THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPIRIT
WHILE MIRED IN THE
TOXIC WASTES OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL SWAMP
In
the ninth chapter of Romans St. Paul talks about the pain and
suffering he endures in following his vocation: “Brothers and
sisters: I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie; my
conscience joins the Holy Spirit in bearing me witness that I
have great sorrow and constant anguish in my heart.” Why?
Because those very people who should hear the message of Jesus
rejected it.
Many men and women today who have worked with vigor and
constancy to understand and heal the sexual abuse crisis in the
Catholic Church share the pain and frustration that Paul
expresses.
Father Thomas Doyle, Dominican, priest, and canon lawyer has no
equal in his efforts to bring the spirit of Jesus to the victims
sexually abused by Catholic clergy. His healing efforts are
indelibly recorded in the 1985 report and appeal to the United
States bishops to take action about the wide spread problem of
clergy—priests and bishops—who had abused and were sexually
abusing minors and vulnerable adults.
This appeal for remedy was largely
ignored, sidestepped, and even denigrated until the
crisis—predicted in the 1985 Report—reached the point of public
outrage in 2002.
Tom
Doyle delivered the following statement to the Annual SNAP
Gathering in Chicago on July 13, 2008. Many of us who have
traveled the journey of clergy abuse and the Church’s clearly
non Christ-like maneuvers share his pain and struggle. I read
his comments in the context of the U.S. Catholic Church in 2008
where one in every 10 Americans identify themselves as “Ex
Catholics” and 31 percent of men and women brought up Catholic
have “left the church” thus forming the second largest religious
group in the United States.
Arguments can be raised about the
causality of this phenomenon, but without question many
Catholics across the board will understand and empathize with
Doyle.
Preface
Sexual abuse of children and minors by trusted clergy results in
a unique type of trauma. The vast majority of victims are
devoted members of their denominations with an exceptional
degree of trust in their clergy person and in the religious
system. The intensity and destructive effects of the trauma
associated with clergy abuse are directly related to the
emotional bond between the victim and the abuser. This bond is
grounded in factors that are described as “spiritual” but which
in fact are toxic and lead to a traumatic relationship that is
accompanied by sexual abuse.
There are two
dimensions of religious based trauma that directly impact the
overall effects of clergy sexual abuse: the emotional and mental
conditioning of the victim, which directly influences
susceptibility to abuse and, the same conditioning with the
added element of a toxic spirituality which shapes the impact of
abuse on the victim.
Prevention of
the lasting effects of trauma from clergy sexual abuse involves
more than awareness of the modus operandi of sexual predators in
clergy clothing. It must also take into account the enabling
aspect of religious conditioning that leads to a post-abuse
feeling of alienation from God as well as society. Short term
prevention is directed at potential victims but also at the
religious systems or institutions that both train and employ
clergy. Long term prevention probes deeply into the systemic
factors that enable clergy sexual abuse and produce the unique
traumatic effects of this abuse on the believing victims.
I have been a
Catholic all my life. I was ordained a priest in 1970 and at
that time and for many years thereafter I accepted without
question the doctrine and law of the Catholic Church in every
way. I believed in the particular teachings about the pope,
bishops and priests. I believed that the Church was a response
to a personal God who knew what I did at all times, responded to
my prayers, was deeply concerned about human behavior and was
displeased by sin and sinners. This God invoked both love and
fear and gave us the security of communicating his will for us
through the special medium of his popes and bishops.
I believed that
all of the robes, rituals, customs, rules and traditions had an
essential place in God’s special community on earth. I believed
that priests and bishops really were “different” and possessed
special powers given them by God through ordination. I firmly
believed that this was the only way to God and the only true
Church.
Those who have
been sexually assaulted by Catholic clergy or religious have
experienced spiritual trauma as well as emotional and
psychological trauma. The impact on the soul is often subtle
and grows more painful and debilitating as time passes. Many
survivors have said that this spiritual pain has been worse than
the emotional pain. To be sure, the assault on the spirit is
not limited to the actual victims but to the many others who are
caught up in the collateral damage. Parents, spouses and
siblings are the most obvious but it spreads to others who know,
love or care for the victims. The spiritual damage has been
experienced by attorneys, counselors, media persons and law
enforcement professionals who become involved with clergy abuse
victims. What they have seen and heard is a severe jolt to the
spiritual or religious belief system.
My remarks are
based on twenty-four years of experience of direct communication
with victims of clergy sexual abuse. During these years I have
also come to know the parents and family members of victims and
have had their pain seared into my soul. Finally, I draw on my
own experience of along, challenging and often painful struggle
for spiritual survival.
THE SURVIVAL OF THE
SPIRIT
Most of the published literature on clergy abuse of
children has addressed the emotional and psychological effects
of sexual abuse common to all victims. The literature published
by Church-related sources has consistently addressed the impact
of clergy abuse on the Church as an institution as well as the
problems and treatment needs of the clergy abusers. The
institutional Catholic Church has done almost nothing in terms
of studying the immediate and long term effects of abuse on the
victims nor has it made any organized efforts at responding to
their unique pastoral needs.
Sexual abuse of Catholic children and adolescents by
Catholic clergy is especially traumatic because of the
devastating effect on the victim’s spirituality and religiosity.
The spiritual trauma suffered by victims is complex and
certainly not limited to unwillingness to participate in
religious liturgical services. The institutional Church is
unable to gauge spirituality in terms other than attendance at
devotional events, liturgical services, amount of donations or
docile acceptance of Church teachings and authority.
Catholic Clergy Sexual
Abuse: The Socio-Historical Context
Sexual abuse of children and other vulnerable
persons by Catholic clerics has been a significant though
shameful aspect of Catholic clerical culture for centuries. The
revelations that began in the United States in 1984 and reached
a crescendo with the Boston Globe expose in 2002 did not portray
a new reality. Rather, they uncovered what had existed below
the surface for centuries.
The darkest aspect of mandatory celibacy has been
the sexual exploitation and abuse of children, adolescents and
vulnerable adult men and women. The earliest officially
documented example of the Church’s awareness of such abuse is
found in the canons of the 4th century Synod of
Elvira. Here we find the first of a series of legislative and
disciplinary laws or regulations issued by Church sources in
response to violations of celibacy. Although there is ample
evidence that clerics engaged in sex with women and young girls,
most of the legislation was directed at those who sexually
abused young boys.
Church authorities did not ignore sexual abuse
throughout the centuries. On the contrary there has been a
steady stream of edicts, interventions and admonitions dating
from the early 4th century to the present day.
Church legislation forbade any sexual contact between clerics
and minors and in several instances it imposed or urged
substantial penalties for offenders.
When Church legislation was codified for the first time in 1917
a canon was inserted which made sexual contact between a cleric
and a minor of either sex a crime.
The prescribed penalties include dismissal or defrocking as it
is commonly called.
The contemporary scandal has focused on two aspects
of clergy sexual abuse: the actual deviant sexual acts
perpetrated by dysfunctional clerics and, the extensive policy
of cover-up engaged in by the Church office-holders. The
present-day criticism of the hierarchy for their disastrous
response to the abuse scandal is unique. There is scant
evidence from previous centuries that points to an awareness
that superiors who enabled abusive clerics themselves shared in
the guilt of the crime. Peter Damian spoke out against
superiors who looked the other way
and
two Church councils, the IV Lateran Council (1215) and the
Council of Basle (1449) imposed penalties on superiors who
tolerated clerics who violated their celibate promises.
