The Iron Throne is Clad in White : The Catholic Church and Institutional Accountability

Hannah Gwyneth J. Tumala

Political Science (Undergraduate Degree)
Faculty of Arts and Letters
University of Santo Tomas
hgjtumala@gmail.com

Abstract
In 2002, the Boston Globe Investigative Team released a series of articles and reports detailing
the child sexual abuse committed by Fr. John Geoghan who for decades had been victimizing
children, and was simply being moved around parishes by Cardinal Bernard Law when allegation
emerged. The abuse and scandal rocked the American nation, but it was not long before
accusations all over the world had started coming out and asking for the same thing: accountability.
Despite reforms from the Church, more and more atrocities seem to emerge daily, the Pennsylvania
grand jury report among one of them. The report found that more than 300 priests had been abusing
children for decades in the state, and was protected by their bishops. With as many as 1000 victims
coming forward with their stories, it stands as one of the biggest investigations into the scandal
yet.
This paper will focus on the child sexual abuse scandals of the Church. Its goal is to be able
to give a clear image of what events have happened in church, analyze how these acts were
concealed for decades, what mechanisms have allowed these abuses to take place, and review the
current reforms that the church is undertaking to mitigate the present harms that the church is
caused and is currently causing.
The paper will use contextual analysis, document and video analysis, and using the criteria of
Daly (2014) to determine institutionalized sexual abuse, as well as the criteria presented by Kearns
(1989) on accountability systems in institutions, this paper will prove that the abuses in the church
was institutional and should have institutional reforms rather than reforms that target individuals,
and that current mechanisms in place are not enough to be able to effectively hold the Church
accountable.

Keywords: institutions, institutional accountability, child sexual abuse, institutionalized abuse,

abuse in the church, accountability systems
Introduction
Institutions
The very essence of an institution is its ability create peace and order within a society (North,
1990). The views of Locke and Hobbes are often used today to explain society and its current
power structures. According to them, society was created under the premise of a Social Contract.
In that, in order to submit themselves to a particular authority, they must be willing to give up
certain freedoms. In both cases, the subjects submit their “faculties” in exchange for safety and
security (Goodin & Klingemann, 1996).
Institutions are created on the basis of political obligation. According to Stephen and Orokpo
(2018), there are two ways to define political obligation. On the basis of the subjects, political
obligation is what binds a man and the authority he follows. As such, they are obligated to follow
their leader’s laws and commands. Meanwhile, political obligation, in the view of those in power,
is that which binds them to fulfill a duty entrusted to them by their constituents and that which
their own rational understanding accepts. They further state that these roles are an integral part in
the life of man as part of an organized whole.
Political obligation within societies come from the general understanding that without these
structures, society would fall into a dog-eat-dog world, based from the theories and philosophies
of Thomas Hobbes. In every case, an authority generally assures a better personal security for all
of us. Stephen and Orokpo (2018) also states that political obligation is associated with the idea of
noblesse oblige which implies that political actors in authority can be held responsible for the
consequences of the political actions they make.
With that being said, institutions can be simply defined as power structures that ensure security
and safety within society, founded on the idea of political obligation that requires authorities to
answer the needs of the people and asks people to follow the rule and command of their leaders.
In its core, political institutions are created with the idea of mutual benefit in society for both the
leaders and the constituents.
However, there are instances wherein institutions have failed to protect its constituents. In
cases of institutional abuse or abuse that happens within power systems of institutions. These
abuses are seen most recently in the scandals of the Catholic Church. This paper seeks to prove
that the Church has allowed the institutional abuse of children to exist within its power structures
and that the Church, as an institution, should be held accountable for these abuses. This paper will
identify the current mechanisms of the Catholic Church that try to mitigate these abuses and
whether they are effective, and what other forms of reform should happen.
The Catholic Church as an Institution
While most institutions are created with the idea of the Social Contract Theory, and while the
Church itself manifests certain qualities of these theories, its origins come from the Divine Right
Theory. According to Stephen and Orokpo (2018), the core belief of the Divine Right Theory is
that leaders were given authority by God. The very source of his power comes outside of human
rationality and understanding, and comes in the form of the influence of a higher being (Ernst,
1965).
This is most evident in the idea that the Holy See, for example, was chosen by God to be the
successor of St. Peter, and to continue the mission of the Christ. Most Catholics further believe
that their parish priests, for example, have wisdom and intellect that come from God and God
alone, giving them authority over moral dilemmas.
However, the philosophies of the Social Contract Theory still exist within the Catholic
Church. This is seen in the idea of mutual exchange in authority and subordinate – to receive
“salvation”, one must follow the Church. This mirrors the aforementioned relationship of
authorities giving security in exchange for obedience. That being said, the Church accomplishes
the basic requirements of an institution, as based from the previous discussion.
Previously, the idea of institutions are those that bring peace and order within society. More
evident within localities rather than in the international stage, the Catholic Church certainly has
been an active advocate for peacekeeping within communities. According to the theory of
reciprocity, preaching about fraternity and peace could help lessen instances of violence within its
settings (Gbotoe & Kgatla, 2017). Furthermore, the Church, much like the State, gives out certain
punishments to those who disobey, although its methods are far less tangible. The idea of hell, for
example, has been a good motivator in terms of its constituents following its rules and principles.
The benefits it gives to its constituents are not only those of a salvific faith, however.
According to Plante and Daniels (2004), in the United States alone the Catholic Church is biggest
non-profit healthcare provider, accommodating nearly 70 million patients each year in its 800
facilities. They have also provided a multitude of people access to education, and nearly 7 million
Americans have received social and medical services from the Church.
 Political obligation is very much present in this sense as well. The clergy has the obligation to
lead the people in terms of how to live a God-centered life, promising the eventual protection under
the grace of God and blessings to come or, at the very least, a feeling of personal security. On this
end, people also have the obligation to follow the certain principles and requirements laid out by
the Church, or they are otherwise putting at risk their salvation (Stephen & Orokpo, 2018)
The Church, then, as an institution is dedicated to promoting peace between members and
nonmembers alike, providing their members with personal and even social security under the
condition that they follow its teachings.

Figure 1. The Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church: Arranged from the highest governing power to
the lowest, also corresponds to the number of members in the category (Hierarchy Structure, 2017).

