Is it any accident that the Risen Saviour greeted the Twelve with peace and words about forgiveness? His risen body still bore the wounds of the cross - He would suffer with his Church, much as he would remain with us, till the end.
Sad though the situations are, it is no sense ignoring them. These few links, and the other pages linked from them, can give those unaware some idea of the matters.
- Vatican turns its fire on the media - from The Tablet
- Archbishop of Canterbury sorry over abuse comments BBC News
- Cardinal Sean Brady says abusers cannot hide BBC News
- Vatican declined to defrock US priest who abused boys New York Times
Though this does not have to do with sexual abuse, coincidentally I recently was doing research about the industrial schools, Magdalene laundries, mother and baby homes, and other institutions the Catholic Church maintained in Ireland. (One of the reformatories was staffed by the congregation of Sisters who were my own teachers in childhood, though I know nothing of its operation. Several were staffed by the Good Shepherd nuns, whom I had long admired.) I believe that Dante may have reserved a section of hell for the practises of which I read. Yet it was clear that there were those who were more creating a purgatory - atonement for sin, to avoid punishment in the next life, and to prevent further offences on earth.
Without agreeing at all with many approaches, I could see (just from points of view to which I'd had exposure overall, not in relation to such institutions) how very complex they are. Punitive attitudes could be viewed as penitential - encouragement to remain in an institution for life could be intended to shield the 'fallen' from jeopardising salvation by being in occasions of further sin. Removing children from mothers who did not live in accord with Christian sexual morality was intended to protect the children's souls. A life of penance for the 'Magdalene' was atonement that would shield her from future sin and satisfy some supposed divine need for justice. Fear of being sent to institutions where the life was dreadful would be hoped to deter 'falling' - and kindness and support to, for example, unwed mothers was judged to encourage immorality. (I have noticed, and this with deep sadness, that the 'fallen' who were not criminals often ended up institutionalised because they received no love or support from their own families!) I hardly would justify the methods, but I can see very clearly how difficult it is to 'step into the shoes' of those who, probably with noble intentions (and a desire to present alternatives to the workhouse or prison), employed approaches that today would be seen as abusive and degrading. Children who had been sexually abused by outside acquaintances or family members (and who had to testify in court - not in a fashion such as would be the case today) would often have been warned not to say the dirty things that were done to them - as if the child were sinning in speaking of having been a victim of criminal violence.
Indeed, it is perfectly true that many people were subjected to abuse of some kind, whether sexual or otherwise. Yet the truth tends to be mixed with lies in perceptions. Those who dedicated themselves to staffing institutions, and this in a time when social services as we know them were unknown, had mindsets and methods which would make one cringe today, yet most of them were seeking to serve, to observe the gospels, and to care for the spiritual welfare of those in their charge. If I seem to be defending abuse, or even an image of a God who wants us to hate ourselves enough to become lovable, that is very far from true! My pain is in that the minority who were infected by hatred or power, and caused horrible damage, will be the ones who are remembered - and that those who were sincere will be tarred with that brush unjustly.
"Covering things up" would have devastating consequences. Those guilty of heinous crimes indeed inflicted permanent, devastating damage - and there are enough documented cases of when those in authority were guilty of effectively letting this run rampant by neglect of their own responsibility. Still, in times (not so far off, as I'll treat below) when there was not much known about certain crimes, the idea of keeping things secret to prevent scandal did have a basis, however the outcome can shock us now. Scandal often does turn people against the Church (if not the faith.) Things also escalate, and by no means only in relation to sex crimes. If someone, for example, were a missionary and later was found to have been guilty of stealing on a large scale, the tendency would be for headlines about this not to lead to "Suchandsuch was a thief" but "see, and that group pretended they cared for the poor, when they all were only looking for wealth and power."
++Rowan is a brilliant theologian, but (though I dislike Jansen just as much as Calvin...) undoubtedly opened wounds that go back for centuries in saying the RC Church in Ireland, faced with trying to survive despite the mistakes of the hierarchy, had lost its credibility. In relation to the US priest (who was terminally ill), Pope Benedict, then facing a dilemma, I'm sure, of how much Rome should interfere in a diocese, and perhaps seeing nothing to be favourable in defrocking a priest who was near death (and making huge headlines in the process), has to seem one step short of an accomplice. I dare-say that, had Cardinal Ratzinger defrocked the priest in Milwaukee, there would have been headlines of another sort - the big, bad, paternalistic Grand Inquisitor, with his European ways, having dared to meddle in the affairs of the "American Catholic Church." (For the record - there is nothing in canon law at all which prevents reporting criminals who are clergy to the police. In cases of dioceses, religious communities and the like, Rome rarely becomes involved on any local level - it is left to superiors and bishops.)
Satan's lies are so clever. (I'm speaking figuratively, yet mourning for the Church in total - those mentioned in the articles, other than the criminals of course, are often among the best of clergy.) They are lies mixed with truth to attack - and those who truly are devout can find they've had their noblest, most charitable instincts 'used' in the process. Perhaps my own great innocence and naivete are showing here, but I can easily imagine (before the details of paedophilia were known as they are now) that the re-assignment of one who seemed to be cured of his tendency was viewed as charitable and discreet.
I hope no one will mind my quoting from a post of my own, which I composed when a forum on which I participated then was discussing the Geoghan case, and ensuing scandal, which occurred in Boston. This follows here:
I was sure Satan was 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.
There are many examples one can give of how, in psychiatry, notions about molesters which were prominent only a few decades ago were mistaken. (And I'm not even referring to the presumption that those who really are celibates just have to be sick!) For example, parents whose daughters had been molested were not supposed to express horror - it was assumed that the girl must not feel 'guilty,' or she would be inhibited in her later sex life. The sad truth is that those subjected to such horrid abuse will have a host of problems, the least likely to be 'inhibition.' Those who were victims of such abuse may have an enormous drive towards violent, degrading sexual acts - the 'deviant' who would make others shudder not so long ago too often was horribly damaged as a childhood victim. They may never be capable of loving sexual relationships later, and those who are devout will have neither marriage nor enriching, loving celibacy as an option. They will face no choice except total continence with perverse drives always haunting them - and not only because of the abuse but the other sort of 'cover up' (where the horrors could not be admitted lest they feel 'guilt') - also flawed but well intentioned, and based on a way of thinking that was in accord with the 'wisdom' of science at the time. It isn't only those who are religious who can be mistaken...
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. True tragedies are enough to make our skin crawl, but we can blow these up into "everyone is this way," and it is then that the Father of Lies, appealing to our best nature and true convictions, has us in the palm of his hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment