underreported. When victims do report that they
were abused, they often do so years after the abuse occurred. Adult retrospective studies of
childhood sexual abuse underline the delay in disclosure. In a study of 228 adult female victims
of childhood incest who were predominantly abused by males, Roesler and Weissmann-Wind
found that the average age of first abuse was 6 years, and the abuse lasted on average 7.6
years. Only one-third of the subjects in this sample disclosed the abuse before the age of 18, and
the average age of disclosure was 25.9.2 Arata found that only 41% of the 204 female
participants in her study, whose average age at the time of victimization was 8.5, disclosed the
abuse at the time it occurred.3 Lawson and Chaffin found that only 43% of their child subjects
disclosed their abuse when they were initially interviewed.4 Lamb and Edgar-Smith conducted a
study with 45 adult female and 12 adult male victims of childhood sexual abuse, and they found
that although the average age at the time of victimization was 10, 64% of the victims disclosed
their abuse in adulthood.5 In a study of childhood rape of girls, Smith, Letourneau and Saunders
found that approximately half of the women waited more than eight years to disclose the
abuse. 6

If abuse is reported years after it occurred, there may be errors in the accuracy of the report due
to “telescoping,” or the likelihood that an individual will report the event as happening earlier or
later than it actually occurred7. Several social science studies have tested the telescoping
phenomenon. Several studies found that forward-telescoping, or recalling a past event as
having occurred more recently than it actually did, is more prevalent than backward
telescoping.8 One study showed that memory disorientations, such as telescoping, occur more
often in survey respondents 55 years or older than respondents less than 55 years of age.9
Another study portrayed survey participants as showing a tendency to forward-telescope events
that were prominent in their lives.10 In other words, these survey respondents showed a higher
likelihood of recalling significant life events, such as crime victimization, as occurring more
recently in time than the event actually did. Yet another study examined the existence of
telescoping in crime victimization surveys and found that non-reported incidents were
telescoped by respondents to a slightly greater extent than incidents reported to the police.11

84
This notion reveals a propensity for crime victims to telescope forward victimizations from their
past, particularly if the crime was never reported to the police or criminal justice officials. Though
telescoping has consistently been an issue in temporal reporting of a variety of abuses12, no
empirical studies have examined this problem specifically with sexual abuse disclosure.

The process of disclosing childhood sexual abuse varies, though it is often described within two
axes: as purposeful or accidental and as spontaneous or prompted.13 DeVoe and Coulborn-
Faller found that child subjects in their study required assistance with disclosure.14 Sorenson and
Snow noted that accidental disclosure was more common in preschool children whereas
purposeful disclosure was more common in adolescents. They also found four stages of
disclosure in their retrospective study of 630 subjects who were aged 3 to 17 at the time of
abuse: denial, disclosure (tentative and active), recantation and reaffirmation. These
researchers also found that 72% of their subjects originally denied the abuse; 78% of the subjects
who tentatively revealed their abuse progressed to active disclosure; 22% recanted their reports,
and of those who recanted 93% later reaffirmed the original report.15 Lawson and Chaffin found
that a significant factor in the disclosure process was the belief of the caretaker in the veracity
of the disclosure.16 Bradley and Wood’s research also supported the notion that the role of the
caretaker is essential. Although recantations of disclosure were rare in their sample, they found
that 50% of children who recanted did so under pressure from a caretaker. 17

One model of child sexual abuse, the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, helps
explain the hindrance to disclosure. This syndrome is not intended to be diagnostic, but rather it
is intended as a clinical tool to assist in putting abuse victim behavior in context. It consists of
five components: secrecy (the abuse occurs when the victim and perpetrator are alone, and
the perpetrator encourages the victim to maintain secrecy); helplessness (children are obedient
to adults and will usually obey the perpetrator who encourages secrecy); entrapment and
accommodation (once the child is helplessly entrenched in the abusive situation, he or she
assumes responsibility for the abuse and begins to dissociate from it); delayed disclosure
(because the victims who report child sexual abuse often wait long periods of time to disclose,
their disclosures are subsequently questioned); and retraction (as in the recantation stage
described by Sorenson and Snow, the victims may retract their disclosures of abuse after facing
disbelief and lack of support after their disclosure).18 Of course, not all victims react in predicted
ways, but some broad patterns can be discerned.

FACTORS INFLUENCING DISCLOSURE

VICTIM’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE PERPETRATOR
If the perpetrator is a relative or acquaintance, victims of child sexual abuse are less likely to
report the offense, or they are likely to disclose the abuse after a delay.19

In Arata’s study, 73% of the victims did not disclose the abuse when the perpetrator was a
relative or stepparent, and 70% did not disclose when the perpetrator was an acquaintance.20
Goodman-Brown, Edelstein, and Goodman found that those children who felt responsible for
the abuse, often because the abuse occurred within the family, took longer to report the
abuse.21 Wyatt and Newcomb found that the women who did not disclose their abuse to
anyone were likely to have been closely related to the perpetrator and abused in close
proximity to their home.22

85
SEVERITY OF SEXUAL ABUSE
Research results vary in regard to disclosure of abuse in relation to the severity of that abuse.
Arata found that child victims who experienced more severe levels of sexual abuse were less
likely to disclose this type of abuse.23 This is consistent with the findings of Gries, Goh, and
Cavanaugh, who reported that fondling was reported by 80% of their subjects who disclosed.24
In contrast, however, Hanson found that of their 341 adult females who were victims of
childhood rape, the more severe assaults were likely to be reported.25 DiPietro et al (1998) also
found that contact sexual offenses were those most commonly reported in their sample of 76
children.26

DEVELOPMENTAL AND COGNITIVE VARIABLES

Lamb and Edgar-Smith speculate that “more astute” children may not disclose because they
may “anticipate unsupportive reactions”.27 They also maintain that such children may wait until
adulthood to disclose when they can choose appropriate people to tell. White, as cited in
Campis, found that older victims of child sexual abuse were less likely to disclose than their
younger counterparts and noted that the knowledge of social consequences was a significant
hindrance to disclosure.28 Keary and Fitzpatrick concluded that children over the age of five,
who had previously disclosed sexual abuse, were more likely to disclose this information during
formal assessment, but the converse was true for children under five.29 Similarly, DiPietro found
that “developmental maturation clearly facilitates” disclosure. 30

FEAR OF NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

Sorenson and Snow found that fear of further harm had an impact on a child’s motivation to
disclose abuse and that child victims often only felt safe enough to disclose after the departure
of the perpetrator.31 Berliner and Conte also noted that the fear about perceived reactions of
others prevent some children from disclosing sexual abuse.32 Roesler and Weissmann-Wind found
that 33.3% of their subjects did not disclose their abuse during childhood because they feared
for their safety. They also found that 32.9% of their subjects did not report their abuse during
childhood because they felt guilt or shame as a result of the abuse.33

GENDER DIFFERENCES
DeVoe and Coulborn-Faller; Gries, Goh, and Cavanaugh; Lamb and Edgar-Smith; and Walrath,
Ybarra, and Holden all found that girls are more likely to report abuse than boys.34 Reinhart
found that sexual abuse of males was more likely to be disclosed by a third party.35 There are no
methodologically sound empirical studies that indicate that males disclose at a higher rate than
females. Gender does not appear to be as important, however, as victim-perpetrator
relationship in disclosure of abuse.36

1For a comprehensive review of the literature on disclosure of childhood sexual abuse, see Paine, M.L. and Hansen D.J.
(2002) Factors influencing children to self-disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review. 22: 271-295.

86
2 Roesler, T.A., & Weisssmann-Wind, T.A. "Telling the Secret: Adult Women Describe Their Disclosures of Incest," Journal of

Interpersonal Violence 9 (3, 1994): 327-338.

3 Arata, C M. "To Tell or Not to Tell: Current Functioning of Child Sexual Abuse Survivors who Disclosed Their Victimization,"

Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children 3 (1, 1998): 63-71.
4 Lawson, L., & Chaffin, M. "False Negatives in Sexual Abuse Disclosure Interviews: Incidence and Influence of Caretaker's

Belief in Abuse in Cases of Accidental Abuse Discovery by Diagnosis of STD," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7 (4, 1992):
532-542.
5 Lamb, S., & Edgar-Smith, S. "Aspects of Disclosure: Mediators of Outcome of Childhood Sexual Abuse," Journal of

Interpersonal Violence 9 (3, 1994): 307-326.

6 Smith, D.W., Letourneau, E.J., & Saunders, B.E. "Delay in Disclosure of Childhood Rape: Results From a National Survey,"

Child Abuse & Neglect 24 (2, 2000): 273-287.

7 Sudman & Bradburn, (1973), as cited in Schneider, Anne L. & Sumi, David. “Patterns of Forgetting and Telescoping.”

Criminology. Vol. 19, No. 3. (November 1981): p. 401.

8 Schneider et al., (1978); NRC, (1976), as cited in Schneider, Anne L. & Sumi, David. “Patterns of Forgetting and

Telescoping.” Criminology. Vol. 19, No. 3. (November 1981): p. 401. This article discusses telescoping patterns as well as
the Portland Forward Records Check.
9 Sudman & Bradburn (1974), as cited in Gottfredson, Michael R. & Hindelang, Michael J. “A Consideration of Telescoping

and Memory Decay Biases in Victimization Surveys.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 5. (1977): p. 206. This article
describes characteristics and tendencies of telescoping commonly found in social science research.
10Neter & Waksberg, (1964), as cited in Gottfredson, Michael R. & Hindelang, Michael J. “A Consideration of Telescoping
and Memory Decay Biases in Victimization Surveys.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 5. (1977): p. 206. This article describes
characteristics and tendencies of telescoping commonly found in social science research.
11Schneider et al., (1978); NRC, (1976), as cited in Schneider, Anne L. & Sumi, David. “Patterns of Forgetting and
Telescoping.” Criminology. Vol. 19, No. 3. (November 1981): p. 409. This article discusses telescoping patterns as well as
the Portland Forward Records Check.
12Skogan, (1975), as cited in Levine, James P. “The Potential for Crime Overreporting in Criminal Victimization Surveys.”
Criminology. Vol. 14, No. 3. (November 1976): p. 318; Schneider et al., (1978), as cited in Schneider, Anne L. & Sumi,
David. “Patterns of Forgetting and Telescoping.” Criminology. Vol. 19, No. 3. (November 1981): p. 402.
13 Devoe, E.R., & Coulborn-Faller, K. "The Characteristics of Disclosure Among Children who May Have Been Sexually

Abused," Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children 4 (3, 1999): 217-227;
Reinhart, M.A. "Sexually Abused Boys," Child Abuse & Neglect 11 (2, 1987): 229-235; and Sorenson, T., & Snow, B. "How
Children Tell: The Process of Disclosure in Child Sexual Abuse," Child Welfare 70 (1, 1991):
14 Devoe & Coulborn-Faller.
15 Sorenson and Snow, 4.
16 Lawson and Chaffin.
Bradley, A.R., & Wood, J.M. "How Do Children Tell? The Disclosure Process in Child Sexual Abuse," Child Abuse &
17

Neglect 20 (9, 1996): 881-891

18 Summit, R.C. "The Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome," Child Abuse & Neglect 7 (2, 1983): 177-193.
19Arata, p#; Elisabeth Kahl, Desmond K. Runyan, and Doren D. Fredrickson, “Predictors of Disclosure During Medical
Evaluations for Suspected Sexual Abuse,” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 6 (1, 2003): 133-142; Rochelle F. Hanson, Heidi S.
Saunders, Benjamin E. Saunders, Dean G. Kilpatrick, and Connie Best, “Factors Related to the Reporting of Childhood
Rape,” Child Abuse & Neglect 23 (6, 1999): 559-569; Smith Letourneau and Saunders, p#; and Wyatt, G.E., & Newcomb,
M.D. "Internal and External Mediators of Women's Sexual Abuse in Childhood," Journal of Consulting & Clinical
Psychology 58 (6, 1990): 758-767.
20 Arata.
Goodman-Brown, T.B., Edelstein, R.S., & Goodman, G.S. "Why Children Tell: A Model of Children's Disclosure of Sexual
21

Abuse," Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (5, 2003): 525-540.

