Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Friday Cats & Girl Tunes Previous entry: Nonviolence, Nonviolence

Just ‘cause Jesus is involved doesn’t make it not rape culture

ChoadsCrimeReligion

I feel like Captain Obvious pointing this out, but there’s so much confusion and defensiveness about religion and patriarchy out there, I’m going to have to say it: That there’s a bunch of rapist priests in the Catholic church and the Pope was involved in the cover-up should not be surprising.  The Catholic church is the classic example of what feminists like me like to call “rape culture”.  Rape culture crops up when male power over women and children is exalted, when sexuality is demonized, and when men are encouraged to think of women (and children’s) bodies as their property.  All these aspects of patriarchy aren’t only part of the Catholic church, they’re celebrated.  The exuberant love of male dominance that is the Catholic dogma is going to turn men into rapists who get a rise out of sexually dominated people they believe are lesser than them.

Duh.

But let’s take this argument one piece at a time, looking at the similarities between secular rape culture and Catholic teachings.

In a rape culture, women are assumed to be public property.  Rape culture never officially condones rape, but it condones the attitude that women exist to please men, and refusal from women to do so is bitchy.  Secular rape culture is Nice Gusy® talking about women’s sexuality as something that’s handed out as a reward for good behavior.  Rape culture is men thinking they have a standing right to interrupt what women are doing and hit on them, and that women who reject them straightforwardly are bitches.  Rape culture is men telling strange women on the street to smile. 

In secular rape culture, women are presumed up for sex with anyone who asks unless they make a big display of how not into they are.  In rape culture, victims are chastised for what they were wearing, what party they went to, drinking, and even going on dates, which rape culture teaches is basically a yes to sex with whoever demands it.  In rape culture, what women say they want is not considered relevant data, not compared to what they were wearing or drinking.

The Catholic church also teaches that women exist to serve men and do not have the right to say no.  A sexually active woman has no right to say no to any sperm that decide to set up shop in her uterus.  Catholic women are taught their bodies and their sexualities don’t belong to them, but that these things exist solely to produce more and more babies.  You not only are assumed to have a standing invitation to baby-making if you’re sexually active, but they don’t even give you the slim technical right to say no that secular rape culture gives you.  But really, the main difference between the two versions of rape culture is that the secular one believes that women have to take all comers, penis-wise, and the Catholic one believes this about sperm.


Rape culture demonizes sexuality.  This was the big idea underlying Yes Means Yes, and I think it’s a valid one.  It’s clear that secular rape culture demonizes female sexuality.  Rape apologists argue that women are dirty sluts but ashamed of their slutty behavior, so they “cry rape”.  Rape culture looks the other way when men use sex to humiliate women, from cat calling to men talking trash about female bodies to score points with friends.  Rape culture also demonizes male sexuality.  While officially condemning rape, rape culture portrays male sexuality as inherently mean-spirited, aggressive, and out of control.  No distinction is made between a desire to fuck a woman and a desire to humiliate and overpower her.  Rape culture is one where men who have consensual sex with women are encouraged to see it as somehow getting one over on her.  Rape culture talks about men “scoring”, as if women are the opposing team, and while overt force is officially condemned, rape culture thinks it’s cute when men try to overcome women’s opposition to intercourse through lies and other forms of coercion.

Needless to say, the Catholic church completely agrees that sexuality is shameful and dirty.  When you think of sex as a bad thing, it’s a short leap to seeing it as a way to dominate and hurt others, including children.

In a rape culture, there is more concern for the well-being of rapists and male dominance than for victims of rape.  Frat boy or athlete or esteemed member of any male-dominated subculture—-which is most of them—-rapes a woman.  Immediately, the system moves to protect the rapist and condemn the victim. It happens over and over.  The victim is accused of lying, being crazy, or blowing this out of proportion.  The man’s importance to his community is trotted out as a reason he shouldn’t be punished. 

Apparently, the Catholic church doesn’t venture from this script one bit.

It’s important as this scandal continues to go on that we talk about this using the term “rape”, because “child abuse” just doesn’t cut it. This is a subtle but important issue.  Rape culture is less a result of female oppression per se, and more the result of the exaltation of male dominance.  Men are encouraged to see dominance as the defining trait of masculinity, and since sexuality is tied up in our gendered images of ourselves, sex itself becomes an expression of male dominance for some men.  Raping and harassing is exciting because it makes you feel powerful, and more like a real man.  Rapists have different preferences for who they like to rape, but whether or not a rapist prefers to assault children, women, or other men, he is raping to get access to that specific thrill. 

Rape culture specifically likes to make big distinctions between different kinds of rape.  Part of this is innocent enough—-attacking children is a special kind of horror, after all.  But when we put rape of women in one category and rape of children in another and rape of men in another, we’re discouraging people from seeing the connections.  But there is a line between tolerating the abuse of women and tolerating the abuse of children.  In a culture where male sexuality is assumed to be domineering and debasing, then some men will, for various reasons, skip right past raping women on to raping children. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 06:34 PM • (112) Comments

I’m sure we can all join Dana in the fine sentiment that rape culture is “deeply disappointing.”

Tsk.

Tsk.

Tsk.

Comment #1: Gracchus.  on  03/25  at  07:43 PM

You just hate Catholics because they’ve found Jesus.  :-p

In all seriousness though, there’s a certain level of sexual misconduct that’s primed into any situation where you’ve got a bunch of pre-adolescent boys crammed into closing living space together, all overseen by a bunch of celibate old men.  The very idea that you’re going to stock an insulated boarding school full of sexually repressed teenagers and sexually repressed adults and NOT get people acting out is absurd.

This isn’t to say it’s permissible, but it’s the sort of powder keg that requires that much more transparency and oversight - two things the Catholic Church has shown itself to be absolutely allergic to.

The entire Catholic Church has been rigged to explode like this ever since the original evangelical, Paul, ran around the Mediterranean Sea telling everyone to keep it in their pants.  You’ve got closeted homosexuals and sexual predators going straight back 2000 years.  I think a large part of the untold story in this scandal was that this sort of thing isn’t new at all.  It’s just that only now has this kind of sexual abuse become socially unacceptable in more than name only.

Comment #2: Zifnab25  on  03/25  at  07:48 PM

I think it’s probably missing the mark to blame celibacy.  That falls right into the myth that rape is the natural result of an naturally aggressive male sexuality.  Rape is generally more about power than sex.  Or, more specifically, it’s a sexual thrill rooted in the act of rape itself, the act of hurting and overpowering someone you perceive as inferior.  It’s not just out of control horniness.  Most men get really horny sometimes, but most men do not rape.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/25  at  07:55 PM

I think that while the messages being sent by the hierarchy aren’t that great, that in general, Catholic (well, mostly ex-Catholic) men I have dated have been more respectful of women and more liberal than evangelicals.  Also, I would disagree that women don’t have the right to say no—abstinence, even in marriage, is considered a good thing.  I have never heard of Catholic clergy preaching that the ladies aren’t giving it up enough in marriage, or that they should subordinate themselves to their husbands, and Catholics have a lower divorce rate than just about anyone but Atheists, so . . .

I guess what I’m trying to say is I think you are dead on about the power structure and the messages it sends (with the exception of the pro-abstinence-in-marriage quibble) but for whatever reason, most American Catholics, even practicing ones (at least in this country) have the luxury to ignore that shit.

But that doesn’t absolve them of responsibility (I say them because I no longer practice.)  At some point, no matter what you or your parish does, if you are supporting a corrupt structure that is causing harm and repressing people, you gotta take responsibility for that.

Comment #4: Ismone  on  03/25  at  07:55 PM

Your reading of Paul isn’t quite right. Paul tells believers to keep it in their pants if they can, but if they can’t, then get married and get it overwith so that they can move onto more serious business. It’s important to put Paul into context; Paul believed that the world was actually ending right around him. His point was not to create a long-term culture of sexual repression. He was just saying to not waste time with fucking right now because the world is actually ending. So if you accept his premise, then it’s actually not such a horrible thing.

Paul’s premise has been, of course, proven wrong, and the world didn’t end. I’m just saying that Paul’s intention was not to create a community of people who are sexually repressed for their entire lifetimes. Paul did not hate sex. He just had bigger fish to fry.

Comment #5: TheJimmy  on  03/25  at  07:56 PM

But otherwise, I agree that the organizational issues made this inevitable.  Religion teaches morality comes from religion, and so the assumption is that the more religious you are, the more moral you are.  But morality doesn’t come from religion, or else you’d be facing an atheist rape ring.  Not that atheists are incapable of raping, of course.  It’s just that there’s no real connection between religion and morality; you have plenty of moral atheists and immoral religious people.

Comment #6: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/25  at  07:57 PM

Also, I would disagree that women don’t have the right to say no—abstinence, even in marriage, is considered a good thing. 

Well, they believe women can say no to penises, but not to sperm. Secular culture just reverses it, but the point is the same—-women are to submit to male power.

And obviously, there are good religion people.  But I think that’s despite, not because, of their investment in patriarchal religions.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/25  at  07:59 PM

The entire Catholic Church has been rigged to explode like this ever since the original evangelical, Paul, ran around the Mediterranean Sea telling everyone to keep it in their pants.  You’ve got closeted homosexuals and sexual predators going straight back 2000 years.  I think a large part of the untold story in this scandal was that this sort of thing isn’t new at all.  It’s just that only now has this kind of sexual abuse become socially unacceptable in more than name only.

This is an excellent point, but the sexual predation isn’t entirely untold—the papal courts of Alex. VI (AKA Rodrigo de Borgia) and other Renaissance pontiffs are well known for enabling and even approving of rape culture. But whether the rape culture is out in the open or hidden, it’s made possible by the constant of the organisation’s authoritarian and highly exclusive hierarchical structure, and the built-in rigging you mention.

Comment #8: Gracchus.  on  03/25  at  07:59 PM

Good point.

Although the Catholic Church is also anti turkey-baster, so the sperm loving is probably tied up with some good old phallocentrism.

Comment #9: Ismone  on  03/25  at  08:00 PM

Absolutely.  To me, it’s obvious phallic worship.  It’s a church that officially believes women are inferior to men, even if they don’t state it that way.  Women can’t be clergy.  Clergy can’t pollute themselves through sexual contact with women.  Women are cast, over and over, as ground for men to sow seed on.  The increasing attention the church is paying to sexuality issues is alarming.  They’ve made it clear that male dominance is their true religion—-they put it before the mission to help the poor, everything.

