Differences between Clerical Sex Offenders and General Sex Offenders

15 min readAug 24, 2018

Note: There are no graphic descriptions of sexual abuse in this article.

Introduction

This article was originally constructed as an assignment for my Criminology & Criminal Psychology Diploma in which we were to discuss whether Clerical child sex abusers have a wholly different criminological and psychological template from child sex abusers in the general population. As such, the following paragraphs will explicitly focus on the primarily academic literature concerning criminals only and does not reflect the experience of all people sexually attraction to children. The necessity for this distinction will be elaborated upon. All citations and references are retained in their original Harvard Style.

Child Sex abusers are continuously classified as a heterogeneous population (John Jay College Research Team, 2004:36; Eshuys & Smallbone, 2006:285; Prentky et al., 2006:366). (basically, they’re considered all the same) It could be argued that comparing sex abusers on whether they are clergy or not poses a risk of further homogenizing the unique multitudes of behaviour and abuse caused by the people within either typology respectively, as motivation and offending patterns have been empirically observed to vary between either classification (Mercado, 2008:631).

This essay will begin by highlighting differences in criminality along victim type, religiosity and personality traits before discussing cognitive distortions, grooming and systemic problems inherent in reporting clerical abuse.

Victims

In terms of noted typology, child sex-abuser conceptualisation tends to overlap between psychopathological diagnostic taxonomy and a sociological taxonomy (Feelgood and Hoyer, 2008). Findings from empirical studies support observed tendencies to victim demographics and offence typology: for instance, the majority of victims abused by clerics tend to be male, either adolescent or post-pubescent (Haywood et al., 1996a; Ranger, 2015:47; Firestone et al., 2009:9). As such, hebephilia has been more consistently recorded in cases of Roman Catholic clergy sexual offenders (Plante, 1996:308). However, non-cleric and often incestuous offenders tend to have the youngest victims, primarily five years old or younger, which technically designates them as paedophiles (Haywood et al., 1996a) in legal parlance if the aforementioned only have a sexual attraction and preference for children (Feelgood and Hoyer, 2008). Finally, females have been consistently identified by police reports as the most prevalent victim of non-cleric child sexual abuse (Plante, 1996:308; Firestone et al., 2009:11).

Within the cleric subgroup alone, a linear positive correlation has been demonstrated between victim amount; which basically means that the younger the cleric is when they begin molesting, then the number of victims they will abuse increases as the cleric ages. This is in contrast to clerics who committed their first offence at a later age who tended to have less victims (Mercado et al., 2008:635). However, a notable difference found in the literature examining both general and clerical offenders is that the latter tend to be a substantially older subgroup; with their first incidence of sexual offence occurring after the age of 25, while general offenders show a greater variance in age at the time of their first reported offence (Perillo et al., 2008:12).

Additionally, the numbers of victims vary even more depending on the sample sizes and willingness to disclose during a study, thus it is difficult to infer how accurate representative figures are. However, what is known is that clerics and incestuous offenders primarily have lower victim numbers compared to non-incestuous non-cleric offenders (Haywood et al., 1996a).

Psychopathology

Non-cleric offenders who tend to have prepubescent victims demonstrate more psychopathology and emotional disturbance (Kalichman, 1991:192). When measured, cleric offenders tended to show more sexual conflictedness about their abusive behaviours compared to general counterparts who measured lower in conflictedness yet higher on sociopathic traits (Langevin et al., 2000).

These seemingly incongruent characteristics may arguably be consistent with some of the reasons for recent revisions of the DSM which states that experiencing distress from committing sexually offensive behaviour is not necessarily a requisite for classification of paedophile; rather a lack of distress or conflictedness about having a sexual proclivity toward children could more accurately characterise paedophilia (Richards, 2011:2) while some abusers might actually maintain or heighten their positive emotions via the offending act (Ward et al., 1998:144).

This comparison using clinical criteria encapsulated in the DSM definition of Paedophilia may only further emphasise the difference between the above general and cleric example but does little to explain it.

A potential methodological confound in assessing self-reports of psychopathology between the General and Clerical child sex offenders is that General Offenders have been reported to exaggerate their degree of psychopathology in order to mitigate the circumstances and accountability of their crimes (Haywood et al., 1996b). Inversely, Clerical Offenders having fewer demonstrations of psychopathology may be influenced by denial of abuse charges; thus the differences in their psychology could be statistically skewed when not corroborated with data from forensic psychiatric evaluations (Haywood et al., 1996b:1234).

