Proposing a Behavioral Taxonomy of Priest Sexual Grooming

Abstract

Sexual grooming is generally thought of as the way that would-be abusers build trust and camaraderie with their victims in order to lower the victims' inhibitions and eventually take advantage of the situation. Minimal levels of empiricism have focused on the sexual grooming patterns of abusive Catholic priests in the United States. In order to help close this gap, we conducted a retrospective content analysis of publicly available documents of credibly accused priests from one diocese in Illinois. Findings suggest that accused priests from this diocese used any of eight grooming techniques in order to abuse their victims; one of these tactics is specific to priest offenders. Using that knowledge, we propose and discuss a behavioral taxonomy of priest sexual grooming as well as the direction that future research should take in assessing this potential taxonomy. KeywordsSexual abuse; priests; Catholic Church; grooming; taxonomy; content analysis. Please cite this article as:

Examination of a Nascent Taxonomy of Priest Sexual Grooming

“…For example, Farrell and Taylor (2000) claimed that some abusive priests use spiritual manipulation, a technique unique to clergy. Some of Spraitz and colleagues’ (2018) findings support Farrell and Taylors’s hypothesis. In addition to the finding that clergy follow similar grooming patterns as other sexual offenders, they found that some priests overtly relied on the power and prestige of their profession as a grooming tactic.…”

“…This last technique appears unique to clergy offenders, as they have a religious prestige unlike any afforded other individuals in society. Although the work by Spraitz et al (2018) is seemingly the first of its kind, its findings provide support for the previous research that is more broadly focused on clergy who have committed sexual offenses (see Farrell & Taylor, 2000; Holt & Massey, 2012; John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2004, 2006; Tallon & Terry, 2008). For example, Farrell and Taylor (2000) claimed that some abusive priests use spiritual manipulation, a technique unique to clergy.…”

“…For example, Kaufman et al (1998) found that intrafamilial offenders were more likely to give victims gifts to gain their trust, whereas extrafamilial offenders were more likely to give alcohol and drugs to the victim. Spraitz et al (2018) reported consistent findings: 56.3% of abusive clergy gave alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs to their victims, whereas only 25% of their sample bestowed gifts on their victims. In another study, M.…”

“…Recently, Spraitz et al (2018) proposed a behavioral taxonomy, or classification system based on empirical and measurable characteristics (Smith, 2002), of priest sexual grooming after analyzing files of credibly accused priests from one diocese in Illinois. Examining 3,000 pages of documentation and correspondence between priests, diocesan personnel, attorneys, psychologists, victims, and various other individuals, the researchers identified eight grooming techniques utilized by the accused priests.…”

“…Concerning the Catholic Church, extensive research has established that from 1950 to 2002 about 4% ( n = 4,392) of priests in the United States sexually abused minors (Terry, 2008). Exploratory research of accused priests from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Joliet in Illinois uncovered that sexually abusive clergy utilize grooming patterns similar to those used by general sexual offenders (Spraitz, Bowen, & Strange, 2018). However, Spraitz and colleagues found that the priests in their sample used a grooming technique not available to most other sexual offenders.…”