Comment #10: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/25  at  08:04 PM

Amanda-

I don’t know if you saw this on Jezebel on Monday. 

http://jezebel.com/5499094/the-secret-world-of-men-a-pickup-artists-assistant-tells-all

It’s an insider’s account of a woman who worked as an assistant to a pick-up artist.  Ugly, predatory stuff.

On topic of Catholic Church abuses, just this week in my state (KY) we’ve had one priest de-frocked and another entering a guilty plea for sexually abusing 2 boys (and, of course, being transferred from parish to parish for the last 30 years). 

Priests are a particularly sick lot abusing their positions of both authority and trust.  Also, by sexualizing young boys before they are mature enough to determine their sexuality (straight? gay?) and before they can form consent can result in sexual confusion in addition to all the usual damage that results from the abuse.

Comment #11: Jinx  on  03/25  at  08:07 PM

I think it’s probably missing the mark to blame celibacy.  That falls right into the myth that rape is the natural result of an naturally aggressive male sexuality.  Rape is generally more about power than sex.  Or, more specifically, it’s a sexual thrill rooted in the act of rape itself, the act of hurting and overpowering someone you perceive as inferior.  It’s not just out of control horniness.  Most men get really horny sometimes, but most men do not rape.

We’re not talking about, in the main, male-on-female rape.  We’re talking about the sexual exploitation of children they already have power over; rape not as an assertion of power, but as an expression of power. I think celibacy does indeed play a role; it warps their sexuality and makes expressing it through exploitation more likely.

Consider - other churches have these problems, but do churches where the clergy are married face as many predators in their ranks, esspecially those who prey on kids?

Comment #12: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/25  at  08:35 PM

Right on.  Kindly-catholics-we-all-know aside, the church is a cesspit.  Child rape at the hands of clergy, among any number of other anti-human activities, will not stop until enough people of conscience (and/or basic reasoning and/or resistance to cultural indoctrination) get your message into their heads and walk away from this corrupt, disgusting, barbaric institution.  It’s way past time.

Comment #13: Jad  on  03/25  at  08:35 PM

The man’s importance to his community is trotted out as a reason he shouldn’t be punished.

Exhibit A:  That priest who asked Ratzinger to give him a pass so he could live out the last of his priesthood/life in “dignity.”  Justice for the abused means shit to them.

Consider - other churches have these problems, but do churches where the clergy are married face as many predators in their ranks, esspecially those who prey on kids?

Dan Savage does a running blog post series, “Youth Pastor Watch.”  Anecdotally, I’d say other churches have lots of problems with predators; the difference seems to be that those churches don’t have the same moral authority or legal/political/social power to shut up the victims.

Comment #14: keshmeshi  on  03/25  at  08:58 PM

Paul did not hate sex. He just had bigger fish to fry.

>

Paul said “it’s better to marry than to burn”. The man thought sex was inherently sinful and encouraged peopel to actively avoid it. not because he thought the world was ending but because he was a sexual neurotic freak who thought that pleasure itself was evil. No amount of context changes that.

Sorry, but reinterpreting that bronze age death cult through a modern, compassionate, non death loving lens doesn’t make it any less of a bronse age death cult.

And I don’t mean to sound like I’m attacking you personally. But That Religion itself is a sickening, perverse death cult that has twisted up generations of people into self loathing, self destructive superstition. The tree was rotten from the seed.

Comment #15: Ross Lincoln  on  03/25  at  09:05 PM

I’m willing to place lots of the blame on celibacy. Not because celibacy makes people rapists, but because it attracts people with sexual issues. They turn to the church and celibacy in order to avoid dealing with their sexual feelings, and those feelings wind up being trapped in an undeveloped adolescent state. Then instead of those urges growing into adult feelings, and the person learning how to deal with their feelings in a mature way, their whole world gets twisted into a perverse combination of an adolescent power-trip fantasy combined with the real-world power you get from being a priest.

Celibacy doesn’t cause the problem, but it is certainly a major component.

Comment #16: Improbable Joe  on  03/25  at  09:05 PM

jesus, I swear I’m at work, and the typos are caused by haste.

Comment #17: Ross Lincoln  on  03/25  at  09:05 PM

I have a serious question about celibacy. I myself am no proponent of celibacy. I think it’s basically the most anti-life thing someone can do. That said, I’m curious about whether or not it actually has any relation to the Catholic church’s insane child rape problem. The church isn’t the only large religious organization that requires celibacy from it’s chief organizers. Do we see a similarly widespread problem with officially sanctioned (or if you prefer, not officially acknowledged nor actively punished and prevented until it’s impossible to do anything other than) child rape or other forms of sexual assault in other religions traditions big on celibacy?

My point is that correlation does not = causation. Maybe the problem isn’t celbacy (which, again, I think is basically a bad, bad thing), but a religion that encourages sickening sexual neurosis as a positive good, and one that celebrates rape culture at that.

Case in point: There are other derivatives of the Abrahamic religion that have similar problems with child rape (cough mormonextremistscough) and don’t have celibacy rules.

Comment #18: Ross Lincoln  on  03/25  at  09:16 PM

I think there’s something else going on, or something additional.  The Catholic Church is very much an authoritarian hierarchy with great rewards accruing to older, more important, priestly males.  Those rewards are both social/cultural (high status) and material (great wealth, political power).  To get those rewards someone else, lower down in the hierarchy, has to give something up—up the ladder of the hierarchy.  Sometimes its money, sometimes its respect, and sometimes its sexual submission.

When you read the various excuses the Church has offered its pretty clear that what stands out like a red flag to a normal, outside person—they raped and abused hundreds and thousands of children, male and female—is actually very far down on the list of things the church thinks is a problem.  They have always approached the acts of their own priests firstly from a publicity standpoint: will it bring “scandal” on the Church as a whole? and secondly with a model in which the priest is seen as a “sinner” who has sinned not against the children, or the parish, but against the male corporate priesthood and its status.

I don’t think ideas of female sexuality even enter into this. For the Church, the issue is that *male sexual pleasure* and overt companionship is something that the male priesthood was forced to give up.  Whatever they did to satisfy themselves sexually was both definitionally transgressive and also rather expected and tolerated as long as it didn’t “Frighten the horses” or rather rock the boat, to mix my metaphors, and disturb the Church’s most important relationship—that is with church property.

Priests were forbidden to marry because the Church didn’t want to risk squabbling with the priesthood over inheritances, or allow churches and benefices to become privately owned.  Illicit, secret, and inappropriate sexual relations were only problematic, in the Church’s eyes, when they infringed on tithing and ownership of property.

I think that sexually abusing children was seen as a perfectly reasonable “out” for male sexual drives because children didn’t matter because they were low on the social hierarchy.  Women, also low on the social hieararchy, were more dangerous and more to be avoided because of the danger of pregnancy, heirs, and public scandal.

aimai

Comment #19: aimai  on  03/25  at  09:28 PM

Improbable Joe -

Andrew Sullivan posted an interesting take that agrees with you earlier today.

[I]magine you are a young gay Catholic teen coming into his sexuality and utterly convinced that it’s vile and evil. What do you do? I can tell you from my own experience. You bury it. But of course, you can’t bury it. So you objectify sex; and masturbate. You cannot have sexual or even emotional contact with a teenage girl, because it is simply impossible, and you certainly cannot have sex with another teenage boy or you will burn in hell for ever ... so you have sex with images in your own head. Your sex life becomes completely solitary.

Many of these tormented men have arrested sexual and emotional development. They have never had a sexual or intimate relationship with any other human being. Sex for them is an abstraction, a sin, not an interaction with an equal. And their sexuality has been frozen at the first real moment of internal terror: their early teens. So they tend to be attracted still to those who are in their own stage of development: teenage boys. And in their new positions, they are given total access to these kids who revere them for their power.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/sin-or-crime.html#more

The Catholic Church has proven itself to be a really effed-up institution,as one would expect from any institution with as little diversity as it has.  No women, no married men, no men with children and precious few lay voices does not a healthy institution make.  Add in the fact that it is an institution full of people who know “The Truth” and the disaster that is unfolding has been in the making since the church’s inception.

The lack of diversity in people and life experiences seems to have created a super-concentrated rape culture.  Even in our current culture, most men deal with some women they view as individuals - friends, co-workers, sisters, wives.  Members of the clergy are often insulated even from that. 

Priests also do not have children, so there is no one in the room acting as a parent.  A priest’s life is often so far removed from normal human interactions it is no wonder some of them act out and the rest cover for the rapists.

Comment #20: Kineslaw  on  03/25  at  09:31 PM

I have a serious question about celibacy. I myself am no proponent of celibacy. I think it’s basically the most anti-life thing someone can do. That said, I’m curious about whether or not it actually has any relation to the Catholic church’s insane child rape problem.

Improbable Joe nailed the issue above. Celibacy attracts people wrestling with all sorts of sexual demons because it seems like an easy way out, but it’s difficult to bottle up such urges even for the well-meaning. Combine that with the sort of authoritarianism that breeds a sense of entitlement and exceptionalism among the in-group, and add in a generally sex-negative attitude grounded in misogyny, and the outcome we see is no surprise.

What all this comes down to is that the authoritarian and exclusive structure of the RCC makes some sort of abuse and corruption almost a given. The Church has had its bejewelled fingers in plenty of financial and political pies over the centuries, and consorted with some extremely shady characters and enabled some truly monstrous ones. The celibacy requirement essentially creates conditions for a particularly horrible variety of abuse of power.

Do we see a similarly widespread problem with officially sanctioned (or if you prefer, not officially acknowledged nor actively punished and prevented until it’s impossible to do anything other than) child rape or other forms of sexual assault in other religions traditions big on celibacy?

Looking at Buddhism, which is the only one that comes to mind, there are different factors at work. First, it mainly operates in non-Western societies, where there’s still often great stigma attached to a victim of child abuse “coming out” and naming his abuser. So if, as seems likely, a celibate priesthood there is as much a haven for paedophiles and closet cases as is the RCC, it may be that the culture isn’t yet as forthcoming regarding abuse as is Western (and particularly North American) culture.