The official voice of the Catholic Church has
consistently framed clergy sexual abuse as a moral/volitional
issue in keeping with its fundamental teaching on human
sexuality. Recent popes have referred to abusive clerics as
sinners and abuse as sin. This approach has had a profound
influence on the response to the offending clerics and to their
victims as well. In keeping with the Catholic theology of
penance and forgiveness, the clergy abuser is encouraged to
acknowledge his sinful actions, seek God’s forgiveness and sin
no more. Victims are encouraged to forgive those who have abused
them. This unrealistic emphasis is not on the abuse and its
powerfully destructive effects on the victim, but on a future
wherein the sexual abuse is not a cause for embarrassment for
the institutional Church. The fallacy of considering clergy
abuse only in terms of sin is that it serves as an excuse to
overlook the criminality of the act. It also serves as a
distraction from the need for accountability on the part of the
abuser as well as the ecclesiastical system that formed, enabled
and in the end, covered for the abusive cleric.
By failing to look beyond the moral/volitional
dimensions of sexual abuse, Church leadership has failed to
comprehend the complex and often subtle effects of sexual abuse
on the victims.
In the recent past it has not been uncommon for Churchmen to
urge victims to “put it behind you and move on with your life.”
This attitude is as unrealistic and naive as expecting a
compulsive pedophile or ephebophile to “repent and sin no
more.” Catholic bishops in general have scant awareness of the
nature of sexual dysfunction and even less awareness of the
damaging effects of abuse on victims. Prior to 1984 there is no
evidence that bishops’ groups ever sponsored any training or
education in the effects of abuse. Between 1985 and 2002 there
were several workshops and seminars given around the U.S. on
clergy sex abuse. In most of these a psychologist or
psychiatrist was a featured speaker however they limited their
presentations to the pathology of the abusers. Presentations
sponsored by official Church sources on the welfare of the
victims have been extremely rare.
Historically there is little documentation about the
manner with which Church officials responded to victims if they
responded at all. One study from 16th century Italy
describes how a young adolescent victim of a cleric was punished
for his participation in the illicit sexual acts, but the
punishment was minimized because he had been an unwilling
participant.
The premise was that all sexual activity outside of marriage was
seriously sinful and participation in any sexual activity
involved at least some degree of volitional assent. Other than
looking at the effects on victims from a strictly moral
perspective there is little historical evidence of any awareness
of or concern for the emotional or spiritual impact of abuse by
a clergyman. This lack of attention to the needs of victims has
carried over to the contemporary scene as well. To date there
have been no initiatives sponsored by any official Catholic
Church body from the Vatican down to the diocesan level to
explore the impact of abuse on victims and to find ways to
provide effective assistance and healing.
Catholic clerics are obliged to total sexual
abstinence as a result of mandatory celibacy. The only
exceptions are Eastern rite priests and the very small number of
Episcopal priests who have embraced Catholicism. Celibacy
further enhances the public perception of priests as men set
apart. This perception is grounded in official Church teaching
about the nature and role of the priesthood and the bishopric.
The Church is based on a socio-cultural model of a stratified
society with a monarchical system of government.
The leadership is restricted to those in holy orders who are
ordained to provide spiritual nourishment and guidance for lay
people who constitute the vast majority of the Church. The
common belief is that once a man is ordained an ontological
change takes place and he is fundamentally different from lay
people.
His soul is different because he is, in the words of the late
Pope John Paul II, “configured to Christ.” This common
perception of who priests are and the power they possess is a
distinguishing factor in the unique nature of the traumatic
effects of sexual abuse by clerics.
How the Institutional Church
has responded to clergy abuse victims
The response of Church officials to sexual
abuse victims and to the public is an important factor in
understanding the traumatic effects unique to clergy abuse
victims. Since nearly all victims were devout, practicing
Catholics when they were abused, those who disclosed their abuse
and sought help generally approached Church authorities. They
usually did so with unquestioning confidence that they would be
believed and helped. The pattern of response has been shown to
have been quite the opposite which often further traumatized the
victims.
Prior to the publicity surrounding the case of
Gilbert Gauthe in Lafayette LA in 1984-85, the victims generally
suffered in silence, either unable or unwilling to disclose to
anyone including parents and close friends. When bishops learned
of accusations the cleric in question was generally transferred
in secrecy and placed in another assignment where the abuse
often continued. In a minority of cases the clerics were sent
to special Church sponsored institutions for treatment.
If Church officials contacted the victims it was usually to
obtain their silence and not to provide pastoral care. Even
today in spite of the massive publicity surrounding clergy
abuse, most bishops have never spoken with a victim.
The immense power of the institutional Catholic
Church prevailed until the mid-1980's after which time the
Churches learned that they could not always depend on
cooperation and support from sympathetic judicial and law
enforcement officials as well as the secular media. Prior to
this period the pattern and practice of the Catholic hierarchy
worldwide had been to cover-up, deny and minimize, with no
apparent awareness of the deeply traumatic effects on victims
and the collateral effects on their families. The media
attention, civil court cases and public outrage that began in
1984 and reached a crescendo in 2002 forced the institutional
Church to face the reality of clergy abuse and it also focused
long overdue attention on the plight of the victims.
The Unique Nature of Clergy
Abuse Trauma - Victims twice betrayed
Catholic victims are twice betrayed. The
perpetrating cleric betrays the trust placed in him and the
institutional Church prepares victims for their spiritual trauma
by its teaching about the nature of the priesthood. When many
clergy victims began to look at the effects of the abuse on
their lives it became obvious that there was something different
about the impact on a believing Church member when raped or
assaulted by a clergyman or religious woman. Not only did the
rape or assault have disastrous physical, emotional and
psychological effects but it was spiritually damaging as well.
Most victims are pre-conditioned for this unique
trauma by their experience and education in the institutional
Church. With very rare exceptions they have been devout
believers with unquestioning loyalty to their Church. This
loyalty extends to every level, from the local parish to the
Vatican. It is a blind loyalty because these men and women are
taught throughout their religious training that they must
accept and believe whatever the “Church” says or teaches without
question. This philosophy of compliance has been imposed in such
a way that”believers” generally are not able to distinguish
between a foundational doctrinal statement and a casual
utterance by a clergyman. They have been taught that to doubt or
question a cleric is to offend God and thus commit a sin.
Religion is about a relationship between human
beings and an unseen power. No matter how much humans claim to
know about the identity and actions of this power, it is still a
vast unknown. Consequently it is not unusual that religions
produce a significant amount of internal mythology to justify
their existence. This in turn leads to magical thinking on the
part of congregants. The mythology about ordained ministers
shapes the pre-existing beliefs and the related magical thinking
serves as a powerful enabling factor in clergy sexual abuse. The
“faithful” are expected to believe that the clergy have a
special “inside” communication with the divine. The higher in
rank the more influence he has with God. When popes, bishops or
ordinary priests make pronouncements about the nature of God or
provide interpretations of God’s will, Catholics are expected to
believe without question when in fact the pope’s insight into
the true nature of God is no more accurate than that of a
homeless drug addict since neither is presumed to have had a
personal one-on-one with the Higher Power. Yet the titles and
pretensions of the Catholic hierarchy are firmly embedded in the
emotions of the “faithful” and remind them of their inferior
position. The clergyman’s power over a youthful victim is
already established since he is an adult but this power is
greatly enhanced because of his priesthood. The toxic effects
of the abuse thus spread to the very soul of the person.