Politically, the Church has its own hierarchy, similar to those of a state. The highest position
is given to the Pope of the Holy See, under him are the Cardinals, and under them are the
Archbishops. They are responsible for handling the archdiocese, while Bishops are responsible for
handling individual dioceses. Under Bishops are Priests who are in charge of individual parishes,
with Deacons at their side. Under all of them are the Laity – or the churchgoers. This hierarchy
allows a certain bureaucracy to exist that allows the Church and its systems to have order within
its ranks (Hierarchy Structure, 2017).
These structures help support and establish the Church hierarchy that bring order not only
within its ranks, but with its constituents, marking it as a strong and formidable political institution.
Abuse
Biggs et al. (2009) states that abuse happens in two ways. Firstly, abuse exists in the active
maltreatment of the subject. Secondly, it happens through negligence or the passive act of letting
abuse happen.
In their study of the relationship between abuse and adult sexuality, Meston, Heiman and
Trapnell (1999), they cited three forms of abuse: physical, emotional/psychological and sexual
abuse, alongside neglect as another form.
In Carlin et al. (1994), they cite different measures for abuse. For physical abuse – or the
physical maltreatment of a child leading to discomfort or injury – they cite relatively common to
severe instances of physical abuse, such as being shaken or receiving broken bones after a beating.
For emotional abuse, they cite instances wherein a child can face serious distress through the
emotional manipulation and maltreatment of an adult, such as being humiliated or being taunted.
For sexual abuse, they focus on the abuse that happens when an adult coerces a child into sexual
situations that they do not want to be in or that they do not fully understand the meaning of, such
as being casually fondled, touched or pinched in private areas or being forced engage in
intercourse.
Institutional Abuse
Institutional abuse, however, happens quite differently. According to Gallagher (2000),
institutional abuse happens when a subject is abused by people working under an institution. This
service may be paid or through voluntary basis. To Mooney and Nunno (1990), institutional abuse
happens when a person is maltreated in a system of power. Institutional abuse happens outside of
home or familial relationships, and usually exists in non-family community-based contexts. The
treatment faced by victims usually involved dehumanizing acts that step on their dignity (Daly,
2014).
Daly (2014) discusses institutional abuse of children in length. She states that it usually exists
in many forms: physical, mental and sexual. She argues that institutional abuse, particularly on
children, was “discovered” in the 1960s, upon the 1962 article of Kempe et al. that focuses on the
‘battered child syndrome.’ The term ‘institutional abuse’, again in the context of child abuse, was
first uttered by David Gil in 1975, during which he defined it not only as the act of maltreatment,
but went as far as to include abusive structures and conditions that perpetuate abusive policies (Gil,
1975).
Institutional vs. Individual Abuse
And yet the biggest question remains: should institutions be blamed for the actions of
individual constituents?
Certainly, these connote two different implications in terms of accountability and reform.
Individual abuse, no matter how wide spread it may be, will mean individual reform, and the
equivalent is applied to institutional abuse.
A good example for this is the family as an institution – while they certainly bring peace and
order within a community, with some arguing that the family is the first introduction to
governance, it certainly faces its abuses. Many abused children were victims of their very own
families, and yet no one asks for the reform of the family as an institution, but ask for individual
reform for abusive parents. Why is this so?
It happens when there is a general understanding that the institution in and of itself isn’t
flawed, but rather individual upbringings and instances are. Thus, institutional reform is not
needed. Furthermore, it happens when the harm is not further “supported” by the very institution
it comes from. Going back to the example of familial abuse, the physical, sexual and emotional
abuse of victims are addressed by the checks and balances found in those institutions, such Child
Protective Services in the United States.
This paper will tackle the question of whether or not the Church is a perpetrator of institutional
abuse, or whether the entire institution is being blamed for the individual abuses of its clergy. In
this paper, the stance is simple: the Church was and is an enabler of child sexual abuse, and
continues to promote individual reform to its institutional mistakes.
Accountability
According to Kearns, accountability includes following guidelines, and the formal reporting
to the higher authority. But other authors, such as Kingsley (1944), argues that accountability
happens only when institutions accept responsibility for their task to meet the demands and needs
of the community. Mansfield (1982) argues similarly, but adds that accountability isn’t as simple
as following guidelines, but can go as far as also complying with certain behaviors expected of
them.
According to Moncada (2009), accountability is an integral aspect of democracy. In his study,
he argues that accountability can often times be achieve through reform, as such in the police
reform in Colomia. Moncada cites Mainwaring when he argues that accountability happens when
a state or authority looks and examines the actions of its constituents, and responds according to
meet their demands and their needs. Furthermore, he argues that accountability also exists when
institutions explain and mitigate the discrepancies with their work and the decisions they have
made.
Abuse in the Catholic Church
As early as 1989, the Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests, shortened to SNAP, was
established with a goal to provide a safe space for people victimized by the Catholic Church. In
2002, the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team released a series of articles detailing the sexual abuse of
children and the subsequent cover-up of the of the Catholic Church. This sparked massive
international outrage within the Christian community and triggered further investigations into the
clergy (Boston Globe Investigative Staff, 2002). In 2003, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of
Boston paid nearly $85 million in settlements to an alleged 552 victims (Gilgoff, 2003). In 2010,
what they believed was an isolated case was confirmed to be a scandal in the international scale
(Gilgoff, 2010).
In their work, Plante and Daniels (2004) discusses the scandal in detail. In one particular
discussion, they cite the conflicting statistics provided by different researches. In Sipe (1995), he
argues that nearly 6% of active priests and clergy in the United States alone have had sexual
experiences with a minor. One the other hand, Jenkins (2002) states that less than 800 priests of
the 150,000 active or less than 1% of the clergy since 1960 have had substantial cases of child
sexual abuse against them. There are other researches that play between these two numbers, with
some citing it at 2% (Rosetti, 2002) and others at 2.7% (Loftus & Camargo, 1993). These statistics
were reflective only of the numbers found in the United States, as many believed that it was an
isolated case. But in 2010, upon the release of a pastoral letter discussing the abuse of priests in
Ireland by Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican confirmed that this has become a global crisis, with
allegations spread over half a dozen countries in Europe alone (Gilgoff, 2010).
In 2016, The Guardian posted a documentary-video online that claimed that the sexual abuse
in the Church in Ireland happened so often that it became ‘normal.’ This statement made by a
victim perhaps encapsulates the true horror of the child sexual abuse scandal of the Catholic
Church. It has become so deeply-rooted in the realities of the Church that the hierarchy itself has
a hard time prioritizing one case over millions of others, resulting in glacial-paced responses for
the victims (Masters & Vonberg, 2018).
Framework
This paper will work on the neoinstitutionalism perspective, analyzing the effects on
institutions on society.
This paper will use Daly’s (2014) theory on the criteria of institutionalized sexual abuse.
Should these criteria be met, then it is evident that it was in one way or another a form of
institutionalized abuse. These criteria are namely:
(1) Children were claiming that the abuse was sexual – in that, it was a harsher form of
punishment that was not associated with discipline or the like, and had more severe
psychological consequences.
(2) Upon the initial confession of a child, subsequent revelations came up and uncovered
themselves, raising questions as to how it was so prevalent.
(3) The sexual abuse became noticeable and observable.
In the discussion on institutional accountability, this paper will use the research of (Kearns,
1998) on accountability in higher education institutions to use as the framework for determining
whether the Church had taken and properly implemented the systems of accountability it once
promised to uphold. According to the research, accountability measures should consist of the
following:
(1) It should have a higher authority whose goal is to monitor and watch its constituents and
members.
(2) There must be an accessibly and explicit way to convey information or “reporting
mechanism” to the higher authority.
(3) It must have a set of standards or identifiers whose goal is to assess if members are
complying with the guidelines set by the higher institution.
Research Questions
The paper aims to answer the following research questions:
