Comments on: The “Unfairly Demonized” Church

By: Dimitri Cavalli

Dimitri Cavalli — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 07:28:27 +0000

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.

By: Bob G

Bob G — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:23:21 +0000

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.

By: Joe McFaul

Joe McFaul — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:15:54 +0000

“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?

By: John W. Martens

John W. Martens — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:27:00 +0000

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?

By: David Mills

David Mills — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:06:51 +0000

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 . . .”.

By: Bob G

Bob G — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:03:50 +0000

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.

By: John W. Martens

John W. Martens — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:53:56 +0000

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.

By: The Anchoress | A First Things Blog

The Anchoress | A First Things Blog — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:13:52 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: suek

suek — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:22:35 +0000

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…

By: David Mills

David Mills — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:56:51 +0000

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.