|
Celibacy: SQUABBLING ABOUT NUMBERS
Dialogue # 16
 “We
will never know the exact numbers” (of sex abusing priests). Those
were the words of Paul McHugh, a member of the United States
Catholic Bishops’ National Review Board for Child protection in May
2007.
There are several reasons why McHugh is correct. First and foremost
only a fraction of clergy abuse is reported. Experts estimate that
only ten (10) percent of sexual abuse victims report their
violation. If they are correct there have been
one-hundred-and-twenty-thousand men and women in the United States
who have been abused by Catholic bishops and priests in the years
from 1950 to 2002. This may be compared with speeding tickets—only a
fraction of drivers get caught.
Sexual activity with a minor is criminal behavior. The
abuser wants to hide his behavior because it is a crime. The church
has conspired to conceal the behavior often to protect its image
rather than to protect minors. Victims are subject to guilt (that
belongs to the abuser), shame, intimidation, and confusion.
Second, the area of sexual behavior generally is notoriously
difficult to research. Sexual behavior of all strips
is predominantly conducted in private. Self-reporting is
undependable. Even Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey’s history making reports on
Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and in the Human
Female (1953)—the most authoritative grand scale studies to date
of human sexual behavior—has come into sharp criticism in some
quarters. Nonetheless, Kinsey the Indiana University professor
opened the door for innumerable and diverse studies of
behavior—including my own. Kinsey made the topic of sex discussible
and debatable.
William H. Masters, M.D. and Virginia E. Johnson conducted twenty
years of observation of sexual response in a medical
setting under laboratory conditions before they published their
findings that were ground breaking and unique. The publication of
Human Sexual Response (1966) and Human Sexual Inadequacy
(1970) opened the door for more direct discussion of all sexual
behaviors since it touched the universal experience of biological
reaction. I served on an American Medical Association committee with
Dr. Masters in 1969 and I found his practical and forthright
approach to talking about sex inspiring for my own explorations of
sexual behaviors and sexual responses in men who professed celibacy.
He told me of a research project conducted in St. Louis. Two hundred
vowed Catholic religious were asked about their masturbation over
the previous two-year period. One-hundred-ninety-eight admitted that
they had masturbated during that time. He said to me, “I don’t think
the other two understood the question.” I was destined to carry on
my work in clinical observation and the classroom from the 1960s
through the 1990s with a dedication to observation that he inspired
in me.
Third, the area I had chosen to study and understand, celibacy,
by definition excludes any and all sexual behavior and limited
response other than spontaneous reactions and releases. In addition
the subject in the Roman Catholic priesthood is supported by the
astounding official denial that any sexual behavior in fact does
take place in that population. Many clergy feel that any exploration
of the subject is a hostile invasion of a sacred preserve. Anyone
who seriously explores sexual behavior within this population can
expect only automatic criticism, rejection, and disdain if he is
lucky. But “Facts” as Aldous Huxley said, “do
not cease to exist because they are ignored.” (Proper Studies,
1927)
Many priests and bishops do, in fact, have sexual relations; some on
a more or less regular basis.
When this dialogue is completed and posted by June 15th
it will record the history of my ethnographic study of celibacy in
the US priesthood from 1960 to 1985.
Back to Top |
Dialogue
