Yearning for a Productive Response to Child Sexual Abuse

Given the news recently, I feel compelled as a Catholic and a parent to address the topic of child sexual abuse.  I feel like we as a society do not have a coherent, intelligent response to this issue.  In the past few years, we have been greeted with tales of abuse in USA gymnastics, USA swimming, around Penn State football, the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, and the public schools.  Yet each one of these incidents has prompted a very different reaction.

In the case of USA gymnastics and swimming, we responded with indifference, most likely because most of us aren’t parents are aspiring Olympic hopefuls.  In the case of the Boy Scouts, we are apparently responding by trying to pressure them into adding homosexual boys and scout leaders into the mix.  How adding sexually confused youth and adults will help matters, I don’t know.  One positive step was the release of their files and the insight that there is no single, obvious marker for abusers.  They can be straight, gay, married, unmarried, old, young, etc.  

Penn State was publicly flogged, Jerry Sandusky tarred, feathered, and quickly ushered off to jail.  We didn’t really spend too much time trying to understand him, his history or his motivations.  We instead preferred to hold a large institution which has 40,000+ students, faculty, and staff on campus at any one time responsible for events that clearly only a handful of people had any knowledge of.  

In the case of the Catholic Church, we are heading into a third decade of public flogging.  We have not endeavored to understand the root causes and also ignored the great progress the Church has made over the past 20 years.  While it was the first large organization to face this scandal, it certainly was not the last. 

To be clear, the latest revelations, from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are deeply troubling.  What they reveal is a clear pattern of a hierarchy at best attempting to deal awkwardly with the problem (therapy for abusers) and at worst criminally conspiring to cover it up.  It is disgusting because it is Bishops and Priests, men of God, who are serving not God, not their flock, but the false god of public relations first.  There is no excuse for it and the fact that Vatican rules are now clear on what is to be done is of little consolation.  

But let’s look at the problem overall because as I stated up front, every one of these cases has prompted a different, and I believe unsatisfying reaction.  Sure, we all felt good making Penn State jokes and cursing Joe Paterno for a few weeks, but why is that?  It was clearly not a measured reaction to the scandal even for a society that has deemed you cannot reaction enough to child sexual abuse.  

I believe it was about our collective guilt as a nation.  The reality is we have aborted 55 million children since Roe v. Wade.  We have thrown millions of other children to the wolves as we have embraced divorce, single parent households, and the adoption of children by gays and lesbians.  Those that make it out of these family structures, are then greeted by a public school system and a culture that will feed them a non-stop series of lies.  You can have sex without consequences, STDs are the only consequence of sex, casual sex is fine, the list is endless.  The bottom line is our current society, our nation, devours children.  If we believe that children are the future, our future looks rather bleak.

So in response to all of this, when we get the chance to express our outrage over how our children are being treated in a socially acceptable way we pounce on it.  Too few of us feel comfortable speaking out about abortion, about divorce, the hyper-sexualization of our culture, or any of the things destroying millions of children each day.  But we can curse Jerry Sandusky and feel like we have done something.

And that is just my point, if the 20 year flogging of the Catholic Church teaches us nothing else, it should teach us that publicly flogging an organization does very little.  The Catholic Church is not a factory for child molesters any more than the public schools are.  But if we believe that people are not born to grow up molesting children, then we need to understand how we are making such predators.  It was easy to demonize Jerry Sandusky as a monster, but he wasn’t born a monster.  Much like the rest of us, he was someone’s child at one point, innocent and pure.  The question is what happened?

Only by identifying the triggers for producing child molesters can we understand the consequences of our behavior as a society and get to the root of this tragedy.  There are a couple possible theories.  Many abusers were themselves sexually abused.  So we need to understand, wherever this abuse occurs, we must stop it to break the cycle and properly treat the victims.

But while there are no obvious demographic markers, I believe there are behavioral markers.  One such marker would be child pornography.  Most child sexual abusers tend to possess child pornography.  In fact, the link is accepted as being so strong that a Bishop in Missouri was recently charged with not reporting an abuser for knowing only that the Priest in question had child pornography on his computer.

