Sad reign of the Father of Lies

It amazes me, when I look over listings of films from recent decades, that there apparently is great fascination with the diabolical. Exorcisms, Satanic cults, and other topics along those lines seem to have 'inspired' great interest. Well, those are not areas I would ever care to pursue, and I am not about to so much as speculate about areas such as demonic possession. The evil in this world is quite puzzle enough for one day.

Yet, all too often, it strikes me that the Father of Lies is alive and well, and very much at work. I certainly believe creation is basically good, but I see two highly dangerous tendencies, to which human nature is all too prone, which can wreak destruction on either a large or small scale. The classic picture of Satan has elements which don't need diabolical influence to reign in some hearts: deceit, and a perverse desire for power.

This is a 'light' example (just as a prelude), merely to illustrate an element of many people's natures which eluded me until, believe it or not, I was middle aged. (I possess many a weakness, indeed - but deceit is not my style and never was. As is true of many honest sorts, I tend to believe others tell the truth. And one wonders why I'm cautious about the philosophical principle of credulity today...) Sad but true - people often are all too ready to believe the worst about anyone else, whatever the source of the 'dirt,' and even if there is no truth in it at all. Of course, those skilled at deceit always be sure there is just enough element of truth for the lies to be believable.

When I first began maintaining my Internet site, I had a guest book - it was common equipment for most sites at the time. I enjoyed reading comments now and then, but eliminated the guest book quickly enough because it became too much of a bother to have to monitor and edit it daily. (This was in the infancy of the Internet, when nut cases did not sit at computers all night and spin tales, message boards did not yet exist, and mailing lists were composed mostly of people interested in topics, not in 'trolls' who took pleasure in causing trouble.) There was someone who repeatedly posted in my guest book that she was my daughter, and she'd go on with details of the tragic life she'd had since I'd abandoned her as a baby. I'm not suggesting she was wicked - she well may have been crazy, and I don't doubt that mine was one of many Internet spots where she told her bizarre story.

It is a ludicrous post, of course. I've never had children at all. Yet I neither wished to appear to be a writer on religious topics who'd been cruel and irresponsible to a 'daughter' (how could a reader know I'd never had one?), nor, much worse, have people who did know me assume this was the truth.

In my more naive days, I would have thought that anyone who knew me, and read such an accusation, would know it could not possibly be true. But think about it! Lots of people love to hear the worst of others - and, once they hear an accusation (be it of crime, defects of character, supposed craziness, a bad nature, whatever), not only will assume that they now know what Suchandsuch is really like, but will 'remember' various 'proofs' to substantiate the false claim. As an aside, it still puzzles me, and probably always will, that those who love spreading vicious lies (the really expert do it in a fashion that seems caring, troubled, or sad) often are very popular.

Often, it is small scale. Family members' lies about others (or even false suppositions) will be accepted as pure truth - especially if the speaker is older, or a parent of, the one being smeared. Those who smear their closest friends will be believed because it will be assumed that they know the person of whom they speak to an extent the hearer does not. But, as I mentioned in a previous post, When Did Privacy Become a Crime?, the mere fact of reserve can be taken as an undoubted way of shielding scandal or criminal behaviour!

Moving from the 'small scale' to the very serious, I am sure Satan is laughing aloud at the aftermath of the paedophile scandals in Boston some years ago. (No - I am not a paedophile, nor was I ever a victim of one - and I don't know a soul in Boston and have never even been there.) In reading of the incidents, I certainly was chilled by such sheer wickedness as that of Geoghan - a predator who targeted the young children of single mothers primarily. I was also very pained to see that, despite his having repeated incidents reported, there was no move to remove him from being in the company of children. But there is another, more subtle, work of the Liar from the Beginning, which has a wider scale and, overall, a destructive effect on far more people. First, if a priest who is completely innocent were to be accused of paedophilia, he would be assumed to be guilty even if there were not a trace of evidence. (The moment the accusation hit the media, I'm sure many people would remember, perhaps, that he once said hello to their kids in front of church...) If he were to be completely cleared in an investigation, it would be assumed that he was guilty and the church was 'covering up.' As well, priests in general are cut off from the work with others (not only children, though I knew many a kid to have great benefit from association with the clergy) which once had a large role in bringing the gospel message to others in a tangible fashion. There is a popular assumption that every priest is either a paedophile or shielded one.

