As for the ancient Greek societies, well we know that the Spartans had a kind of "blessed pedophilia" between master and apprentice. This also existed in the Japanese warrior class. But...do we REALLY know it did no harm? Remember, this was even before Freud and his theories on psychosexual development. And these boys were being trained to engage in rape and pillage behavior. Perhaps the pedophilia was an important part of the indoctrination process. Certainly we frown on the warrior habits of cultures past. In fact, we know that abusing the civilian population in war is the surest way to galvanize the resolve of your enemy. (see Grossman) -Bill
The ancient Romans had sex with anything that moved.. goats even... many of us recognise that behavior was wrong. Just 150 years ago it was perfectly legal to own another human being as a slave here in VA. We as a society have acknowledged as a whole that it was wrong. Sure there is a grey area between the age say 21-16, we can debate that 'till we get tendonitis from our keyboards.
How did all of this debate get started? Oh yeah, a priest molested about 100 boys, and a prisoner (who may have been molested by a man when he was a boy) delivered a brutal death sentance to him. People say the prisoner is a psychopath. I think that if I had been molested as a boy I'd be pretty #$%^ed up too.... wouldn't kill anyone though. I had someone try oncewhen I was 5 or 6... won't go into the specifics, but I can imagine how I would feel today if I had consented to the "game" he wanted to play. Can you imagine all the confusion I would have gone through during pubescence? Like it wasn't hard enough! If I ever have children, God help the person who tries something like that on my kid... Oh and my 14/16 YO child is NOT going out with that older boy.
I'm REALLY not trying to promote a return to the culture of Athens, or the abuse of children, and happen to be half of a mid-twenties couple. I AM trying to raise a couple of points to demonstrate that our cultural thinking on this matter doesn't make complete sense.
One thing I was trying to point out is that the law may be the law, but it isn't exactly a good guide for behavior or ethics. I've got a law student roommate at the moment, and everyday it's a new absurdity. Yesterday I learned that parents whose kids turned a corner before they did and got crushed by a negligent driver can't sue for emotional damages because they didn't SEE the accident, they just watched the kids bleed to death 30 seconds later.
And early in the thread it was proposed that parents be allowed to kill off any child molester they see fit... the problem is I know enough people (mostly through work, as colleagues or patients, my social life is actually quite dull) who had sex as minors and who should have been allowed to make that decision themselves... their parents would likely have flipped out, but they were ready to do as they pleased. Here we're talking about killing some mature minor's loved one because the parent's don't approve...
It's been rightly pointed out since I mentioned other societies that what was legal then or what is legal now somewhere else isn't always right for us: we used to allow slavery, forbade the marriage of mixed races, and continue to ban marriages between many consenting adults. I just raising my doubts about our consent laws. Yes, the law is the law, and there will be consequences if it is broken, but maybe it's wrong and we should fix it. More on that later.
Later is raised the issue that once people are ready for prom, they're ready to decide about sex for themselves--that, however, often involves minors having sex, and often with non minors because at that age, a little age difference often spans the legality divide. This is exactly the kind of "child molestation" that I was bringing up as an example of something that isn't necessarily bad and frequently is far better for the involved parties than what goes on in the relationships we classify as "normal." Many of those are violent, manipulative, and controlling, and the fact that they're between people of age doesn't make them any less harmful.
My point is this: the issue of harm in these relationships isn't whether it's legal or not (we've got our laws all set up to ban pot and protect corporate thieves in this country, after all), and not the age (at many ages that are illegal and all that are legal, there are individuals who are and are not ready to give consent for sex and to speak up for themselves in relationships) or genders of the involved, but rather something else.
I would propose that that something else is power imbalance. Those kids / young adults abused by priests were harmed because they were 1) coerced by someone in power and so didn't want to be involved and 2) because the priest used his power to get what he wanted, he undermined their ability to trust authority figures from friends to family to their church.
Any young person who has sex with a ...
--family member
--teacher
--religious leader
--significantly older person BEFORE the younger person has acquired the ability to think and make decisions independently as an adult (why 20 and 40 is ok but 10 and 30 is not)
... lacks the ability to consent because those relationships are inherently power imbalanced. Power imbalance was the reason I was completely unable to see a potential relationship between myself and my current mate, whom I met in the capacity of an instructor even though the age difference is only 2 years. For those 3 weeks and a month after, I couldn't conceive of having a relationship and it never crossed my mind. Once that dynamic had passed into history, things changed. That was more than 6 months ago, and things couldn't be better now.