Here is the thing, if we were just looking for the 13 year-olds who instead of picking up a Playboy picked up something much more sinister, then stopping this problem would be easy.  But the reality is everybody enters pornography on garden variety heterosexual pornography.  Only for some, does the quest for a higher high lead them seeking darker and darker material, until they have gone too far.  

One of the key findings of the John Jay report, the study commissioned by the Catholic Church on their scandal called by some professionals the most comprehensive study of child sexual abuse ever, was that most Priests involved in the abuse were ordained before 1960.  In other words, they made a decision to live a celibate life in a pre-Playboy, pre-pornographic world.  They were then confronted with the sexual revolution, some caved.  This is not about excusing their behavior, but understanding it with the goal of prevention.

But this is going to be a tough conversation.  Are we moving towards curbing access to pornography in our culture?  Quite the opposite.   Over the past 25 years, we have moved from the adult bookstore in the shady part of town to pornography piped into every hotel room, every household with cable TV, and available free on the internet at the public library (most libraries do not filter out porn because they consider that censorship).  We are inundating people with this poison, which means we could be producing a new wave of child sexual abusers, larger than any before.

The crux of this debate will be, are we willing to restrict adult access to pornography so that we can put children first?  Not saying eliminate it (it’s been around since the dawn of man), but recognize that not everyone can handle it and put some kind of barriers up to consumption.  Because if we are not, then we as a society are saying, that just as we have decided with abortion and divorce, we will once again orientate our society around what we adults want, not what our children need.  The only silver lining there is that world history has shown that societies not geared towards bearing fruit quickly die out, that may be ultimately in our children’s best interest if we keep going down this dark path.

Dissent and Coerced Consensus

I wanted to write a little bit today about dissent.  For roughly the past 40 years, we have lived in an era where dissent has not been well tolerated.  Not tolerated, ironically, by those who claim to have a monopoly on tolerance.  

Over that time period it has become increasingly difficult to be publically (or even in some ways privately) supportive of the right to life, a traditional definition of marriage, the traditional nuclear family, gun ownership, and most of all religion.  Publically professing your belief in God in the wrong circles can be hazardous to your relationships or career.  Who can forget Ted Turner on Ash Wednesday famously shouting through the halls of CNN, “What are you all a bunch of Jesus freaks?” as he was greeted by employees with ashes on their foreheads.

The reality is, as you look at the positions you cannot comfortably take a public stance on, it is very clear the left wing movement in this country struggles with dissent.  They spent decades trying to get Rush Limbaugh taken off the air even though he was for many years a lonely conservative voice in a largely liberal media.  More recently they have tried to bully Chick-Fil-A, a privately held family company, into changing its stance on gay marriage.  The company did not hold a position, companies are legal entities, but the family apparently was not to share publically its opinions lest people not find it to be a purveyor of tasty chicken sandwiches.  

Throughout history, there are numerous groups that have been unwilling to tolerate dissent.  The KKK did not hold public debates on race related topics, they chose to put on sheets and burn crosses, one could argue they did not tolerate dissent well.

Nazis, and really all flavors of fascist regimes did not tolerate dissent.  The American South went to war only after they realized they couldn’t win the argument.  The Church of Scientology, or the Mormon Church do not handle dissent well.  Your options are to be all in or to leave, no in between.  If you continue to question (I deliberately say merely question) you will be asked to leave.  

The unwillingness to tolerate dissenting opinions is very squarely a human failing.  In the Bible, we have numerous examples of Jesus confronting his critics even up until his crucifixion.  This is the Lord God himself and even as people walked away as he preached things like the discourse on the bread of life, he did not condemn them to hell.  He did not chase after them and warn them of dire consequences should they not come around.  He did not strike them down where they stood as surely one must assume he could have.  

