Thread: Lost your faith in Catholicism due to the sex abuse scandals? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028597
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
Not sure if this is the right board for such a discussion, but here goes...
This is not another debate over the clergy sex abuse scandal. Rather, I am interested in hearing if anyone else has had an experience like I have. I was raised and educated RC, and my uncle is a Jesuit. When I married a protestant I started going with her to her church, mostly because I didn't like the idea that she couldn't receive communion at an RC Mass- and because protestants serve refreshments after their services. But deep down, I still identified myself as a Roman Catholic, and was proud of it. Sure, there were some things I disagreed with, but they didn't stop me from being very defensive about Catholicism.
Two things shook me. The first was the election of the present Pope, whom I regard as a reactionary. The Holy Spirit was behind the election of this man? C'mon now!! But I calmed down after a while. Then the extent of the clergy sex scandal became widely known. It wasn't so much that some priests were bad apples, but that the Church, which I always considered to be holier than any other institution, was covering up and refusing to take responsibility for it. I was (and am) furious.
Now I'm at the point where I can no longer call myself RC. I've even put a provision in my will that my funeral NOT be done in a Catholic church. And I'm seriously thinking of "making it official" by joining an Episcopal, Lutheran or other mainstream protestant denomination. I feel like there is no longer any room for me in Catholicism.
Fellow Catholics (or ex-Catholics), how have you coped with the scandal?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Squirrl, have you ever noticed how similar CoE and Lutheran Services are to the catholic mass? That's because we are of the catholic tradition, just not Roman Catholic.
Yes Pope Benedict is a reactionary compared to Pope John Paul II, John Paul I and John XXIII. But that is fairly common. The pendulum swings both ways. Frankly, I don't think Benedict will be around that long.
As the the sex scandal, it is most unfortunate that the Roman Church will not take responsibility. Here in the US many Dioceses have been sued and many have went bankrupt in covering the claims. Maybe that is what has to happen in order for the Romans to finally admit to the error of their ways (pun very much intended).
Nevertheless, you are most welcome to participate in the Anglican or Lutheran expressions of the catholic church.
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
Thanks, Gramps. I do like the similarity of the Episcopal and Lutheran services to the Catholic Mass. In fact, I'm on my way to a Lutheran service in a few hours.
I'll agree is that getting hit in the wallet seems to have been the only thing that caused the RC church to wake up and do something about the scandal.
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
squirrel, I am married to a Catholic and we are both comfortable worshiping in either his church or mine but we are conscious of the deep sorrows which mire both our traditions.
The Anglican church is as guilty of non-action regarding sin committed by its own as the Catholics, the Apostolics, the Pentecostals etc. etc.
It has driven friends of mine to lose their faith, consider suicide, sink into depression from which they have never escaped, leave the church and get so angry that they do what you have done.
Every way you look at it this is tragic. Those in oversight SHOULD have acted. But as a parent I am often the last one to find out what my adult children have really been up to - sin loves to operate in the dark. And then, as a Christian parent, I talk to them, pray for them, suggest other directions for them and hope they will turn to the light. As Christians we choose to believe that when it comes to clergy the good nature of God will prevail over our carnal natures; but it ain't necessarily so.
I feel so sorry for those having to deal with this mess at the top. Most of them have become victims too. Some have been hamstrung by processes, and even subtle forms of blackmail.
We are such an awful advertisement for God, and yet, strangely God continues throughout the catholic church to do all kinds of works of compassion and mercy.
Truly God's ways are NOT our ways.
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
I had Catholic education clear through my BA, and they always talked about the Ecumenical movement and how great things were between the RCs and the protestants. I believed it. Then my fiance and I decided to get married. Not only was I told that she is unwelcome to take communion in my church, but the Jesuits prohibited my uncle from actively participating in our wedding, which was in an Episcopal church. So much for "One in Christ."
I contrast the above with the always welcoming spirit I have encountered in Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian and other protestant churches.
As for abuse by clergy in other denominations, I know that it occurs. But either there's a massive cover-up going on that's yet to be exposed, or it's much more common amongst the RCs.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
In my twenties, I contemplated the RC priesthood. Eventually gave up on the idea, mostly because I couldn't honestly say that I believed in Catholic theology.
But even if I had believed in the theology, I think the stigma of criminality that was rapidly accruing itself to the RC priesthood would probably have been a pretty big stumbling block as well. Whether it was statistically justified or not, I don't know, but it was certainly getting to be the public perception that Catholic priest = pedophile. And the church wasn't doing its utmost to set the record straight in that regard.
Even without the scandals, I still wouldn't identify as Catholic, simply because I don't believe the theology, and I don't think being culturally Catholic is enough of a justification for adopting the label. I realize I'm probably in a minority on that one, since a lot of lapsed Catholics still continue to wear the label.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
As for abuse by clergy in other denominations, I know that it occurs. But either there's a massive cover-up going on that's yet to be exposed, or it's much more common amongst the RCs.
I know there are supposedly these stats demonstrating that sexual abuse by RC priests is no higher than among the general population. But I'm having a hard time believing that the apparent overrepresentation of priests in that particular category of crime is all attributable to selective media coverage.
I might be willing to believe that sex abuse among RC priests is within the same statistical ballpark as among other occupations which routinely have contact with minors.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I am not an RC, but I was a child abused by a member of my wider family.
I just wanted to say - don't blame the church too much, for their culture of cover up and for not understanding the nature of abuse 20-30 years ago.
Because that was what was the culture in the world at the time. When as a young adult I disclosed what had happened to my family, there was exactly the same reaction of disbelief and trying to minimise what had happened, even to the extent of blaming the victims.
Even the schools and social services where not as clued up then and the advice given to us as a family was very diffferent to what it might be now.
For instance my abuser had a family, and my concern was triggered, by him having children approaching the age I was when the abuse started. Out of concern I spoke to the children's school and they refused to make it official because they were a 'nice family' and if something like that went on the record. Then it would 'follow them around forever'
Even a few years back the world didn't understand how manipulaitve abusers were or how unlikley they where to change.
I'm not wanting to start a different debate here, and maybe there where factors that magnified things in the RC church and yes maybe they took too long to accept what had happened.
I just want to say the world's was different then and it is easy to judge then with the knowledge of now if you see what I mean.
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
I've let this run a bit and it is now clear that this is more Purgatorial than it is AS material so off you go!
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
One of the things that hit me hard about the abuse scandal was the fact that, to fellow RCs and myself, the Church was supposed to be special- it was THE Church. At least that was what we were taught. Accordingly, we held it up to a higher moral standard than other institutions. If a school covered up abuse by a teacher, that was bad. But if The Church did it, repeatedly, well, what did that say about its claim to being God's representatives on Earth?
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I do understand why you are so hurt by it. As Christians we are all supposed to be God's hands and feet here on earth, but those feet are often feet of clay, and are a big letdown to fellow Christians and as ambassadors of Christ.
I am constantly hurt by the image that we anglicans give to the world - infighting and bickering, it's now wonder the world thinks Christians are loonies with an unnatural interest in the sexual habits of others and with reactionary views about women.
But on personal level I understand because our family is the one place where we are supposed to be safe from harm and go to when we are in trouble - but when our family is the place that hurts us and ignores us in our trouble.....
It is the same with our church, if it lets us down it hits us hard, I am glad that you managed to find a home elsewhere - it would be so sad if bad christian's decisions, put you off God.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
One of the things that hit me hard about the abuse scandal was the fact that, to fellow RCs and myself, the Church was supposed to be special- it was THE Church. At least that was what we were taught. Accordingly, we held it up to a higher moral standard than other institutions. If a school covered up abuse by a teacher, that was bad. But if The Church did it, repeatedly, well, what did that say about its claim to being God's representatives on Earth?
Do you hold Christians up to a higher moral standard than non Christians?
If so, when they fail, how do you respond?
[ 30. May 2011, 14:00: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by 205 (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I know there are supposedly these stats demonstrating that sexual abuse by RC priests is no higher than among the general population. But I'm having a hard time believing that the apparent overrepresentation of priests in that particular category of crime is all attributable to selective media coverage.
My gut hunch is 'media frenzy' is more probable than a particular population having an inordinate amount of criminals.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I just wanted to say - don't blame the church too much, for their culture of cover up and for not understanding the nature of abuse 20-30 years ago.
Because that was what was the culture in the world at the time. When as a young adult I disclosed what had happened to my family, there was exactly the same reaction of disbelief and trying to minimise what had happened, even to the extent of blaming the victims.
Just want to say, without going into details, that still happens today. If the abuser is a Very Important Person in a closed society, the victim is disbelieved or accused of instigating (entrapping) because it's too costly to the closed community to lose the Very Important Person.
A family can be this kind of closed community, especially if the abuser is the sole breadwinner (if we kick out the abusive breadwinner we'll all starve, better for everyone if we ignore the complaints of the abused child).
A church can be this kind of closed community especially if the abuser is a major provider of money or talent, clergy is (can be) one of the categories of Very Important Person (if we kick out the clergy - or the moneybags - the whole church will suffer or die, better for everyone if we ignore the few people who complain of abuse, their complaints threaten to cause trouble for everyone, they are troublemakers).
(There are other closed communities, by which I don't mean no newcomers can join.)
It is not - never really was - about the victim being disbelieved so much as about not upsetting things for everyone else, the victim is told (by words or deeds) "the abusive one is more important than you are."
Related problem with some (not all!) charming people. I have friends whose churches sided with charming in public spouse, and ostracized the one who got tired of being abused at home. "Of course" the charming person is wonderful, anyone who accuses him/her of abuse "must" be lying.
Blame the victim lets us continue to pretend the world is as we want it. That still goes on today, in many ways.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
There is just the natural human tendacy not to want to face up to the failings of those nearest and dearest to us. Whether it is in our family or our social groups.
Posted by Roots (# 16193) on
:
Its not just the Catholic church or any "mainline" demonination which has these problems, its when authority is invested into certain people that they forget the reason they were there and think they own the church they are in.
Our Charismaniac community of stand alone churches have more than their fair share of problems, and our unwillingness to take action has led to things which are just as bad, but never reported in the name of being forgiving and restoring gently, and the perpetrators get to carry on in a different church.
Molestation took place in a church of a friend and they landed up having to pay out a settlement to get him off their backs as they had done it biblically but not giving him a notice period.
In our church it has happened twice where the person brought "baggage" with them and only once the person was dismissed from the church did it come out that they had done similar things in ther prior churches and it had just been kept quiet.
At times like this, it doesnt matter which church you are in or affilliation, there are bad apples everywhere, but at the same time, some extremely good ministers and priests.
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on
:
I am a former Catholic, who presently considers myself an agnostic more than anything else. I am also a survivor of clergy sexual abuse. The abuse itself was quite traumatic and is something that I am still dealing with. However, the abuse wasn't what caused me to question my faith and the church, but the way the bishops handled my abuse was a factor i causing me to reject something that used to be very dear to me.
Myself and another young man turned in our abuser to our bishop. He promised us that he would deal with it and swore us to secrecy. However, it took the church another 30+ years to remove this man from ministry. And this was with numerous other reports of sexual abuse over those 30+ years.
The diocese where my abuse happened agreed to pay my insurance co-pays for psycho-therapy. However, it took ages for my therapist to get paid and often required several phone calls on my part to get that monthly $20. And after a couple of years they decided that I wasn't getting "proper care" from my therapist and quit paying anything. Interestingly enough, this was also the same time they lost a major court case that cost them millions of dollars and also required them to continue paying for therapy for people like me.
