Catholic child abuse down to 1968, says bishop
Francis Sedgemore, Wednesday 17 February 2010 at 11:29 UTC
I always wince when I see the term “Kindemissbrauch” in German media. In my mind I automatically translate it literally as child misuse, with all its euphemistic connotations.
This time it’s from a story in yesterday’s Tagesspiegel about the bizarre explanation given by Augsburg bishop Walter Mixa for child sex abuse by catholic priests and religious. The latter is a term used for non-ordained monastics. Mixa was referring in particular to a big scandal in the German church surrounding the widespread abuse of students in the Canisius Jesuit-run high school in Berlin.
What’s happening, you see, is an aftershock of the 1960s “sexual revolution”, which has affected the sacred as much as it has the profane. Or at least that’s the bishop’s interpretation. It’s worth recalling that last year Mixa linked Nazi and Communist crimes against humanity with atheism, saying “a society without God is hell on earth”. He also quoted Dostoyevsky (“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”), and pleaded that Christians are persecuted.
Well, at least Mixa is being true to his sophist form, I’ll give him that. Intellectual self-consistency is all-important when it comes to Holy Mother Church.
Catholicism covers a multitude of sins.
Hat tip: Anja
Feed the writer! 
Wednesday 17 February 2010 at 16:29 UTC
I guess the 1968 molesting figures were acceptable according to some internal rule book. Or whatever…
Wednesday 17 February 2010 at 20:19 UTC
Well, I’m not a Catholic but some of this makes me profoundly uneasy.
It is true to say that child abuse was taken much less seriously in 1970, by everyone. It was, indeed, unthinkable that it went on, or amounted to much. So the tendency in every organisation was to suppose that the accusations were false, or at least exaggerated. Teachers’ websites can tell quite a story of false accusations. It was culpable not to investigate further; but remember, a bishop is not a policeman, and a voluntary organisation is not like a company.
Now this attitude was wrong. But it was not one particular to the Catholic Church. It is merely convenient to the establishment of today to selectively attack almost the only major western institution which does NOT endorse various vices, including paedophilia. Do you remember any other institution managing children in the 60′s being held up *as an institution* for this kind of attack?
There is more. I think here of Peter Tatchell. If I understand correct, hasn’t he campaigned for years to lower the “age of consent” for men? I do remember that the moment he got it down to 16, the same day he appeared on TV demanding that children of 14 be made available in this way. As far as I know this demand of his has led to no negative consequences for him. It’s a legitimate point of view, apparently. You see the odd attempt in the media to attack “hysteria” about child abuse, and remember how the same trick preceded various other evils being introduced.
So … I can’t avoid wondering whether the establishment has any real objection to child sex; even to children being abused by adults. Why should it? Why presume that they will not change the rules tomorrow?
If we look back at the 60′s, were there not those at the time advocating such, as part of the “free love” movement? I think there were, although I am fortunately not old enough to remember that selfish time.
So we may ask what all this is REALLY about? Because abusing children, like unnatural vice and adultery and many other things the establishment is willing to endorse, is definitely a sin in Catholicism. I wish I could be sure that Tatchell was not the voice of the future views of the establishment.
Unfortunately I can see some real advantages to those making the accusations. Few may be aware that accusations of eating babies or sexual abuse are a standard prequel to a religious persecution of the Catholic church. The same technique was used by Diocletian. First you make these accusations, to demonise the intended victim, to demoralise and weaken generally, to stir up public animus and destroy their moral authority. Then you go on to persecute them, seize their property, and so on.
So I am troubled to note that in much of the reporting the emphasis is never on the individuals responsible for the abuse — who should be brought to justice — but rather on tainting the whole organisation. Yet when a teacher is found doing this, the reporting is all about the culprit, not about the school. Watch, and see how the reporting differs. We need to think about this, and about what it means.
Let’s not be suckered into supporting a power-grab at the expense of one of the few really independent voices in our ever more homogeneous world; particularly if the real threat to our children is from those shouting about child-abuse in Catholicism.
We need to think carefully, before we jump on any band-waggon.
