I've tendered only a handful of the posts I've started regarding the Catholic child abuse issue, largely because other people are able to cover the issue better and say things more eloquently (or more bluntly) than I would.
Amanda Marcotte dismantled Ross Douthat's apologia in the vein of "the hippies did it", by advising that the hierarchical assholes prior to the hippies by and large did it, and by the way, the hippies and the feminists were the ones who advocated openness regarding discussing sexual matters that made victims feel safe enough and confidant enough to discuss what happened, which led to the spike in revelations in the 70's and 80's regarding abuse that happened much further back.
PZ Myers eloquently shot down that evil little man, Bill Donohue.
The execrable Donohue expressed the notion that the pedophilia was the result of gays in the orders, simply because many of the victims were post-pubescent. Myers' comment:
Where to even begin? The problem is not the sex of his victims, it's that this was a priest abusing his authority, acting as a sexual predator on much, much younger members of his flock — young people who were in his charge, who were dependent on him, and who had been indoctrinated with the belief that they should trust the priest. Donohue is resorting to arguing that because a 13-year-old had pubic hair, he had the full autonomy of an adult and the abuse of the priest was simply a love affair between equals. And that is bullshit
is on the money. I am reminded of those sad cases of seven, eight or nine year old pregnant girls we sometimes hear of--and just know some sick individual, possibly even related to the child, just waited until that child had her period, and then considered her "fair game". When she was just a child. We have laws regarding the "age of consent" for a reason. If Donahue does not understand that reason, he's possibly as sick as the preists he's defending. (Sick as to his beliefs, of course! I'm implying nothing about him personally that his public appearances don't already suggest--that he is a morally confused man.)
And Andrew Sullivan, as expected, covers this issue exhaustively and well .
Which makes it hard for me to do more than comment--yeah....other people are right!
Regarding anyone who raises an apologia on behalf of the Church on this issue--just stop. You aren't actually making things better for a beloved institution, but rather, compounding a problem that has its roots in forced secrecy and shame. The crime of sexual abuse of a child is exceptionally harmful--but the cover-up that enabled the continuation of abuse in far too many instances is a form of complicity at worst, and an abdication of moral resposibility in the best case.
It might be legally defended, it might be semantically defended, but it isn't really defended until you place yourself outside the door of a place where an as yet immature person is made to feel they have to permit themselves to be violated, and made not to speak even to--especially to! parents about what occurred, all to save the harmful hide of a rapist disguised as a holy man. And imagine youself listening to the abuse taking place--what would you hope that you would do?
I think one would want to stop it and see justice done. But others have said all that better than me, so I linked to them here.
No comments:
Post a Comment