Sunday, November 20, 2011

In which I (Kathleen) get Dreherrific

"For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Matthew 23:4

----
I volunteered to help teach music at a Catholic school, so on Saturday I was required to attend a training session called "Protecting God's Children". They didn't show the film credits to my class, but it looked like it was produced by the Catholic diocese in Kansas or Oklahoma . Much of the session consisted of watching a film with the usual plot points -- horrible stories narrated by survivors, previous offenders detailing how they groomed children, and apologetic bishops confessing they didn't do enough to prevent child sex abuse in the church. OH, WAIT. Scratch that last one.

The film presented about five examples of child molestation, which were as follows:

male skating teacher molests underage girls
female teacher molests female student
male camp counselor molests male student
ten year old boy molests five year old boy
priest molests underage girl


In other words, according to my diocese and any diocese who shows this film to lay Catholic employees/volunteers, anyone -- even a ten year old -- can be a child sex abuser. And I suppose technically this is true; the nice kid next door could indeed be a predator fiend. But in light of recent events, is this REALLY the message Catholic dioceses want to send to lay people involved with the Church? "You're just as suspect as we are"? Were bishops frantically covering up for Catholic *lay* people accused of molestation, assuming there were any accused in any significant number? There was a very brief, watery mention of how American bishops and clergy fell short protecting children for, oh, several decades (interestingly it was stated in the passive tense, e.g. "not enough was done…") Frankly, I find it pretty rich that lay Catholic volunteers are forced to sit through a three hour training which not only makes barely any mention of how Catholic bishops nationwide have fallen short protecting children, but points the finger at everyone else in the community as possible culprits.

The training then went on to discuss observing signs of sexual abuse in victims' behavior, and how to avoid being accused of molestation. For example, if a child wants to hug you, you are supposed to "swivel" to the side and just leave your arm across their shoulders. In other words, an entirely new level of paranoia and distrust is introduced before any interaction with children has even taken place. It's very easy to argue this training is unfortunate but necessary. However, I wonder at what point things become so unpleasant and tense people just stop interacting with children anymore. Certainly, given the atmosphere created by "training sessions" like this, if any child were molested, he'd be hard pressed to get a private moment with a paranoid but innocent adult who might be able to help him out. That sad fact alone makes the training somewhat counter-productive.

Obviously the filmmakers went out of their way to illustrate every possible permutation of child sex abuse. Nothing, according to this film, is typical of child sex abuse. But as we know from priest abuse cases, there are patterns. For example, in the case of priests, 80% of the sex abuse was against underage males. So, is it an unhappy coincidence that in the film the only example of priest sex abuse shown involved an underage girl? Seriously?! The one case you are going to cop to in your training, O Catholic poobahs, is going to be totally atypical? WHY IS THAT, EXACTLY? To quote Led Zeppelin, "oooh and it makes me wonder…"

The training leader failed to mention that the Kansas City bishop was just indicted for concealing the fact that a priest had child porn on his computer. I find it amazing that this recent news story wasn't brought up, even though it was completely topical. I guess it's not a fact the bishops want advertised -- but that's just the problem isn't it? They want this stuff to go away. It's pretty clear that for American bishops, concealment and deflection is still the order of the day.

I can hear the plaintive cry now: "But what are the bishops supposed to dooooo? They are between a rock and a hard place." Here's a start: if bishops insist on making the primary thrust of their training "everyone does it", include a big old dose of mea culpa and "here's what we did wrong". This would necessarily amount to more than half a sentence in the passive tense per three hour training session. Also, they should consider hiring a public relations firm that knows what the hell they are doing. It's a sad day when Madison Avenue has more self-awareness than Catholic clergy, but here we are.

27 comments:

  1. Pauli:
    I agree with the points of your post. However, I would not use the term Dreherrific. I would say "In which I act like Saint Thomas More." He cared about the church and was not afraid to criticize corruption when he saw it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LOL, I took Protecting God's Children and watched that same film. Yep, it's pretty anemic, and it has come in for a lot of criticism as a result. But the program itself is pretty good, I think, depending on who runs it, I guess. In any event, it's way better than nothing.