In an attempt to control for exaggerations on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory clinical scales, Haywood et al. (1996b) found that General child sex offenders were significantly higher on the psychopathic deviate and schizophrenic subscales compared to Clerical Offenders. Finally, although both groups had a history of suffering sexual abuse as children, from the data it is suggested that both groups have distinct combinations of etiological factors mediating each groups adult offending behaviour which is independent of being abused themselves (Haywood 1996b:1241). This essentially means that a cause of their offending cannot be accurately reduced to a single event or circumstance with any degree of certainty.

Despite the rationalisations and denial typically inherent within offender narratives, empirical research that used phallometric testing demonstrated that at a minority of both cleric and general control samples became aroused to descriptions of violence sexual acts such as rape and sadism involving children (Langevin, 2000:51).

Religiosity

When religious commitment and affiliation was isolated as an independent variable (aka, an effect measured by itself) a specific relationship was found between sex offending in non-cleric populations; Eshuys and Smallbone (2006) found as religiosity increased (e.g. the General Offender’s level of devoutness) the number of sexual offence convictions and victims they had increased also.

Where the Clerical Offenders differ from the General sex offending population (including both religious and atheist sex offenders) is in the likelihood of General Offenders having prior sexual and non-sexual offence convictions; the criminal activity of General sex offenders is less restricted to sexual misconduct, which is suggested to be indicative of more commonly pervasive criminal behaviour (ibid:285). Although devoutly religious offender tended to have an increased number of prepubescent victims at the time of their first offence compared to the less religiously devout (Eshuys & Smallbone, 2006:284).

Criminality

Langvein et al. (2000) found that Non-Clerical abusers had a significantly greater history of past offences as the majority (62.5%) had criminal records. This is not to say that cleric’s histories were violence or crime-free. In the same study the minority of clerical samples (4.2%) had a criminal record for non-violent crimes; however, there was no significant difference between Clerics and General offender samples on the trait of aggressiveness. Clerics reported to use forceful discipline with children in their charge and force during sexual offending also (Langevin et al., 2000:542).

The differences in child sex offenders can be compared to another criminal typology developed by Cornish and Clarke (2003:62) whereby; General child sexual offenders could be mapped onto the ‘Antisocial Predators’ who have higher crimes rates, while Clerical sex offenders are better matched with the ‘Mundane’ or ‘Provoked’ offender who are characterised as opportunists engaging in lower level crime or reactive to situational and emotional stressors (Holt and Massey, 2012:608).

It’s arguable that cleric aggression — as ‘justified’ by their institutionalised volition — may not be equated to a history of high antisocial personality disorders as measured by popular metrics, as Langevin et al. (2000) states that Antisocial Personality Disorders would not be compatible with maintaining clerical education. What this study is basically suggesting that a seminary being traditionally Antisocial or Violent in themselves would not be tolerated within the institution of their education, therefore those who have complete formal seminary education had historically exhibited less outwardly violent and antisocial behaviour.

Differences of educationally qualified clerics and General Non-Clerical sex offenders can be further observed in tests for IQ; convicted paedophiles generally demonstrate low IQ (Azizian et al., 2016). Whereas convicted priest offenders consistently and significantly score higher on IQ tests, demonstrating average to above-average intelligence, in addition to using intellectualization as a coping mechanism comparing to control offender samples (Langevin et al., 2000; John Jay College Research Team, 2004:187).

This begs a further discussion in the various differences between paedophile who sexually abuse children and paedophiles who do not sexually abuse children, however this is beyond the scope of this current article.

Cognitive Distortions + Socialisation Processes

“A cognitive distortion is an exaggerated or irrational thought pattern involved in the onset and perpetuation of psychopathological states”. Click here if you wish to read more.

Another example of how different psychological traits become overlooked when clerical abuser groups are homogenised is how extroverted priests tended to be provocative, passive-aggressive and committed intrusive acts, believed by the abuser to be consensual. Alternatively, the introvert subgroups lived quieter lives, committed less physically intrusive sexual acts, yet despite this, they could still believe that what they did was wrong (Keenan, 2015: 67). However, Haywood et al. (1996a) has shown that Clerics and Non-Cleric offenders did not differ in the propensity for denying allegations or rationalising abuse behaviours, yet other studies have highlighted dissimilarities in the content of rationalisation and the cognitive distortions of offender reasoning.

