by Amanda Marcotte
To quickly summarize a recently- released, five-year study funded by the Catholic Church on the priest sex abuse scandals: “We’ve investigated ourselves and concluded that it was the hippies that did it.” It may be easy to be hoodwinked into believing the report isn’t as dodgy as it is, as the researchers did offer some concessions to the critics, both in denying that homosexuality is the root of the sex abuse scandals and suggesting that the church failed to deal with the problem effectively, but it’s important to look beyond these concessions and at the larger conclusions reached. Doing so demonstrates that the Catholic Church has no interest in addressing the toxic, patriarchal culture that breeds sexual abuse and the subsequent cover-ups. Instead, the researchers have gone out of their way to suggest that the sex abuse was a historical anomaly caused by a lascivious 1960’s culture, and that no real changes need to be made in order to prevent future incidents of abuse of children and teenagers by priests.
According to the New York Times, $1.8 million was spent by researchers at John Jay College of Criminal Justice to investigate the sex abuse scandals. Only a fraction of the funding came from an outside party, the Department of Justice, that had no interest in the outcome of the research. Most of the funding came from the Catholic bishops and various Catholic groups and foundations, all groups with a strong interest in conclusions that require no real changes in church organization or Catholic teaching. They got what they paid for; study authors exonerated the exclusion of women from the priesthood and celibacy requirements, and instead blamed feminism, divorce, premarital sex, and 1960’s youth culture. Lay off the Pope and blame Mick Jagger, in other words.
Nearly two million dollars and five years spent, and nothing has changed. Defenders of the church still want to claim that sex abuse wouldn’t have happened if the hippies hadn’t invented sex in 1963, and church critics still see the church as avoiding real accountability for permitting abusive priests to continue working and creating new victims. And while the church bears most of the responsibility for this stalemate, there has been a tendency amongst church critics towards superficial criticisms of the church. Far too many people tend to glibly suggest that letting priests marry would fix the problem of child sex abuse, as if abuse is a result of nothing more than sexually deprived men pouncing on the first available victim. But the problems of the Catholic Church go far deeper than the infatuation with celibacy that began in early Christianity.
Many of the critics of the Catholic Church felt shock and betrayal as the revelations poured in, stories of priests attacking vulnerable children and teenagers and benefiting from a church hierarchy that coddled rapists and set them loose on new parishes full of new victims to exploit. But for feminists, the pattern of silencing victims and letting rapists roam free didn’t surprise at all. In patriarchal societies, letting the rapists off and re-victimizing the victims is standard operating procedure. The Catholic Church is even more patriarchal than society at large, and unsurprisingly, that made the problem of rapist-coddling and victim-silencing even worse.
A quick look at the secular world demonstrates a similar tendency to value rapists more than victims, and the more sexist an individual society, the worse the problem is. A high school cheerleader is raped by a star football player, and when she refuses to cheer for him at games, she is kicked off the team and eventually fined $45,000 for attempting to fight this injustice in the courts. An 11-year-old girl in a small Texas town is repeatedly gang-raped by possibly more than two dozen young men, and the town folds in to protect the rapists while running the girl and her family out. A famous film director is convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl, and the entire country of France offers him protection from serving time for his crime. A famous athlete—take your pick!—is accused of rape, and the fan community folds around him while accusing the victim of mercenary motives.
Sex abuse within a religious context occurs outside of the Catholic Church, and as in the secular world, similar patterns of rape apologism and victim-blaming crop up. Sex abuse of minors is so common in the Protestant world that Dan Savage has an ongoing feature at The Slog called Youth Pastor Watch, where he chronicles the steady drumbeat of stories about sexually abusive youth pastors. Unsurprisingly, these cases tend to be more concentrated in evangelical churches that share the Catholic Church’s highly patriarchal attitudes.
The gender of the victim does little to change the pattern, as evidenced by a Newsweek story detailing the problem of male-on-male rape in the military. Once again, you see the rapists roam free, while the victims are the ones forced to give up their careers. Often, the victims are repeatedly raped because it’s so easy for the rapists to get away with it.