I have seen this sort of thing happen over and over with other people, both male and female. For example, in hell is a thread about the bishop of Kansas City, Missouri. Over a year ago a grade school principal reported the parish priest for inappropriate behavior of a priest toward little girls at the parish grade school. Nothing was done. Then six months later a computer tech finds child porn on the priest's personal computer. The tech turns it in to the diocese, who talks unofficially to a pet police officer (but who never actually sees the pictures), who says they aren't porn. The diocese then gives the computer to the priest's family (who destroys it) and sends the priest for therapy. When the priest comes back he is assigned to be a chaplain at a convent. Then six months after the photos are originally found, they turn them over to the local DA and charges are immediately filed. At this time it comes out about the grade school principal sending the letter and the bishop says he never read it, that the Vicar General just told him about it. Now everything is hitting the fan and the diocese and bishop is looking worse than ever.
I have seen stuff like this happening over and over. I've been lied to and others have been lied to, in order to cover their asses. If they can't be honest about this abuse stuff, what else have they lied about? Can we believe them when they talk about god and theology, when they lie about other things?
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
teddybear, I'm sorry to hear what you went through. The one person I've met who was abused by a priest was actually an adult when it happened, but she encountered a similar reception from the Church.
As for whether we can believe the church after such stuff happens, I can see why you'd be asking serious questions. For me, I can still believe much of what the RC church taught about God, but none of their claims of exclusivity and being God's representatives on Earth. I've adopted a rather liberal protestant view of clergy- they're just people.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
I'm not a catholic, although quite drawn to the RCC. That's not my main point.
But I do wish everybody could read what to me is the best overall book on the history of the church, and which reads so well, it's almost like a novel. It's "The sociology of religion" by Werner Stark, 5 volumes!
I read it in my twenties. He is a devout catholic with an unshrinking view of the failures of all the churches over 2,000 tears. So even before I finally became a christian, I'd seen all the dirty washing, and cannot imagine how intelligent people can have this dewey eyed view of a church without fault.
I would have thought the participation of some members of the catholic (and protestant) hierarchy in the holocaust (and BTW I think Pius XII gets a bad rap on this) could even have been worse! Apparently not.
And then there's Rwanda. Or if your a protestant, the annihilation of the American Indians, Apartheid, etc etc ad nauseam.
I can't help feeling that some people need a bit of mental iconoclasm.
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on
:
I am RC, not lapsed, abstaining. I have taken the view that bums on pews are the big payback for the appalling abuse of power the institutional church has shown.
More than that, the double standard, the notion that they were above the law while all our failings were condemnable. I don't expect perfection or ask for it but some acknowledgement that their failings and sins of omission were the same as anyone else's. Not some but 'we did it for the greater good' 'we didn't understand the situation' bullshit that was trotted out to justify self protection.
I'm getting angry again so I'll stop. And their you have it, I've stopped as much to protect my fragile faith as in protest.
Dose that make sense?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
The specific complaints of pedophilism were bad enough, but I think my attitude has been shaped more by the rampant abuse perpetrated on the children of aboriginals by several of the churches - forced separation from their parents, physical violence, sexual physical violence, cultural deprivation - all as the result of an ingrained racism, the belief that the kids were not really human even if they became sort-of Christians.
But some of the churches attempted to deal with their history. The United Church of Canada did formal apologies and set up healing processses, which at least made it clear that they realised the enormity of the problem.
The Anglicans were a bit slower, but have developed the ability to talk about the problem - there is now a bishop with specific oversight for northern Natives, for instance. And they are active participants in the Truth&Reconciliation Commission.
But the RCs do not seem to have admitted that there is a problem at all.
You'd think that, having lost Quebec as a result of the basically abusive attitude to the peasants, they'd have learned something in the last 50 years.
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
I gave up on Roman Catholicism a loooong time ago. The sex abuse scandal has been going on since the eighties so that had little to do with me abandoning ship, so to speak. My big pet peeves are the R.C.'s neanderthal views on the ordination of women and the Gay/Lesbian thing.
I consider myself a follower of Jesus and I happen to go to an open and affirming Protestant church but I don't consider myself Protestant. And that old saw, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" doesn't mean shite to me. I think the entire Catholic hierarchy should be dismantled and re-built from the ground up. Not likely to happen in what remains of my lifetime.
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
You mentioned two issues that also bugged me about Catholicism: ordination of women and the lack of acceptance of openly gay and lesbian Catholics.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
My father was raised in a Catholic orphanage. Let me say that those who have caused children such pain are no worse than those who were knowing enablers and they have caused not only the affected to leave the church but their descendants for generations.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
art dunce: one has only to mention the mystic words "Mount Cashel" to get the same reaction from most eastern Canadians.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
More than that, the double standard, the notion that they were above the law while all our failings were condemnable. I don't expect perfection or ask for it but some acknowledgement that their failings and sins of omission were the same as anyone else's. Not some but 'we did it for the greater good' 'we didn't understand the situation' bullshit that was trotted out to justify self protection.
The clergy/laity double standard - in any church - sends me running away screaming. And it's in a lot of churches - even if the clergy don't think themselves extra special, some of the laity do and try to enforce that attitude.
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
In Catholicism, we were taught that the priest was God's representative on Earth. That clearly made for a double standard.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I know there are supposedly these stats demonstrating that sexual abuse by RC priests is no higher than among the general population. But I'm having a hard time believing that the apparent overrepresentation of priests in that particular category of crime is all attributable to selective media coverage.
My gut hunch is 'media frenzy' is more probable than a particular population having an inordinate amount of criminals.
Apparently sexual abuse of minors is much higher in Sweden than it is in the U.S.
Catholicism is not strong there. In fact, it's purported to be one of the most secular countries in the world.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
In Catholicism, we were taught that the priest was God's representative on Earth. That clearly made for a double standard.
Very bad catechesis in that case. I have never regarded myself as God's representative on earth. An ambassador for Christ, like all Christians, yes.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
TT, I'm not sure that distinction helps. If I, as a Brit, were living in France then to some extent everything I do or say will form the local opinion of the British. But that isn't going to weigh on my mind to such an extent that I consider every word I say to my neighbours. If I got annoyed with them, or even lost my temper, I am not going to worry that I have damged Britain's reputation. However, if I were the British Ambassador to France, things would be very different.
It seems to me that all Christians are "strangers in a strange land". But priests are called / appointed / chosen / employed (take your pick) as Ambassadors, and more is expected from them.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Yes Pope Benedict is a reactionary compared to Pope John Paul II,
Really? I can imagine a reactionary cardinal who voted for Ratzinger being a bit disappointed in the record of Pope Benedict. Without, as an outsider, being able to give specifics, it seems to me that he is a little like Nixon going to China. Underneath his predecessor's rock-star charisma, wasn't he also a reactionary?
I would question, for instance, whether it were a reactionary move to permit the use of the Latin Tridentine mass on the part of those who already desire it.
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
In Catholicism, we were taught that the priest was God's representative on Earth. That clearly made for a double standard.
Very bad catechesis in that case. I have never regarded myself as God's representative on earth. An ambassador for Christ, like all Christians, yes.
I consider myself an ambassador also. But in the RC church in which I grew up during the period of Pope Paul VI priests were seen as far more. They alone had the power to perform sacraments, and they had the power to forgive sins. They were NOT seen as infallible, but they carried great authority.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I suspect what Squirrel is getting at is neatly summed up in James 3:1
quote:
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a [a]stricter judgement.
It is true in every denomination and it is a truth that also applies to the hierarchy. If one is in a position of teaching or leadership then higher standards will be expected of one. Not just by God but by the public in general. The more emphasis you put on this status (or the institution does) the higher those standards will be.
Jengie
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
In Catholicism, we were taught that the priest was God's representative on Earth. That clearly made for a double standard.
Very bad catechesis in that case. I have never regarded myself as God's representative on earth. An ambassador for Christ, like all Christians, yes.
I consider myself an ambassador also. But in the RC church in which I grew up during the period of Pope Paul VI priests were seen as far more. They alone had the power to perform sacraments, and they had the power to forgive sins. They were NOT seen as infallible, but they carried great authority.
That is a very significant modification of your original assertion.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
I consider myself an ambassador also. But in the RC church in which I grew up during the period of Pope Paul VI priests were seen as far more. They alone had the power to perform sacraments, and they had the power to forgive sins. They were NOT seen as infallible, but they carried great authority.
Performing sacraments does not equate with holiness. Recall the Donatist heresy. The character of the priest has little bearing on the effectiveness of the sacrament.
And in terms of the power to forgive sins, the disciples in the NT were given this power. They were normal people. They constantly misunderstood Jesus' teachings and deserted him when he was crucified.
Indeed, Peter denies Jesus three times.....
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
I had Catholic education clear through my BA, and they always talked about the Ecumenical movement and how great things were between the RCs and the protestants. I believed it. Then my fiance and I decided to get married. Not only was I told that she is unwelcome to take communion in my church, but the Jesuits prohibited my uncle from actively participating in our wedding, which was in an Episcopal church. So much for "One in Christ."
...
As for abuse by clergy in other denominations, I know that it occurs. But either there's a massive cover-up going on that's yet to be exposed, or it's much more common amongst the RCs.
Squirrel, may I ask when you got married?
The Jesuits these days are regarded as being extremely progressive and I would be surprised if this would happen today.
I'm not sure what the situation is in North America, but, here in Australia, all major denominations have a tale of shame to tell about inaction and suppression of details on cases of paedophilia.
The former Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane had to resign as Governor-General because of a statement he made on TV about a then 14 year old girl being seduced by a then 34 year old cleric who was the warden of a hostel she lived in at the time and his poor treatment of victims of clerical paedophilia. That cleric went on to become a bishop. He has since been defrocked. The former Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide was also obliged to resign because of his inaction over paedophilia by priests in his diocese.
There is, I believe, a particular sort of clericalist mindset amongst some clerics, particularly many in the hierarchy, which led them to turn a blind eye to this.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
...paedophilia by priests in his diocese.
There is, I believe, a particular sort of clericalist mindset amongst some clerics, particularly many in the hierarchy, which led them to turn a blind eye to this.
I think that's looking at the issue too narrowly.
Every organization I've been in, the instinct of management is to protect the managers.
Complain to a boss that one of his senior staff is doing something wrong, the instinct is to scorn the complainer to protect "the integrity of the organization" - integrity meaning not moral uprightness but a different meaning, smooth functioning meshing of all the parts. Firing or even severely disciplining a significant staff person disrupts the normal flow of work of the organization, disrupts the integrity of the organization in that sense, the parts are no longer smooth gears well integrated with each other.
The higher less replaceable the staff person, the greater the disruption if s/he is removed, the greater the defense of that person no matter what the accusations in an effort to avoid disruption.
If a staff person is removed (other than by organizational planning), chaos results, minor and local or major and general depending on the importance to the organization of the missing staff person. Who's going to run that branch office or that congregation if we remove their head person? Move someone from another location, now two locations suffer adjustment pains. "The disruption is all the complainers fault," "things (organizationally) were fine until that complaint."
"He should have kept his mouth shut instead of upsetting things for everyone." So complainers are ignored or silenced "for the good of the organization." "For the good of the church." Church meaning the formal staffing and division of staff labors, not the general members.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
But there is the tendency among those who spend too much time in or near the Bishop to think that they ARE the Church - certainly quite noticeable in my diocese. Anyone who does not live within a certain number of kilometres of the Cathedral is just part of the peasantry, and should have no publicly-expressed opinion on Church matters.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
...paedophilia by priests in his diocese.
There is, I believe, a particular sort of clericalist mindset amongst some clerics, particularly many in the hierarchy, which led them to turn a blind eye to this.
I think that's looking at the issue too narrowly.
I think your point on general organiational behaviour is quite relevant, Belle Ringer.
However, there is a sort of clericalist mindset, as exemplified in the actions of most clerical characters in the novel 'Barchester Towers' or the Mother Superior and nuns in film 'The Magdalen Sisters'. Both works are fictional but based on very real goings on.
This mindset seems to assume that, because the Church and its profesionals are special and set apart to do the work of God, their actions are not questionable by those in their care or those outside.
I think this is the sort of mindset Squirrel and Horseman Bree were alluding to.
