Jay Report Research Articles

Is Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Related to Homosexual Priests?

Sex abuse of minor children by Catholic priests has been a persistent and widespread problem in the Church in recent years. Although over 8 in 10 of victims have been boys, the idea that the abuse is related to homosexual men in the priesthood has not been widely accepted by Church leaders. The influential report of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice on the causes and context of Catholic clergy sex abuse (hereafter “JJR2”, for John Jay Report 2) concluded that widespread American abuse was not related to the share of homosexual priests because the reported increase in “homosexual men in the seminaries in the 1980s …does not correspond to an increase in the number of boys who were abused.” To test JJR2’s conclusion, I examined the available data on clergy sexual orientation and the incidence of clergy sex abuse. The share of homosexual American priests over time was estimated from a 2002 survey by the Los Angeles Times newspaper that included questions about sexual orientation, age and year of ordination. Abuse was measured by reports from Catholic dioceses, the same data used in JJR2. I looked only at allegations of current abuse, and statistically adjusted the findings to eliminate differences due to the age of abuser and year of abuse. My findings showed that the increase or decrease in the percent of male victims was almost perfectly associated (the standardized regression coefficient was .98) with the increase or decrease of homosexual men in the priesthood. Among victims under age 8, the standardized coefficient was lower but still strong (.77). This indicates that 1) the abuse of boys is very strongly related to the share of homosexual men in the priesthood, but that 2) easier access to males among older victims (ages 8-17) may have also been an enabling factor. The increase or decrease of overall abuse was also highly associated (.93) with the increase/decrease of homosexual priests; not surprisingly since such a high proportion of victims were male. This finding was robust; the unadjusted correlation was still a strong .90. About half of this association was accounted for by the rise of subcultures or cliques of sexually active homosexual priests and faculty in Catholic seminaries. Prior to the 1950s the proportion of homosexual men in the priesthood was about the same as in the general population. By the 1980s homosexual men made up over 16% of the presbyterate, which is over 8 times that of the general population. That increased presence of homosexual priests has been accompanied by an increase of about 24 additional incidents of currently-reported abuse per year. Extrapolating to all reported abuse results in an estimate that if the concentration of homosexual men in the Catholic priesthood had remained at its relatively low level of the early 1950s, abuse would have been about 85% lower, sparing an estimated 12,594 children, mostly boys, from sexual victimization by Catholic priests in the United States.

The Redemptive Role of the Church for the Wounded People of God

Over the past several years the unending consequences of the sexual abuse scandal has shaped a significant part of ecclesial life in the United States. In the aftermath of the release of “The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States” (the John Jay Report) and “A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church” (the work of the National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People), there have been several responses to the crisis at hand: financial settlements, the genesis of the Voice of the Faithful, bankruptcies, and parish closures. While there have been movements toward reconciliation in a variety of situations: the audits of most dioceses, healing rituals for victims and families, and an outreach for those in need of psychological and medical resources, the Catholic Church in the United States is clearly a wounded church. The response to a wounded church requires a process of reconciliation for each and every one of us. This process of reconciliation acknowledges “that context

The Abuse Crisis and the Medical Profession.

Abstract It is fair to say that all Catholics have been impacted by the clergy sexual-abuse crisis. This crisis has impacted clergy, laity, bishops, the pope, and those outside the Catholic Church. The evil of sexual abuse cannot be underestimated. As noted in the recent John Jay report, victims of sexual abuse can suffer from depression, anxiety, an increased risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, anger and resentment, low self-esteem, shame, and self-blame. Victims often have difficulty trusting others, exhibit antisocial behaviors, have strained interpersonal relationships, and may exhibit behavioral problems, including disordered eating and delinquency, promiscuity, and confusion over sexual identity and orientation. It is even more devastating when the perpetrator of abuse is someone in a position of trust, particularly someone representing a religious institution, as it is often to religion and spirituality that victims will turn for support. We all have a responsibility to work t...

The views and experiences of learning disability nurses concerning their advocacy education

A mixed methods project [Llewellyn, P., 2005. An investigation into the advocacy role of the learning disability nurse. University of Glamorgan, unpublished PhD Thesis] investigated the advocacy role of learning disability nurses. This paper discusses the section concerned with nurses' advocacy education. Focus groups, interviews and a questionnaire survey enabled nurses from a wide range of grades, seniority and experience to explore their received education in advocacy and their educational requirements concerning their advocacy role. Findings revealed that nurses' received education in advocacy varied according to the syllabus under which they qualified, with those whose education was influenced by the 1979 Jay Report having the highest incidence of advocacy training. Many learning disability nurses who had received theoretical education did not feel confident to advocate for their clients. Many were also unsure of their ability to access independent advocacy services and when it was permissible to do this. Nurse informants expressed a need for ongoing support and training in advocacy relating to The Human Rights Act (1998) and The Disability Discrimination Act (1995); and also specifically in relation to advocacy for clients within their own work area. Most nurses had definite ideas regarding how and by whom their advocacy education and training should be provided.