22 Wyatt & Newcom.
23 Arata.
24 Gries, L.T., Goh, D.S., & Cavanaugh, J. "Factors Associated With Disclosure During Child Sexual Abuse Assessment,"

Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 5 (3, 1996): 1-20.

87
25 DiPietro.
26 Hanson, 566
27 Lamb & Edgar Smith, 321.
Campis, L.B., Hebden-Curtis, J., & DeMaso, D.R. "Developmental Differences in Detection and Disclosure of Sexual
28

Abuse," Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 32 (5, 1993): 920-924.
29 Keary, K., & Fitzpatrick, C. "Children's Disclosure of Sexual Abuse During Formal Investigation," Child Abuse & Neglect 18

(7, 1994): 543-548.

30 Dipietro 2003. 140
31 Sorenson & Snow.
Berliner, L., & Conte, J.R. "The Effects of Disclosure and Intervention On Sexually Abused Children," Child Abuse &
32

Neglect 19 (3, 1995): 371-384.

33 Roesler & Weissmann-Wind.
34Walrath, C., Ybarra, M., & Holden, E.W. "Children With Reported Histories of Sexual Abuse: Utilizing Multiple Perspectives
to Understand Clinical and Psychosocial Profiles," Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (5, 2003): 509-524.
35 Reinhart
36 Paine and Hansen

88
5.2 REPORTING OF ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE

The shape of the distribution of incidents of alleged abuse, as was shown in Figure 2.3.1 in Part
Two of this report, follows a regular curve, rising steadily from 1950 to its height in the mid-1970s
and then steadily decreases until the end of the study period. Although the reporting of child
sexual abuse follows a completely different pattern, as is shown in Figure 5.2.1, the distribution of
abuse allegations over time that are reported in the peak year 2002, are not different from the
overall pattern of events. As Figure 5.2.2 shows, the distribution of incidents reported in 2002 is
very similar to that shown for all allegations reported over the 52 years that is the time frame of
this study.

Figure 5.2.1 YEAR OF ABUSE REPORT

Year Allegation Reported
4000

3000

2000

1000
Count

0
1950 1956 1962 1968 1974 1980 1986 1992 1998
1953 1959 1965 1971 1977 1983 1989 1995 2001

Figure 5.2.2 CASES REPORTED IN 2002, BY BEGIN DATE

200

100
Count

0
1941 1950 1956 1962 1968 1974 1980 1986 1992 1998
1946 1953 1959 1965 1971 1977 1983 1989 1995 2001

Date abuse began

89
Table 5.2.1 INCIDENT BEGIN DATES REPORTED IN 2002
COMPARED TO ALL INCIDENTS

Decade Overall Count Percent Percent in 2002

1950 - 1959s 939 9.7% 416 / 13.3%

1960 - 1969s 2,533 26.1% 966 / 30.7%

1970 - 1979s 3,445 35.5% 1,196 / 36%

1980s - 1989 2,074 20.6% 473 / 15%

1990s - 2003 603 6.2% 95 / 2.8%

Total 9,714

Table 5.2.1 compares the decade by decade totals of alleged

incidents for all reported incidents and for those reported in 2002.
The pattern of abuse alleged in 2002 and over the entire study
period is very similar.

Table 5.2.2 ABUSE REPORTS BY DECADE

Decade Overall Count Percent

1950s 53 .5%

1960s 190 1.8%

1970s 266 2.6%

1980s 1,146 11.2%

1990s 4,022 39.4%

2000 - 2002 4,533 44.4%

Total 10,210 100%

Table 5.2.2. shows the remarkable clustering of reports of child

sexual abuse in and after the decade of the 1990s.

90
Figure 5.2.3 TIME FROM INCIDENT TO REPORT

Time from Incident to Report, in years

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200
Count

0
.00 6.00 12.00 18.00 24.00 30.00 36.00 42.00 48.00
3.00 9.00 15.00 21.00 27.00 33.00 39.00 45.00 51.00

Half of the incidents of abuse were reported by individuals who

experienced the victimization. Attorneys reported one in five
incidents, followed by family members, who reported
approximately 17%.

Table 5.2.3 SOURCE OF ABUSE REPORT

Who reported abuse? Count Percent

Victim 5,327 51.6%

Teacher 36 .35%
Cleric 278 2.7%
Parent/Guardian 1,450 14.05%
Police Officer 174 1.69%
Lay Person 202 2%
Doctor 28 .3%
Attorney 2,165 21%
Self-report 174 1.7%
Other 104 1%
Siblings/Other family 328 3.2%
Anonymous 12 .1%
Counselor/Therapist 40 .4%
Total 10,318 100%

91
The reports of abuse came to the Church in many and varied
ways. Phone calls and letters were the most commons forms of
contact, followed by a legal filing by an attorney.

Table 5.2.4 FORM OF ABUSE REPORT

How was the abuse reported? Count Percent

Called Parish 290 2.85%

Signed letter to parish 97 .9%
Anon. letter to parish 6 .1%
In person/parish 189 1.8%
Told trusted cleric 658 6.5%
Media 114 1.1%
Called diocese 3,216 32%
Signed letter to diocese 2,433 24%
Anon. Letter to diocese 107 1%
In person/diocese 709 7%
Called P/MS 299 2.94%
Signed letter to P/MS 171 1.6%
Anon. Letter to P/MS 13 .1%
Legal filing 1,118 11%
Other 281 2.7%
Diocese contacted
10 .1%
victim
Other unrelated adult 35 .35%
Cleric self-reported 86 .8%
Police/any CRJ 246 2.4%
SNAP, victim hotline 34 .3%
School representative 33 .3%
Total 10,145 100%

92
There was at least one effort made to follow up the initial report in
half of the incidents of sexual abuse reported from the Church files
for this study.

TABLE 5.2.5 FOLLOW UP EFFORTS BY ALLEGED VICTIM

OF ABUSE

Second contact
Count Percent
about incident

Yes, at least one

4,938 49.7%
follow up effort

No follow up 4,986 50.3%

Total 9,924 100%

93
5.3 RESPONSE FROM DIOCESES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
The response to the allegations of child sexual abuse by the bishops, major superiors and other
priests who were presented with the problem was first shaped by the timing of the allegation.
When all allegations are considered, only one in four allegations was made within ten years of
the incident that gave rise to the allegation. Half of all allegations were made between ten and
thirty years after the incident and the remaining 25% were reported more than 30 years after the
incident.

Study data provided the researchers with two ways to understand the responses to allegations
of child sexual abuse undertaken by dioceses and religious communities—responses to the
formal survey questions and the notes and explanations that were added by those who
completed the incident-level Victim Surveys. The Victim Survey questions addressed
investigations, the results of those investigations and the actions prompted by the results. The
handwritten notes on both Cleric and Victim Surveys were recorded and coded into a credibility
scale to indicate whether the Church files on an individual priest reflected a conclusion that the
allegation about his actions was credible or not credible.

The actions and responses of the Church to allegations are various and multiple: an individual
priest may have been counseled, evaluated, provided with treatment, suspended, or limited in
his priestly capacity. These actions are present whether the allegation was found to be or not to
be credible or substantiated, but with different distributions. The survey data results for actions
taken as a result of the allegations of child sexual abuse include the following:

• The Diocesan and Order Profiles reported that 298 priests and deacons had been
completely exonerated. No surveys were completed for priests who were exonerated,
and these individuals are not included in the study statistics.
• The handwritten annotations on the surveys indicated that for 1,671 priests the allegations
were thought to be credible, and not credible for 345 priests.
• 9,281 Victim Surveys had information about an investigation. In 6,696 cases, or 72%, an
investigation of the allegation was carried out.
• Of the alleged incidents investigated by the dioceses and religious communities, a
definitive result of the investigation was reported for 5,681 cases. Of these cases, 4,570,
or 80%, were substantiated; 1,028, or 18%, were unsubstantiated; 83, or 1.5%, were found
to be false. Priests were reported to deny the allegations in 56 cases. Of the
investigations that did not produce a definitive result, in many cases the priest was
deceased at the time of the allegation or the investigation was ongoing at the time the
survey was submitted to the study.
• When all Cleric Surveys are considered, 27% of all priests subject to an allegation had
their ministry restricted by a superior.

The figures that follow show the distribution of responses and actions by the Church to
allegations of abuse. The percentages apply to the number of surveys within each subgroup
that had a response.

94
 ACTIONS OF DIOCESES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
PRIESTS WITH CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS
Of the 1,671 surveys with written support for the credibility of the allegation,
notes on 525 indicated strong support.
The percentages in this figure apply to the strongly-supported cases.

PRIEST SUBJECT OF
CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS
1671 SURVEYS

PRIEST REPRIMANDED AND

RETURNED 60/11.4%

PRIEST DEAD OR
NOT ACTIVE AT TIME OF
PRIEST REFERRED FOR
ALLEGATION
EVALUATION 273/52%
47/9%

PRIEST GIVEN ADMINISTRATIVE

LEAVE 179/34.1%
PRIEST RESIGNED
OR RETIRED
128/24.4% PRIEST SENT FOR SPIRITUAL
RETREAT 43/8.2%

PRIEST SENT FOR TREATMENT

286/54.5%
PRIEST SOUGHT
LAICIZATION
29/5.5% PRIEST GIVEN MEDICAL LEAVE
45/8.6%

PRIEST SUSPENDED
PRIEST REMOVED FROM 241/45.9%
CLERGY
31/5.9%
PRIEST RETURNED TO ORDER, OR
SUPERIOR NOTIFIED 41/7.8%

OTHER ACTION TAKEN

149/28.4%

LESS THAN
10% NO ACTION TAKEN
11 - 24% 22/4.2%

25 - 45%

OVER 45%

95
 ACTIONS OF DIOCESES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
PRIESTS WITH STRONGLY NON-CREDIBLE ACCUSATIONS
N = 215

PRIEST SUBJECT OF ALLEGATIONS

FOUND TO BE NOT CREDIBLE
345 SURVEYS

PRIEST REPRIMANDED AND

RETURNED 6/3.1%

PRIEST DEAD OR
NOT ACTIVE AT TIME PRIEST REFERRED FOR
OF ALLEGATION EVALUATION 41/21.5%
38/19.9%

PRIEST GIVEN ADMINISTRATIVE

LEAVE 41/21.5%

PRIEST SENT FOR SPIRITUAL

RETREAT 5/2.6%

PRIEST RESIGNED PRIEST SENT FOR TREATMENT

OR RETIRED
24/12.6%
12/6.3%

PRIEST GIVEN MEDICAL LEAVE

3/1.6%

PRIEST SUSPENDED
17/8.9%

PRIEST REMOVED PRIEST RETURNED TO ORDER, OR

FROM CLERGY SUPERIOR NOTIFIED 9/4.7%
2/1%

NO ACTION TAKEN
53/27.7%

OTHER ACTION TAKEN

LESS THAN 52/27.2%
10%

11 - 24%

25 - 45%

OVER 45%

96
 ACTIONS OF DIOCESES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
PRIESTS WITH SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS

PRIEST SUBJECT OF
SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS
1872 SURVEYS