So what is this human weakness born of?  Looking back throughout history, time and time again, our great leaders were great debaters.  The founding fathers, Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan.  To take it out of a political context, also consider the intellectual heft of the many Saints, Cardinals, and Popes in the Catholic Church.  The Venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen certainly would not shirk from a good debate.  One could rightly conclude that all of these figures sought the debate because they believed in what they were saying and they could win the debate.

So as we look at the modern American left, is the answer that they do not really believe what they are saying or that they do not think they can win the debate?  Does it really matter?  If history is to be any guide than as a populace we should be incredibly suspicious of any group that will not tolerate dissent.  I hold many Catholic teachings and conservative positions in my head that some would find controversial.  I welcome that conversation, I welcome that challenge.  I feel like I could win the debate and if not, then I need to re-examine my position.

But that is the reasonable position of a logical person.  Maybe the conclusion one has to reach is that the left is not motivated by logic, but by emotion and sometimes so much by emotion that it is to the exclusion of logic.  In that case, the question then would be, do we really wish to make public policy based on the emotions of any particular group?  Has this nation survived 237 years based on a document that was created on emotion?  

When we look back through history at the groups opposed to dissent, can we rightly conclude that they were nations, parties, movements founded upon emotion?  In the case of fascist regimes it seems clear.  Those emotional movements were all, inevitably, reduced to the whims of man.  The brutality of the Nazism was not so well coordinated as what people think.  It was more about, from top to bottom, a group of people who reacted, not with extreme precision, but with extreme randomness born of their emotional hatred of the Jews.  

The SS officers were not robots following orders, quite the contrary, they were behaving as animals, reacting individually to Jews based on their own instincts.  That is why even within that horrific time period, you can find examples of Nazi officers who occasionally helped to save Jews.  

To be our best in the long-run, we have to return to being a society that accepts dissent that is willing to have the argument.  We have to be guided by logic combined with emotion.  Neither one by itself is the answer.  But emotion combined with logic becomes…love, it becomes God, the ultimate solution to any problem. 

Gauging 2016 GOP Contenders

Chris Christie, following on the heels of Bobby Jindal, becomes the latest big time GOP player to disqualify himself for the 2016 nomination.  If there is a silver lining to the Mitt Romney debacle it may be that it will provide the bait to lure out Republicans who are not truly committed to conservative principles.  Those Republicans who believe the lie that they must water down their views in order to win.

In the wake of Romney’s loss the left, with the help of the media, were all too quick to offer up free advice for Republicans.  If you want to win, just drop this silly opposition to gay marriage, it is going to happen anyway.  Do you have to be such sticklers on abortion?  Why don’t you quit fighting over these silly social issues and then maybe the American people will listen to your fiscal message.

The folly of that (as all 5 regular readers of this blog know) is that our social ills are directly linked to our fiscal ills.  You can’t fix one without fixing the other.  You cannot have massive increases in the disability rolls, food stamps (now rebranded “SNAP” – all the public assistance with half the guilt) rolls and somehow expect that tax revenues (based on taking money from working Americans) will increase to pay for it.  It is insanity.  Those are opposing forces.  Paying out more in benefits reduces the incentive to work or need to work.  That reduces tax revenues.

But you have a scared GOP and 2016 contenders who apparently think that social issues are just primary issues and something to be left behind in the general election.  Bobby Jindal came out literally weeks after the election ready to find a compromise on the issue of insurance requiring contraception.   

Now Chris Christie is out as okay with gay marriage and looking for gun control.  It seems odd, until you read that he is cozying up with Mark Zuckerberg.  Christie is running the McCain-Romney playbook (ironic since we have had neither a President McCain nor a President Romney).  The Romney plan is trying to raise enough money you can plow your way to the nomination without really saying anything conservative, thus allowing you to run as a liberal Republican in the general election and win.

It sounds great in theory, but as I have documented, Romney’s road to the nomination was much longer and brutal than it needed to be as a result of this bizarre strategy.  Then, when Obama hit him hard out of the gate, he lacked the resources to hit back and define himself.  He spent most of the summer, not in the battleground states that would determine the election, but in places like Beverly Hills and the Hamptons trying to raise money.   He also lost, very clearly, because he provided no response on social issues.   

