Between Sanctity and Real Life: Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church in Spain

Previous Studies

Most research that has analyzed CSA in the Catholic Church has adopted a point of view related to individual or situational factors, while other studies have focused on institutional or organizational causes. However, these perspectives are limited. Reactions from the Catholic Church have been to paint CSA as an individual problem resulting from psychological disorders in the persons who abused. This attitude, which tries to avoid any perception of the priest who has abused as representing an institution, while also acknowledging accountability and the need for institutional change, has been interpreted as a “rotten apples” perception by White and Terry (2008), who noted a similar attitude existing in cases of police brutality. Those authors argued that a full explanation of the problem must go beyond the sexually deviant behavior of a few opportunistic rotten apples, in that organizational structures can be identified that frame and facilitate the emergence of individual deviant acts. Those structures, despite changes in recent years, are featured by isolation, unique authority, and lack of supervision, along with subcultural elements such as secrecy and an esprit de corps, all of which lead clergy to have a different view of the social world.

As Doyle (2003) highlighted, research suggested that some young men are attracted to the priesthood or religious life as a means of escaping from their anxiety or confusion about sexual feelings and sexual orientation that they perceive as deviant. Based on this perception, a combination of factors generates conditions for sexual abuse, including clericalism, a culture of secrecy, a fear of scandal, a lack of transparency, and the concepts of sin and confession (and particularly the belief held by some religious leaders that CSA is a sin dealt with by repentance and absolution, not a crime to be reported). In this context, clericalism is conceived as an idealization of priesthood and of the sacral nature of the institutional Catholic Church and its moral authority (Doyle, 2003). Clericalism, in combination with secrecy, celibacy, a lack of control, individual factors (narcissism and psychosexual immaturity), social factors (mainly the power of the Catholic Church in society) and organizational factors (such as a hierarchical structure, with unlimited power of bishops) and a lack of transparency are the elements leading to this complex problem. The Australian Royal Commission (2017) found that religious institutions with a lower prevalence of CSA tended to be significantly more democratic and participatory, even though religious superiors had exclusive power regarding the appointment, movement, and management of religious members. This would suggest that risk could be reduced by changes in governance and the inclusion of women and lay people in decision and control bodies.

Anomie

Another element missing in analyses regarding CSA is criminological theories that understand crime as the expression of anomie. Durkheim (1897) described anomie as the suppression of moral, religious, and civic values that produces feelings of emptiness, anguish, and indecision in individuals. The loss of values results in a lack of social regulation that can lead to individual acts such as suicide or crime. These acts can be interpreted as facts that basically have a social meaning because they are an expression of the destruction or alteration of the social order.

Departing from this idea, Merton, in Social Structure and Anomie (1938), noted how social structures do not always induce normalized behavior, but exert pressure on certain people to adopt a nonconformist attitude. Thus, divergent behavior would not be the consequence of a psychological abnormality, but the reaction to an inconsistency between cultural structure and institutional structure in each social group. According to Merton (1938), the cultural structure is formed by social objectives, arranged according to a hierarchy of values, and the institutional structure is constituted by the regulatory norms of the legitimate means to achieve those objectives. Merton’s typology of individual adaptation modes consists of five types of behavior (the last four divergent): conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. Innovation, characterized by the acceptance of cultural goals but not of institutionalized means, has been the greatest focus of criminological research since it is supposed to have a greater capacity to explain the inclination of certain individuals toward criminal behavior. Ritualism, in contrast, has received less attention.

Ritualism consists of the abandonment or reduction of cultural goals combined with a maintenance of, and even a compulsive attachment to, institutional norms. According to Merton (1938), ritualism “develops a tradition-bound, sacred society characterized by neophobia” (pp. 204–205). In the enlarged edition of his work, he argued that ritualistic adaptation based on anxiety is caused by a competitive struggle to achieve goals. The context in which this thesis was developed was a North American society dominated by the ideal of the “American dream,” interpreted as social success (basically identified with economic success): essentially a promise of an a priori reward available to all, but only achieved by some. Merton considered that, to respond to frustration, the lower classes were more predisposed to innovative adaptation, while the lower middle classes were more predisposed to ritualistic adaptation, given the relative pressures that parents exert on their children to respect the rules. Merton (1968) insinuated, without developing the idea, that there is a risk that ritualistic subjects, who usually appear as “virtuous beings of the bureaucracy” evolve toward deviant behaviors. He considered that “the occasional passage from ritualistic adaptation to dramatic kinds of illicit adaptation is well-documented in clinical case-histories”, suggesting that there was a need for further research (pp. 204–206).

In response to some criticisms, Merton (1968) accepted that the cultural goals that generate frustration and anomie should not be understood only as social success based on economic progress. Regarding ritualism, Merton warned that excessive submission was a response to anxiety and insecurity that led some individuals to cling to safe routines. What, from a psychological point of view, had been seen as personality traits in subjects who presented intolerance toward ambiguity and avoidance of uncertainty could be examined, from a sociological point of view, as a functional adaptation to a situation of anomie.

The psychological and the sociological perceptions are not contradictory, and the anomie thesis does not in itself explain what leads individuals to react in one way or another to frustration. Although there may be differences in the intensity and the way in which they receive social pressure that partly explain the diversity of responses, the influence of individual characteristics and previous adverse experiences is undeniable. There is abundant research that shows that having been victimized in childhood is a predictor of criminality in adult life (Fitton et al., 2020; Leschied et al., 2008), while traits such as intolerance of uncertainty, rigidity, and ritualistic behavior may be responses conditioned by traumatic experiences (McEvoy & Mahoney, 2012). Therefore, the relationship between ritualism and criminal behavior could be explained as an explosive response to tension enhanced by submission to rigid institutional norms—an explanation that Merton left incomplete.

