A respondent on the English Catholic writer Damian Thompson’s Holy Smoke weblog quotes a useful passage from a recent book that defended Pope Benedict XVI from his detractors:
Others have noted that we live in a time of hysteria about paedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witch-hunts of 1692. … All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affections for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless, if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defence, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience).
The Roman Catholic Church has borne a heavy share of such retrospective opprobrium. For all sorts of reasons I dislike the Roman Catholic Church. But I dislike unfairness even more, and I can’t help wondering whether this one institution has been unfairly demonized over the issue, especially in Ireland and America. …
The writer goes on to warn against “the remarkable power of the mind to concoct false memories, especially when abetted by unscrupulous therapists and mercenary lawyers.”
The book? Professor Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (pages 315-316). The response with more of the quote appears in Professor Dawkins Discovers He Can’t Arrest the Pope.
April 15th, 2010 | 5:08 pm
Why won’t Professor Dawkins name those teachers who “overstepped” their bounds, including with him?
Why is he covering up for them? Maybe if he said something when he was in his 20s, he could have stopped further incidents.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:02 pm
Dawkins named one of his alleged abusers in an essay titled “Religion’s Real Child Abuse,” posted on his website in 2006.
According to Catholic News Agency, he:
‘speculated that instructing young people in the Catholic faith was worse than many kinds of physical abuse.
‘Discussing how sexual abuse can range in severity, he recounted a mild instance of molestation he suffered at nine years old.
‘For him the incident was “a disagreeable sensation” and produced a mixture of embarrassment and revulsion. However, in his view it was “certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire.”
‘“Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place,” Dawkins wrote.’
The essay says the abusive teacher in question committed suicide.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:28 pm
Dawkins has a good point: how bad really is sexual abuse such as we are now deploring? When I was young two different priests showed an interest in me I since recognized as sexual. Neither of them made a physical move but both came close. Had they done it would I have been traumatized? Probably not. I believe I would have fought back. Maybe they sensed that. Two such encounters not widely spaced showed me everything was not what it seemed. But I experienced no challenge to my faith–then or later.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:49 pm
The last thing we need is minimization of these acts which the above Dawkins piece does although someone needs also to say out loud that not every abused person in all these cases deserves: that essentially the laity hand them a very large monetary settlement unless they kept the receipts from the therapists. Today I saw pieces on a Cardinal who congradulated a French Bishop for not turning in a fellow priest and another article on the transferring of priests from country to country to avoid arrest. This is quite awful for seasoned Catholics and must be far more awful for converts.
April 16th, 2010 | 12:13 am
Dawkins doesn’t identify him by name. He just says he was the “Latin Master.” See http://richarddawkins.net/articleTrollComments,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins,page1
In “The God Delusion,” quoted in the post above, Dawkins writes that he had knowledge of teachers at all three of his boarding schools who were pedophiles. After he left these schools and became a young adult, couldn’t he have gone to the police or brought public attention to them? In 2004, the New York Times reported that sex abuse at British boarding schools–where many of England’s elites were educated–was widespread. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/world/11iht-abuse.html
All I am saying is that if Richard Dawkins wants to hold Pope Benedict XVI criminally responsible for failing to defrock abusive priests and do more to prevent abuse in past decades, then Dawkins’ own past conduct in the face of abusive teachers deserves to be scrutinized. Some people such as Rabbi Michael Lerner believe that 14-year-old Joseph Ratzinger should have refused entry into the Hitler youth.
April 16th, 2010 | 1:01 am
This attempt to minimize the impact of sexual abuse in this post is absolutely pathetic. First, you cite Dawkins, favorably it seems, and his belief that much abuse is concocted. This is a canard, a red herring. The discussion in the Church is not about false charges, it is about admitted abuse, of children and young teenagers. Abuse truly happened and still does happen. The Dallas norms have guidelines in place to deal with false accusations. In the same way that some adults can harm children sexually, other adults can lie, and bear false witness, but to suggest that sexual abuse of minors has not taken place is ridiculous. Is that Dawkins’ and, by extension, your claim? Is there truly a doubt that sexual abuse of children takes place? Or is it that it is nothing to get worked up about? Nothing to see here, move on, move on. Is this not the attitude that got the Church in trouble to begin with?
