I am not a saint. I have been to confession enough times over my life to prevent my forgetting that. I still try to go every month or so which is probably not often enough. Somebody told me that the late Pope John Paul II went every day!
I have had the experience of confessing a particular sin to one priest who accepted it in stride along with my other sins and gave me some helpful advice. Another priest flipped on the same sin. He told me I was going straight to hell.
I tell you this not for the sake of making any public confessions although it does no harm to establish that it is not my intention to take a holier-than-thou attitude on this blog. I doubt that any of my readers consider themselves without fault or sin. Even the meticulous pharisees had the integrity to walk away when Jesus suggested that the one without sin should cast the first stone.
My purpose is rather to give an example of someone having a sense of outrage at sin. Not meaning to say one priest's response was better or worse than the other, or less or more appropriate. My comparison is rather with that of the response of the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium, Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, to the release of a 200-page report on September 10, compiled by an internal commission set up by the church to document charges of sex abuse. Two hundred pages!
According to a New York Times article headed, Belgian Church's Response to Abuse Lacks Specifics, ( http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=659343&f=110 ), the report included harrowing testimony from victims and said that one had been abused from the age of 2. Thirteen people are thought to have committed suicide as a result of abuse, the report said.
FROM THE AGE OF TWO!!! THIRTEEN SUICIDES!? What the ....?
According to the New York Times, Archbishop Léonard said at a news conference that suffering had caused a "shiver" to run through the church, but that it was too soon for a detailed response to the crisis. A shiver through the church? A SHIVER? Which church is the archbishop talking about? He and I must be in different churches. His church might be experiencing a shiver but my church is vomiting in disgust. If my confessor blew an indignation valve over what I had confessed then the poor man must be suffering one serious meltdown if he is aware of this report out of the church in Belgium.
Why do I get the impression that lay people are more outraged and disgusted by this stuff than are bishops and priests?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Training future Catholic paedophiles
I came across a posting by a Belgian lay woman, Dr. Alexandra Colen, who describes her quest to have a Belgian catechism textbook, Roeach, removed from Catholic schools in Belgium.
I do not consider myself a prudish Mother Grundy. I was sadly disappointed when a few years ago some Catholic parents wanted Margaret Attwood's The Handmaid's Tale removed from being prescribed reading for English in local Catholic high schools. They had never read the book but had read the page where the main character talks about f*ck*ng. (I had not read the book either. The controversy led me to read it and I would say that it should be on everyone's "must read" list along with Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four.)
Roeach (pronounced Ruach where the ch is like the Scottish och) is very different. It had the Imprimatur of the Archbishop's office. The editors of Roeach were Prof. Jef Bulckens of the Catholic University of Leuven and Prof. Frans Lefevre of the Seminary of Bruges. It has some drawings of babies and toddlers with bubble texts that led Colen to conclude, “When I see this drawing and its message, I get the distinct impression that this catechism textbook is designed intentionally to make 13 and 14 year olds believe that toddlers enjoy genital stimulation. In this way one breeds pedophiles that sincerely believe that children actually think that what they are doing to them is ‘groovy’, while the opposite is the case.”
For some insight into the context of the scandal around resigned bishop Roger Vangheluwe read Colen's blog entry, The Fall of the Belgian Church (http://www.alexandracolen.nu/node/45). Warning, it has a cartoon from the catechism that some might consider pornographic.
I do not consider myself a prudish Mother Grundy. I was sadly disappointed when a few years ago some Catholic parents wanted Margaret Attwood's The Handmaid's Tale removed from being prescribed reading for English in local Catholic high schools. They had never read the book but had read the page where the main character talks about f*ck*ng. (I had not read the book either. The controversy led me to read it and I would say that it should be on everyone's "must read" list along with Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four.)