This attitude seems to be a medieval hangover from the time when clergy were tried in ecclesiastical courts for civil crimes and often let off with relatively lightly.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
...there is a sort of clericalist mindset...seems to assume that, because the Church and its profesionals are special and set apart to do the work of God, their actions are not questionable by those in their care or those outside.
I'm abstaining from commenting on what any (few or many) clergy think of themselves. I will make two observations from a different viewpoint.
1. Many children are taught - in the simplified way we teach children - that clergy are "God's representatives" or "the man of God" or "not to be questioned." Hey, we also teach kids that poetry rhymes and prose doesn't: we teach simplified versions of truth. I know adults who still believe poetry rhymes and I know adults who still think clergy are closer to God than anyone else and not to be questioned. Not surprising if a few of those adults become clergy, although the ones who have told me they hold this view are laity.
2. "their actions are not questionable by those in their care or those outside" to quote you, sounds like a lot of doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. I have a theory one thing many (all?) professional schools teach is arrogance, along with medicine or whatever topic, "you are better smarter more valuable more capable than people who didn't seek this training." A musician I know is furious that I write music, how dare I think I can do what he had to go to school to learn how to do. Not surprising if some clergy think "how dare you think you can pray and be heard by God just as well as I can, how dare you question my interpretation of a Bible passage, you didn't go thru all the training I did."
Neither of these observations is limited to RCC.
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
[[/qb]
Squirrel, may I ask when you got married?
The Jesuits these days are regarded as being extremely progressive and I would be surprised if this would happen today.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
I was married in 1994. And it really shocked me how little my Jesuit uncle was allowed to participate in the Episcopal service which we decided to have.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
Once again, Belle Ringer, I take your points which I think tend to elucidate and qualify what I was attempting to say rather than directly contradicting it.
As one of the matters raised by Squirrel was clerical paedophilia and the way it was dealt with by a certain religious body I wrote about what I knew about the matter in the hope it may be of some use.
Squirrel, I'm horrified to hear about the limits placed on your Jesuit uncle at your wedding.
This article shows another approach being taken by another religious order, the Benedictines, to a priest participating in an Anglican wedding in England where the bride was a Catholic.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article714159.ece
I thought the treatment meted out to you harked back to the really bad days of the RCC pre Second Vatican Council. I'm very sorry certain elements in the RCC still behave that way. Irrespective of their beliefs they seem to have acted ungraciously and with little charity.
I can understand how angry, embittered and displaced you feel and hope you find your way to somewhere you feel at home, accepted and at peace.
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
I am glad to hear that at least one order of priests let a member participate in an Anglican wedding.
My fiance and I eventually had our Episcopal wedding, with my uncle the Jesuit saying a few words and a brief blessing at the end. He himself was disappointed that he could not do more. Later they told him to remind us that we could, if we want, go through a procedure to get our marriage "recognized" by the Catholic church. Huh?! I guess we're not "really" married in their eyes.
Eventually I decided there was really no place for me in the RC church. For a while I thought of asking to be removed from the church rolls, but found out that this is actually difficult to do. Not wanting the aggravation, I just started going to mainline Protestant churches. I go to RC churches nowadays only for occasions such as weddings and funerals, but I don't take communion. If my wife isn't eligible to receive it in an RC church, I won't either.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Once again, Belle Ringer, I take your points which I think tend to elucidate and qualify what I was attempting to say rather than directly contradicting it.
...I thought the treatment meted out [to Squirrel] harked back to the really bad days of the RCC pre Second Vatican Council. I'm very sorry certain elements in the RCC still behave that way. Irrespective of their beliefs they seem to have acted ungraciously and with little charity.
Quite right that I'm not intending to contradict you at all, only to point out that the abuse of power to protect the "important" staff seems to be almost inherent on the nature of organizations. It's not, as usually claimed when things get bad for the organization, "a few bad apples." (By which I don't mean all or even most in any organization are bad eggs, just that an organizations self-interests usually seems to be protecting the bad eggs so the organization doesn't have to find and train replacements.)
Which, alas, is why whatever "protect the organization even if it means non-staff get hurt" abuse one runs into is rarely unique to a particular time or place.
To any organization a staff person is worth far more than any (or many) of the non-staff people the organization is officially intended to serve. Staff are harder to replace than any customer or non-staff member.
Our job as the "somewhat expendable" little people is to find ways to convince the organizations we deal with (including churches) that it's in the organization's own best interests to treat us fairly and kindly. Lawsuits are a harsh and expensive way to do that, but they (sometimes) work.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
A most perceptive post Belle Ringer. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I think, in cases such as these, the situation should be handled, not by the organisation concerned, but by the proper legal authorities.
The churches should have learnt this by now. Attempting to keep things quiet and inhouse are counterproductive and have come at a terrible cost to them, in terms of credibility and money.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Forgive me Squirrel, but I find that all rather confusing.
1. Catholics should be married in a Catholic Church before a Catholic minister - surely nothing unusual about that. You get married in another Church. Now, this is quite permissible for Catholics, providing they get the necessary dispensation. You decide that you won't do any of this, then take umbrage because the Church says "Well, you are not in a Catholic marriage". The Church did not force you into anything - of your own free will you decided to act as you did.
2. So you get married in another Church, before a minister from that Church, and then take umbrage because your uncle could not do whatever it was you imagined he would do. Well that's a bit odd because you chose to walk away from your uncle's Church, but because he is related to you you think the rules should not apply to him. You said ya boo sucks to the Catholic Church, then expect to have a Catholic minister participate. Odd.
3. It is quite possible for a Catholic priest to participate in marriages in other Churches - with the necessary dispensation, not just some private arrangements. After all, a priest is an official representative of the Church: you were asking your uncle to do something because he was a priest - not just because he was your uncle. The fact he is your uncle doesn't suddenly mean his obligations as a priest evaporate. I have participated fully in several marriages in other Churches (including even at HTB!) - but then the Catholic parties had always made sure beforehand that their marriage was also a Catholic marriage by getting a dispensation.
4. Your uncle still seemed to have participated in some way. You say he said a few words and gave a blessing. What more did you want him to do? You were getting married in an Episcopal Church using Episcopal rites. What else were you expecting a Catholic priest to do in that context?
5. Whatever Sir Pellinore happens to say about maverick priests, is that what you wanted your uncle to be? A maverick who compromised his duty because his nephew wanted nothing to do with the Catholic Church?
6. I respect your integrity in not receiving communion in the Catholic Church, but I do not respect the little bitter reason you give. Let me put it another way, if your wife wishes to belong to a Church which broke away from the Catholic Church and continues to be in significant divergence from the it, why would she want to receive communion in the Catholic Church? Trust me, it's not personal.
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
Fellow Catholics (or ex-Catholics), how have you coped with the scandal?
By looking to the facts and truth of the situation.
Fun Fact #1: The Truth of the Church does not depend on the personal conduct of any particular priest.
Fun Fact #2: If you read what the Pope says rather than is reported to have said, all is well.
Fun Fact #3: Serious sexual misconduct is more common in Protestant than in Catholic Churches.
Stop reading the rhetoric, turn to the light, and you can see the problem as it is. As something to be torn out and guarded against, but not something powerful enough to overcome God.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I'm not sure Dom Anthony Sutch is in any way 'á máverick priest', TT. As a former Headmaster of Downside he would seem to have considerable status in both the English Benedictine Congregation and your Church. I am quite sure he acted perfectly correctly in every way.
If you described him this way to the Cardinal in Westminster I suspect the latter would not be amused. Could even have unpleasant ramifications for your career.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Nonsense. I have no "career", whatever that was meant to suggest.
In the case of the Parker-Bowles marriage, he was a Catholic and married in a CofE Church with the necessary dispensations - just as I said was entirely possible. He did not reject the Catholic Church and then say "Oh, but I still want a Catholic priest to take part in the ceremony, because he is my friend you see".
Suggesting some priest should just make up the rules for himself otherwise he is being "ungracious" and harking back to some dark age is certainly promoting maverick behaviour.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
A most perceptive post Belle Ringer.
I think, in cases such as these, the situation should be handled, not by the organisation concerned, but by the proper legal authorities.
The churches should have learnt this by now. Attempting to keep things quiet and inhouse are counterproductive and have come at a terrible cost to them, in terms of credibility and money.
I, too, think this is where the churches continued to go wrong, even after it was clear there were serious problems of cover-up etc. The points both you and Belle Ringer make about the nature of the institutions' response to the 'threat' of exposure, and therefore its smooth-running and apparent ascendancy in the lives of believers, and the 'clericalist mind-set' were, imo, major evils in the abuse scandals follow-on.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Fun Fact #3: Serious sexual misconduct is more common in Protestant than in Catholic Churches.
A few facts and figures to back up these interesting claims?
Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to take serious sexual misconduct less seriously in Protestant churches simply because quantitively it could be proved to happen less there than elsewhere. But if this is a mitigating factor for you, then it would be good to see evidence for this claim.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Nonsense. I have no "career", whatever that was meant to suggest.
In the case of the Parker-Bowles marriage, he was a Catholic and married in a CofE Church with the necessary dispensations - just as I said was entirely possible. He did not reject the Catholic Church and then say "Oh, but I still want a Catholic priest to take part in the ceremony, because he is my friend you see".
Suggesting some priest should just make up the rules for himself otherwise he is being "ungracious" and harking back to some dark age is certainly promoting maverick behaviour.
I understood you were a religious professional, TT.
Who are you accusing of 'suggesting some priest should make up the rules for himself'?
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
... I have participated fully in several marriages in other Churches (including even at HTB!) ...
What is HTB?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
The Church of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity, Brompton.: arch-basilica of well-heeled, polite-but-activist evangelicalism and "home of the Alpha course".
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
...of the charismatic tendency.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
A most perceptive post Belle Ringer.
... Attempting to keep things quiet and inhouse are counterproductive and have come at a terrible cost to [the churches], in terms of credibility and money.
...[T]here were serious problems of cover-up etc. The points both you and Belle Ringer make about the nature of the institutions' response to the 'threat' of exposure, and therefore its smooth-running and apparent ascendancy in the lives of believers, and the 'clericalist mind-set' were, imo, major evils in the abuse scandals follow-on.
I keep expecting churches, the organization's full time management staff at least, to be a little more aware than run of the mill organizations that the purpose for which they exist is those out there, in a church's case to convey God's truth and love to those out there not just to insiders. I keep expecting a church because it is supposedly trying to be God-aware to embrace truth, honesty, and care for the powerless - like the prophets keep saying, the widows and orphans, the poor, the marginalized.
Evil is a strong word. But yes, sending an abuser to another church where he can do it again was evil. Accusing victim of wrongdoing for supposedly enticing adults into illicit sex, was evil. Putting the appearance of "all's right with the church" ahead of addressing and correcting problems was evil.
Church organizations and their leaders are supposed to be teaching us and leading us to a more God-responsive way to live, not embracing the moral ignorance and "me first" values of our secular society.
Is the RCC perhaps so decentralized in fact that no one - not even any Bishops, knew of more than one or two perps, and everyone honestly believed each perp abused only one or two children due to unique situations that would never repeat?
[ 16. June 2011, 15:04: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
Anselmina, it's always good to get a sane and sensible opinion from a priest who works at the coal face, with real people and sees things from their parishioners' point of view rather than from the 'Barchester Towers' environment of Higher Ecclesiastical Administration. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Actually, priests like yourself and Robert Armin are much valued by intelligent Anglican laypeople. We appreciate that you talk across rather than down to us.
Any hierarchical system: the Church, the Army, Shell, the Police and Civil Service tries to keep émbarassing' damage inside the organisation.
A Catholic priest in Wollongong, who outed paedophilia there, was so shunned and victimised by his fellow clerics he committed suicide. His former bishop had a very unpleasant time in court when questioned about his cover up of these matters.