Then, Bob G. writes, “how bad really is sexual abuse such as we are now deploring? When I was young two different priests showed an interest in me I since recognized as sexual. Neither of them made a physical move but both came close. Had they done it would I have been traumatized? Probably not. I believe I would have fought back.”
A few observations for Bob G.: the sexual abuse of children can consist of a number of behaviors, some more physically painful for children than others, but all create a sense of shame, secrecy, and a loss of innocence. They are robbed of childhood and of the ability, as one of my clients told me long ago, “to choose when to have sex.” You say in your comment that “two different priests showed an interest in me I since recognized as sexual.” That is, at the time, whatever odd behaviors you experienced did not have a category by which you could have made sense of them since you were not a sexual being; only as an adult is it clear what might have been intended. Now think of a child who has sexual behavior imposed on them, accompanied with threats and maybe even physical violence, and demands of secrecy. What do they make of this behavior? You say, “Had they done it would I have been traumatized? Probably not.” Had they done what? If you had been raped you would not have been traumatized? If your innocence was stolen from you you would not have been traumatized? What if your head was smashed against a cement wall and your abuser said “I will kill you if you tell anyone”? Would that traumatize you? Finally you say, “I believe I would have fought back.” Many children fight back against sexual crimes, as do many adults, to no avail. Take a look at young children, perhaps your own, or perhaps your grandchildren. Do you really think children can “fight back” if an adult wants to harm them, especially when it is a trusted, beloved adult you have been told to respect and obey? “How bad really is sexual abuse such as we are now deploring?” I am not certain, how bad is rape of children by adults in positions of authority on your scale of “how bad is it”? Worse than a paper cut? Not as bad as taxes?
Bob G., your minimizing of what these children go through makes you a fool; I am so thankful, however, that you are a fool whom God preserved from being a victim who knows first hand “how bad it is.”
April 16th, 2010 | 8:15 am
Certainly the perception of child molestation has changed. I had two great uncles who were knows pedophiles. The whole extended family knew it and as little girls we were warned to never be alone with them. One of them ran a school in Cuba. My mother lived in his house as a young adolescent and her mother warned her (it was her mother’s brother) to be careful around him. But that was it. No police, no opprobrium. It was seen more as an eccentricity.
His wife and children were shielded from the knowledge. His grand-daughter is my cousin and good friend. I told her the whole story not long ago, as he died a few years ago and we were reminiscing. He used to take care of when she was little and her parents worked. She says she can’t remember any abuse.
Anyway, I think Dawkins is right. As every kind of sexual release and desire has become licit, the only one taken off the table has been pedophilia. This was very different before.
Has anyone here read Anais Nin? She wrote erotica that referred to little girls. I don’t think people found it criminal. Immoral, like the rest of her erotica, yes, but not criminal (child porn).
I think people need something to get all heated up about, sexually, and nothing else is off the table now. Maybe bestiality, but who wants to talk about that.
All my comments above are qualified by my unqualified assertion that anyone caught messing sexually with any of my 5 children will be shot on sight!!!!
April 16th, 2010 | 9:56 am
Mr. Martens: No, I wasn’t minimizing the effects of child abuse. What I was doing was pointing out that a man who is getting a great deal of attention for his desire to arrest the pope once had a more nuanced view of the matter, and that he once thought the Church has been “unfairly demonized” in the matter, as the title points out. That doesn’t imply anything about my view of the abuse.