PRIEST REPRIMANDED AND

RETURNED 172/9.2%

PRIEST DEAD OR
NOT ACTIVE AT TIME OF PRIEST REFERRED FOR
ALLEGATION EVALUATION 918/49%
206/11%

PRIEST GIVEN ADMINISTRATIVE

LEAVE 699/37.3%

PRIEST RESIGNED
OR RETIRED PRIEST SENT TO SPIRITUAL
545/29.1% RETREAT 143/7.6%

PRIEST SENT FOR TREATMENT

998/53.3%

PRIEST SOUGHT
LAICIZATION PRIEST GIVEN MEDICAL LEAVE
113/6% 162/8.7%

PRIEST SUSPENDED
852/45.5%

PRIEST REMOVED
FROM CLERGY PRIEST RETURNED TO ORDER, OR
115/6.1% SUPERIOR NOTIFIED 88/4.7%

NO ACTION TAKEN
49/2.6%

LESS THAN OTHER ACTION TAKEN

10% 444/23.7%
11 - 24%

25 - 45%

OVER 45%

97
 ACTIONS OF DIOCESES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
PRIESTS WITH UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS

PRIEST SUBJECT OF
UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS
824 SURVEYS

PRIEST REPRIMANDED AND

RETURNED 45/5.5%

PRIEST DEAD OR
NOT ACTIVE AT TIME OF PRIEST REFERRED FOR
ALLEGATION EVALUATION 286/34.7%
188/22.8%

PRIEST GIVEN ADMINISTRATIVE

LEAVE 195/23.7%

PRIEST RESIGNED
PRIEST SENT FOR SPIRITUAL
OR RETIRED
RETREAT 53/6.4%
115/14%

PRIEST SENT FOR TREATMENT

229/27.8%

PRIEST SOUGHT PRIEST GIVEN MEDICAL LEAVE

LAICIZATION 36/4.4%
16/1.9%

PRIEST SUSPENDED
171/20.8%

PRIEST REMOVED PRIEST RETURNED TO ORDER, OR

FROM CLERGY SUPERIOR NOTIFIED 41/5%
14/1.7%

NO ACTION TAKEN
130/15.8%

OTHER ACTION TAKEN

LESS THAN 226/27.4%
10%

11 - 24%

25 - 45%

OVER 45%

98
5.4 SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT
Although the majority of the priests and deacons accused of child sex abuse have had only one
allegation, there were two types who had inspired more concern – those priests who had
multiple victims and those who abused one victim for a lengthy period of time. The aims and
types of treatment for sexual offenders have changed significantly throughout the past century,
which is important when understanding the types of treatment clergy have undergone since the
1950s. In the early 20th century, psychologists thought sexual offending was the result of
individual psychological conflicts. As a result, many of the first treatments were psychoanalytic in
nature. They were based upon a model, which implied that offending was out of the
individual’s control. Early psychoanalysts believed that if treatment were to occur it would have
to be lengthy in order to adequately address and resolve the problem. 1

In the 1950s, psychological methods of treatment for sexual offenders began to change.2 Many
researchers at this time believed that deviant sexual practices resulted from deviant sexual
arousal, and therapeutic practices were developed to modify deviant fantasies. They took
various forms, such as operant conditioning,3 aversion therapy,4 orgasmic reconditioning,5 and
shaping.6 The focus was not only on modifying serious sexual fantasies, such as those about
children, but also on eliminating homosexual desires.

The first behavioral treatment programs were limited in scope and concentrated upon single
elements of deviant behavior. Some researchers then expanded upon these and made the
programs multi-modal in nature. Through the addition of treatment components, such as social
skills training, clinicians attempted to address the many factors shown by research to be
associated with offending behavior. Treatment providers such as Abel recognized that sex
offenders evidenced had a high prevalence of cognitive distortions, or thought processes that
allowed the offenders to neutralize their feelings of guilt and shame. He and other treatment
providers began to modify behavioral treatment programs so that they were cognitive-
behavioral in nature in order to address these distortions.7 In the 1980s, the cognitive behavioral
treatment programs were further expanded to include the therapeutic technique of relapse
prevention, which is a strategy for maintaining treatment-induced changes through self-
management. This was originally developed as a model for controlling substance abuse and
was later adapted by Pithers and his colleagues to address deviant sexual behavior. 8

Relapse prevention is said to be one of the most important developments for sex offender
research of that decade since offenders were finally trained to recognize and manage their
own fantasies and behavior.9 Other developments in the 1980s involved cognitive restructuring,
victim empathy training, the refinement of sexual arousal monitoring, and an increased validity
of phallometric testing (a measure of arousal assessment).10 The most significant addition to
treatment in the 1990s was the use of the polygraph. Though polygraph results are generally not
admissible on trials of guilt or innocence, the polygraph does produce usable information about
deception and gives treatment providers deeper insight into the acts committed by offenders
and shows whether they are being truthful during the treatment programs.

99
Although it is clear that there is no cure for sex offenders, certain treatment regimes appear to
be successful at reducing rates of recidivism for certain types of offenders. Unfortunately, it is not
possible to present definitive statistics on the reduction of recidivism due to the numerous
methodological problems associated with sex offender treatment.

The study data showed that 1,627 priests had been provided with some form of sex offender
treatment, and 1,394 had been sent to a specific sex offender treatment facility at least once.
Of those whose problems had prompted sex offender treatment, a substantial number, 744, or
45.7%, received more than one type of treatment. Of this group of 744 priests, a majority of 425,
or 57%, participated in some form of treatment three times and 244, or 32.8%, four times. The
handwritten notes on the surveys for these latter two groups of priests detailed the continuing
efforts of diocesan and religious community leaders to respond constructively to sex abuse
problems.

Table 5.4.1. TYPE OF SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT

Percent of
Type of Treatment Count
cases Individual priests often
Specialized program received multiple forms of
666 41%
for clergy sex offenders treatment either
Specialized program simultaneously or
212 13% consecutively. This table
for sex offenders
describes 3,041 instances of
General treatment/program 283 17.4% treatment or evaluation of
1,627 individual priests.
Individual psychological
679 41.7%
counseling
Psychotherapy 412 25.3%

Relapse prevention program 170 10.4%

Evaluation, but not treatment 293 18%

Spiritual counseling 224 13.8%

Other 102 6.3%0

This is a multiple response table. The categories are not mutually
exclusive, since a priest may have received more than one form of
treatment.

100
Table 5.4.2. TREATMENT FACILITIES USED

Percent of all
Facility Name Count
cases The survey respondents
Behavioral Medicine reported that 158 priests
8 .6% had been treated at a
Institute / -Atlanta, GA
residential facility more
Issac Ray Center /- than once.
50 3.6%
Chicago, IL
John Hopkins Medical
10 .7%
Center/ Baltimore, MD
Progressive Clinical
5 .4%
Services /-Cincinnati, OH
St. Luke Institute /-
465 33.4%
Suitland, MD
Servants of the
115 8.2%
Paraclete / St. Louis, MO
Shalom Center /
23 1.6%
Splendora, TX
Southdown / Ontario,
113 8.1%
CANADA
Servants of the
Paraclete / Jemez 197 14.1%
Springs, NM
Servants of the
Paraclete /Albuquerque 36 2.6%
Villa, NM
St. Louis Consultation
61 4.4%
Service / St. Louis, MO
Institute of Living /
99 7.1%
Hartford, CT
Menninger Clinic /
4 .3%
Topeka, KS
New Life Center / -
8 .6%
Middleburg, VA
Villa St. John Vianney /-
138 9.9%
Dowingtown, PA

Other 337 24.2%

This is a multiple response table. The categories are not mutually
exclusive, since a priests may have been treated in the same facility
more than once, or in more than one facility.

101
1 Organic, or medical, treatments for sexual offenders surfaced in the 1940s. These treatment approaches are not

discussed at length here because they have rarely been used for clergy abusers. The first hormonal treatment in the
1940s was an estrogen called, which proved to be fairly successful at reducing deviant sexual behavior. Despite its
benefits, it was not widely used because of its side effects which included vomiting, nausea and feminization. The idea
that sexual offending was a medical problem continued through the 1950s and the 1960s, with the introduction of
medical treatments such as medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), which is still used today with “chemical castration”
(more commonly referred to as Depo Provera).
2 It was Eysenck’s criticism of traditional psychotherapy that facilitated the move towards behavioral therapy as the

preferred form of psychological treatment (Marshall et al, 1999).

3 B.F. Skinner. Science and Human Behavior (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1953).
4 R. McGuire and M. Vallance. “Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: A Simple Technique,” British Medical Journal 2 (1964):

594-597.
5 John N. Marquis, “Orgasmic Reconditioning: Changing Sexual Object Choice Through Controlling Masturbation

Fantasies,” Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 1(1970): 263-271.

6 John Bancroft. “The Application of Psychophysiological Measures to the Assessment and Modification of Sexual

Behavior,” Behavior Research and Therapy 9 (1971):119-130.

7 Gene G. Abel. “Behavioral Treatment of Child Molesters,” in Eating, Sleeping, and Sex: Perspectives in Behavioral

Medicine, ed. Albert J. Stunkard and Andrew Baum (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989): 223-242.
8
Pithers note
9 William L. Marshall, “Assessment, Treatment, and Theorizing about Sex Offenders: Developments During the Past Twenty

Years and Future Directions,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 23(1996):162-199.

102
 COSTS TO DIOCESES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES

6.1 TOTAL COSTS

This section reports the costs to dioceses and religious communities of responding to allegations
of child sexual abuse by priests between the years 1950 and 2002. Costs to dioceses are
reported separately from costs to religious communities. Some dioceses and religious
communities did not report cost data for certain questions because either there were no
expenditures or the survey contained missing data. The data in the following tables are limited
to the number of dioceses and religious communities that reported expenditures. With the
exception of Table 6.1.1, which is based on reports from Diocesan/Order Profiles only, dollar
amounts are based on data from the Victim Surveys.

Of all dioceses and religious communities that had submitted a Diocesan/Order Profile,
approximately 80% contained a reportable figure for compensation paid to those who had
alleged abuse. Total costs by type of expenditure are shown in Table 6.1.1 and the proportions
of dioceses and religious communities reporting expenditure figures are shown in Table 6.1.2.
The total compensation paid by dioceses to alleged victims by region of the country is shown in
Table 6.1.3. The proportion of diocesan expenditures for victim compensation that was covered
by insurance was about 60% (see Table 6.1.4). Nearly three-quarters of dioceses had a
reportable figure for alleged victim treatment expenditures (see Table 6.1.5) but only 30% of the
dioceses reported insurance coverage cost data for such treatment (see Table 6.1.6). Just over
60% of the dioceses reported cost data for priest treatment (see Table 6.1.7), and roughly 30% of
the dioceses gave an insurance coverage figure for this treatment (see Table 6.1.8). Sixty-two
percent of the dioceses also reported a figure for attorney fees paid for allegations of child
sexual abuse by priests (see Table 6.1.9).

Of all religious communities participating in the study, approximately 60% reported a figure for
total compensation for alleged victims (see Table 6.1.10) and one-quarter were able to give an
insurance coverage figure (see Table 6.1.11). Nearly half of all religious communities reported
cost data for victim treatment (see Table 6.1.12), but only 10% had data for insurance coverage
of victim treatment (see Table 6.1.13). About 40% of the respondent religious communities had
data for priest treatment costs (see Table 6.1.14), and just over 10% reported insurance
coverage for this treatment (see Table 6.1.15). Half of the religious communities reported cost
figures for attorney fees (see Table 6.1.16).

These cost figures have several limitations. The total compensation figures in Table 6.1.3 are not
reliable since some reports include victim treatment costs in the total compensation figure (one
of the survey questions asked for the approximate total compensation or payment to the
victim), thereby inflating the compensation sum in these reports. Additionally, there are more
than one thousand pending legal cases that have not yet reported a compensation figure for
alleged victims, or resolved the amount of attorneys’ fees. In cases where large-scale
settlements have been made, some dioceses were unable to report a compensation figure at
the victim level because the victims’ attorney had not yet dispersed the money to the victims.

