I didn't see the second episode of the ABC's Revelation documentary series about child abuse in the Catholic Church, but I ended up watching the final episode last night.
It really was pretty shocking stuff: in particular, the couple of current priests who struck, shall we say, far from the expected tone in their attitude.
For example, there was the sad interview with a 90 something year old mother whose 13 year old son hanged himself in his bedroom in the 1970's. Three Brothers from his school, one of whom was his class teacher, came to the house and asked if he had left a note. He hadn't. Later, it transpires that his teacher was convicted of multiple sex offences against his students.
But the priest who also attended the dead boy's house to anoint him is still alive, and was interviewed. He expresses the view that it was more likely a prank that went wrong than a case of the boy being a victim of sexual abuse(!). Why would he express such a view after what has gone on? Completely and utterly "tone deaf", if nothing else.
Father Brian Lucas came out of his interview as a pedantic jerk, too.
It was pretty powerful stuff, really.
There was also another interview, from jail, of a brother who had been moved from place to place once his abuse was discovered. His comments further put paid to the conservative idea that it was homosexuality that was at the heart of the problem, rather than sexual immaturity, social isolation and opportunistic access to boys. I cannot believe that conservative Catholics cannot get this into their heads: it would never have been a case that a priest or brother could easily explain away spending time with girls or young women in their accommodation, or taking them on trips. But they could readily be assumed to be having a mentoring or friendly relationship with boys, and they used this to access sex.
9 comments:
Pedophilia was the problem and they infiltrated the Catholic denomination because it was the perfect institution to pursue pedophilia.
It is a sin and people should have been thrown out as fast as possible.
Homer, I think that is a quite unlikely explanation. I doubt that, at the early age most used to start their entry into the religious life, they would have already formed an attraction towards the young. But as they aged, the opportunism of having access to the young (male in particular) meant that that was where they found a sexual outlet. Which by repetition may well have led some to having only pedophiliac attraction, I suppose.)
Graeme, I've deleted your comment for going too far, and being inaccurate anyway. Yes I know, abuse has happened in Jewish organisations, and it was discussed in the Royal Commission. Don't need you to throw your further nutty conspiracy views on that faith onto the fire as well.
. But as they aged, the opportunism of having access to the young (male in particular) meant that that was where they found a sexual outlet. Which by repetition may well have led some to having only pedophiliac attraction, I suppose.)
Broadly there are two types of child sexual abuse. Outright pedophilia and opportunistic abuse. Pedophilia is a rare condition but humans being sex crazy species the frustration of sexual desires can lead to opportunities for outlet. Think of prisons.
Yes I agree, John. You would never have classified the offenders interviewed on the show, based on their voice or mannerisms, as gay. (Not that every self classified gay man sounds or "acts" gay, but it is quite common.) In fact, I don't recall looking it up before, but I would be curious to know how many clerical sex abusers have, in later studies, defined themselves as gay.
The repeated story you get from psychologists is that the typical clerical child sex abuser was more a person who had followed a life path with none of the usual gradual exposure towards mature sexual relationships that most people get to experience. Hence both sexual frustration, loneliness, and a sort of permanently stunted growth in understanding the experience of sex and relationships, were behind their decision to abuse children.
It makes for a powerful argument against celibacy as a routine rule for the priesthood; but Conservatives find a simplistic target by saying "but it was men abusing boys - hence homosexuality is the problem" with which they think they can wave away the case for it being time to review the nature of the practice of the priesthood.
Yeah Steve, Just a whole lot of them just happened to be there.
A sheer coincidence.
Homer, you seem (like conservative Catholics such as CL, ironically) to have a simple black and white understanding of sexuality and sexual behaviour that leads you to being impervious to argument on this matter.
Of course you have removed it. Because of Jew privilege and for no other reason.
Post a Comment