And God bless them, they do mean well but most of the time, they really don't have a clue.
The earlier post brought to mind another incident from the 2002 AAR regional conference. I was delivering a paper called, "God Isn't Really like That! - Or is he? The Child, the Bible and the Patriarchal God". The woman who was chairing the session was so excited to meet me. She had read my articles and wanted to know if maybe, sometime, I would like to lecture in one of her classes. She also told me that Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza had mentioned me in her latest book, Wisdom Ways (which I ran out and bought, of course). I delivered the paper and there were lots of questions that continued after the session. The next day, while we were all in line for cafeteria-style lunch, she came up to me and said something like, I think I know why are so interested in all of this. You were in a sexual relationship with your minister when you were about 17. Where she got that age is beyond me. I stood in line and looked at her for a minute, thinking about how I was going to answer this. I did not, at that time, bring my personal history into these academic discussions, for what should be obvious reasons (at some point, I will do a blog on the horror show that evolved when I did about 3 years later). I looked at her and said, "No, I was sexually abused by a Roman Catholic priest when I was 8 years old." I don't recall the rest of the minimal conversation, but it had something to do with how I didn't really think that the issues were well handled within the pastoral counselling department at St. Paul's, after she said that they had a course in the Canon Law (!!!) department that dealt with that. Needless to say, I never heard from her again.
What was sort of funny (not ha ha funny, but ironic funny) was that about 3 years later, as a peer reviewer for the Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, I was sent a paper (on impact of child sexual abuse on some adult women) that came from the MA in Pastoral Counselling program at St. Paul's. St. Paul's is a Roman Catholic seminary and university with one of the best libraries in North America. After a first quick run through of a paper, the first place I go to for the review process is the bibliography to see whether the appropriate literature had been accessed for the review of literature. This review of literature should serve as the basis for understanding material, setting up the hypothesis and discussing the results. It was missing at least 6 critical books (and my dissertation). All 7 of these items were easily available at either St. Paul's or the University of Ottawa or Carleton University (the 3 universities are rather close together, so distance isn't an excuse & St. Paul's and the University of Ottawa are affiliated). I actually checked the on-line libraries at U of O & Carleton. All of these items would have answered the questions that the authors of the paper had in their discussion section of the paper. They would also have changed the structure of some of the questions that were asked of the participants. It was my recommendation to send the paper back to the drawing board, in large part because of this. I wasn't surprised, but it is so depressing to actually see how little things had changed. I should note that I would have been one of a minimum of three reviewers, so mine wasn't the sole decision maker on this submission.
We are finally getting a number of dissertation on the subject of god images, spirituality, psychology, child sexual abuse and religion (read Christianity - there is such a privileging of Christianity in most writings - they use "religion" when they mean Christianity). I will be reviewing them on the blog. From a cursory glance at a couple of them, it will not be a happy task. I love electronic databases - they make tracking these things so much easier that it was even 5 years ago, but it does mean that I don't have any reason not to keep up with the latest in my field! Maybe this will spur me to publish a book, who knows?
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Everyone Should Watch This One
It is free on the Internet at SnagFilms. It is called Girl 27. It tells the story of one rape case from 1937 in Hollywood. It is a such a compelling story. You watch all of the people's lives that were destroyed because of the rape. First Patricia Douglas, but also her daughter, her mother, the parking attendant who perjured himself at the trial. The betrayal by her mother and lawyer.
This is not just a story about about corruption in Hollywood; it is a story about the long term and devastating impact of rape.
This is not just a story about about corruption in Hollywood; it is a story about the long term and devastating impact of rape.
(2007) 86 min
The reclusive Patricia Douglas comes out of hiding to discuss the 1937 MGM scandal
Hollywood 1937—Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the world’s most prestigious and powerful movie studio, tricks 120 underage chorus girls into attending a stag party for its visiting salesmen. When dancer Patricia Douglas tries to flee, she is brutally raped; defying the studio’s order for silence, Douglas files a landmark lawsuit while MGM launches the biggest cover-up in Hollywood history-until six decades later, when author-screenwriter David Stenn stumbles upon the story. Stenn’s decade-long search for the truth leads to Patricia Douglas herself, nearly ninety and still in hiding. Will she go public once again, or will Hollywood’s best-suppressed scandal die with her?
