[Editor’s note: We have deleted the link to the Bishop Brom information in the Sipe letter. Jim Holman, one of the editors of California Catholic Daily: “I spent time in the 90s with Mark Brooks and Bishop Brom going over the charges against the bishop, especially the ones from Minnesota, and I did not find them credible.”]
A. W. Richard Sipe, a researcher, psychotherapist and former priest who spent his life studying the roots of sex abuse within the Roman Catholic Church, becoming one of the subject’s leading experts, died on Wednesday in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego. He was 85.
His wife, Marianne Benkert Sipe, said the cause was multiple organ failure.
Mr. Sipe’s research into celibacy and sexuality within the clergy helped establish a foundation for those studying, investigating and responding to the sexual abuse crisis of the 2000s. Along with describing how celibacy was lived, his work resulted in several striking estimates arrived at in the 1980s.
One was that fully 6 percent of all priests were sexual abusers of children and minors. Another was that at any given time, only 50 percent of priests were celibate — an estimate that the church said was overblown.
But Mr. Sipe’s most far-reaching conclusion was that those two phenomena were linked. Failures of celibacy among church leaders, he argued, even if they happened with adults, created a system of hypocrisy and secrecy in which the abuse of minors could take place.
That link is one that the church is still wrestling with, as suggested by recent disclosures that Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, who resigned in July, rose to the highest levels of the church despite warnings that he had been inappropriately touching adult seminarians.
“Sooner or later it will become broadly obvious that there is a systemic connection between the sexual activity by, among and between clerics in positions of authority and control, and the abuse of children,” Mr. Sipe wrote in a letter to Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San Diego in 2016.
“When men in authority — cardinals, bishops, rectors, abbots, confessors, professors — are having or have had an unacknowledged-secret-active-sex life under the guise of celibacy, an atmosphere of tolerance of behaviors within the system is made operative.”
In 1986, Mr. Sipe presented his findings to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, but nothing was done. So Mr. Sipe began working on the problem in other ways, becoming active in the early days of clergy-victim advocacy, writing books, consulting or testifying in some 250 trials on clergy abuse as an expert witness, and never backing down from his initial assertions.
In 1959 he was ordained a priest. But it was not long before he realized to his shock that just below the surface of the church lay secrets that its hierarchy protected.
In his first posting, to Cold Spring, Minn., to work as a high school counselor, he heard in the confessional about priests who were sexually involved with other priests, priests who had girlfriends, and even priests who were involved with minors, he said in an interview in 2008 for a documentary film, “Sipe: Sex, Lies, and the Priesthood,” which is to be released this year.
He also learned that his predecessor had abused girls. Yet these men remained in good standing with the church, he said.
“So I asked myself, What is this celibacy, and how is it practiced by those people who claim to be celibate?” he said in the interview, giving voice to the research question that would animate his career.
In 1967, he became the director of family services at the Seton Psychiatric Institute in Baltimore, a treatment center where bishops sent problem priests. As he got to know the troubled men, he said, some revealed that they had been abused by clergymen themselves. He also heard stories about how church leaders had been dismissive of reports of abuse.
He began formally collecting data, seeking patterns. Leaving the priesthood in 1970, he married Marianne Benkert, a former nun who was doing her residency in psychiatry at the institute. In addition to her, Mr. Sipe is survived by a son, Walter, who is also a psychiatrist, and six siblings, Thomas, John, Bernadette, Michael, Elizabeth and Rosie.
With Dr. Benkert Sipe’s help, Mr. Sipe published his research in 1990 in a landmark ethnographic study of celibacy and abuse within the Catholic Church.
The book, “A Secret World: Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy,” drew on case files and 25 years of interviews with hundreds of sexually active priests and victims of clergy sex abuse.
Mr. Sipe had naïvely assumed that his study would be welcomed by bishops, Dr. Benkert Sipe said. Instead, he was blackballed in some dioceses.
Full story at The New York Times.
The following is an excerpt of a letter from A.W. Richard Sipe to Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, written in 2016:
I received your note postmarked July 19. I It was clear to me during our last meeting in your office, although cordial, that you had no interest in any further personal contact.
It was only after that I sent you a letter copied to my contacts in DC and Rome. The new Nuncio, Archbishop Pierre, told my colleague he is interested in the care of and reaction to victims of clergy assault: and I am assured that the Papal Commission for the Prevention of Abuse is also dedicated to this aspect of the crisis.
I will as I was asked, put my observations in the form of a report. Your office made it clear that you have no time in your schedule either now or “in the foreseeable future” to have the meeting that they suggested.
Institutional resistance is understandable, if surprising to me.
Sexual violation within the RC clergy is systemic. I say that on the basis of observation and scientific conclusion. And I say that with empathy and concern.
It is credibly established that thirty percent (30%) of U.S. bishops have a homosexual orientation. This is not a condemnation nor an allegation of malfeasance. The list of homosexual Popes and saints is long and illustrious.
A serious conflict arises when bishops who have had or are having sexually active lives with men or women defend their behavior with denial, cover up, and public pronouncements against those same behaviors in others.
Their own behavior threatens scandal of exposure when they try to curtail or discipline other clerics about their behavior even when it is criminal as in the case with rape and abuse of minors, rape, or power plays against the vulnerable.
[Editor’s note: In his letter, Sipe listed 10 bishops, priests, and cardinals who were guilty of abuse or misconduct: Cardinal McCarrick (D.C.), Bishop Brom (San Diego), and Cardinal Mahony (Los Angeles) were 3 of them]
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has been reported by numerous seminarians and priests of sexual advances and activity. A settlement with one priest was effected by Stephen Rubino, Esq. In that record the operation of McCarrick in sexual activity with three priests is described. Correspondence from “Uncle Ted” as he asked to be called, is included. One of the principals is now a lawyer who left the priesthood, two men remain in the priesthood, but refuse to speak publicly despite the fact that the settlement document is open. One priest was told by the chancery office, “if you speak with the press we will crush you”.