Race, age, gender, religion–all these elements don’t change the pattern of valuing rapists over victims. The only tool that has proven effective for real justice is feminism. Take, for instance, the Julian Assange case. In the immediate aftermath of accusations of rape against the founder of Wikileaks, many liberal fans of Assange started on the path of accusing the accusers of being sluts and liars. But because this was happening on the left, where feminist sympathies have more of a hold, feminists were able to effectively pressure many of the Assange defenders into recanting their initial reactions. Most prominently, Michael Moore shifted from sneering at the accusations to apologetically arguing that the women in the case deserve to have their stories heard. His recantation would have never happened without pre-existing sympathies towards feminism. Feminists have also made inroads into changing the legal response to rape, starting special victims units and passing anti-violence legislation, all of which have made it easier for victims to come forward and find support from law enforcement and their communities.
But one institution that has no love for feminism is the Catholic Church. In a world that’s shifting more every day towards the assumption that women are full human beings who deserve the same rights to liberty and self-determination that we allow men, the Catholic Church still relegates women to a second class status with a “separate spheres” ideology that positions women as servants in their homes and ineligible for roles as priests in the church. Under Catholic dogma, women aren’t even allowed the dignity of controlling their own fertility, but instructed to avoid contraception and have as many babies as God and their husbands would inflict on them, regardless of their health or financial concerns.
Misogyny and sexual abuse are intertwined, even in the cases where the victims of abuse are male. Patriarchal societies construct sex as an act of dominance, where one person in an encounter is the conqueror and the other the conquered. Catholic dogma that purports that sex should only occur within marriage only reinforces this paradigm. The Catholic view of marriage is one where women are subservient to their husbands, and sex therefore becomes representative of the husband’s power over his wife. When sex is a demonstration of power, turning sex into a weapon of abuse is just the next logical step. Without feminism on hand to fight back, potential victims are uniquely vulnerable.
Ironic that the very tools that work to fight sex abuse—openness about human sexuality and feminism—are being blamed as the cause of sex abuse by the John Jay study authors. Ironic, and frankly stupid. Other denominations are beginning to realize that incorporating a little feminism into your religion can do wonders at slowing the stampede of believers out the door. If the church responded to these priest sex scandals by reversing their stance on a single issue—celibacy requirements, the ban on birth control, the ban on women as priests—it would be treated by the press and by believers as a tremendous concession. In fact, the church would get much more credit than it deserves for evolution and responsiveness. Any one of these changes would likely not do much in the real world to fix the massive structural problems of the Catholic Church, but sometimes a demonstration of good faith can work wonders on the faithful.
Instead, the public gets a report that basically blames someone else for the sex abuse, claims that what mistakes were made are long in the past, and concludes that the church doesn’t have to change anything substantive in order to avoid future tragedies. Any believer who has doubts would likely not be consoled by this lack of accountability but pushed away from the church.
Amanda Marcotte writes about poltics and feminism at Pandagon, RH Reality Check, and Slate’s Double X. She’s also published in the Guardian, Salon, and the American Prospect. Her two books, “It’s A Jungle Out There” and “Get Opinionated,” are out on Seal Press.
This article is part of The Revealer’s series on the John Jay report, “The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010.” Read additional commentary by Frances Kissling, Elizabeth Castelli, Amanda Marcotte, Scott Korb, Mary Valle and others here.

13 comments
The Revealer’s Panel on Context and Causes,Report on Sex Abuse in the Roman Catholic Church « The Revealer says:
May 24, 2011
[...] Amanda Marcotte Keeping the Patriarchy: Sex as Dominance in the Roman Catholic Church [...]
What We Missed says:
May 24, 2011
[...] Amanda at the Revealer on sex in the Catholic church. [...]
Mnemosyne says:
May 24, 2011
Interesting piece – it’s enlightening to see a feminist take on the issue that goes beyond advocating an end to priestly celibacy as an automatic solution. However, I’d like to point out a couple of issues that I (as a Catholic) think could alienate a Catholic reader.
First off, while the idea of “women as servants in their homes” does have links to doctrine, it has very little to do with Catholic women’s lived experience – many might be unaware of the links, and it would be easy for them to read this line as confirmation that secular feminists do make things up or grossly exaggerate things to make the Church look bad. Second, the line about having to have “as many babies as God and their husbands would inflict on them” is a misrepresentation. According to Church guidelines, Catholic couples are supposed to stop having children when they feel that they wouldn’t have the financial, logistical, and emotional resources to support another. Even if you argue that natural family planning makes this difficult to achieve (and ignore the fact that most Catholics guiltlessly use contraceptives), there isn’t anything in doctrine that indicates that the husband should have control, or a greater share of influence, in this area. It’s supposed to be a joint decision. I don’t think there’s any evidence that it’s a male-dominated one in Catholic couples.