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
My favourite Sid Vicious quote
Undermine their pompous authority, reject their moral standards, make anarchy and disorder your trademarks. Cause as much chaos and disruption as possible but don't let them take you ALIVE.
Once had a poster with this quote on it hanging on my office door. Don't know what happened to it, but I still love the sentiment.
In the world we live in, more people should remember this one.
Once had a poster with this quote on it hanging on my office door. Don't know what happened to it, but I still love the sentiment.
In the world we live in, more people should remember this one.
S.N.A.P.: Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests
Just thought that I would put a separate link to the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests and Bishop Accountability separately. Neither of these are bogs, so they can't go on my bloglist
These are such important websites in the fight for accountability.
I have also added a blog, Mennonite Coverup to my bloglist that calls for accountability in the Mennonite Brethern community. Just one more Christian community that refuses to deal with the implications of its theology
These are such important websites in the fight for accountability.
I have also added a blog, Mennonite Coverup to my bloglist that calls for accountability in the Mennonite Brethern community. Just one more Christian community that refuses to deal with the implications of its theology
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Why did it all happen? Reason #1b: Homosexuality
See previous blogs, January 23rd and January 31st.
The second issue is a bit different. There is the totally misguided belief that the priests who sexually abuse children are homosexual. This is, of course, because most of the children who were/are being abused by priests are male. One of my friends, abused by the same priest as I was, when we talked about my sexual abuse, said in disbelief, "but he's gay". He could not see that what happened to him was anything but "homosexual". He had never pushed through to the point where he understood that what happened to him when he was 13, had nothing to do with homosexuality or "gayness". It was a clear abuse of power. This was perhaps the clearest indication of the problem faced by boys who are abused - confusion over sexual orientation.
I think it was back in 2002. I had delivered a paper at the regional AAR (American Academy of Religion). A bunch of us were in the "common room" discussing my paper when the U.S. Council of Bishops(or was it the Cardinals in Rome? - somebody can check that one - if I turn this into a book, I'll make sure to get it right) made some statement at a press conference about the sexual abuse scandal. There was a television in the room that was turned way up for the statement. There were a bunch of eastern rite priests sitting in the room and they started to talk about how it was all blown out of proportion. After all, most of these boys who were complaining were in their teens and they knew what they were doing. I tried to be nice, but in the end that was not possible - so I finally stamped my feet and said that if they wanted to be technical about it - these priests are called ephebophiles (the technical term for people who prey on post-pubescent children) and they were preying on young boys (or young men, if you will). Besides, these men weren't supposed to have sex at all - I think they call it the vow of celibacy. So what part of this can be excused or brushed off as "choice".
It also puts female victims of Roman Catholic priestly sexual abuse at a distinct disadvantage. There are fewer of them and the popular perception that these men are "gay", is fostered by the Church itself. To quote Cardinal Mahoney in Deliver Us From Evil - "We knew you were being abused but you were a girl; if you had been a boy, that would have been obscene". It is almost as if the institution is relieved when the priest is accused of sex with a girl - at least they're not "homos".
Our society seems to still have a lot of problems with homosexuality. The prejudice against them is never-ending. It permeates all aspects of our society. (as I constantly reiterate when I get into discussions about born or made - who would choose this sexual orientation given the prejudice?)
Given the prejudice, it is piling horror on horror for the gay man when the society makes this type of erroneous connection between men who sexually abuse male children and homosexuality. And the Roman Catholic institution is one of the "Leaders of the Pack" in this disinformation.
