A View From the Pew

Pica

Pica is a Latin word for magpie. A magpie is a bird that is known for its indiscriminate eating habits. Many years ago when I was in nursing school I learned about a disorder by the same name. It is a serious eating disorder that involves the eating of non-food, non-nutritive substances. Things like laundry starch, hair, burnt match heads, feces, dirt, paint chips, needles, erasers, cigarette butts--- the list can be as varied as the individuals afflicted by this malady. Thirty plus years later we still don’t know for sure what causes pica. There are theories of course--- there may be a biological component— a mineral deficiency, like iron--- or a chemical imbalance in the brain--- it is more common in those with mental disabilities, autism and some schizophrenics--- but still there are many people who appear normal and are still plagued with these compulsions. In a few instances it seems to be conditioned by local/ethnic custom. When the onset is before adolescence it seems to be transitory--- the child eventually outgrows it but when the onset is in adolescence or later it can be very difficult to treat and control. The most accepted theory today is that among adolescents and adults who are described as normal is that it is caused by psycho-social problems--- much like other eating disorders. The exact number of people afflicted is hard to determine because most suffers hide their activity from others and it is not usually detected unless a serious medical complication occurs.

This disorder can have serious consequences on a person’s wellbeing. Physically the problems manifested can be malnutrition, chemical toxicity, bowel perforations, lesions and obstructions, systemic diseases and infections caused by parasites and bacteria--- in some instances leading to chronic illnesses and even death. Psycho-social complications include stress and anxiety if unable to ingest substance they crave, shame and embarrassment over their behavior, rejection from peers and family over their habits--- feeling powerless due to inability to control their unusual cravings.

While most professionals today agree that it is best to try to help people overcome these compulsions some say that if the substance is relatively harmless to just let people be--- they aren’t really hurting anyone. But even something as “harmless” as corn starch or clay can interfere with the body’s normal function and rob people of nutrients by displacing healthy food with empty fillers and calories. The digestive system is designed to take in food substances, break them down, extract the necessary nutrients and then excrete the waste products--- eating large amounts of seemingly harmless substances can have a long term, debilitating effect on the body--- particularly the digestive tract eventually causing it to not function properly and predisposing the individual to illness.

Now while a few of you might have found this little treatise of mine incredibly fascinating (right!) others of you might wonder why on earth I am discussing pica. Well a couple weeks ago out of the blue I found myself thinking about pica---why? I had no idea--- I thought it was a weird subject that kept popping into my head--- then the little light bulb flashed on--- I saw a connection to another human circumstance. Some of us might say we should just leave pica sufferers alone--- it is their business, their health, their life--- they cannot change the way they feel, the desires they have--- and in most cases they are not hurting themselves or anyone else---and they are adults and capable of deciding their own fate. OK---but still it is a valid question to ask if pica is wrong--- is it something we should encourage even implicitly?

How do we determine the right or wrong of a human action. Without getting bogged down in a heavy and lengthy philosophical discussion I would say there are two basic questions. One--- does the act serve the truth and does the act serve God. How do we know whether eating dirt is wrong or right? We can look at the design and function of our digestive organs and see what was intended by God. Since eating dirt deprives the body of essential nutrients and exposes the digestive tract to damage and disease ---eating dirt cannot be called a good thing--- it goes against nature and the biological purpose of the digestive tract--- and --- it denies us of the good nutrients our bodies need---It also does not serve God--- we are not to engage in activities that cause harm to ourselves--- we belong to Him and are obligated be good stewards of everything in creation---even our own bodies. So ---even if our feelings tell us we need to eat dirt, that eating dirt makes us feel better, that it is good for us--- that God wouldn’t have given us a mouth, a world filled with dirt and the desire to consume it--- if it wasn’t ok to eat it--- due to natural law, our physical form and function we can know despite all those strong feelings that it is wrong to eat dirt. The truth is found in our body--- not in our feelings.

Now substitute homosexuality and what we know about it with what was said about pica. It is almost an identical situation. I do not believe that most of us would hate someone because they ate dirt--- I don’t think we would discriminate against them or treat them as an outcast--- I also do not believe that if we truly cared about them we would encourage them to continue to eat dirt when we know that that action has serious consequences-- physically, emotionally and spiritually--- Interesting isn’t it?

Spanked!

OK--- Catherine has roundly redressed me for my comments regarding Rev. Steven Boguslawski, rector of Sacred Heart Major Seminary in my post regarding the Detroit Free Press article referenced on Nov. 30th. I do not know him--- she does--- so I do not doubt that he is as dedicated and hard-working as she states. I still have doubts about his interpretation of "the document". For the sake of fairness I did some more research and I found this MP3 of an interview he did recently regarding the same article I discussed. Here is the link. Having listened to it it twice I cannot give a full blown apology--- I do not think I was too far off in my interpretation of Fr. Steven's comments and the reason I say that is found at the very end of the interview with him. The very last thing that Paul W. Smith says is that this document is different then the one from 1961 because it shows the Church had broadened its views on homosexuality and that the previous document barred homosexuals from the priesthood. He then asked Fr. Steven Bogulawski "that is not what the Church is saying right now?" to which Fr. Steven replied "No, that is correct... correct."