Also, Buddhism is, like most other religions, far less centralised than Roman Catholicism, so the authority of a Buddhist priest is not quite the same as that accorded to a Catholic one. Buddhist monks (i.e. those Buddhists most likely to be celibate) also tend to be more cloistered than a Roman Catholic clergyman, with fewer laity targets at which they can aim abuses. If there’s any paedophilia, it’s more likely to occur in the controlled, hierarchical and isolated environment of a monestary.

In fact, religion aside, that’s exactly the kind of environment in which any form of child abuse thrives. The Catholic Church is like a big dysfunctional multi-generational household, complete with abusers, enablers and victims. And like an abusive household, everyone tries as much as possible to “keep things within the family.”

Comment #21: Gracchus.  on  03/25  at  09:47 PM

You know, we can debate here forever the causes of this Catholic Church Clusterfuck, what Paul said, blah, blah. 

But what I want to know is why, when we have names of many of these criminals and their whereabouts, almost NONE of these people are being arrested and charged - whether the perpetrators, but especially the enablers.  Last time I looked, aiding and abetting is a CRIME. THIS I do not get in all of this God-awful (truly) mess. I won’t be satisfied until the Pope himself is led out of the Vatican in handcuffs. WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT BEING ARRESTED?  Can the parents and guardians and victims or even advocates or activists make citizen’s arrests?  Go to the to the DA’s office (or it’s equivalent in other countries) to get them to issue warrants? ANYTHING? Statute of Limitations surely can’t apply in all cases, can they?

What the fuck is going on? What am I not getting here?

Comment #22: Kathy  on  03/25  at  09:49 PM

aimai - I agree.  When we covered the catholic church in history classes, we always came back to the same point: the Pope is supposed to be a religious figurehead, but functionally, he was one of the most influential heads of state around.  Electing a particularly holy man tended to fuck things up for a while (they tried); electing a man with good money sense, personal connections to men who could and would defend them on the battlefield, and some administrative skills, usually worked out best.

I think it’s probably missing the mark to blame celibacy.  That falls right into the myth that rape is the natural result of an naturally aggressive male sexuality.  Rape is generally more about power than sex.  Or, more specifically, it’s a sexual thrill rooted in the act of rape itself, the act of hurting and overpowering someone you perceive as inferior.  It’s not just out of control horniness.  Most men get really horny sometimes, but most men do not rape.

Unfortunately, the type of celibacy preached by the church isn’t simply the opposite of an active sex life—it’s a twisted, judgemental version of a sex life, and it prizes sexual ignorance.  It’s not that priests are taught to be celibate.  With the goal of celibacy, they’re taught to hate, fear, and avoid sex, and that doesn’t leave any room to take a look at what desire is actually like, and how to work with it, and how to live with it.  They’re not training sexually healthy individuals who choose to abstain, they’re training sexually sick individuals to pretend that that sickness is real health and the rest of the world is deluded.  Some people get through that training having absorbed enough good stuff to counteract the bad, but it sure isn’t weighted in their favour.

Comment #23: fluffster  on  03/25  at  09:52 PM

I’ll say something else, and I hope no one takes it the wrong way: some of my earliest sexual fantasies, long before I understood what the feelings were about, were probably sort of rape-based. We’re talking 10-12 years old here, where in real life I didn’t have any control over anything. The idea of dealing with sexual feelings, let alone actually having sex, was just terrifying. I guess the idea of sex I had at that point boiled down to “I can barely control this animal, so you’d better just stay still and not move or do much and let me do what I can to relieve myself of these feelings now.”

Seeing females as a way to release the pressure of sexuality, and not seeing them as people, makes a certain amount of sense at that point. As a child, those ideas are probably natural. Some of those priests are probably so overwhelmed that they join the priesthood to avoid it. Most of the rest of us guys grow the hell up, date a few chicks, have sex and realize that it isn’t the biggest deal in the world. We integrate those feelings into the larger picture of who we are. Priests? Not so much.

Instead they sublimate and get all twisted up, and instead of experiencing that integration of sexuality that is a part of emotional maturity (the same way adults don’t punch people when someone makes them mad, and children do), they and the whole Church have created this bizarre fantasy world where children in adult bodies live out their weird childhood power fantasies… funny costumes and all.

Comment #24: Improbable Joe  on  03/25  at  09:52 PM

Amanda @ #3 on this.  I’m not so sure on this - I’ve seen the enforced celibacy “act out” in three ways - one is, of course, the pedo-hebophilia. The second is affairs - as far as I’ve seen straight - though I’d bet that’s because a same sex affair is easier to hide in the rectory - hey, they’re supposed to be living with other guys anyway, right?  The last is suicide and depression.  And I mean horrendous depression.  Our priest-in-the-family suffered horribly from it, especially as he retired and aged, to the point where he wanted to hang around with family, because it was OK have physical contact - like hugs - from brothers, sisters and cousins.  I mean, it was really so, so, sad.  Can you imagine living like that - wanting some sort of intimacy and not being able to get it legitimately?  At one point, IIRC, orders would even try to assign priests rather distant from family - like the army and cults, they really wanted to break those ties - bastards.

Comment #25: phylosopher  on  03/25  at  10:00 PM

With the reports that a Papal Gentleman was arranging the sexual rent of choir singers and seminarians (and remember, young men can enter catholic seminary much younger than they would typically start toward an establishment protestant ministry) I think one should also consider situating the current problem in a cycle of abuse. We don’t know how many abused altarboys and choirboys became priests over the centuries. But once such a culture of corruption was established, the detailed power relations and sexual dynamics that got it going may have become almost irrelevant. The people drawn to the priesthood would be mostly people who fit into that culture.

Comment #26: paul  on  03/25  at  10:05 PM

Keshmeshi, IIRC, many non-catholic churches hire their pastors/ministers - that’s a helluva difference in the power structure.  ANd most prefer married ministers - as a matter of fact, I’m not sure if I’ve ever met an unmarried one- don’t think so.  The result there is that if a minister behaves improperly, he or she loses not only job, but often family home and hearth as well since the pastor’s house (vestry or rectory)  comes with the position.

Comment #27: phylosopher  on  03/25  at  10:10 PM

Yeah—gotta join in with the “it’s the celibacy” group. There are plenty of asexuals out there who are completely normal folk… they have nothing in common with people who are sexual beings who have been forced into complete celibacy, especially under a heavy blanket of shame. An asexual can still kiss, hug, and cuddle with their partner: priests are not even given the comfort of those basic human contacts. The most intimate acts that priests partake in with other people is to sit in a booth with a screen dividing them from the other person and listen to the other person talk about how bad they are and then tell them to go and recite prayers. They aren’t allowed to have *any* physical intimacy at all, and it is an exceedingly rare person who desires to go through life without any meaningful human contact at all. What that can do to a person in the long term is chilling.

I’m tempted to point out that, vis-a-vis the Catholic Church and Rape Culture, considering how the Catholic Church is one of the oldest institutions in Western Society which is a Rape Culture, we might be arguing Chicken/Egg here.

Comment #28: Mighty Ponygirl  on  03/25  at  10:17 PM

’m willing to place lots of the blame on celibacy. Not because celibacy makes people rapists, but because it attracts people with sexual issues. They turn to the church and celibacy in order to avoid dealing with their sexual feelings, and those feelings wind up being trapped in an undeveloped adolescent state. Then instead of those urges growing into adult feelings, and the person learning how to deal with their feelings in a mature way, their whole world gets twisted into a perverse combination of an adolescent power-trip fantasy combined with the real-world power you get from being a priest.

Celibacy doesn’t cause the problem, but it is certainly a major component.
Comment #16: Improbable Joe on 03/25 at 07:05 PM

OK, if you’ve read my other posts, you will know I’m a recovering Catholic who wouldn’t allow a priest within reach of my kid period.  But, I’m not sure about the “attracting people with sexual issues.”  I presume it’s changed recently, but from the early 1900’s on, there was and in some rituals of the RCC, like infant baptism, continues to be a “brand’em while they’re too young to know otherwise” mentality.  So in years past, and probably well into the ‘70’s, priests were Catholic grade school raised (where they may have been molested) then Catholic seminary prep (another breeding ground for rape and totally male peers) and then seminary.  Add to that indoctrination a devout parent who “kept an eye” on the the kid never having any real experience - holy shit - they never get to figure ANYTHING out about their sexuality.  What I’m tryign to say is the RCC doesn’t attract’em, it creates them.

Comment #29: phylosopher  on  03/25  at  10:18 PM

What I’m tryign to say is the RCC doesn’t attract’em, it creates them.

That’s fair, but not all Roman Catholics “branded” that way want to become priests and nuns. The vocation’s requirement of extreme celibacy makes it appear to be a haven for those with sexual issues, especially when the “sexual issues” like homosexuality wouldn’t be considered such except for the encouragement of the Church.

Comment #30: Gracchus.  on  03/25  at  10:23 PM

“ANd most prefer married ministers - as a matter of fact, I’m not sure if I’ve ever met an unmarried one- don’t think so.”

The minister’s wife typically functioned as the administrative functionary and usually as the organizer for women’s outreach and children’s worship.  If you hire an unmarried minister, you have to pay less (you’re supporting one dude rather than a family), but you get way less.

Comment #31: preying mantis  on  03/25  at  10:33 PM

What the fuck is going on? What am I not getting here?

You’re absolutely correct, but you’re missing a few factors that the Church exploits:

1. National sovereignty: if you’re high up in the Church hierarchy, you can carry a Vatican passport. And being a foreign national is a powerful thing, especially if the nation-state is also trans-national.

2. The Establishment Clause: The Church, like many corrupt and hateful organisations in America, uses the First Amendment as a shield. They’re well within their rights to do so to a point, but as with all abusers they’ve started to push their luck.

3. Statute of limitations: For obvious reasons, the average 15-year statute of limitations on rape doesn’t do much for the child victims of sexual assault. It’s the rare 26-year-old, steeped in the concept of the Church’s authority authority as phylosopher describes, who’ll come forward against an abusive priest in time for a prosecutor to make a case.

4. Brand goodwill and cultural inertia: until recently, Americans have preferred to give clergy the benefit of the doubt when accusations fly. This is even more true for establishment and authority figures like D.A.s, who have item 2 above on their minds.