I think the fight against paedophilia and similar social abuses is a continuing one and the Church is certainly not the only place it exists.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Not sure what I've done to deserve the kind words, Sir P, but they are much appreciated. I am having a bad time at the moment, and your words are an encouragement.
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Fun Fact #3: Serious sexual misconduct is more common in Protestant than in Catholic Churches.
A few facts and figures to back up these interesting claims?
Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to take serious sexual misconduct less seriously in Protestant churches simply because quantitively it could be proved to happen less there than elsewhere. But if this is a mitigating factor for you, then it would be good to see evidence for this claim.
Every study ever done, neatly compiled here?
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm
In addition these three (though less data rich than that above) are not even from pro-RC organisations:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html
http://www.suite101.com/content/sex-abuse-in-the-protestant-church-a268469
http://www.christianitytoday.com/childrensministry/operations/sexualabuseinthechurch.html
This obviously doesn't excuse Catholic clergy in grave violation of their vows, but it puts it in a context. In turning to the light of reality, one's faith in the Church is better defended.
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Fun Fact #3: Serious sexual misconduct is more common in Protestant than in Catholic Churches.
A few facts and figures to back up these interesting claims?
Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to take serious sexual misconduct less seriously in Protestant churches simply because quantitively it could be proved to happen less there than elsewhere. But if this is a mitigating factor for you, then it would be good to see evidence for this claim.
Every study ever done, neatly compiled here?
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm
In addition these three (though less data rich than that above) are not even from pro-RC organisations:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html
http://www.suite101.com/content/sex-abuse-in-the-protestant-church-a268469
http://www.christianitytoday.com/childrensministry/operations/sexualabuseinthechurch.html
This obviously doesn't excuse Catholic clergy in grave violation of their vows, but it puts it in a context. In turning to the light of reality, one's faith in the Church is better defended.
Even if your point scoring research is correct, it seems to me that the big problem is that Catholics, from the top down have tried to excuse the problem, tried to make out there was no problem, and defended the tw@s who were responsible foir the problem. hence their defensiveness, I suppose.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Have you really read those, take this one:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/childrensministry/operations/sexualabuseinthechurch.html . I chose it because it was from a Protestant source so if it did back up your case it would be interesting.
It gives NO figures for your cause as it gives NO STATISTICS whatever. It states it is common in society and the church is not immune. That's i and that's because its not interested in figures or scoring whose doing worse. It isn't about statistics, it is about prevention.
In other simple words its about doing precisely what the Roman Catholic church is accused of not doing. That is spotting and reporting abuse WHEN it happens in order to protect children. Where is the Roman Catholic equivalent and if it doesn't exist it should.
That is what the RCC should be doing.
Jengie
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The Church,it would seem is on a hiding to nothing.It seems as though there is another scandal about to come to the fore in the case of Fr Kit Cunningham and the Rosminian order.
There are ,of course,other scandals as well as those of child abuse,but we should well remember that Jesus Christ,himself,was betrayed by one of his close associates and denied three times by the collaborator whom he had asked to 'feed my lambs'.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Fun Fact #3: Serious sexual misconduct is more common in Protestant than in Catholic Churches.
A few facts and figures to back up these interesting claims?
Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to take serious sexual misconduct less seriously in Protestant churches simply because quantitively it could be proved to happen less there than elsewhere. But if this is a mitigating factor for you, then it would be good to see evidence for this claim.
Every study ever done, neatly compiled here?
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm
In addition these three (though less data rich than that above) are not even from pro-RC organisations:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html
http://www.suite101.com/content/sex-abuse-in-the-protestant-church-a268469
http://www.christianitytoday.com/childrensministry/operations/sexualabuseinthechurch.html
This obviously doesn't excuse Catholic clergy in grave violation of their vows, but it puts it in a context. In turning to the light of reality, one's faith in the Church is better defended.
I see what you've done, and I can understand it. But I'm afraid it doesn't compute. The stats referred to appear to include the full gamut of church volunteers and 'church-related relationships', as well as clergy.
And one of the surveys relates to inappropriate relationships with 'parishioners', adultery and such like, with no specifics on actual sexual abuse of children. Not that that's anything to be proud of!
Of course, sexual sin, including abuse of children, happens in the Protestant churches. So long as there's sin and selfishness, how can it not. But my point is that your point about it being more of a problem with 'us' rather than 'you' is that, it is 'pointless' if not in fact misleading.
I'm afraid, too, that any report that makes the following kind of statement....
quote:
'Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young altar boy or girls of any age.”[viii]
The situation in Boston, the epicenter of the scandal, is even worse. According to the Boston Globe, “Of the clergy sex abuse cases referred to prosecutors in Eastern Massachusetts, more than 90 percent involve male victims. And the most prominent Boston lawyers for alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse have said that about 95 percent of their clients are male.'
.... can hardly expect to be taken seriously. Just because victims are claimed to be predominantly pubescent and male doesn't equate to 'almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals'.
Look, stats and stuff isn't what this thread is about anyway, so far as I can see. I have a great deal of respect for my Catholic clergy acquaintances and sincerely hope that the faithful in the pews continue to find their spiritual nourishment and pastoral care in the place where, generally, they have always looked for it to be provided.
As great as are the sins of any institution, God no doubt will honour the faithful hearts of all his people and will work to heal and restore Christ's Body wherever it's been harmed by sin. After all, that's one of the leading messages of our faith. Those of us who are part of institutional religion, however, must ensure that we're ever open to that restoration and healing, painful as it is.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
Invictus_88: Do you think it might be possible for you to realise that, as far as I am aware, no one, including Anselmina, is trying to pillory the RCC?
Paedophilia, as far as I am concerned, is something particularly vile.
I am unsure whether I would want to use the word 'sin' to refer to it, because, sadly, many paedophiles, including clerical ones, are unable to admit to themselves, or anyone else, that they have done anything wrong.
Although I would term it intensely wicked and wish it prosecuted with the full force of the law, I think it needs to be seen as something which needs psychological help and a willingness to change and make proper amends for, if that is at all possible.
Many clerics and church workers - of all denominations - thought it could be dealt with simply by Confession, whether sacramental or nonsacramental. This procedure failed in a big way with a serial paedophile Anglican priest in Brisbane who was 'forgiven' and then went on to reoffend.
Religion and psychology need to come together in dealing with this problem. The Church is not an island. All Churches need to realise that. There is a real world out there. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
You're welcome, Robert Armin.
Hopefully you will come through your difficult time renewed.
I think all of us would be with you.
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Invictus_88: Do you think it might be possible for you to realise that, as far as I am aware, no one, including Anselmina, is trying to pillory the RCC?
Paedophilia, as far as I am concerned, is something particularly vile.
I am unsure whether I would want to use the word 'sin' to refer to it, because, sadly, many paedophiles, including clerical ones, are unable to admit to themselves, or anyone else, that they have done anything wrong.
Although I would term it intensely wicked and wish it prosecuted with the full force of the law, I think it needs to be seen as something which needs psychological help and a willingness to change and make proper amends for, if that is at all possible.
Many clerics and church workers - of all denominations - thought it could be dealt with simply by Confession, whether sacramental or nonsacramental. This procedure failed in a big way with a serial paedophile Anglican priest in Brisbane who was 'forgiven' and then went on to reoffend.
Religion and psychology need to come together in dealing with this problem. The Church is not an island. All Churches need to realise that. There is a real world out there.
I see it better now, in her response, though posts earlier in the thread definitely lacked humility (not necessarily hers).
I've more faith in God than in psychology, indeed those who defend their own paedophilia often fall back on the sort of subjectivism so popular in psychology. What you tend not to find in paedophiles is a rigorous attempt to understand right and wrong, and a consequent understanding of what makes sins sins and why.
Proposing psychology as a cure might be to risk adding more poison to the mix. I think theology might have a clearer path to helping such people.
Though at least we're all agreed that clergy in authority in the Church have failed to guard their flock, and that changes are necessary irrespective of the moral position of other religious and secular organisations, I think?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Though at least we're all agreed that clergy in authority in the Church have failed to guard their flock, and that changes are necessary irrespective of the moral position of other religious and secular organisations, I think?
Something that should always be kept open to oversight and revision, at all times for the good of the people who are the most precious charge upon the Church's responsibility. Certainly, greater humility from church leadership is required from all of us. Let him who is without sin... etc.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm afraid, too, that any report that makes the following kind of statement....
quote:
'Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young altar boy or girls of any age.”[viii]
The situation in Boston, the epicenter of the scandal, is even worse. According to the Boston Globe, “Of the clergy sex abuse cases referred to prosecutors in Eastern Massachusetts, more than 90 percent involve male victims. And the most prominent Boston lawyers for alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse have said that about 95 percent of their clients are male.'
.... can hardly expect to be taken seriously. Just because victims are claimed to be predominantly pubescent and male doesn't equate to 'almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals'.
And yet, Anselmina, that is the truth apparently which may not be spoken. It touches on a very sensitive issue for homosexuals, being thought immediately to be a threat to children, potential paedophiles. That is something which does not necessarily follow. However, it is true that the vast majority - not just the majority but the vast majority of child abuse cases in the Catholic Church involve adolescent boys.
I am particularly hurting today because this issue has come very close to home. The revelations in the past few days about Fr Kit Cunningham (to whom I regularly made my confession and whose counsel I always found of immense value) and Fr J-Glen Murray, whom I met recently and admired enormously, leave me feeling dazed, sickened and just wanting to hide away somewhere.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
TT, I don't doubt that the truth is certainly that victims of abuse are usually male boys. And I don't doubt that as there are abusers who are heterosexual by orientation, so there must be abusers who are homosexual and bi-sexual, too. I just questioned whether the apparent conclusion could really be drawn, as a matter of fact, that because the victims are male, the abusers must mainly be homosexual.
I'm sorry for your pain in this, TT, in your own situation. The complex feelings of knowing and appreciating the good that such people have done oneself, and the tremendous wrong they have done others are almost too much to know what to do with.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Anselmina, I think a lot of Catholics have been frankly confused by the line of argument that you have just outlined, which we hear quite a lot: i.e., that just because almost all of the victims are boys either side of puberty doesn't mean the abuse is by homosexual clerics.
This is confusing because, although sexually predatory priests often have easier access to boys that girls, I wouldn't expect that to make the base-line heterosexual clerics resort to boys because that was all that was available. It would seem to me more likely they would pursue vulnerable or otherwise "available" women. I've never really believed the line that most heterosexually inclined men are so loosely-wired in their sex drive to resort to boys (especially those around or just past the puberty stage) when women aren't available. Some, maybe. As a general rule though? I don't buy that. For most heterosexual men I know, the thought of homosexual sex is a turn-off, not a turn on.
I've heard the argument that sexual abuse really isn't about sex, it's about power. But even so, given that it involves sex, I can't see why so many abusing clerics would go for male victims (especially around puberty).
Now, I can fully appreciate the need not to make false connections between homosexuality and sexual abuse of minors, but for many Catholics I know it feels like the "it's not a homosexual problem" line is an attempt not to draw what conclusions that could be used to promote unjust attacks against homosexuals in general but which otherwise seem evidenced by the figures.
The truth is what is, and the truth looks to be that this is, in large part, a homosexual phenomenon.
[ 22. June 2011, 17:39: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I have a question - should it be a separate thread? When it is learned that a clergy person (any local church) sexually abused a child (any age), and/or that higher-ups covered it up (any local church and/or denomination) what should be the remedy/restitution for the victim?
Would paying for therapy for as long as it takes (I haven't heard reports how much help therapy is or is not) be more helpful than cash in hand? I often read most people can't handle sudden large amounts of cash, it gets frittered or scammed away and leaves them no better off.
Cash seems like a more sincere apology than just words, but if it's mostly coming thru the courts rather than thru the offenders or cover-uppers, it's not really related to apology.
Has there been any helpful discussion of kind of apology and help would restore the abused somewhat?