While many offenders fluctuate through similar cyclical processes of thoughts and behaviours, the content of a Cleric’s verbalized thoughts are given the advantage of making God, Religion and Destiny intrinsic to overcoming inhibitions that would usually prevent offending, maintaining abusive acts and minimizing/trivialising the negative effects of offending and abuse while maximizing misperceived and misattributed positive effects that Offenders believe the victim experience from the abuse (Saradjian and Nobus, 2003). For example, in a qualitative sample a participant reported that “because God had not intervened, then his abusive acts must have been permissible”. Therefore, the clerical offenders can perceive themselves as absolved of all sin, additionally that being an ethical do-gooder priest entitles them to have a ‘reward’ (Saradjian & Nobus, 2003).

The socialization processes of clerics during their seminary education are argued to systematically reinforce the idea that clerics are able to live in a manner that is above and beyond the capabilities of lay people (Anderson, 2016). While this sense of superiority can possibly afford a unique advantage of absolution to the mindset of offending Clerics over General Offenders, not every cleric will sexually offend; the prototypes of clerical offenders which are drawn from measured averages in studies are reported to have low generalisability as sample sizes tend to be small (Mercado 2008:632). Although Saradjian et al. (2003:12) argues that these unique and distorted religious convictions are neither consistent nor encompassed within the distortions of Non-Clergy child sexual offenders from previous research findings.

Ward and Casey (2010:56) suggests that the dissemination of shared distorted beliefs among offenders (such as children being mature sexual agents on par with adults) might reflect the cognitive practices that are embedded and reinforced within paedophile and criminal networks. While it may be online pornography and chat-rooms for General Offenders that facilitates an echo-chamber through which these distorted beliefs concerning the justification of abuse circulate, so too is the socialization process within the seminary argued to be an external component of a hybrid cognitive system that facilitates the mindset where sexual exploitation of children attains rationalization, thus the expanse of these external and social factors arguably sets the Clerical offender apart from the General Offender (Keenan, 2015; Ward and Casey, 2010).

Evidence supporting the existence of implicit motivations moderating the relationship between the sexual offender’s acts and their tacit belief systems has been demonstrated by Mihailides et al. (2004). In this study it was found that, when compared with Non-Offenders, General offenders made stronger associations to the beliefs that children are sexual beings, sexuality is uncontrollable and they have an entitlement to sex. It is further suggested that these faulty beliefs are utilized — knowingly or otherwise — to project sexuality on target victims, avoid disapproval and to see oneself as powerful or competent, (Mihailides et al., 2004:347).

Evidence highlighting the differences in the implicit and distorted beliefs within offenders’ thinking represents an importance for distinguishing profiles of offender types, aetiology and possibly predicting future sexual offence behaviour (Mihailides et al., 2004:349). It is also hypothesised that the egocentrism implicit in offender’s distorted thinking influences the impetus for minimising both the harm caused to the victim, distancing themselves from responsibility and sparing the offender the guilt of violating social norms (Abel et al., 1989; Mihailides et al., 2004). This may be seen as congruent with the reportedly self-serving egosyntonic nature of the Paedophilia (Richards, 2011:2). In layman’s terms, that an offender’s unrealistic thinking, beliefs and values are in harmony with the goal of their ego or their self-image.

Grooming

Finkelhor’s (1984) fourth pre-condition of sexual offending is inherent in the grooming process, whereby the resistance of the child in all cases of abuse is to be overcome. With Incestuous Offenders, a noted grooming repertoire is to elevate the female child’s status to that of a sexualised adult, in conjunction with being physically aggressive and coercive (ibid:295), alternatively premeditated victim targeting is arguably less prevalent in clerical abuse cases, and more likely to be opportunistic depending on situational and environmental contexts (Ranger, 2015:47). For example, research shows that both male and female victims were as likely to be abused by clerics during non-church related social events, where the abuser was known and previously trusted by the victim and their family. Additionally boys were more likely to suffer abuse during private church-related events such as alter service or opportunistic events where guardian presence is diminished (Holt and Massey, 2012:615).

