Science does not provide a single universal answer as to why some priests sexually abused children. Research rather paints a much more complex picture, intertwining individual human risk factors, the opportunity to access minors, and an environment that can either stop the crime or allow it to continue.
Homosexuality is not equal to child abuse
The fact that among the victims of sexual abuse by priests there are disproportionately many boys long fueled one of the simplest explanations of this scandal – that the problem lies in homosexuality.
However, the so-called MHG study published in 2018 – its acronym formed from the names of the consortium centers Mannheim, Heidelberg, and Gießen that conducted the research – did not confirm such a conclusion.
Commissioned by the German Bishops’ Conference, scientists studied sexual abuse of minors that could have been committed by Catholic priests, deacons, and members of male religious orders from 1946 to 2014. The researchers analyzed documents from 38,156 clergy personnel and other related cases from all 27 German dioceses.
At first glance, the study results might seem favorable to the version linking homosexuality and abuse: 62.8% of identified victims were boys, and in some analyzed samples, their share reached 76–80%.
However, the study authors themselves warned against equating these numbers with sexual orientation. Their conclusion is clear – homosexuality itself is not a risk factor for sexual child abuse.
Instead of a direct causal link between homosexuality and sexual child abuse, the MHG study offers a much more complex explanation.
According to the researchers, the large proportion of boys among the victims could primarily be due to structural circumstances: historically, boys more often serve at the altar, there are more boys in Catholic boarding schools and other church institutions, so clergy have more opportunities to establish close relationships with them. However, according to the researchers, accessibility alone is not enough.
Could the abolition of celibacy solve the problem?
When the scandal arose in Lithuania, some commentators rushed to suggest reconsidering the issue of abolishing celibacy.
It was claimed that suppressing a person’s sexuality ultimately “ends badly” and can encourage inappropriate behavior. Celibacy can indeed be one of the factors, but differently than publicly asserted.
In the MHG study, scientists hypothesized that mandatory celibacy for some candidates for priesthood, who had immature or suppressed homosexual tendencies, might have seemed like a way to avoid open confrontation with their sexual identity.
The Church’s own negative attitude towards homosexuality, encouraging such tendencies to be hidden and experienced secretly, may have contributed to this. However, the study authors clearly emphasize: neither homosexuality nor celibacy itself is a cause of sexual abuse of minors.
The issue of celibacy is highlighted in the MHG study as a separate but ambiguous problem. Researchers noted that the proportion of accused deacons, for whom celibacy is not mandatory, was significantly lower than that of accused diocesan priests. However, they warned against considering this difference as proof that celibacy itself causes sexual abuse.
The study authors suggest viewing celibacy as a possible risk factor only for certain groups of people and under certain circumstances – especially when a person’s emotional and sexual maturity is insufficient, and preparation for life without an intimate partner is superficial.
According to the researchers, the problem was also exacerbated by the fact that seminaries paid too little attention to the emotional and sexual maturity of future priests. Although celibacy chosen maturely is possible, not every candidate for priesthood has the necessary preparation and internal motivation.
There is no single cause
In June 2002, as the sexual abuse scandal in the US Catholic Church was expanding, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) adopted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and established the National Review Board.
Commissioned by it, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York conducted a descriptive study on the extent and nature of sexual abuse of minors in the US Catholic clergy from 1950 to 2002.
The 2004 published study was funded by the USCCB itself but conducted by an independent secular academic institution. Researchers relied on data provided by 195 dioceses and 140 religious communities, covering 98% of US diocesan priests.
You can find the full report text
Based on data from almost all US dioceses and some religious orders, 4,392 priests and deacons were accused – about 4% of all clergy serving during that period. There were 10,667 registered victims, 81% of whom were boys, with the largest group being children aged 11–14.
A particularly notable small group of accused: only 3.5% of clergy with ten or more accusations accounted for more than a quarter of all registered victims.
However, the 2004 study primarily answered the question “how many and what cases were there?” rather than “why did it happen?”. The second part of the same John Jay project was dedicated to this – the 2011 report “Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States 1950–2010”.
Researchers paid much attention to the broader historical context – especially social changes in the 1970s and 1980s and the influence of the sexual revolution.
They assessed that some priests were insufficiently prepared to cope with rapidly changing sexual norms and the psychological and social pressure experienced at that time.