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
Invictus_88: I wasn't proposing psychology as a substitute for religion (or good theology, which is part of it) but as a practical aid in the situation we were discussing. Of course, as there is whacky religion and whacky clergy, there is whacky psychology and whacky psychologists.
TT mentioned a couple of highly respected clergy, one of whom he knew, who turned out to be paedophiles.
I suspect some clerical paedophiles may know their theology very well, at least academically, but have what I would see as a blind spot (whether spiritual or psychological, or both ) which seems to prevent their seeing what they are doing is wrong. I knew one, formerly highly respected, Anglican clergyman in Sydney who was finally jailed, who no one would have suspected and who seemed unable to admit what he had done.
It does not surprise me that people who had formerly trusted and confided in someone like that feel filthified and somewhat debased by this unwitting and innocent association. I sympathise with TT.
Chesterbelloc, not all paedophiles prey on young boys, there have been numerous instances, not necessarily all in the church, where the victims have been young girls.
Belle Ringer, I believe one of the greatest things paedophiles could give their victims is confession that it did happen and an apology.
This paedophilia scandal has affected so many people in various ways. Most important are the victims and their families. They are the ones who deserve our greatest concern. They deserve any support they need.
I agree, Invictus_88, with your last paragraph.
This is a very, very sad matter.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
[tangent] Sir P, thank you for your kind words and PM. Couldn't reply as your PM Box is full. [/tangent]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Chesterbelloc, not all paedophiles prey on young boys, there have been numerous instances, not necessarily all in the church, where the victims have been young girls.
Well, of course! I would be an idiot to have suggested otherwise. I think it was pretty cler that I was talking specifically about what we know of the recent Catholic clerical abuse stats. Which is what this thread is all about.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Chesterbelloc, yes, I take your point and can easily see why conclusions along those lines are made.
With regard to the sex/power aspect of abuse, with respect to the question 'why children, rather than adults?'. I wonder if so many priestly sexual abusers pick children rather than adults simply because they are powerless. Maybe, in a priestly culture so centrally celibate, it's just that bit easier, and quieter, to use children than get into the messiness of adult relations, where a fellow adult might get demanding, or vocal, or challenging.
Perhaps the sex of the child isn't that important, either, when one's priorities are one's own satisfaction, keeping everything under wraps and keeping up the apparent front of required celibacy?
I've heard, of course, of priests who have taken mistresses, had families etc. And I presume there must be priests who have male lovers/partners, too, naturally very discreetly. So I would be inclined to conclude that the root of the perversion that leads any adult down the route of child sex abuse must be at least similar, regardless of orientation.
Perhaps, one might argue (and I'm not sure I would without more evidence) that there are particular circumstances of living as a celibate homosexual priest, which would make him more likely than his heterosexual colleague to commit this particular crime. Eg, much of the abuse happened during the decades when homosexuality was not acceptable and the double-'evil' of being both sexually active, while supposedly celibate, and gay might've been factor enough to choose the easier option of sexual satisfaction.
Perhaps some might even say that this is a similar issue to eg, a report pointing out that nearly all, or most domestic abuse is carried out by men, so therefore men are the biggest problem? I don't know how that equates to this argument.
But I guess I would want to see a lot more evidence (and I can't imagine how it would be accurately gathered!) before coming to a conclusion that virtually all or most abusing priests are or were gay.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
This is confusing because, although sexually predatory priests often have easier access to boys that girls, I wouldn't expect that to make the base-line heterosexual clerics resort to boys because that was all that was available. It would seem to me more likely they would pursue vulnerable or otherwise "available" women.
I have heard that fifty years ago a Catholic priest who had sex with a consenting adult woman got in far more trouble with the hierarchy than one who molested teenagers.
Moo
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
With regards to religion being a good remedy in these cases it really depends on the belief of the person dispensing the religion. If they believe that accepting a confession of guilt and forgiving the pedophile also involves trusting them then we have a problem.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I was attempting to be çlerer' about the overall paedophilia situation, Chesterbelloc.
It also seemed important to me to point out that there is a difference between voluntary adult homosexuality and what is basically child rape. I think it is important, in the light of future preventative action, to make clear the distinction that all male homosexuals are definitely not paedophiles.
This distinction is sometimes not seen by 'the simple faithful'. It is important it is stated.
BTW, I'm not suggesting anything adverse about what you said, just trying to clarify things.
Thank you, Robert Armin, I'll clear it.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
I've adopted a rather liberal protestant view of clergy- they're just people.
I wouldn't want to identify that truth with liberal protestantism.
Many Catholic clergy would fully agree that they are "just people" (albeit people who spend a helluva lot of time trying to get closer to God through prayer and service to others).
Seems to me that to believe otherwise is superstition.
Yes, this particular form of superstition is one that Catholic culture is more prone to than Protestant culture. Although some protestant groups have dubious tele-evangelists...
But if we want to help others to get over their failings, then making those failings part of their identity (so that coming to the truth feels like rejecting one of the cornerstones of everything you ever stood for) is not really the best way to go about it.
One of the ways we honour God is by honouring those things - places, times, people, objects - that are set aside for His service.
Seems to me that if we do it right there ought to be no conflict between this and the truth that clergy are just people. But there is scope for getting it wrong.
Does anyone know of any insightful writing as to how these two truths fit together ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
If they believe that accepting a confession of guilt and forgiving the pedophile also involves trusting them then we have a problem.
A Catholic friend told me it's more complicated than that.
He says the absolute confidentiality of the confessional means anyone who confesses to being a sexual abuser cannot be disciplined or treated in any way differently than if he were thought innocent because any change of how he is handled would be based on the confession and would reveal to others something of what he had confessed.
As normal human beings we need to "forgive and remember" and adapt our behavior around the person with an eye to preventing any repeat of the forgiven behavior. My friend said the church as church cannot similarly "forgive and remember" because "remembering" risks exposing the private confession.
If he is right that the confession's secrecy is absolute and thus cannot be acted on, what is the solution?
Take it outside the clergy/kids situation. If a serial murderer is Catholic and confesses to a Catholic priest after each murder (without stating any intention to murder again), is there anything the hearer of the confessions can do to warn the police about the guy? (I'm asking from ignorance.)
[ 24. June 2011, 14:29: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Well as a non-catholic I'm speaking from ignorance as well and I've no idea what actualy happens at the "coal face" of the confessional. But my gut reaction would be that preventing harm to others is a higher priority than the sanctity of the confessional every time.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The sanctity of the confessional is in theory inviolable.
However I would make the following comments :
a) what happens if someone makes a confession 'directly to God' ? Are the three persons of the Holy Trinity obliged to inform the police ? and if so how do they do that ?
b) It's not every time that someone tells a priest something that what they have said can be considered a 'confession' and as such will the priest be bound by the seal of the confessional.
c) a 'confession' as such would only receive a sacramental absolution should it be clear that the person confessing was truly contrite and that that person had a firm purpose of amendment of life.It is obvious ,or it should be obvious,that such a purpose of amendment of life should involve a confession to the authorities on the part of the sinner -not on the part of the priest.
d) even if a priest refuses absolution ,as he would do in the case of insufficient contrition, he is still bound to consider that he has be acting 'in loco Dei'(in place of God) and leave it to his divine master to inform the authorities and that brings us back to point a).
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
The sanctity of the confessional is certainly an issue, an issue that the bishops of offendidng clergy need to deal with. One option, so I have been told, is to withold absolution until the offender has confessed to the police as well.
But that would require the bishops to act. And to me, not that I'm RC, that is by far the bigger issue and one with which the media, the church and even discussions fail to grapple. That is, the culture of cover-up, so that gross offense is committed against the victims of abuse in order to protect the good name of the church.
We've seen the same kinds of actions in country after country, over many decades. The bishops act not to protect the victims, but to protect the good name of the church. The tactics range from forcing victims to swear that they will not complain to the police, through moving offending clergy to new parishes.
In Canada we're seeing that even otherwise good bishops, who were otherwise good pastors to their people, and who were goo theologicans, still routinely participated in the cover up.
And when so many bishops in so many countries did it over so many years, can anyone doubt that it was part of the underlying culture?
I've seen no repudiation of the culture, or indeed of the actions, either from Rome or from individual bishops.
The abuse was bad and is, hopefully, now being dealt with. But the coverups were in one sense worse, and they're being largely ignored.
John
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The sanctity of the confessional is certainly an issue, an issue that the bishops of offendidng clergy need to deal with. One option, so I have been told, is to withold absolution until the offender has confessed to the police as well.
That is an indirect violation of the seal of the confessional, and likewise just as absolutely prohibited under Catholic dogma as a direct violation.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The sanctity of the confessional is certainly an issue, an issue that the bishops of offendidng clergy need to deal with. One option, so I have been told, is to withold absolution until the offender has confessed to the police as well.
That is an indirect violation of the seal of the confessional, and likewise just as absolutely prohibited under Catholic dogma as a direct violation.
Which particular 'Catholic dogma' might you be quoting, Shadowhund?
It would seem to me that a priest, faced with a paedophile in the confessional, particularly someone he may have reason to believe is a habitual offender, would need to counsel him/her to obtain appropriate treatment for the problem and make restitution to the victim.
Making restitution to the victim(s) would entail coming out into the open, apologising and making amends. This may very well lead to the victim laying charges which is fully within their right.
Being forgiven and restarting life anew in cases of serious sin, which can be criminal as well, is never easy. It is not meant to be. There has to be real repentance and the desire and effort to change.
The confessional is not an automatic forgiveness machine.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Shadowhund is right. The priest can never make disclosure of the matter to a third party a condition of absolution. That would be to force the penitent to break the seal against his or her will - an indirect but real violation of the Seal by the priest himself. This is never permitted, no matter what the circumstances.
The priest may only withhold absolution if he is convinced the penitent is not sincerely penitent (not truly sorry and firmly resolved to attempt never to commit the sin again - and here the penitnet must be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt) or if the sin is a reserved one, i.e., needs the bishop or some higher authority to permit the absolution.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...
The priest may only withhold absolution if he is convinced the penitent is not sincerely penitent (not truly sorry and firmly resolved to attempt never to commit the sin again - and here the penitnet must be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt) or if the sin is a reserved one, i.e., needs the bishop or some higher authority to permit the absolution.
I wonder if that may be grounds for making habitual paedophilia a reserved sin?
To me this raises again the real question of how a Church prevents, discovers and deals with paedophilia.
Confession is a sacrament and therefore probably inappropriate in dealing with the situation as it exists in the normal civil and criminal situation.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Confession is a sacrament and therefore probably inappropriate in dealing with the situation as it exists in the normal civil and criminal situation.
I think you hit it squarely on the head right there.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Anselmina, I think a lot of Catholics have been frankly confused by the line of argument that you have just outlined, which we hear quite a lot: i.e., that just because almost all of the victims are boys either side of puberty doesn't mean the abuse is by homosexual clerics.
Funny - I don't recall the Catholics on the Ship being remotely "confused" whenever it's been suggested that this might be a problem of priestly celibacy, based on the even more inescapable fact that an even greater proportion of priestly abusers have been celibates. There, you have been remarkably clear-sighted in grasping the point that celibacy is not the issue, because most celibates do not abuse.
So why is it so confusing for you when other people's hackles are raised for other people in exactly the same way by the suggestion that this is all down to the gays?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
So why is it so confusing for you when other people's hackles are raised for other people in exactly the same way by the suggestion that this is all down to the gays?
Um, because almost the complete sample range of Catholic clergy were celibate? That and the similar incidence ofabuse amongst non-celibate family members, religious ministers, teachers, etc.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
This interview with the former Abbot of Worth Abbey seems to take a fairly sane view of the matter:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/christopher-jamison-the-pope-has-a-friend-in-father-christopher-1935431.htm l
It is a matter which will require constant attention by every Christian Church.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Um, because almost the complete sample range of Catholic clergy were celibate? That and the similar incidence ofabuse amongst non-celibate family members, religious ministers, teachers, etc.