April 16th, 2010 | 11:22 am
The media has done a job on us on this one. This article is worth reading – it points out that the majority of the cases were not pedophilia, but pederasty. Actually, he uses a different term, but I have a problem remembering it. The difference in the verbiage that I _do_ remember – pederasty – and the ones he uses is irrelevant. The difference between pedophilia and pederasty _is_ relevant. And of course, the reason for the switch in terms can be attributed to the ignorance of the writers – who use words to make their living – or deliberate deception. I know which one _I_ think it is…
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/media_blinders_on_the_church_a.html
The comments are very good too…
April 16th, 2010 | 1:13 pm
[...] Carter: Four Reasons You Might Be Aborted Crittenden: Not the rich, nor the powerful David Mills: the “unfairly demonized” church 7,500 shoppers: Sold their souls to the Devil, online The Aquinas Conquest What a picture!: Reminds [...]
April 16th, 2010 | 1:53 pm
David Mills,
I am glad for your response, but the fact that Richard Dawkins is wrong about wanting to arrest the Pope and once was wrong about the impact and reality of sexual abuse is not evidence of a “more nuanced view of the matter,” just of his own intellectual laziness. You might not support Dawkins view, but an entry like this, without proper context, begins to draw out the apologists for minimizing the impact of sexual abuse: “not that bad;” “majority of cases not pedophilia, but pederasty;” “I think Dawkins is right;” etc. The post has become the near occasion for minimizing on the part of others, so I apologize for not understanding your intention. Most of your commenters seem not to have either.
April 16th, 2010 | 2:03 pm
Mr. Martens: Well, if I had suffered any of the assaults you relate, I would have been traumatized. But what proportion of the revealed cases falls into those categories? Very few. Most of the cases I’ve heard of concerned nothing more than weirdos trying to “cop a feel.” As for my evaluation of the behavior at the time: I knew something odd was occurring but as yet had no name for it. But I don’t think I would have hesitated to blow the whistle. Neither of the priests ever came close to threatening me with harm, and probably were incapable of it. Probably most of the cases we’ve heard about fall into or near this category.
April 16th, 2010 | 2:06 pm
John Martens: You are probably right, but in writing these things one gets very tired of having always to say, “Now, I’m not saying that . . .”, especially when, as in cases like this, the idea that you were saying that seems (to you) unthinkable. Readers can be much too quick to assume ill motives and meanings, even sympathetic readers, so the writer should probably just say “Now, I’m not saying . . .”.
April 16th, 2010 | 2:27 pm
Bob G.,
Unfortunately, the cases I speak of in general are all based upon stories from clients with whom I have worked (most of them not abused by priests or clergy – see my entry at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=1&entry_id=2707 ). I am not certain how you know what proportion of clerical abuse falls into what category, but I would caution you against thinking that ongoing abuse like fondling is not highly damaging for the one being harmed. It is far harder than you might think to speak about this or report it, because the shame is so deep and profound, I think partly because even a child who does not have language for what is taking place knows instinctively that it is wrong. I assume you are Christian, so if you believe, as I do, that sex is intended for marriage between a man and a woman who give themselves to each other freely and in love, for the purposes of unity and procreation, how can this sort of behavior not damage the psyche and soul of a child, girl or boy, when it is not what God intended for them?
April 16th, 2010 | 4:15 pm
“What I was doing was pointing out that a man who is getting a great deal of attention for his desire to arrest the pope once had a more nuanced view of the matter, and that he once thought the Church has been “unfairly demonized” in the matter, as the title points out.”
Aer people entitled to change their minds when the situation is more extreme than they had been led to believe?
April 16th, 2010 | 4:23 pm
Mr. Martens: I don’t “know” the proportion, but I have read much about these cases (of priests) in the press and remember none that falls into the categories you described. No doubt “ongoing abuse” is very harmful to the victim. But as to how “this sort of behavior” [less than ongoing] can “not damage” the psyche and soul of a child, children who survive to age 15 have seen much that one would think very damaging and they still survive fairly well because they are resilient. Life is full of shocks and we have to get used to it fairly quickly.
April 17th, 2010 | 3:28 am
Yes, Mr. McFaul, people are free to change their minds about something when they get additional information.
But in the case of Richard Dawkins, we have a phony and a poser who is taking up the cause of abuse victims only to further his anti-religious agenda.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact