Here Is A Thread Noone Who Isn't A Mediator Of Meh Can Comment On

[Winchester]

There's also some confusion about pedophiles. Pedophiles are not "feminized" men, or confused about their sexuality. They are predators.

[beatitude]

There's also some confusion about pedophiles. Pedophiles are not "feminized" men, or confused about their sexuality. They are predators.

 

I know. My jaw almost hit the floor when I read that. "There was a period of time when men who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity had entered the priesthood; sadly some of these disordered men sexually abused minors; a terrible tragedy for which the Church mourns." Awful remarks like these - from senior members of the hierarchy, of all people! - make me realise just how far we as a community have to go in ensuring child protection at church. This is why so many victims weren't believed, because people have a stereotype in their heads about what a child abuser is supposed to look like. It's also what's getting in the way of sincere repentance now. "We're sorry, but it wasn't men like us, it was men like them, and those men no longer get into seminary."

 

I am also not entirely sure what a 'feminized environment' is supposed to be - or a feminized anything, come to that. It's unsurprising that the very people who are so rigid about creating and imposing gender roles of the type Basilisa Marie described are also the same people who use the 'femininity' idea as a dirty word - when things get 'feminized', men leave church and some even become paedophiles! Sticking the caveat 'Women are wonderful, of course' in front of that doesn't make the views any more accurate or any less ugly.

[Basilisa Marie]

Oooh oooh can I invite Cardinal Burke to the "Safe Environment" (how to prevent abuse/how to spot an abuser) class I'm leading on Saturday? I've only got a dozen people signed up so far, and I've got room for thirty. There'll be snacks! 

[Era Might]

Oooh oooh can I invite Cardinal Burke to the "Safe Environment" (how to prevent abuse/how to spot an abuser) class I'm leading on Saturday? I've only got a dozen people signed up so far, and I've got room for thirty. There'll be snacks! 

 

How do you spot an abuser? Just curious.

 

[Basilisa Marie]

First, take whatever your diocese's equivalent of Safe Environment is. Every diocese has one. They should be free. Or something. :)
 
More below the spoiler tag. It's not graphic information or anything, but it could be upsetting to some people. Most of it sounds like common sense once you hear about it.

 
[spoiler]
Mostly it's about eliminating situations where abuse could occur and being vigilant about the signs of a potential abuser/abuse. Most of the time it's someone the kid knows, and they usually go out of their way to be around kids, ingratiate themselves into the community or with authority figures (parents, staff, etc). People who are too "handsy" or touching too much, and repeatedly violate smaller rules about being alone with a kid or what counts as appropriate touching or behavior, or people who get the kids to keep secrets.  Female abusers tend to have the emotional maturity level of their victims, while male abusers tend to be more calculating and manipulative. All abusers usually test their boundaries and get people to violate smaller boundaries before going for the big ones.

 

Watching for big changes in a kid's behavior, like them becoming more angry or withdrawn or lose interest in activities they used to love, etc. Sometimes young kids have way more knowledge about sexual things than they "should." Teenagers are always moody, but you're looking for out of the ordinary and big changes. And then there's ways you can eliminate opportunities, like locking rooms that aren't in use or using a standard screening method and background check for all volunteers or staff.

 

Basically all stereotypes we might have about a big scary stranger get chucked out the window, and it becomes really, really easy to see how a priest or volunteer could easily get themselves into a situation where they can abuse people if other people aren't educated and there aren't rules in place that designate clear physical, emotional, and situational boundaries.  Statistically, priests who abused people were more likely to be situational abusers (abuse because they handle stress poorly and the opportunity presents itself), rather than actually being sexually attracted to children or have a sociopathic desire to cause pain and suffering (though all three types are represented in abuse cases the Church has been involved with). 

 

[/spoiler]

[PhuturePriest]

First, take whatever your diocese's equivalent of Safe Environment is. Every diocese has one. They should be free. Or something. :)
 
More below the spoiler tag. It's not graphic information or anything, but it could be upsetting to some people. Most of it sounds like common sense once you hear about it.

 
[spoiler]
Mostly it's about eliminating situations where abuse could occur and being vigilant about the signs of a potential abuser/abuse. Most of the time it's someone the kid knows, and they usually go out of their way to be around kids, ingratiate themselves into the community or with authority figures (parents, staff, etc). People who are too "handsy" or touching too much, and repeatedly violate smaller rules about being alone with a kid or what counts as appropriate touching or behavior, or people who get the kids to keep secrets.  Female abusers tend to have the emotional maturity level of their victims, while male abusers tend to be more calculating and manipulative. All abusers usually test their boundaries and get people to violate smaller boundaries before going for the big ones.

 

Watching for big changes in a kid's behavior, like them becoming more angry or withdrawn or lose interest in activities they used to love, etc. Sometimes young kids have way more knowledge about sexual things than they "should." Teenagers are always moody, but you're looking for out of the ordinary and big changes. And then there's ways you can eliminate opportunities, like locking rooms that aren't in use or using a standard screening method and background check for all volunteers or staff.