Roeach (pronounced Ruach where the ch is like the Scottish och) is very different. It had the Imprimatur of the Archbishop's office. The editors of Roeach were Prof. Jef Bulckens of the Catholic University of Leuven and Prof. Frans Lefevre of the Seminary of Bruges. It has some drawings of babies and toddlers with bubble texts that led Colen to conclude, “When I see this drawing and its message, I get the distinct impression that this catechism textbook is designed intentionally to make 13 and 14 year olds believe that toddlers enjoy genital stimulation. In this way one breeds pedophiles that sincerely believe that children actually think that what they are doing to them is ‘groovy’, while the opposite is the case.”
For some insight into the context of the scandal around resigned bishop Roger Vangheluwe read Colen's blog entry, The Fall of the Belgian Church (http://www.alexandracolen.nu/node/45). Warning, it has a cartoon from the catechism that some might consider pornographic.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
I thought I was going to have some support.
“Why do you feel sorry for him and not me? You always try to defend him. I thought I was going to have some support.”
With these telling words it is clear that yet another victim of Roman Catholic, clerical sex abuse was again made to feel victimised. To the victim, at least, it seemed that the perpetrator of the abuse was being defended and he, the victim, was given one course of action - forgiveness.
The case, which has caused huge turmoil in the Catholic church in Belgium, seems to be summarised pretty comprehensively in the New York Times of Sept 1, 2010 under the headline, "Cardinal, Who Mediated in Belgian Abuse Case, Says He Was Misled."
Timeline summary of events.
As a priest Roger Vangheluwe sexually abused his nephew, his own brother's son, for 13 years from the time the boy was 5 years of age.
Even after Vangheluwe was made Bishop of Bruges in 1984 the sexual assults continued until the victim was 18 years old.
Vangheluwe sent his nephew gifts of money, unsolicited, on his birthday, Easter, New Year and (wait for it...) Valentine's Day.
For the next 24 years the nephew kept his childhood abuse a secret.
The nephew told some members of the family who together asked for a meeting with Vangheluwe.
Vangheluwe arranged a meeting with himself and half a dozen members of the family, including the nephew and his father, Vangheluwe's brother. There would be a "mediator". The family thought the mediator would be the new Bishop of Bruges, Archbishop Léonard. Instead Vangheluwe brought in his old friend, Cardinal Danneels, recently retired head of the Church in Belgium.
The nephew secretly recorded the meeting which took place April 8, 2010.
At the meeting Danneels urged the nephew to stay quiet, at least until Vangheluwe could retire. "It might be better to wait for a date in the next year, when he is due to resign. I don't know if there will be much to gain from making a lot of noise about this, neither for you nor for him."
In another meeting later the same month Vangheluwe offered his nephew an apology which was rejected. “This is unsolvable,” the victim said. “You’ve torn our family completely apart.”
Vangheluwe resigned on April 23, 2010, after admitting to sexually abusing "a young man years ago" and has gone to a Trappist monastery.
In August the nephew released the tapes.
Observations and Comments
This is really shocking by any standards. The victim was 5 years old when the abuse started! Five! ...and the perpetrator accepted a nomination to the epicopate while this was going on and continued thus for some years into his time as bishop!
Cardinal Danneels had been chairman of the Belgian Episcopal Conference from 1979 to January 2010. He must have known that this needed a formal investigation by the current bishop. He should not have touched this with a barge pole. Instead we find him trying to influence the course of events and prevent or delay due process laid down by Canon Law. According to an earlier New York Times article on August 29, “The bishop will resign next year, so actually it would be better for you to wait,” the cardinal told the victim. “I don’t think you’d do yourself or him a favor by shouting this from the rooftops.” (Belgian Church Leader Urged Victim to Be Silent.) The cardinal warned the victim against trying to blackmail the church and suggested that he accept a private apology from the bishop and not drag “his name through the mud.” I gather from this that an apology would mean the end of the matter.
One has to wonder if Daneels himself had something to hide. According to the same New York Times article, a retired priest, the Rev. Rik Devillé, said he tried to warn Cardinal Danneels about the bishop’s abuse of his nephew 14 years ago, but was berated by the cardinal for doing so.