Priests using alcohol only for male victims to ‘comply’ (Terry et al., 2011:103) matches the Regressed Model of sex offenders who — while attracted to adults — are reported to abuse children in response to situational stressors (John Jay College Research Team, 2004:36), who utilise the abuse as means of coping and who have less victims but greater guilt than Fixated offenders (ibid:171). However, regressed offenders are more likely to choose female victims (ibid:175) yet priests rarely entice female victims with alcohol (Terry et al., 2011:103).

The over-emphasis of distinguishing strictly between abuse as a result of opportunity (external attribution) from persistent planning has it’s criticisms in academic literature as it is posited that grooming is not impulsive procedure, various processes are used by different offender types and offenders are capable of creating their own opportunities to offend (Craven et al., 2006:289). In fact, instances that could be considered surprises and opportunistic can counterintuitively be orchestrated serving both as distraction from the victim suspecting intentionality and to release frustration from a lack of initiation. (John Jay College, 2004:172).

Clericalism facilitates the distorted belief that the victimised children were less likely report the abuse; this distortion facilitates grooming (ibid:296), overcoming self-inhibitions as the clergy experience less fear directed from the lay public than they would from the diocese or clerical hierarchy (Keenan, 2015). From the laity’s perspective, the cleric’s esteemed position in a community may create dissonance in people known to the offender, leading to misidentifying a cleric as a child abuser when accused — including other common misconceptions of paedophilia in general — which can further lead to people misconstruing grooming behaviour (Craven et al., 2006:288).

Complications with Reporting Abuse

These social pressures and expectations the lay community have of priests had been obstacles to reporting abuse as they protected the abuser and undermined the credulity of victims (Plante, 1996). Similarly, the majority of incest victims know their abusers, thus some grooming repertoires are required to be non-violent for decreasing the likelihood of being reported and convicted (Craven et al., 2006:289).

Perillo et al. (2008:11) argue that the majority of clerical sexual abusers don’t actually face criminal conviction of their offences; hence “offender” in the legal parlance can be a misnomer. While general child sex abusers who receive criminal convictions are usually required by law to undergo deliberate interventions such as therapy, supervision and registration (Hanson et al., 2014), alternatively the diocese and senior clergy utilize procedures in canon law to intervene with the justice system by removing abusers from public ministry, relocating them from parish to parish or placed in abuse-prevention programs (Noonan, 2011:344; Redmond, 1993:235; Holt and Massey, 2012:609).

After gradual responses following initial silences from the Vatican (Ranger, 2015;48) the Catholic Church has since been reported to systematically compensate for legal and medical damages cause by clerical sexual abuse, while the abuse caused by general sex offenders do not receive this type of institutional compensation (Haywood et al., 1996b:528).

Additionally, the church places the emphasis on the individual offender and not the potential systemic variables contributing to abuse (Anderson 2016: 855). For example, it’s been reported that the diocese investigators have been responsible for instances of repeatedly delaying legal action and attempting to evade court conviction by sending accused priests to a rehab facility for ‘alcohol treatment’ (Redmond, 1993:233).

It is circumstances like these interventions on the institutional level that made it difficult for victims to report abuse prior to mass media attention that Clerical abuse had received in the early 1990s (Plante, 1996; Mercado et al., 2008) as the church uncritically sees itself greater than the individual clerics who represent it, in addition to mentoring new priests without reference to the church’s role in the facilitation of the abuse (Redmond, 1993).

Conclusion

Clerical and non-cleric Sex offender show degrees of similitude in existing classifications in legal and psychological research, so a wholly different template as an absolute would not be accurate. Yet differentiation does persist and is important as the inherent nuances offer practical frameworks for analysis and application when studying criminal offence, predicting abuse and tailoring optimal treatment for both offenders and victims (John Jay College, 2004:191).

As an example, because of the similarities in distorted cognitive processes between the two offender types, it is recommended that they respectively receive identical treatment such as CBT (ibid:189), albeit Saradjian and Nobus (2003:16) further posit that special treatment for clergy groups is advised as reconstruction of maladaptive beliefs can have a knock-on effect of the spiritual life that the non-pro-offending religious beliefs are intrinsically tied to.

References

Abel, G.G., Gore, D.K., Holland, C.L., Camp, N., Becker, J.V. and Rathner, J. (1989) ‘The measurment of the cognitive distortions of child molesters.’ Annals of sex research, 2(2), pp.135–152.

Cornish, D.B. and Clarke, R.V. (2003) ‘Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention.’ Crime prevention studies, 16, pp.41–96.