The Source of the Trauma -
What Causes the Pain
The act of sexual abuse itself is the most
obvious source of physical and emotional pain. Although the
official Church often uses euphemistic and minimizing language
to refer to abuse, such as “boundary violations,” or
“inappropriate touches,” in reality the sexual abuse is no
different or less vicious than that inflicted by any other
perpetrator. Church officials also claim that in most cases
there is only one instance of abuse, a myth that has repeatedly
been exploded by evidence obtained in the many court cases.
Church officials and even devout parents have, in
many cases, refused to believe victims who disclosed their
abuse. Such a reaction is the source of unique pain and
continued re-victimization. One must never forget that most
child or adolescent victims were born into devout families. The
foundation for the victims’ belief system is put in place by the
parents who themselves are usually unwilling or incapable of
questioning anything about their religion or the deportment and
practices of the clergy. Parents often play the role of
enablers without intending to do so. When a child tries to
reveal sexual abuse by a cleric some parents have refused to
believe it or have even punished the child for making the
accusation. Even in those cases where the parents reluctantly
believed the child, the common tendency was to remain silent out
of fear or exaggerated deference to the Church. When this
happens the victim sees the parent as complicit with the Church
and ends up feeling hopelessly trapped in the traumatic cocoon
of fear, guilt and shame.
The response of the official Church has itself been
a source of severe trauma. There is scant evidence that bishops
or other clerics including parish pastors, proactively set out
to provide sympathetic pastoral care to victims and their
families. On the contrary the common response has been negative
and toxic. Victims have been told that they were mistaken about
what happened to them or they were provided with thin excuses
that minimized the cleric’s actions and dismissed the victim’s
experience. In many instances they have been enjoined to remain
silent and to avoid speaking to law enforcement agencies or the
media. Church officials have utilized everything from gentle
persuasion (“you wouldn’t want to hurt the Church would you?”)
to threats of excommunication. Some accused clerics have
counter-sued their victims while others have publicly derided
them. Victims’ attorneys have been slandered from the pulpit and
parishioners have been mobilized against parents who have broken
the code of silence. In an ironic twist the victims of the
clergy have often been portrayed as enemies of the Church,
unwilling to forgive and motivated by revenge to hurt the
Church.
The abused and their families tend to identify the
perpetrating cleric and his supportive superiors with “the
Church.” Such a mistaken notion is supported by official
doctrine of the Church as a stratified society with the laity in
a subordinate and far less important role than the clergy. When
a Catholic child or adult is sexually assaulted or raped by a
cleric, he or she usually views the cleric himself as the one
who inflicted the harm. When bishops or other officials either
fail to respond in a compassionate manner and appear to support
the offender at the expense of the victim, it is the Church
that is inflicting the harm. This is a particularly painful
impression because Catholics are taught that the Church is God’s
kingdom or community on earth. Thus the sexual abuse and the
official response cause a cognitive dissonance that has a
traumatic impact on the person’s spiritual core and fundamental
belief system.
Catholics and indeed most Church-going people are
taught to turn to their religious ministers in times of
trouble. This potential source of support and healing is not
usually available to clergy abuse victims because the
institution has shown itself to be much more supportive of the
offending clerics than their victims. The religious leaders
identify their own security and personal goals with those of the
institution. Thus the threat posed by those harmed by clerics
is a danger to the leaders and therefore to the institution.
Hence the response to victims is defensive and protective of the
Church’s image and security. Victims have been regularly told
to remain silent “for the good of the Church.” The Church they
have been taught would help them has in fact, rejected them and
this in turn causes a strong emotional reaction and deep
spiritual confusion.
Conditioning for Abuse -
Survivor/Victim Beliefs that Become Toxic
The spiritual trauma associated with clergy
abuse is directly related to the belief system of the victims
which is usually a mixture of authentic doctrine and irrational
beliefs that are planted and nourished by the Church itself.
The irrational beliefs are a combination of myth and magical
thinking.
The foundational issue is the belief about the very
nature of God. Traditional Christian religious systems have
portrayed God as a theistic being with omniscience and complete
power. Exaggerated human emotions such as anger, happiness,
tenderness and concern are projected to this Supreme Being.
Christians are taught that God punishes transgressions and
rewards good behavior. A “sin” is an action, thought or omission
that is offensive to God. Since God is believed to be just,
“he” punishes sins. This is where mythology sets in. There is
a common belief that God punishes sins not only in the afterlife
but in this life, primarily through health problems or mishaps
that result in some degree of suffering. It is not uncommon to
hear Catholics and other Christians interpret physical defects,
illness or accidents as God’s revenge for some supposedly sinful
act. The clergy have an inside communication channel to God.
God prefers the clergy and especially the bishops and is highly
pleased with the laity’s obedience to his special chosen
ones…..or so the common mythology goes.
The traditional doctrine of “original sin” adds
another layer of irrational belief about the Supreme Being and
the individual’s standing in the eyes of this being. Original
sin is commonly believed to be inherited from the first human
beings, Adam and Eve. Theologians have studied and written much
about original sin. The basic idea is captured in the official
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
As a result of original sin
human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance,
suffering and the domination of death; and inclined to sin. This
inclination is called concupiscence.
The premise of original sin leads to the belief that
people are basically sinful and prone to evil and therefore must
earn God’s love. Such thinking is especially powerful
when it is imposed on children. Securing this love is a risky
endeavor since humans are so prone to sin from an almost
infinite variety of sources. Traditionally the Catholic
Church’s teaching on human sexuality has held that all sex
outside of marriage is gravely or mortally sinful. This
means that any sexual act, thought or desire with oneself or
another is so heinous that to die with the sin unabsolved meant
eternity in hell. Catholics are taught that their safety net is
absolution by the priest through the sacrament of penance, or
confession as it is commonly known. This belief leads to
feelings of helplessness and rejection. It also fortifies the
toxic dependence upon the priest.
Though such a belief in God as a super-being
perpetually angry, especially over sexual matters, runs contrary
to the teachings of Christ in the gospels, it is nevertheless
dominant in Church teaching and in the image of God commonly
held by victims and non-victims alike.
The next belief that we must examine is that which
defines the nature of the Church. Catholic teaching holds that
the institutional Catholic Church was founded by God and
intended by Him from all eternity.
Devout Catholics believe that the visible Church, because it was
instituted by Jesus Christ to save sinful people, is essential
for their spiritual welfare. They are taught that the
hierarchical governmental structure of the Church was not an
option decided upon by the Church’s earliest members, but
directly instituted by God.
Most clergy abuse victims are devout, practicing and docile
Catholics. When taught that the institutional Church is the
kingdom of God on earth and the only source for interpreting the
Divine Will
they believe it. When taught that the bishops were chosen by
God to govern His kingdom, they believe it. When taught that an
offense against the institutional Church or one of its
consecrated leaders is an offense against God, they believe it.
The Church and its clerics are presented as far
superior to lay persons and especially to children. The Church
is not only an immense behemoth standing before the intimidated
and fear-filled victim, but it is perfect and therefore
not capable of inflicting suffering or of committing
wrong-doing. This is a core aspect of the erroneous and toxic
belief held by countless men and women. They often turn the
guilt back on themselves asking themselves “what have I done
wrong to be punished like this?” Though the actual sexual
abuse may have happened in childhood or adolescence, the toxic
beliefs not only remain into adulthood but become more painful
as time passes.