Remember those middle schoolers who had some oral sex ring set up at their school? Pretty scary stuff for any parent and too young to be having sex but it was a (big) problem not a crime because there was no power imbalance as they were all kids. The 16 yr old boy with the 30 year old woman? Sketchy, but by his report she positioned herself as a confidant and never manipulated him; no power was employed, so he could give consent, did, and no harm was done; he felt he was ready to decide for himself. The 17 3/4 boy with his mid 20's boyfriend? No power employed, and no harm done by the relationship. The young man's very religious parents even told him they thought the relationship was God's way of protecting him at a vulnerable time. Go figure. Two minors at prom? We've got a moderator wishing them happy hunting!
I don't know how to set an age limit to codify this theory into law, because it would involve some sort of lower limit based on child psych and an inherent inability to make informed decisions until a certain age which I don't understand, choosing as I have to put as much distance between children / peds and myself as possible. It also involves some standard about age discrepancy, the significance of which would diminish with advancing age of the younger party. Heck, maybe it should even reverse (what about those classic stories of young women who manipulate and marry older guys right before they croak?).
I have no idea how to write this law (any ideas? how would people rephrase the laws if they could?) but I think in the case of minors who feel they are ready to enter into a relationship with a nonminor, there could be something the minor would do independently and BEFOREhand to demonstrate that adult level of decision making, just as there is a capacity review before a minor consents to major surgery.
Oh, and we should come down like TWO tons of bricks on the real predators. Again, that's Geoghan and his ilk, as well as those uncharged, sitting pretty monsters that gave them victims to abuse over and over.
I understand your point. Yes, it IS a power imbalance thing. And as my widowed father gets older, I DO keep an eye on the young things that want to go out with him. Even with his full wits (in both heads ), he still got hooked up with a pretty thing that started taking money from him. Fortunately he was together enough to nip it in the bud. In the exchange, he probably won. Good...
The problem, Ian, is codifying it into law. It's making the law simple enough that a reasonable person could understand it. This is why we have age limits as opposed to responsibility limits. And those age limits are tied to real things like the ability to get a job if you get someone pregnant, the likelihood that you have at least finished your high school diploma before POTENTIALLY being thrust into the role of parent, or the ability to pay for your own medical care if you get an STD (permanent or otherwise).
There are all these exceptions that people bring up. Those were very lucky people. A friend of mine (years back) once said he'd never sleep with a woman that he wouldn't consider marrying if she came back one days and said "I'm going to have your baby." Wise man! And he still got plenty.
I'm not a complete stick-in-the-mud here. I've had my fun in life. I've done some things that I'll carry in my own memories (thank you very much) to my grave. But I took calculated risks, and I knew it at the time. I was old enough and responsible enough to make those kinds of decisions, and realize I would suffer the consequences if things just so happened to turn in an unfavorable direction.
Thanks for the kind words, Sensei. My comments below are denoted by ** in front as I still haven't figured out the quotes system on this board yet.
Bill Glasheen wrote:Lee
First, I would like to state that your rant was completely on topic. Very enlightening.
Second, you wrote:
3) Improved availability of mental health interventive services to the public at large - most health insurances only allow for a few thousand dollars of mental health service over the life of the policy, and many only allow for very short visits (30 minutes OR LESS) to a psychiatrist or psychologist and disallow visits with an MSW/ACSW - and THEY do over 80% of all psychotherapy in the US these days (source, NIMH). And don't even consider any alternative therapies, like hypnotherapy, unless you are VERY lucky to have a policy that includes them - and even then, you usually have to have a referral from a psychiatrist of psychologist before coverage will kick in.
As someone who works for a big, bad health insurance company, I would like to challenge you with two thoughts:
1) We must all remember that whenever spending on healthcare exceeds the growth of the GDP, then we have problems. More availability of services means more costs. That's fine but... We already have double digit inflation in health care costs during a recession and a near deflationary economy. Since our health care system is largely employer based, they will only pay for so much. Otherwise they will not be able to compete in the global economy.
**That's well and fine, but, when compared to other medical issues covered by most policies, mental health coverage is SEVERELY lagging and underfunded. And many insurers won't even allow a rider for additional coverage FOR mental health issues. Catch-22 there, it seems.**
It's even more complicated than that but... The bottom line is that you get what you pay for - whether it be from socialized medicine or the U.S. brand of employer-based healthcare.