(a) Why should the Catholic Church, as an institution, be held liable for the abuses of its
constituents?
(b) Are the current reforms put in place within the Catholic Church sufficient in dealing with
the abuses?
Literature
There have been numerous studies and works published detailing the effects of sexual abuse,
the sexual abuse in the Clergy, and the current means that the Church is taking in order to mitigate
those harms.
In The Effects of Childhood Abuse to Relationship Quality: Gender Differences and Clinical
Implications, Larsen et al. (2011) discusses the effects of childhood abuse on the quality of future
romantic relationships. According to their review, childhood sexual abuse has been known to be
associated with psychological and emotional difficulties, often resulting in the formation of
unhealthy relationships. They further state that victims often blame themselves for the abuse, even
further straining their ability to come to terms with their violation.
In Conceptualising Responses to Institution Abuse of Children, Daly (2014) discusses the
institutional abuse of children, and how it was first characterized from the early 1980’s. She further
discusses the framework used in this paper to identify institutional abuse, and further discusses the
factors that played into consideration as these institutions sparked a response.
The National Catholic Reporter and the New York Times both have created archives
specifically to keep track of the sexual abuse cases, as early as 2016 and 2017, respectively. The
Boston Globe has the same list of resources, with theirs as early as 2002.
Freiberg, Donnelly and Gelb (2015) published a research paper entitled Sentencing for Child
Sexual Abuse In Institutional Contexts. This work discusses the details of child sexual abuse in
terms of the law, and why an individualistic approach is thereby ineffective.
Kearns published Institutional Accountability in Higher Education: A Strategic Approach in
1998, detailing how accountability happens in institutional levels, and the approaches an institution
should take in steps to acquire accountability.
In Optimising implementation of reforms to better prevent and respond to child sexual abuse
in institutions: Insights from public health, regulatory theory, and Australia’s Royal Commission,
Matthews (2017) explains the ways in which institutions have to look at child sexual abuse in a
way that promotes better prevention and reforms within its institutions.
Methodology
Through contextual description, situational analysis and document analysis, this paper will
discuss the child sexual abuse scandals of the Catholic Church, and describe the ways in which the
situation manifested and became prevalent despite early forms of confession, and what might be
the possible reasons for the Church to allow it to be so. Further than that, it will also tackle the
issue if this is a case of individualistic abuse or if it has reached a point of institutionalized abuse,
and whether institutional accountability is rightfully demanded. It will also discuss the current
reforms implemented by the Church, and discuss its effectivity in dealing with the problems
present.
The researcher will use present news articles by credible sources, such as the Boston Globe,
the New York Times and the National Catholic Reporter in order to assess the situations present
within their reports. The researcher will view video materials, such as news pieces and
documentaries to assess the present situation of the Church, and look for certain relevant situations
that may explain the Church’s behavior.
Discussion
The Church as an Avenue for Institutionalized Abuse
There have been constant debates surrounding how much accountability that the church has
to take, considering that these abuses are committed by individuals, and not the institution as a
whole. On one hand, the Church has created different means to mitigate individual harms, such as
sending priests like John J. Geoghan to hospitals after accusations of molesting boys from different
sources (Boston Globe Investigative Staff, 2002). On the other hand, there have been numerous
accusations and evidence that point to the church actively hiding these accusations from their
community – even integrating back abusive priests into very much vulnerable environments.
Perhaps the best way to answer the question of accountability is to first contextualize the
abuses in detail, using the principles of Daly (2014) in her theory on institutionalized sexual abuse.
The paper will further discuss in detail the mechanisms the church proposes that will, hopefully,
mitigate these harms.
“We’re very good at keeping secrets”: Cases of Abuse
As victims, children are inherently impressionable. When their trust in adults are misplaced,
and so are their views of the world, it can create a false sense of security. As a Catholic child, one
looks at priests and members of the clergy with high regard, often believing their words with very
little regard for the facts of the consequences. It was only natural for Patrick McSorley to trust in
John J. Geoghan, a priest who had offered to take him out for ice cream after the death of his father.
At the ride home, Geoghan had masturbated himself and McSorley, who was only 12 years of age
at the time. After dropping him off, Geoghan had asked him to keep what had happened a secret,
telling him, “We’re very good at keeping secrets” (Boston Globe Investigative Team, 2002).
Patrick McSorley was not the first and he was not the last. Since the 1990’s, over 130 people
have come forward, accusing Geoghan of molesting them in their childhood. Earlier in Boston
alone, during the 1960’s, nearly 100 children accused Fr. James Porter of raping and molesting
them (Wilkerson, 1992). Two priests, in a span of four decades, have victimized nearly 230
children. That was in Boston alone.
Many children tell of a similar tale. As priests, these men are considered as the upright in the
community, generally good and trustworthy. They often present themselves as such to their
victims, so that instances when they ask to help the family as with Patrick McSorley or to ask them
to come into their own homes, as with the instance of the Dossourd family. Geoghan would help
in taking care of the children – seven boys and a girl – and was eager in chipping in. For nearly
two years, Geoghan would put the seven boys to bed and take them out for ice cream. Of course,
as with many of these tragic cases, it was not as innocent as it may seem. Geoghan would regularly
abuse the boys – fondle their genitals, perform oral sex on them or force them to touch him
inappropriately, sometimes as he prayed. An Archdiocese letter issued in 1994, labeled “personal
and “confidential” state that when the children were sleeping, he would wake them up by playing
with their penis (The Boston Globe Investigative Team, 2002).
It was children who came forward and told their guardians about the abuses, often describing
them as sexual. In relation to the theory of institutionalized sexual abuse, the first criteria: children
have to come forward and say that the abuse was sexual was undeniably met.
“It was only two families.”
When confronted about his sexual abuse of children in the Dossourd family by a fellow
member of the clergy, Geoghan famously replied to it by saying, “It was only two families.”
After the publishing of the 2002 Boston Globe Investigation report on sexual abuse on the
clergy, more and more allegations came up against priests, turning what was once an American
tragedy into a crisis of an international scale (Masters & Vonberg, 2018).
Since 2002, numerous reports and accusations have come out recently detailing the abuses
and the extent of cover-ups of these abuses. As late as August 2018, 1000 children in Pennsylvania
have come out as being abused by a priest throughout their lives. A report in 2004 stated that in a
span of fifty years, nearly 10,000 children have been sexually abused by a member of the clergy,
mostly boys (BBC News, 2018). In Belgium, 2010, 300 case files detailing the abuse by priests
and members were released to the public (BBC News, 2010).
In 2004, the James Jay College of Criminal Justice released a study detailing the number of
accusations against priests between 1950 to 2002 which reached nearly 4,400 in number. This was
conducted through a population-based survey approach within the United States (James Jay
College of Criminal Justice, 2004).
In Ireland, it was found that abuse by Catholic priests was an endemic in the region. Nearly
2,000 children admitted to being sexually and physically abused while under the care of the church
through reformatories, schools and workhouses (BBC News, 2009).
In 2017, an Australian inquiry found that more than ten of thousands of children admitted to
being abused within their own institutions, including the church (BBC News, 2018).
Evidently, the second principle of subsequent confessions and coming-forwards is met. Sites
like BishopAccountability.org and organizations like SNAP promote victims coming out with their
stories, often having open lines in which people can easily reach them. The summary provided
above is but a small sum of the realities present in the world.
Who could have known?
With the many accusations against Catholic priests all over the world, many are beginning to
question as to how it only became evident and rampant now. While it is tempting to answer this
by explaining the massive cover-ups (which will be discussed later on) performed by the Church,
the truth of the matter is that it has been an endemic for a long time.
The Roman Catholic title had become a shield for many abusers, often knowingly using their
position to either incite silence or to place themselves in a morally high ground of being
untouchable, as such with the case of James R. Porter (Butterfield, 1992).
And yet the best example of this if found in short documentary by The Guardian News, dated
2016. In the interview, the victim discusses his stay in a Catholic school, wherein one of his