The doctrine of forgiveness forms the basis for yet
another belief that becomes toxic when merged with the Church’s
response to sexual abuse. Most people misunderstand the
theological concept and believe it means leaving the offense
behind and essentially forgetting about it while forgoing any
expectation of justice or punishment for the offender. How
often have victims cringed at the words arrogantly uttered by a
bishop or high ranking cleric that “we are a forgiving
Church?” This attitude imposes misplaced guilt on the
victims for their justifiably angry feelings against their
perpetrators.
There is a degree of confusion about the meaning of
forgiveness. When Church officials speak of it and ask victims
to dutifully forgive their abusers, this easily translates into
re-victimization. It is a conscious attempt to misuse a
theological concept to avoid responsibility and accountability
for the crime of abuse. To the victim, forgiveness may
translate to acting and thinking as if the event did not happen
and to the offender it translates into deliverance from taking
responsibility for the abuse.
Victims are often reminded that forgiveness is at
the core of the Christian belief system. They easily confuse
the authentic notion of forgiveness with the feeling of
forgiveness and the consequence that all is forgiven and
forgotten. Yet most, perhaps all cannot feel any benevolence
toward a sexual abuser. The feeling of anger simply cannot be
controlled or willed away in the name of a misunderstood and
certainly misused religious doctrine. Churchmen or others who
urge forgiveness intentionally misinterpret the doctrine of
forgiveness for their own selfish benefit. They also do not
comprehend the depth of pain that comes from sexual abuse nor do
they understand what re-victimization means.
Beliefs about forgiveness quickly become toxic for
the victim and for the institution as well. The victim
experiences intense guilt over not being able to feel a
sense of forgiveness. The institutional Church hinders its own
painful growth toward pastoral authenticity by using forgiveness
to push the whole issue into the shadows. Margaret Kennedy
summed it up well: “Churches
use the concept of forgiveness to short circuit the survival
empowerment process...The Church cannot bear to hear about child
sexual abuse, so the quicker a child forgives, the easier it is
for the listener.”
Bishop Geoff Robinson provides a lucid and realistic
description of forgiveness in the context of clergy sexual abuse
in his book Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church.
He correctly points out that authentic forgiveness can benefit
the victim if he or she arrives at the point of shedding the
emotional control the abuser had over him or her even years
after the actual tragic event took place. True forgiveness is
happening when the victim moves beyond the place where the
sexual assault dominates feelings and emotions and continuously
disturbs the ability to love and be at peace. It is happening
when the victim controls his or her anger rather than being
devoured and obsessed by it. At this point, the abuser himself
and the enabling Church system have lost control over the
victim.
Possibly the most toxic beliefs are those about the
identity of the abuser. Sexual abuse perpetrated by a Catholic
priest on a believing Catholic can be more devastating precisely
because of the spiritual component. Priest abuse differs from
incest or abuse by anyone else including religious ministers of
other denominations precisely because of the beliefs about the
nature of the priesthood.
In short, the priest is viewed not only as a representative of
God, but as God by many victims. This belief is not based
on free-floating Catholic mythology but is solidly grounded in
Church teaching. Priests believe they are ontologically
different because of their ordination. The language used by the
official Church can easily lead a person to the belief that the
priest is the closest thing to God on this earth. The
Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this teaching
when it says:
In the ecclesial service of the
ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his
Church as Head of his body...This is what the Church means by
saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy
Orders, acts “in persona Christi capitis” [in the person of
Christ as head].
Pope Pius XII enunciated the traditional teaching
even more directly in his encyclical Mediator Dei which
was published in 1947:
Now the minister, by reason of
the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made
like to the high priest [Jesus Christ] and possesses the
authority to act in the power and person of Christ himself.
Lest one think that such presumptuous theology was
replaced by more enlightened teaching after the Second Vatican
Council, one need only look to the idea of the priesthood
propagated by Pope John Paul II. The priest, from the moment of
ordination, is configured to Christ and thereby ontologically
different from other men and women. Thus the pope continues the
highly mystical notion that a priest’s soul is different from
that of other persons.
One does not need much reflection to see how such a strange
theological doctrine, propagated by a popular pope, could lead
to highly toxic beliefs by victims of the clergy.
No amount of theological distinction or subtle
nuancing of the official texts can change the traditional
impression of priests that is absorbed by Catholics from
childhood. They see priests as unique beings, different from
ordinary men, deserving of their respect, obedience and even
awe. In Catholic culture the priest is in a far superior
position to lay persons because of his vast, mysterious powers.
The power a priest holds over lay people plus the erroneous
mystique that he actually stands in the place of god sets a
clergy victim up for severe emotional and spiritual trauma.
The concept of God, the nature of the Church and the
identity of the priest mesh together to form a devastating
source of trauma for abuse victims. They believe in a
theistic God, that is, a God that is a “super person” with
human emotions and reactions. This God actually does things in
the lives of people. The Church is God’s special enclave on
earth and its clergy are his personal representatives complete
with some of his powers. He shows himself through the priests
and bishops. If a cleric is kind it is often seen as God’s
kindness manifested through him. If a priest is angry or
somehow destructive to a person this is seen as a divine act,
possibly to punish something the person did wrong. Far too many
clergy abuse victims see their abuse as retribution or far
worse, as a sexual assault by God. Barbara Blaine, founder and
president of the oldest and largest victim support organization,
SNAP
said in a 2002 interview, “Many
of us feel as if we had been raped by God.”
The power a priest has over his victims as well as
the erroneous beliefs about the nature of the priesthood
contribute to the creation of a toxic bond between victim and
perpetrator, commonly known as a
trauma bond.
The existence of this bond explains why victims tolerate
repeated acts of abuse, why victims appear to be involved in an
actual relationship with abusers, why they are fearful of
disclosing their sexual abuse and why they experience persistent
fear, shame and isolation. The trauma bond is especially strong
when fortified by religion-based beliefs and fears. During the
grooming process whereby the clergy-perpetrator develops the
“relationship” with his victim, the victim often experiences
feelings of “specialness” at receiving the coveted attentions of
a priest. Once the actual sexual contact is initiated by the
cleric a whole new set of feelings develop including confusion,
fear, shame and guilt. In spite of these conflicting feelings
many clergy victims remain trapped because the trauma bond only
grows stronger with the passage of time. In a very real sense
this is incest. In her address to the U.S. Catholic bishops in
June 2002, Dr. Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea explained it clearly:
The sexual violation of a
child or adolescent by a priest is incest. It is a sexual and
relational transgression perpetrated by THE father of the
child’s extended family; a man in whom the child is taught from
birth to trust above everyone else in his life, to trust second
only to God. Priest abuse IS incest.
The pain and fear related to any form of sexual
abuse is magnified when the perpetrator is a clergyman and even
more so if he is a priest. Many victims report that their
abusers threatened them with dire consequences if they
disclosed. Some were told that the priest’s abusive attentions
were God’s will and others that to disclose would harm the
priest and the Church. Still others were led to believe that
this secret was meant to be kept between them and disclosure
would bring God’s wrath to family or friends. Perhaps one of
the more bizarre twists with clergy victims is the reversal of
guilt. Believing the priest takes God’s place many victims were
convinced that priests can do no wrong and because of their
celibacy, could not experience any sexual feeling much less
sexual contact. The sexual assault by the cleric caused some
victims to believe that they had led the priest to commit a
sexual act and they assumed the guilt and responsibility
for their own sexual transgression and that of the priest as
well.