The McCain playbook is to challenge fellow Republicans (as Christie has on gun control) to become a media darling.  Sounds good, right?  The problem with that is at the end of the day a liberal Republican is only ever going to be an insurance policy for the left.  They will never prefer a liberal Republican to an out and out left wing Socialist like Barack Obama.  So when push comes to shove, you will lose your new media friends and be like grade school kid in the cafeteria without a table to sit at for lunch.

Contrast this with the approach Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Rick Santorum are taking.  Rubio is leading the charge for significant immigration reform, a move that will help the country and the GOP.  In a very unusual step for him, Jeb Bush took a very public position in support of common sense immigration reform.

Rick Santorum spoke at the March for Life event in Washington.  To my knowledge, he was the only big name GOP figure to speak there.  That is a pro-life event that has grown to 500,000 participants in just a few short years (it is consistently referenced as “a few thousand” in the secular press).  

The next Republican President is going to have to intelligently and passionately present the conservative case on social issues if for no other reason than in a vacuum, the Democrats message of death will carry the day.  There has to be a voice that challenges the American people to think about life from conception to natural death, to think about pregnancy as the start of a family and not a disease.  To say that marriage is something special between a man and a woman, the start of a new family and that families are the foundation of our society.

There shouldn’t be this irrational fear that this will somehow come at the expense of an economic message.  The two work together.  Never before has it been easier to make the case that the fate of the family and the economy are directly intertwined.  Our economy is struggling to grow because we are producing fewer new consumers, entrepreneurs, citizens.  Industries like food manufacturing, utilities, are struggling to find growth in a world with only 1% population growth and a gray existing population.

The answer isn’t more government, we cannot afford the government we have in a shrinking world.  The answer is not more entitlements it is less, we cannot afford it.  But rather than simply cutting, Republicans have to offer a credible vision for restoration.  That restoration is to bring in policies that cut taxes for the middle class, that provide school choice, that give married couples, parents, hope for a future that they will want to bring more children into.  Those are policies that only Republicans will sell and the only policies that will save America.

The GOP stands at a crossroads.  They can either capitulate to the forces of the left, become watered down Republicans, moderate Democrats, and go with the flow in the hopes of maintaining any relevance as the country slips into oblivion.  

Or, they can make the decision that they will selling the truth, the right vision for the future and keep doing so until the country comes around because they know if they don’t, there won’t be a country.  That is real leadership.  As move towards 2016, Republicans need to hold any potential Presidential contender up against that rubric.  If they see anybody trying to fill the shoes of McCain or Romney, they should run the other way immediately. 

NBC's Horrible Treatment of Abortion

I realize I am late to the party on this one, my wife and I don’t really watch live TV and it took a couple weeks for this episode of NBC’s “Parenthood” to come off of our DVR.  But for a show that for 4 seasons now has dealt realistically, even painfully realistically at times, with the issues families and parents cope with chose to deal incredibly unrealistically with the very serious subject of abortion.  It was worth reserving judgment because now in having seen the follow-up episode, it is even more incredible how the show chose to treat the topic.  

What seems most plausible is that Planned Parenthood wrote Comcast (NBC’s parent) in exchange for product placement.  Something you typically see done with cars or soft drinks, not murder.  The two teenage characters on the show had been having sexual relations for several months.  When discovered by his single mother’s fiancé (a 30-ish teacher at his school), the teenage boy was only offered the bad advice of modern society – use a condom (note that among those couples who say they use condoms as their primary means of birth control they are only 67% successful in avoiding pregnancy – it seems condoms are only 99% effective if worn every single time you have sex).

So given that, it was incredibly plausible that his teenage girlfriend would get pregnant.  I don’t know that we have ever been told the age of the girl, but she is a high school senior and most likely under 18.  It is irrelevant in a legal sense because California does not have parental notification which means a girl of any age can walk (or be taken by someone) into a clinic and get an abortion.  So, on TV, we were treated to a scared teenage girl visiting a Planned Parenthood clinic.  This is where any realistic portrayal of the situation ended.