In short, the RCC church in America has made itself adept at taking advantage of and twisting the goodwill of the American state and its citizens. But here they’ve pushed their luck too far, and it’s blowing up throughout the Western world.

Comment #32: Gracchus.  on  03/25  at  10:37 PM

WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT BEING ARRESTED?

That raises the question, which I’m sure someone here can answer: because Vatican City is kinda its own state and the Pope its own head of state (with its own separate police force), do its occupants have to answer to Italian law?  Curious.

Comment #33: Ranylt  on  03/25  at  10:43 PM

True, not all, Gracchus, but it would take an extemely strong teen/young adult to back out at that point. 

What I’m talking about (and given the Irish scandals and I’ll bet we would find a lot more Polish ones too, and their American ethnic counterparts) is that for kids raised in those types of households, if they didn’t become priests, they would have been giving up vocation and family - that’s the type of forcing I saw and heard about. Anecdotal and stereotypical, yes, but the usual story was strong-willed, ultra devout and either authoritarian or passive-aggressive parent (usually mother) bolstered by older siblings who were doing the “family name” breeding, sometimes financially putting the potential priest through a parochial education, and even a community vested in them “giving themselves to God.”  ANd if we’re talking pre-‘70’s, many communities/neighborhoods were homogenously RCC in some areas.  (Shit, I have photos of that depressed family priest at ordination - it included members of the extended family dressing up in little bride and groom outfits and a procession through the neighborhood and people lining the sidewalk to watch.)

I mean, who are you gonna date when mom is running around telling everyone you’re gonna be a priest; most girls won’t touch you with a tenfoot pole is my guess, except for the ones who want to “test” their sexual attractiveness, and dragon mom is gonna keep them away. and the parish priest is backing her up?  There is no Catholic equivalent of rumsprigga - and the church has no problem with that. 

(And I’ve just had a really sick thought - ever wonder if molesting priests used rape as a recruiting tool?  I mean as in “what woman would want you now, after you’ve been with a man?  Or to convince an adolescent that they are homosexual and therefore may as well enter the priesthood because the only way to live without sin as a homosexual is celibately - according to the RCC?  ANd that’s why it’s covered up - I really wouldn’t put it past them.)

Comment #34: phylosopher  on  03/25  at  10:45 PM

phylosopher:

It doesn’t even have to be that blatant. Between the stockholm syndrome and what people have been pointing out about celibacy as a way out for people who don’t want to deal with adult sexuality (and who more afraid of dealing with same when rape is the face of apparently adult sexuality they’ve seen close up), priesthood could have a powerful attraction for abused boys.

Comment #35: paul  on  03/25  at  10:53 PM

Okay, you are both right about the Vatican being considered sovereign under international law (I should have known this), thus rendering it very difficult to prosecute those highest in the hierarchy, but the fact is many of the offending priests are living outside its jurisdiction, and a few here in the US have gone to prison. 

I think the least we can do is make it impossibly uncomfortable for the Pope and his immediate lackeys that have a Vatican passport to travel outside the Vatican, under threat of arrest, like we do (albeit ineffectively mostly) with wanted war criminals from other countries.  Citizens can in rare instances get a sympathetic judge in another country to issue an arrest warrant, which would totally suck for the Church, being so PR conscious.  This would hit all the media and give Bill Donohue a well-deserved instant enema. Very loud, public, class-action civil cases, where Statute of Limitations applies?  Something has to give here.

PS. None of this is new. Over sixty years ago, my uncle was kicked out of our local church, because he dared to publicly raise the fact that the priest raped and impregnated a 13 year old “maid” brought from Poland, then kicked her and the child back to Poland, and then fucking did it again with another poor girl.  So yeah, about #4, Gracchus. I know all about that too well. No one is more anti-Catholic church than us disaffected Catholics.  When I found out as a teen that a priest told my mother my baby brother who had just died was going to purgatory because my father was Jewish was the last straw.  My mother is STILL a devout Catholic and worships the shit priests eliminate every day from both their mouths and their asses.

Comment #36: Kathy  on  03/25  at  11:03 PM

That raises the question, which I’m sure someone here can answer: because Vatican City is kinda its own state and the Pope its own head of state (with its own separate police force), do its occupants have to answer to Italian law?  Curious.

A quick Google indicates that there are conflicting treaties. This gained prominence in connection with another charming Vatican abuse of power, the Banco Ambrosiano financial scandal (dramatised in Godfather III). The Italian government wanted to extradite an American Archbishop who headed the dirty Vatican bank (the crooked Paul Marcinkus) and two employees in 1987, as this NYT article (no doubt planted by the Elders of Zion, per Bill Donohue):

After the arrest warrants were issued last month, the Vatican issued a statement expressing astonishment at the charges and invoking an article of a 1929 treaty with Italy, saying Italy should not interfere in the Vatican’s ‘‘central departments.’‘

In issuing the extradition request, Italy invoked another article of the Lateran pacts stating that the Vatican would hand over those accused of crimes committed on Italian soil.

I’m certain the Vatican continues to take advantage of these discrepancies. As a side note, there are on-going suspicions and conspiracy theories that the relatively liberal Pope John Paul I was murdered because he tried to end that type of corruption.

Comment #37: Gracchus.  on  03/25  at  11:06 PM

I think the least we can do is make it impossibly uncomfortable for the Pope and his immediate lackeys that have a Vatican passport to travel outside the Vatican, under threat of arrest, like we do (albeit ineffectively mostly) with wanted war criminals from other countries.

That’s pretty much the case for Bernie “The Shuffler” Law. He won’t ever be able to return to the U.S. And I doubt he’ll be the last American or European bishop+ who ends up spending his remaining days in the luxurious confines of a Vatican City palace.

Unfortunately the Pope, as a head of state, will always be accorded special travel privileges. But it might be a little tough going without his usually large retinue.

Comment #38: Gracchus.  on  03/25  at  11:12 PM

WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT BEING ARRESTED?

Good question.  U.S.-based lawyer weighing in here:
1.  For criminals who live in the palaces of Vatican City, there’s pretty much no jurisdiction in any nation’s criminal courts.  Fleeing felons like Bernard Law who did their harm in the U.S. could be dragged back to Massachusetts, but ...
2. ... for American priests, you need a prosecutor willing to take on the Church.  State prosecutors are elected and usually aspire to higher office.  Federal crimes that U.S. Attorneys might charge could exist for some behaviors (e.g. mail fraud), but are harder to find.
3.  Any gutsy prosecutor who goes ahead has to prove a case.  Here is the federal version of aiding and abetting, pasted from the U.S. Attorneys manual.  State laws are similar:

The elements necessary to convict under aiding and abetting theory are

1. That the accused had specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime by another;

2. That the accused had the requisite intent of the underlying substantive offense;

3. That the accused assisted or participated in the commission of the underlying substantive offense; and

4. That someone committed the underlying offense.

The first and third elements are tough.  Mere indifference to the welfare of children won’t do.

4.  Although no one is getting arrested, many private individuals and lawyers have stepped up to sue the hierarchy.  That’s the only accountability doled out so far.  I applaud these leaders, who make the Vatican shudder about “the American problem.”

Comment #39: Unree  on  03/25  at  11:21 PM

...

 


..

 


 


. . . . .

hm

 


...

(tap, tap, strum)

 


 


 


...

um…

 


. . . . . War?

 

Comment #40: Yamara  on  03/25  at  11:29 PM

I’m wondering whether this massive scandal will have consequences for the church.  Like, might some country be willing to say “This is not the sort of organization, whoops I mean state, with which we should have diplomatic relations?”

Comment #41: Dan Watson  on  03/25  at  11:36 PM

Say a scandal matching this MO crops up in a country with a very small Catholic population, like… Turkey! One can imagine the anger that might cause.

Since these activities have gone on under the protection of state sanction, Turkey could call upon its NATO allies to act in its defense. Rape being a war crime and all.

Sovereignty is such an Achilles heel these days.

Comment #42: Yamara  on  03/25  at  11:56 PM

. . . . . War?

Good God, what was all that white space good for?

Comment #43: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/26  at  12:00 AM

I just wanted to comment on the priesthood attracting people who have some sort of issue with their sexuality. I am a lapsed Catholic as well and was still in CCD (extra Catholic classes for public school kids) in the early 00s and we were told point blank that an individual’s sexuality is not a choice, but a natural inclination and if your natural inclination is not Catholic approved (one man on top of one woman, no mouth our butt stuff) then it was God’s way of telling you to become a priest or nun.

Comment #44: alysia  on  03/26  at  12:07 AM

Good God, what was all that white space good for?

I was havin’ a deep thinkin’, I was!

Comment #45: Yamara  on  03/26  at  12:11 AM

I stop paying attention to politics for a month or two and the bill passes and the Pope gets in trouble. I guess I’ll stop paying attention again for another month and who knows what we’ll get.

Comment #46: Seebach  on  03/26  at  12:20 AM

I have to ponder the rape culture thesis to see how it fits my thinking to this point. Here’s where I was at before I read Amanda’s post:

Charles Morris’s American Catholic details how the Irish came to dominate the American Catholic church, and influence it heavily with fucked-up sexual thinking. The Irish had the two advantages of being poor and speaking English, while America needed a buttload of priests. The Irish used to fuck as regularly as anyone else, but a wave of sexual repression swept Ireland just before the Irish hierarchy cranked up the Maynooth priest factory. The few French and German members of the American hierarchy were bemused, not to say nonplussed, at the repressive (and repressed) sexuality that all the Maynoothian pulpit-fillers brought to the American church. You will note that even before the latest wave of Irish atrocities was revealed, the (Irish) Christian Brothers and their counterpart Sisters of Mercy were notorious for the sexual abuse of minors in their charge.

Celibacy plays an important role in child abuse by priests in two obvious ways: 1. Priests are men who may never marry. Thus those without sexual interest in adult women will consider this lack a blessing from God, demonstrating their aptitude for a life in the Church. 2. Such men are relatively few. Their education represents a considerable investment. Their bosses will overlook a lot of disgusting behavior in the interest of keeping staffing levels high.