Subculture

To understand and analyze the tension between cultural and institutional structures, it is necessary to understand the experiences of the social group represented by clergy, specifically, whether their cultural goals are consistent with those in force for the social majority or whether they have a subcultural character. Thinking of ecclesial organization in terms of a subculture can be shocking because the Catholic Church has traditionally played a social role in defending dominant social values. However, it cannot be ignored that Church members are individuals linked to the institution through commitments, promises, and sacrifices in their personal lives, with the institution defining, for them, more strict moral objectives than those it preaches to all believers and the general population. These features can be associated with subculture elements, such as the culture of secrecy and the esprit de corps to which White and Terry (2008) allude and could explain the maintenance of a world view different from that of the societal majority.

The concept of subculture as formulated by Cohen (1955) was linked to the idea of anomie in that it related criminal behavior with the actual validity of social values and norms; however, it diverged from Merton’s thesis by highlighting how criminal behaviors, despite deviating from the dominant social norms, do not deviate from the norms in force in the reference group. Another difference is the non-utilitarian character of the criminal behaviors (not oriented according to criteria of rationality or economic utility) and the associated negativism (conscious rejection of conventional values), versatility, hedonism, and resistance to external pressure toward conformity. Merton (1968) responded by accepting the existence of non-utilitarian deviant behaviors, since destructiveness could be a reaction to a situation of continued frustration.

Neutralization

It is difficult to accept the idea that behaviors such as CSA can be perceived as non-deviant in the context of an ecclesial subculture. Therefore, research that has found how abusive clergy resort to the neutralization techniques indicated by Sykes and Matza (1957) should be considered: the authors, to explain why delinquency occurs despite a commitment to normative values, formulated neutralization techniques as consisting of a system of beliefs and attitudes that allows the criminal to avoid feelings of blame and to maintain conformity. Those techniques included denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties. In the USA, the report titled The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States 1950–2010 (John Jay College, 2011) found, after interviewing a sample of clergy who had abused, that rationalizations such as denial of responsibility or denying the victim were common. Some individuals argued that it was their ‘sick self’, not their real self, who was responsible, or that they acted because of a disease of mind. They also frequently minimized the harm caused to those who had been abused by them, accused them of being provocative, saw themselves as victims, justified their behavior reformulating the CSA as a ‘relationship’ with the boy or girl, and condemned the condemners, mainly the mass media or the victims’ families.

Spraitz and Bowen (2016), after analyzing the personnel files of 18 clergymen from an American Archdiocese through a qualitative content analysis of their direct statements and correspondences, found that all of them used neutralization techniques to justify their behaviors. The most used techniques were condemnation of condemners, followed by a denial of responsibility. Denial of the victim and denial of injury were also used, although less frequently. Spraitz and Bowen (2016) concluded that the interaction of denial of responsibility and denial of injury “coupled with the systemic lack of accountability that pervaded the Archdiocese of Milwaukee led to continued instances of sexual abuse by priests” (p. 2532). Evidently, these techniques have an impact on how these cases are handled: Spraitz, Bowen, and Bowers’ (2016) research showed that in the abovementioned Archdiocese, treatment for offenders was to refer the accused clergymen to psychologists and oversee them through documentation, while failing to contact law enforcement.

It should be noted that Sykes and Matza (1957) focused on neutralization techniques in response to the subculture thesis, thereby providing an explanation for the fact that some people commit crimes despite not challenging social norms, and so adopt beliefs and attitudes that allow them to avoid feelings of guilt. To confirm the hypothesis of the subculture, it would be necessary to verify whether this system of beliefs and attitudes of abusive clergy has support and congruence with their peers, and whether there is greater congruence in the cognitive and evaluative level of reasoning regarding deviant behavior than exists in their peers.

Design

To accomplish these objectives, a qualitative methodology was chosen to explore in depth the perspectives of the participants. Qualitative methods have the advantage that they provide a general picture of associations, relationships, and trends, in that they emphasize processes experienced by people, their responses, the contexts where they interact, their thoughts, and the behaviors governing their responses (Creswell, 2013). Therefore, the fundamental assumptions and key features that distinguish what it means to proceed from a qualitative stance fit well with the scope of the present study, as a qualitative point of view allows the researchers to explore and understand CSA in the Catholic Church while generating rich, primary-sourced data.

Sampling Strategy

The study has been based on a sample selected through an intentional sampling procedure. To begin with, the researchers compiled an initial contact list to try to access potential participants: clergy members, either diocesan or belonging to a religious order. The list of possible candidates was compiled from the information available online through different Catalan dioceses and religious orders present in Catalonia. It was not a sine qua non condition of the present investigation that the participants had direct knowledge of cases of sexual abuse that occurred in their parishes or orders.

The list consisted of 121 people considered key informant candidates, who were contacted with the dual intention of creating a final sample set and conducting interviews. Contact was primarily made by email (the date of the first communication was entered into a database for subsequent control of the candidate’s follow-up) except in cases in which the subject was contacted by telephone. More specifically, to access the sample, emails were sent to 43 priests from seven Catalan dioceses and 77 members of ten religious congregations established in the territory above. In cases where no response was obtained, a second message was sent. Of the 43 diocesans, 24 responded, among which 13 were interviewed, seven expressed their refusal to participate, and four asked for more information or prior conversations were held with them without conducting the interviews. Regarding the 77 members of the congregations, only 14 responded, of which nine declined to be interviewed, two were interviewed, and three had initial conversations about the study yet chose not to participate.

