The techniques of neutralization, as described above, rep-resent one internal factor responsible for the persistence of abusive behavior. These excuses and justifications allowed the abusive priests, like non-priest abusers, to continue to abuse minors by both minimizing the harm done and either denying or minimizing the priest’s role in the abuse. How-ever, the question still remains of why the abuse stopped, often years before reports were made about the abuse.
Desistance is affected by both external influences, such as peers,464 education,465 employment,466 and par-ticipation in other traditional activities,467 and internal influences, such as identity transformation.468 The crimi-nological literature discusses desistance in the context of life-course theory, and the most common factor that has been associated consistently with desistance from deviant behavior in general is age.469 However, sex offenders do not fit neatly into this framework; they are often older and better educated, and they rarely “age out” of the criminal behavior, as do other types of offenders.
Understanding some of the contributing factors cited in empirical research regarding desistance from crime may help to contextualize the results of the current study. An external or social/environmental factor associated with desistance includes peer associations. According to Warr, the reduced exposure to delinquent peers as one ages accounts for a decrease in deviant behavior.470 Consonant with this view, then, desistance is related to associations with conventional peers, increased noncriminal routine activities, and reduced exposure to definitions favorable to crime.471 Employment has also been found to pro-mote desistance from crime.472 Laub and Sampson posit that employment reduces offending primarily through four processes: (1) the mutual exchange of social capital between the employer and employee; (2) reduced crimi-nal opportunities; (3) direct informal social control; and (4) the development of self.473 Other pro-social ties, such as education, also have found empirical support for desis-tance from crime.474 However, some researchers argue that focusing solely on external factors provides only a par-tial explanation.
A burgeoning field of inquiry involves internal fac-tors related to desistance. In 1985, Gove was among the first to propose such as theory.475 He argued that desis-tance is a result of five internal changes: (1) shifting from self-centeredness to consideration of others; (2) develop-ing pro-social values and behavior; (3) increasdevelop-ing ease in social interactions; (4) expanding consideration for other members of the community; and (5) a growing concern for the “meaning of life.” Since Gove’s proposal, several other researchers have sought to explain desistance using psychological factors.476 One of the more prominent
explanations is the role of identity transformation out-lined by Shadd Maruna.477 Maruna argues that in order to desist from criminality offenders need to develop pro-social identities of themselves. He found differences in the way in which the life story narratives of “persisters” and
“desisters” of crime were presented. Desisters in part disso-ciated themselves from the past bad behavior and focused more on current accomplishments. Maruna calls this pro-cess of self-reconstruction “making good.”
Some researchers have evaluated the integration of the external (social) and internal (psychological) fac-tors associated with desistance.478 The difficulty with this type of research is in establishing temporal ordering to determine causality. Nevertheless, LeBel et al. conducted a longitudinal study examining the interaction between external and internal factors in desistance among 130 male offenders.479 Their findings suggest that for some social problems, desistance was not necessarily linked to internal changes. However, they also found support for a combination of external and internal factors, specifically for reduced recidivism among those offenders who had confidence in their abilities to change. This transforma-tion was apparent among offenders whose experiences with social problems were minimal; however, the authors cautioned about extrapolating this finding to individuals whose social problems are overwhelming.480
For the Causes and Context study, we analyzed desis-tance data from two sources: clinical treatment files and surveys from survivors. The unit of analysis from the treat-ment files is the priests, while the unit of analysis from the survivor survey is the victims. This distinction is impor-tant, because the treatment files provide data on expla-nations the priests gave about why the abuse stopped. In contrast, the survivor surveys provide information about the actions that the survivors took to stop the abuse.
It was hypothesized that the priests would stop their deviant behavior because of a combination of internal and external factors. Specifically, it was hypothesized that priests would desist from the abusive behavior because of internal mechanisms, given that so many cases of abuse were reported years after the abuse took place. Addition-ally, it was hypothesized that contexts (community, parish, family) of abuse did not offer recognizable pathways for vic-tims to disclose and bring an end to abuse. This hypothesis is derived from the lack of knowledge of abuse by the community and lack of recognition of harm from sexual abuse at the time the abuse was occurring. Finally, it was hypothesized that grooming behavior would increase the duration of abuse, with more extensive grooming/manipu-lation/threats leading to a longer duration of behavior and a lower likelihood of early desistance.