However, neither mandatory celibacy nor homosexuality was recognized in the study as independent or primary causes of sexual child abuse.
The researchers also emphasized that from the available data, it was not possible to identify clear early signs to predict which priest would sexually abuse minors in the future.
The first known case of abuse typically occurred about 11 years after the priest began service, and the average priest was approaching 40 years old at the time of the first registered case.
One of the most significant results relates to the Church institutions’ response. Researchers found signs that in dioceses where leaders responded quickly and decisively to accusations, there were fewer victims, shorter abuse duration, and a smaller proportion of severe sexual acts.
Of the 178 analyzed dioceses, 26, assessed as having responded decisively, had on average 12 accused clergy, compared to an overall average of 18, and the average abuse duration there was 3.8 years, compared to 5.6 years.
However, the authors warned that due to late reporting of many cases, it is difficult to precisely determine causal relationships.
Cover-up – the biggest problem
Ultimately, authoritative researchers’ work and studies commissioned by the Catholic Church itself show that viewing sexual abuse of children and youth solely as crimes of individual priests would be mistaken.
The Royal Commission of Australia, which investigated institutional responses to sexual child abuse, made a much harsher conclusion about the role of religious organizations themselves.
The Commission assessed that the culture, governance practices, and hierarchy themselves created conditions for abuse to continue and complicated its disclosure.
You can find the full report text
A particularly dangerous combination was the moral authority granted to clergy, high parental trust, and institutions’ tendency to prioritize protecting their reputation and the accused person rather than the children.
Clericalism, unquestioned clerical authority, a culture of secrecy and closedness, and defending the institution’s reputation at the expense of victims’ interests can lead to even a relatively small number of sexually abusive priests causing significant harm: if their actions are not identified or properly stopped, the same individuals can reoffend and abuse victims for a long time.
The Commission found cases where Church leaders knew a clergyman could pose a danger to children, yet he continued to have contact with them. Accused priests were transferred to other locations, and suspicions were often not reported to the police.
According to the researchers, such a reaction was also influenced by viewing sexual child abuse as a moral failing that can be corrected by repentance or punishment within the Church, rather than as a serious crime posing a direct threat to other victims.
Therefore, the Commission linked the Church’s responsibility not only to the presence of sexual abusers in its environment but also to how the institution responded upon receiving information about their behavior.
When hierarchy, internal rules, and institutional loyalty hinder reporting a crime, allow the accused to remain in office, or give them new access to children, the institution becomes not a passive environment but one of the factors enabling abuse to continue.
The Commission generally emphasized that institutions where authority is rarely questioned and hierarchy suppresses reports of violations have a higher risk of failing to notice or properly stop sexual abuse.
Demonizing sexual desires
Irish researcher and therapist Marie Keenan, who has worked for decades with both victims and clergy who abused minors, states that in her work “Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church” (2012) she analyzes the problem not as merely an individual pathology but as systemic – related to the institution of priesthood, power relations, and governance structures.
Keenan notes that, contrary to popular belief, most of the clergy abusers she studied did not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia – a fact also confirmed by the US John Jay College study.
One of the risk factors the researcher sees is the traditional Church attitude towards corporeality and sexuality. The problem, in her view, is not celibacy itself.
Much more important is what happens when sexuality is perceived as something to be suppressed, and life without sexual relations is primarily presented as a “gift” or “sacrifice,” leaving insufficient space to acknowledge the human needs and losses associated with such a choice. Such an environment may have hindered some clergy from maturely understanding and integrating their sexuality.
This problem, according to Keenan, began already in seminaries. The clergy who sexually abused minors she studied were often not rebels or men who obviously broke rules. On the contrary – some of them tried to become exemplary seminarians, adapt to institutional demands, and suppress those parts of their identity that did not fit this ideal.
Therefore, Keenan suggests asking not only why one priest abused a child and another did not but also what happened to a person during their priestly formation.
The suppression of sexuality was also contributed to by the paradox of power. Ordination grants a man exceptional authority in the faith community, but within the hierarchy, obedience to higher spiritual authority is demanded from him.
According to Keenan, clergy who abused minors often did not even realize their power over children: they imagined their relationship with them as friendship or an equal connection, although in reality, there was a huge power asymmetry between an adult priest and a child trusting his authority.
Does childhood abuse lead to later aggression?