Given the low response, the researchers contacted the Union of Religious of Catalonia (URC): three sessions were held in which the research team first met with those representatives of the orders that are part of the Association’s Board and later, in the remaining two meetings, only with some members. In the end, six members of religious congregations were interviewed. Besides, seven dioceses were contacted, requesting, through their secretariats, to interview their respective Bishops: only two of them answered and declined to participate in the studies, while the rest of invitations went unanswered. In the end, it was not possible to interview any Bishop.

The resulting sample has been made up of 20 clergymen, all men, 12 diocesan priests (from six different dioceses), and eight members of religious orders (from seven congregations). Of the latter, four were provincial or equivalent positions in their congregation in the territory of Catalonia. Of the total number of people interviewed, at the time of the interview, 18 were priests, eight were rectors of parishes, three were judicial vicars, one was episcopal vicar, two were school directors, three were priests attached to parishes, and one (the only layperson interviewed of the sample) was responsible for the protection of minors of an order.

Regarding those who declined, in most cases it was implicitly by not answering, while others alleged reasons such as ignorance of the subject or simply expressed that they did not want to participate: in this case, most of them claimed lack of competence or information on the subject, or not having time or distrust regarding the research project, among other reasons

Data Collection

Data collection revolved around the qualitative interview. The interviews were semi-structured, proceeding on the basis of a schedule of questions listed in questionnaires, although occasionally departing from this schedule to explore areas that the respondents saw as important or to pursue unanticipated lines of inquiry that seemed pertinent. This format meant that the interviewees could be kept to themes relevant to the research, while also allowing them to talk about their own experiences.

The questionnaire included 17 questions divided in five blocks. The first gathered basic information about the interviewees such as age, position, years passed since ordination or entrance at the congregation, among others. The second block comprised questions regarding the perception of the problem such as “Are you aware of instances of CSA?”, “Do you think that the allegations are generally true?”, “Do you discuss these issues with other members of the clergy? or How does this sort of news make you feel?”. A third block refers to the perception of risk factors by interviewees: based on relevant literature, questions clustered around organizational issues (“Do you think that there are organizational aspects of the church that favor the commission of abuses?”), sexual issues (“Do you think the Church’s attitude toward sexuality should change?”), or the sacrament of reconciliation (“Can the sacrament of reconciliation help justify CSA if it is too easy to obtain forgiveness?”). The fourth and penultimate block dealt with the responses to CSA by the Church, asking questions such as “Do you think that the church gives an adequate answer to the problem?” or “In other countries bishops have taken initiatives such as engaging in reparation procedures for victims or participating in public commissions: what do you think?”. A final block closed the interviews allowing respondents to bring to the table issues they considered relevant and a snowballing question.

A total of 20 interviews, lasting between one and 2 hours, were conducted between April 2019 and March 2020, in the privacy of the subjects’ offices, and in the Catalan language except for one interview in Spanish. Most of the interviews were recorded, after the interviewee was fully informed concerning the purpose of the study and their rights and had signed the informed consent. The interviews were transcribed verbatim in Catalan or Spanish. Interviewee extracts quoted in the article were translated to English with no correction of grammar, to avoid inadvertently altering the meaning. A professional translation service was used to ensure maximum fidelity, and meetings were held with the translator to ensure complete fidelity to original quotes.

Data Analysis

Once transcribed, content analysis of the data obtained in the interviews was conducted. Analytic categories were directly aligned with each of the project’s research questions. In fact, these same analytic categories were used to code the data (in Catalan or Spanish) and were used to present the findings. In the analysis, connecting patterns were primarily sought within the analytic categories, as well as the connections among various categories. As a secondary level of analysis, the relevant theory and produced research were tied in.

Regarding coding procedures, the analysis followed the open, axial, and selective coding stages (Creswell, 2013; Kraska & Neuman, 2008). An Excel spreadsheet was used to create a data matrix, and no qualitative data analysis software was involved: in the open coding stage of the analysis, the codes developed over time. In the axial coding phase, codes were filed under four category headings, which seemed to best represent the common themes shared by groups of coded data. In the selective coding phase, the relationship with the axial codes was examined, so the connections between codes could be explained. Both researchers analyzed data independently and with no conferral at the beginning, while on a second phase discussed this process and the results alongside. A third professor acted as arbiter in case of disagreement, yet researchers never had to resort to her as interviewees’ responses were clear enough to be interpreted equally by both authors, with the exception of minor disagreements on specific responses, sorted out after careful consideration. Transcribed and coded quotations that were deemed important and relevant were cut and pasted into the data matrix. The goal was to articulate several themes that were linked together in a way that they could collectively analyze the phenomenon of CSA and answer the research questions.

To enhance validity, rich data was obtained through the compilation of transcripts from the interviews and the inclusion of memos that provided an audit trail on how the information was collected and analyzed. Rich data also has an impact on reliability, as procedures were documented to demonstrate how the themes were used consistently. However, the authors acknowledge problems regarding the generalizability of the results: the responses obtained in this research are not generalizable to Catalonia (or to a wider geographical context), since the sample is so small and not representative of all priests in that region.