Also problematic, I think, is the part that talks about how incorporating feminism has helped other denominations retain members. The issue I have with this is that it conflates the adoption of feminism with attempts to increase or maintain popularity. Sure, the Church wants more members — but not at the expense of theological integrity (I know you might not believe that, but plenty of people within the Church do, so please play along for a minute). One might think, reading this, “Unlike those other denominations, we’re not selling out to modern culture just to get more members — we’re staying pure.”
Let me include the caveat that these issues are by no means unique to this article — tons of liberal/feminist/secular sources include things like this all the time. My problem is that this habit lends credence to the idea that secular feminists are out to make the Church look bad, leading to more hostility to feminism within the Church than there needs to be. It’s a shame that these issues come up in this article, because they could distract a reader from absorbing fully the article’s thoughtful and thought-provoking point of view.
Kristen from MA says:
May 26, 2011
My problem is that this habit lends credence to the idea that secular feminists are out to make the Church look bad,
The church needs no help in looking bad. It does just fine all by itself.
leading to more hostility to feminism within the Church than there needs to be.
So the church isn’t hostile to feminism based on feminism’s merits alone? Got a nice bridge in Manhattan that you want to sell me?
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.
Molly, NYC says:
May 27, 2011
secular feminists are out to make the Church look bad,
Right. Because blaming their misbehavior on hippies is working so well.
Seriously, they thought this would go over? If I was the Catholic Church, I’d ask for my money back.
Mike in Chicago says:
May 27, 2011
That $5 million was not plucked off of a tree in the Vatican gardens, it came out of the collection basket. The victims are forced to pay the costs of the rapists’ public defense. Hard to push paternalistic hubris further than that………..
JCF says:
May 31, 2011
Second, the line about having to have “as many babies as God and their husbands would inflict on them” is a misrepresentation.
Yes, I (non-Roman Catholic) also that line was going to push people away from an otherwise stellar indictment.
I think the John Jay study’s conclusion “No simple explanation” is written to push the church away from the overwhelmingly simple (yet TRUE!) answer that is feminism: women’s participation in EVERY level of power in the Church.
The issue isn’t whether women can be corrupt, or abusive: they can. But their participation break up STRUCTURES of patriarchal dominance. The radically simple Truth is that once a few girls are admitted, you cease to have an Old Boys Club.
And it makes ALL the difference.
Signed, an Episcopalian. Our church used to have the same problems. Then we started ordaining women. And now, abusive clergy are caught, arrested and defrocked. Immediately. No excuses.
Read this: The Revealer on the Catholic sexual abuse study | Meaning-ism says:
Jun 2, 2011
[...] out the Revealer’s coverage here–especially Amanda Marcotte’s article which highlights the patriarchal reasoning [...]
Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » Feminists: women’s own worst enemies? says:
Jun 10, 2011
[...] that, “feminists” do not understand that in their rush to decouple sex from its role as a tool of patriarchal domination (read at your own risk), they leave society without any values upon which to condemn a man who [...]
Laurence Burns says:
Jun 27, 2011
Do you have any positive feelings concerning the Catholic Church? You have many inciteful things to say about society, and religion in particular,but you seem to be excessively biased in your perspective on tne Catholic Church.Do you feel that the church has done anything right in the last 2000 years.?The church may not agree with your extreme feminist idealogy,but they have actually done a great deal to demand respect for women over the centuries.
Ideological Competition « A Reluctant Apostate says:
Dec 6, 2011
[...] their dialog, Amanda Marcotte summarizes some prescriptions she made for the Catholic Church in an article she wrote for The Revealer a few days before talking to Dougherty: …the Catholic Church has [...]
Liam says:
Mar 24, 2012
There has to be either patriachy or matriarchy. Humans like all animals exist in a hierarchy.
Its more natural for the man to lead so let natrpure take it’s course
ann says:
Mar 24, 2012
You’re kidding, right?