Yes. Exactly.
Adults with the opportunity to abuse outside the Catholic church are not generally celibate and tend to abuse at a basically comparable rate to priests. So you have no problem at all seeing that it's not a celibacy issue. Well done.
So why the blind-spot that prevents you from seeing that those abusive "family members, religious ministers, teachers, etc" who are approximately as common and as bad as the rotten apples in your own priesthood, are not overwhelmingly homosexual, just as they are not overwhelmingly celibate? It's exactly the same point. It's just that celibacy is something which you are concerned to defend, so you think about it with a modicum of common sense and fairness, whereas homosexuality is not, so you don't. Which stinks.
Or perhaps you believe that in contrast to the general population, where being a perverted bastard doesn't correlate to sexual orientation, for some reason priestly training and ministry converts almost all straights into models of responsible chastity, while making gays many orders of magnitude more predatory? Isn't it rather more likely that some people, regardless of sexuality or vocation, are tempted to be abusers, and whether and how they act on that temptation depends mainly on the opportunities which are available to them?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Eliab, you seem to have misunderstood me - or I have you.
I am not claiming anything at all about the sexual abuse of minors in general. My concern is specifically with the stats in th Catholic clerical abuse instance. In this case (see John Jay report, for example) the abuse tends pretty ovewhelmingly to be by men (obviously) on boys at or around puberty. And yet, despite that, we are told by many that this is not evidence for most of the abuse being by homosexuals. I just don't get that - for the reasons I've already dsicussed above with Anselmina.
If they don't have homosexaul urges, why are they targeting boys in this age range? If they do consistently "enjoy" abusing boys of this age, doesn't that make them on the homo- rather than heterosexual side of the preference scale?
I have absolutely no interest in nor any desire to bad-mouth homosexual men, whether clerical or lay. Not an agenda of mine. But if I am being sold a story about a particular set of evidence which seems to go against the grain of the evidence itself, I have a reason to ask why that slant is being taken. Maybe there's something I'm missing.
But if it is a misplaced attempt not to be seen to be homophobic then I say "Screw that" - this horrible phenomenon is far too important to sacrifice to a politically-correct agenda. If it isn't that, tell us why it's (i.e., the Catholic clerical abuse scandal - not child-abuse in general) not a predominantly homosexual phenonmenon.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Eliab, you seem to have misunderstood me - or I have you.
I am not claiming anything at all about the sexual abuse of minors in general.
No, indeed. You are ignoring what you know about sexual abuse: that is, that there are a certain proportion of people, male and female, straight and gay, clerical and lay, single and partnered, rich and poor, who abuse children. You know perfectly well that it isn't a problem limited to any particular class or type of person. And you know (or purport to know) that the specific incidence of abuse by the Catholic clergy is no exception to the usual pattern of human wickedness because whenever someone uses it to have a go at some aspect of your church culture like celibacy, the Catholics here ALWAYS make exactly that point.
quote:
If they don't have homosexaul urges, why are they targeting boys in this age range?
That's a legitimate question to ask, of course. Given that there's no reason to think that homosexuals are generally more abusive than heterosexuals, the disparity requires explanation.
One hypothesis is that it down to innate inclination, and thus there's something about your gay priests that makes them more predatory than other gays, and (since priests as a class are about as predatory as anyone else) something that stops your straights from sinning in this way as much as we might expect, so as to keep things even.
Another hypothesis might be that there are cultural and opportunistic reasons specific to Catholic pastoral ministry, which might explain why young men are so often targetted.
Since we know that there ARE differences in lifestyle and culture between a Catholic priest and (say) a secular teacher, whereas it would be pure conjecture to assert that there is a great difference in sexual orientation, that second hypothesis is worth a thought, no?
quote:
But if I am being sold a story about a particular set of evidence which seems to go against the grain of the evidence itself, I have a reason to ask why that slant is being taken. Maybe there's something I'm missing.
There is.
You are missing the fact that it is a transparent cop-out of responsibility to blame abuse on a minority sexual orientation.
You are missing the fact that the Catholic church has been and still is consistently, vocally, and unjustly opposed to that particular orientation, even on purely secular issues such as gay marriage.
You are missing the fact that this is an area of ethics which has changed to an unprecedentated degree in recent times for the rest of society, going in living memory from something which was a criminal offence, to something protected by equality legislation. You are missing the fact that your church (and frequently mine, to be fair) looks utterly out of touch and bigotted on the gay issue, and has nothing to say beyond an appeal to revelation and tradition to justify its stance.
In short, you are missing the fact that it is just too fucking convenient for your church, finding itself under fire for tolerating sex abuse, to discover that this scandal is actually all the fault of that very class of sinner that appears (in secular terms) to be winning the argument against you hands down.
If you hadn't missed that, then you would, I hope, have considered with painstaking concern for justice and truth, every possible alternative explantion for the fact that more males than females are victimised by bad priests, before saying anything remotely like "this is a homosexual issue".
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Eliab, you seem to have misunderstood me - or I have you.
I am not claiming anything at all about the sexual abuse of minors in general.
No, indeed. You are ignoring what you know about sexual abuse: that is, that there are a certain proportion of people, male and female, straight and gay, clerical and lay, single and partnered, rich and poor, who abuse children. You know perfectly well that it isn't a problem limited to any particular class or type of person. And you know (or purport to know) that the specific incidence of abuse by the Catholic clergy is no exception to the usual pattern of human wickedness because whenever someone uses it to have a go at some aspect of your church culture like celibacy, the Catholics here ALWAYS make exactly that point.
You're completely wide of the mark there, I'm afraid. All I claim to know is that the figures in this specific Catholic clerical abuse phenonmenon suggest a very high proponderance of homosexual "ephebophilia" and that that seems to me to suggest a specific dynamic at work in these cases. Given that the perpetrators were all undenaibly Catholic clerics, I can't see how blaming the gay ones (which I wasn't doing anyway) would in any way be exculpatory for the Church. Whether or not these cases prove that there is a specifically homosexual element to problem, what they indisputably prove is that there is a Catholic element to it - obviously. No one is trying to get the Church off the hook here.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
If they don't have homosexaul urges, why are they targeting boys in this age range?
That's a legitimate question to ask, of course. Given that there's no reason to think that homosexuals are generally more abusive than heterosexuals, the disparity requires explanation.
Right. I'm not sure about your sepcific suggested explanantions, but my basic point was that some kind of explanation is required. What is not required is an instant dismissal of a legitimate query arising from the available data.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You are missing the fact that it is a transparent cop-out of responsibility to blame abuse on a minority sexual orientation.
I'm not. Because, as far as I'm aware, no one is doing this.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
In short, you are missing the fact that it is just too fucking convenient for your church, finding itself under fire for tolerating sex abuse, to discover that this scandal is actually all the fault of that very class of sinner that appears (in secular terms) to be winning the argument against you hands down.
Bullshit. The JJ report, for example, was not conducted by the Church, and the independent researchers had no reason whatsoever to skew thier findings. In fact, they had every reason not to - peer credibility, for example. Having seen the evidence, there is an anomaly with regard to the prevalence of pubescent boy victims. How responsible would it be for the Church to ignore that, do you think? Would you expect the Church to ignore findings that suggested a disproportionate number of perpetrators were old-rite traditionalists, or Opus Dei, or Chinese, or home-schooled or depressed?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you hadn't missed that, then you would, I hope, have considered with painstaking concern for justice and truth, every possible alternative explantion for the fact that more males than females are victimised by bad priests, before saying anything remotely like "this is a homosexual issue".
Which I didn't say - certainly not in terms in which you imply. What I did say, and you seem to accept, is that some explanation would seem to be needed - there is something to explain. That's it.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Having seen the evidence, there is an anomaly with regard to the prevalence of pubescent boy victims. How responsible would it be for the Church to ignore that, do you think?
"Mostly male victims" is not equivalent to "mostly homosexual perpetrators". That is only one possible explanation for the disparity. You cannot properly take the fact (about victims) and turn it into a conclusion (about prepetrators) without some sort of reasoned analysis. You aren't doing this. You are treating the two statements as if they were identical.
quote:
Would you expect the Church to ignore findings that suggested a disproportionate number of perpetrators were old-rite traditionalists, or Opus Dei, or Chinese, or home-schooled or depressed?
Imagine a world in which the Catholic Church:
had for two thousand years thought that being a ‘practising Chinese' was a mortal sin;
had taught that Chinese people could not marry other Chinese with whom they were in love;
explicitly commanded its members to oppose the granting of legal rights for Chinese people, even those outside the Church;
had very recent leaders publicly declare that being Chinese was to be intrinsically disordered compared to the human norm;
had closed down voluntary adoption agencies rather than be compelled to place children with Chinese parents...
...would I, in those circumstances, expect an intelligent and decent Catholic to be very, very careful and scrupulously fair before blaming the greatest Church scandal of the present day on Chinese clergy and saying that this was a largely Chinese phenomenon?
Fuck, yes!
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on
:
At least in the United States, the single largest age group of victims were 11-12, which is right on the cusp of pubescence (before and/or after). I do not know whether this is a "homosexual" or "pedophile" phenomena, as it has elements of both.
To say that homosexuality has almost nothing to do with the scandal is indeed, as Chesterbelloc says, motivated by a PC agenda at worst or (at best) a desire to protect gays from veangeful public opinion, but in any case perpetrating a falsehood. There is, of course, the other important component that it was bishops (not necessarily homosexual) who moved these guys around from parish to parish out of varying motivations. Both components are, however, essential parts of the story.
As an aside, I wonder how many people will lose their faith in TEC based on the latest scandal in which it appears that KJS herself may have received a priest that she knew to have sexual predelictions for minors. (As an aside, 815 has lots of sordid secrets hidden about Episcopal clergy, particularly bishops. Paul Moore comes to mind, but he isn't the only one.)
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Having seen the evidence, there is an anomaly with regard to the prevalence of pubescent boy victims. How responsible would it be for the Church to ignore that, do you think?
"Mostly male victims" is not equivalent to "mostly homosexual perpetrators". That is only one possible explanation for the disparity. You cannot properly take the fact (about victims) and turn it into a conclusion (about prepetrators) without some sort of reasoned analysis.
With respect, if most victims are (sexually maturing/mature) boys and all of the perpetrators are men, there is a prima facie case for the perpetrators being sexually attracted to those male victims.
Really, that is a very straightforward assumption, which it would take a convincing alternative explanation to rebut. I am not saying that there is no such convincing alternative, just that I haven't seen one and that in the absence of such it is wrong to imply that people who draw a such an obvious inference are somehow prejudiced againt homosexuals or are trying to pass the blame off on them. As I've said, given that the perpetrators were indisputably Catholic clerics, the Church doesn't get off the hook no matter what their sexual proclivities are.
Once more for luck: this is not about shifting blame from the Church to a hated minority. It is about trying to find out as much about the circumstances of the abuse as possible so as to understand and prevent its reoccurence. Disallowing an inference that is suggested as a possible factor by the evidence itself merely because it is politically sensitive is simply not responsible.
An analogy: I'm a trad-rite fan and "spirit of Vat II" sceptic; if it turned out that far more priests with those "proclivities" turned out to be abusers than others, I'd damned well want that prima facie evidence to be addressed too.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
I would direct your attention to this rather good summary. In particular:
quote:
The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
If you read the article, you'll see this refers to those who molest children before or just into puberty.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I would direct your attention to this rather good summary. In particular:
quote:
The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
If you read the article, you'll see this refers to those who molest children before or just into puberty.
Thanks for this. I'm not sure it really resloves my confusion though.
First, I don't know what is meant by "[they] don't really have an adult sexual orientation". What is an "adult" sexual orientation? An orientation towards adults? Is this true? Do most child abusers of pubescent children not have a sexual preference when it comes to adults at all? Or does it mean that they have sexual preferences but not ones that are typical of mature adults?