teachers – a member of the clergy – would often touch and massage their genitals as they were
reading. If they were distracted or if they hesitated to continue the passage, often times a prayer,
he would pinch or twist their penis. In another instance, he was sent to the Headmaster’s, a priest,
office where he claims the teacher rubbed his penis, and said that if he were to get an erection, he
had been a bad boy – something that terrified him, coming from a devout Catholic family. This
happened four more times before the Headmaster was transferred. According to the Guardian
News, while the congregation did pay the victim a sum of money after he had come out with his
story, they claimed no liability (The Guardian News, 2016).
In another interview by CBS This Morning, they interviewed six victims of rape in the
Catholic church. Three of the six came out and said that they were abused in their Catholic high
schools. When asked if they believed that a child was being abused right now by a member of the
clergy, all of them said yes (CBS This Morning, 2018).
To many victims, they had been groomed to believe that priests was all-good, and to follow
their example, as with the many of the cases of the victims in the CBS This Morning, or that it
happened so often that it was normalized, as with the victim in the Guardian News. Even in
generally public areas, like those of a high school where children are generally monitored by many
adults, the activities were excused as being common, as being the norm that it had taken quite a
while for many victims to fully understand that they were abused. As the recent 900-page report
on Pennsylvania child abuse is released, many victims feel as if it is the first time that they are
being heard (CBS This Morning, 2018).
In many other instances, it is the “holy” image of the priest that stops them from fully
understanding the extent of the crimes. In a short documentary by the New York Times, a victim
claims that after a priest had abused her, she deemed herself in a negative light, believing that she
was a bad entity that corrupted the mind of a benevolent priest, thus discouraging her from coming
out with her story (The New York Times, 2014).
These cases reflect the realities of child sexual abuse: they do not always happen in dark
corridors with vicious, angry outcasts. They happen within homes, within schools, within church.
And they’re done by people of these institutions – often times a valued member of the community.
This reached the third principle of Daly – that the abuse was noticeable and observable.
What did the Church say?
And yet the biggest indication of institutionalized abuse came from the revelations of the
extent of tolerance of the Church towards these abuses.
In Pennsylvania alone, a grand jury found the Church guilty of protecting more than 300
abusive priests over a span of 70-years by persuading victims and law enforcement to disregard
the instances of abuse. The report from the grand jury revealed that the abuses victimized nearly
1000 people during its tenure. The report further states that there is a good probability that there
are thousand other records lost and many more cases wherein the victims were terrified of coming
forward (Goodstein & Otterman, 2018).
Before the realization of the abuse in 2002 by the Boston Globe, many priests who were
accused of sexual abuses was put into institutions that claimed to rehabilitate the pedophilic
tendencies of these priests. When they were sent out after only a few months, they were simply
relocated to different parishes, and was sometimes still put into positions of power over children,
as such in the case of Fr. Geoghan, who was placed as a leader for a youth group in St. Julia’s
where he continued to molest children for another three years (Boston Globe Investigative Team,
2002).
In the report, they discusses the case of Rev. Fr. James Faluszczak, who was abused as a child
and whose allegations was minimized and ultimately ignored by the two bishops he talked to
(Goodstein & Otterman, 2018). In another article by the Boston Globe, they talked about the case
of Joanne Mueller, who, after coming out with the abuse of her children, was asked not to disclose
the situation to anyone, being constantly assured that church officials would handle the situation
accordingly. Geoghan was only later found to be relocated to another parish. Similarly, Maryetta
Dussourd was told not to go through with her threats to disclose the information to the police, with
another priest telling her about the years Geoghan spent studying priesthood, and how their family
would be taking that from him should they try to press legal charges. According to the article, this
was a common tactic within the Church at the time (The Boston Globe Investigative Team, 2002).
In the Philippines, the Catholic Bishops Conference issued an apology to victims, claiming
that it will be drafting guidelines as to how deal with sexual misconducts within the Philippine
church. It was estimated that nearly 200 of its 7000 priests were suspected of sexual misconduct,
some of which involve a child (BBC News, 2002). And yet in 2011, Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblos
was accused of protecting Fr. Fraul Cabonce 2017, a priest was caught attempting to rape a 13-
year-old girl (Remitio, 2017).
Since the printing of the article, however, many priests who have committed abuses were
imprisoned and are currently facing criminal charges. However, the Cardinals and Bishops who
enabled and covered-up these abuses were never fully held accountable. While some of them
resigned and were relieved of their clerical duties, in many instances, the bishops and cardinals
who protected these abusive priests continue to be part of the ministry, sometimes even given
promotions. The church was not only an avenue for child sexual abuse – they actively helped hide
these atrocities from people for decades (Goodstein & Otterman, 2018).
Institutionalized Abuse in the Church
Based from the criteria set forth by Daly (2014), the child sexual abuse scandals have met the
standards faithfully. This proves beyond doubt that this was an act of institutionalized abuse, and
not one of rampant individual abuses. This implies two things. Firstly, since the abuse is
institutional, then there is a mechanism within this institution that allows for these abuses to exist
and to happen within its walls. Secondly, since the abuse is institutional, then the reforms should
be at an institutional level, and not through individual measures.
Thus, the individual compensation given to victims, for example, or the sending of priests to
rehabilitation centers will no longer suffice as enough of countermeasures to properly mitigate and
handle these situations. The reform should come from within the institution and should address
institutional mechanisms. The following discussion will focus on two things: the cover-ups that
the Church instigated in order to hide the atrocities, as well as the reasons as to why those cover-
ups were successful despite the rampant and observable instances of sexual assault, and the current
reforms present in the Church and its effectiveness at present. These two analysis will give a better
insight as to how these abuses were stretched out for decades.
Cover-ups: A Discussion on Tolerance
The most glaring sign that this is a matter of institutional abuse, however, comes from the
very fact that many crimes were concealed from the public, thus letting the abusers go free while
victims suffer in silence. The Church is bordering on being tolerant of these abuses, of being
passive in the situations where action should have been necessary.
Tolerance can be defined as having a permissive attitude towards actions one might not
otherwise want to happen (Merriam-Webster’s pocket dictionary, 2004). This may have
unknowingly been the values of the Church as they chose to hide the abuses and atrocities from
both the public and the authorities, allowing abusers to co-exist in spaces where possible victims
exist. A cover-up is the act of concealing the intimate details of a crime or the crime itself.
The Church, according to The Boston Globe Investigative Team (2002), has played a pivotal
role in covering up the crimes of its clergy members, often through coercion and legal plays. In
the last 10 years alone, the Diocese of Boston settled up to 70 cases of child sexual abuse within
its clergy, often asking victims to sign non-disclosure agreements to keep safe the identities of
abusers from reaching the public (The Boston Globe Investigative Team, 2002b). In other
instances, they often try to downgrade the realities of the situation, and keep it amongst themselves
(Goodstein & Otterman, 2018).
However the Church chose to do it, there is no denying that the cover-ups surrounding child
sexual abuse was rampant, and allowed for more abuses to happen. According to The New York
Times (2014), a report proved that nearly 2/3 of bishops had tried to cover-up allegations of abuse.
The cover-up involved both the accused and those in the higher ranks of the Church, with some
accusations going as far as to incriminate even the Pope for covering up sexual abuse cases, stating
that they knew about the abuse and yet did nothing to stop it (Green, 2018). Whether Pope Francis
knew about the abuse is debatable, however there have been many instances where Cardinals and
Bishops have been proved to help in covering up these crimes and tolerating these abuses. Cardinal
Bernard Law, for example, became the face of the crisis of the Church. As one of the figureheads
of Catholicism during his time, it came as a surprise to his indifference towards the victims, and
his vigilant effort to move around priests and rehabilitate them rather than give them up to the
proper authorities (Clarke, 2017). It was during his tenure that the Boston Globe did an
investigation on the child sexual abuse scandal, and found his 18-year leadership to be marred with