Craven, S., Brown, S. and Gilchrist, E. (2006) ‘Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations.’ Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12(3), pp.287–299.

Eshuys, D. and Smallbone, S. (2006) ‘Religious affiliations among adult sexual offenders.’ Sexual abuse: a journal of research and treatment, 18(3), pp.279–288.

Feelgood, S. and Hoyer, J. (2008) ‘Child molester or paedophile? Sociolegal versus psychopathological classification of sexual offenders against children.’ Journal of Sexual Aggression, 14(1), pp.33–43.

Finkelhor, D. (1984) ‘Four preconditions-a model.’ Child sexual abuse: New theory and research, pp.53–68.

Firestone, P., Moulden, H.M. and Wexler, A.F. (2009) ‘Clerics who commit sexual offenses: Offender, offense, and victim characteristics.’ Journal of child sexual abuse, 18(4), pp.442–454.

Hanson, R.K., Harris, A.J., Helmus, L. and Thornton, D. (2014) ‘High-risk sex offenders may not be high risk forever.’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(15), pp.2792–2813.

Haywood, T.W., Kravitz, H.M., Grossman, L.S., Wasyliw, O.E. and Hardy, D.W., (1996a) ‘Psychological aspects of sexual functioning among cleric and noncleric alleged sex offenders.’ Child abuse & neglect, 20(6), pp.527–536.

Haywood, T.W., Kravitz, H.M., Wasyliw, O.E., Goldberg, J. and Cavanaugh, J.L. (1996b) ‘Cycle of abuse and psychopathology in cleric and noncleric molesters of children and adolescents.’ Child abuse & neglect, 20(12), pp.1233–1243.

Holt, K. and Massey, C., (2013) ‘Sexual preference or opportunity: An examination of situational factors by gender of victims of clergy abuse.’ Sexual Abuse, 25(6), pp.606–621.

John Jay College Research Team (2004) ‘The nature and scope of the problem of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests and deacons in the United States: A research study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.’ New York: City University of New York. Available at: http://www. usccb. org/nrb/johnjaystudy.

Keenan, M. (2015) ‘Masculinity, relationships and context: Child sexual abuse and the Catholic Church.’

Langevin, R., Curnoe, S. and Bain, J. (2000) ‘A study of clerics who commit sexual offenses: Are they different from other sex offenders?’ Child abuse & neglect, 24(4), pp.535–545.

Mercado, C.C., Tallon, J.A. and Terry, K.J. (2008) ‘Persistent Sexual Abusers in the Catholic Church An Examination of Characteristics and Offense Patterns.’ Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(5), pp.629–642.

Noonan, P. (2011) ‘Clerical Sex Abuse — the issues involved.’ The Furrow, 62(6), pp.342–353.

Perillo, A.D., Mercado, C.C. and Terry, K.J. (2008) ‘Repeat Offending, Victim Gender, and Extent of Victim Relationship in Catholic Church Sexual Abusers Implications for Risk Assessment.’ Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(5), pp.600–614.

Plante, T.G. (1996). ‘Catholic priests who sexually abuse minors: Why do we hear so much yet know so little?’ Pastoral Psychology, 44(5), pp.305–310.

Prentky, R.A., Janus, E., Barbaree, H., Schwartz, B.K. and Kafka, M.P. (2006) ‘Sexually violent predators in the courtroom: Science on trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(4), p.357.

Redmond, S.A. (1993) ‘It Can’t Be True, and If It Is, It’s Not Our Fault: An Examination of Roman Catholic Institutional Response to Priestly Paedophilia in the Ottawa Valley.’ Historical Papers.

Richards, K. (2011) ‘Misperceptions about child sex offenders.’ Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, (429), p.1.

Saradjian, A. and Nobus, D. (2003) ‘Cognitive distortions of religious professionals who sexually abuse children’. Journal of interpersonal violence, 18(8), pp.905–923.

Terry, K.J., Smith, M.L., Katarina Schuth, O.S.F., Kelly, C.J.R., Vollman, C.B. and Massey, C., (2011) ‘The causes and context of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests in the United States, 1950–2010.’ In United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington.

Ward, T. and Casey, A. (2010) ‘Extending the mind into the world: A new theory of cognitive distortions in sex offenders’. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(1), pp.49–58.

Ward, T., Hudson, S.M. and Keenan, T. (1998) ‘A self-regulation model of the sexual offense process’. Sexual Abuse, 10(2), pp.141–157.