Anyone who is expecting me to defend the likes of Geoghan, or to minimise the grave actions of those who actually did shield him or others like him, must be drinking perfume. Yet I can see elements which could have made bishops or superiors who were in good faith make honest mistakes which today can look like conspiracies.

When I read of the case in Boston and some others, it struck me that, even in the fields of psychiatry and criminal justice, in depth knowledge of paedophilia is very recent. Some paedophiles, priests or otherwise, who were returned to jobs in which they would deal with children had been pronounced 'cured.' True paedophiles (and sex criminals of all kinds) are often deceitful, charming, and capable of manipulating anyone - often including prison psychiatrists, parole boards and the like. Those who were in the priesthood (though they'd have only been a tiny percentage) would have had the violent criminal's ability to be a chameleon - sensing what mattered to others, and meeting the description. In a climate which so emphasised obedience and conformity, I've no doubt that they seemed models of both.

Sex criminals, contrary to notions which I still am amazed to hear, are not, for example, overwhelmed by a young girl's beauty or giving in to pressure coming from celibacy. (They normally are far from celibate. They've had sexual experience on every part of the spectrum, and often with more than one person at a time!) It is far from a weakness springing from attraction - it is an attack - a perverse need for power that those with no conscience will express in a fashion which involves degradation, terror, manipulation and so forth.

I've grown weary of the chestnut that Roman priests would not be paedophiles (...the number who are apparently is grossly overestimated) if they only could marry. Marriage is no cure for the situation - it only gives paedophiles kids of their own to torment, and wives to degrade with the weapon of that insufficient variety of acts is what makes the wives to blame for the crimes.

If bishops were clearly aware of crimes of this type, particularly multiple incidents, it is horrifying if they continued to keep the perpetrator in service. Yet I wonder if that often was the case. A singular, minor incident (were that all that was known) could be misinterpreted. Sadly, the still prevalent idea that this is a lapse in chastity rather than a violent crime could distort perspective (and this bearing in mind, as I mentioned earlier, that those in criminal justice and psychiatry did not understand the situation in any fullness until very recently.)

Most lapses in chastity are the result of human weakness. One could have had an affair with a woman (or man) and still be a good priest. It certainly is possible (and common) for people in any state of life to repent of fornication or adultery. The sin would need to be dealt with, of course, and I'm not denying the spiritual damage which would require much healing, or the other consequences which could arise. But such sins as fornication do not indicate perverse needs for power, violence and the like - nor does an incident of such an occurrence mean a continuing tendency. It is abuse of a normal inclination, not indication of the nature of a psychopath. Certainly, a priest who fell into fornication could have painful remorse as part of such repentance. The sex criminal will fake it brilliantly, but, where the idealistic and innocent could see his going on pleasantly as showing a great faith in divine mercy, the sad truth is that he has no conscience (or true remorse) at all.

Anyone, in any state of life, could have compassion on one who, for example, committed fornication and repented. Unfortunately, the violence of the paedophile could be mistaken for a lapse in chastity - perhaps because one supposed that little boys were more available or something along those lines.

Lies could keep violent criminals in business. They also can make perfectly good and innocent people suspect. (I believe Francis of Assisi was quite correct in placing destroying someone's reputation on a par with murder.) No wonder Satan always was called Father of Lies.

The sad part is that humanity does not at all need any preternatural beings to propagate lies - or to justify motives to themselves. Many of us can do that very well on our own.