Problem Recognition and Emotional Impact

The interviewees generally recognized the problem of CSA, although some of them pointed out that there have not been as many cases in Catalonia and Spain as in other countries. One interviewee stated that

“Here [in Catalonia] there is the general perception that there is not an abundance of cases compared to what has occurred in other places, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world. Therefore, I do believe that here we have little this perception: it may be true or not, but we all have this perception” (RO#3).

Many respondents stated that they have not directly known of cases of sexual abuse. Participants who were provincial superiors of religious orders or judicial vicars almost all declared having knowledge of cases by reason of their position. In an analysis of the language used to refer to the core issue of the present study, only a few informants and on very few occasions used the expression “sexual abuse.” Some of them used the words “abuse,” “abuses” or “aggression,” without any allusion to “sexual.” Most interviewees verbalized expressions such as “cases,” “complaints,” “accusations,” “faults,” or more indirect expressions such as “this issue,” “this” (as in “this is happening,” “has made me do this”), “something” (as in “something that could go in this sense”) or “thing” (as in “whoever has some hysteria about this thing”). The word “victim” was commonly used to refer to minors who suffered sexual abuse or to adults who experienced it as children. The term “abuser” was also present in the semantic repertoire of the informants, although less frequently.

When asked about the feelings caused by news about CSA in the environment of the institution, the informants used expressions that show their rejection of the abuses and the profound impact that these news cause on them. The most verbalized words were “pain” (six respondents), “sadness” (six respondents), “disappointment” (four respondents), and “shame” (three respondents). The words “indignation,” “suffering,” “perplexity,” and “rage” were also expressed by two interviewees. Only once were the words “betrayal,” “grief,” “bewilderment,” “discomfort,” “disgust,” “disorientation,” “discomfort,” “restlessness,” “freezing,” “disbelief,” “misunderstanding,” “horrible feeling,” “anger,” or “surprise” used.

Some of the interviewees expressed the impact derived from their proximity to those who committed abuses with phrases such as the ones that follow: “Disgust… Are we doing this? I am not saying these [abusers] are not my companions. No, because they are priests” (DP#2); “You think of the minors, the victims, but you immediately feel touched because the collective which you feel as a brother and member has this clear stain and you have to take it on” (DP#12); or “Outrage that this has been done by consecrated people, people who oneday made a choice to follow Jesus” (DP#1).

This rejection appears related to the perplexity and frustration deriving from the betrayal that the abuse represents for the essential values that they profess and preach. As one of the respondents stated:

“And to know that someone makes use of this shared utopia of the religious order, of this desire to help children grow up to be men and women of the future (…), who takes advantage of this to do the opposite from what we have considered ... What worse can be done with a child that is contrary to our mission? … Rape is very serious and if you want to go one step further it would be then to kill someone […] It is very disturbing” (RO#4).

Most of the interviewees expressed feelings of empathy and compassion for the persons affected by CSA. In some cases, the verbalization of these feelings was accompanied by concern and an attempt to understand those who abuse, with comments that reveal a certain level of equality or equidistance, such as “These people have had to suffer a lot … Both one and the other … This is a degradation” (RO#1).

Several interviewees made explicit the strong impact on them caused by the abuses and also by the social response to CSA, with expressions such as “It was a very strong blow” (RO#4). Some of them claimed to suffer from stigmatization that they came to interpret as a form of victimization. For example, some respondents stated that “You find yourself walking down the street and there are people looking at you as if they are judging you or there is writing on the facade of the church ‘pedophiles’” (DP#7); “We are privately prosecuted because we are victims!” (DP#2); or “The media presents us as predators. People distrust our schools, our activities. I’m scared. No child will ever enter this office alone” (DP#3).

Causes

A major question of this study has been to assess to what extent the members of the institution are aware of the existence of structural causes of the abuses highlighted by the extant literature. When asked about the causes of the CSA and about various aspects of the Church’s institution and doctrine that could be considered risk factors by the respondents, various answers were given. Some informants accepted the existence of these factors, others denied them (in general resorting to the argument that sexual abuse is a problem that also affects other areas of society and especially the family environment), while yet others accepted them with reservations and limitations.

Regarding the acceptance of risk factors, various informants consider loneliness to be an important aspect as it can be seen from the following statements. One respondent claimed that priests were more accompanied before, yet nowadays, they live practically alone, thus having the problems related to loneliness (DP#9). This was a problem raised by various informants by many priests in the research project:

“… it is important to have healthy relationships with friends, with family. If this is not the case, I think it generates strange priests, strange, that look odd, that are difficult to deal with. I have brothers who are weird people. Not quite the same as an abuser, no, but if we are saying how can we prevent this in this area, we need to take more care of the priests” (DP#10).

Some interviewees referred to a lack of control and of a monitoring structure. Several of them believed that the Church is less organized and disciplined than may appear from the outside and that there is great internal freedom: “As priests we need to be demanding with our lives, personally and institutionally. The ecclesial institution has to watch over us more and I believe that it has not watched over us adequately or sufficiently” (DP#10); or “One issue that the Church has is that people actually think that we are a super … disciplined army and that the Church is … quite liberal” (RO#3).

A consistent body of research has highlighted the importance of spiritual power of clergy as another risk factor for abuses. In fact, the relevance of this topic was recognized by some informants. A diocesan priest stated how people see priests not just as a representative of the Church but of God, which makes an abuse of spiritual power “a very serious issue” (DP#6). Another respondent stated

“… But then there is an aspect that I have discovered now, in old age … which is the situation of being in a position where you are what you preach, where you are who commands within the community… One day, you are in a camp, and you may do as a father does with his son: the priest may say to a kid in the camp: let’s sleep in the sleeping bag together” (DP#4).

