In Sorrow and Thanksgiving
November 27, 2011, 8:27 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
My friend and colleague, Mark McKenna, has penned an extraordinarily powerful piece reflecting on sexual abuse in the football program, at Penn State and, by implication, in the church and many other contexts.
When I read the piece, I was overcome by two conflicting sets of emotions: anger and sorrow that such a terrible thing had been inflicted upon my friend by someone whose role it was to protect him, and tremendous admiration and gratitude for Mark’s courage in speaking out to protect others.
He’s not a weak boy any more–he’s a strong man. And he knows that strong men are meant to protect the young and vulnerable in their care–not to exploit and harm them.
Thanks for this, Cathy. I was struck by how clearly he worded something important…
“Because this is not about a problem at some other institution; it’s a reflection of a universal human tendency to look out for oneself, and to preserve hierarchical institutions about which one cares and upon which one is dependent. It’s also a reflection of the nearly boundless capacity to ignore inconvenient facts and to make excuses for those within our own circle. Think about the Catholic Church. Predators flourished in parishes for years, not simply (and probably not even primarily) because higher-ups worried about financial exposure. They flourished because many otherwise good people could not bring themselves to believe or to act upon information that their priest was a rapist.”
A high school friend and her sister were molested by a friend of the family when they were grade schoolers. In highschool, both of them became upset when her parents planned to host the friend and his wife for a week. They weren’t worried about themselves so much as their sisters, 10 and 8.
They told me what was up, and I urged them to tell their mother, who wasn’t an easy person to approach. She told them to keep the little girls away from the husband. It became clear as events unfolded that her mother was not willing to break up her friendship with the man’s wife in order to make an issue of the abuse of her own children. She made the girls feel like they were overdramatizing the incident saying it was “only” touching, and “nothing really bad had happened.”
I told my mother in hopes she would remonstrate with their mother, but she said it really wasn’t her business. She said if my friends were afraid of the guy, they could stay at our house for “a few nights.”
After a lot of discussion about what to do, my friends finally told their little sisters what was up–probably scared the bejeezus out of them–and that they should be with their older sisters at all times, even in the bathroom, and should sleep with them at night.
There was never any thought about telling the girls’ father, which now strikes me as something that ought to have been considered.
Anyway, my friends’ plan did keep their sisters safe, and the family friend died before another visit was planned. But the failure and denial of so many adults certainly made an impression.
A very honest piece. Thanks for posting it.
Thank you, Cathy — and Mark McKenna.
Patrick Boyle has tried to make the same point about the danger of assuming that molesters are “monsters.” Boyle wrote a book called “Scout’s Honor” about sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts. I have only recently read it, which I regret because there are many valuable parallels and differences with the Catholic history.
His source material was a list of people that the Boy Scouts had (belatedly) barred from serving in their troops or camps. He managed to get a number of these abusers to agree to being interviewed, doing his best to get inside their heads. It is chilling to read how these men, however monstrous their deeds, were so far from apparent “monsters” that many parents welcomed and trusted them.
I have always believed that one of the most important preventative steps that some dioceses took in dealing with sex abuse during the 1990s (and all should have taken) was to put parents on the review committees and to take the gatekeeping function for those committees out of the hands of the clergy. I still think that. But Boyle’s book has made me recognize the weakness of even that step. There is no substitute, as McKenna makes clear, for all of us to take personal responsibility for what we learn.
I often wonder, although I keep quiet about it for fear of being badly misunderstood, if a certain part of the way we approach this issue doesn’t do more harm than good. A psychologist whom I believe had experience dealing with child sex abuse once told me that a very significant factor for children who had been abused and the abuse had come to light was how the adults around them reacted. I think I was just as appalled as anybody when I read the allegations against Jerry Sandusky, but I wonder how much good it does his victims to hear him described as a monster. Without in any way minimizing the gravity of what he did, adding an aura of unspeakable horror to it could, I imagine, make it worse for the victims and their families. It is kind of like cancer, I think. There is nothing that’s going to take away the shock of getting a diagnosis of cancer, but I think over the years society and medical science has managed to put cancer (which was once stigmatized) in a certain perspective that makes a diagnosis of cancer not the horror it once was.
Thanks for posting. Society and the church would benefit if it would deal with this psychological illness the same way we have tried to deal with drunk driving. All need to be involved in awareness, education, and reporting with strong criminal deterrents (unlike alcoholism or drug abuse pedophilia has no known cure or even treatment at this time and society is only now realizing how “weak” our laws are in the case of drunk driving – thus, we have MADD). The public good must be protected; and the kindest support for an abuser is to provide treatment, an environment with clear boundaries, feedback, and supervision (not necessarily incarceration). We seem to have in our legal system only two extremes – denial or, as a last result and after myriad victims, incarceration.
Our approach also needs to approach current laws with our increased understanding of the disease, the patterns, the victims’ damage, reluctance to report, etc. This means changing SOLs; it means better trained DAs; etc. SOLs for sexual abuse should be in the same category as murder – always open to investigation.
The church has struggled – the most glaring issue continues to be that no bishop is held accountable by canon law or Rome (statement reiterated only last month by Mgsr. Scicluna). Rome has far too long tried to deal with this issue by playing off canon law with public legal systems. Far too often bishops have erred by approaching all clerical abusers in the “old” mindset that the cleric is a brother and the bishop is his “father”; that pedophilia is a “sin” that can be “forgiven”; using and misusing psychological resources (ignoring certain treatment recommendations; assuming that pedophilia can be cured; assuming that a clerical pedophile can monitor himself or herself.)
Bill deH –
Do you know if there is anything in Canon Law which holds a bishop responsible in any way for the abuses by priests? ISTM that cover-up is simply not a curial category.