When talking about child sexual abuse, the term pedophilia is often mistakenly used as a synonym for the crime itself. However, from medical and criminological perspectives, they are not the same.
Vilnius University scientist Gintautas Sakalauskas emphasizes that pedophilia primarily means a long-term sexual attraction to sexually immature children. The attraction itself does not say anything about a person’s behavior.
Therefore, the fact that an adult sexually abused a child does not automatically mean they have pedophilia. Conversely, a person with pedophilic attraction does not necessarily sexually abuse children.
Studies analyzed by G. Sakalauskas show that a significant portion of such abuse cases are not related to pedophilic attraction.
Sexual contact with children may be sought for other reasons – difficulties establishing sexual relationships with adults, various fears, sexualized displays of power, feelings of helplessness, masculinity crises, intoxication from psychoactive substances, or various mental disorders.
It is equally wrong to think that pedophilic attraction inevitably leads to crime. There is no clear scientific answer yet as to why pedophilic attraction forms at all. Biological, psychological, and social development factors are studied, but reliable data allowing to single out one cause are not yet available.
For example, some studies have found a link between childhood sexual abuse and later pedophilic tendencies. However, G. Sakalauskas emphasizes that such experience is considered a risk factor, not a direct cause: most people who experienced sexual abuse in childhood do not develop paraphilic disorders.
The link between childhood sexual abuse and later sexual violence is neither simple nor inevitable. Research results in this area are inconsistent, and some show that the link is more characteristic of men than women.
In studies reviewed by the US Government Accountability Office, most adult sexual offenders reported not having experienced sexual abuse in childhood.
In two prospective studies (here and here), which have more reliable methodology, it was found that only 7–26% of children abused in childhood became sexual offenders as adults. In other words, the vast majority of those who experienced abuse never become perpetrators.
On the other hand, some newer, methodologically stricter studies show a statistically significant, though small, link – in one study, childhood sexual abuse was significantly associated with later sexual offense charges, even controlling for other factors, but this link manifested more in the onset of crime rather than recidivism.
According to one study’s data, among 747 men, the frequency of victim experience among offenders was 35%, compared to 11% among non-offending men – indicating a link in a minority of cases but not a universal pattern.
The more research, the fewer simple answers
The latest scientific literature review, covering 50 peer-reviewed studies on sexual child abuse in the Catholic Church, shows a paradoxical situation: over several decades, much data has been accumulated, but the more this phenomenon is studied, the harder it is to explain it with a single theory or a “typical” abuser profile.
The research direction has gradually shifted – from attempts to find specific psychological or sexual traits of offending priests to a broader analysis evaluating the environment, situation, and institutional functioning.
Newer studies increasingly look more broadly and ask not only why a particular person commits a crime but also what circumstances give them the opportunity to do so.
In this perspective, situational circumstances become important: the opportunity to communicate uncontrollably with children, the priest’s position in the community, family trust, travel, church activities, and other situations where the priest can be alone with a child without supervision.
Research shows that even the gender distribution of victims can be partly explained by such opportunities – boys historically more often entered environments where they closely interacted with priests.
However, the mere opportunity to access children does not explain the whole problem. The review also highlights organizational and cultural factors: clericalism, a closed hierarchical structure, the habit of not questioning clerical authority, limited external control, and defending the institution’s reputation.
Such an environment could not only create more favorable conditions for the crime but also reduce the likelihood that it would be revealed and stopped.
An important role is also played by the priest’s own authority. Reviewed studies show that the grooming strategies used by clergy are very similar to those of other sexual abusers, but priests had an additional tool – the prestige and moral authority granted by their duties. This could help gain the trust of the child and their family, reduce the child’s resistance, and complicate later disclosure of abuse.
Therefore, the current research direction increasingly moves away from searching for a single “priest abuser profile.” Sexual child abuse in the Church is explained as an interaction of individual vulnerabilities, specific opportunities to commit crimes, and the institutional environment.
For this reason, prevention research increasingly focuses not on trying to identify a future offender in advance but on reducing opportunities to exploit a child – limiting uncontrolled adult-child interactions, increasing the likelihood of disclosure, implementing mandatory reporting, and continuously evaluating the effectiveness of protective measures.
Read more A lost phone can cost more than you think: what you must do in the first 10 minutes