Children are especially prone to the paralyzing fear
that follows sexual abuse because of their pre-existing beliefs
about priests, the Church and God. The fear is compounded by
deep confusion over the morality of the sexual actions and their
feelings for the abuser.
Catholic children are taught that any sexual thought, desire or
action is mortally sinful if it occurs outside of marriage.
Furthermore they are taught that spiritual relief and
reconciliation with God comes through the intervention of the
priest to whom one confesses and receives absolution from the
sin. If the priest is, in the mind of the victim, the cause of
the sin, then the sole avenue for relief is cut off and the
victim’s sense of guilt and fear of divine punishment is
compounded.
Many victims erroneously believe that any
pleasurable feelings they may experience are sinful. They may
not have intended these feelings and almost always fail to
understand that they are involuntary and therefore beyond their
control. Their sense of guilt and shame is often magnified if
they assume the abuser’s sinfulness. The Church’s teaching on
homosexuality is an additional source of trauma for the majority
of youthful victims who are male. The traditional teaching has
consistently framed homosexuality and same-sex relations as
mortally sinful. The Catholic Catechism repeats the
official position that homosexuality and homosexual acts as
intrinsically disordered and contrary to the natural law.
If a male or female victim sees himself or herself as
heterosexual and experiences sexual abuse by a member of the
same sex (priest or nun for example), the moral confusion and
sense of isolation and shame is even more intense.
Traditional Catholic spirituality is commonly
associated with self-denial, participation in liturgical
rituals, dependence on the clergy and the prescriptive
pronouncements of the Church for spiritual security. The
pre-Christian Stoic dualism that heavily influenced the
formation of the primitive Church’s sexual ethic is still
evident in the emphasis on self-denial and the exaltation of
sexual abstinence.
Catholics believe that the sacraments are their primary source
for spiritual security since the Church teaches that they are
necessary for salvation.
They are dependent on the clergy for the sacraments since the
clergy have the power to judge eligibility for them and are the
actual ministers for all but one of the sacraments.
Thus Catholic spirituality is essentially a dependent
spirituality. Lay persons occupy the passive role with clerics
as the actors. Since a secure spirituality involves being both
obedient to Church teachings and being as free from sin as
possible, it is obvious how essential a role priests play.
Catholics are not taught to take responsibility for their
spiritual choices. They are told what to choose and that an
opposite choice brings the opprobrium of the clergy and its
consequent feelings of guilt.
Even in its official response to clergy sexual
abuse, especially since the Boston revelations in 2002, the
Church continues to show that it is blind to the re-victimization
this dependent spirituality has on the abused. There have been
cases wherein Church officials, while trying to sound
sympathetic to victims, have urged that they “go to confession”
or urged that they return to active participation in the
Church’s rituals. Many of the victim oriented liturgies have
actually acted as triggers for re-experiencing the trauma
associated with the abuse. Even the suggestion of liturgies of
penance or lamentation, in spite of the possibly good intentions
of the Church officials, indicate the inability to comprehend
the nature of the spiritual and emotional damage from clergy
abuse. Liturgies performed primarily by clerics, though they
express regret and sorrow, end up by giving the clerics the
feeling that they have “done something” but have little long
term healing effect on victims. The Church here confuses
gesture or ritual with substantial healing. In reality the
liturgies are symbolic and quickly forgotten, but they
illustrate the continuing attempts by clerics to maintain
control over the scandal they have caused.
The Symptoms of Spiritual
Trauma
Religious belief systems are constructed by human as
they attempt to provide meaning to life. They are a connecting
pathway to the unseen powers that people have always believed
had control over life. For primitive people the immense powers
of nature were thought to be the actions of unseen gods.
Throughout history certain human persons were singled out as
being more favorable to the unseen supernatural powers and
therefore were commissioned by the community to act as
intermediaries between mortals and the gods. Catholicism, as a
religious belief system, is no different than others. It
teaches people that participation in the Church is essential not
only for salvation in the next life but for the emotional
security of finding God’s favor in this life. Interaction
between Church members and the clergy is an essential if not
foundational aspect of life in the Church. Furthermore,
Catholics are taught that the only way to spiritual salvation is
through Jesus Christ and the proper place for encountering
Christ is in the Catholic Church.
The pre-Vatican II doctrine that “Outside the Church there is no
Salvation” is apparently alive and well though expressed in less
offensive language.
Spiritual trauma is real and not a hypothetical
construct conjured up by supporters of abuse victims. Even
Church leaders admit to it though perhaps they do not fully
understand it. Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston is quoted in a
2004 article as saying:
The priest was an icon of the
transcendent, and hence the abuse had consequences that went
beyond the damage caused by similar cases of abuse not involving
clergy.
The same article quotes Rev. Robert Silva, former
president of the National Federation of Priests’ Councils:
In Roman Catholicism it [the
identification of the priest with God] has been sacrosanct...It
has meant that the relationship of a priest to those persons
with whom he interacts is perceived as most intimate, sacred and
most trustworthy. It is in effect, for the individual to be in
touch with what leads to God.
The same article cites non-clergy sources such as
psychologist Dr. David Finkelhor and psychologist-author Kenneth
Pargament who agree that abuse by a cleric has a profoundly
traumatic effect precisely because of its spiritual dimension.
Attitude towards priests. A primary symptom
of spiritual trauma is the radical change in feelings towards
priests. Some victims report serious confusion at first which
is grounded in the deep respect and reverence for the priest
which is now compromised by the feelings brought forth by the
sexual abuse. The confusion is compounded when the victim
believes he or she cannot be angry at the priest for fear of
God’s wrath or if the victim feels serious guilt arising from
the sexual experience. As these feelings continue to develop
they often turn to anger and loathing, not only with the abuser
but with all priests. Seeing other clerics, especially if they
are dressed in clerical garb or are performing services often
acts as a painful reminder of the sexual abuse. Some see their
perpetrator in every other cleric. Many also feel profoundly
betrayed by priests in general because no other cleric stepped
up to protect or support them.
Victims often exclaim that the sexual abuse robbed
them of God. This response can have a number of meanings. The
priest is intimately associated with God. For some, the
estrangement from priests means estrangement from the Church and
its sacraments which in turn means estrangement from God. Others
believe that God has rejected them through the betrayal by the
priest and still others report that they can no longer receive
the sacraments because priests control the sacraments. To
approach a priest for communion or any other sacrament would
amount to re-visiting the pain and trauma.
Catholic victims have often been led along a
religious developmental path that requires unquestioning trust
in priests which in turn is equated with trust in God. To
distrust a priest is to distrust God, or so many are taught.
When a priest-abuser betrays that trust the victims can easily
feel that God has betrayed their trust. They in turn often
cannot feel trust in the clergy nor trust in God because their
spirituality is such that the two are intertwined. Total loss
of trust in the clergy is not permanently traumatic if one’s
spirituality is not dependent upon them yet for most Catholics
the spiritual relationship with God is filtered through and
consequently dependent on priests and bishops. Cut loose from
priests, many victims erroneously believe they are consequently
cut loose from God. The betrayal by the trusted priest is
enmeshed with a sense of betrayal by the institutional Church,
the guarantor of spiritual/religious security as well as a
betrayal by the sacraments, personified in the priest.