scandal. While the action itself may have been done by individuals, its prevalence and tolerance
was executed and aided by the very institution that should have stood against it.
The following discussion with answer the answer question of how these cover-ups were
executed in the first place, and what conditions or mindset allowed them to exist, hopefully giving
a clear image as to how the Church played a pivotal role in the discouragement and fear of victims
to come out, as well as the mechanisms they have undergone to ensure that allegations remain
hidden from the public view.
How were they able to execute these cover-ups?
According to both Goodstein and Otterman (2018), one could be the confusion surrounding
sex, prompted by the teachings of the Church regarding sexuality, as well as the taught behavior
of obedience towards the clergy. The teachings, in particular, revolve around the idea that
homosexual acts, premarital sex and masturbation are all sins, with many going as far as to consider
a person “dirty” if they engage in such acts. With the conservative nature of the Catholic Church,
many are not given the sex education (including topics such as consent, sexual assault and abuse,
etc.) that they need. This taboo of topics disincentives many from fully understanding the extend
of abuse and stops many from coming out and talking about the abuse, in fear of being ostracized
in their community.
This is most apparent in the the same victim in Ireland discussed previously. According to his
interview, a factor that played into letting abuse happen was the idea of that conflicting feeling of
knowing that it was wrong, but not realizing that it was abuse. During the abuse, he recalled that
the Headmaster, who was a Reverend Father, scared him by saying that should he have an erecting
during the stimulation of his genitals (which is a natural reaction), it would mean that he had been
a bad person. As a devout Catholic, it terrified him, and discouraged him from coming out with
his story until 50 years later. By then, his abusers were long dead (The Guardian News, 2016).
This was also evident in the case against Fr. Porter, who molested and sexually abused
children in St. Mary’s Parish during the 1960’s. Because of the church’s strong moral stance
against homosexual acts, many boys were terrified of coming out against Porter because they were
at risk of being called homosexual in their Christian communities (Matchan, 1993).
In many instances people are simply do not realize that they are being abused, for the simple
fact that in their minds, priests and members of the clergy are in capable of doing such things.
According to an article published by the Varsitarian in 2018, Bishop Antonio Tobias, who is part
of the CBCP (Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines) National Tribunal of Appeals,
referred to this phenomenon as “clericalism” or the mindset of putting a member of the clergy on
a pedestal, unable to do any wrong (Aboy et al., 2018).
According to Catholic News Service (2018), in an interview with Bishop Lawrence T. Persico,
clericalism has played an integral role in the proliferation of child sexual abuse within the church.
Clericalism exists in both the laity and in the religious. In the view of the religious, being part of
the clergy separates them and puts them in higher regard than the laity. According to Senz (2018),
it perpetuates the mindset that they are of a higher moral superiority than their constituents. In the
view of the laity, it can be summarized into three words: “Father knows best.” In the idea of
clericalism, the clergy is given special power by God, called apostolic power, to give our his
message and to pursue the mission of Christ. Upon his initiation to the Holy Orders, he is given an
indelible mark in his soul, allowing him to act in the person of Christ. In this mindset, it is difficult
to be able to accuse priests and members of the clergy of a crime, much less something as terrible
as a molesting a child.
 In Porter’s reign of terror, according to Matchan, many people seemed it unfathomable that a
priest could be sexually interested in young boys. Many Catholic priests were revered in their
communities, and their word had a premium over those of their accusers. Porter himself admitted
to molesting children while he “hid behind the cloth.”
In the case of another victim, she was discouraged from opening up about her abuse because
she was made to believe that it was her fault – that her sinful nature had tempted an otherwise
benevolent priest to sin and engage in unholy acts with her (The New York Times, 2014).
Another strategy, according to a Vox article, is that they sent victims vicious attacks. The
same strategy can be applied to the downplay of many abuses, just like in the case of Joanne
Mueller and Maryetta Dussourd (The Boston Globe Investigative Team, 2002). According to the
grand jury report in Pennsylvania, they used euphemism for many terms, like using “inappropriate
contact” instead of rape in many reports (Goodstein & Otterman, 2018). In another instance, they
insinuated that the sexual exploitation and abuse of seven children were not a cause for concern
(The Boston Globe Investigative Team, 2002).
Another issue is that many of those coming forward with their stories are subjected to legal
laws and issues that help conceal the behavior of the Church. In many instances, criminal
proceedings are halted by the statute of limitations with child sexual abuse victims. In some states
in the United States, child sexual abuse cases can only filed until the victim is 50 years old, and
civil cases until they’re only 30. However, with many of its abuses going back decades, it is no
wonder that many victims are only coming up now, upon the awareness the issue continues to
attract. In the ChildUsa.org (2018) website, the statistics for victims coming out with their stories
of child sexual abuse is that only 1 out 3 discloses their experiences, with the average age being
close to 52. In some states, victims are only allowed to file cases until its twelfth year and some
only in its tenth. The statute of limitations prevents many older victims from coming forward and
finally accepting justice long overdue (Martinez, 2018). Because of this statute of limitations, only
2 out of 301 priests accused in Pennsylvania have been charged with crimes (Swensen, 2018).
Even within their own institution, the Church makes an effort to minimize the number of people
aware of the situation. When priests are located to different parishes, there are instances where
their fellow religious are unaware of their abuses.
Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) played another role in the cover-up of the Church and its
abuses. Victims who confront the clergy regarding their abuses are often presented non-disclosure
agreements to sign upon the acceptance of monetary value as a compensation and to answer for
civil liability. While presented as a way to protect the identities of the victims, it also protects the
abusers. In one instance, in 1997, the Roman Catholic Diocese in Albanay offered a sum of less
than one million dollars to a victim who had been abused for six years by a priest. Should they
have paid him more than one million dollars, they would be subjected to answer to their financial
counsel, composing of numerous members from both the religious and the laity. Because they did
not do so, the case was free from public scrutiny (Philip, 2002). Because of these NDAs, they were
unable to discuss their abuses and try to further legal action in fear of being sued by the Catholic
Church. This hid the abuse from the public and avoided the backlash it would have instigated. The
law itself became a way to protect these priests – with many clergymen exempted from laws that
most caregivers were obligated to do which would have required them to report sexual abuses to
the proper authorities and legal counsels (The Boston Globe Investigative Team, 2002). While
some Archdioceses have released the victims from NDAs, others – such as Los Angeles – have
fought to keep those in place under the tutelage of Cardinal Roger Mahony (The New York Times,
2014).
This was present in the story of a victim abused by Deacon James Lockwood, who raped and
sodomized him when he was only 12 during his stay in Hope Haven. Upon his statement to the
church, they agreed on a $80,000 settlement in return for his confidentiality. While unsatisfied
with the agreement, he decided that no one would believe a 12-year-old accusing a priest of
molesting him, and agreed (Curth, 2018).
In many instances, as well, they simply relocated the priests into other ministries rather than
come forward to the legal authorities. Before the realization of the abuse in 2002 by the Boston
Globe, many priests who were accused of sexual abuses was put into institutions that claimed to
rehabilitate the pedophilic tendencies of these priests. When they were sent out after only a few
months, they were simply relocated to different parishes, and was sometimes still put into positions
of power over children, as such in the case of Fr. John Geoghan, as mentioned previously. (The
Boston Globe Investigative Team, 2002). With the public unaware of the crisis, these abusers were
free to manipulate vulnerable children and victimize them again.
The Catholic Church and Soft Power
There is no denying that the Church did in fact allow many of its abusers to exist within its
walls despite being aware of their tendencies and their inclination to have sexual relations with
children. These abuses were tolerated by the Church and by its officials in order to maintain the
image of the institution and to protect its priests. This image and reputation, alongside their heavy
influence towards Catholics can easily be considered as the Church’s own form of soft power.
According to Nye (2014), soft power is the ability to influence the choices of people without the