2) The mental health community has its work cut out for it. Freudian psychoanalysis went out the window because the evidence in the literature suggests that modern pharmacology and/or simple behavioral therapy works just as well or better - but for a fraction of the cost.
Of course there is that one percent that will always account for a quarter of the total consumed resources (sort of a law of nature, consistent with Pareto's principle). These really sick people need something. Unfortunately nobody's been able to show that any program for a Geoghan works, short of locking him up and denying him access to his little boys. Apparently even castration doesn't stop some of them. Until someone can come up with peer-reviewed evidence that various interventions work, health plans aren't going to pay for it. Time for the psychology researchers to get off their a$$es and do their homework on both the therapy and research front. Society is desperate.
**Agreed with regards to Geoghan and pedophiles in general. Recidivism, as I noted is well above 80%, which is tragic. The only way this might be spotted at an early age as several indica are uniform among that population. Perhaps a screening program to find the at-risk individuals and early intervention is the key. Who knows?**
But perhaps our resources are poorly spent. Wasn't it Ben Franklin that said a stitch in time saves nine? Surely we as a society can get more creative.
- Bill
Ben's comment is close to what I was getting at, but only a part of it. A large percentage of policies these days have little to no coverage for mental health assistance of any kind. Given the rising need (source NIMH and APA reports over the last ten years) for mental health intervention in the public at large, it seems that something needs to be done to allow for such coverage, even if it is at the insured's expense, proportional to other coverage allowed under some plans.
My gripe is also that, because of the inflated rates psychiatrists and many psychologists charge and because many mental health plans only cover treatment FROM psychiatrists and psychologists, a revision of the plans to allow MSW/ACSW's access to this patient base under plan could LOWER the costs of treatment for your "garden variety neurotics" and give a better shot at identifying the more seriously dysfunctional individuals.
But we all know that such a proposal would bring a firestorm from the APA and its members.
Turf wars should have no place in the health care industry. Unfortunately, they seem to be de rigeur.
I believe we're both on the same page on this, just different paragraphs. We're BOTH for improved patient care and risk identification. The problem, as usual, is money.
because of the inflated rates psychiatrists and many psychologists charge and because many mental health plans only cover treatment FROM psychiatrists and psychologists
Actually... My data show that primary care physicians are doing much of the garden variety treatment of minor psychiatric illnesses. Basically modern pharmacology at work (SSRIs and such).
Health plans have struggled with this alternative therapy thing for some time. Much of the alternative therapy is based on marginal evidence at best (to date) but... the consumers want it. Contractually we can only cover for medical necessity.
A way around this has been the health insurer coming in as the 800-pound gorilla and negotiating good rates for acupuncturists, massage therapists, etc. This way they leverage their best asset (numbers for better unit price) and get around the medical necessity issue. Patients pay out of pocket, but at a better price. Better than nothing.
Not sure if hypnotherapists are covered under some of these alternative therapy riders. Possibly... In any case, I would agree that in many cases, these health care providers could do as well as or better than the psychologists/psychiatrists, just as nurse practitioners tend to handle garden variety medical patients better than PCPs (a better bedside manner, and more time spent with patient).
Hopefully the market and evidence will result in a good solution over the long run.
Here is an interesting article I stumbled across this morning pertaining to John Geoghens Death in prison. It talks about how John was allegedly abused by the gaurds, and that little was done to protect him. The author talks about how Geoghens death could possibly bring about some changes in Massachusetts prisons, and ends the article with the satement "sometimes God works in mysterious ways".
Bought some various sauces and other such yummy stuff at my local super 88, a chinese grocercy that wraps bottles in newspaper from 12/4/02, apparently...
"More clergy abuse, secrecy cases"
"more allegations that a priest had initiated sexual acts with teenagers preparing to become nuns by encouraging them to believe they were making love to jesus christ himself... last night the rev Robert Meffan admitted it was true and said he still believes his sexual relationships with teenage girls were "beautiful, spiritual" experiences.
... allegations that a priest had terrorized and beaten his housekeeper, another had traded cocaine for sex, and a third had enticed young girls by claiming to be the second coming of christ...