The second issue is a bit different. There is the totally misguided belief that the priests who sexually abuse children are homosexual. This is, of course, because most of the children who were/are being abused by priests are male. One of my friends, abused by the same priest as I was, when we talked about my sexual abuse, said in disbelief, "but he's gay". He could not see that what happened to him was anything but "homosexual". He had never pushed through to the point where he understood that what happened to him when he was 13, had nothing to do with homosexuality or "gayness". It was a clear abuse of power. This was perhaps the clearest indication of the problem faced by boys who are abused - confusion over sexual orientation.
I think it was back in 2002. I had delivered a paper at the regional AAR (American Academy of Religion). A bunch of us were in the "common room" discussing my paper when the U.S. Council of Bishops(or was it the Cardinals in Rome? - somebody can check that one - if I turn this into a book, I'll make sure to get it right) made some statement at a press conference about the sexual abuse scandal. There was a television in the room that was turned way up for the statement. There were a bunch of eastern rite priests sitting in the room and they started to talk about how it was all blown out of proportion. After all, most of these boys who were complaining were in their teens and they knew what they were doing. I tried to be nice, but in the end that was not possible - so I finally stamped my feet and said that if they wanted to be technical about it - these priests are called ephebophiles (the technical term for people who prey on post-pubescent children) and they were preying on young boys (or young men, if you will). Besides, these men weren't supposed to have sex at all - I think they call it the vow of celibacy. So what part of this can be excused or brushed off as "choice".
It also puts female victims of Roman Catholic priestly sexual abuse at a distinct disadvantage. There are fewer of them and the popular perception that these men are "gay", is fostered by the Church itself. To quote Cardinal Mahoney in Deliver Us From Evil - "We knew you were being abused but you were a girl; if you had been a boy, that would have been obscene". It is almost as if the institution is relieved when the priest is accused of sex with a girl - at least they're not "homos".
Our society seems to still have a lot of problems with homosexuality. The prejudice against them is never-ending. It permeates all aspects of our society. (as I constantly reiterate when I get into discussions about born or made - who would choose this sexual orientation given the prejudice?)
Given the prejudice, it is piling horror on horror for the gay man when the society makes this type of erroneous connection between men who sexually abuse male children and homosexuality. And the Roman Catholic institution is one of the "Leaders of the Pack" in this disinformation.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Why did it all happen? Reason #1a: Celibacy
See previous blog
Mandatory celibacy is often pointed to as a reason for the sexual abuse of children. There is the idea that removing the mandatory celibacy legislation from the Roman Catholic system is somehow going to solve problems of, not only the sexual abuse of children, but also all sorts of other "sexual issues" within the Roman Catholic priesthood (read: homosexuality). However, how can this be a solution?
The first issue is, "if celibacy is the problem, then why is it that there are lots of cases of non-Roman Catholic religious authorities (ministers, organists, counsellors)who sexually abuse children who are married?" Obviously, a married clergy does not solve the problem, and it then follows that a celibate clergy cannot be at the root of the problem. Celibacy can be chosen; sometimes celibacy is thrust upon people; some people just aren't all that interested in sex. However, human beings are made for relationships and most human beings crave the intimacy that a positive sexual relationship can bring.
Christianity has been obsessed with sexuality almost from the beginning. Jesus didn't have much to say about it; frankly neither did Paul. It was up to the Church Fathers to make it the central issue for Christian spirituality. Historically, there are reasons for this, not many that have been truly put in the context of the socio-cultural background out of which the Fathers came. The attitude towards sexuality only changed slightly with the Reformation, which attacked the issue of celibacy but little else about the rationale of sexual relationships within the Christian context. A good little book (now out of print) that discusses this is John Phillips' Eve: The History of and Idea. It is not celibacy that is the problem, but the idea that all sex is essentially a dangerous facet of human relationships. Celibacy puts the idea of the non-sexualized life on a pedestal. Everything else follows from that. Once not having sex is the be-all and end-all of holiness, then all sex is sinful - even if there are degrees of sinfulness. Sex with children just gets lost in the shuffle. Changing mandatory celibacy will not change much if the theology of celibacy remains as one of the lynch pins of holiness. I haven't seen anyone suggest that celibacy won't still be the ideal to strive for.