25 years on

Duncan Mitchell reminds us that 2004 marks the 25th anniversary of the publication of the Jay Report (see pages 20-23). For me there is a second significant anniversary in 2004 as it is 25 years this month since I started my nurse training.

Commentary on Duncan Mitchell: A chapter in the history of nurse education: learning disability nursing and The Jay Report

The Jay Report (1979) is considered to be amongst one of the most significant and reforming pieces of social policy aimed at redefining the structure of learning disability services in England, Scotland, and Wales. Its importance in terms of the promotion of ordinary living and the need to adopt a sound service philosophy based on the principles of normalisation, that emphasised the rights and individuality of people with learning disabilities cannot be underestimated. It built upon the recommendations of DHSS (1971) Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped, a White Paper that advocated a move from hospital to community based services for people with learning disabilities and was also a precursor to the NHS and Community Care Act (1990). Yet it is the recommendations within this policy concerning the future of learning disability nursing that form the basis of this current paper although as its author, Duncan Mitchell suggests, nurse education, service reform and changing political contexts are inevitably linked. Although The Jay Report (1979) represented only one of a number of milestones in a chequered history of learning disability nursing reaching as far back as the Nurses Registration Act (1919), Mitchell deems it be one of the most controversial, owing to the extent of public debate it generated. It is this latter theme that runs throughout the paper. Mitchell’s paper could be considered significant for a number of reasons. As a piece

Commentary on Duncan Mitchell: A chapter in the History of Nurse Education: learning disability nursing and The Jay Report

Commentary on Duncan Mitchell: A chapter in the History of Nurse Education: learning disability nursing and The Jay Report

A chapter in the history of nurse education: learning disability nursing and The Jay Report

This paper is a discussion of the Jay Report into mental handicap nursing and care that was published in 1979. Following a brief discussion of the report itself, the paper considers material from the period that was published in the nursing press. This material gives an insight into the way in which nurses reacted to Jay’s recommendation that mental handicap nursing be replaced with a professional grouping based on the Certificate in Social Services. Whilst this was not the first time that the continuation of mental handicap nursing had been questioned, it was the first occasion in which there was a public debate about the issue. Although the Jay Report was concerned with a minority of nurses it is argued that lessons can be drawn about nurse education generally. Conclusions are drawn about the way in which changes to nurse education and service need to be linked in order to be effective. Furthermore the discussion places the Jay Report within the broad political concerns of the day. It is argued that the report is a further example of the way in which change within nursing takes place when it corresponds with central government policy concerns.

Interprofessional training—learning disability as a case study

This paper describes the background to the joint validation and shared training movement within the field of learning disabilities as it developed during the 1980s. The authors, with other committed colleagues, are concerned to emre that the impact of the movement towards joint validation and interprofessional training does not lessen during policy changes in health and social care in the 1990s. The work of the 1980s sought to shift the attitudes of some professionals and those who are the gatekeepers of these professions, away from organizational frameworks inherited bum more stable times, barneworks which placed undue emphasis on the role of services, with consumer need taking second place. The task of relating the purposes of professional training more closely to the needs of service users and the functions of practitioners continues to be undertaken within the field of learning disability in the context of the new Diploma in Social Work and Project 2000 programmes for the preparation of nurses. In general terms there are similarities between the situation which existed in 1979 and that which exists now. In 1979 the Conservatives were returned to Government and the need to respond to the Jay Report (1979) was pressing. The climate to initiate change existed. The nursing and social work statuary bodies responsible for training and education perceived similarities in their work, encouraged by the Jay Report, and a situation was created for those in learning disability to start to work out the way in which interprofessional training might respond to changing services. The Conservatives have now been re-elected for a further term of office. The professions are far from stable and the need to implement the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 will be high on the agenda as will be the need to examine the possibilities of interprofessional training, albeit in a different context to that of 1979. It could be that the previously marginalized group of workers in disability will have the interprofessional background to encompass areas outside their immediate speciality. We suggest that no other group has tried harder in the past ten years to show how education and training can help create an integrated workforce.

A joint approach to training mental handicap nurses

Conclusion This course has now been running for nearly six years. The General Nursing Council has approved it on a provisional basis, and continues to monitor it, recommending minor changes from' time to time. College' and nurse training school staff also monitor continuously, and are at present undertaking a thoroughgoing evaluation of all aspects of the training scheme. As with any course of comparable length and scope, the process of curriculum development has taken more than a little time and effort, but what is emerging is a course which we believe provides a, viable alternative to the traditional hospital-based training, to the proposals of the Jay Report for the abandonment of nurse training altogether, and its replacement by the Certificate in Social Service, as well as to the recent GNC proposals.

Nursing and Care in Mental Handicap: The College's Comments on the Jay Report

Nursing and Care in Mental Handicap: The College's Comments on the Jay Report