use of coercive violence. This is due in part because of their influence in culture and society.
It is the soft power of the Church that has allowed the circumstances above to prevail and to
exist in its communities. The Roman Catholic religion was so deeply ingrained into the minds of
many that it was difficult for many to admit that the Church had committed atrocities against their
very own.
All of the situations above can easily be attributed to the Church and its soft power. The lack
of sexual education, for example, was deeply influenced by the Church even though it was a matter
for educational institutions. This is because Catholics have actively gone against sex education,
citing it as something taboo within their communities, in fear that discussing it in detail would
cause people to exercise their sexualities. Even in the instances where the church does allow sex
education, it usually comes in the form of uplifting modesty and purity (which in itself can be
upsetting to many victims), rather than discussing it in objective terms (Whitehead, 1996). And so
there were wide misconceptions to what sex and abuse was among the younger generation.
Because of the lack of sexual education, they had not realized that they suffering and victims of
abuse, with many of them citing confusing feeling of both pleasure and discomfort as the reason
why they did not come forward, scared that they might be considered homosexual, another topic
taboo within the Church, and many did not discuss or want to be because of the teachings of the
Church, and that it might be held against them that they allegedly enjoyed it because they had
erections or orgasms, which are natural responses of the body to stimuli, and should not be basis
for consent.
Their soft power further manifested in many different ways throughout the period of abuse. It
manifested through their intimidation of victims, either directly through accusing them of sinning
against the Church, or indirectly through their followers telling them that no one would believe
them should it be their word against the Church’s. These mentalities and realities paved the way
for the Church to silence victims and to ensure that threats against the institution and against its
clergy would be mitigated, if not squandered.
 Their soft power came from the reputation of being good and just – a morally upright
institution in an otherwise corrupt world. This was a reputation cultivated for centuries. Ultimately,
it was this soft power that had allowed them to commit these atrocities, and it is the very same soft
power that they tried to protect – through cover-ups and the concealment of evidence.
Upon the release of their cases, the Church had immediately gone and tried to mitigate the
damage on their reputation through apologies, through resignations. However, many of the laity
continue to ask for more reform within institutions, something that the Church claims to be
undergoing.
The next discussion will put that claim to a test. It will discuss the various methods that the
Church has used in order to hold their priests accountable, and discuss in the detail the success and
failings of each, hopefully giving an accurate image of the realities of Catholic accountability
systems towards its priests and clergy members.
What has the Church actually done: A Discussion on Accountability Systems
This paper will use the criteria set by Kearns (1989) to determine and analyze the
accountability systems that the Church has created to hopefully avoid the very same abuses that
happened once before. Kearns presented three criteria to be met for effective accountability
systems:
(1) A higher authority should be created in order to monitor members.
(2) Reporting abuses to the higher authority should be easy and accessible.
(3) It must have a set of standards to how to act and what constitutes as abuse.
The paper will discuss the three in detail.
A Higher Authority
The Church, upon the 2002 articles by the Boston Globe, had immediately promised to create
systems to hold their clergy members accountable. This paper will discuss two in particular: the
Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith and the National Review Board.
According to an article by The Varsitarian, when a parish or a diocese receives an allegation
of abuse against one of its members, the case file will be sent to the Congregation of the Doctrine
of the Faith (CDF) in the Vatican whereby they will decide and discuss the punishment that will
be handed over to the priest (Aboy et al., 2018).
In 2015, Pope Francis approved a method for reporting to the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith regarding child sexual abuse so as to be able to investigate these claims further and
more effectively (Butler, 2015). According to their profile in the Vatican website, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s primarily role is to protect the doctrines of the Catholic
Church from heresy, including acts contrary to the teachings of the Church (Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, n.d.) The CDF handles all cases of sexual abuse that is handed over by the
bishop. Prior to 2001, the year it was established as the sole authority over these cases, allegations
were generally handled by the local bishop, and they were only involved should the secrecy of
confessional be threatened. However, upon the approval of 2001, they were the main perpetrators
of the Vatican’s investigations against these allegations (BishopAccountability.org, n.d.)
Yet, despite promises of spearheading investigations, the main proponents for sending priests
to trial are unaffiliated with the Vatican, such as organizations like SNAP or
BishopAccountability.org (Butler, 2015). There have been no studies as to the effectivity of the
CDF in handling these cases, and there are very few reports, if any, regarding the actions they have
taken. The most accessible way to contact the CDF is through the local town’s bishop.
This is where a glaring problem with the system is evident. From the previous discussions as
well as numerous articles, bishops and cardinals have been an aid in the cover-up of these
allegations (The Boston Globe Investigative Team, 2002 & Jenkins, 2018). While the rule is that
all cases with a semblance of truth must be submitted to the CDF (BishopAccountability.org, n.d.),
the problem lies in the idea of “semblance of truth” as this depends heavily on what the bishop
believes to be so, following only the policies he had made for himself (The New York Times,
2014).
But even under the assumption that bishops do pass these cases towards the CDF, there is
already a strong distrust between bishops and its constituents, especially now that cases of the
cover-up continue to make its way to mainstream media, discouraging many from reporting their
stories.
The second organization is called the National Review Board of the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops. This organization was made up of lay Catholics to ensure that the Church
remained faithful to the promises it made during the establishment of the Charter of the Protection
of Children and Young People in 2002. However, Frank Keating, who was the chairman of the
organization from 2002 to 2003 as well as the Governor of Oklahoma, found that many church
leaders still refused to disclose the evidence and information surrounding the cases, as in the case
of Cardinal Roger Mahoney of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. He fought vehemently to keep the
records of abuses out of the hands of legal authorities. According to Keating, the District Attorney
of Los Angeles had allegedly called him, and said that the Archdiocese refused to give them any
evidence or documents, preventing them from pursuing investigations. His speaking out against
these revelations and the backlash he received caused Keating to resign from the board (The New
York Times, 2014).
While there were organizations created to handle the abuses of the Catholic Church, the
realization of abuses still came heavily from bishops and officials from the Church, limiting their
ability to monitor the cases, the priests and the bishops. Technically speaking, however, the
creation of the organization in the criteria was met, however their effectivity and success to be put
into question.
Reporting Mechanism
The reporting mechanism, according to Kearns (1989), should also be accessible to the victims
and those who need it most – there has to be a simply, easy way to access these mechanisms that
makes it convenient for victims to use.
The Vatican, from research, does not have an accessible website wherein one may report
details and the crime. While their numbers were accessible online, it did not come directly from
the official website from the Vatican and, in fact, came from the Catholic Hierarchy (2018)
website. Emails are not available. The only way to be able to contact the office without the use of
a landline is through reporting the abuse to the bishop in the ministry, which is in itself an issue
for many.
While the National Review Board does have its own page and it does have a Contact Us
option, it is linked to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website without its own.
The Contact Us page does allow the user to input ‘Child Sexual Abuse’ in the topic and to directly
address the National Board Review through selecting ‘Child and Youth Protection’ in the office
category.
While the CDF does not to better refine their ways of being reached and reaching out to
victims, the National Review Board does maintain a relatively simple way to reporting abuses, in
the event that a victim would like to report these abuses online. The issue, however, is that there
is no mechanism that focuses directly on abuse. The Contact Us page accepts a wide array of
submissions, allowing even questions to be received by the website. However, in terms of
accessibility and convenience, it can be considered quite simple to use and to access, passing the
standards set forth by Kearns.