103
Similarly, some dioceses were unable to report an attorney fee at the victim level because the
attorney for the diocese may have represented the diocese in cases brought by multiple victims
concurrently. An additional limitation to consider regarding the reported treatment costs for
priests is that many victim surveys for one particular priest also contained the same cost figure for
priest treatment. The priest treatment figures, then, may be inflated due to multi-counting. A
further caution about the overall costs arises because some respondents reported overall cost
data on the Diocesan/Order Profile, but did not send in the Cleric and Victim Surveys providing
details for how this money was spent.

Several steps were taken to assure the validity of these cost statistics All potential duplicative
victim treatment costs were identified, and double counting was eliminated. Because attorney
fees were reported at the victim level, those which were deemed to represent representation of
a group, were divided by the number of victims that generated that attorney fee. For example,
25 Victim Surveys associated with a single priests and showing a $25 million fee would be divided
by 25, resulting in a $1 million attorney fee for that survey. Most dioceses and religious
communities that sent expenditure information on the Diocesan/Order Profiles provided detailed
information about those costs in the Victim Surveys.

104
Table 6.1.1 TOTAL COSTS PAID BY DIOCESES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES,
BY TYPE OF EXPENDITURE

Diocese and Eparchy Religious Order and Sum Total Costs for
Type of Cost
Costs Province Costs Years 1950 to 2002
Alleged Victim
$420,112,633.03* $55,562,202.70 $475,674,835.73*
Compensation Costs
Compensation Costs
($182,800,358.58) ($22,765,455.82) ($205,565,814.40)
Covered by Insurance
Alleged Victim
$19,828,656.56 $5,148,031.36 $24,976,687.92
Treatment Costs
Alleged Victim
Treatment Covered by ($5,019,729.33) ($524,994.36) ($5,544,723.69)
Insurance

Priest Treatment Costs $27,607,676.21 $5,785,963.49 $33,393,639.70

Priest Treatment Costs

($6,230,276.31) ($1,182,575.14) ($7,412,851.45)
Covered by Insurance
Attorney Costs for Legal
$32,033,226.55 $6,428,704.05 $38,461,930.60
Representation

Total Cost** $499,582,192.35* $72,924,901.60 $572,507,094.00*

*These figures do not include the highly publicized settlement figure of $85 million in the Archdiocese
of Boston. No Diocesan Profile contained a data point with this specific total compensation amount.
**The total cost represents rows 1,3, 5, and 7 because insurance coverage is already included in these
figures. The insurance figures are placed in parentheses to indicate that they are not additive, as
they are part of the total compensation and treatment.

105
Table 6.1.2 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF DIOCESES AND RELIGIOUS
COMMUNITES REPORTING COSTS, BY TYPE OF EXPENDITURE

Type of Cost Diocese/Eparchy Religious Community

193 127
Alleged Victim
Compensation
82.4% 61.4%

193 127
Compensation Costs
Covered by Insurance
58% 25.2%

193 127
Alleged Victim
Treatment Costs
74.1% 47.2%

Alleged Victim 193 127

Treatment Covered
by Insurance 29% 12.6%

193 127
Priest Treatment Costs
62.2% 40.9%

193 127
Priest Treatment Costs
Covered by Insurance
31.1% 13.2%

193 127
Attorney Costs for
Legal Representation
62.2% 51.2%

106
Table 6.1.3 COMPENSATION PAID BY DIOCESES TO ALLEGED VICTIMS,
BY REGION
United States
Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment
Dioceses/Eparchies
Made by a Made by a Made by a
Grouped by Catholic
Diocese/Eparchy Diocese/Eparchy Diocese/Eparchy
Region

1 $5,823,164.05 $1,600.00 $17,339,047.00*

2 $1,072,596.64 $25,000.00 $3,007,220.00

3 $1,610,752.91 $298,920.00 $5,178,605.46

4 $1,395,907.31 $900.00 $4,122,000.00

5 $4,444,040.50 $180.00 $24,719,972.19

6 $567,284.57 $500.00 $1,457,953.00

7 $1,952,707.83 $41,281.15 $15,309,988.42

8 $1,345,152.32 $90,587.00 $5,429,554.00

9 $1,010,562.26 $12,454.00 $6,169,884.00

10 $3,247,078.08 $1,200.00 $37,429,326.45

11 $3,406,149.14 $9,000.00 $9,425,000.00

12 $6,915,500.06 $25,000.00 $44,863,453.75

13 $3,885,674.12 $200.00 $28,068,887.00

14 $891,844.27 $1,395.00 $2,959,496.04

This Table does not include the highly publicized settlement figure of $85 million in the Archdiocese of
Boston. No Diocesan Profile contained a data point with this specific total compensation amount.
Payment figures may reflect either payment to a group or a single individual.

107
Table 6.1.4 VICTIM COMPENSATION PAID BY DIOCESES AND COVERED BY
INSURANCE, BY REGION

United States
Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment
Dioceses/Eparchies
made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance
Grouped by Catholic
Company Company Company
Region

1 $2,625,477.77 $651,000.00 $8,300,180.00

2 $585,489.90 $25,000.00 $2,793,462.86

3 $706,212.99 $112,500.00 $2,232,905.00

4 $1,256,124.48 $75,000.00 $2,710,500.00

5 $2,619,321.98 $5,000.00 $24,047,211.96

6 $372,204.90 $29,835.00 $1,101,248.00

7 $614,422.47 $60,000.00 $1,189,000.00

8 $957,185.94 $20,000.00 $3,637,314.00

9 $570,447.12 $400.00 $3,476,000.00

10 $1,259,092.39 $50,000.00 $8,721,612.92

11 $1,934,119.16 $45,000.00 $7,534,000.00

12 $7,817,763.40 $379,000.00 $27,151,000.00

13 $4,764,002.00 $163,800.00 $18,426,983.00

14 $422,730.80 $26,500.00 $814,000.00

In some instances the insurance carrier paid a greater sum to an alleged victim than a particular
diocese. This table does not include the highly publicized settlement figure of $85 million in the
Archdiocese of Boston. No Diocesan Profile contained a data point with this specific total
compensation amount. Payment figures may reflect either a group’s or a single individual’s
payment.

108
Table 6.1.5 VICTIM TREATMENT COSTS PAID BY DIOCESES, BY REGION

United States
Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment
Dioceses/Eparchies
made by a Made by a Made by a
Grouped by Catholic
Diocese/Eparchy Diocese/Eparchy Diocese/Eparchy
Region

1 $91,263.17 $60.00 $482,565.63

2 $227,825.60 $4,500.00 $668,250.00

3 $249,422.65 $8,400.00 $1,038,565.00

4 $266,583.81 $900.00 $887,500.00

5 $255,220.06 $1,200.00 $1,209,519.00

6 $85,521.08 $500.00 $289,143.00

7 $252,494.98 $5,184.00 $1,110,000.00

8 $67,892.66 $7,584.68 $346,177.00

9 $71,420.28 $2,454.00 $378,200.00

10 $82,352.76 $1,000.00 $416,061.00

11 $72,945.52 $1,375.00 $226,587.00

12 $91,829.64 $10,000.00 $255,222.00

13 $176,151.28 $200.00 $944,329.00

14 $33,195.26 $1,395.00 $72,076.78

These amounts represent the combined total of victim treatment costs incurred by both dioceses and
insurance companies. This Table does not include the highly publicized settlement figure of $85
million in the Archdiocese of Boston. No Diocesan Profile contained a data point with this specific
total compensation amount. Payment figures may reflect either a group’s or a single individual’s
payment.

109
Table 6.1.6 VICTIM TREATMENT COSTS PAID BY INSURANCE COMPANIES FOR
DIOCESAN PRIESTS, BY REGION

United States
Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment
Dioceses/Eparchies
Made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance
Grouped by Catholic
Company Company Company
Region

1 $122,347.21 $10,600.00 $234,094.40

2 $62,861.08 $1,590.00 $217,049.40

3 $181,040.82 $2,003.00 $592,961.80

4 $136,545.15 $56,000.00 $296,780.60

5 $105,739.12 $0.00 $255,758.00

6 $99,206.18 $250.00 $455,375.00

7 $38,973.84 $10,000.00 $96,000.00

8 $69,814.33 $6,644.00 $150,000.00

9 $52,054.80 $200.00 $127,124.00

10 $45,250.00 $0.00 $126,000.00

11 $45,374.89 $2,000.00 $158,450.00

12 $255,042.00 $255,042.00 $255,042.00

13 $76,520.00 $3,040.00 $150,000.00

14 $75,750.00 $26.500.00 $125,000.00

This Table does not include the highly publicized settlement figure of $85 million in the Archdiocese of
Boston. No Diocesan Profile contained a data point with this specific total compensation amount.
Payment figures may reflect either a group’s or a single individual’s payment.

110
Table 6.1.7 TREATMENT EXPENDITURES FOR DIOCESAN PRIESTS, BY REGION
United States
Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment
Dioceses/Eparchies
Made by a Made by a Made by a
Grouped by Catholic
Diocese/Eparchy Diocese/Eparchy Diocese/Eparchy
Region

1 $141,091.31 $1,050.00 $527,560.40

2 $692,239.40 $3,000.00 $1,273,277.50

3 $462,503.47 $33,000.00 $1,657,907.00

4 $259,958.73 $70,000.00 $775,300.40

5 $212,753.60 $0.00 $833,500.00

6 $183,556.87 $800.00 $400,000.00

7 $301,798.08 $16,428.00 $843,851.10

8 $155,687.59 $2,259.00 $440,583.00

9 $313,554.59 $45,000.00 $1,264,444.76

10 $61,692.82 $3,853.75 $213,000.00

11 $84,493.72 $3,000.00 $253,896.00

12 $115,250.00 $15,000.00 $245,000.00

13 $54,901.80 $1,183.00 $133,000.00

14 $112,426.33 $30,000.00 $375,000.00

This Table does not include the highly publicized settlement figure of $85 million in the Archdiocese of
Boston. No Diocesan Profile contained a data point with this specific total compensation amount.
Payment figures may reflect either a group’s or a single individual’s payment.

111
Table 6.1.8 TREATMENT EXPENDITURES FOR DIOCESAN PRIESTS COVERED BY
INSURANCE, BY REGION
United States
Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment
Dioceses/Eparchies
Made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance
Grouped by Catholic
Company Company Company
Region

1 $268,724.90 $2,060.60 $535,389.20

2 $217,016.00 $13,500.00 $509,657.00

3 $158,159.66 $10,000.00 $370,699.00

4 $234,506.48 $35,000.00 $761,715.00

5 $55,766.97 $0.00 $133,362.00

6 $157,336.73 $800.00 $345,000.00

7 $21,153.91 $1,532.00 $87,200.00

8 $3,631.07 $1,994.27 $5,202.46

9 $34,750.00 $18,000.00 $56,000.00

10 $45,717.19 $1,194.84 $185,000.00

11 $46,852.00 $2,000.00 $86,700.00

12 $60,500.00 $20,000.00 $101,000.00

13 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

14 $24,600.00 $3,000.00 $50,000.00

This Table does not include the highly publicized settlement figure of $85 million in the Archdiocese of
Boston. No Diocesan Profile contained a data point with this specific total compensation amount.
Payment figures may reflect either a group’s or a single individual’s payment.