    No movie is going to stop a pedophile. Background checks, not namby-pamby movies, are what's needed. And even they won't catch every red flag.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm guessing that this program is either 1) part of the settlement of the litigation, or 2) lawyer-driven prophylaxis by providing evidence that "reasonable steps were taken".

    IOW, it isn't primarily intended to solve the problem. Which is why "it is what it is". (to coin a phrase)

    And I'm not sure I blame them. One can only imagine the firestorm for the diocese or parish who unknowingly hires or accepts (as a volunteer) a pedophile who strikes. They need all the tools they can get -- and they need lay people to serve as the first line of defense. Perhaps it will help avoid having a Penn State McQueary (or whatever his name is), running off to ask others whether to rat the rapist out to the boss. Anyhoo, without such "training" in place, the damage would be even more severe.

    But I hope and pray that dioceses and orders have a real program in the seminaries and for existing priests -- one that is more direct and that serves to convince those with the predilection to leave.

    ReplyDelete
  4. piku -- excellent points; I think you're spot-on.

    In any event, as I said, Protecting God's Children is better than nothing. And "nothing" is what most churches offer -- including Dreher's church.

    Not that this excuses the movie's shortcomings. But still...better than nothing.

    The PGC program does, at least, send a signal to all church volunteers that they MUST be on constant alert for any remotely suspicious behaviors. It has certainly had such an effect on the folks I know.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My good Pauli,

    Forgive me for disagreeing, but I, too, do not believe your post above yet rises into that meandering jet stream I myself might describe as Dreheriffic.

    To achieve the unique atmospherics of Dreheriffitude you may need to, while consuming your daily dollop of Andrew Sullivan (not going to Sullivan for a daily nibble may immediately disqualify you from Dreheriffitude, I'm afraid)

    - begin to draw hookah-like on your favorite Snap-on or other industrial air supply for preliminary inflation (puff)

    - locate an obscure passing Sullivan post with "porn" displayed prominently in the title (puff, puff); notice that the words "teenage" are also included in the post (puff, puff, puff)

    - don your best Muppet faux-Brooklyn-manamana-New York Post-moxie cap and burrow into the post's antecedents to their depths until you can reliably point your readers to both adult film database links and a blog containing explicit loops of a male porn star in action commented upon by allegedly teenaged girls swooning over him (puff, puff, puff, puff)

    - and then finally present the fruits of this journalistic exertion as an ineffable outrage you first label Caligulal before - after a majority of your commenters, perhaps not really wanting a taste of what you've offered them Caligularly, display relative indifference - then referring to this moribund pony you're still whacking as a deep sadness instead, a deep sadness that reminds you of nothing so much as the conquistatorial predations of the Catholic Church in the New World as historically documented in the film The Mission (puff, puff, puff, puff, puff).

    Again, Pauli, I am sorry, but to my eyes the critique you offer above about ongoing real life problems and their attempted solutions can at most only be described as Pauliriffic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. HMS, all I can say is: Bravo.

    LOL!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. For the record, Kathleen wrote this post. I don't disagree with it, and the title seems to serve her purpose. If I have time, I'll read all the comments and respond. Happy Thanksgiving.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pretty lame of my blogger template to have the poster's name way at the bottom in a lightly colored font. I'll try to remedy that--again, whenever I get a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ooooh, love the word "Caligularly". Thank you for that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Anonymous, so when you leave a church that's a sign that you care more about it than other people do? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  11. wow, it sounds like I missed a spectacular Dreher post.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I see that our old buddy Franklin Evans from the Beliefnet Crunchy blog has tagged along with Dreher.

    Seeing his comment dredged up all sorts of memories that I'd planned on forgetting . . .

    ReplyDelete
  13. yeah, still the same lot of rats aboard the good ship Dreher. Many of them apparently insane.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually, YES everyone can be a child molester! That's the point! Many adults still think of molesters are someone very different than themselves, well, they are like you, me, members of our families.

    It time all of us, clergy included take seriously the need to protect children from anyone who may want to harm them.

    And child abuse isn't about the sex, it's about power and control and the abuse of those usually involves people in positions of power.