Figure 2. The Contact Us page of the UCCSB where victims can have access to the Child and Youth
Protection group or the National Review Board.

Standard Operating Procedure

Upon the creation of the Charter of the Protection of Children and Young People in 2002, it
has been used as the standard operation procedure that Church officials use to pattern their steps
when dealing with cases and situations such as these.
However, the conference that gave birth to the charter proved to be a difficult ordeal. Church
officials could not agree on a zero-tolerance policy, and to them it was controversial to ask them
to submit their records to the legal authorities. Despite this, however, officials were determined to
pass a document to protect children, and thus the Charter was still approved on a 239-13 vote (The
New York Times, 2014). The Charter was established in 2002 and revised in 2005, 2011 and in
2018 (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2018).
The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People generally had guidelines that
ensures the safety of children in the ministry and within their environments, that outlines the
measures the Church has to take to give aid to the victims (United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, 2018) and, among other measures, had a zero-tolerance policy, a requirement to submit
the necessary files to the public authorities and a call for transparency (The New York Times,
2014).
Clearly, the third criteria of Kearns (1989) has been met by the Church in every regard.
Accountability Systems: Are they enough?
While the Church has made moves to create a safer environment for children through
accountability systems, these mechanisms have to be put into question. While on technical basis,
it meets all three criteria set by Kearns, there is no question that in some aspects, it lacks the
necessary foundations to be fully effective in executing its duty.
The most glaring issue is found in the mechanisms for monitoring cases. The problem here is
that an accountability system will not work if even one of the three above is not functioning
properly. The issue comes heavily from the fact that church officials have refused to cooperate
with the standards set by the National Review Board. In many instances, refusing to submit
documents to the legal authorities and to the proper organizations to handle the crimes, as such in
the instance of Cardinal Mahony (The New York Times, 2014) who was found to be an aid in
covering up the crimes of Oliver O’Grady, a priest who had raped and molested at least 20 children
during his stay in the United States (Lytton, 2012).
Despite the creation of these accountability systems, more and more cases of child sexual
abuse continue to appear (The New York Times, 2014), most recently and most notable the recent
report of a grand jury in Pennsylvania that counted up to 301 abusive priests within the state. And
while priests are being taken into custody and charged for crimes, the bishops who had allowed
these abuses to happen have not yet been held accountable for the role they played in covering up
the crimes and atrocities committed against children.
Cardinal Bernard Law, for example, was the face of child sexual abuse in Boston, as he had
been a primary player in the covering up of the abuses of the priests. After much outrage from his
constituents, he was forced to resign from his post as the Archbishop of Boston. However, despite
the allegations against him, he was given a chance to move to Rome where he enjoyed his
retirement, and eventually became the archpriest of one of the principal basilicas in Rome
(Kirchgaessner, 2017).
To many, this was a sign that the grievances of the victim continue to fall to deaf ears in the
Church, as bishops were very seldomly held accountable for the crimes they committed during
their tenure.
 Victims have generally been unsatisfied with the way the Church has been dealing the
allegations of sexual abuse against children (BBC News, 2018). According to Green (2018), some
Catholics demand a reform within the system that strives to breakdown the systems of secrecy
within the church that refuses to dismantle itself even at the expense of putting thousand of children
at risk. In the article, she also highlights that many believe that bishops who tolerate these acts
through cover-ups have contributed to the culture of pedophilia in churches, and goes on to further
state that the problem is structural in nature in that the laity have very few means of holding the
high officials accountable for their misconducts.
In an interview with Rachel Martin, John Allen discusses the fact that Catholics are no longer
gentled by the words of the church, but are now demanding action from the church. The same
promises of repentance and reform were said in 2002, and yet in 2018, it was found that nearly
1000 children were abused by more than 300 priests with the past years, bring about deep feelings
of frustration and betrayal within the Catholic community.
The problem, as Allen says, is that while the Church has strong measures against those who
committed these crimes, there have been very minimal punishments to the bishops and cardinals
who have played a role in covering up the crimes and atrocities made by their priests (Martin &
Allen, 2018).
In an article by CNN, they claimed that victims were outraged over the slow pace at which
many of the crimes and cases were being handled by the Vatican. The article cited that some
victims were terrified that those responsible would not be gravely punished because of how the
cases are being treated, losing faith in the system and in the church. There is a constant demand
for tangible action and change within the church, with many no longer satisfied with the verbal
reassurances of the church (Masters & Vonberg, 2018).
In an interview with one of the board directors of SNAP, Melanie Sakoda, she mentions that
she was not satisfied with the current ways the church handles the situations of abuse within the
Catholic Church, going as far as to say that they cannot be trusted to police themselves (Sakoda,
M., personal communication, November 20, 2018). Another member of SNAP, Michael Norris,
had the same sentiments, saying that the current mechanisms of the Church will not correct the
problem, briefly mentioning that the Charter created would not be effective, just as the Dallas
Charter was. He, too, said that the police could not be trusted to investigate their own. To him, it
is Canon Law itself that perpetuates these situations, arguing that change should start from there
and branch out into institutional and structural means (Norris, M., personal communication,
November 19, 2018).
Conclusion
The frustrations of the community echo each other: there is a need and call for the proper
accountability for these priests, it is high time that the Church make actual, structural reforms that
go beyond depending on the benevolence of their bishops to protect children.
The most effective and most reliable organizations demanding and acting towards
accountability are not directly affiliated with the Church themselves and usually groups of
survivors of abuse or members of the laity, such as SNAP and BishopAccountability.org. The
Church has to create better and wiser mechanisms that target every party involved with the abuse
rather than focusing on sole perpetrator. Otherwise, they will not be fixing the problem at its core,
but simply eradicating the manifestations of the actual issues – the secrecy rooted within the heart
of the Church and the loyalty of its members that can threaten the safety of its constituents.
The Church looks ahead of itself, always preparing for the future of its institutions. But this is
the reality: if the Church does not handle this situation properly, the people on the pews will
eventually stand to leave. The community is tired of promises and apologies (Dodman, 2018).
Echoing the sentiments of Archbishop Wilton Gregory, Niccolo Machiavelli once said that if
a leader is to give away goods to the people, he must do it over time for people forget, but if he is
to kill a thousand men, he must it in one night for people forget (Rees, 2004 & Del Lucchese,
2015). With the constant stream of new allegations daily, the laity will not forget the atrocities
committed by the church. The community has reached a point where there is growing distrust
amongst its members and its constituents, and if the church will not handle these problems
accordingly, many from the community will feel the same disappointed and betrayal they once did
in 2002, this time with much less readiness to accept promises for change in reform, risking the
reputation and the image of the Church that they have tried to maintain for centuries.
There is no way to justify child sexual abuse. As St. Thomas Aquinas puts it, lust is not
grounded in reason and is not the character of the law (Aquinas, 1948). Thus, the church should
never be tolerant in the face of lust and injustice, especially those that threaten the safety of their
constituents. While the expectation of perfection in an institution is not possible, the expectation
of at least having working mechanisms that target and dismantle should exist, if only to fulfill the
very duties it once promised to have.
 The Church is an institution for the safekeeping and protection for the Christian community,
promising to the moral guide in times of confusion and uncertainty. It is now time for the church
to stand by its words, and take the necessary actions to make the environment in the Church safer
once more, even if it means putting thousands of their own into custody or removing their ranks
within the hierarchy.
References:

Aquinas, T. (2002). Aquinas: Political Writings. (R. W. Dyson, R. Geuss, & Q. Skinner, Eds.).

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

BBC News. (2009, May 20). Irish church knew abuse “endemic.” Retrieved from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8059826.stm

BBC News. (2010, September 14). World Catholic sex abuse scandals. Retrieved from

https://www.bbc.com/news/10407559

BBC News. (2014, February 5). UN: Vatican must remove abusers. Retrieved from

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26044852

BBC News. (2018, August 20). Sex abuse and the Catholic Church. Retrieved from

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44209971

Biggs, S., Manthorpe, J., Tinker, A., Doyle, M., & Erens, B. (2009). Mistreatment of older

people in the United Kingdom: findings from the first National Prevalence Study. Journal

of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 21(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08946560802571870

Bishop Accountability. (n.d.). Question and Answer Regarding Canonical Process on Sexual

Abuse. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from http://www.bishop-

accountability.org/news2011/05_06/q&a-canonical-process-sexual-abuse.pdf

Butler, S. (2015). Responding to the Abuse Crisis as Committed Disciples, 20.

Butterfield, F. (1992, October 25). Paper Says Ex-Priest Admitted Sex Abuse to Pope. The New

York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/25/us/paper-says-ex-priest-

admitted-sex-abuse-to-pope.html

Carlin, A. S., Kemper, K., Ward, N. G., Sowell, H., Gustafson, B., & Stevens, N. (1994). The

effects of differences in objective and subjective definitions of childhood physical abuse on

 estimates of its incidence and relationship to psychopathology. Child Abuse and Neglect,

18, 393-399.

