When considering the sexual abuse of minors by priests, or even the activity of men who hold themselves out as “celibate,” I have been asked innumerable times “How can they do that?” It is a good question and one that the Church has not faced squarely. The self-justifications sexually active priests make for their activities are more than mystifying and amazing; they remain rationalizations no matter how they slice it that is: a defense mechanism whereby people attempt to hide their true motivations and emotions by providing reasonable or self-justifying explanations for irrational or unacceptable behavior. They are astounding, unbelievable and difficult to listen to. Here are a few:

Spiritual direction and Confession are not neutral or safe areas of interaction for a person with a priest. A priest can serve a great number of people responsibly only to have a few he violates. But violation in that setting and under the guise of spirituality is singularly destructive. The priest using the vulnerability of a penitent is particularly culpable. But priests justify their betrayal by saying, “They (the victims) wanted it.” “They were experienced.” “I only gave them what they wanted.” The latter is the recorded statement of a priest who admitted he had 300 minor victims.

“Friendship” is the excuse for many abuses. The context of seminary training is the occasion of a great deal of sexual activity that is not identified as abuse because the priest and the seminary student are friends. Friendship and common spiritual language justify the behavior. This same dynamic shows itself between the priest and women—single or married.

Even some theologians reduce the sexual violation of a priest to a mere “sin against chastity” (just like every other Catholic) and not a violation of celibacy. This interpretation is directly contrary to canon 277 and defies the common sense of normal people. The average well informed Catholic does not consider a priest who is having intercourse with a woman or man, let alone a child, as being celibate. Yet a priest on the Canon Law faculty of Catholic University (2006) proposed this exact rationalization.

There is a very sophisticated theological rationalization that a priest reported; the famous Jesuit Bernard Lonergan gave a lecture on the “Single Celibate” in Rome. He made the distinction between good, bad and indifferent acts differentiating between actus humanus, (a human act: that is an act of decision, whose source is in rational knowledge and free will.) and actus hominum (an act of a human being that involuntarily occurs without responsibility; as a natural function). This is the kind of philosophical distinction that underpins a great deal of duplicity for clergy.