An essential element in the Catholic Church’s
sacramental system and education mission is the core belief in
the sacred and unique nature of the priest. It understates the
issue to simply say that a devout Catholic believes this. It is
perhaps more accurate to say that a believing Catholic’s
perception of the priest on all levels - emotional, cognitive
and spiritual - is that of a being in whose essence God resides
in a special, powerful way. When a priest sexually violates a
minor or an adult the shock to the victim’s spiritual and
emotional system is beyond adequate description. Most often the
victim cannot process the fact that the priest, the embodiment
of Christ, has sexually violated him or her. The complex trauma
begins with the sexual violation itself and extends to the shock
from the deep sense of betrayal not just by a trusted person but
by the God personified by that person.
Attitudes toward and about the Church. For
many people the Church is identified with clerics, rituals and
the comfort and security of familiar Church buildings. They
often cannot distinguish between the Church as a socio-political
institution and the Church as a spiritual community. Though
some abuse victims have been able to distinguish between the man
who abused them and the wider Church, many cannot. Some
experience an unexplained emptiness because they are emotionally
and spiritually unable to participate in the sacramental
liturgies and other familiar rituals. This is no small issue
because the major life events are all commemorated in the
Church’s sacramental ceremonies. The emptiness the victims feel
is the void left from spiritual loss. This pain is especially
acute when connected to the more emotion-laden life events such
as baptism, marriage and death. Many victims have experienced
intense spiritual pain at not being able to attend the funerals
of loved ones or not being able to have children baptized.
Catholics are surrounded by the symbols of their
belief in God and in God’s presence in their lives through the
medium of the visible Church. The ritual of the sacraments, the
liturgical vestments worn by clerics, the statues, rosaries and
stained glass windows.....all are symbols that remind the
believer of the presence of God in the Church and thereby in his
or her life. Sexual abuse destroys the trust in the Church’s
representatives and it fragments the symbols of belief. Bishop
Geoff Robinson sums it up thus:
The power that has been abused
is a spiritual power that allows a person to enter deeply into
the secret lives of others. The link between the minister and
the god can be impossible to break and it can easily seem as
though the very god is the abuser. The abuse shatters the power
of the symbols of that belief, e.g., the picture of a priest
holding a host aloft becomes a mockery. The search for perfect
love within that system of belief can become impossible.
The official Church’s response to reports of clergy
abuse and to the victims is pivotal to their spiritual balance.
Many cannot simply separate their relationship with the abuser
from their relationship with the Church and with God. The
abuser is in a far more powerful and essential position in the
Church than the abuser. When the Church’s leadership appears to
support the abuser the victim experiences further rejection and
isolation. The most trusted source of comfort in times of
trouble, confusion or threat has been the Church for many
victims and now that source is turned against then.
It has been the norm and not the exception for
clergy victims to turn to the civil courts for credibility and
justice. Victims initially took this route as a last resort when
they could no longer tolerate the frustration of dealing with
the twisted and manipulative response they received from Church
authorities. Although there have been exceptions the experience
of most victims has been that of an uncaring, unresponsive and
dishonest institutional Church. Again, the deep-seated sense of
rejection by God had been communicated to victims by the
Church’s response. This sense of rejection is made even worse
when segments of the lay community turn against victims or their
family members.
Although the duplicitous response of a lay community
is the proper subject for a whole other study a brief
consideration is important for it is an essential element in the
victims’ spiritual trauma. When victims or their families have
“gone public” and engaged the Church in an embarrassing legal
battle, the common response is defensiveness and denial.
Going public with a report of sexual abuse by a priest,
especially a highly regarded priest often brings a strong
backlash from the community. Victims are naturally bewildered
and shocked that lay people, especially parents, would support a
man who has sexually assaulted vulnerable children or
adolescents. The disclosure rocks the belief system of many in
the community because it threatens the symbols that give them
spiritual security. They refuse to believe that a priest has
committed such a heinous act because they cannot believe
it. There is often a defensive reaction whereby the abuse
victim is treated as a criminal. His or her crime is not so
much in accusing the sacred person of a priest, but in
threatening the security of the dependent spirituality of some
members of the community. It is not so much that some lay
people do not believe the abuse took place. It is more that
they cannot bear the emotional pain that comes with accepting
the reality of betrayal by a trusted priest. The same can be
said of evidence of the institutionalized cover-up. Many simply
cannot bear the emotional shock of betrayal by the institutional
Church.
The betrayal by the clergy and the lay community is
a powerful step in the complete disintegration of the victim’s
religious world and spiritual system. In spite of the assault
and related loss of trust in the priest-abuser some victims
retained some faith in the community and looked there for
support. The conviction of abandonment by God is deepened when
the Church community isolates and ostracizes the victim.
Despair from the loss of God. Sexual abuse
has been aptly described as soul murder by victims and
their supporters alike. Those who remain secure in their
association with God fail to comprehend this concept. Victims,
betrayed by the clergy, isolated from the Church community and
unable to reach out for support fall deeper into despair. The
rupture of their relationship with God is final. This deep
spiritual loss leads to additional anxiety, depression and
hopelessness.
Toxic guilt and immobilizing fear. Far too
many clergy abusers have used the power of their role to
guarantee the silence of their victims. Children have been
threatened with God’s wrath if they disclosed. Some have been
assured that disclosure would result in serious consequences for
their parents or loved ones such as accidents or sickness. Many
have been cajoled with guilt-inducing phrases such as “you
wouldn’t want to hurt the Church” or, “you wouldn’t want to hurt
a priest.” Others have been told that the sexual abuse was a
“special thing” between the priest and the victim. The end
result of any of these attempts at persuasion is spiritual
confusion and isolation. The most toxic consequence is the deep
guilt experienced by the victim. This amounts to guilt for
having been involved in a sexual act or the assumption of guilt
for the perceived sin of the perpetrator. The most
debilitating dimension of this guilt is the victim’s conviction
that he or she has been sexually assaulted by God and therefore
has done something terrible to deserve this horrific punishment.
Loss of spiritual security. Sexual assault
by a Catholic cleric and the betrayal by the Church seriously
damages or completely destroys the victim’s relationship with
Catholicism. However it can also severely damage his or her
ability to find spiritual security anywhere. The victim’s life
and world, which once included a spiritual dimension that
provided security and a source of meaning for many of the more
profound and deeply influential moments in life, is radically
altered. The radical disillusionment is not only with the
institutional Church but with the concept of a loving God. The
signs, symbols, rituals and persons that represented spiritual
security have become harsh reminders of the betrayal and abuse.
The realization that one has a spiritual dimension and that this
dimension is somehow in contact with a spiritual Higher Power
does not emerge out of a vacuum nor is it sustained from
nothing. After sexual abuse, many victims experience something
they never experienced before and that is the empty feeling that
this spiritual bond is worthless because the earthly or finite
signs of it are all wrapped up in the betrayal.
How a person experiences spiritual trauma.
Trauma and post-trauma stress have emotional and physiological
effects. The spiritual pain suffered by one who feels cut off
or abandoned translates into depression or, in its extreme,
despondence. Often there is a significant amount of anxiety
that gradually turns to depression. The abused person
continually encounters situations that required some form of
spiritual support such as deaths, births, illness or loss. The
spiritual support experienced by the person came from the
external symbols or from the priest or minister to whom he or
she turned for support and guidance. The natural reaction to
turn to the Church or a priest is met by a psychological or
emotional reaction derived from the abuse. The source of
security is now a source of pain. The frustration and anxiety
are grounded in the perceived futility from seeking a source of
spiritual assistance and finding none.