I have interviewed twelve seminarians and priests who attest to propositions, harassment, or sex with McCarrick, who has stated, “I do not like to sleep alone”. One priest incardinated in McCarrick’s Archdiocese of Newark was taken to bed for sex and was told, “this is how priests do it in the U.S.”. None so far has found the ability to speak openly at the risk of reputation and retaliation. The system protects its impenetrability with intimidation, secrecy and threat. Clergy and laity are complicit.
Bishop Robert H. Brom: I have talked with the man who made allegations of misconduct against Brom and with whom he made a $120,000 settlement. The history is well recorded by several responsible reporters. Significant here is the operation of the National Conference of Bishops who in their 2002 Dallas Charter made provision for “zero tolerance” of clergy abusing minors but neglected to address violations by bishops. Instead they appointed Brom, when allegations were known, to make “Fraternal Correction” to other bishops accused. This type of operation is typical of the pattern of cover up from the top of the institution. (Reflected in the destruction of documents by the Papal Nuncio in the Neinstedt case. Cf. Documentation provided by the Ramsey County District Attorney)
Cardinal Roger Mahony. I have served as an expert witness in a sufficient number of abuse cases in the LA Archdiocese to conclude it is not outlandish to ask if Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles is a criminal for “knowingly endangering the children he was supposed to defend.” There is ample evidence already in the public forum that Mahony has known of priests who abused minors, reassigned them and allowed them to minister only to abuse other minors. He has not informed parishioners or even parish staffs, that the priests he was assigning had a record of abuse.
Mahony, who has a Masters in Social Work, did not report known priest abusers to social services even though he was obligated to do so by civil law and by reason of the profession’s Code of Ethics. All of this vast evidence is recorded in countless depositions on record from litigations of abuse cases and from Mahony’s own testimony under oath. Depositions by Bishop Curry and Judge Byrne are illustrative of how priests were assigned and the oversight board operated.
I received reports from two men about Mahony’s sexual life and orientation; one a former (St. John, Camarillo) seminarian who was dying of HIV related complications; the other a long time LA church employee. The men were credible reporters unwilling to go public or draw on corroboration.
I have served as an expert on a number of cases of confirmed sexual abuse by priests of the LA Archdiocese from 2002 onward. Several are remarkable: (i.e. the case of Lopez y Lopez and the controversy between Mahony and the Cardinal of Mexico City. One of the principals in the latter had to be lying.)
Judge Jim Byrne, touted by the cardinal as a poster boy for the integrity of the sexual abuse review board, said in deposition that in all the years he served on the Board he “never thought” of helping the victims. Lawyer Larry Drivon, who has litigated many California cases of clergy abuse stated that there was sufficient evidence to charge Mahony with perjury after letters he signed when he was bishop of Stockton, were produced in his 2004 deposition and showed—black on white—that he had clear knowledge of events that he denied under oath in deposition and on the witness stand in the 1998 trial of Fr. Oliver O’Grady.
I attended the Nov. 2004 deposition of Mahony and know the history of the O’Grady trial. I saw Mahony’s signed letters. As a layperson I witnessed the cardinal lying. His lawyer claimed, as did the cardinal that “he forgot.” (in 2 depositions and on the witness stand)
Three Los Angeles Grand Juries have been impaneled over nine years to determine the real picture of abusing priests in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Their problem is not the lack of evidence, but the monumental legal impediments and roadblocks the cardinal has sponsored to obstruct the investigation and the release of documents needed to pinpoint facts of the cardinal’s knowledge and involvement in complicity and obstruction. California law does not allow Grand Jury reports to be made public unless indictments result.
Mahony claimed that communications between him and his priests have a special privilege, not unlike that of confessional secrets. His claim was included as the central argument advanced by his attorneys for refusing to disclose files ordered by the courts. His arguments were rejected by the appeal court, the California Supreme Court. Not deterred, he had his lawyers even try to have the case reversed by the United States Supreme Court. The highest court in the land could not swallow his theory. His obstructionism seems unbounded. He claimed that he was a member of the therapeutic team treating priest abusers and therefore documents involving him enjoyed a privilege of medical confidentiality. In actuality he was never a member of any therapeutic teams for several reasons; not the least of which is the fact that he is not qualified.
It has not yet been revealed how many millions the cardinal spent in pursuing facetious claims. He has employed for his defense not merely several lawyers but several law firms as well as Sitrick and Company, a public relation firm used by Enron, the Tobacco industry and the Keating Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980’s. Fortune magazine called the company’s founder “one of the most accomplished practitioners of the dark arts of public relations”. The Financial Times called him, “The spin doctor’s spin doctor.” Should any Catholic entity much less an archdiocese take any pride in resorting to the services of such an organization?
Truth and transparency seem secondary if important at all. These and myriad other stories are to be told from documents and records. These records show Mahony’s, and other bishops pattern and practice that reflect institutional defenses of its ministers’ sexual behaviors.
My appeal to you has been for pastoral attention to victims of abuse and the long term consequences of that violation. This includes the effects of suicidal attempts.
Only a bishop can minister to these wounds.
Enclosed you will find a list of bishops who have been found wanting in their duties to the people of God.
August 30, 2016
Full text of letter at AWRSipe.com.
[story updated 8/15 to include editor’s note]