One contributing problem is that the homosexuality issue has not been particularly well addressed by the child maltreatment field. Many child maltreatment authorities spoke to the media saying, homosexuality has nothing to do with child molesting, or ideas to that effect. But such assertions may not ring true with ordinary people who are trying to figure this issue out. That may be because they are not entirely correct. In fact, homosexuality may he connected with some of the clergy abuse in ways that need more forthright explanation and analysis. It is plausible, for example, that a celibate priesthood provides an attractive lifestyle for adolescents and young men who are experiencing extreme conflicts over conscious or denied homosexual feelings, and that in the absence of opportunities to deal openly with such feelings and overcome the accompanying shame and confusion, it creates vulnerability for the kind of acting out and exploitation that occurred in the Church context. From my particular value standpoint, this means that it is the shame and stigma and unavailability of appropriate socialization experiences that are responsible for the acting out, and it would be my priority to eliminate these oppressive conditions. But in this light, it would be wrong to say that homosexuality is completely irrelevant. It is not a sufficient cause and in another cultural environment might not be connected at all. But paired with the way our society treats homosexuality, it may be connected with some abusive behavior in the clergy setting. Unfortunately, the child maltreatment field’s research and conceptual models about this are not well developed. But it may not be possible to prevent the scapegoating of homosexuals that will be promoted by this crisis, unless someone formulates a better analysis of this issue than simply that there is no connection.
Fifth problem: the media and the child maltreatment field in general have failed to come to grips with the issue of what is being called by some “compliant victims” and what I prefer to call “statutory victims,” that is, adolescents who willingly participate in sexual activities with adults. I do not believe that any of the youth involved in sexual activities with priests were themselves to blame or are responsible for their abuse. But the media failed to describe fully the spectrum of sexual involvements that occurred. There were detailed accounts about younger boys manipulated and coerced into sexual activities by priests who held absolute authority in their eyes. But there were also older adolescents, who may have had awareness of what they were getting involved in and who participated without manipulation and coercion. I do not believe we should hold the offenders in these situations any less responsible. But when the accounts fail to describe the full spectrum of involvements and deal with the inevitable questions about youth and consent, an important moral responsibility has been abdicated. It is the child maltreatment field’s responsibility to educate parents, young people, professionals and adults who work with youth about why society has these prohibitions, and about what to do to enforce them. Until the child maltreatment field embraces that moral responsibility, there will continue to be many adults who flaunt the prohibitions, and many youth who get blamed when these relationships are uncovered. The child maltreatment field passed up an important opportunity to confront this issue in this crisis.