    I had to sit through the same film and went to a Criminal Record Check as well. It's worth it to protect all of our precious children.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Everyone could be a serial killer/sadist/torturer/kidnapper fiend with 80 innocent victims locked in their basement dungeons as well. You never know, Anonymous. Where's the training to recognize that?!

    And while we're at it, let's mandate 500 hours of driver's ed per year for all!

    I love it when people say sex is not about the sex. It's like the cherry on an absurdity sundae.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I love it when people say sex is not about the sex. It's like the cherry on an absurdity sundae.

    Testosterone is not a power hormone. Testosterone is not a control hormone. It's a sex hormone, and insofar as any misuse of sexuality is about power and control then, yes, child sex abuse is about power and control. But it is ALWAYS about sex if an adult male is involved.

    If a man doesn't try really hard to get in control of his sexual urges then they will control him and he'll try to control others. But abuse of sex is ALWAYS about sex first and foremost.

    There is so much in anonymous's comment which is revolting to me, but in some ways it serves to prove Kathleen's point. The "anyone-can-be-a-molester" sounds brilliant to people working on their third PhD, but it sounds like it was just as much hatched in a vacuum as the film which is supposed to be in reaction to actual events which have a certain character....

    I said I'd respond to this in a post, but I probably won't have time so I'll just say that I think one of the reasons behind the strangeness Kathleen points out is the misguided hesitancy to bring up homosexuality as a cause of the abuse. I would gladly trade having to explain what homosexuality is to my 4th grader for hearing a priest condemn it from the pulpit. I have heard priests do it, but they are few and far between in metropolitan areas, at least.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Roddy has been quiet in Orthodox circles.Thank God!.why does he think what he says matters?

    ReplyDelete
  18. He's been busy working on his Christmas List. The leather bag is to die for!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. LOL, Anonymous, count yourselves blessed!

    ReplyDelete
  20. It finally happened!!! Dreher wrote a post about the Orthodox-sexual-abuse-of-children scandal.

    And you guys thought he wouldn't ever do that. O ye of little faith. . .

    ReplyDelete
  21. Read more closely, pikkumatti. That was an ultra-Orthodox JEWISH sex scandal, not an Orthodox Christian one.

    And besides, newly Green Acresy Dreher is probably not long for either Orthodoxy or his hairy Ed Grimley affectations of it anymore anyway now that he is back home where eating locally involves nutria.

    I predict the newest of the new rebirths will be heralded by a breakout post extolling the naturally superior sexual purity of the Southern Baptists (it's scientific: they're always a-dunkin' and a-washin', y'see?) and so a newly found sense of religious place to go along with his newly found geographical one.

    At least until it's time to follow either Newt or Buzz Lightyear, whichever comes first, to infinity and beyond...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh, I know, Anon. I was being entirely sarcastic. Hard to tell using only text, of course.

    I've actually now almost completely refrained from visiting that horrid magazine/blog that he writes for now. It is called "The American Conservative" but I challenge anyone to find a conservative there -- except perhaps for those occasional commenters who are shouted down by the gang in the comboxes. They even have a "Center for Public Transportation". Can't get much Crunchier than that.

    But as a public service, I must share with all this priceless photo that he posted. I'll let someone else here summarize the several "On the Road" entries for me.

    ReplyDelete
  23. now that he is back home where eating locally involves nutria.

    ROTFL!! We used to live in Louisiana, back in the mid '80s. I had forgotten all about nutria!!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Heh.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/going-home-again.html?_r=2

    I can't bear to read the dang thing. Can someone else summarize for me?

    Also--St. Francisville is only about 30 miles from Baton Rouge, which has an OCA mission. So, Rod still gets to enjoy his 10-member Crunchy-Pure Ortho parish. (He has to drive past several gorgeous old historic Catholic churches to get to it, but what the hey! Any sacrifice is worth it to avoid rubbing shoulders with the clueless hoi polloi with their less-than-prissily-perfect liturgies.)

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Diane,

    David Brooks, conservatism's own Mr. Whipple, has just succeeded in rendering the raw, rough-cut chicken fat of Rod Dreher's slobbering narcissism into the purest of schmalz.

    ReplyDelete
  26. the phrase "tears of shock and awe" says all that needs to be said about how totally calculating and phony everything about this guy is even when it comes to a death in the family

    ReplyDelete