At the clean, sanitary Planned Parenthood clinic, the couple was treated to a straight forward, factual presentation of their “options”.  This was very interesting given that pregnant teens have better odds of winning the lottery than walking out of a Planned Parenthood clinic without getting an abortion.  Of course it omitted any notion of what those familiar with the ministry Rachel’s Vineyard know, and that is an abortion can have a traumatic impact on all involved.  

The interesting thing is that while Planned Parenthood execs clearly must have thought the portrayal helped their cause, it was only at a very surface level.   Beneath the surface the scene was rather dark, a realistic look at the liberal vision for America.  Here you had two teenagers, burned by the bad sex education of the left, sitting there without the only people in the world who might possibly have their long-term best interests at heart (their parents), being talked to in a cold and clinical manner by a complete stranger.   The ludicrousness of the notion that two teenagers would be equipped to make a life changing (and ending) decision was on full display.

After that appointment at the clinic, Drew (the boyfriend), makes a dramatic plea to keep the baby, find some way to raise it, etc.  Adoption, an option that saves the life of the child, was never discussed.  The teenage girl coldly dismisses the idea of keeping the baby with a look that says, “we aren’t in this together, this is happening to me”.  That is of course the classic feminist line, but if we acknowledge that is true, then doesn’t it lead to the idea that women have more to lose in engaging in intercourse?  And if that is true, then can women and men ever pursue casual sex to the same degree?  If the answer is no, then feminism collapses of course as an illogical paradox – promising something that is not possible.

But I digress.  So our teenage lovers (or rather the girl) have made the decision to get an abortion without telling her parents.   It is interesting that Planned Parenthood would choose to see such a scenario presented, it almost reeks of, dare I say, marketing?  What better advertisement than, “hey kids come get an abortion and your parents will never know”.  Of course it goes without saying that no respectable organization would ever want to be in the position of usurping parental authority.  There is something very unseemly about an outfit that would make a business out of recruiting underage girls, without their parents’ knowledge, for abortions.

But on the other hand, if you look at the statistics around the average age of the father in the case of a teenage pregnancy, you find the vast majority are over 18 (or age is not reported if legal action is feared) and not even close.  We aren’t talking about a 19 year-old college kid who got his 17 year-old girlfriend pregnant.  Statistically speaking, it is more likely to be a man in his 30s, 40s, even 50s.  

Throughout the episode, only the boyfriend is racked with indecision and guilt.  The girl calmly proceeds to the clinic, has the procedure, and goes home prepared to never tell her parents what happened.   It is obvious she will break up with the boyfriend and attempt (unsuccessfully of course) to bury the trauma.  But there is an interesting twist at the end of the episode.  

The boyfriend, unable to deal with the situation, finally goes tearfully to his mom in the closing montage.  Music is playing so there is no dialogue, but the implication is that he tells his mother what happened.  Logical next step for any parent would be to call the parents of the girl and let them know their daughter had an abortion.  How any parent could keep that knowledge from another parent would be beyond comprehension.  

Yet, as we get into the next episode (this week’s), there is no further discussion of the incident.  The storylines have picked up and moved on, leaving that as a bizarre, Planned Parenthood sponsored one-off.  In other words, apparently the girls’ parents were never notified their daughter had an abortion and she will attempt to go on baring the scars of this trauma herself.

It was really unbelievable and shallow treatment of the subject.  No discussion of how the kids wound up in this situation (liberal sex ed), nor how unprepared they were to try and make this decision (Planned Parenthood is treating scared kids like adults apparently), and then finally, no real acknowledgment of the incredible trauma this girl will now deal with for the rest of her life.  

The only positive to be taken away from it is that apparently Planned Parenthood feels their image has taken such a hit, that they were willing to write a check large enough to get Comcast execs to set their consciences aside.  Maybe pro-life groups should raise a similar amount so that a future episode can include the girl attending a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat?