The Pope's Apology. Does it go far enough?

[MithLuin]

I typically find Maureen Dowd...to harp on a single note. I know she's not happy with the Church the way it is, but her editorials merely convince me that she should find a church that suits her better. At least the Saudi women she was talking to could be like, look, this is our country, and we'll deal with it because we live here. What is her excuse for staying in the Church when it takes zero effort to leave it? Most people who are raised in the faith can make the excuse, "my mother," but she publishes her opinions so it's not for the sake of peace in the family that she sticks with it. Generally, she knows just enough to be on topic, but there are enough errors and misrepresentation of Catholic views in her work to discount her as a serious opinion.

[Primula Baggins]

I've posted an apology and retracted what I said on the previous page.

[vison]

I am an actual woman (and a Catholic one at that!) and I typically find Maureen Dowd...to harp on a single note. I know she's not happy with the Church the way it is, but her editorials merely convince me that she should find a church that suits her better. At least the Saudi women she was talking to could be like, look, this is our country, and we'll deal with it because we live here. What is her excuse for staying in the Church when it takes zero effort to leave it? Most people who are raised in the faith can make the excuse, "my mother," but she publishes her opinions so it's not for the sake of peace in the family that she sticks with it. Generally, she knows just enough to be on topic, but there are enough errors and misrepresentation of Catholic views in her work to discount her as a serious opinion.

Perhaps Ms. Dowd thinks of her relationship with the church as being like a marriage. And, is she not entitled to express her opinions? Are only cheerleaders required?

The RCC has undergone many changes in the past and no doubt will change more in the future. Like all monolithic insitutions, like a very big ship at sea, any turn is going to be difficult and take a very long time.

[MithLuin]

She is certainly allowed to express her opinion (as is Prim!) - I was just trying to articulate why I don't take her very seriously. Dissent is certainly an aspect of the modern Catholic church in America, and there are some quite articulate people who disagree with how the Church does things. She's not one of them, though.

[Cerin]

Hmmm? I didn't read the column last week when it was first posted, but I did so now. Frankly, I found it nonsensical. There might be an argument supporting the position that "negating women is at the heart of" the abuse scandal. But if there is a such an argument, I still don't know what it is, because Dowd never makes it. She simply makes the assertion (along with a serious of extremely off-putting hyperbolic labels, thought that is neither here nor there) with nothing whatsoever to support it. And the gratuitious reference to female genital mutilation was, in my opinion, extremely inappropriate and misleading.

I didn't find the column nonsensical. I agree, she might have elaborated more on the point that negating women is at the heart of the abuse scandal, but the remark wasn't entirely unsupported. I thought the column made some very good points.

Voronwë, there was no mention of genital mutilation in the article. Dowd used the word 'circumscribed' to describe how Saudi women are severely limited in their roles in society.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë, there was no mention of genital mutilation in the article. Dowd used the word 'circumscribed' to describe how Saudi women are severely limited in their roles in society.

You are quite right, Cerin. I misread the word as "circumcise" which significantly added -- wrongly as it turns out -- to my distaste for the article.

I would be curious to hear in what way you feel that she showed that there was a nexus between negating woman and the abuse scandal, if in fact that is what you mean by saying that the remark was not entirely unsupported.

[nerdanel]

I didn't find Dowd's column to be very helpful. She makes a bold claim - that negating women is at the heart of the scandal - and I didn't feel it was clearly supported at all. Since I felt consistently marginalized as a girl raised in the patriarchal Church, I am probably predisposed to believe allegations that the Church intentionally and unintentionally marginalizes and negates women, and yet I did not find Dowd's piece persuasive.