This society is obsessed with sex. It at least borders on the obnoxious. Excess has become obligatory and transgressions are treated as the secular equivalent of mortal sin. Enough, already.
Cathleen – I agree. Moving and courageous, and you’re right about strong men needing to protect children.
FWIW – several years ago, at the time that the archdiocese was initially ramping up its mandatory training for all clergy, staff and even volunteers whose ministry involves children’s presence, a program was rolled out across the diocese to teach kids about appropriate boundaries, and what to do if they are transgressed. Our parish offered it to the children enrolled in our religious ed program (our parish doesn’t have a school), but relatively few attended.
I can’t speak for all of the parents, but my own thought is that even attending such a session constitutes a sort of assault on childhood to which we don’t want to subject our children. I recognize that’s probably not the best way to think about it, and I have had appropriate-boundary discussions with our own children, but that wish to shield children from the reality of abuse is deeply ingrained.
Ultimately, it is up to we adults to stay vigilant, and to be pains in the rear end if we see anything suspicious. Just my view.
Sorry, Anne – did not want to go down a sidestreet but the best delineations can be found here:
http://www.richardsipe.com/Doyle/2010/2010-07-25.htm
Here is the foundational 1962 document which is very similar to the 1922 document – both were in control until 2001 and the “new” 1983 canon law code did not override or address sexual abuse specifically.
http://www.richardsipe.com/Doyle/2008/2008-10-03-Commentary%20on%201922%20and%201962%20documents.pdf
Here is the foundational 1962 document:
“Characterizing what happened in State College, particularly the failures of so many adults to report the abuse, as the product of some morally bankrupt institution is a way of convincing ourselves that we are outsiders to these sinister forces. It is no different from calling Sandusky a “monster.”
I would distinquish the two. I agree that most, if not all of us, are part of the cover-up. This is why whistle blowers are fired, ostracized or labelled mentally unstable. We are conditioned to go into crisis mode when an unpleasant incident occurs and the crisis foremost is not the plight of the victim but that of the institution or the danger to our employment or advancement. Whether one wants to use the word monster or not this is a most striking proof of what we call original sin.
The difference with people like Sandusky, however, is that they are using power to get pleasure. Whereas those who cover-up are reacting to those who supervise them or have power over them. Although I am for working with child abusers to help them and keep them away from children, I still feel like the activity is monstrous because it involves abuse of children.
I understand Mark’s point that we should suspect everyone. Competent advice to children and parents does warn that it could be anybody. Thus if I refuse to let you be alone with my child you should realize that this is a totally reasonable action. I feel bad that I cannot always hug a child because of this. If a parent or relative does allow me to hug their child, they should be vigilant as they would be with a stranger. As my granddaughters demand that I rub their back I remind them that they must be wary of anyone touching them and am pleased with their response that their mother has advised them on this point.
So Mark’s point is quite important. His story is informative and is profoundly moving. But I think we should distinguish as we raise our awareness on this vital issue.
Thanks, Bill deH.
I wasn’t thinking of requirements for handling cases, I was thinking of possible laws which forbid bishops/abbots to ignore/cover-up/lie about/etc allegations of sexual abuse and other crimes, and also possible laws allowing/requiring the bishops/abbots to be removed from office/stand trial/whatever if they break the aforementioned laws.
I’ve never even heard of any such canon law, but it seems to me that until such laws are on the books and parents can sue bishops in a court of canon law (class action suits maybe?), the Vatican simply isn’t credible when it claims to have done everything that is necessary to protect the children. The scandal isn’t over.
I can understand not wanting to deprive a child of normal affection and not wanting to make them suspicious of people in general at an early age. But consider the alternative . . .
Maybe we could work out some social rules that would be rational compromises, e.g., do not hug or kiss a child unless in the presence of another adult. But that’s the only such rule I can think of. Sigh.
Thus if I refuse to let you be alone with my child you should realize that this is a totally reasonable action.
I certainly do that.
For example, the other I was walking by a friend’s house. I was going to see if she was home, called, and her daughter answered. It turned out that she was home alone. I chatted with her on the phone, but did not visit, becauseI decided that the rule should be that, being at home alone, she must not open the door to anyone, not even family friends. (Had I suggested that I stop by, she would probably have said yes.)
Another example: when I want to give a child some candy, and they want to have a candy, I always tell them first: “Ask your parent if it’s ok, and if they say yes, then I will give it to you.” Why? To reinforce the rule that they must not accept candy from random people or acquaintances.
It’s the same thing as waiting for the light to turn red before walking across the road when I am with a child: even if I can see that crossing is safe, I wait, just to reinforce the rule.
It can be a little bit of a bother, but I view it as doing my part in helping parents raise their children: there are a few rules of behavior that can be critical to their safety, and for those rules you don’t want to start making exceptions.
Ann,
From a memo by Tom Doyle written in 1995 as part of litigation in Dallas, before the 1983 code ruled in that particular case.
“The 1917 Code had provisions for liability with regard to canonical crimes. Canon 2209 states quite clearly that a person who, because of his office (“office” here refers to any official Church position, including pastor or bishop but also vicar etc.) failed to prevent an offense, sheltered an offender, etc. shared in the responsibility for the offense itself. This liability also includes carelessness in supervision by a superior over a subject.”
The 1983 code is less specific on this point.
Claire –
Those look like good rules. But they make me so sad.
Wow, Carolyn! My respect for old Canon Law just went up. This is just what was needed, though it doesn’t mention any channel for suing.
I wish there were a canon lawyer on this blog. I have a question or two I’d like answered. E.G., what is this “communion of bishops and what does it require of them. Also, are there any laws having to do with bishops’ collegiality. I know that collegeality wasn’t an invention of Vat II.