NB: I hope I have made clear that I do NOT endorse child-abuse. My view is that if there is evidence of it by priests, those appalling individuals responsible should be suspended instantly, brought before a court, and soundly punished if found guilty. And surely the church should feel the same? After all, such conduct betrays every principle of catholicism?
Wednesday 17 February 2010 at 21:49 UTC
“What’s happening, you see, is an aftershock of the 1960s “sexual revolution”, which has affected the sacred as much as it has the profane.”
Nothing in that statement is particularly irrational. In fact, I find it self-evidently true.
Roger makes several interesting points. I think the attack on the Catholic church is very different that the attacks, and sometimes non-attacks, on pedophiles in general. The Church is essentially attacked as being *hypocritical* in comdemning pedophilia. I always detect a little voice saying: “Pedophilia is not a problem. Hypocrosy about it is.” Pretty soon we we will get the word “Pedophilophobia”. I think we know what will follow from that.
Wednesday 17 February 2010 at 22:45 UTC
Roger Pearse’s details have been placed in the ‘always moderate comments’ list. He may not be a Roman Catholic, but Pearse appears to have learned from them the art of sophistry. The reference to Peter Tatchell, for example, is outrageous. It is a rhetorical “trick” designed to tar by association. I’m sure Peter is used to this kind of thing, and able to shrug it off. I, however, am not prepared to tolerate this kind of disgraceful behaviour on my blog.
Given Pearse’s slander of Peter Tatchell, I am disinclined to address what little of substance is contained in the comment.
Wednesday 17 February 2010 at 23:23 UTC
Dom: thanks for your comments. My fear is the same. I keep seeing straws in the wind. My guess, only a guess, would be that the selfish instinct “preserve my children” will trump the “let’s rub the bourgeoisie’s faces in it with this new perversion” instinct.
Francis: I did enjoy your comments, because I always enjoy being attacked for Not Being Orthodox. I have to admit that I’m not quite sure which part of your orthodoxy I have trodden on — sorry. But as you know, the new inquisitors invent new Things-That-May-Not-Be-Said every day, and it is hard for us ordinary folk to keep track of their hatreds.
Now you haven’t dealt with my post, so I have nothing to add to my point. You objected violently for some reason to one section of it. I didn’t see the point of your comments, to be honest.
Now you called my statements about Peter Tatchell slanderous (libellous, surely?). In what respect? A google search will reveal his calls for the age of consent to be lowered, printed fair and square. Do you deny that these are his views? Or do you merely object to any negative word being said about Tatchell? If so, why? If I am wrong, of course, I would prefer to know. That he did appear on BBC news giving that interview is something I saw myself.
As for “tarring by association” — the association is not rhetorical, as far as I can see, but rather fundamental. If it is child abuse when a rogue Catholic priest uses a 14 year old for sex — and it is — it is equally child abuse when someone who is not a Catholic priest does so. I don’t think it makes a difference what hat the abuser wears! Do you?
If we don’t like child abuse — the abuse of children under 16 –, why endorse someone who is campaigning to make that child abuse legal, while criticising people 40 years ago for doing what they hope will soon be legal to do now? I’m sorry, but I really don’t see the distinction. The connection renders the whole anti-Catholic argument dreadfully awful.
We cannot have it both ways. The whole point about the age of consent is to protect children.
Wednesday 17 February 2010 at 23:35 UTC
If you are unaware of the definitions of slander, libel and defamation, I suggest that you consult an elementary textbook on law.
You continue to defame Peter Tatchell, and as a result are no longer entitled to comment here.
Peter Tatchell has called for a lowering of the age of consult for consensual sex acts; we are talking here about a sexualised abuse of a power relationship. In this case with one of the parties having made a vow of celibacy, which makes the hypocrisy all the more galling.
You have here publicly accused Peter Tatchell of endorsing child abuse, which displays crass stupidity on your part, as well as malice. I shall let the comment pass, for now, but will inform Peter what has been said about him.
Saturday 20 February 2010 at 14:38 UTC
[...] his contribution to my recent reflection on Augsburg bishop Walter Mixa’s bizarre views concerning priestly paedophilia, Pearse was [...]