One of the informants offered an explanation featuring a combination of loneliness and a sense of power. A member of a religious order had explained to him the anecdote on how in the decade of the fifties priests preached in missions and due to huge attendance they felt very successful; however, this older colleague confessed to him how he felt when he was left alone in his room: “When after a while I was left alone, those were the times when I felt like I needed someone to come.” The respondent draws from the anecdote that some traps must have some connection to the issue of success and power (RO#3).

Some interviewees emphasize individual and psychological causes, referring to the need for “psychologists” or “psychiatrists” to explain these causes (DP#1), and referring to “a disease,” “a pathology,” “a sick person to be helped,” “a pervert,” and avoiding and, in some cases, denying the existence of causes related to the institution:

“I also think that the case of priests as in other groups who have a sexuality or an unhealthy obsession or an obsessive sexual and compulsive illness that affects the exercise of their ministry. Of course, I also think that there may be psychiatric or psychological circumstances or that they have not assumed well their sexuality” (DP#7).

Many of the interviewees attached importance to the changes experienced in the Church in recent years. Those changes are largely manifested through intergenerational differences between the respondents: “it depends a lot on their [priest’s] ages… the situation of the Church now is very different than thirty years ago” (DP#9). Another respondent stated that “Now, the older ones are reactive, they listen. They go “eh?” … but I think that yes … it’s a broadly generational issue, no?” (RO#3). The younger clergy perceive that, in general, the older ones find it difficult to talk about these issues and are used to attitudes of avoidance or concealment (DP#2; RO#4). Moreover, some interviews revealed the evolution in the perception of the severity of the phenomenon: a respondent stated how in a school he found that one of the religious touched the children, yet nowadays when thinking about it was when he realized the actions of the priest were very serious (DP#5).

A last informant referred, in a different sense, to the influence of the cultural changes of the 1960s on the Church, and on how after the Second Vatican Council, lots of controls relaxed because times changed, and suddenly everyone thought that everyone was good. He claimed that this was a feeling that all Western Europe experienced in the 1960s with general optimism, until the 1970s, and especially the 1980s, when a more realistic attitude prevailed” (DP#6).

Between Idealism and Reality

It was common that various informants, while answering different questions, distinguished between what should be, according to the values, principles or norms of the Church, and what is really happening. So, for example, in relation to celibacy, one respondent stated that “Well-managed celibacy is not bad, it is good; and vice versa... In principle it should not favor them, on the contrary … I mean, Jesus speaks to us of love and helping others, not hurting others” (DP#3), while another respondent highlighted the fact that

“When things go wrong psychologically, they end badly; so, if someone has taken on the option of celibacy, that ends badly. But when someone has not thought well about the conditions involved in a marriage, the couple also ends badly. Of course, there may be people who do not take the celibacy option well, this favors the emergence of such cases” (DP#9).

Another informant highlighted the problem of practices that are more focused on superficial or ritualistic aspects that are adopted routinely without sufficient knowledge or assumption of their theological content:

“Church law is completely unknown to the Church. The sacraments are unknown in the Church. We know them superficially, but their content, limitations, etc.? Many priests do not know them; [there is] a lack of sense regarding sins and mercy” (DP#2).

Some respondents have provided arguments which reflect the perception of a dissonance with regard to the actual validity of the moral rules: “The Church has conditioned a lot (sexual morality) towards outside, but towards inside there has not been education and here there are big deficiencies” (RO#7).

Regarding sexuality, the majority of those interviewed highlight the evolution that has taken place in the Church regarding this subject, although some consider that it is still a taboo or that the changes should be more profound and clearer: “Sexuality is not dealt with; it’s a taboo” (DP#2); or “Perhaps it is true that at times there was a very negative image of sexuality and this may have produced a certain (…) repressive experience of one’s own feelings, of one’s affections” (DP#5).

Other respondents showed a view according to which, in certain ecclesial settings, taboos have been overcome, not only in relation to the acceptance of speaking freely about issues related to sexuality, but also aspects such as the acceptance of homosexual couples, extramarital sexual relations, and divorce; this could indicate the existence of a plurality of attitudes within institutions. Some interviewees referred to moralism and the distance between the message preached and the experience within the institution: “In this sense, the Church has sold an overly moralistic preaching, instead of a preaching that leads to the foundations of why I want to be like this … It’s when you want things to be very white is when the stain comes out” (DP#9). Another respondent stated that:

“… Sexual morality was not properly dealt with, right? The Church has conditioned it a lot on the outside, but on the inside, it has not been taught and here it is, right? There are some major shortcomings” (RO#8).

Neutralization Techniques

As mentioned above, in general the interviewees did not deny the existence of CSA, although some of them showed a tendency to minimize these acts, with phrases such as “actually there are not so many,” “it is a very small percentage of all priests” (DP#6) or the repeated argument that there are more cases in families (DP#8; RO#4). No answers had been found that could be significant in terms of explicit denial of the harm, but some nuances had been found that reflect certain doubts and that draw distinctions between more and less serious cases, and a certain tendency to minimize CSA among some respondents. However, the answers that showed empathy and recognized the possible or real damage of CSA predominated. For example, one respondent stated that “You don’t realize that this is a very serious issue ... that we have wounded people” (RO#3).