Lay Catholics are formed by the Church to believe
that they should be obedient and docile and trust the clergy in
all spiritual matters. This blind trust as well as the learned
dependence on external symbols and rituals for spiritual comfort
is the basis for a dependent spirituality. For most people
their formal religious education ended with adolescence, just as
they were developing the capacity to wonder, critically evaluate
and choose for themselves ethical and moral guidelines. There
is only one acceptable way of imaging the Higher Power and His
involvement in human life. The childish and unrealistic concept
of God as a kind of “super human” with likes, dislikes, anger
and happiness is a powerful deterrent for the inquiring believer
to move beyond and find in God not a Person who demands total
obedience, allegiance and non-stop adoration, but a purely
spiritual force of love. Because of the Church’s insistence
that there is no other way to experience the presence and love
of God except through the medium of the visible Church and its
ministers, abused and betrayed Catholics have nowhere to turn.
Their religious “system” is severely limited by this dependent
spirituality and thus unable to respond to the trauma of
betrayal and loss.
The breaking point in coping
comes not only from attacks on significance, but from
limitations in the orienting system. It is an axiom of coping
that people are not helpless in the face of stress. The
orienting system of general beliefs, practices, relationships
and emotions can anchor people through stormy times.
If the abused person’s religious system is grounded
in a supreme being who is a personal or theistic God and who
controls all aspects of life, he or she will hardly be able to
process a warm and loving God with the God represented by the
priest-abuser. The result can be severe anxiety experienced as
the person tries to resolve the ambivalence.
Once the shock of what has happened begins to wear
off, a variety of emotions set in and one is anger. For some
this naturally begins with anger and rage directed at the abuser
but it usually extends to the Church leaders who failed to
respond in a compassionate manner. It becomes more firmly
entrenched as the victims learn that the Church authorities
actually enabled the abuser. The anger can be deepest and
therefore most debilitating and controlling if it is grounded in
the spiritual betrayal and resulting loss. For most Catholic
victims the external Church, with its customs, devotions,
absolute teachings and regulations exerted a powerful control
over most aspects of life. This control does not evaporate even
if the victim separates himself or herself from the Church. The
tentacles reach deep into the emotions and the soul and thus
enable the anger to retain such a strong hold.
Fear is another emotional and psychic symptom of
spiritual trauma. Victims fear that no power can free them from
the sin they have committed through the sexual act. At times
the perpetrators manipulate this fear and dependence by
promising victims dire consequences should they reveal the
abuse. Until the victims find a non-toxic image of God, this
fear will continue to create emotional pain and even paralysis.
Healing the wounds.
The traditional therapeutic responses to sexual
abuse trauma do not always provide relief from spiritual
trauma. Anecdotal experience with Catholic clergy abuse victims
over the past two decades has shown that most counseling
situations did not respond to the spiritual trauma. When the
institutional Church has responded to victims it generally has
offered psychological but not spiritual counseling. Indeed it
appears that Church authorities, all of whom are clerics, were
hardly cognizant of the nature and effects of the spiritual
trauma. There is no available evidence that any Church office,
from the Vatican to national bishops’ conferences to local
dioceses ever put into place programs or policies to assess the
spiritual damage and consequently to respond to it. The late
Pope John Paul II publicly acknowledged victims on several
occasions but offered only prayer as a healing remedy:
Therefore, I fully share your
sorrow and your concern, especially your concern for the victims
so seriously hurt by these misdeeds....So then, venerable
brothers, you are faced with two levels of serious
responsibility: in relation to the clerics through whom scandal
comes and their innocent victims, but also in relation to the
whole of society systematically threatened by scandal and
responsible for it....I ask you to reflect together with the
priests, who are your co-workers, and with the laity, and to
respond with all the means at your disposal. Among these means,
the first and most important is prayer: ardent, humble,
confident prayer.
I have been close to you in
suffering and prayer, commending to the “God
of all comfort” those
who have been victims of sexual abuse on the part of clerics or
religious.
As the Church shows her
concern for the victims and strives to respond in truth and
justice to each of these painful situations, all of us –
conscious of human weakness, but trusting in the healing power
of divine grace – are called to embrace the “Mysterium Crucis”
and to commit ourselves more fully to the search for holiness.
The late pope’s call to prayer is mingled with his
attempt to shift blame to the secular society. The promise of
prayer for victims is really a long-practiced tactic for
distancing the cleric from the person requesting help or
relief. In this case the pope’s words have provided no relief
for victims and consequently are meaningless.
There is no available tradition or font of
information about healing the spiritual wounds of clergy sexual
abuse. Consequently one can only look at the damage and its
sources and respond to each aspect of the trauma. It goes
without saying that any therapist working with victims should be
well aware of the idiosyncratic nature of sexual abuse by clergy
and by Catholic clergy in particular.
The first level of response should be to the
victim’s self-destructive belief system. The immediate
concern should be the victims’ concept of a priest. He or she
needs to be aided and supported in shedding the magical notion
that the priest is somehow the personal representative of God or
the stand-in for God. The dependence of the victim on the
priest and on the clerical system needs to be first challenged
and then replaced with a deeply rooted sense of personal
spiritual autonomy. This “adult spirituality” of the
victim-priest relationship will bring freedom from the misplaced
guilt that burdens so many victims.
De-mythologizing the concept of the priest
necessarily leads to a re-imaging of the notion of God. This is
perhaps the most fundamental and radical dimension of the
healing process. Upon it hinges the victim’s concept of Church,
sin and even self. Catholic theology is rooted in a theistic
notion of the Higher Power. God is a supernatural, personal
being who controls all aspects of life. It is possible to move
to a concept of God that does not lend itself to the toxic
beliefs about guilt, suffering, sin and punishment.
Such a transition is easiest on the cognitive level but much
more challenging to the emotions. Many victims are all too
painfully aware of the personal devastation caused by the sexual
abuse yet they continue to feel guilt because they have exposed
a priest or sued a Church entity such as a diocese. This is all
grounded in the irrational belief that God resides in a special
way in the institutional Church.
Once a clergy abuse victim begins to accept a Higher
Power that is non-judgmental, non-vindictive and not under the
control of the ordained office-holders of the Church, he or she
will be able to move to the next necessary level of healing
which is separating the visible, institutional Church from the
Higher Power. This should include an unfolding of the
mysterious emotional ties and reactions associated with the
victim’s relationship to the institutional Church. Once the
variety of feelings are acknowledged it is perhaps time to
cognitively examine the historical and doctrinal bases for the
Church’s contention that it was founded by God, is controlled by
God through clerics and provides the only authentic source of
spiritual security. At this stage the victims may be helped by
reading one or more books that provide an objective and
scholarly exposition of traditional Church teachings and
traditions on the nature of the Church.
As they examine concept of the Higher Power they realize that
what they have believed in and feared was not an authentic
reality but someone else’s vision of what god was all about.
Responding to the Loss of Religion. The
victim’s anger at the Church and possibly at religion in general
needs to be acknowledged and affirmed as a healthy response to
the abuse. If it has not been done earlier in the recovery
process this might be the appropriate time to examine the
radical distinction between organized religion and spiritual
security and strength. The toxic belief that God will be
displeased if the victim feels anger towards the Church must be
dispelled and replaced with a more realistic belief that the
organized religious body has actually been a barrier to a secure
relationship with the Higher Power. Victims attribute spiritual
power to the visible Church because it has been presented as the
only pathway to God. Most Catholics are never allowed to
progress beyond a level of spiritual and religious development
that is early-adolescent at best. The recovery process from
clergy sexual abuse offers a unique opportunity for spiritual
maturity. This maturity will provide the emotional security
needed for whatever choices the victims makes about the place or
religion, worship or a higher power in his or her life.