112
Table 6.1.9 ATTORNEYS FEES PAID BY DIOCESES, BY REGION
United States
Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment
Dioceses/Eparchies
Made by a Made by a Made by a
Grouped by Catholic
Diocese/Eparchy Diocese/Eparchy Diocese/Eparchy
Region

1 $385,369.24 $55,000.00 $890,615.05

2 $159,144.60 $31,000 $311,595.14

3 $608,074.68 $11,933.25 $4,590,039.20

4 $169,217.69 $9.00 $712,000.00

5 $217,945.44 $470.00 $1,004,607.22

6 $166,099.96 $1,744.00 $668,698.00

7 $516,807.54 $1,500.00 $2,913,626.00

8 $194,805.16 $12,000.00 $781,000.00

9 $226,719.65 $1,250.00 $1,192,258.00

10 $337,218.00 $800.00 $2,948,102.00

11 $74,947.35 $12,500.00 $165,200.00

12 $161,105.65 $10,000.00 $431,318.60

13 $83,534.30 $3,160.82 $438,000.00

14 $306,480.05 $610.00 $1,208,000.00

This Table does not include the highly publicized settlement figure of $85 million in the Archdiocese of
Boston.

113
Table 6.1.10 VICTIM COMPENSATION PAID BY RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES,
BY SIZE OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY

Religious Communities Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment

Grouped by Clerical Made by a Religious Made by a Religious Made by a Religious
Membership Community Community Community
Group 1
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(1-10)
Group 2
$54,764.17 $10,292.53 $84,000.00
(11-20)
Group 3
$121,873.75 $22,495.00 $350,000.00
(21-30)
Group 4
$160,000.00 $2,500.00 $400,000.00
(31-40)
Group 5
$593,712.31 $375.00 $5,291,300.00
(41-75)
Group 6
$2,035,110.69 $10,000.00 $6,232,500.00
(76-110)
Group 7
$683,933.75 $2,990.00 $3,000,000.00
(111-150)
Group 8
$485,296.73 $15,000.00 $2,461,308.00
(151-305)
Group 9
$1,817,300.00 $175,000.00 $7,590,500.00
(306-540)
Group 10
$5,327,032.80 $189,110.00 $15,309,988.00
(541 and up)

114
Table 6.1.11 COMPENSATION FOR ALLEGED VICTIMS COVERED BY
INSURANCE, BY SIZE OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY

Religious Communities Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment

Grouped by Clerical Made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance
Membership Company Company Company
Group 1
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(1-10)
Group 2
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(11-20)
Group 3
$75,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
(21-30)
Group 4
$12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00
(31-40)
Group 5
$1,462,710.41 $25,000.00 $4,285,000.00
(41-75)
Group 6
$715,924.99 $391,250.00 $1,256,525.00
(76-110)
Group 7
$803,333.33 $20,000.00 $3,000,000.00
(111-150)
Group 8
$183,581.53 $0.00 $507,500.00
(151-305)
Group 9
$1,456,006.25 $21,025.00 $4,951,000.00
(306-540)
Group 10
$758,038.00 $330,000.00 $1,186,076.00
(541 and up)

In some instances the insurance carrier paid a greater sum to an alleged victim than a particular
religious community.

115
Table 6.1.12 TREATMENT COSTS FOR ALLEGED VICTIMS, BY SIZE OF
RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY

Religious Communities Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment

Grouped by Clerical Made by a Religious Made by a Religious Made by a Religious
Membership Community Community Community
Group 1
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(1-10)
Group 2
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(11-20)
Group 3
$41,883.50 $41,883.50 $41,883.50
(21-30)
Group 4
$20,312.08 $2,500.00 $70,566.00
(31-40)
Group 5
$31,953.70 $375.00 $125,000.00
(41-75)
Group 6
$24,727.10 $2,000.00 $59,126.00
(76-110)
Group 7
$70,771.83 $2,990.00 $312,000.00
(111-150)
Group 8
$174,183.14 $500.00 $2,094,484.00
(151-305)
Group 9
$91,220.00 $6,000.00 $195,000.00
(306-540)
Group 10
$225,502.49 $4,755.00 $521,752.50
(541 and up)

116
Table 6.1.13 VICTIM TREATMENT COSTS COVERED BY INSURANCE,
BY SIZE OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY

Religious Communities Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment

Grouped by Clerical Made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance
Membership Company Company Company
Group 1
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(1-10)
Group 2
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(11-20)
Group 3
$60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00
(21-30)
Group 4
$2,519.70 $1,589.40 $3,450.00
(31-40)
Group 5
$20,625.00 $2,500.00 $50,000.00
(41-75)
Group 6
$14,729.00 $2,000.00 $27,458.00
(76-110)
Group 7
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(111-150)
Group 8
$48,856.70 $0.00 $200,000.00
(151-305)
Group 9
$6,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00
(306-540)
Group 10
$33,384.50 $33,384.50 $33,384.50
(541 and up)

117
Table 6.1.14 TREATMENT COSTS FOR RELIGIOUS PRIESTS,
BY SIZE OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY

Religious Communities Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment

Grouped by Clerical Made by a Religious Made by a Religious Made by a Religious
Membership Community Community Community
Group 1
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(1-10)
Group 2
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(11-20)
Group 3
$60,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00
(21-30)
Group 4
$44,364.17 $10,000.00 $74,820.87
(31-40)
Group 5
$119,063.32 $3,700.00 $289,750.00
(41-75)
Group 6
$58,736.90 $2,500.00 $112,577.80
(76-110)
Group 7
$67,614.00 $16,000.00 $175,570.00
(111-150)
Group 8
$126,429.69 $0.00 $652,000.00
(151-305)
Group 9
$183,851.83 $6,700.00 $350,000.00
(306-540)
Group 10
$446,950.57 $50,050.00 $843,851.10
(541 and up)

118
Table 6.1.15 TREATMENT COSTS FOR RELIGIOUS PRIESTS COVERED BY
INSURANCE, BY SIZE OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY

Religious Communities Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment

Grouped by Clerical Made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance Made by an Insurance
Membership Company Company Company
Group 1
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(1-10)
Group 2
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(11-20)
Group 3
$50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
(21-30)
Group 4
$38,223.18 $24,446.36 $52,000.00
(31-40)
Group 5
$249,600.00 $249,600.00 $249,600.00
(41-75)
Group 6
$33,211.39 $21,011.13 $45,411.65
(76-110)
Group 7
$25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
(111-150)
Group 8
$51,994.44 $0.00 $187,144.00
(151-305)
Group 9
$123,578.00 $99,000.00 $148,156.00
(306-540)
Group 10
$1,532.00 $1,532.00 $1,532.00
(541 and up)

119
Table 6.1.16 ATTORNEY FEES PAID BY RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES,
BY SIZE OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY

Religious Communities Average Payment Minimum Payment Maximum Payment

Grouped by Clerical Made by a Religious Made by a Religious Made by a Religious
Membership Community Community Community
Group 1
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(1-10)
Group 2
$117,646.26 $10,292.53 $225,000.00
(11-20)
Group 3
$5,049.93 $1,000.00 $10,000.00
(21-30)
Group 4
$19,600.00 $5,000.00 $32,400.00
(31-40)
Group 5
$78,150.02 $1,500.00 $578,000.00
(41-75)
Group 6
$166,164.62 $2,260.00 $775,085.50
(76-110)
Group 7
$30,286.37 $1,021.23 $85,000.00
(111-150)
Group 8
$158,291.78 $0.00 $1,309,105.00
(151-305)
Group 9
$86,200.00 $28,000.00 $230,000.00
(306-540)
Group 10
$986,417.00 $10,625.00 $2,913,626.00
(541 and up)

120
 APPENDIX A1.1.1
QUESTIONS

The President of John Jay College, Dr. Gerald Lynch, and members of the faculty met with
Ms. McChesney and representatives of the USCCB to discuss possible approaches to the
study of the nature and scope of child sexual abuse in the Church. After several weeks of
discussion, Kathleen McChesney, on behalf of the USCCB, gave the John Jay College
faculty group a specific set of questions to be answered, and thus defined the scope of the
study. These questions were divided into four categories, as follows:

Information about the alleged offenses

° How many offenses were alleged or confirmed by conviction about any Catholic priest
or deacon in the diocese?
° What was the time frame(s) of the alleged and confirmed offenses?
° Were alcohol and/or drugs used by the victim or offender at the time of the offense?
° In what location(s) did the offense occur?

Information about those who have made accusations

° The age and gender of the victims at the time of the offense.
° With whom did the victim live at the time of the offense?
° What was the relationship between the victim and the offender at the time of the
offense?
° Where there any threats to the victim or grooming behavior on the part of the offender
at the time of the offense?
° How long did the victim wait to report the offense?
° When was the offense reported?

Information about the accused clerics

° What diocese or religious order did the offender belong to at the time of the offense and
what status did he hold in that order?
° What was the offender’s job description/duties?
° If the offender was a deacon, was he married or unmarried at the time of the offense?
° What age was the offender at the time of the first and last alleged and/or confirmed
offense?
° How many years was the offender ordained at the time of the first offense?
° How many alleged or confirmed victims did the offender have?
° Was there a civil or criminal action against the offender and what were the
consequences?
° Was the offender a victim of any type of child sexual abuse?
° Did the offender receive any type of psychological treatment (i.e., for either
psychological, sex offending, and/or substance abuse)?
° Was the offender transferred to another ministerial assignment subsequent to offending,
and if so, did he re-offend?
° Did the offender have a record of having been abused by a fellow priest and/or
deacon?

Appendix Part One 1

 APPENDIX A1.1.1
QUESTIONS

Information about the financial impact on the dioceses and religious community

° What was the financial cost to the Dioceses or religious community as a result of each
alleged or confirmed offense?

In additional to these questions, the Board and USCCB asked for the best estimates that could
be made of the extent of child sexual abuse in the United States.

Appendix Part One 2

 APPENDIX A1.1.2
DIOCESAN PROFILE

DIOCESAN PROFILE:
CONFIDENTIAL

Appendix Part One 2

 FORM #1: DIOCESAN PROFILE
Please answer these ten questions to the best of your knowledge. It should include information between
1950-2002.

1. Is this institution a(n): (Please check one)

Diocese Eparchy Religious Institute
(NOTE: If a question is not applicable to your order, please write N/A.)

2. List the approximate number of active and retired Priests and Fathers in the order from 1950 (or since the
establishment of the diocese) to 2002:
a. diocesan priests: incardinated ______ extern _______
b. religious institute priests: ________
c. diocesan deacons ________
d. religious institute deacon in diocese ________

3. What is the approximate number of Catholics in your order at this time?

5,000 - 45,000 88,501 - 122,000 239,001 - 350,700
45,001 - 66,000 122,001 - 170,000 350,701 - 475,000
66,001 - 88,500 170,001 - 239,000 475,001 - 788,700
788,701 - 4,500,000

4. What is the approximate number of parishes operated by your order at the present time?
8-35 57-71 98-119
36-46 72-84 120-138
47-56 85-97 139-185

5. Check all regions in which the order is active.

I IV VII X XIII
II V VIII XI XIV
III VI IX XII

6. Based on your review of the records, indicate how many clerics have had allegations made against them
while in your order.
Number of incardinated __________ number of extern __________

7. How many clerics with allegations have been completely exonerated? _______________

8. Based on your reviews of the records, please indicate the total number of victims who have made
allegations against clerics in your order. ____________________

9. Based on your reviews of the records, please indicate the total amount of money paid out by your order to
alleged victims of sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002. ___________________

10. For how many of the victims in Question #8 have:

__________ all of their allegations been shown to be known false
(# of victims)
__________ all of their allegations been withdrawn
(# of victims)
(NOTE: do not include these victims in the remainder of the survey)

For research use only: Dio Code:____________ Appendix Part One 3

 APPENDIX A1.1.3
RELIGIOUS ORDER PROFILE

ORDER PROFILE:
CONFIDENTIAL
 FORM #1: RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE PROFILE

Please answer these nine questions to the best of your knowledge. It should include information between
1950-2002.