A male, Catholic friend of mine told me that he had heard feminist claims that the abuse scandal would have been less likely to occur if women held positions of power within the Church. He stated that he did not understand this reasoning, and asked me for my thoughts. After considering it, I think that there is at least one principal reason why allowing women to hold positions of authority within the Church may correlate to a decline in sexual abuse cases. As women, we are differently situated with respect to sexual abuse. The potential that we might be violated sexually (or physically) affects much of our everyday behavior: whether/when/where we feel comfortable walking alone, which people we meet one-on-one, whether we leave drinks unattended in public places, how long we wait before trusting a prospective intimate partner in a private, one-on-one situation. We do these things routinely; even if we do not consciously think about them on a daily basis, we live our lives so as to protect our bodies from physical abuse. When we think about the possibility of sexual violence, we probably consider the possibility it will be directed against us, or our female friends and family members, and we probably expect that the aggressor will be male. Male privilege means that it is rare for men to consider sexual abuse issues in this way. Most heterosexual men (and I suspect, a preponderance of gay men) simply do not fear sexual (or even physical) violence; many men that I have talked to state that outside the prison context, they don't think of themselves as potential victims of sexual violence at all. Even if they fully understand the importance of consent and the horror of nonconsensual sex (which they understand, unfortunately, at a rate lower than 100 percent) ... it just doesn't affect men in the same way. When I have talked to many men about the potential of rape (for instance), they try to relate by considering how they would feel if their mother or sister or wife was violated; that their bodies would be nonconsensually touched or penetrated is, apparently, too much (or too-farfetched) for them even to imagine.

If I am right - that many women consciously or otherwise understand themselves to be potential victims of sexual violence, and factor into their activities the importance of guarding against this threat - it seems likely that women would bring this same understanding and sensitivity to positions of power within the church hierarchy. It seems reasonable that women would be more likely to prioritize the removal of sexual predators from positions in which they could victimize children (or anyone else), and to report those predators to the civil authorities. I do think it's relevant that the type of abuse that was committed here is a type overwhelmingly committed by men and (outside the pedophilia context) experienced by women. I think it would be much harder for women than it has been for men to place "other considerations" such as the reputation of the church above the moral and ethical need to respond swiftly to sexual abuse. Thoughts?

[vison]

That's a good post, nerdanel.

But the thing is, what about little boys? It seems that little boys must be taught to regard themselves as potential victims of sexual assault. Not only little boys, but teenagers, like those who were victims of an infamous hockey coach.

Sexual abuse is not just about sex, as a rule. It is about the abuse of Power. I believe very strongly that to regard sexual abuse as "sexual BEHAVIOR" is a mistake. It is assault, but the weapon is not fists or knives or guns. Nor is it necessarily assault with a sexual organ - the children who were abused were not often "raped" in the sense we usually use the word. There are many ways of sexually abusing someone and while word "sexual" in there pushes a lot of buttons and sets off a lot of alarms, what is happening is assault causing bodily harm or emotional harm or spiritual harm.

But then, what is a pedophile but an adult whose sexual object is a child? That sort of person will choose to be near children, and will choose (if possible) some kind of work that gives him power over children as well as access.

I don't know what causes it. I don't know what would lead an adult man to interfere in this way with a child - but I am pretty much convinced that it is NOT a result of celibacy. If it was homosexuality, the men in question could have sex with other men. No doubt some do. Some pedophiles prefer boy victims, some prefer girls, some will abuse either.

There is some dreadful dynamic here. I have recently read that our common idea that pedophiles were almost always sexually abused themselves is not true: but I don't know whether that's so or not.

It is a very tangled web. The certainties we all have about it are not certainties.

I think women priests would be less likely to sexually abuse children than men - but that's only my opinion and I have nothing to back it up. I think there are many factors involved. And I also think that we will none of us live to see women priests in the RCC.

[Cerin]

I would be curious to hear in what way you feel that she showed that there was a nexus between negating woman and the abuse scandal, if in fact that is what you mean by saying that the remark was not entirely unsupported.

Her point seems to be that negating women's role in the church is not just unscriptural in itself, but has the damaging effect of removing what she terms a 'maternal' influence from the church's workings, specifically, the handling of the crisis, resulting, she posits, in the appalling indifference shown by church officials to the welfare of the victims.

Here is where she sets out the idea, and then uses a quote to identify what she means by 'maternal':

Negating women is at the heart of the church’s hideous — and criminal — indifference to the welfare of boys and girls in its priests’ care. Lisa Miller writes in Newsweek’s cover story about the danger of continuing to marginalize women in a disgraced church that has Mary at the center of its founding story:

“In the Roman Catholic corporation, the senior executives live and work, as they have for a thousand years, eschewing not just marriage, but intimacy with women ... not to mention any chance to familiarize themselves with the earthy, primal messiness of families and children.”