Comment #47: Hector B.  on  03/26  at  12:35 AM

Seeing females as a way to release the pressure of sexuality, and not seeing them as people, makes a certain amount of sense at that point. As a child, those ideas are probably natural. Some of those priests are probably so overwhelmed that they join the priesthood to avoid it. Most of the rest of us guys grow the hell up, date a few chicks, have sex and realize that it isn’t the biggest deal in the world. We integrate those feelings into the larger picture of who we are. Priests? Not so much.

There’s also the differentiation between fantasy life and reality, and this effects fundamentalist protestants as well.  Consider that just about everyone probably has these lurid fantasies that they find arousing, hell, that they might regularly masturbate to, that were they try to act them out in real life (aside from mutually-acceptable playacting as with the Dom/Sub culture) would end up with them in jail, or socially outcast, or even dead at the hands of society outraged at their actions. A good example is the mind-control fetish, of which one can find many examples of online.  The vast, vast majority of the people who create, read, or watch that type of thing will cheerfully admit that while they get off on it as a fantasy, they know it’s just that and that if such a thing really existed it would be a complete horrorshow.  Or the people who read the trashy romance with the unwilling (at first) heroine facing the suave, sophisticated and unwilling to take no for an answer hero with Abs Of Steel who takes her into a night of passion, who know that in the real world we’d call that at a minimum sexual assault (or at least, we should).  As long as the fantasy is recognized as fantasy, it’s not an issue.

But if you think the fantasy isn’t merely your brain looking to get your rocks off with some harmless internal movie-making but is a test being imposed on you by an outside source, whether a deity testing you to see if you can resist “temptation” or an evil trying to seduce you, that has really got to fuck you up.  You’re under social pressure (for legitimate reason in the case of nonconsensual acts, for religious/cultural reasons in the cases of acts your peers judge as deviant even if they aren’t causing others harm) not to carry out those acts, while at the same time you can’t indulge in the fantasy in private because it’s succumbing to temptation/evil and damning your immortal soul, et cetera ad nauseum, not to mention that masturbation is also likely on the “thou shalt not” list.

The person acknowledging the kink as fantasy is fully aware that if they allow it to cross over into the real world it’s their own damn fault, so if you don’t want to bear the consequences, you keep that wall up between fantasy and reality.  If you think the kink is due to an external cause (gays on TV! Original Sin! Satan!) then it’s not really entirely your fault, is it?  Oh, you might have been weak, but hey, you can pray that away, right?  Maybe exorcise that demon who made you do it.  or stop having all those women tempting you by hiding them underneath blankets, the dirty whores.

Comment #48: KeithM  on  03/26  at  02:09 AM

Thanks for that link to Andrew Sullivan, Kineslaw. Hes not someone I particularly care for but his piece on this was excellent and I think hits upon the particular aspect that I thought was missing from Amanda’s also excellent post: the gay stuff. Yeah, I know homophobia and the patriarchy are intimately tied up together but the churches specific attraction for certain gay men while simultaneously attacking them is at the core of this very issue. And I think Sullivan’s description of how celibacy can warp sexuality in these cases was also really well thought out.

Comment #49: AdamN  on  03/26  at  02:51 AM

<OT>PiaToR gets 10 Internet brownie points for the Edwin Starr reference.</OT>

Carry on.

Comment #50: NobleExperiments  on  03/26  at  03:17 AM

You will note that even before the latest wave of Irish atrocities was revealed, the (Irish) Christian Brothers and their counterpart Sisters of Mercy were notorious for the sexual abuse of minors in their charge.

It was the Christian brothers orphanage at Mount Cashel in Newfoundland that opened the floodgates on Roman Catholic child abuse in Canada, a decade before something similar happened in the US.

The main issue with the Catholics isn’t that priests are more likely to engage in abuse than men in other professions: stats that exist don’t bear this out (teachers are known to have a higher percentage).  The problem is the institutional defense of the perpetrators by the church hierarchy and the continual blame the victim strategy.

Comment #51: KeithM  on  03/26  at  04:28 AM

I agree that Andrew Sullivan makes some excellent points about the closet and repression of homosexuality.

However.

Even though the media focuses on the boy victims, there are also a lot of girl victims of rapist priests.  They, being female, are not considered as important.  But we cannot fully understand the extent of this problem until we consider that while the different rapists had different preferences, what they share in common is a desire to rape.

Comment #52: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/26  at  09:09 AM

Sigh, Austin.  Did I say “equivalent”?  That’s a useless, pointless term in 99% of cases.

The point is that rape culture teaches that female sexuality is dirty, and that women have no rights to sexual autonomy.  They have no right to look cute and say no, or no right to drink and say no, and if you’re anti-contraception, they nave no right to say no to pregnancy.  It’s not rape, but it’s the same logic as rape.  It is a form of sexual assault to force pregnancy on women by law.

Comment #53: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/26  at  09:13 AM

And if you take umbrage at being compared to a rapist, well *shrug*.  If it quacks like a duck, you know.  Your seething contempt for women that would lead you to objecting to contraception doesn’t seem all that different from the head of contempt a rapist gets for his victim that makes him wish to hurt her.

You are a classic example of what I’m talking about with rape culture.  While officially condemning it, you are actually supporting rape, by promoting the idea that a woman’s body doesn’t belong to her.

Comment #54: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/26  at  09:14 AM

Yes Amanda, banning contraception is the equivalent of raping women with sperm…

Banning contraception is the equivalent of forcibly denying a woman a currently available form of control over her body, in particular her reproductive organs. You may be a nutbar who fears those organs (“icky ladyparts!”), but surely even you can see the parallel there to a rapist’s mentality.

Comment #55: Gracchus.  on  03/26  at  09:17 AM

KeithM: As I recall, paying off their victims bankrupted the (Edmund Rice) Christian Brothers in Canada, forcing them to sell off all their schools.

I wonder if the Vatican connection would eventually result in putting the Sistine Chapel on the market.

Comment #56: Hector B.  on  03/26  at  10:13 AM

Aww, Austin’s showed up to be obtuse at us. Do us the favor of actually comprehending Amanda’s sentences beyond the literal meanings of certain words, okay hon?

Comment #57: Princess Rot  on  03/26  at  10:25 AM

Banning contraception results in Hell on earth. Ceacescu’s Romania banned contraception, and many unwanted children languished in baby warehouses or fended for themselves on the streets. When people have no access to birth control and limited access to abortion, they turn to infanticide and abandonment. “Life is Pwecious” is a cruel joke when people don’t have enough money to feed themselves let alone baby #5. Your idea has been tried, Austin. It doesn’t work.

Comment #58: Yawgmoth  on  03/26  at  10:49 AM

Austin is willfully ignorant and blind on the subject. 
While he is amusing, we may as well talk amoung oourselves as to him.  We and others reading will get more out of it no matter how on point we hit.  He will not get the point because he does not WANT to get the point.
Just repeating what we all know.  Please carry on.

Comment #59: helen w. h.  on  03/26  at  11:06 AM

What I find fascinating about Catholic views of birth control is the insistence among the hierarchy (and the believers in this non-sense) of defining FOR women what is “good” for them or what our happiness consists of.  It is an Orwellian game of tautological semantics. 

They define a loving marriage as necessarily fecund (I believe this was in one of the encyclicals in fact) and therefore a deliberately childless marriage is not loving by definition.  (I have been told by Catholics on-line that my deliberately childless marriage is essentially an exercise in masturbation because there can be no true love or intimacy, again as THEY define it). 

They define a woman’s selfhood as consisting in large part in her reproductive capacity.  Therefore, they get to accuse me of self-hatred because I am denying that capacity that they define as essential to me and my sense of self. 

They define happiness as doing what they say God wants.  Therefore, based on this language game, the use of birth control is antithetical to happiness.

Naturally, the individual’s subjective sense of happiness or sense of self is irrelevant because the church gets to define those things for the individual.  It really is totalitarian.  I think there may be a link here to the common secular anti-feminist tactic of claiming that feminists are really unhappy (the anti can tell better than we can, you know).  It is linked to the idea that woman’s own experience bears no relevance whatsoever, which is of course linked to rape culture.

Comment #60: Laurie  on  03/26  at  11:11 AM

Hector B:

In the US, at least, the church has put together a web of holding companies and (in effect) dummy corporations to shield assets. Each diocese is (afaik) a separate corporate entity, and other enterprises (charitable organizations, real estate holdings, church buildings, residences, hospitals etc) can also be a separate entity. Thus far, Fr. Google tells us that seven dioceses (?) have declared bankruptcy either as a result of judgements or preemptively to keep trials from going forward and assets from being seized.

There’s also reportedly a fairly strict hierarchy of what gets sold to meet costs. In Los Angeles there was a lot of noise because the diocese was throwing nuns out of church-owned residences while the bishop’s residence compound remained untouched.

Comment #61: paul  on  03/26  at  11:12 AM

Here are some quotes from an anti-contraception site that illustrate what I am talking about in comment #61:

“How could I…ask my wife, whom I dearly loved, to take oral contraceptives or have an IUD put into place or become sterilized? How could I say to her that I loved her for all of who she is except one major area of her person?” – T. W. Hilgers, M.D., 07/25/93.

“To love is simply to will…the ultimate real good for another…the supreme happiness of the other…which is to say, eternal life with God” – D.Q. McInery, Ph.D., Jan. 2001.

“Contraception compromises the intimacy between husband and wife because it negates part of their being; in particular, that which is ordered to procreation…The unselfishness of their spousal love is diluted by the presence of self-interest” – Dr. Donald DeMarco, St. Jerome’s College, Waterloo Ontario.

Comment #62: Laurie  on  03/26  at  11:13 AM

#32 & #33 Re: lack of criminal prosecutions.

In the recent local case I mentioned at #11, the case came to light when 2 young men in their 20’s (abuse occurred when they were 16 & 18) contacted an attorney with no ties to the town where the abuse occured who then contacted the church.  By doing so, they bypassed (to a certain degree) the local church’s internal system of addressing their claims. I think their claims would have been ignored otherwise.  Another very important aspect that their involvement of an attorney provided was that the accusers were largely able to maintain their anonymity.  This desire for anonymity should not be overlooked in it’s importance as a reason why criminal prosecutions are rare. Victims are often deeply ashamed and embarrassed by what was done to them.