1. Is this institution a: (Please check one)

Religious Institute Province of a Religious Institute

2. List the approximate number of active and retired clerics who have ministered in your religious
institute or province from 1950 (or since the establishment of the religious institute) to 2002:
a. religious priest members: _______
b. permanent deacon members: _______

3. What is the approximate membership of the religious institute or province at this time?
1 - 10 31 - 40 111 – 150 541 and up
11 - 20 41 - 75 151 - 305
21 - 30 76 - 110 306 - 540

4. What is the approximate number of priests and fathers who are now members the religious institute
or province?
1-6 22 - 35 81 – 110 400 and up
7 - 14 36 - 57 111 - 176
15 -21 58 - 80 177 - 399

5. Based on your review of the records, indicate how many member religious priests or permanent
deacons have had allegations made against them while ministering within your province or religious
institute. If any religious priests (not counted as members of your province or religious institute - but
perhaps visiting from another province) were subject of such allegations while ministering in your
province, please give that information on the second line in the category of "Others."

Religious priests __________ Permanent deacons __________

Others ___________

6. How many clerics with allegations have been completely exonerated? _______________

7. Based on your reviews of the records, please indicate the total number of victims who have made
allegations against clerics in your province or religious institute. ____________________

8. Based on your reviews of the records, please indicate the total amount of money paid out by your
province or religious institute to alleged victims of sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002.
___________________

9. For how many of the victims in Question #8 have:

__________ all of their allegations been shown to be known false
(# of victims)
__________ all of their allegations been withdrawn
(# of victims)

(NOTE: do not include these victims in the remainder of the survey)

For research use only: Order Code:____________ 2

 APPENDIX A1.1.4
CLERIC SURVEY

CLERIC SURVEY:
CONFIDENTIAL
FORM #2: CLERIC SURVEY CLERIC #_________

Please complete the following information. To ensure confidentiality, this information will be
encrypted for data analysis and this page will be destroyed.

Cleric’s first initial ____

Cleric’s last initial ____

Date of Birth __ __/__ __/__ __

REMINDER: DO NOT WRITE IN THE NAMES OF ANY CLERICS OR VICTIMS ANYWHERE

ON THIS SURVEY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND YOU CALL THE JOHN JAY
COLLEGE RESEARCH TEAM HOTLINE AT (212) 237-8539, PLEASE DO NOT SAY YOUR
NAME, THE NAME OF YOUR DIOCESE, OR THE NAME OF ANY ALLEGED VICTIMS OR
ABUSERS.

For research use only: Dio Code: ____________ AB Code: ___________ 2

FORM #2: CLERIC SURVEY CLERIC #_________

Please fill out this form to the best of your knowledge for every cleric against whom there are or have been
allegations of sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002. Do not fill this out for clerics against whom the only
allegations were known to be false. For the purpose of clarity and flow, the term “diocese” is used to refer
to all diocesan, eparchial and religious orders, societies and communities.

FIRST, WE ARE GOING TO ASK YOU TO PROVIDE SOME BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR CLERIC.

1. Year of birth: __ __ __ __

2. At the time of the alleged offense(s), was this cleric a(n): (check as many answers if necessary if the
allegations against this cleric extended over a period of time)
Diocesan Priest Eparchian Priest
Extern Priest Religious Priest
Transitional Deacon Permanent Deacon
Eparch Bishop
Cardinal Other (specify): __________________________

3. If ordained, year of ordination: __ __ __ __

4. What seminary/seminaries did the cleric attend? ____________________________

5. Was cleric married at time of alleged offense(s)?

Yes No

6. Does the cleric have a history of being a victim of abuse?

Yes No known abuse (If No, skip to Question 9)

7. If yes, the type of abuse indicated in the record or known to the diocese is best described as (check
all that apply)
Physical abuse Emotional Abuse
Sexual Abuse Verbal Abuse
Physical & Sexual Abuse Neglect
Other (specify): __________________________________________

8. This abuse was allegedly committed by: (check all that apply)
Mother Peer/acquaintance
Father Person in a position of authority (e.g., babysitter,
coach)
Sibling Priest
Other family member Deacon
Teacher Other (please specify):______________________

9. Are there indications in the record that the cleric had problems with alcohol or substance abuse?
Yes, Alcohol Yes, Drugs Yes, Alcohol & Drugs No (If no, skip to question 13)

For research use only: Dio Code: ____________ AB Code: ___________ 3

FORM #2: CLERIC SURVEY CLERIC #_________

10. If you answered “Yes” to Question 9, then please indicate what action(s) was taken to address the
alcohol or drug abuse problem? (check all that apply)
Referral for Evaluation Spiritual Counseling Provided
Referral for Treatment Intervention
Spiritual Counseling Recommended No action taken
Other action taken (describe) ___________________________________

11. If treatment was provided, where did it occur? (if none, skip to question 13)
inpatient substance /alcohol abuse treatment within the diocese
inpatient substance/alcohol abuse treatment outside diocese
outpatient within diocese (specify type of program) _________________________
outpatient outside of diocese (specify type of program)_______________________

12. During treatment for alcohol/drug abuse, did the cleric admit to sexual abuse(s) of a minor(s)?
Yes No

13. Are there other specific medical or psychological problems that raised concerns about this cleric’s
fitness for ministry? (if no, skip to question 18)
Yes No

14. Please describe the problem to the extent possible__________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

15. Was the problem recognized before any allegation of abuse?

Yes No

16. What is the approximate date the problem was recognized? ____________

17. If the cleric has multiple medical or psychological problems, please specify the year each was
recognized (if more than three, please continue question 16 on the back.)
Year ________ problem ______________________
Year ________ problem ______________________
Year ________ problem ______________________
Check here if continued on back _____________

18. How many dioceses has this cleric served in? __________

19. How many times has this cleric transferred within your diocese?
Parishes ________ Congregations ________

20. Does this cleric have allegations of sexual abuse against him at any of these other dioceses
in which he served?
Yes No No information in file

21. If yes, how many victims made allegations of abuse against this cleric in each diocese, parish and
congregation in which he served?
Dioceses ________ Parishes ________ Congregations________

For research use only: Dio Code: ____________ AB Code: ___________ 4

FORM #2: CLERIC SURVEY CLERIC #_________

22. Is it known from the files, or by other means, that this cleric had behavioral/boundary problems other
than allegations of sexual abuse of minors (e.g., letters of complaint from parishioners)?
Yes (specify) _____________________________________________________
No

NOW WE ARE GOING TO ASK ABOUT THIS CLERIC’S ALLEGED VICTIM(S) FROM YOUR
DIOCESE

23. How many victims made allegations of sexual abuse against this cleric in your diocese? ________

24. Is there any indication that the cleric has abused more victims than there are official allegations made
(e.g., victims who made a complaint claim that there are other victims who do not want to come
forward)?
Yes No

25. If yes, please indicate how many other alleged victims there are who have not officially made a
complaint against this cleric. _____________________

26. How many allegations of abuse of minors does the cleric have in each of the following age
ranges and genders at your diocese? (give your best approximation of the age range based on
information in the file)
# of victims under 8 years of age ________ # male _______ # female ________
# of victims 8 - 10 years of age ________ # male _______ # female ________
# of victims 11-14 years of age ________ # male _______ # female ________
# of victims 15 - 17 years of age ________ # male _______ # female ________

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH THE INSTITUTION’S RESPONSE TO THE

SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR CLERIC

27. What did the diocese do in response to the allegation(s) of sexual abuse against this cleric? (check all
that apply)
Cleric reprimanded, returned him to duties Cleric referred for spiritual retreat
Cleric referred for evaluation Cleric referred for treatment
Cleric given administrative leave Cleric given medical leave
Cleric resigned or retired Cleric sought laicization
Cleric reinstated Cleric removed from clerical state
Cleric suspended from ministry Other (specify)________________
No action taken

28. If the cleric was reinstated, was it:

Within the diocese, same parish
Within the diocese, different parish
Different diocese
Restricted ministry

29. What year(s) did the diocese take action against the cleric?

For research use only: Dio Code: ____________ AB Code: ___________ 5

FORM #2: CLERIC SURVEY CLERIC #_________

Year__________ Action___________________
Year__________ Action___________________
Year__________ Action___________________

30. If the cleric participated in any type of treatment to address the sexual abuse allegations, what kind
of treatment was it? (check all that apply) If no treatment, skip to question 35.
Specialized sex offender treatment program Specialized sex offender treatment program for all sex
specifically for clergy offenders, not just for clergy
General treatment program not specifically for One-on-one counseling w/ psychiatrist, psychologist,
sex offenders or other mental health expert
Psychotherapist Relapse prevention treatment program
Evaluation by mental health professional or Spiritual counseling or direction provided by the
expert, but no indication of treatment church
Other (specify):____________________

31. If the cleric participated in treatment, at which facility?

Behavioral Medicine Institute of Atlanta, GA Servants of the Paraclete, Jemez Springs, NM
Issac Ray Center, Chicago, Il Servants of the Paraclete, Albuquerque Villa, NM
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, St. Louis Consultation Service, St. Louis, MO
MD
Progressive Clinical Services, Cincinnati, OH Institute of Living, Hartford, CT
St. Luke Institute, Suitland, MD Menninger Clinic, Topeka, KS
Servants of the Paraclete, St. Louis, MO New Life Center, Middleburg, VA
Shalom Center, Inc., Splendora, TX Villa St. John Vianney, Downingtown, PA
Southdown, Aurora, Ontario, CN Other (specify)_________________________

32. How many times did the cleric participate in a sex offender treatment program? ________

33. Did the cleric complete a treatment program?

Yes No No information in file

34. If cleric received treatment, did he re-offend after he finished treatment?

Yes No No information in file

35. Provide additional information known or from the record that would assist in understanding the
behavior of this cleric.

For research use only: Dio Code: ____________ AB Code: ___________ 6

FORM #2: CLERIC SURVEY CLERIC #_________

REMEMBER – DO NOT PROVIDE ANY NAMES OR OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

For research use only: Dio Code: ____________ AB Code: ___________ 7

 APPENDIX A1.1.5
VICTIM SURVEY

VICTIM SURVEY:
CONFIDENTIAL
FORM # 3: VICTIM SURVEY CLERIC # ___________
Prepare a separate profile for each victim who issued an allegation against this particular cleric. If a cleric
had multiple allegations, prepare a separate victim profile for each victim who initiated an allegation. Please
answer each of these questions to the best of your knowledge and indicate when an answer is approximate
rather than specific. Remember to write the matching cleric’s number in the upper right hand corner.

WE ARE NOW GOING TO ASK YOU TO PROVIDE SOME BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT EACH
VICTIM WHO BROUGHT AN ALLEGATION AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR CLERIC.