The denial of responsibility was present with respect to those who committed abuse, in that their behavior was viewed as a product of disorders or pathological causes, or of a complex problem that must be studied. One informant considered that, in some cases, they were perhaps not aware that their conduct was in fact CSA (DP#5). Other respondents noted that it is necessary to distinguish abuse from inappropriate displays of affection (RO#7). A denialist attitude can be identified under certain expressions used to describe the abuses as an impersonal fact instead of a human behavior: “certain companions to whom this happens” (DP#6); and even: “a companion to whom this thing happens… is a person like me; we all have our limitations” “I would not condemn him, but would listen to him and accompany him” (RO#6).

As far as the responsibility of the Church was concerned, the denial lied in manifestations, as presented above, that attributed the problem to individual causes, with the obligation to repair the damage needing to fall only on those who abuse and not on the Church as an institution, in the opinions of some informants (RO#2). One of them has affirmed that “the Church does not favor the abuses, because the social area where there are more is family” (DP#12).

But there are also those who speak out in the opposite direction, assuming the responsibility of the institution:

“If there was a fellow priest who had hurt someone, somehow the presbytery is responsible, it means that we have not cared or wondered how they were, what they needed… And it’s us, as a collective, who are responsible for each other” (DP#10).

Condemnation of those who condemn was predominant among interviewees as far as the media is concerned, which they accuse of “cruelty” (a word used by two informants), reproaching the media that they “want to do harm” (RO#5) or that “it seems that they prey on us” (DP#3). For example, a respondent stated that “There have not been as many cases here as in other countries. Despite the interest of journalists to bring them to light. Here the Church is mostly asleep and mostly defensive” (RO#7); while another expressed “Sadness and anger caused by use and misuse that, it seems to me, by a part of the media, by certain lobbies, to discredit the church as a whole, in a way that I think is completely unfair” (DP#9). However, some informants express more nuanced opinions and, in one case, even a positive opinion of the media: “The media has done good to the Church and the victims by spreading these facts because otherwise people in the Church would not have realized the magnitude” (DP#8). No condemnations referred to other social agents, such as political leaders, judges, prosecutors, or the police.

Sin and Confession

Previous research has identified, among risk factors for committing sexual abuses, a conception of offending focused on the transgression of moral values regarding sex, rather than on a crime that harms people. This conception is also linked to a culture of “cheap forgiveness” within the Catholic Church that facilitates the avoidance of guilt feelings. Therefore, interviews explored issues related to the concepts of sin and confession. In general, informants expressed no doubts about the sinful nature of CSA and rated these behaviors as more serious acts than other sexual sins in violation of celibacy. Some informants focused on this distinction by emphasizing that abuses were not only a sin but also a crime; therefore, even if the Church could forgive the persons who committed criminal acts, these must face their responsibility to society. This recognition of criminality was materialized in the opinion, clearly supported by most of the interviewees, that CSA must be reported to the authorities. As for confession and forgiveness of sins, informants generally accepted without reservation, in some cases using very eloquent phrases, that abuse as a sin can be forgiven. A respondent stated that “The love of God is more powerful than sin, so here lies the fundamental theological basis of why the church administers this sacrament with such force (…). There is no sin that God cannot forgive” (DP#1); while another expressed that “God welcomes everyone, I mean … Even the most murderous killer can go to heaven” (RO#6).

There was also a broad consensus regarding the absolute nature of the duty of confessional secrecy (sigilium confessionis), except for a single interviewee who maintained that the Pope opened the way for clergy to denounce CSA (outside their duty of secrecy). However, there was no unanimous opinion on how to understand the need for the penitent abuser to surrender to the authorities. Some of the interviewees considered that if clerics confess to having committed CSA, they should be required to surrender to the civil authorities as a condition for absolution of the sin: “A penance would seem like laughing at the victims … obviously I would not give absolution if this issue has not been resolved” (DP#8).

Others responded that such a requirement should be imposed as penance and, even if penitents received an absolution from the confessor, they would not be pardoned before God if they failed to comply. Several informants attached importance to the fact of supporting the sinner in the penance and reparation process and defended it as a good practice of the priesthood. For example, one respondent stated “Let’s go and face it together. I’ll go with you, but that must be told” (DP#12); while another expressed that “The good thing would be to accompany that person in this itinerary that will have to be made civil [reported to the police], but also in a spiritual itinerary of healing and forgiveness” (RO#3).

When asked whether, in general, the practice of confession can lead to sins not being taken seriously (the idea of “cheap forgiveness”) and thus favoring CSA, informants showed a great variety of responses, revealing again a duality depending on whether their perspective is what should be or what really is. Thus, although in general they were reluctant to accept that forgiveness should be easy to obtain without effort, several interviewees warned that this risk exists. Noteworthy are references that confession “is not a magic trick” (RO#2) and that pardon should not be administered “automatically” (RO#3; RO#4).

Here are some samples of dual-type responses: “The practice of confession is done in secret, and there must be all possible variants” (RO#7); or “That’s reducing religion to false formulas, eh? To magic! And that is why I think the religious crisis is currently happening; it is a positive thing, in the sense of cleanliness” (RO#2); and finally, “A sacramental absolution is not a gratuitous act … You have forgiveness but you do not receive it if you do not do something to turn around, to amend: that is when you realize that He forgives you” (DP#12). Others were in favor of maintaining an undemanding attitude in confession: “Forgiveness is always free.... The Pope himself always says (...) that confession is not a torture chamber, right?” (DP#5).