They just don't get it, do they? When will they get it that it's not about "The Church" and its reputation or the protectionism of the Old Boys' Club? It has to be about the victims. An apology that is a cloak for a request to be let off the hook is no apology at all. Preaching forgiveness and pushing victims to forgive without demanding that perpetrators attempt to make restitution and take the consequences of their actions doesn't merely ring hollow - it rubs salt in the wound, invalidates the pain and trauma of the victim and exacerbates the sense of victimhood. It's the stuff of hypocrisy. Jesus had his harshest words for hypocrites.
With these telling words it is clear that yet another victim of Roman Catholic, clerical sex abuse was again made to feel victimised. To the victim, at least, it seemed that the perpetrator of the abuse was being defended and he, the victim, was given one course of action - forgiveness.
The case, which has caused huge turmoil in the Catholic church in Belgium, seems to be summarised pretty comprehensively in the New York Times of Sept 1, 2010 under the headline, "Cardinal, Who Mediated in Belgian Abuse Case, Says He Was Misled."
Timeline summary of events.
As a priest Roger Vangheluwe sexually abused his nephew, his own brother's son, for 13 years from the time the boy was 5 years of age.
Even after Vangheluwe was made Bishop of Bruges in 1984 the sexual assults continued until the victim was 18 years old.
Vangheluwe sent his nephew gifts of money, unsolicited, on his birthday, Easter, New Year and (wait for it...) Valentine's Day.
For the next 24 years the nephew kept his childhood abuse a secret.
The nephew told some members of the family who together asked for a meeting with Vangheluwe.
Vangheluwe arranged a meeting with himself and half a dozen members of the family, including the nephew and his father, Vangheluwe's brother. There would be a "mediator". The family thought the mediator would be the new Bishop of Bruges, Archbishop Léonard. Instead Vangheluwe brought in his old friend, Cardinal Danneels, recently retired head of the Church in Belgium.
The nephew secretly recorded the meeting which took place April 8, 2010.
At the meeting Danneels urged the nephew to stay quiet, at least until Vangheluwe could retire. "It might be better to wait for a date in the next year, when he is due to resign. I don't know if there will be much to gain from making a lot of noise about this, neither for you nor for him."
In another meeting later the same month Vangheluwe offered his nephew an apology which was rejected. “This is unsolvable,” the victim said. “You’ve torn our family completely apart.”
Vangheluwe resigned on April 23, 2010, after admitting to sexually abusing "a young man years ago" and has gone to a Trappist monastery.
In August the nephew released the tapes.
Observations and Comments
This is really shocking by any standards. The victim was 5 years old when the abuse started! Five! ...and the perpetrator accepted a nomination to the epicopate while this was going on and continued thus for some years into his time as bishop!
Cardinal Danneels had been chairman of the Belgian Episcopal Conference from 1979 to January 2010. He must have known that this needed a formal investigation by the current bishop. He should not have touched this with a barge pole. Instead we find him trying to influence the course of events and prevent or delay due process laid down by Canon Law. According to an earlier New York Times article on August 29, “The bishop will resign next year, so actually it would be better for you to wait,” the cardinal told the victim. “I don’t think you’d do yourself or him a favor by shouting this from the rooftops.” (Belgian Church Leader Urged Victim to Be Silent.) The cardinal warned the victim against trying to blackmail the church and suggested that he accept a private apology from the bishop and not drag “his name through the mud.” I gather from this that an apology would mean the end of the matter.
One has to wonder if Daneels himself had something to hide. According to the same New York Times article, a retired priest, the Rev. Rik Devillé, said he tried to warn Cardinal Danneels about the bishop’s abuse of his nephew 14 years ago, but was berated by the cardinal for doing so.
They just don't get it, do they? When will they get it that it's not about "The Church" and its reputation or the protectionism of the Old Boys' Club? It has to be about the victims. An apology that is a cloak for a request to be let off the hook is no apology at all. Preaching forgiveness and pushing victims to forgive without demanding that perpetrators attempt to make restitution and take the consequences of their actions doesn't merely ring hollow - it rubs salt in the wound, invalidates the pain and trauma of the victim and exacerbates the sense of victimhood. It's the stuff of hypocrisy. Jesus had his harshest words for hypocrites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