Secondly, even if the first point I queried was established, it doesn't appear to relate directly to the recent Catholic clerical abuse incidence, where they preference for male pubescent victims seems very much to predominate. Some of the perpetrators may be indifferent to the sex of their victims, but not the overwhelming majority. If they have no adult sexual preference (i.e., are indifferently attracted to adults of either sex or not attracted to them at all) it certainly seems that most of them have a clear preference for male victims when it comes to minors.
Now, that could be because male victims have been historically more avaliable to them, but that would not explain the majority preference for males who show (or are beginning to show) the signs of adult sexual characteristics. Is it really plausible that those who were attracted by those sorts of boys had no sexual preference for adult men over adult women? This is not a rhetorical question, incidentally - I genuinely don't know.
In the end, whether the perpetrators had a sexual prefernce for men over women or vice versa, or no adult sexual preference at all, they did seem to have a preference for pubescent boys over any age of girls; and given that, I don't see that it so very off the mark to call such a preference "homosexual".
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Chesterbelloc - I think there are several issues in there, one of which is nomenclature. The words "heterosexual", "homosexual", and "orientation" have all been changing to a degree and mean somewhat different things to different people. Which I suspect may have contributed to your exchange with Eliab.
Also, what used to be referred to as paedophilia has now been split into paedophilia (w.r.t. prepubescent children) and ephebophilia (w.r.t. under-age adults developmentally). Some split the latter again into early and late stage as there are phenomenological differences such as Think² mentioned. Though it seems there is still some argument about this latter.
But paedophilia proper is generally seen as a separate sexual orientation - this is not to say that there do not exist people who are paedophiles and who are also attracted to adults, because they certainly exist. Maybe it might be better to regard such people as having a blended sexuality of the two types.
But we are not talking about that here. This is about ephebophilia. I can't really comment on the developmental theory - you'll need to ask a professional in this area. It's been around a long time but it seems to be challenged quite a bit.
But in any event an ephebophile is a person whose primary attraction is to young under-age adults. This being distinct from someone who feels an attraction to well-developed person who happens to be under age.
Generally the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" these days refer to those who are attracted to adults of either the same or the opposite sex. Given this it makes little sense to talk of homosexual orientation in this case unless they also are sexually attracted to adults thusly. And in any event, as I outlined above, it may be better to regard that as a blend of two different things.
I could offer you a fairly harrowing example that involved my (wider) family of a male who had a regular attraction to mature females and also an attraction to underage males, both of which he acted on. I should point out perhaps that my family members were involved in picking up the pieces of this, not in causing it. But clearly describing this person as either "homosexual" or "heterosexual" just doesn't cover the situation.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
Hostly Hat ON
You've convinced me -- this thread has become yet another homosexuality jeremiad. Off you go to DH land.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Oh - Tom - I hope it wasn't anything I said that caused you to think it was a jeremiad because that's almost the exact opposite of what I meant. No challenge at all BTW, I just want to clarify my own position.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
Hi, Ron. I was responding to the overall thrust that the thread had developed. While your post was the immediately-preceeding one, it was not the proximal cause of the move. It just seems to have developed in a way that would be more comfortable here (sorry for the bitchiness. It was unwarranted in response to any of the posts.)
--Tom Clune
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
At least in the United States, the single largest age group of victims were 11-12, which is right on the cusp of pubescence (before and/or after). I do not know whether this is a "homosexual" or "pedophile" phenomena, as it has elements of both.
As I mentioned elsewhere, one of the most disgusting practices by child rape apologists is to redefine "pedophilia" for purposes of political or public relations convenience rather than for any obvious clinical reason. If you want to take issue with the DSM-IV's standards on this issue, that's fine, but you should have a much better reason than "it makes an organization I like look bad".
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
I personally wouldn't describe paedophilia as a sexual orientation - rather one of the paraphilias. In the same way as a desire for sex with animals or corpses are paraphilias. I invite you to consider that the gender of the corpse or the animal is somewhat meaningless.
There are basically three theories as to why it happens; learned / conditioned behaviour, some kind of psychodynamic conflict originating in poor childhood attachments, some kind of genetic screw-up. Evidence is best for a combo of poor attachments and learned behaviour.
Attraction to sexually mature kids (or nearly mature) is as you say, somewhat different. I would suggest you make the comparison to prison "homosexuality". Ie male on male sexual behaviour that emerges in the context of power and dominence and lack of opposite sex opportunities. Many men leaving jail after that don't consider themselves homosexual and do not persue same-sex relationships even if they were the initiators.
I would suggest the primary driver for the number of male on male offenses is opportunity. Its changed now, but previously boys spending time with a male priest would have aroused less suspicion than girls.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
The hypothesis here appears to be that chronophiles will be attracted indiscriminately to members of both the same and the opposite sex, as long as they are of the right age. If that were true in our case, then external factors would be required to explain that the victims were in the vast majority male (and of course all offenders were male). I agree that there are some such external factors, in particular "ease of access". But I consider it unlikely that these external factors are sufficient to explain the numbers. The disparity is just too massive. It would not have been nine times more likely that a boy remains alone with a priest...
If my analysis is correct, then in our case we are talking about "male-preferring male chronophiles". And if that is so, then the proposed hypothesis is simply wrong. We must then conclude that the chronophilia was not replacing or overriding preference by sex, but rather mostly limiting its scope to a particular age bracket. Then however it seems perfectly natural to talk of "homosexual chronophilia".
My point is that the redefinition of terms that is being attempted here (and it is a redefinition, the dictionaries here - including a medical one - do not make reference to age) relies essentially on a hypothesis. However, the data we are talking about here speaks against this hypothesis. It seems to me that in this situation it is unwarranted to require a change of vocabulary of people. Till proven otherwise, it sure looks as if the sexual abuses in the RCC were for the most part due to "homosexual chronophilia", i.e., a combination of preference for on one hand members of the same sex and on the other hand people in a particular age bracket (in this case minors around pubescence).
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Hello again, folks.
If it turn out that, as Honest Ron says, that the term "homosexual" is now generally regarded as referring exclusively to a sexual preference for adult males, then obviously many of my points fail to make sense. I can live with the ignominy of that. But I will point out that to the vast majority of people I know and whose stuff I read, that clear distinction between exclusively male ephebophilia and homosexuality is pretty much unknown or at least unrecognised.
Also, I accept that there will be all sorts of people with all sorts of preference quirks. But I'm still sceptical of claims that plenty people who are pretty much exclusively straight in their preference under standard operational conditions all of a sudden start getting attracted to sexual activity with members of their own sex when the other sex become unavailable. Some, for sure, but more than a smallish minority? Do prisons, for example, really provide a huge amount of evidence of that specific claim? I'm corrigible on this (it's an empirical hunch, after all), so I'm happy to consider the evidence.
Creosus would have to take up the (re-)definition of paedophilia with the John Jay researchers themselves. It has nothing to do with the Church (unless he wants to accuse them of unethical standards of partiality?).
Since I've inflicted so many of my hunches on you already I may as well not stint myself with this one: the ephebophilia/paedophilia distinction employed by the JJ researches makes sense to me, because people generally are hard-wired to respond with arousal to the signs of secondary sexual characteristics in others, but not to the absence of them. Many c. 11/12 year old boys and even more girls are beginning to display some of those characteristics. Thus a sexual reaction to them, although inappropriate in other ways, is not a "paraphilia" in the same way that sexual attraction to children who display no such signs is.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I agree that there are some such external factors, in particular "ease of access". But I consider it unlikely that these external factors are sufficient to explain the numbers. The disparity is just too massive. It would not have been nine times more likely that a boy remains alone with a priest...
Four time as likely, according to the somewhat problematic Jay Report. What's your source for the "nine times" citation?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Creosus would have to take up the (re-)definition of paedophilia with the John Jay researchers themselves. It has nothing to do with the Church (unless he wants to accuse them of unethical standards of partiality?).
If you read the link through in my previous post, you'll notice that the first half of my post is raising questions about the partiality of the Jay study. In short, if a report is almost wholly funded by Catholic groups, relies almost exclusively on data provided by the Catholic Church, and gives the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops a veto over ever publishing their study, I think sufficient questions exist over the "independence" of the report.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
What are you questioning here? The evidence submitted to the researchers or the spin the researchers gave it?
Do you really think that Church would risk trying to sollicit bias in a report from an independent set of academics? Or that said academics would "fix" the report to reach conclusions that better suited the Church but that weren't supported by the data? Really?
If so, the burden of proof is most definitely with you. If you haven't got the evidence to support such a claim you could always, you know, not smear them.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Chesterbelloc wrote quote:
But I'm still sceptical of claims that plenty people who are pretty much exclusively straight in their preference under standard operational conditions all of a sudden start getting attracted to sexual activity with members of their own sex when the other sex become unavailable. Some, for sure, but more than a smallish minority? Do prisons, for example, really provide a huge amount of evidence of that specific claim? I'm corrigible on this (it's an empirical hunch, after all), so I'm happy to consider the evidence.
I don't know about a huge amount of evidence, but it's usually called situational homosexuality. Wikipedia's brief intro may or may not help to find some reading matter.
But I think one of the problems is that "orientation" (as a concept) has migrated from the world of phenomenology - where it works very well for the most part - to become a thing in its own right in many people's minds. It has become reified. Situational sexuality seems to be a genuinely observable phenomenon - it's long been recorded in single-sex schools and prisons, though you need to beware of non-consensual power based relationships as Think² points out. The concept of orientation can't cope with that and scientifically ought to fall. It doesn't of course but it does at least serve to remind us that there are conceptual limits beyond which the idea should not be taken.
(Think² - ta for the input. I used the word "orientation" advisedly as it was the term used in a couple of the papers I read - this being four or five years ago. The point being made was that such paraphilias are as hard to dislodge as hetero- and homosexuality. But it's not something I would wish to quibble over).
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Fair enough, Ron. I wonder if a lot of it might be down to what the article you linked to called "pseudo-homosexuality" rather than "real" homosexuality, but really I'm out of my depth now.
But, granting for a moment the widespread occurence of the prison situational-homosexuality example, one pretty important difference I can see between all-male prisons and most priests' lives (at least those priests who have regular access to children and therefore including those who abused them) is that there is usually access to and contact with women too. Sexual contact with those women would still be in varying degrees difficult, of course, but their very presence is a major psychological/environmental difference that I would expect to make a corresponding difference to the "situational homosexuality" case.
Really, though, I'm so far from being an expert that I'm just running on instinct here.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What are you questioning here? The evidence submitted to the researchers or the spin the researchers gave it?
Mostly the spin put on it. The evidence submitted by the Church is a necessary component of any study with the intended scope of the Jay Report, but it doesn't seem like it would be sufficient. On the other hand, the researchers radically departed from the clinical definition of the phenomenon they were supposed to be studying and offered no explanation. That's a huge red flag right there.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Do you really think that Church would risk trying to sollicit bias in a report from an independent set of academics? Or that said academics would "fix" the report to reach conclusions that better suited the Church but that weren't supported by the data? Really?
Why wouldn't they? This is the reason research directly funded by pharmaceutical companies (for example), even if done by "outside" institutions, is subjected to higher levels of scrutiny than those performed by institutions with no connections to those affected by the outcome.
In this case, the Church seems to have been pleased enough with the Jay School's 2004 report to be a repeat customer, but not so pleased that they would authorize the release of the report without reading it first. The fact that the client maintains the power to trashcan your last five years of work can be a powerful influence on researchers to make sure that doesn't happen.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Fair enough, Ron. I wonder if a lot of it might be down to what the article you linked to called "pseudo-homosexuality" rather than "real" homosexuality, but really I'm out of my depth now.