Affirming the Church’s responsibility. The
institutional Catholic Church has thus far avoided accepting its
responsibility for the culture of clergy sexual abuse and
cover-up. Church authorities have made public apologies for
“mistakes made” and have shifted the blame to others such as the
media or the medical profession.
Yet no public statement has given evidence of a full awareness
of the causality of clergy abuse or of the damage done to those
abused.
Victim/survivors need to explore the substance of
some of the official apologies and then come to an emotional as
well as cognitive acceptance of the fact that the institution
and its office holders will not because they cannot
respond in a manner that would reflect full awareness and
accepted responsibility. Some victims get “stuck” in an almost
endless contentious process trying to get the official Church to
realize the enormity of their actions. They need to come to a
realization that the Church’s narcissistic self-concept of a
perfect society renders its leaders incapable of
comprehending that the responsibility is rooted in the very core
of the institutional Catholic Church.
The Church’s responsibility is directly related to
the process whereby it has educated and formed Catholics from
childhood to adulthood. The victims need to be able to see this
as effective pre-conditioning that is related not only to the
grooming for the abuse itself but also for their subsequent
guilt and shame in responding to the violation of their bodies
and souls. A key aspect of this process is the concept of
sexuality internalized by most Catholics. The guilt, shame and
fear associated with it are responsible for much of the
post-abuse trauma. Re-examining the Church-given sexual
awareness can be a slow, difficult and often fear-laden process
but it must be done in order to guide the recovering victim in
the internalization of a healthier notion of sexuality.
Finding an authentic spirituality. Most
clergy abuse victims did not realize that they had a spiritual
dimension to their being until it was taken from them. The
final phase of healing involves the discovery of this spiritual
dimension and the acceptance of an authentic, life-giving
spirituality. God or the Higher Power is re-imaged from an
omniscient super person to a source of power and love that is
not shaped or limited by human conceptions. The traditional
relationship with God was far too enmeshed with loyalty and
obedience to the deity’s self-styled earthly representatives.
When this is abandoned there is room for the transition to a
spiritual relationship with a Higher Power or even an
institutional Church that is not a source of pain, fear and
guilt but rather enhances life and provides joy and balance.
This non-toxic spirituality requires a healthy sense of
self-worth if it is to take root and grow. The path to
emotional and spiritual health is often long, always arduous and
usually bewildering at times. Yet is can be traversed with an
outcome that promises not only freedom from the spiritual pain
but a new and hope-filled future.
A Personal Note
At the outset of this presentation I noted that the
contents are rooted in my own experiences as well as the
experiences of victims I have come to know over the years. I
must admit that as I was drawn deeper and deeper into the total
phenomenon of clergy sexual abuse I began to experience a deep
and gnawing pain that I eventually learned was fundamentally
spiritual in nature. From the outset of my experience in the
mid to late 1980’s I found it emotionally jarring as I saw the
broad-based dishonesty and callousness of Church leaders. At
first I could not believe what I thought I was seeing and it was
only with intense emotional and spiritual pain that I finally
accepted the reality of what I saw before me…..the bishops were
more concerned about themselves and hardly concerned about the
victims. The radical incongruity between the response of the
institutional Church to the entire clergy sexual abuse
phenomenon and to the victims and the Church’s dogged concern
for orthodoxy and doctrinal integrity remains a profound mystery
for me.
In time I could no longer reconcile the official
Church’s announced commitment to Christ’s healing love, with
their acceptance and enabling of a broad-based epidemic of rape,
sexual devastation and spiritual destruction of so many innocent
people by clerics, from deacons to cardinals. I could no longer
comprehend the Church’s teaching that the offices of pope and
bishop were of divine origin and must be revered even though so
many of the incumbents of these offices were in fact destroying
the souls of the innocent. The offices of bishop and pope
were and are those who hold them. It taxes the
imagination beyond reason to expect people to have respect and
belief in the concept of the episcopacy while those who embody
this concept are not life-givers but dishonest destroyers of the
spirit.
I began my journey in 1984 in a state of fearful
denial that what I was seeing and experiencing was really
happening. In time I was able to connect this denial with my
own dependence on the Church “system” for security. The Church
was my past, present and my future, or so I thought. What I
thought was my spirituality was really a vacillating emotional
response to rituals and a false sense of “priestly importance”
at being the center of attention when celebrating sacraments. I
could not reconcile the dishonest responses of the Church’s
leadership with the official teaching that these men were the
divinely ordained interpreters of God’s will. Once the initial
shock of the institutionalized dishonesty wore off I found
myself wondering about the fundamental claims of doctrinal truth
passed on to us by church authority figures.
I began to doubt and in time these doubts extended
beyond the veracity of the Church’s claims about the power and
authority of its popes and bishops to the very concept of a
Supreme Being as presented by traditional Catholicism. In
between I began to look critically at every aspect of the
Church…its government, its offices, its sacraments, its
theology, its moral teaching. I found myself returning to many
of the text-books that I had failed to fully comprehend while in
seminary formation. My reading, study and contemplation
extended to many of the very works I had formerly condemned as
“heretical” while in my orthodox, clericalist days. I
discovered more and more aspects of the Church and Church
teaching that I could no longer reconcile with what I had come
to believe was the fundamental message and mission of Jesus
Christ. High on the list of was the fear and control that
seemed to grip so much of the Church in a pathological and
highly toxic stranglehold. I wanted to be free to think, to
wonder, to criticize and to doubt without the debilitating guilt
that the Church leaders imposed on anyone who did not think and
act precisely as they ordered. I finally had to break through
the deeply embedded control mechanisms and give myself
permission to think, to wonder, to question. To do so is not to
reject but to come to an acceptance of much about the Christian
community that is not entangled in a complex web of
contradiction and confusion.
I learned quickly that I was not alone in my journey
and that as I watched my own religious system crumble many
others were going through similar experiences. I realized that
I could not turn to the Church, to the popes or the bishops nor
to any official dogma or pronouncements for answers. All of
these only defended the status quo and remained defensive in the
face of any justified criticism. I witnessed staunch defenders
of the ecclesiastical establishment heap scorn and condemnation
on anyone who questioned, criticized or expressed an opinion not
in keeping with the established party line. I watched as
members of Voice of the Faithful for example, were rejected and
isolated by the bishops solely because they wanted to be treated
like Catholic adults. Through the entire journey of doubt and
searching, I watched with increasing sadness and anger as the
official church dug its heels in and continued to respond to the
men and women whose souls it had pillaged with anything but
sincere, Christ like concern.
Sixteen years ago I became involved in the Twelve
Step way of life. It has become the source of balance, and
above all the spiritual foundation of my life. I can honestly
say that what I thought was spirituality before was not even a
shadow of that which has become for me the real thing. Here I
blame no one nor do I blame the Church for my lack of authentic
spiritual realization. What is important is that I discovered
that spirituality is not something one learns or a mantle one
assumes. It is as much a part of my being as my skin and
bones. I needed to discover it in my life. Through the Twelve
steps I have found a vision of a Higher Power that reflects all
that is good about Jesus Christ. I have emerged from the world
of guilt, shame and fear into one that is brightly lit by the
spirit of the Higher Power which for