The case I mention had the priest initially charged with 2 felonies that would carry a maximum of 10 years in prison and a requirement for lifetime membership on the sex offender registry.  The plea agreement entered into however was for 2 felonies carrying the maximum of 2 years in prison and that doesn’t require registering as a sex offender.  It is likely however that the time will run concurrently and may be probated (no jail time served unless the terms of probation are violated). The reason that the case didn’t go to trial?  The victims did not want to testify in open court.  So, the priest did get mentioned in the local paper and the allegations were made known to a segment of the population but it is conceivable that this man will not be defrocked and will be transferred to yet another unsuspecting parish to re-offend.

To those pondering the cause/effect nature of the culture, I am reminded of my psychiatrist’s answer when I asked her opinion about the cause of the high suicide rates in her profession.  FWIW, she believes that the field attracts people with mental health issues.

Comment #63: Jinx  on  03/26  at  11:15 AM

Banning contraception is the equivalent of forcibly denying a woman a currently available form of control over her body, in particular her reproductive organs.

Banning contraception results in Hell on earth.

Yup.  And I’ll add that, with the continuing shocking stats on maternal deaths from childbirth and postpartum infection around the world, contraceptives are, in some places, a survival aid. It’s not just about having control over one’s reproductive organs, for some teenaged and adult women (and therefore one’s individual autonomy and economic situation), but about having some control over one’s own life expectancy, especially in regions where women and girls have little say in who/when/how often someone fucks them.

Comment #64: Ranylt  on  03/26  at  11:25 AM

Heh, heh, hey Laurie, next time you take a trip to the crazy side, try this one on them (to the rest of you - warnign if you’ve recently eaten breakfast.)

It is a natural part and function of the human body, particularly the skin, to harbor microbes and bacterial fauna.  Left unchecked, this causes body odor and stink.  But it is a natural part of the human biological condition.  That must mean that if I ask my spouse to take a shower before any type of intimacy, (or even entering the room) I must be denying part of them and not in a real marriage.  Ditto for asking someone to brush their teeth or refrain from controllable flatulence in my presence.  Yeah, civilization and basic hygiene are just such an affront to the skybuddy.

Comment #65: phylosopher  on  03/26  at  11:53 AM

It strikes me that these abuses happen in environments where the clergy has power untempered by cynicism. In the West it’s Catholic priests and Orthodox rabbis—people whose congregants are more likely to say “how can anyone say an unkind word against such a holy man!” than “I knew it was all just a facade.”

According to Elizabeth Abbott (I think), back when the priesthood encompassed what we now call academia in Europe, clergy still weren’t to marry but discreet non-marital affairs were quietly tolerated. Now that Catholics of an academic bent have other options, there’s less need for that.

Comment #66: Hershele Ostropoler  on  03/26  at  12:07 PM

Phylosopher,  Bwahahahahaha!!!

Taking a shower is an act of self-hatred because I am denying my natural stink, which is integral part of my being.  Therefore, because I love myself, I will never shower again.

Comment #67: Laurie  on  03/26  at  12:15 PM

Clergy can’t pollute themselves through sexual contact with women.<>

This!  I was raised in a protestant denomination, and attended college at a catholic institution that had only begun admitting women within the previous few years. During my freshman year, I was invited to meet with my dean (a cleric) about my adjustment to college life, my courses, my profs, etc. The meeting was friendly and low-key. At dinner that night, my schoolfellows asked me how it had gone. “Fine,” I said, “But it was weird—the dean never once made eye contact with me, even as pleasant as it went.” “Oh, no, well, he wouldn’t have,” the seniors at the table said, matter-of-factly. Wha? “He’s from the older tradition. <i>He’s not allowed to look women in the eyes.” My head nearly exploded.

So it’s not merely sexual contact that’s corrupting, it’s looking her in the fucking eyes.

I have since read that this particular practice is supposed to be an act of modesty, not purity, in that the cleric isn’t worthy to look a woman in the eyes, but if that was the original sales pitch, it had long been lost. Because the needs of modesty ain’t shit when brought against Malleus Maleficarum.

Attending a catholic institution was directly responsible for my becoming atheist. Happy, that!

Comment #68: benvolio  on  03/26  at  12:16 PM

Taking a shower is an act of self-hatred because I am denying my natural stink, which is integral part of my being.  Therefore, because I love myself, I will never shower again.

I’ve heard that argument before. But it was from fellow leftists. Pick up CrimethInc’s book “Days of War, Nights of Love”.

(Actually the argument was against soap and artificial scents. Presumably, showering without using soap is okay. wink)

Comment #69: BlackBloc  on  03/26  at  12:18 PM

The main issue with the Catholics isn’t that priests are more likely to engage in abuse than men in other professions: stats that exist don’t bear this out (teachers are known to have a higher percentage).  The problem is the institutional defense of the perpetrators by the church hierarchy and the continual blame the victim strategy.

This is a point that shouldn’t be glossed over.  People who want to abuse kids and teenagers will maneuver themselves into positions of trust where they have access to kids.  It’s not only priests and ministers:  it’s teachers and Scout leaders and coaches.  It’s not unusual that some priests have been revealed to be pedophiles, because it’s exactly the kind of job that pedophiles try to get. 

The problem is that these pedophiles were protected by the church hierarchy for years—heck, sometimes decades—and were moved from parish to parish where they would have access to a whole new set of children. 

If the Church had actually considered the pedo-priests’ actions to be wrong, there were internal steps they could have taken on their own, like reassigning them to monasteries where they wouldn’t have any access to children.  But they didn’t.  They privileged the needs of the Church over the safety of the children and families that trusted them.

And if you really want to get into the rape culture aspect of things, remember that 20 or 30 years ago, a teacher who messed with his students would be quietly transferred to another school because it was more important for the school to maintain its air of authority than for the teacher to be punished.  The current legal problems of the Catholic Church are a matter of degree and being far behind the curve when it comes to what other institutions now demand, but it’s not like it’s new and different for a hierarchy to close in on itself and protect one of its own when they commit a crime.  It’s just a much more stark contrast because a priest claims to have a higher moral authority than a teacher or coach.

Comment #70: Mnemosyne  on  03/26  at  12:36 PM

Oh no. I am seeing the flaw in the shower analogy. Next the “pro-life” crowd will be clutching their pearls because meanies on this Pandagon thread are equating babies with germs!

Comment #71: Laurie  on  03/26  at  12:43 PM

Authoritarianism is both something that’s deeply “male” in nature, and also deeply immoral. It’s a large part of what drives the rape culture.

The term of the day (it’s seeming to be popping up more and more lately), is “social ordering”. It’s the idea that everybody has their god-given place, and as such should accept this. This is the root and core of rape culture, and it’s something that’s very influential in the conservative aspects of the Catholic church.

Comment #72: Karmakin  on  03/26  at  01:12 PM

The term of the day (it’s seeming to be popping up more and more lately), is “social ordering”. It’s the idea that everybody has their god-given place, and as such should accept this. This is the root and core of rape culture, and it’s something that’s very influential in the conservative aspects of the Catholic church.

So we’ve renamed the old Great Chain of Being? an idea as old as…pick your century.

Comment #73: Ranylt  on  03/26  at  01:21 PM

I’ll say something else, and I hope no one takes it the wrong way: some of my earliest sexual fantasies, long before I understood what the feelings were about, were probably sort of rape-based. We’re talking 10-12 years old here, where in real life I didn’t have any control over anything.

First of all, I would like to respectfully remind that many people find that use of “females” as a noun to be offensive.  I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but please try to choose your words more carefully in the future.

Anyway, I think what you’ve described is a perfect example of rape culture.  This is exactly why demonizing sex contributes to rape culture.  Most preteens start to develop sexual feelings and curiosity.  But when we feel that it’s taboo talk about it and sinful to even feel those things, it can be extremely frustrating.  It can very easily lead to dysfunctional attitudes towards sex.  Years before I was sexually active, I would fantasize about S&M;in both roles.  I was sure that I would never actually enjoy it in real life, but the idea of being submissive seemed like a way that I could have sex without any responsibility.  The idea of being dominant released my frustrations about needing to be feel submissive to “get away” with it.  Now I’m not trying to suggest that liking S&M;is dysfunctional or that these reasons apply to other people.  But Sex-shaming can make very normal feelings turn into a frustrating situations.

Comment #74: bananacat  on  03/26  at  01:30 PM

The social ordering concept reminds me of the fundie idea that men and women are equal in value but merely have different roles. Of course, the different roles involve men dominating and women submitting, but they are still equal!  Knowing you have equal value is a huge comfort when the boot is on your neck!

Comment #75: Laurie  on  03/26  at  01:35 PM

Laurie @ 72: They should agree with us! After all, germs are life-forms, and if it’s technically biologically living, THEN IT’S TOTES A BABY. Even, and especially, if it is only one cell.

Comment #76: thecynicalromantic  on  03/26  at  01:38 PM

Naturally, the individual’s subjective sense of happiness or sense of self is irrelevant because the church gets to define those things for the individual.

Except!  Conscience is always primary.  It’s a pre-V2 basis of doctrine.  It’s why you have Catholics-For-Choice and other liberal Catholics fighting to pull the Church into the present. 

The Correctors don’t want you to listen to your conscience; they want reverent obedience.  I’d bet that most pedophile priests are of the Corrector model, since they value hierarchy and power and position and blind obedience so much.

Ugh.  So glad to be done with the whole thing.

Comment #77: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/26  at  01:41 PM

What Mnemosyne said: The Catholic Church has a huge amount of monasteries, some with rather harsh rules. If every pedophile priest who was caught was sent to one, to spend the rest of their lives in prayer, fast and silence, then I would believe the cover up was only about avoiding scandal and maintaining prestige, and all the talk about the culture being different back then. Since they were sent to new parishes to keep working with kids, the truth does look darker. Didn’t they care, or did see they see raping kids as their right or an acceptable outlet?

Comment #78: Maria  on  03/26  at  02:01 PM

Caren,

Interesting.  I don’t know a thing about the concept of conscience in Catholic doctrine.  I do admit to being a bit puzzled as to how the many liberal Catholics I know and love (including the one I married) managed to square their identification as Catholics with their actual beliefs.  (My husband always explained his identification as a Catholic as simply a matter of heritage and sentiment, but he is an active Catholic at all.)