Law wrote " It is my hope that some day in the future you will return to an appropriate ministry, bringing with you the wisdom which emerges from difficult experience" to an admitted sexual abuser before "quietly transferring rogue priests to other parishes"
Other priests had complained "repeatedly and in vain" about the shuffling of priests...
"oficials labored to keep the rev, Burns sexual attraction to boys a secret..."
"the rev Perry administered beatings and threats during 3 decades " serving the south shore...
What's been done about the criminals at the top? and why doesn't anyone care? All our criminals in the abuse, theft, and drug crimes get a layered treatment from prison and death at the bottom to sweet deals and scot free at the top...
This was a topic of discussion several times in the last weekend. I had a grammar school reunion on Saturday evening. I got to see people that I went to school with in first grade. Very, very fun. But before the evening was over, we were talking about a Father Munley that had attempted to abuse boys on a special "weekend retreat" to North Carolina. When the parents complained and the bishop refused to do anything about it, my father threatened the bishop with an arrest warrant from his friend (the Justice of the Peace) and a front page article in the Daily Press from another friend. My father told the bishop (in spite of general fear of the clergy authority back then) to get Munley out of town by sunset, or the hammer would fall. An hour later, my father witnessed a harried Father Munley taking a suitcase out of the Rectory and driving away for good.
And what happened from there? The clergy authority continued to dump him on other parishes. Everywhere Munley went, Munley made more mischief. My father would follow the dumping grounds, and warn the local population.
And now the lawsuits are coming...
Yes, Munley was a topic of discussion at the reunion. One of the witnesses to his mess was my classmate.
You want to know how people like my father can cheer the torture and murder of a scumbag like Geoghan in prison? It is because the traditional authority failed REPEATEDLY to do its job. Sorry, oh lovers of justice. You were not there. You didn't have bishops intimidating those that stood up to clerical authority. You didn't witness senior religious leaders REPEATEDLY aiding and abetting in felonious behavior. You didn't witness the cozy relationship between clerical authority - drunk on its power - and the law. When authority fails, don't cry for the prison victim. Blame the very system you claim we should have respected - the system that deserves no respect.
You had to have been there to really understand the depth of this mess. The sociopaths that committed terror on our youth were only the tip of the spear. Someone else was holding that weapon, and repeatedly using it on a vulnerable public. Abuse of power doesn't even begin to describe this mess. Just where were folks supposed to learn about ethics and morals and the law? What was their recourse? Who were the spiritual authorities? Who were the legal authorities?
From a book review in tomorrow's JAMA (on "Misiniformation concerning child sexual abuse and adult survivors"):
The text "compares older retrospective studies of long term psychological consequences with newer prospective studies... concludes that child sexual abuse is causally related to the development of suicidality, anxiety, depression and PTSD." "Three chapters critique a controversial article by Rind et al who conducted a metanalysis of 59 studies and concluded that mental health researchers in the past greatly exaggerated its harmful potential" by showing minimal effect once the confounder of family dysfunction was controlled for, that is, they blamed bad outcomes on the family structure and not the abuse per se that accompanied it. Some critiques included that the Rind study focused exclusively on college students which weren't representative of the general population, and that the Rind study classified responses to abuse as postivie, neutral or negative when some of the positive responses could have been coping mechanisms for real harm (life gives you lemons, make lemonade). The text goes on to assert that the Rind study is more like a position paper from NAMBLA and similar pro-intergenerational sexual relationship groups than a scientific paper.
That's some harsh language, coming from a research text. I'd be interested in knowing how "abuse" was defined for the purposes of the included studies (most importantly, is any "childhood" sex "abuse," or did it require coercion?)
I would feel better with jail time for those that shuttled the known felon to other parishes. Alas this won't happen.
Money never makes things better here. It only serves as a deterrent to organizations like the church here that repeatedly failed to do the right thing. The sad thing here though is that it takes away from the spiritual mission of the church, and takes away from the intent of those that voluntarily gave to the church.
I just have a queasy feeling about the whole thing. It couldn't possibly make things right for the past. One would only hope that the church would handle things differently in the future.
There are things that could be done that would both increase the number of priests and decrease the likelihood that the priesthood would attract this element. But unfortunately the pope won't listen; he's got God on the line. And so I'll save my breath and be glad I parted ways.
), he still got hooked up with a pretty thing that started taking money from him. Fortunately he was together enough to nip it in the bud. In the exchange, he probably won. Good... 