A minority of respondents expressed certain skepticism regarding this question, partly related to the fact that confession is a practice that has fallen into disuse among Christians, as the following respondent expresses: “I personally have a big question on the subject of confession […] The morality of confession is an issue I have not found the answer for yet, but I am giving it much thought” (RO#4).

The Response of the Church

Most of the informants positively valued the response of the Church as an institution to CSA and highlighted the change that has taken place since the times when there was denial and concealment of the problem. Members of congregations described changes that have taken place internally in the adoption of prevention plans and protocols: “[The Church] is the only institution at a global level that is doing something, that has taken it very seriously at all levels” (DP#8). Another respondent stated:

“It is true that we pay for the broken dishes of previous generations and for older ways of thinking, but also that we show solidarity with things that I would not do but were done. They were done wrong, and you have to rectify and do them right, because if things are not done right then they end up taking their toll. But I think we’ve learned a lot too” (DP#7)

However, some interviewees expressed doubts about the position of the Church: “I see the Church as bewildered, like it is being slapped but doesn’t know from where” (DP#2); or “… Obviously there is a problem. Throwing a blanket over it does not solve the problems, the problems must be uncovered, studied, and fixed” (DP#11).

Several interviewees highlighted the evolution that is taking place and the existence of a plurality of points of view within the Church, manifested in a plurality of responses to CSA: “In Catalonia progress is being made that is more difficult to achieve at the general level of the Church. The Church is very different from the public image projected by certain conservative bishops” (RO#4).

Several informants considered that it is necessary to make further progress in the reforms undertaken, addressing the problem in a more straightforward manner: “Prostitution is power. That is, when you have the power, what is very difficult is an act of humility and to give power up, whatever the scope” (RO#6).

In general, the participants recommended improving prevention, supporting, and developing an empathic attitude toward the affected persons, and improving selection processes and giving more support to clergy, along with some more concrete proposals such as the introduction of women for the care of the affected persons.

Impact and Awareness of the Problem

First, the interviews have revealed the profound impact on members of this institution of CSA and its dissemination through the media. This impact has been corroborated by several statements of the respondents. Most of them experienced a diversity of feelings, including empathy toward those who suffered abuses, a certain ambiguity toward those who committed them, and shame and stigmatization. In addition, a symptom of this impact was the refusal to respond by most of the people contacted, including several bishops.

The responses pointed to the plurality of sensitivities existing in the institution and the evolution that has occurred in recent years in aspects such as the recognition of abuses, the awareness that CSA is not only a sin against the sixth commandment but also a crime with serious consequences for the affected persons, and the need for a firm response from the institution. There is no single means, however, of adaptation to this evolution; rather, generational differences intervene, among other issues.

An ambivalent narrative was observed, which included, on the one hand, reluctance to recognize CSA as a specific problem of the Catholic Church and, on the other hand, perception of the uniqueness and seriousness of sexual abuse as an expression of abuse of spiritual power. Moreover, in various thematic areas (celibacy, the sacrament of confession, or sexuality) it was possible to identify a discourse tending to idealization, with the consequent dualism between reality and moral principles and ideals. This dissonance can be considered an indication of a situation of anomie produced by the difficulty of achieving high ideals, given the insufficient institutional means available to achieve cultural objectives. This insufficiency has mainly appeared related to loneliness, experienced above all by diocesan priests, and the lack of support and supervision. The systematic avoidance of words (in particular, the naming “sexual abuse”) that express the problem directly can also be interpreted as an indicator of a tendency to dissociate from a reality that profoundly challenges moral ideality and sacredness.

It was possible to confirm the existence of certain neutralization techniques, such as denial of responsibility and condemnation of the condemners, in line with the findings by Spraitz and Bowen (2016), although not to the point of considering that they denote the existence a cultural context conducive to or non-reactive to abuse. Neutralization was essentially focused on denial of the institution’s responsibility—with some of the interviewees perceiving CSA as a matter of individual causes (the notion of rotten apples), and less so on denial of the responsibility of the perpetrators. Regarding the existence of a subculture, no elements were identified as sufficiently indicative of an ecclesial subculture constituted by values or beliefs that generate conditions conducive to the emergence or persistence of CSA, beyond an emotional closeness to those who committed abuses considered as brothers and a feeling of being victimized as a member of a group, in terms of the esprit de corps described by White and Terry (2008). However, the interviews reflected the evolution that has occurred in the institutional response to the problem, with certain aspects denoting some resistance to addressing institutional change.

Anomie

The use of the idea of anomie to explain CSA within religious institutions and, specifically, the Catholic Church, may seem surprising. This concept was initially applied to explain the causes of conventional crime, largely theft. To adequately ground this hypothesis, we need to reformulate our understanding of the cultural structure (which imposes goals of moral perfectionism not imposed on everyone on clergy) using the institutional structure (means available within the organization). Moral perfectionism is a key element of the ecclesial structure (Keenan, 2012), as the Church requires that the lives of clergy constitute a model of spiritual life and of commitment to the institution and its values. In this requirement for purity, celibacy is a key element that cannot be separated from the sacral conception of priesthood. However, the institutional means to achieve these spiritual goals are limited. Loneliness and the lack of human ties are a risk factor for CSA, as shown by the fact that, in most countries (USA, Australia, Germany or Belgium, among others), the prevalence of abuse by diocesan priests is higher than for members of religious orders, for whom life in a community is a protective factor. The lack of support for clergy and the lack of mechanisms to compensate for loneliness cause anxiety and frustration, leading some individuals to disaffection with objectives and to a consequent attachment to more ritualized aspects that constitute a fundamental element of ecclesiastical activity (Doyle, 2003; White & Terry, 2008).