She then finishes that thought by relating it to the specific point she references again later, about the treatment of the victims -- that they were regarded as collateral damage in the true and important fight to protect the church from its enemies (a point that was raised previously in the thread in an article quoting a church spokesman).

No wonder that, having closed themselves off from women and everything maternal, they treated children as collateral damage, a necessary sacrifice to save face for Mother Church.

She later elaborates on this theme, that a church that respected and embraced what women have to offer might have put a different value on the welfare of the children vs. the welfare of the church, and responded differently (more maternally) to these young victims:

In 1982, the Oakland diocese got what it termed a “rather curt” response from the Vatican. It wasn’t until 1985 that “God’s Rottweiler” finally got around to addressing the California bishop’s concern. He sent his letter urging the diocese to give the 38-year-old pedophile “as much paternal care as possible” and to consider “his young age.” Ratzinger should have been more alarmed by the young age of the priest’s victims; that’s what maternal care would have entailed.

As in so many other cases, the primary concern seemed to be shielding the church from scandal. Chillingly, outrageously, the future pope told the Oakland bishop to consider the “good of the universal church” before granting the priest’s own request to give up the collar — even though the bishop had advised Rome that the scandal would likely be greater if the priest were not punished.

edit

So I guess it comes down to what you mean by 'supporting'. She believes that if women were more involved in the church, it might have responded differently to the knowledge that children were being sexually abused by priests, i.e., shown concern for their welfare rather than concern for the church's image and reputation. I don't find the idea nonsensical, and I think she did briefly develop it in the column. But certainly there is and can be no evidence that what she theorizes is true, since women weren't allowed to have leadership positions in the church and weren't involved in handling the allegations. We'll never know if it would have been different with women involved.

[vison]

“In the Roman Catholic corporation, the senior executives live and work, as they have for a thousand years, eschewing not just marriage, but intimacy with women ... not to mention any chance to familiarize themselves with the earthy, primal messiness of families and children.”

This is exactly so, IMHO.

They worship (or venerate, if you prefer, although I don't see much difference) a virgin who gave birth to a boy child who turned out to be their god. All other women are less than Mary. Just by being women and living a woman's life! Yet presumably created by the same god. There is nothing "normal" about this, even by the standards of religious beliefs, which I freely admit puzzle me from A to Z. But a thing ought to have some kind of internal logic whether I agree with it or not, and I see no logic in this.

The modern church no longer preaches the hateful misogyny of the Medieval era, but the effects of those beliefs have lingered for centuries. The church is an institution of men, where men have all the power, and while it is called the Mother Church, the only mother in it is the Virgin Mary and she is not exactly like other women. She is "safe" in being non-sexual, and real women have sexual natures.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thank you, Cerin. I have to admit I still don't see any attempt at all to show that the Roman Catholic Church's alleged "negation" of woman was a major cause of the abuse scandal, only the statement that it was. Her use of terms like "God's Rottweiler" do nothing but obfuscate the issues, in my view.

[Cerin]

Thank you, Cerin. I have to admit I still don't see any attempt at all to show that the Roman Catholic Church's alleged "negation" of woman was a major cause of the abuse scandal, only the statement that it was. Her use of terms like "God's Rottweiler" do nothing but obfuscate the issues, in my view.

Dowd never says the negation of women was a cause of the scandal. Her point is much more limited. She says negation of women -- that is, the refusal to allow women to participate in all areas of church life -- is at the heart of the indifference shown to the victims. Her claim is simply that one of the main reasons the church reacted as it did -- trying to hide the scandal and protect the priests and the church's image and reputation rather than showing concern for the welfare of the children, is because the church excludes women and therefore there is no maternal wisdom to tap, in handling church matters.

I agree that her use of terms such as you mention isn't helpful. I rarely read her columns because I find her nastiness, which seems to be her stock in trade, to be very unappealing.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Dowd never says the negation of women was a cause of the scandal. Her point is much more limited. She says negation of women -- that is, the refusal to allow women to participate in all areas of church life -- is at the heart of the indifference shown to the victims. Her claim is simply that one of the main reasons the church reacted as it did -- trying to hide the scandal and protect the priests and the church's image and reputation rather than showing concern for the welfare of the children, is because the church excludes women and therefore there is no maternal wisdom to tap, in handling church matters.