Comment #79: Laurie  on  03/26  at  02:03 PM

He is NOT an active Catholic at all.

Comment #80: Laurie  on  03/26  at  02:04 PM

The point is that rape culture teaches that female sexuality is dirty, and that women have no rights to sexual autonomy.  They have no right to look cute and say no, or no right to drink and say no, and if you’re anti-contraception, they nave no right to say no to pregnancy.  It’s not rape, but it’s the same logic as rape.  It is a form of sexual assault to force pregnancy on women by law.

I kind of want to quote this absolutely everywhere.  I’ve never figured out a coherent way of phrasing that objection to the anti-contraception movement, but I’ve wanted to for years.

Comment #81: fluffster  on  03/26  at  02:24 PM

“Contraception compromises the intimacy between husband and wife because it negates part of their being; in particular, that which is ordered to procreation…The unselfishness of their spousal love is diluted by the presence of self-interest” – Dr. Donald DeMarco, St. Jerome’s College, Waterloo Ontario.

“Baby, I know you want me to wear a rubber.  But I think we should screw unprotected because protecting you from getting knocked up when you don’t want to would just be so *selfish* of me…”

Comment #82: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/26  at  07:20 PM

it negates part of their being; in particular, that which is ordered to procreation

And if you don’t feel any inclination toward procreation, then nothing is negated and all is right with the world.

Comment #83: Mezosub  on  03/26  at  09:28 PM

Contraception violates God’s will, because sex was designed in large part to reproduce the human speciies. But realize that masturbation to orgasm (for men, anyways) is just as sinful as contraception, because both violate God’s clear intent for the sperm to merge with an egg. (No way is it getting from a Kleenex into a woman’s uterus, right?)

I deduce that bulimia is just as sinful as contraception, because God clearly meant food to nourish us. Eating for pleasure only is just as sinful as using our reproductive organs merely for pleasure.

Which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that chewing gum and drinking Diet Cokes are at least venial sins.

Comment #84: Hector B.  on  03/26  at  11:31 PM

student aid :-
It is now an open secret that many priests have live-in lovers, with parishioners sympathetically keeping quiet. Priests involved in homosexual relations have been more covert, but anonymous polls have repeatedly showed that homosexuality is common among the clergy.

These shadow-lives need to be allowed into the open. There is now hope that they will. The arch-traditionalist cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna is calling for an urgent examination of the celibate priesthood. The issue of women priests should also get an airing. As we report today, the Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, has published an analysis that links systemic cover-up of scandal to the dearth of women in the hierarchy. Allowing women priests, as the Church of England has done for over 15 years, would blow open the doors to an establishment canthat, in its homogeneity, has become dangerously impenetrable and detached.

Clearly this is unsustainable. The church needs to grapple with the issue at the heart of its scandals: sex. Rome must review its position on celibacy and an all-male priesthood. When a priest is locked into a solitary lifestyle as part of his contract with his church, rather than with his God, resentment will surely follow. In a lonely and sometimes hostile environment, that resentment will fester medical school.

Comment #85: politics  on  03/27  at  09:14 AM

First of all, I would like to respectfully remind that many people find that use of “females” as a noun to be offensive.

Say what?  What word police deepend is someone jumping off now?

Comment #86: phylosopher  on  03/27  at  10:33 AM

Vis-à-vis a review of the all male priesthood - that will be extremely difficult, as this doctrine has been pronounced an infallible teaching of the Church.  Celibacy has not - so there is more hope there.

What I draw from this thread, though, is that in order to fix the problems of the Patriarchy, it must be converted into a non-Patriarchy.  Bloody hell.

Comment #87: canoodler  on  03/27  at  02:40 PM

What word police deepend is someone jumping off now?

The don’t-noun-adjectives crowd?  (“Verbing weirds language”)

Using “females” finesses the girl/woman dichotomy. Cue Neil Diamond (or
URGE
KILL):

Girl, you’ll be a woman soon
Please come take my hand
Girl, you’ll be a woman soon
Soon, you’ll need a man

I’ve been misunderstood for all of my life
But what they’re sayin’, girl, just cuts like a knife
“The boy’s no good”
Well, I finally found what I’ve been lookin’ for
But if they get a chance they’ll end it for sure
Sure they would

Comment #88: Hector B.  on  03/27  at  02:42 PM

The thing about “females” is that it gets used most frequently (online, anyway, I’ve rarely heard anyone use it in speech to describe women) by revolting skeevy guys who think of women as not-human. So personally I don’t see it as worth objecting to, as it’s a good heuristic for identifying said guys. OTOH if you’re not in fact one of those, then you might want to reconsider its use because you’re sending out big neon YUK signals. And you might want to have a meta-think about how you ended up using language in a way that is typical of women-haters, for whatever reason (I could speculate about why misogynists have this linguistic tic but I won’t subject y’all to it) and whether you ever use “males” to describe boys and men. (you probably don’t, it’s quite rare.)

Comment #89: daisyparker  on  03/27  at  05:36 PM

Improbable Joe seems to be speaking in the voice of the sort of person (Catholic priests, preadolescent <strike>males</strike> boys in a rape culture, etc) who sees women as less than human. I don’t know that as an adult he uses that sort of language to exress his own thoughts.

Comment #90: Hershele Ostropoler  on  03/27  at  07:42 PM

and whether you ever use “males” to describe boys and men. (you probably don’t, it’s quite rare.)

False.

http://www.google.com/search?q=males

http://www.google.com/search?q=females

Comment #91: asdf  on  03/27  at  08:28 PM

Oh for shit sake - I use both all the time (uh and no, it sure as shit isn’t indicative of being a skeevy guy unless one is in/using it in a certain context)  particularly when I’m discussing gender theory - as in female/feminine and male/masculine to distinguish between sex and gender.  Ditto for discussing something like nature versus nurture - “females of the species/ males of the species, shortened to males or females once species has been established. And since I’m not looked at askance for doing so,  and it is used equally freely and without “finger scare quotes” by others, my guess s I’m not alone. 

Defender of language freedom aka phylosopher.

Comment #92: phylosopher  on  03/27  at  09:18 PM

Taibbi weighs in: The Catholic Church is a Criminal Enterprise

Comment #94: canoodler  on  03/28  at  01:26 AM

uh and no, it sure as shit isn’t indicative of being a skeevy guy unless one is in/using it in a certain context)<blockquote>

Seeing as how the usage of “females” that prompted the reminder that irked you so was this:

<blockquote>Seeing females as a way to release the pressure of sexuality, and not seeing them as people, makes a certain amount of sense at that point.

I’m not quite sure wtf you are talking about.

Granted, it isn’t so much the use of “females” that had me going O.o at that sentence - “females” makes some sense it that context, as the person in question was a minor himself at the time of the fantasy - but rather the part where the speaker decided to universalize his experience*.  Or rather, even worse, fail to attribute any of this thinking to institutionalized sexism and rape culture.**  It does, however, count as another data point towards the use of “females” in conversations on the internet about sexuality/gender going hand in hand with some creepy generalizations.  And therefore seems fair game for such reminders to me.

*I sure as fuck didn’t fantasize about holding boys/men down and having my way with them.

**And really, this is the sticking point for me.  I’m certainly not going to fault a 12 year old boy for his sexual fantasies.  And I appreciate the adult he grew into sharing them in a conversation like this.  But still.  Assuming that such fantasies are *normal* in the sense of being completely unrelated to everything he may have internalized about sex and gender and only dependent upon a generalized uncertainty about his own sexuality….yeah, that’s not exactly not-creepy.

Comment #95: jennygadget  on  03/28  at  02:31 AM

I suggest you look up self-contradictory - hint: you rail about over generalizations, when what you just did was overgeneralize. 

Back to armchair psychoanalyzing babble until you learn some basic logic.

Comment #96: phylosopher  on  03/28  at  11:48 AM

Female is how one describes animals.  When used in conjunction with referring to XY persons as guys or boys or men, it is depersonalizing.  There are lots of places on the interwebs where it is used that way, to the point where now, whenever I see it used, there is a moment of ‘oh, am I going to hear some serious woman-bashing in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1,’ and about 70% of the time, the answer is ‘yes.’

But why the fuck should women care about depersonalizing language being deployed against them?  Sticks and stones, right?  You know what, if it is *your* group that is being referred to in that manner, then your opinion has some weight, at least as to what you personally are willing to tolerate being called.  But particularly if it is not, it might do you some good to ask “why” instead of calling people “language police.”

Comment #97: Ismone  on  03/29  at  01:41 AM

I think there’s something else going on, or something additional.  The Catholic Church is very much an authoritarian hierarchy with great rewards accruing to older, more important, priestly males.

Comment #98: asdf  on  03/29  at  03:51 AM

For the record though, I’m not defending anyone who calls himself “Defender of language freedom aka phylosopher”, the mark of a stupid and pretentious shit.

Comment #99: asdf  on  03/29  at  03:54 AM

Not wanting to offend, if “female” as a noun is offensive, at the risk of sounding facetious I’d like to know when a girl becomes a woman.

In the context in which it was used it didn’t sound jolting, because a seventh grade boy could legitimately be attracted to both 12 year old girls and 25 year old women. Using an umbrella term would make sense in that case.

Comment #100: Hector B.  on  03/29  at  11:13 AM

Re: Irish Institutional Child Abuse
****************************
I grew up - in the now notorious Goldenbridge Industrial School (St Vincent’s) Inchicore, Dublin, Ireland, in the mid-fifties/late-sixties. I had a miserable childhood there. The floggings and cruelty meted out daily to young defenceless children by religious and staff does not bear thinking about at all. One never gets over it. The damage inflicted at such an early age has left gargantuan psychological indentations on the brains and psyches of countless victims-survivors of Goldenbridge and other industrial schools of that nature. In saying this, though, one has just got to get on with life as best as one can, irrespective of the pain of the past. Survival of the fittest must kick in otherwise one could flop and cave in and where would that leave one, nowhere, except down the deep Swannee. Albeit, sadly to say, suicide, along with all manner of dysfunctions pertaining to social habitation and living, in general, took control of very many inmates and they died -when only in their thirties, forties and early fifties. I went to a commission to inquire into Irish institutional abuse, some years ago, to tell to the state appointed professional experts - of the dreadful existence I had in GB industrial school. I personally wanted it recorded so that it would go down in the annals of Irish history. I specifically want/ed to let school children and adults of tomorrow learn all about the horrendous lives thousands of defenceless children had in that hell-hole of a gulag. I was so infuriated at the way the religious played down the slave-labour task of rosary-bead making at the commission; of which very young children were compelled to reach a daily quota of sixty decades, that I consequently put my anguished frustrated genuine thoughts down on paper. The religious, you see, had tried to use the argument that this (profitable work, monetarily speaking, for mostly their benefit) was basically in keeping with industrial school training and that the young children had enjoyed the bead-making work immensely. It was so untrue. The religious saw it only from their own standpoint. They were blinded to the fact that they may have broken any rules. They were so callous about the whole beads affair. So lacking in empathy towards us. What else could they say, I suppose, they were desperately trying to protect themselves. We were, after all, child prisoners and were in the child prison to serve sentences. They were kindness incarnate for having opened up their penitentiary refuge to children from the lower levels of life. We were mostly, in their eyes, offspring of fallen penitent women.