What would be the theology of the Roman Catholic priesthood be without mandatory celibacy? Is it possible? What would it look like?
Mandatory celibacy is often pointed to as a reason for the sexual abuse of children. There is the idea that removing the mandatory celibacy legislation from the Roman Catholic system is somehow going to solve problems of, not only the sexual abuse of children, but also all sorts of other "sexual issues" within the Roman Catholic priesthood (read: homosexuality). However, how can this be a solution?
The first issue is, "if celibacy is the problem, then why is it that there are lots of cases of non-Roman Catholic religious authorities (ministers, organists, counsellors)who sexually abuse children who are married?" Obviously, a married clergy does not solve the problem, and it then follows that a celibate clergy cannot be at the root of the problem. Celibacy can be chosen; sometimes celibacy is thrust upon people; some people just aren't all that interested in sex. However, human beings are made for relationships and most human beings crave the intimacy that a positive sexual relationship can bring.
Christianity has been obsessed with sexuality almost from the beginning. Jesus didn't have much to say about it; frankly neither did Paul. It was up to the Church Fathers to make it the central issue for Christian spirituality. Historically, there are reasons for this, not many that have been truly put in the context of the socio-cultural background out of which the Fathers came. The attitude towards sexuality only changed slightly with the Reformation, which attacked the issue of celibacy but little else about the rationale of sexual relationships within the Christian context. A good little book (now out of print) that discusses this is John Phillips' Eve: The History of and Idea. It is not celibacy that is the problem, but the idea that all sex is essentially a dangerous facet of human relationships. Celibacy puts the idea of the non-sexualized life on a pedestal. Everything else follows from that. Once not having sex is the be-all and end-all of holiness, then all sex is sinful - even if there are degrees of sinfulness. Sex with children just gets lost in the shuffle. Changing mandatory celibacy will not change much if the theology of celibacy remains as one of the lynch pins of holiness. I haven't seen anyone suggest that celibacy won't still be the ideal to strive for.
What would be the theology of the Roman Catholic priesthood be without mandatory celibacy? Is it possible? What would it look like?
Monday, 25 January 2010
Ads by Google - In this case, please don't click
I have to laugh. When you play God's Gonna Cut You Down, you get Google ads running along the bottom of the video. Since Google determines the ads, I can't to anything about them. I don't put ads on this website. Goes against what I think the website is about. Furthermore, I can't control the ads.
The last thing that I would want would be to have ads about "Free Christian dating" - there are more than enough Christians out there. We don't need any more. I wouldn't want the ad "Why do bad things happen?" that then sends you to a Christian website that is recruiting more people to be saved - I assume that Jeeeeeeeesus will make sure that bad things don't happen to you - just accept the Lord as your Saviour and everything will be alright. All you have to do is read the website or my dissertation to see why that would give me the "screaming heebie jeebies".
The two ad links to get more songs by Johnny Cash would be just fine.
I would have no control over the ads chosen for the website. I don't want to make money from the websites.
So all I can do is laugh when these ads come up. If it allows me to actually embed the odd YouTube video onto the blog, I'll live with it.
Just so you know, there are no ad links on the trailer for Deliver Us From Evil.
The last thing that I would want would be to have ads about "Free Christian dating" - there are more than enough Christians out there. We don't need any more. I wouldn't want the ad "Why do bad things happen?" that then sends you to a Christian website that is recruiting more people to be saved - I assume that Jeeeeeeeesus will make sure that bad things don't happen to you - just accept the Lord as your Saviour and everything will be alright. All you have to do is read the website or my dissertation to see why that would give me the "screaming heebie jeebies".
The two ad links to get more songs by Johnny Cash would be just fine.
I would have no control over the ads chosen for the website. I don't want to make money from the websites.