Yes, I can see that. But even there, I think that the connection that she makes between the Church's alleged "negation" of women and its alleged indifference to the abuse is tenuous at best. The argument seems to be based on the assumption that women would be more protective of the victims because they are kinder and gentler and wiser than men, an assumption that I actually generally agree with, but which is ironically contradicted by Dowd's own nastiness.

[Cerin]

I agree it's a tenuous connection. I don't think she's saying women are kinder and wiser, just that having some women, with their maternal instincts, in the church would make the church a different entity than it is without women, and specifically, that it would have handled the abuse allegations differently. But who knows?

[vison]

Dowd's "own nastiness"? Comes down to talk, in the end. Nothing like actually physically hurting someone - merely pointing out what she sees as failures or flaws in a male-dominated, male-centric institution. I don't think there is any "nice, feminine way" of saying what Dowd says - or, rather, no matter what she says in criticizing the RCC some people are going to think she's wrong for doing it at all.

I don't think women are "gentler or kinder or wiser" than men, but they tend to react differently in certain circumstances. Do women have more empathy with victims of sexual abuse? Maybe they do - but maybe that's a myth, too.

[Frelga]

I don't know about a specifically "maternal" perspective, but there was no parental perspective at all. Perhaps any parent, mother or father, would have reacted more protectively toward the children.

[vison]

I don't know about a specifically "maternal" perspective, but there was no parental perspective at all. Perhaps any parent, mother or father, would have reacted more protectively toward the children.

Very excellent point.

[MithLuin]

Well, the obvious approach would be to consider the handling of abuse in institutions that involved/employed women, including in positions of power - such as schools with female principals. In one where I worked, the male teacher was dismissed immediately after the abuse became known, but this was also after 2000. There are a few cases from British boarding schools, where the women who knew or seemed to know about the abuse did nothing to stop/report it, and rather regarded the young male victims as 'dirty.' Which is not to say that all women are horrible people, but simply that being a woman in and of itself is no guarantee that a person will correctly handle a victim of abuse. While most mothers would certainly do all that they can to protect their child, there are mothers who lie for their husband/boyfriend and allow the abuse to continue...under their own roof. And it wasn't long ago that many people (men and women) would assume that the victim was at fault for somehow coming onto the perpetrator, or simply lying to get attention, or.....

Most of the rape-as-an-okay-way-to-start-a-sexual-relationship fanfiction is written by women, not men. (Simply because a lot of the erotica in general is written by women.) The adult is nearly always male, but the child/teenager can be male or female. I realize that some people consider that since it's just about fantasy characters it doesn't matter (no victim, no crime, so it's not illegal), but if people are writing really graphic tales of how adults victimize children in an attempt to turn the reader on, something messed up is going on. These stories and authors aren't rare.

I saw 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' yesterday, and that certainly portrayed rape and sexual violence as being about power...and victims retaliating by seizing back power. Because the ultimate power...is not forcibly having sex with someone, but having the power of life or death over them. Sexual violence is more akin to murder than to sexual intercourse.

[vison]

Sexual violence is more akin to murder than to sexual intercourse.

I agree, in part. Which is why I don't think it is "sexual behavior" as such.

But there is something other than "only" violence involved. There is a specific mindset or some motive that makes a person use a sexual assault instead of a knife or gun or the fists. That is where the problem lies, and I don't think anyone has got to the source of it.

There are people who desire to have sex with children. We see it as evil, as assault, as everything vile, but to them it is the norm, or their norm at least. The acts they commit are horrible, but can we categorize them as sheer violence, as crimes of power?

Women can, and do, commit sexual abuse crimes. But because people tend to think of "rape" as a male crime, that is often forgot.

Still, I think the cover-up of these crimes had little to do with "Sex" as such but almost entirely to do with protecting the institution. The RCC is not alone in jumping to CYA mode as soon as a problem crops up - it is how large corporations and institutions all act.

[nerdanel]

Re: whether this problem is institutional in nature, as a competitive swimmer, this story is near to my interests. A civil suit filed by a former swimmer accuses USA Swimming of negligence in failing to protect her and other swimmers against (hetero)sexual abuse by a coach.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/sport ... m.html?hpw