But, granting for a moment the widespread occurence of the prison situational-homosexuality example, one pretty important difference I can see between all-male prisons and most priests' lives (at least those priests who have regular access to children and therefore including those who abused them) is that there is usually access to and contact with women too. Sexual contact with those women would still be in varying degrees difficult, of course, but their very presence is a major psychological/environmental difference that I would expect to make a corresponding difference to the "situational homosexuality" case.
Really, though, I'm so far from being an expert that I'm just running on instinct here.
Children are easier to control than adults, and less likely to confide in people who would take action. All the more so 30 years back. If you desperately need to keep your sex secret there's a debased logic to it. Also less chance of pregnancy.
Also - how likely would a male be to report a sexual assault he didn't fight off in times gone past ?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In the end, whether the perpetrators had a sexual prefernce for men over women or vice versa, or no adult sexual preference at all, they did seem to have a preference for pubescent boys over any age of girls; and given that, I don't see that it so very off the mark to call such a preference "homosexual".
I continue to be amazed at what you fail to see.
You are aware, I take it, that there are a large number of adult males, somewhere between 2 and 10 per cent of the population, who are attracted to men and self-identify as "gay" or "homosexual"? And that "homosexual" is a word common used as a fairly neutral desriptor of their sexual preference?
And you are aware that most of these men have never fucked an 11 year old boy, and would consider that this was about as wrong as most heterosexual men would consider sex with a similarly developed girl?
And you are aware that nonetheless it has been a persistent and cruel slander on gay men generally that they are predatory and not to be trusted around children?
And you are aware that your church, whose position you are seeking to explain, has been and still is consistently hostile, critical and unjust to these people?
And you really see no problem at all in choosing the word "homosexual" as the best one to describe child abuser within your church, and calling the problem as a "homosexual phenomenon"?
You could make any legitimate point you want to by sticking to the facts: most victims of this abuse are male. You could even speculate that there might be a problem with priests being specifically attracted to pubescent boys - that would be quite fair as an inference. You could use phrases like "same sex child abusers" for such people without the risk of being misunderstood. So why don't you?
There is absolutely no need, and no legitimate purpose to be served, by using, as a word to describe the sexuality of these abusers, exactly the same word as is much more commonly used to describe people whose sexual behaviour is nothing at all like that. There really is no reason to suppose that "homosexuals" (in the sense that everybody uses the term) are any more dangerous to children and young people than heterosexuals. "Homosexuals", in that sense, have, as a group, absolutely nothing to do with child abuse. Some individual "homosexuals" may also be abusers, but unless you are arguing that they are significantly more likely to abuse than the heterosexuals, homosexuality is an accidental feature of those individuals qua abusers.
If you are not intending to have a go at "homosexuals", why argue so hard in favour of the propriety of using their name to label a minority of depraved criminals? Do you really not see that this is a provocation?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Mañana, gentlemen.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
Well, it looks like this thread has died the death of 1,000 cuts, which is a pity, because I think it raised several important issues.
I'd wonder whether Squirrel, the originator, felt happy at the outcome or whether he felt he'd been adequately listened to or helped?
Perhaps it is time for Belle Ringer to start that other thread she mentioned.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
What? This is the homosexuals are pedophiles thread? I'm sorry I was looking for the Lost your faith in Catholicism thread. Or to put it less flippently. Shame. I thought the OP was really interesting.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Well, it looks like this thread has died the death of 1,000 cuts, which is a pity, because I think it raised several important issues.
I'd wonder whether Squirrel, the originator, felt happy at the outcome or whether he felt he'd been adequately listened to or helped?
Perhaps it is time for Belle Ringer to start that other thread she mentioned.
I suppose a problem may have been that a post originating in All Saints rapidly took on the nature of a purg. discussion and got transferred there (and subsequently here of course). But I think in the course of that discussion it became clear that there were a number of misapprehensions and misunderstandings from all manner of quarters, and when that happens it is inevitable that a tangent will develop until that is cleared up.
I don't know quite what you mean by cuts, but if those diversions have been cleared up it would be up to anyone to return to the OP. And I guess if the discussion returned to a nature more in tune with another board then a host might decide accordingly if it needed moving again. That's up to them.
However, wherever these things start, I think it inevitable that something that appears to be a misunderstanding could and should be challenged. Particularly sensitively in AS of course.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What are you questioning here? The evidence submitted to the researchers or the spin the researchers gave it?
Mostly the spin put on it.
Right. So what we need to hear from you is what precise spin you think has been put on it by the USCCB speicifically (since they commissioned the report) and why it is a distortion of what the report actually said - with quotes, please.
Also, let's hear the specific criticisms made by other professionals in the field of the report. What it would take to indicate the report was seriously flawed as a pieceof research would be a preponderance of opinion amongst such professionals that the methods, conclusions, etc. of the report were seriously flawed.
Having used JJ before in 2004 proves nothing - except that the USCCB expected their research to be taken seriously. Otherwise, why attempt an expensive whitewash (which is what you are suggesting they did) that would have no credibility?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Children are easier to control than adults, and less likely to confide in people who would take action. All the more so 30 years back. If you desperately need to keep your sex secret there's a debased logic to it. Also less chance of pregnancy.
Also - how likely would a male be to report a sexual assault he didn't fight off in times gone past ?
Agreed. But I would suggest that in most cases men who voluntarily and freely (and usually revocably) deprive themselves situationally of adult sexual contact would not normally be satisfied with child substitutes indifferently to thier sex.
Should we presume that, rather than quietly to seek laicisation/a discreet affair/sex-workers/etc., these priests' sex drives were so strong and flexible that chose to settle for a second-best and extremely morally risky alternative in children with whom they would otherwise not be sexually interested?
I think it far more likely that men who were not genuine paedophiles (i.e., who do not have a deep-rooted attraction to pre-pubescent children) would principally seek sex with children who were most like the people they would otherwise have sought sex from - i.e., adolescent youths of the sex they are most attracted to. Which is why I think there is a prima facie case for holding that a far higher percentage of the clerical abusers preferred sex with more-or-less sexually mature/maturing males than is average amongst the male population at large.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You are aware, I take it, that there are a large number of adult males, somewhere between 2 and 10 per cent of the population, who are attracted to men and self-identify as "gay" or "homosexual"? And that "homosexual" is a word common used as a fairly neutral desriptor of their sexual preference?
Why, yes I am.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And you are aware that most of these men have never fucked an 11 year old boy, and would consider that this was about as wrong as most heterosexual men would consider sex with a similarly developed girl?
I can easily believe that.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And you are aware that nonetheless it has been a persistent and cruel slander on gay men generally that they are predatory and not to be trusted around children?
Not from me it hasn't. I'd have thought that the popular prejudice would run to the effect that they were not to be trusted around late-adolescent boys, cetainly - but then many heterosexual men rightly deserve watching around late-adolescent girls. Reason for both: many men are attracted to those signs of sexual maturity in girl and/or boys which indicate physical readiness for sex/childbearing. That's biology for you. However, decent men can see a horrible moral wrongness in exploiting such younsters for sex, regadless.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And you are aware that your church, whose position you are seeking to explain, has been and still is consistently hostile, critical and unjust to these people?
No, I'm not aware of that. Indeed, although I know many of my co-religionists are likely to be slavering homophobes (there are over 1bn of us, after all), I do not think that the Church's actual teaching on human sexuality gives any support to that. Any more than it does to people who want to stone adulterers or butcher the genitalia of baby girls.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And you really see no problem at all in choosing the word "homosexual" as the best one to describe child abuser within your church, and calling the problem as a "homosexual phenomenon"?
I didn't: please withdraw that smear. As I've made abundantly clear, I think merely that there appears to be evidence that a disproportionate number of the abusers were "homosexual" in the sense that they seemed to prefer sexual conatact with males over females (which is a standard definiton of what homosexual actually means). Now, I could be wrong about that. But what I emphatically did not do was draw an obviously false and completely unjust equivalence between homosexuals and paedophiles. I'm getting a bit impatient about your slur that I did.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You could even speculate that there might be a problem with priests being specifically attracted to pubescent boys - that would be quite fair as an inference.
Actually, that's what I did.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You could use phrases like "same sex child abusers" for such people without the risk of being misunderstood.
That's the import of what I did actually say. Only I was using the term homosexual in precisely the same way as I would use the term heterosexual: to mean a label of sexual preference for a particular sex. See above what IngoB said about "homosexual chronophiles": that was the sense in which I was using the epithet.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Do you really not see that this is a provocation?
No, for precisely the reasons I give above.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I think merely that there appears to be evidence that a disproportionate number of the abusers were "homosexual" in the sense that they seemed to prefer sexual contact with males over females (which is a standard definiton of what homosexual actually means).
And it's that use which I think is wrong. I do not think that you ought to be using the word "homosexual" in that sense.
That you can offer an etymological justification ("same"+"sex") for it is beside the point. It's unnecessary, it's unhelpful, it's tactless, and it's unfair.
quote:
But what I emphatically did not do was draw an obviously false and completely unjust equivalence between homosexuals and paedophiles. I'm getting a bit impatient about your slur that I did.
I'm sorry for that - I do not mean to accuse you of any such thing, and I apologise that I didn't make that absolutely clear.
I'm criticising your choice of language. I'm not suggesting that you hate gays, or think that they are paedophiles, or equivalent to paedophiles. I have no reason to think that you personally at all bigotted or intolerant (and, having hung out on the Ship for six years or so, plenty of reason to think that you are generally reasonable and decent).
But I don't mind saying that using the word "homosexual" to describe an unusual and unpleasant sort of attraction really bugs me, because the primary meaning of "homosexual" in my experience is to refer to a sexual identity. It ought to be a mirror term for "heterosexual" but it isn't, because "heterophobia" isn't part of most straight people's experience, whereas homophobia is a daily reality.
If you referred to an adult man who liked raping girls as "heterosexual" then I'd think you'd missed the point a little - sure, he obviously has some sort of preference for female over male victims, but that's about the least significant detail of his sexual preference. You could (and, in practice most people probably would) talk about his offences and how to prevent them without using the word "heterosexual" at all, because it isn't in the least necessary to associate him verbally with the vast majority of heterosexuals who are not a bit like that. If you want a word for him "rapist" pretty much covers it. You might say "it looks like girls are especially at risk", I suppose, but there's no need to say more than that. It's the same with "homosexual" only more so, because you are then associating him verbally with a bunch of people who are not like him AND who have historically been badly treated and slandered in exactly that way.
So I am quite prepared to believe and trust that you are using "homosexual" simply to mean the broad category of sexual activity between persons of the same sex, young or old, legal or illegal, consensual or not, without intending that what is true of part of that category should be deemed true of the whole. I still wish that you wouldn't.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Fair enough, Eliab - and thanks.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Well, it looks like this thread has died the death of 1,000 cuts, which is a pity, because I think it raised several important issues.
I'd wonder whether Squirrel, the originator, felt happy at the outcome or whether he felt he'd been adequately listened to or helped?
Perhaps it is time for Belle Ringer to start that other thread she mentioned.
I suppose a problem may have been that a post originating in All Saints rapidly took on the nature of a purg. discussion and got transferred there (and subsequently here of course). But I think in the course of that discussion it became clear that there were a number of misapprehensions and misunderstandings from all manner of quarters, and when that happens it is inevitable that a tangent will develop until that is cleared up.
I don't know quite what you mean by cuts, but if those diversions have been cleared up it would be up to anyone to return to the OP. And I guess if the discussion returned to a nature more in tune with another board then a host might decide accordingly if it needed moving again. That's up to them.
However, wherever these things start, I think it inevitable that something that appears to be a misunderstanding could and should be challenged. Particularly sensitively in AS of course.
Fair enough, Honest Ron.
I think the problem occured when people tried to convince Chesterbelloc that there was not necessarily a nexus between homosexuality and clerical paedophilia.
Some of the explanations given could, I thought, have been couched in plain English.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0