So all I can do is laugh when these ads come up. If it allows me to actually embed the odd YouTube video onto the blog, I'll live with it.
Just so you know, there are no ad links on the trailer for Deliver Us From Evil.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
They Still Call Him "Father": The Power of the Belief System
Whenever I watch the trailer for the documentary Deliver Us From Evil, I am always struck by the fact that the term the one woman uses for O'Grady is still "Father". It is a testament to the power of the socialization of this belief system. It is also a testament to the level of pain she still feels
Yesterday, I added Johnny Cash's God's Gonna Cut You Down. I just love that song. I so want it to be so, at times. I no longer believe in God, in heaven, in hell. I raised my children without any of these belief systems. However, I have no problem understanding why people do believe. Life sucks big time for many of us. I know that it isn't true, I know that there is no great cosmic payout. I know that there are some people who will never pay for the evil that they have done - mostly because they are able to justify within their own minds whatever they have done. (Generally speaking, I think we call them sociopaths!
On the other hand, part of me believes that what goes 'round, comes 'round - sometimes. As long as I don't think about it. Then I know it's a crock.
Jesus has been attributed with the words, "Let the dead bury the dead" (Matt. 8:22 - my youngest son's favourite gospel). I like to think of that as a mantra - one must leave the past in the past (and, trust me, I know that that is easier said than done). When the old is shown to be dead, one must let it go and find a new way to do things. There has always been a lot about the sayings of the prophet, Jesus that have been at the core of how I view the world. I probably raised my children as secular Jesus followers (if that is not an oxymoron - I don't happen to think it is. Jesus was no more a god than I am.).
But it sure would be nice to know that "God is gonna cut you down". In other words, to quote another of those sayings of my childhood, "be sure your sins will find you out". It all depends on what you think are sins.
Yesterday, I added Johnny Cash's God's Gonna Cut You Down. I just love that song. I so want it to be so, at times. I no longer believe in God, in heaven, in hell. I raised my children without any of these belief systems. However, I have no problem understanding why people do believe. Life sucks big time for many of us. I know that it isn't true, I know that there is no great cosmic payout. I know that there are some people who will never pay for the evil that they have done - mostly because they are able to justify within their own minds whatever they have done. (Generally speaking, I think we call them sociopaths!
On the other hand, part of me believes that what goes 'round, comes 'round - sometimes. As long as I don't think about it. Then I know it's a crock.
Jesus has been attributed with the words, "Let the dead bury the dead" (Matt. 8:22 - my youngest son's favourite gospel). I like to think of that as a mantra - one must leave the past in the past (and, trust me, I know that that is easier said than done). When the old is shown to be dead, one must let it go and find a new way to do things. There has always been a lot about the sayings of the prophet, Jesus that have been at the core of how I view the world. I probably raised my children as secular Jesus followers (if that is not an oxymoron - I don't happen to think it is. Jesus was no more a god than I am.).
But it sure would be nice to know that "God is gonna cut you down". In other words, to quote another of those sayings of my childhood, "be sure your sins will find you out". It all depends on what you think are sins.
Saturday, 23 January 2010
Deliver Us From Evil: The Trailer
This is the trailer from Deliver Us From Evil. It is a perfect introduction to the full horror of what has been happening for centuries. It is only now that we can actually begin to understand what this does to believers.
Johnny Cash: God's Gonna Cut You Down
This is the song from the Trailer for Deliver Us From Evil
I tried to put it as a sidebar - like the Lucinda Williams, but it just won't work - it keeps bringing in all sorts of useless videos, so here it is for the future.
I tried to put it as a sidebar - like the Lucinda Williams, but it just won't work - it keeps bringing in all sorts of useless videos, so here it is for the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just in case you think this is just a Roman Catholic problem!
It isn't, not by a long shot. See this from the megachurch - Gateway Church in Texas (and even in Sault Ste. Marie ON?!) Texas megachu...