Clinical files showed that, for those priests who par-ticipated in a treatment program for which there are
“desistance” data, over half had an official report filed against them. Interestingly, a large percentage of those who were reported denied the allegation of abuse—this figure was significantly higher than for those who were not reported. The clinical data showed evidence that some priests, albeit a small percentage (2.4 percent), stopped the abuse because of internal drives to do so. In particular, they felt guilt, remorse, or shame because of their behav-iors. More commonly, the accused priests stopped their abusive behavior because of external reasons. Some (7.6 percent) were removed from the parish and the situations in which they could abuse. Others stopped because of a combination of internal and external reasons, for exam-ple, they earned a disgraceful reputation because of their behavior (2.7 percent), or they were reformed after treat-ment (.9 percent).
Survivor surveys and information from public docu-ments lead to a more situational explanation for the desis-tance from abusive behavior. Many of the victims said that abuse ceased when they removed themselves from the abu-sive situations. In other words, they removed themselves from the situations in which they were being abused, and the priests no longer had the opportunities to abuse them.
Often, however, the abuse had continued for a period of time before the victims could determine a way in which to remove themselves from the abusive situation.
Conclusion
Many factors played a role in the onset, persistence, and desistance from abuse by priests. One VAC explained the key factors in the abuse as follows:
I believe that the ability to have access to the children was key. The issue of a trusted person in power kept children from reporting. Fear that the victims would not be believed or would hurt their parents was often an impediment for reporting the abuse. Often gifts, trips, and alcohol were involved. Often the victims that were targeted were children already vulnerable because of familial issues. The parents trusted the clergy and did not recognize signs.
The explanations for the onset, persistence, and desis-tance from abuse are incredibly complex and involve a multitude of factors. Those priests who had social, devel-opmental, or emotional vulnerabilities (as described in Chapter 3) had to be in, or create, situations in which they could initiate abuse with a minor. The abusive priests were able to persist with their behavior by excusing or justifying their actions, and in this sense they are similar to non-clergy sexual offenders. According to Maruna, offenders
need to develop pro-social identities of themselves in order to desist from offending.481 Interestingly, the priest-abusers who responded to the Identity and Behavior survey did have positive pro-social images. While this qualitative data cannot offer causal explanations of the desistance, it is clear that some mechanism other than the criminal justice system led to the desistance from abuse of minors in most cases of priest sex abusers. Based on responses by survivors, it seems as though the victims played a key role in the desistance from abuse by removing themselves from the situations in which the abuse was occurring.
During the peak of the abuse cases in the 1970s and early 1980s, few “capable guardians” were in place who
could have prevented the abuse from occurring. Victimiza-tion was little understood, signs of abuse were not readily recognized, children spent time alone and unsupervised with the priests, and the abuse was generally not reported until years after it occurred. Though the sexual abuse “cri-sis” is a historical problem, incidents of sexual abuse do still exist and will persist to some degree in the Catholic Church, just as they will in any organization, family, or in the general society. As such, it is critically important to employ prevention models to protect minors from poten-tial harm.
The Causes and Context study provided a unique oppor-tunity to collect robust, rich, and multifaceted data on the sexual abuse of minors over a sixty-year period. Seven sources of quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed, and the findings support a consistent set of conclusions.
This convergence of findings provides confidence in the data, which can then serve as a base for creating policy recommendations.
Consistent with literature about sex offenders in the general population, the Causes and Context data show that priests who sexually abused minors constitute a heteroge-neous population. Individual characteristics do not predict that a priest will commit sexual abuse of a minor. Rather, vulnerabilities, in combination with situational stresses and opportunities, raise the risk of abuse. Like non-priest abusers, the majority of priests who sexually abused minors appear to have had certain vulnerabilities to commit abuse (for example, emotional congruence with children or ado-lescents), experienced increased stressors from work (for example, having recently received more responsibilities, such as becoming a pastor), and had opportunities to abuse (for example, unguarded access to minors).
Most abuse incidents occurred decades ago, at a time when the impact of victimization was not fully under-stood and research on sexual offenders was in early stages of development. When priests did commit abusive acts, they were often not reported by the victim at the time of the incident, not recognized by the abuser’s peers or lead-ers, and, when known, were not dealt with in a way that helped the victim to recover from the resulting harm. The historical, psychological, organizational, cultural, and situ-ational data analyzed here provide a vital narrative about the abuse, abusers, victims, and institutions in which abuse took place.