Catholic Hierarchy. (n.d.). Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Retrieved November 30,

2018, from http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dxcdf.html

Catholic Hierarchy. (n.d.). Doctrine of the Faith (Congregation). Retrieved November 30, 2018,

from http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dxcdf.html

CBS This Morning. (2018). Victims of sex abuse by Pennsylvania priests share their stories.

Retrieved November 25, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHQJCmsFd9k

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (n.d.). Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Profile. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/index.htm

Daly, K. (2014). Conceptualising Responses to Institutional Abuse of Children. Current Issues

in Criminal Justice, 26(1).

Debien, N. (2018, September 8). Celibacy and confessional aside, the child sex abuse inquiry

must prompt canon law reform [Text]. Retrieved November 18, 2018, from

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-08/catholic-churchs-response-sex-abuse-royal-

commission-pope/10204058

Del Lucchese, F. (2015). The Political Philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli. Jackson’s Entry,

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Dodman, B. (2018). ‘Tired of apologies’, abuse victims demand action, not words, from Pope

Francis - France 24. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from

https://www.france24.com/en/20180824-pope-francis-ireland-child-sexual-abuse-scandal-

catholic-church
Ernst, C. (1965). The Church as an Institution. New Blackfriars, 47(544), 36–31.

Freiberg, A., Donnelly, H., & Gelb, K. (2015). Sentencing for Child Abuse in Institutional

Contexts. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Gallagher, B. (2000). The extent and nature of known cases of institutional child sexual abuse.

The British Journal of Social Work, 30(6), 795–817. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/30.6.795

Gbote, E. Z. M., & Kgatla, S. T. (n.d.). The role of Christianity in mending societal fragility and

quelling violence in Liberia. Verbum et Ecclesia, 38(1).

https://DOI.org/ 10.4102/ve.v38i1.1651

Goodin, R. E., & Klingemann, H.-D. (Eds.). (1996). Chapter 2: Political Science - The History

of the Discipline. In The Handbook of Political Science (p. 58). Great Claredon Street,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Green, E. (2018, August 22). Catholics Are Desperate for Tangible Reforms on Clergy Sex

Abuse. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/catholic-church-sex-

abuse/568078/

Hierarchy Structure. (2017). Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy. Retrieved from

https://www.hierarchystructure.com/roman-catholic-church-hierarchy/

Jenkins, J. (2018, August 14). Report alleges decades of child sex abuse by Pennsylvania

priests, cover-up by bishops. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from

https://religionnews.com/2018/08/14/report-alleges-decades-of-child-sex-abuse-by-

pennsylvania-priests-cover-up-by-bishops/

Kearns, K. (1998). Institutional Accountability in Higher Education: A Strategic Approach.

Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(2), 140–156.

Kingsley, J. D. (1944). Representative democracy. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch University

Larsen, C. D., Sandberg, J. G., & Harper, J. M. (2011). The Effects of Childhood Abuse on

Relationship Quality: Gender Differences and Clinical Implications | Request PDF. Family

Relations, 60(4), 435–445.

Lytton, T. D. (2006). [Review of Review of Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic

Church’s 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse, by T. P. Doyle, A. W. R. Sipe, & P. J.

Wall]. Journal of Law and Religion, 22(2), 615–618.

Lytton, T. D. (2012). Holding Bishops Accountable. Harvard University Press.

Mansfield, H. (1982). Accountability and congressional oversight. In B.L.R. Smith & J. Carroll

(Eds.), Improving the accountability and performance of government (pp. 61-74).

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Martin, R. (Host), Allen, J. (Contributor). (2018 August 21). U.S. Catholics Want Action After

Report Details Decades Of Child Sexual Abuse [Radio Broadcast]. United States of

America.

Masters, J., & Vonberg, J. (n.d.). Pope Francis slammed by victims over sexual abuse scandal.

Retrieved November 30, 2018, from https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/13/europe/pope-

sexual-abuse-us-bishops-intl/index.html

Mathews, B. (2017). Optimising implementation of reforms to better prevent and respond to

child sexual abuse in institutions: Insights from public health, regulatory theory, and

Australia’s Royal Commission. Child Abuse & Neglect, 74, 86–98.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.07.007
Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., & Trapnell, P. D. (1999). The relation between early abuse and

adult sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 36(4), 385–395.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909552011

Mooney, A., & Nunno, M. (1990). Institutional abuse: A review of the literature. Journal of

Child and Youth Care, 4(6), 81–95.

Norris, M. (November 19, 2018). Email.

North, D. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Plante, T. G., & Daniels, C. (2004). The Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Roman Catholic Church:

What Psychologists and Counselors Should Know. Pastoral Psychology, 52, 381–393.

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PASP.0000020686.94708.02

Plante, T. G., & Daniels, C. (2004). The Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Roman Catholic Church:

What Psychologists and Counselors Should Know. Pastoral Psychology, 52, 381–393.

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PASP.0000020686.94708.02

Rees, E. A. (2004). Machiavellism. In Political Thought from Machiavelli to Stalin:

Revolutionary Machiavellism. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Remitio, R. (n.d.). Priest nabbed in Marikina for allegedly attempting to have sex with 13-year-

old girl. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from

http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/07/30/priest-nabbed-in-marikina-for-allegedly-

attempting-to-have-sex-with-13-year-old-girl.html

Sakoda, M. (November 20, 2018). Email.

Silverio, I. A. (2011, August 30). Gabriela calls on Butuan Bishop to stop coddling priest

charged with rape of minor. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from

 http://bulatlat.com/main/2011/08/30/gabriela-calls-on-butuan-bishop-to-stop-coddling-

priest-charged-with-rape-of-minor/

Smith, A. E. (2018, August 28). The political consequences of hiding abuse. Retrieved

November 30, 2018, from https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-

faction/2018/8/28/17789688/catholic-church-abuse-politics

Stephen, M. R., & Orokpo, O. F. . (28). The Theory of Political Obligations and Abuse of

Office in Niegria.

Stephen, M. R., & Orokpo, O. F. . (n.d.). The Theory of Political Obligations and Abuse of

Office in Niegria.

The Boston Globe Investigative Team. (2002). Archdiocese weighs bankruptcy filing - The

Boston Globe. Retrieved October 16, 2018, from

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/special-reports/2002/12/01/archdiocese-weighs-

bankruptcy-filing/AcV06lhjbaQ25GAgHrZFqL/story.html

The Boston Globe Investigative Team. (2002). Church abuse report: Church allowed abuse by

priest for years - The Boston Globe. Retrieved October 16, 2018, from

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/special-reports/2002/01/06/church-allowed-abuse-

priest-for-years/cSHfGkTIrAT25qKGvBuDNM/story.html

The Boston Globe Investigative Team. (2002). Scores of priests involved in sex abuse cases.

Retrieved November 30, 2018, from https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/special-

reports/2002/01/31/scores-priests-involved-sex-abuse-

cases/kmRm7JtqBdEZ8UF0ucR16L/story.html

The New York Times. (2014). Abuse Documentary: The Shame of the Catholic Church.

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW-S9Ddws4w

Whitehead, K. (1996). Sex Education: The Vatican’s Guidelines. Retrieved November 30, 2018,

from https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/marriage-and-family/sexuality/sex-education-

the-vatican-s-guidelines.html

Wilkerson, I. (1992, December 8). Ex-Priest Goes on Trial In Child-Molesting Case. The New

York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/08/us/ex-priest-goes-on-

trial-in-child-molesting-case.html

Wilkerson, I. (1992, December 8). Ex-Priest Goes on Trial In Child-Molesting Case. The New

York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/08/us/ex-priest-goes-on-

trial-in-child-molesting-case.html