manicstreetpreacher wonders whether this hack can stoop any lower.
I have been less than impressed by Brown after his pathetic attack on Sam Harris’ objection to Francis Collins’ appointment as head of the National Institute of Health, culminating in Brown quote-mining Harris’ The End of Faith something rotten to make it look like Harris endorses torture and rendition. I can only assume that this was a dummy-spitting exercise by Brown to recoup ground from the commenters who lambasted his first piece and rallied in support for Harris.
Now, Brown has not simply scraped the bottom of the barrel, he has removed the base of said wooden container entirely and is tunnelling fast for Australia. On 11 March 2010, Brown posted this appalling piece on The Guardian: Comment is free arguing that perhaps we are being a tad harsh on all those child sodomising Catholic priests, since the rate of child abuse among the clergy is apparently much lower than other professions.
Pinch yourself to make sure that you’re not having a bad dream:
[T]here is no doubt that a lot of children were damaged for life by priests, and that this was mostly covered up by the hierarchy until recently. But was the Catholic church unfairly singled out? Aren’t all children vulnerable to exploitation, especially when they are poor and unwanted?…
The most detailed statistics on child abuse for the Catholic clergy that I can find come from the John Jay Institute’s report drawn up for the American Catholic bishops’ conference. From this it emerges that the frequency of child abuse among Catholic priests is not remarkable but its pattern is. Although there are no figures for the number of abusers in the wider population, there are figure for the number of victims. These vary wildly: the most pessimistic survey finds that 27% of American women and 16% of men had “a history of childhood sexual abuse”; while the the [sic] most optimistic had 12.8% of women and 4.3% of men. Obviously a great deal depends here on the definition of abuse; also on the definition of “childhood”. In some of these surveys it runs up to 18, which is a couple of years above the age of consent in Britain.
Well, if a report has been prepared for the American Catholic Bishops Conference, who are we to argue with it?
The Catholic figures show that between about 4% of priests and deacons serving in the US between 1950 and 2002 had been accused of sexual abuse of someone under 18. In this country, the figure was a 10th of that: 0.4%. But whereas the victims in the general population are overwhelmingly female, the pattern among American Catholic priests was quite different. Four out of five of their victims were male. Most were adolescents: two out of five were 14 or over; 15% were under 10.
This is vile, but whether it is more vile than the record of any other profession is not obvious. The concentration on boys makes the Catholic pattern of abuse stand out; what makes it so shocking is that parents trusted their children with priests. They stood in for the parents. But this isn’t all that different from the pattern in the wider world, either, where the vast majority of abuse comes from within families. The other point that makes the Catholic abuse is that it is nowadays very widely reported. It may be the best reported crime in the world: that, too tends to skew perceptions.
I’ll agree with Brown there. Yes, it is extremely vile. But there my support ends. His post is an exercise in “Yeah, but what about…”. Road traffic deaths kill far more people every year than deliberate homicide, so let’s get the police to withdraw all personnel and resources from investigating murders and get them to devote all their time and effort ensuring that motorists wear their seat beats and drive under the speed limits, shall we?
So why the concentration on Catholic priests and brothers? Perhaps I am unduly cynical, but I believe that all institutions attempt to cover up institutional wrongdoing although the Roman Catholic church has had a higher opinion of itself than most, and thus a greater tendency to lie about these things. Because it is an extremely authoritarian institution at least within the hierarchy, it is also one where there were few checks and balances on the misbehaviour of the powerful. The scandal has been loudest and most damaging in Ireland, because it came along just at the moment when the church was losing its power over society at large, and where it was no longer able to cover up what had happened, but still willing to try. Much the same is true in the diocese of Boston which was bankrupted by the scandal.
Perhaps I am being unduly cynical, but I think we are entitled to demand a higher standard of moral behaviour from institutions and individuals whose alleged purpose is to uphold and enforce those of us mere mortals who do not have a one-to-one with The Big Surveillance Camera In The Sky.
Rabbi David Wolpe raised this objection in a debate against Christopher Hitchens: the public is more shocked and the criticism more vitriolic when a clergyman falls into error. Hitch’s reply was that he is not shocked at all. The Catholic Church preaches that women are vessels of temptation, insists on celibacy, makes sex a matter of guilt and shame and comprises an all male priesthood that is based on sexual repression. What is going to happen to the children under the care of those people? No need to act surprised. The Church wasn’t surprised at all. They knew it was going on all the time which is why they covered up for it.
Hitchens’ comments are at the beginning of this tape.
And regardless of whether the abuse itself has been exaggerated or blown out of proportion in the media, there is no playing down the deliberate covering-up of the scandal by the Vatican, of which the present pope, Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger, played a pivotal role by issuing a Vatican edict in 2001 while a cardinal ordering Catholic bishops and priests were not to cooperate with the police on pain of excommunication. Only last Tuesday (9 March 2010) the BBC’s Newsnight reported on the case of Bill Carney was named as one of the worst cases in Dublin’s Catholic diocese in the Murphy Report into clerical abuse in Ireland. However, for the last 10 years Carney has been free to live quietly in Britain and is now hiding out in the Canary Islands.
Brown’s insulting apologia concludes thus:
Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are now among the tightest in the world. That won’t stop a steady trickle of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by the members of almost any other profession.
Well, that’s a relief. I’m sure that all those children and families whose lives have been ruined by the abuse and subsequent covering up by the Vatican will be consoled no end by the knowledge that it could have been worse if they were looked after by doctors and lawyers.
Brown’s vile wipe was ripped to shreds by its own commenters, and justly so. Why does this appalling man continue to be published in the national dailies?
UPDATE 14 MARCH 2010
As I expected, Jerry Coyne has commented on Brown’s piece on his blog with typical rhetorical fire:
It’s a disgusting and self-serving piece of faitheistic tripe, and its underlying message is this: those people who attack the Catholic church for systematic child abuse are really anti-Catholic bigots. After all, claims Brown, the Church was no worse than other abusers…
I beg to differ with Brown’s implicit conclusion. The concentration on Catholic priests and brothers comes from the shocking institutionalization of that abuse: the consistent efforts of Church officials, who knew full well about the abuse, to cover it up and, sometimes, simply transfer abusers to new places. Yes, other professions sometimes cover up child abuse, but not, I think, on such a massive scale. I am not aware of this kind of cover-up being endemic to American public schools, for example.
And what Brown fails to grasp is that the abuse is doubly shocking because it was committed by those priests to whom parents not only entrusted their children, but entrusted them to inculcate in those children a sense of morality. The outrage comes from seeing that those who were supposed to serve as role models – as paragons of morality – systematically abused that trust in the most heinous ways. And perhaps the Church’s ridiculous policy of celibacy contributed to this abuse.
Fortunately, Brown’s commenters – as usual – take him apart. It must be disheartening for the Resident Moron to watch, week after week, as his readers chew his tuchus to pieces. Maybe the Guardian keeps him on because his continuing idiocy promotes traffic on their website. But really, how can a reputable paper tolerate such witless garbage? Do the editors have any notion of what should pass for decent commentary?
Nice one, Jerry. The words “asshole”, “new” and “rip” spring to mind.
Tags: andrew brown, BBC 2, benedict xvi, Brockport Student Government, Brockport University, catholic church, child abuse, christopher hitchens, Comment is Free, cover up, Darwin Wars, debate, francis collins, jerry coyne, Joseph Ratzinger, letter to a christian nation, Murphy Report, national institute of health, Newsnight, Olenka Frenkiel, paedophile, pope, Project Reason, Rabbi David Wolpe, sam harris, the end of faith, The Guardian, torture, vatican, why evolution is true