12 SEXUAL ABUSE OF BOYS BY CLERGY

Adolescent Psychiatry,  2004  by Ponton, Lynn,  Goldstein, Dana

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Unexpected Findings-Debunking the Myths

None of the men interviewed disclosed any sexual abuse prior to the incident or incidents with the priest, and only one described a subsequent episode of sexual abuse, which was also perpetrated by a clergy member. This finding is somewhat unexpected, because other studies have shown a high incidence of repeat molestations of sexual abuse victims by different perpetrators. It is unclear whether this is due to insufficient sample size or, for some reason, characteristic of sexual abuse by clergy.

Debunking another myth-that abused boys will abuse others-is the finding that only two of the men in our study disclosed becoming perpetrators of sexual abuse after they were abused. In both cases, this occurred within five years of the abuse and was inflicted on younger siblings. The small number of subsequent abusers in our study contradicts the stereotype of the victim/abuser and indicates that, in the majority of cases, being a male victim of sexual abuse of boys does not lead to becoming a perpetrator of sexual abuse. Only two boys in our study reported intrafamilial physical abuse (unrelated to the sexual abuse), and of those two, one subsequently sexually abused a younger sibling. This finding is consistent with research indicating that sexually abused males who later become abusers are more likely to also suffer from exposure to a climate of intrafamilial violence (Skuse et al., 1998; Salter et al., 2003).

Another surprising finding was the high level of familial cohesion and support reported by almost half of the men in our study, who described their families as "warm and close." This directly contradicts the stereotype that priests seek out troubled boys from broken homes, or that absent fathers are the reason for the initial intimate relationship between the victim and the priest.

In addition, although almost one-third of the men reported present or past confusion about their sexual orientation, only one of the men was self-identified as homosexual. This contradicts the idea that sexual abuse of boys causes homosexuality. It also addresses the men's concerns about the meaning of and reason for their sexual abuse. Of the one-third that reported confusion about their sexual orientation, many concluded that the priest must have chosen them because the priest either thought or knew that they were gay. Most pondered this question for years before they finally concluded that the priest had no special knowledge in this area and their being chosen by a priest for sexual activity was either largely random or a matter of convenience. Many wondered about their own response. Why had they not resisted more strongly? Did it mean that they were latent homosexuals? Ignoring their young age, lack of physical development, the use of force and drugs or alcohol, and the fact that for all but one it was their first sexual experience, they spent years berating themselves for not acting differently. Almost all held themselves to higher standards than those to which they held the abusing priests, as revealed by our case discussion of Joseph. One-quarter were afraid that they would abuse children, even though, as previously mentioned, only two disclosed doing so and both cases occurred with siblings close in age, near the time of the original attack.