 

Basically all stereotypes we might have about a big scary stranger get chucked out the window, and it becomes really, really easy to see how a priest or volunteer could easily get themselves into a situation where they can abuse people if other people aren't educated and there aren't rules in place that designate clear physical, emotional, and situational boundaries.  Statistically, priests who abused people were more likely to be situational abusers (abuse because they handle stress poorly and the opportunity presents itself), rather than actually being sexually attracted to children or have a sociopathic desire to cause pain and suffering (though all three types are represented in abuse cases the Church has been involved with). 

 

[/spoiler]

 

tl/dr: Watch out for immature women and smart guys.

[4588686]

I enjoy what was said, but mostly because of the drama it has caused.

Post on, drama alpaca, post on.

 

I resent this vile attempt to confiscate my drama causing labor and give it others. Typical bleeding heart redistributionism.

[Not The Philosopher]

I resent this vile attempt to confiscate my drama causing labor and give it others. Typical bleeding heart redistributionism.

 

It isn't manly to whine.

[PhuturePriest]

It isn't manly to whine.

 

Truer words have never been spoken in this minute.

[4588686]

It isn't manly to whine.

 

So?

[PhuturePriest]

So?

 

Do you have the time to listen to me whine?

[Basilisa Marie]

tl/dr: Watch out for immature women and smart guys.

 

 

...no. But nice try. :) TLDR is more like abusers can be anyone, even if they're well-liked, so watch out for abnormal behavior. 

[Lil Red]

I mostly agree with Franciscanheart.  Most of the time I like Burke, I appreciate his experience and try to give him the benefit of the doubt. Lots of what he's saying here is good, but he also falls into a lot of tired old stereotypes and excuses.

 

Like, the Church focusing on women automatically means it's not focusing on men. That's like saying we can't come out with a new translation of the mass while also dealing with the sex abuse crisis. Men make up the vast majority of people in theological academia, and the entirety of the Church's hierarchy. Women even being involved in theology on a significant scale is a very, VERY recent phenomenon in the Church. Women theologians were the exceptions, not the rule.  If there's a problem with a lack of theology of masculinity or a lack of focus on men, well, sorry boys, you only have your selves to blame, and it's rather Adam-like to try to pass the buck off to women trying to get their problems heard. 

 

He also mentions how fathers have more distant relationships with their children, because that's "natural" or whatever. I don't buy it. It's just playing into the stereotype of the perfect Catholic family where the Mom stays home and is emotional and squishy and says "wait til your Father comes home" if you do something wrong and "I'll talk to your Father" if you want something and think he'll say no, while the Dad goes to work all day and comes home and makes all the decisions, is cold and distant, and drinks scotch by the fireplace before leading the family in their nightly prayers. It doesn't resonate with actual lived experience, except maybe the experiences of a select minority. 
 

I like that he's trying to talk about the problems of figuring out what it means to be a man in today's world, because that's a huge issue that tackles a number of problems, and quite important.  But I'm not going to let you sit there and blame the "radical feminists" when it's been a supermajority of men doing theology and populating the hierarchy. Men are the ones with power to actually set the agenda, so... set the beaver dam agenda. 

 

I stood up in my office and clapped for this post. 

[franciscanheart]

I have started reading the article, but I've run into a problem.

"constantly address women’s issues at the expense of addressing critical issues important to men".

I'd say after a couple thousand years, the question of whether or not to have sex with something has been thoroughly addressed. I am fine with the church addressing needlepoint, cooking, and the best facial hair bleach.

That was exactly where I flew off the handle. Burke needs to check himself.
 

There's also some confusion about pedophiles. Pedophiles are not "feminized" men, or confused about their sexuality. They are predators.

I could kiss you right now.
 

I know. My jaw almost hit the floor when I read that. "There was a period of time when men who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity had entered the priesthood; sadly some of these disordered men sexually abused minors; a terrible tragedy for which the Church mourns." Awful remarks like these - from senior members of the hierarchy, of all people! - make me realise just how far we as a community have to go in ensuring child protection at church. This is why so many victims weren't believed, because people have a stereotype in their heads about what a child abuser is supposed to look like. It's also what's getting in the way of sincere repentance now. "We're sorry, but it wasn't men like us, it was men like them, and those men no longer get into seminary."
 
I am also not entirely sure what a 'feminized environment' is supposed to be - or a feminized anything, come to that. It's unsurprising that the very people who are so rigid about creating and imposing gender roles of the type Basilisa Marie described are also the same people who use the 'femininity' idea as a dirty word - when things get 'feminized', men leave church and some even become paedophiles! Sticking the caveat 'Women are wonderful, of course' in front of that doesn't make the views any more accurate or any less ugly.

I already propped this but I needed to tell you that I also high-fived my screen. So, YES: THIS.

[Vincent Vega]

I've expressed this before, but masculinity also refers to "masculine values", which is something that females need as well.  

 

You realize that statement doesn't make one damn lick of sense, right?