1. Gender of victim (check one)

Male Female

2. When did the alleged abuse occur? (Be as specific about the date or range of dates as possible)
Month __ __ Day __ __ Year __ __ __ __ OR range of dates _______________________

3. When was this abuse reported? (Be as specific as possible)

Month __ __ Day __ __ Year __ __ __ __

4. Who initially made the allegation?

The victim The victim’s parent(s) or guardian(s)
A teacher A police officer
A cleric A lay person in the Church
Other (specify)____________________ A doctor
Victim’s attorney

5. How was the allegation initially made?

Called the parish Called the diocese
Sent a signed letter to the parish Sent a signed letter to the diocese
Sent an anonymous letter to parish Sent an anonymous letter to diocese
Went to the parish Went to the diocese
Told trusted priest/deacon who brought Called the Provincial or Major Superior of the
complaint to diocese or order order or congregation
Information obtained through the media Sent signed letter to the Provincial or Major
Other (specify): _____________________ Superior of the order or congregation
Sent anonymous letter to the Provincial or
Major Superior of the order or congregation

6. Is there a record of the victim or victim’s family following up on the allegation?

No Yes (specify method of follow up):_______________________________

7. If the victim/victim’s family did follow up, how many times? __________________

8. How many times was the victim allegedly abused?

Once More than once (number __________) numerous (unknown number)

9. Did the victim allege abuse by more than one cleric? (If no, skip to question 12)
Yes No Information not in the file

10. If yes, how many clerics allegedly abused this victim? _________

11. Did the abuse by the other cleric(s) occur before, concurrent with or after this cleric? (check all that
apply)
Before Concurrent with After

For research use only: AB Code: _______ VM Code ________ Dio Code:_________ 2
FORM # 3: VICTIM SURVEY CLERIC # ___________

12. Age (in years) when alleged abuse began (or occurred, if only happened once). ___________ years

13. Age (in years) when abuse ended (if occurred more than once). ____________ years

14. Age (in years) when victim first told someone about the abuse. ______________ years

15. Number of months/years the victim waited to report the abuse. _____________

16. Where did the victim first meet the cleric?

Mass Choir
Boys club/youth recreation Sunday school teacher
Teacher in preschool, kindergarten, or At an altar service
elementary school (up to grade 6) In the rectory
Teacher in middle school (grades 7-8) Work in a hospital
Teacher in high school (grades 9-12) Seminary faculty
Orphanage In jail/prison/youth offender residence
Home of victim Home of cleric
At a vocational inquiry Seminary administrator
At a social function w/ victim’s family While assigned to the victim’s parish (e.g., as an
Other (specify)________________ extern priest)

17. What was the cleric’s primary duty when he met the victim? (check all that apply)
Pastor Associate pastor
Resident priest Seminary faculty
Boys club/youth recreation Catechism teacher
Teacher in preschool, kindergarten, or Choir
elementary school (up to grade 6) Chaplain
Teacher in middle school (grades 7-8) Worked in a hospital
Teacher in high school (grades 9-12) Saying Mass
Seminary administrator Bishop, Vicar, Chancellor, Cardinal
Guidance counselor Coach
Other (specify)________________

18. Did the cleric socialize with the family of the alleged victim(s)?
Yes No Information not in the file

19. If yes, in what way? (check all that apply)

In the church In church day activities (e.g., picnics)
Spent time with the family in his residence He spent time with the family in their residence
Vacations Other (specify):________________________

20. Type of behavior alleged by this victim (check all that apply):
Verbal (sexual talk) Photos taken of victim while victim was disrobed
Victim disrobed Masturbation in front of victim
Cleric disrobed Mutual masturbation
Sexual touching over clothes of victim Manual (finger) penetration (of vagina or anus)
Sexual touching over clothes of the cleric Penetration with foreign object (e.g., sexual aid)
Sexual touching under clothes of victim (no Oral/genital contact where offender performed
penetration) fellatio/cunnilingus
Sexual touching under clothes of cleric (no Oral/genital contact where victim performed
penetration) fellatio/cunnilingus
Victim shown pornographic videos Penile penetration (of anus or vagina)

For research use only: AB Code: _______ VM Code ________ Dio Code:_________ 3
FORM # 3: VICTIM SURVEY CLERIC # ___________
Victim shown pornographic magazines/photos Other _________________________

21. Was the victim threatened by the cleric in any way?

Yes No Information not in the file

22. If yes, what type of threat?

Physical threat, with weapon Physical threat, no weapon
Verbal threat (of harm to the victim) Verbal threat (that harm will come to the cleric)
Threatened family of victim Spiritual manipulation
Threatened public exposure of victim’s Other (specify):_______________________
behavior to family or others

23. Where was the abuse reported to have occurred? (check all that apply)
In the church In the parish residence
In the home of the victim Cleric’s office
In school In the hospital
In a hotel room In a car
Retreat house Vacation house
Other (specify):__________________

24. When did the abuse reportedly occur?

During a retreat During a social event
During a church service During reconciliation
During travel During a sporting event (e.g., swimming)
During counseling session During other type of travel
Other (specify):_________________

25. Did the victim receive any gifts from the cleric?
Yes No Information not in the file

26. If yes, what type of gift(s)? __________________________________________

27. Were there any other enticements given to this victim?

Yes No Information not in the file

28. If yes, what were the enticements? (check all that apply)
Given money Allowed to do special church activities (e.g., solo in the choir)
Allowed to stay up late Given alcohol or drugs
Allowed to drive a car Taken to sporting matches or other recreational activities
Access to pornography, videos Allowed to stay overnight with the cleric
Other (specify) ___________ Sports-related enticement (e.g., put in starting position of a
team)

29. Who did the victim live with when allegedly abused (check all that apply)
Mother only Father only
Both parents Brother(s)
Sister(s) Other guardian
Grandparents Boarding school
Foster parents Orphanage
With the cleric Other (specify)____________
In the rectory or church-related residence

30. Were any of victim's siblings also abused by any cleric?

For research use only: AB Code: _______ VM Code ________ Dio Code:_________ 4
FORM # 3: VICTIM SURVEY CLERIC # ___________
Yes No Information not in the file

31. At the time of the alleged abuse, was the victim under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
Yes No Information not in the file

32. At the time of the alleged abuse, was the cleric under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
Yes No Information not in the file

33. Was there a diocesan investigation? (If no, skip to Question 37)
Yes No Information not in the file

34. If there was a diocesan investigation, what was the result? (check all that apply)
Allegation substantiated Allegation unsubstantiated
Cleric admitted abuse Allegation found to be false
Other (specify) ________________

35. What action was taken regarding the cleric?

No action taken Transferred cleric to another parish w/in the diocese
Cleric suspended w/ treatment ordered Transferred the cleric to another diocese
Cleric resigned or retired Cleric was reinstated
Cleric received treatment but Dismissed from clerical state
continued in ministry Other (specify)________________________

36. Was the victim or their family ever contacted regarding the results of the investigation?
Yes No Information not in the file

37. Did the victim report the incident to the police or district attorney?
Yes No Information not in the file

38. Was there a police investigation?

Yes No Information not in the file

39. Was the cleric charged with a criminal offense? (If no, skip to Question 45)
Yes No Information not in the file

40. If yes, what charge was brought?________________________________________

41. Did the charges result in a conviction?

Yes No Information not in the file

42. If yes, for what offense? _____________________________________

43. If there was a conviction, what was the sentence? (check all that apply)
Fine Jail
Probation Prison
House arrest Electronic monitoring
Community service Other (specify) _________________

44. If there was a conviction, what was the length of the sentence imposed? __________________

45. Was there any civil action taken against the cleric or the diocese for damages?
Yes No Information not in the file

For research use only: AB Code: _______ VM Code ________ Dio Code:_________ 5
FORM # 3: VICTIM SURVEY CLERIC # ___________
46. Was there any other form of legal action taken with respect to this cleric and this victim?
Yes(specify)___________________ No Information not in the file

NOW WE ARE GOING TO ASK ABOUT FINANCIAL INFORMATION IN REGARD TO THIS VICTIM.
YOU MAY NEED ASSISTANCE FROM THE ACTING BUDGET/FINANCIAL OFFICER OR
ACCOUNTANT WITHIN THE DIOCESE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

47. Was the victim given any type of compensation to settle the allegation of abuse?
Yes No Pending Information not in the file

48. What was the approximate total compensation or payment made to date to this victim from all sources? $
_________

49. How much of this was covered by, or derived from, insurance? $_______________

50. What was the approximate payment to date for treatment for this victim? $ ____________

51. How much of this was covered by or derived from insurance? $______________

52. What was the approximate payment to date for treatment for this cleric? $_____________

53. How much of this was covered by or derived from insurance $______________

54. What was the approximate total payment to date made by the diocese to attorneys to represent the diocese
related to this victim’s allegations? $______________

For research use only: AB Code: _______ VM Code ________ Dio Code:_________ 6
 APPENDIX A1.1.6
WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS

WRITTEN
INSTRUCTIONS
(PLEASE READ CAREFULLY AS YOU COMPLETE THE SURVEY FORMS)
 APPENDIX A1.1.6
WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION 1: DIOCESAN PROFILE. Please complete this section and send it to the independent auditor no
later than August 31th. The independent auditor’s address is:
Roger C. Viadero, CPA, CGFM
Ernst & Young, LLP
1225 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

1. Institution type.
2. Number of active and retired clerics by institution type. Make sure to include all clerics from 1950-
2002, to the best of your knowledge.
3. Check the box that most closely describes the number of clerics in your religious institute at this time.
4. Check the box that most closely describes the number of parishes served by your religious institute.
5. Region code: I to XIV. You can find the regional code in the Catholic directory.
6. Write in the TOTAL number of clerics with allegations of abuse in your diocese. Make sure to include
all clerics with allegations from 1950-2002.
7. Write in the number of clerics who have had allegations made against them but were completely
exonerated. Exonerated means that the cleric was completely cleared of the charge.
8. Write in the TOTAL number of individuals who made allegations of sexual abuse against them as
children in your dioceses between 1950 and 2002. This includes all false allegations and allegations
where the victim later withdrew the allegation.
9. Write in the TOTAL amount of monies paid to victims between the years 1950 and 2002. You may
need the assistance of your financial/budget officer to answer this question.
10. Explain how many of the alleged victims in Question #8 made false allegations or later withdrew their
allegations. The reports made by these victims will not be counted in the remainder of the survey.
 APPENDIX A1.1.6
WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS
SECTION 2: CLERIC AND VICTIM SURVEYS. Please complete these surveys to the best of your knowledge.
Please note that for purposes of clarity and flow, when the term diocese is used in a question, it will be
understood to refer to dioceses, eparchies, and religious institutes.

Before you begin to fill in this survey, please make photocopies of the survey instrument. You must
make enough for each cleric with allegations of abuse against him. Once you do this, please number
each of the surveys from 1 to the total number of clerics with allegations, and write that number in
the upper right hand corner of the cleric survey form. You must write this number on the cleric
encryption page and the four pages of the survey. The purpose of this is to link each cleric with his
victim(s). You will write this same number on his victim(s)’ survey forms.

Cleric Encryption. The first and last initial and birth date are converted to a unique code to provide
anonymity. Please make sure that this information has been provided so that the transformation can be
applied correctly.

Cleric Survey.
1. Write in the cleric’s year of birth.
2. Type of cleric at time of the offense. If the cleric committed numerous offenses over a period of time,
and he fulfilled multiple roles during the time he abused, please check all that apply.
3. Year ordained, if applicable.
4. Write in the name/location of the seminary that the cleric attended.
5. If a married cleric, was cleric married at the time of the alleged offense. If the cleric has multiple
allegations, check yes if he was married at the time of any of these alleged offenses.
6. Any event of any types of abuse anytime in cleric's life history including the types listed in Question 7.
7. Identify all the types of abuse that the cleric is known to have experienced or is indicated in the record.
8. Identify the most likely abusing actors of the abuses identified in Question 7.
9. Identify if the cleric has abused alcohol or drugs at any time in life history.
10. Identify the action taken as a response to the drug or alcohol abuse.
11. If there was treatment for the drug or alcohol abuse, where did this treatment take place?
12. If the cleric acknowledged, during the drug or alcohol treatment program, that he abused a minor,
check yes.
13. Did the cleric have any medical or psychological problems that could lead the diocese to believe he
may not be fit for ministry?
14. Describe this problem. Be as specific as possible.
15. Was the problem(s) in Question 14 identified prior to the allegations of abuse?
16. What was the date this problem became known?
17. For multiple problems, identify the dates that each problem became known. If there are more than
three known problems, please check the box provided and continue to identify the problems and dates
on the back of the page.
18. Number of dioceses this cleric has served in, including yours.
19. Number of parishes this cleric has served in.
20. Does the cleric have any known allegations of abuse in any dioceses other than yours listed in
Question 18?
21. You need to write in the total number of allegations against this cleric in all dioceses (including yours).
22. Identify any problems noted in this cleric’s file other than sexual or substance abuse problems.

Information on the cleric’s victim(s)

23. The total number of victims who have made allegations against this cleric in your diocese. You must
fill out a victim form for each of the alleged victims in the cleric’s file.
 APPENDIX A1.1.6
WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS
24. Does your diocese have reason to believe that there are more victims than those listed official in the
cleric’s file? For instance, a known victim might have reported that he/she was abused as the same
time as another minor, but the other minor did not come forward and make an allegation.
25. Number of other potential victims. You do not need to fill out a victim survey for the potential victims
in this question.
26. Breakdown of ages of alleged victims. Only fill this in for the victims who have made allegations, not
the potential victims listed in Question 25. If the exact age of a victim cannot be determined then
approximate the age based upon the information available.

Responses to Allegations Made Against Cleric

27. Identify all the specific actions taken with this cleric in response to all the abuse allegations associated
with this cleric.
28. If reinstated, identify where.
29. Identify years in which action(s) was taken. If multiple actions were taken, identify all years in which
those actions were taken.
30. Identify all the specific treatment strategies and protocols attempted with this cleric. Questions 31-34
address the particulars of treatment. Clerics not assigned to any treatment will have no data in
Questions 31-34.
31. Identify the specific facility where the cleric participated in treatment. If the treatment center is not
listed, check other and write in the proximate location of the treatment site.
32. The number of different enrollments or discrete participations in sex abuse / offender treatment
programs designed or intending to achieve this type of remediation is sought.
33. Did the cleric complete the programs? If the cleric participated in more that one and completion is
mixed, please characterize the completions of the treatment programs.
34. Did the cleric have allegations made against him after participating in a treatment program?
35. After you have reviewed the record of this cleric there may be facts, entries or comments that you will
have found that provide added understanding concerning the cleric and responses made to the
allegation of sexual abuse. Please share you insights into your reading of the record.

REMEMBER, DO NOT WRITE IN THE NAMES OF ANY CLERICS OR VICTIMS OF ABUSE!!

 APPENDIX A1.1.6
WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS
Victim Survey. This must be completed for each victim of each cleric. Before you begin, photocopy the
victim survey so that you have enough for all victims. If you need additional copies, you can print them out
from the floppy disk. Remember to write the number of the cleric who allegedly abused this victim in the
upper right hand corner of the survey instrument. Once you are finished, staple or clip together the
associated cleric and victim survey instruments.

1. Gender as indicated.
2. Date alleged abuse of this victim occurred by this cleric. If the abuse occurred over a period of time,
list the range of dates the abuse occurred. If there is no specific date(s) known, approximate the date or
range of dates to the best of your knowledge based upon the files.
3. Date abuse was reported.
4. Person who made the allegation in Question 3.
5. How was the allegation made in Question 3.
6. Were any follow-ups made by the victim or anyone acting for the victim?
7. Number of follow-ups. Explain the method of follow up (letter, telephone, conversations).
8. Number of times this victim was abused by this cleric. If you do not know the specific number, check
numerous.
9. Did other clerics allegedly abuse this victim?
Please note the clerics identified here will have data from their files developed for this victim.
10. Total number of clerics who allegedly abused this victim.
11. If other clerics abused this victim, explain the sequential position of this cleric’s alleged abuse, relative
to other clerics’ alleged involvement with this victim.
12. Victim’s age at the time of, or beginning of, the alleged abuse.
13. Victim’s age when the abuse ended, if it occurred over a period of time.
14. Age of victim at the time the first complaint or first allegation was expressed in Question 3.
15. Elapsed time between when the time of the first reported abuse and when the abuse occurred. Specify
months or years.
16. Situation where cleric and victim first encountered each other. If the record is not descriptive, then
identify the earliest encounter available in the record.
17. Cleric's duty or role when encountering the victim initially.
18. Did the cleric have social contact of any kind with the victim's family?
19. Type of socialization had with victim's family. Enter all the types of interactions with any of the
victim's family members.
20. Identify ALL types of abuse that allegedly occurred against this victim.
21. Did cleric make any overt or implied threats directed at the victim or family members or did the victim
or family members perceive that a threat was made by the cleric?
22. Nature of all threats alleged by cleric directed at victim or family members.
23. Where the alleged abuse(s) occurred.
24. When the alleged abuse(s) occurred.
25. Did the victim or family receive or have offered any type of gift, inducement, favor, benefit that had a
relationship to the abuse or in response to the allegation?
26. What gift(s) was offered?
27. Were any other enticements offered to encourage the victim to participate in the abuse?
28. What were the enticements?
29. With whom did the victim live at the time of the abuse or earliest abuse in the record?
30. Did this victim have any siblings who were also allegedly abused by this cleric?
31. Was the victim under the influence of drugs or alcohol at any time during the abusive period?
32. Was the cleric under the influence of drugs or alcohol at any time during the abusive with this
particular victim?
33. At any time in the association between this cleric and this victim, was there a diocesan inquiry,
investigation or fact finding related to the abuse or first abuse allegation?
34. What was the result of that inquiry?
 APPENDIX A1.1.6
WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS
35. As a result of that inquiry, investigation or fact finding what actions were taken against the cleric? If
multiple actions were taken singly or together enumerate that range of actions applied against this
cleric in response to this victim's allegation(s).
36. Did the Church report its findings to the victim or victim’s family?
37. Any type of complaint reported to police or governmental representative involving this cleric and this
victim?
38. Was there a criminal investigation?
39. Identify any criminal charge(s) brought against this cleric as a result of the victim's allegations.
40. Specific charges brought involving this cleric and this victim. If more that once charge brought, enter
all those brought.
41. Any criminal convictions, including plea agreements associated with any charges in Question 40.
42. Specify the offense for which the cleric was convicted.
43. Sentence or penalty imposed as a result of the criminal conviction(s).
44. Length of sentence imposed as a result of any criminal convictions.
45. Any civil action brought against the cleric or religious institute?
46. Other legal actions, including secular administrative remedies sought related to this cleric and this
victim.

Financial information
47. Compensation (monetary or things of value in any form) made directly or indirectly to the victim,
victim's family, representative, etc.
48. Total value expended for victim's compensation from all sources.
49. Identify the amount of money in Question 48 that was derived from insurance.
50. Total value expended for victim's treatment.
51. Identify the amount of money in Question 50 that was derived from insurance.
52. Total value expended for the treatment of the cleric.
53. Identify the amount of money in Question 52 that was derived from insurance.
54. Identify the total amount of monies paid to the attorneys in regard to this victim.

REMEMBER, DO NOT WRITE IN THE NAMES OF ANY CLERICS OR VICTIMS OF ABUSE!!

When you complete all the surveys, please send them to the independent auditor. The
independent auditor’s address is:
Roger C. Viadero, CPA, CGFM
Ernst & Young, LLP
1225 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
 Appendix A1.1.7
RESEARCH PARTICIPATION STATEMENT
Catholic Bishops’ Study

RESEARCH PARTICIPATION STATEMENT

To be retained by the study participant.

This letter explains the purpose of the work you have been asked to do for the
Catholic Bishops’ Study, the paramount importance we give to maintaining the
confidentiality of those persons you will read about in the church or diocesan files, and your
right to receive counselling if, as a result of this work, you become distressed or
uncomfortable. If you wish to discontinue the work, you have the right to withdraw from the
project and another person will be chosen to complete the work.

Purpose

The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, issued by the Conference
of Catholic Bishops in June of 2002, calls for the promotion of healing and reconciliation
within the Catholic Church in the United States, sets out a basis for an effective response to
future allegations of abuse and establishes procedures for accountability for church leaders.
A significant part of this last commitment is Article 9, which reads:

The work of the Office for Child and Youth Protection will be assisted and monitored
by a Review Board, including priests, 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 commission a comprehensive study of the causes and context of the current
crisis. The Board will also commission a descriptive study, with the full cooperation
of our diocese/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.

This project is the descriptive study, and its importance to the Catholic Church and to
the larger research community cannot be overstated.

Confidentiality

All information that you report will remain completely confidential. It is of paramount
importance that you not make any notation of any name or other personal information on the
survey instruments as you complete them, or make any mention to anyone of any person
whose name you read in a file while doing this work.

Specifically, you are asked to take particular care to ensure that:

 Appendix A1.1.7
RESEARCH PARTICIPATION STATEMENT
• Any and all notes or scratch paper that you use to complete the work be
destroyed at the end of each day.
• That you refrain from any discussion of the work with any person outside of
the church or anyone who does not already have access to the files of alleged
abusers.
• That if you call the researchers for assistance you prepare to ask your
questions of them without using any names or other personal information.
• That no names are included in any material sent to the Review Board.
• That no identifying information that could link an individual to the
information on a survey instrument be included when the material is sent to
the Review Board.
• That completed surveys be placed first in one envelope with no external
markings, then in another envelope for mailing to the Review Board.
• That you will not discuss the work you have done on this research study
either during or after its completion.

Strict adherence to the principles of confidentiality will help ensure the quality of the results.

Counseling

There is a possibility that the materials you will be reviewing in the files will give rise to
feelings of unhappiness, distress, embarrassment or worry. Should you find that this work
becomes difficult to do or makes you sad or angry, and you wish to talk to a professional who
is trained as a counsellor, you are asked to speak to the head bishop of your diocese
immediately. He will remove you from this project and refer you to a counsellor to speak to
about your feelings of distress.

If you ask that the responsibility for this work be given to another person, your request will
be honoured.

If you understand and agree to all of the above information, please sign and date this form.

Name (written) ___________________________

Signature ________________________________ Date ___________________

 Appendix A1.1.7
RESEARCH PARTICIPATION STATEMENT

Catholic Bishops’ Study

AFFIRMATION

I have read the Research Participation Statement and understand each of its sections. I
confirm that I understand both the purpose of and the procedures for this work

I am committed to the principles of confidentiality and the protection of human subjects and
will adhere to both the spirit and the letter of what I have been asked to do to protect the
privacy of the persons whose information is included in the files.

I affirm that I will seek assistance should I come to feel distressed by this work.

Print Name: ___________________________________

Signature:_____________________________________

Date:________________________
APPENDIX A1.2.17
DHHS LETTER
 APPENDIX A1.2.1
CHURCH REGIONS

REGION 1 REGION 8
MAINE NORTH DAKOTA
VERMONT SOUTH DAKOTA
NEW HAMPSHIRE MINNESOTA
MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTICUT REGION 9
RHODE ISLAND NEBRASKA
KANSAS
REGION 2 IOWA
NEW YORK MISSOURI

REGION 3 REGION 10
PENNSYLVANIA OKLAHOMA
NEW JERSEY TEXAS
ARKANSAS
REGION 4
DELAWARE REGION 11
MARYLAND CALIFORNIA
VIRGINIA NEVADA
WASHINGTON D.C. HAWAII
WEST VIRGINIA
REGION 12
REGION 5 OREGON
KENTUCKY IDAHO
TENNESSEE WASHINGTON
MISSISSIPPI ALASKA
ALABAMA MONTANA
LOUISIANA
REGION 13
REGION 6 WYOMING
MICHIGAN UTAH
OHIO COLORADO
ARIZONA
REGION 7 NEW MEXICO
INDIANA
ILLINOIS REGION 14
WISCONSIN NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
GEORGIA
FLORIDA