Various of the elements mentioned have been found in the informants’ narrative, with expressive references to moralistic preaching, lack of control and the emphasis on the combination of loneliness and spiritual power. Also, ritualistic attitudes have been recognized by some informants (for example, when respondents stated that “We know the superficiality of them but its content, limitations, etc. Many priests do not know them” [DP#2]; or “That’s reducing religion to false formulas, eh? To magic!” [DP#6])

Anomie may have been reinforced by the lack of an institutional response to CSA. All studies carried out to date suggest that non-response has long been an attitude of bishops and, to a lesser extent, of those responsible for religious congregations, until eventually an evolution toward recognition of the problem began. Denial of the facts has deepened the tendency to dissociation between the reality of human behavior and moral idealism, closely linked to the cultural aims of the institution. This dissociation may also have been favored by the concepts of sin and confession, especially if the tendency toward a trivialization of confession and forgiveness of sins is considered. While at the dogmatic level the Church has shown rigor in the concept of the sacrament (with demanding requirements such as contrition, examination of conscience, repentance, and the purpose of amendment), the penitential practice of Catholicism has generally been much less rigorous, provoking some of the fiercest criticisms from the Protestant reform movement and, later, reproaches as to the double standards that have prevailed in countries of greater Catholic influence.

The study of the historical period basically comprised between the 1960s and 1970s—when the highest number of recorded abuses took place according to studies carried out in various countries (Australian Royal Commission, 2017; John Jay College, 2004, 2011)—revealed the existence of factors that contributed especially to a state of affairs that could be classified as anomic, as profound cultural changes took place in Western societies that had an impact on the Church, such as secularization, sexual liberation, the emancipation of women, intergenerational conflict, the questioning of authority, the growing acceptance of homosexuality, and growing access to education and material and cultural goods by a part of society that until then had not had access to them. Those issues posed important challenges for the Church, a complex and conservative organization with great difficulty in reacting to changes. At the institutional level, the changes came largely from the Second Vatican Council, but internal metabolization of these changes by individuals occurred unevenly.

The impact of these changes has appeared in this study through various responses of the informants, focused on the gap between the negative image of sexuality rooted in the institution and the evolution of society, or on the lack of control. In the face of cultural transformation, three possible kinds of responses can be considered: adaptation, abandonment, or ritualistic reaction. Those who did not adapt to the changes often chose to leave the priesthood or religious life, while ritualism could be the response of those who experienced the anguish of not living up to demands or unable to return to secular life. Of course, not all those whose response was ritualistic were at risk of committing abuse, but the ritualistic attitude is a risk factor that, together with individual factors (basically narcissism) and opportunity, would have led some to commit crime. In this research, although references to ritualistic attitudes arose in the interviews, there were no traces revealing that sexual abuses were associated with specific subjects who made the passage from ritualistic adaptation to illicit adaptation. Further research focused on abusive clergy could provide more elements to develop this idea.

As the report of the Australian Royal Commission (2017) pointed out, a study of the history of the Church shows that CSA has been a widespread practice at various times. This is reflected in studies of cases known to the Court of the Inquisition in Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries, reforms imposed after the Council of Trent (e.g., the introduction of confessional boxes in churches to prevent confessors from making sexual advances on penitents), and warnings and recommendations regarding sexual abuse in documents of various popes. This would suggest that it is not possible to attribute the problem of CSA simply to a situation of anomie caused by secularization, a deep crisis of values, and the social transformation of the 1960s and 1970s, with origins in the 1950s. The anomie derived from the dissonance between the cultural institutional structures within the Church can be considered, to a large extent, to be inherent to organizational practices established since at least the Middle Ages, further intensified in moments of crisis such as those referred to above, when the pressure on individuals increased.

Implications for Organizations and Crime Prevention

Further research into the actual functioning of the structures of the Catholic Church is necessary to be able to acquire greater understanding of the causes of CSA and, from there, to be able to properly guide the necessary reforms. Data on CSA prevalence and characteristics (provided by studies carried out in various countries, including the USA, Australia, Ireland, and Germany) reveal a common pattern. The percentage of clergy who have committed abuses is at least 4%, which makes it unreasonable to expect that the problem can be attributed to rotten apples or even to situational causes. An in-depth study should include a social examination of the characteristics of the clergy, including their social origin (by virtue of the hypothesis of a tendency to ritualism in the lower middle classes), childhood experiences, training (seminars), and social relationships, as potentially providing information useful for designing prevention, selection, and training plans.

Returning to Durkheim and his mature work The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), it is appropriate to recall his statement that systematic idealization is an essential characteristic of religion, which superimposes an ideal world existing only in the mind on a real world in which profane life unfolds. But, according to the author, the duality between the sacred and the profane, between the pure and the impure, typical of religious idealization, is always somewhat pregnant with ambiguity; hence, the expressive power of CSA in religious institutions at a social level, in how it brings the sacred into contact with tabooed sex and, in a more intense and dramatic way, with the image of childhood associated with ideal victimhood (Christie, 1986; DiBennardo, 2018), with the priest and the archetypal pedophile, incarnated in the selfsame person as a modern object of stigma. Therefore, ambiguity can be projected onto the perception of clerics in a secularized and pluralistic society, and onto both stigmatized subjects and representatives of the sacred, thereby reflecting the ambivalence of stigmatization processes (Goffman, 1963).