Comment #101: Marie-Therese O Loughlin  on  03/29  at  02:11 PM

Subsequently (some few years ago) I the good fortune to encounter a very highly intelligent American, (Seattle based, editor of butterfliesandwheels.com & co-author with Jeremy Stangroom of three fine books) Ophelia Benson, who edited two articles about daily life in Goldenbridge. It was a very cathartic experience. I thank Ophelia from the bottom of my heart for having so much empathy for people who grew up in similar circumstances as me. The two articles can be accessed through butterfliesandwheels.com articles section.
‘Goldenbridge housed on average two hundred children, which included infants and babies; a good percentage of them were infants, babies and toddlers. I remember clearly, at 6:30 in the mornings, when I was eleven years old or thereabouts having to go to St Joseph’s babies/infants dormitory. I had to dress the toddlers. It was normal for some of them to have slept in their own excrement. When I took them from their destroyed beds, I found it so upsetting as they were always covered from head to toe in excrement. They were shivering and were all colours of the rainbow as they stood there waiting to be cleaned. I had to use the clean corners of the destroyed sheets. The only place to get water was from a very small toilet bowl.’
See: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com articles The Secret Rosary Bead Factory’ Also: ‘Goldenbridge II’ at same source.
Industrial schools, (not to be mistaken with residential schools) were dispensed with in 1933 in Great Britain. Yet, they were still flourishing in Ireland in the 70’s. Children incarcerated in Goldenbridge by the judicial system, all had numbers. I was lucky in having had the luxury of two! Prisoner: 155 & 39.
In the aftermath of the sordid child abuse vis-à-vis industrial schools - which culminated in the ‘Ryan/Laffoy Report I noticed that the British were far too engrossed in their own political fees scandal to cotton on too much to anything across the Irish sea, of the ilk of the fall-out of the damning Ryan/Laffoy Report.
The clerical child sex abuse scandal came on board, afterwards, with the former One in Four leader, now Amnesty International Director, Colm O’ Gorman, at the helm. The Ferns Report was the result of an inquiry into clerical sexual abuse of children in the diocese of Ferns, Wexford.
Those involved in the latest Murphy Report learned valuable lessons from survivors of Goldenbridge, such as Christine Buckley, Bernadette Fahy and Carmel Mc Donnell-Byrne, who were at the coal-face of it all.
The trio, invariably so, were the most prominent GB figures who had laid out groundwork for the Ryan Report.
Thank you!

Comment #102: Marie-Therese O Loughlin  on  03/29  at  02:18 PM

After reading Paul, I have no doubt whatsoever that he was a natural asexual himself, and I have my suspicions about Augustine. I don’t think wither one of them imagined legions of sexual men trying to shoehorn themselves into a celibate life if they weren’t naturally suited to it.

However, I’m also not sure either one of them imagined the lure that the priesthood would come to have - that men would see that as the only, or best avenue to either serve their church or to achieve leadership roles. I also think they didn’t imagine how much money and real estate the church would accumulate and want to keep from passing into the hands of priests’ children.

Comment #103: ttintagel  on  03/29  at  02:22 PM

Irish Institutional Child Abuse
************************
There were lots of young boys who spent all or most or some of their young lives in boys industrial schools, such as Artane, Daingean, Letterfrack and Ferryhouse etc, in Ireland. They were horribly sexually abused by the religious and others throughout their incarceration period in these Dickensian, gruesome and morbidly depressing institutions, run mostly by the Christian Brothers.
Alas, the media has not seen fit to write extensively about them in the past two weeks., despite the fact that they too come under the banner of child clerical sexual abuse.
So, in order to redress the balance, somewhat, I would like to do them the honour, through the medium of Pandagon - in mentioning them a little. Their whole lives were mostly stolen from them - they had no parents to go home to for comfort when they were being sexually abused by those who were purportedly acting in loco-parentis. They had to split themselves and resort to being nice to their perpetrators in order to survive.
Some of these boys knew nothing about the outside world and could not even distinguish between the Sisters of Mercy in black robes and Christian Brothers in black robes, when they eventually went to stay with the latter in boys only institutions from the age of ten years onwards. The women in black and the men in black were indistinguishable in their eyes.
Survivors like Mick Waters/Andrew Brennan/Angry of ultimatedisposal.com have been in the background for more than a decade highlighting mostly boys industrial school institutional clerical sexual abuse and that too of abuse in some parts of Great Britain.
If it was not for the above mentioned, the survivors voices would not be mostly heard - as the majority of them, unfortunately, do not possess writing skills that would enable them to express themselves properly on paper or in the blogosphere.
The Irish bishops went to Rome to not only discuss the Murphy Report, but that too of the all important Ryan/Laffoy Report. But one would think, judging by the media coverage of late, that it was all only about the Murphy Report. It is in my estimation rather unfair

Comment #104: Marie-Therese O Loughlin  on  03/29  at  02:23 PM

Irish Institutional Child Abuse.
*************************
Geraldine Mc Donnell also has an opinion that I thoroughly second.
The Irish Times, Friday, March 12, 2010 (Letters to the Editor)
Madam,
Why has clerical abuse taken such precedence over institutional abuse when many of the reformatories and industrial schools were managed and staffed by members of religious congregations?
Over 165,000 children were incarcerated in more than 200 institutions by comparison with small pockets of survivors of clerical abuse throughout the country.
The most vulnerable children of society incarcerated in these hell-holes were not only subjected to sexual abuse, they endured sadistic and brutal violence, constant starvation, emotional abuse, had to work like slaves from morning till night.
They also faced repeated assaults on self-esteem, evil name-calling, repeated isolation and loneliness?
Many survivors of institutions were deprived of a basic formal education, leaving with minimal skills or no academic knowledge.
It is important to remember that bishops had total control over these religious-run institutions.
We have been silenced long enough.
It is high time that survivors of institutional abuse were treated with the dignity they justly deserve instead of been kept in the dark all over again while clerical abuse is the topic of debate every single day.
It is very upsetting for survivors of institutional abuse to be put on the back burner again, particularly when they were vindicated in the Ryan report ? that seems to have vanished into black abyss never to be seen or acted upon again.
I hope that we strive to understand the psyche of survivors of institutional abuse once and for all before we have a huge catastrophe?
I feel if something radical is not done soon to understand our deep pain we will have a huge suicide problem on our hands.
Yours, etc,
CARMEL McDONNELL-BYRNE,
***********************
Marie-Therese O’ Loughlin

Comment #105: Marie-Therese O Loughlin  on  03/29  at  02:29 PM

German Kinderheim Abuse
**********************
I remember, years ago, a person fighting desperately hard - via Irish online abuse groups, to bring to the attention of the media - systematic abuse of children in a Kinderheim in Germany. He was such a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. My heart used to go out to him - as I felt, then, that he was just beating his head against a brick wall, and nobody was really listening. Well, it seemed like that to me, anyway. There was not a single thing Irish survivors could do to help his lonely campaign, as the alleged abuse obviously occurred in a different jurisdiction. I sincerely hope that in the wake of all that is now coming to the fore in Germany - that there will be some consideration paid to those past abuse victims of the kinderheim in question that he so valiantly fought. The Statutes of Limitations for sexual abuse in Germany should be revisited to deal with all past clerical and institutional sexual abuse cases.

Comment #106: Marie-Therese O Loughlin  on  03/29  at  02:31 PM

Child Abuse and the Church
***********************
I lived in Ballyjamesduff, Co Cavan, for many years and went to visit the infamous paedophile Father Brendan Smyth’s grave in nearby Kilnacrott Abbey, not very long after he was buried there. I remember being mortified at the time, because of the fact that not only was he buried in the wee hours of the morn by his Norbertine Belgian order community, in order to deflect the media, who had arrived only to discover that the concrete over him was rock solid hard - - but also because he was buried in consecrated ground. Having not being defrocked by the Vatican - it was - naturally, his priestly privileged right. (The same was applicable with Father Sean Fortune, of Ferns Diocese in Wexford.) It beggars belief!

Comment #107: Marie-Therese O Loughlin  on  03/29  at  02:35 PM

BB @ 70: I saw that book on the shelf in the waiting room of my local Saturn dealership while getting my inspection sticker last Friday.  It looked interesting.if much too dense for a 20 minute skip and skim.

Comment #108: helen w. h.  on  03/29  at  04:34 PM

Which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that chewing gum and drinking Diet Cokes are at least venial sins.

Ever look around an empty apartment and wonder if someone heard you guffawing uncontrollably?

I have.  Thanks for the belly laugh.

Comment #109: Signals and Systems  on  03/29  at  09:32 PM

I should amend that slightly… the adorably content chinchilla I was petting at the time took off like a rocket.  Ten minutes later and he still won’t come out from under the couch.

Comment #110: Signals and Systems  on  03/29  at  09:34 PM

@Amanda: “Rape culture also demonizes male sexuality.  While officially condemning rape, rape culture portrays male sexuality as inherently mean-spirited, aggressive, and out of control.”

Thanks, Amanda, for saying those sentences in particular, and this post in general Over and over and over the same people who squeal about “man-hating feminists” steadfastedly ignore just how much anti-feminist society both overwhelmingly and systematically hates and fears men.

figleaf

Comment #111: figleaf  on  03/30  at  01:37 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.