- Email: [email protected]
Separation of church and “state”
JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH 2002;31:1
EDITORIAL
Separation of Church and “State”
Everywhere we turn lately, we see reports of sexual abuses perpetrated by priests on children and teens. Much has been written and hypothesized about its causes. The Vatican has tended to cast the problem as one of the immorality of American society. This is clearly unfounded as reports are now emerging of similar abusive episodes perpetrated by priests from other countries (e.g. Ireland, Ecuador, etc.). Some have tried to implicate the role of celibacy and homosexuality in creating this situation. These suppositions are unsupported by data. Gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to perpetrate sexual abuse simply on the basis of their personal sexual preference. How much of this relates to the lifestyle and demands on priests? Not much, in my opinion. These inexcusable acts appear to me to have less to do with religion, the Catholic Church, or priests than with the more general and widespread problem of abuse of power. Whenever there is a power differential, there exists the potential for victimization. Surely this is the case when there is incest. For example, I read a recent newspaper article about a man charged with longstanding sexual abuse of his daughter who claimed that their sexual relationship which began when she was 9 years old was “consensual.” “We were in love,” he claimed. Call it “denial” or naivety, this man failed to acknowledge the exploitation potential inherent in the role of parent/child and man/woman. The daughter may indeed felt “love” for her father, but this love was obviously corrupted, as well as confused, by the father. Children experience a panoply of emotions, including love, toward their parents, caregivers, teachers, and the clergy. The very nature of the dependent relationships that exist between children and these adults demands respect and protection by the latter. Whether it is misreading of children’s expressions of love and awe or intent to harm that has led to these abusive situations is not always easy to differentiate. As a society, we have difficulty making sense of these “unthinkable” issues. Because they typically,
but not always, involve acts committed by men against women, they are often cast in the realm of the “sexual,” a subject that is often treated ambivalently in our society. Although they are manifested in superficially sexual acts, the real issue here is aggression— exploitation of the weaker by the stronger. Power differential is surely responsible for domestic violence, date rape, so-called “consensual sex” with a patient or child, workplace harassment, etc. When young children are the victims of sexual abuse, the term “pedophilia” is invoked. In reality, however, giving it a special label may have the unintended effect of distracting attention from the commonalities it shares with these other acts of abuse of power and trust. This is not a problem unique to the church, but a problem of the “state,” the state of mind of perpetrators of abuse of power against those who are, by virtue of age, gender or role, vulnerable. Those who have committed crimes against others clearly deserve to be punished. However, recasting the problem to reflect the root causes of aggressive exploitation and violation of trust, regardless of the credentials of the perpetrator, may help to move from pointing fingers to focusing on constructive preventive strategies. We need to understand the causes of abusive behaviors, the roots of which surely are to be found in childhood. A child raised in a home which values all people, where mutual respect between the genders is practiced and modeled, where discipline is nonviolent and predictable, where individual strengths and differences are supported and parenting is authoritative, not authoritarian, will not grow up to perpetrate violence, violate trust, or take advantage of another human being. Should this utopian environment not exist, can later experiences and other adults make up for the deficits? Some evidence suggests that they might but we know all too little to say or to do. The cost of finding out is enormous but not nearly as high as that of not trying.
© Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
Iris F. Litt, M.D. Editor-in-Chief 1054-139X/02/$–see front matter PII S1054-139X(02)00409-3
EDITORIAL
Separation of Church and “State”
Everywhere we turn lately, we see reports of sexual abuses perpetrated by priests on children and teens. Much has been written and hypothesized about its causes. The Vatican has tended to cast the problem as one of the immorality of American society. This is clearly unfounded as reports are now emerging of similar abusive episodes perpetrated by priests from other countries (e.g. Ireland, Ecuador, etc.). Some have tried to implicate the role of celibacy and homosexuality in creating this situation. These suppositions are unsupported by data. Gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to perpetrate sexual abuse simply on the basis of their personal sexual preference. How much of this relates to the lifestyle and demands on priests? Not much, in my opinion. These inexcusable acts appear to me to have less to do with religion, the Catholic Church, or priests than with the more general and widespread problem of abuse of power. Whenever there is a power differential, there exists the potential for victimization. Surely this is the case when there is incest. For example, I read a recent newspaper article about a man charged with longstanding sexual abuse of his daughter who claimed that their sexual relationship which began when she was 9 years old was “consensual.” “We were in love,” he claimed. Call it “denial” or naivety, this man failed to acknowledge the exploitation potential inherent in the role of parent/child and man/woman. The daughter may indeed felt “love” for her father, but this love was obviously corrupted, as well as confused, by the father. Children experience a panoply of emotions, including love, toward their parents, caregivers, teachers, and the clergy. The very nature of the dependent relationships that exist between children and these adults demands respect and protection by the latter. Whether it is misreading of children’s expressions of love and awe or intent to harm that has led to these abusive situations is not always easy to differentiate. As a society, we have difficulty making sense of these “unthinkable” issues. Because they typically,
but not always, involve acts committed by men against women, they are often cast in the realm of the “sexual,” a subject that is often treated ambivalently in our society. Although they are manifested in superficially sexual acts, the real issue here is aggression— exploitation of the weaker by the stronger. Power differential is surely responsible for domestic violence, date rape, so-called “consensual sex” with a patient or child, workplace harassment, etc. When young children are the victims of sexual abuse, the term “pedophilia” is invoked. In reality, however, giving it a special label may have the unintended effect of distracting attention from the commonalities it shares with these other acts of abuse of power and trust. This is not a problem unique to the church, but a problem of the “state,” the state of mind of perpetrators of abuse of power against those who are, by virtue of age, gender or role, vulnerable. Those who have committed crimes against others clearly deserve to be punished. However, recasting the problem to reflect the root causes of aggressive exploitation and violation of trust, regardless of the credentials of the perpetrator, may help to move from pointing fingers to focusing on constructive preventive strategies. We need to understand the causes of abusive behaviors, the roots of which surely are to be found in childhood. A child raised in a home which values all people, where mutual respect between the genders is practiced and modeled, where discipline is nonviolent and predictable, where individual strengths and differences are supported and parenting is authoritative, not authoritarian, will not grow up to perpetrate violence, violate trust, or take advantage of another human being. Should this utopian environment not exist, can later experiences and other adults make up for the deficits? Some evidence suggests that they might but we know all too little to say or to do. The cost of finding out is enormous but not nearly as high as that of not trying.
© Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
Iris F. Litt, M.D. Editor-in-Chief 1054-139X/02/$–see front matter PII S1054-139X(02)00409-3