No doubt as Catherine states Fr. Steven is a good man--- dedicated and hardworking--- that doesn't change my opinion of his comments and in fact listening to the interview actually raised more concerns. I was willing to cut some slack and admit that maybe I was a too harsh because it could have been that he was just put on the spot and so answered the way he did just to deflect reporters--- but in the radio interview he confirms the interviewer's statement that the document does not ban homosexuals from the priesthood--- unless Fr. Steven and I read different documents I do not see how he came to that conclusion. The language is pretty darn clear.... as I said ....unless someone is looking for a way around the language. I admit some documents take years to study--- Humanae Vitae, Veritatis Splendor, Lumen Gentium for example--- this was not that type of document--- it is a clear cut and short instruction--- It was released to address a current problem--- how would taking time to study it help solve the current problems? Could I be wrong---perhaps--- I'll sincerely apologize if I am but so far I haven't seen enough proof to convince me.

Reading between the lines

Reading through the latest crop of Op-eds pertaining to the "the document" I am perceiving the growing trend to criticize it as not only scapegoating homosexuals but as ignoring the *real* problem which which more and more they seem to be suggesting is about heterosexual pedophiles.  It is amazing to watch. While most articles do not come out explicitly like this one and say:

But the study doesn't answer one vital question: Were the clergymen who abused adolescent boys gay men?

To the sexually unsophisticated this is a ridiculous question, since men who have sex with boys obviously must be homosexual. However, Roland Summit, a psychiatrist at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center specializing in child sexual abuse since 1975, says the habitual molester of adolescent boys is rarely attracted to adult males, and the vast majority of men who molest boys identify themselves as heterosexual and (aside from Roman Catholic clergy) are in adult heterosexual relationships.

They do seem to be taking that approach implicitly. Interestingly, the author chose Roland Summit as his expert. Google Roland Summit and you will quickly see he is steeped in controversy---definitely not someone I would choose to make a point I wanted to be taken seriously.

Looking at that last sentence which I quoted--- that most men who molest boys identify themselves as heterosexual and are in heterosexual relationships--- is understood more correctly when one looks up the profile of a pedophile as I did here--- and it says:

"Are usually family men, have no criminal record, and deny that they abuse children, even after caught, convicted, incarcerated, and court-ordered into a sex offender program. The marriage is often troubled by sexual dysfunction, and serves as a smokescreen for the pedophile's true preferences and practices."

So it seems that just because a man is married doesn't mean he is a heterosexual. If you think about it logically a man that wanted unfettered access to children would be best served by playing the part of a normal, married, heterosexual man--- I had an aquaintence from a divorce support group about 20 years ago whose husband was charged with molesting her two sons from a previous marriage. She said she began to be suspicous of him when after the wedding he wanted nothing to do with her sexually. Before the wedding he was affectionate and attentive--she said they never had sex because of religious convictions---at the time she found it refreshing--- that it made her feel special and that he really appreciated the sanctity of marriage--- and she was impressed with his kindness towards her boys. A few times after the wedding they attempted sexual relations but it was a failure--- he blamed it on stress and work---she blamed herself--- it wasn't until her oldest began acting rebellious and angry and her youngest refused to stay with her husband when she wasn't home that she began to wonder if something was wrong.

Roland Summit then says "the habitual molester of adolescent boys is rarely attracted to adult males". I don't know if this is just another instance of Roland Summit fabricating results that are favorable to his point of view but I have found  reliable sources that seem to claim otherwise. The most common statistic I see quoted is while only 2% of male adults are homosexual approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual*(see footnote below). While it is true that not every, nor even most homosexual men are attracted to boys there is a comparatively large percentage (compared to the percentge of heterosexual men attracted to children, teenagers)that find young boys and especially adolescent boys sexually attractive. It is a well documented component of gay fiction and gay history (what about the Greeks, Romans? What about NAMBLA?). The reason there are so many more heterosexual men is simply a matter of statistics--- they make up 98% of the male population compared to the 2% for homosexuals--- pedophilia/ephebophilia is more common to homosexuals when compared by percentage of each population as opposed to number of offenders in each group. Also many of the priest offenders self identified themselves as homosexual and several of the high profile cases were on record as having been involved with adult men as well. Perhaps the most notable was Paul Shanley. According to the New York Times from April 15, 2002---

"What his superiors appeared not to know, however, was that the address to which they were sending Father Shanley's checks for most of his time here was the Cabana Club Resort, one of the many hotels that cater to the town's gays. Father Shanley became an owner of the hotel, along with the Rev. John J. White, another Boston priest who was also on sick leave and receiving money from the Boston Archdiocese. Father White was the sole owner of a second hotel, the nearby Whispering Palms.

Neither remains in business, although the scene they were part of is thriving, with 40 such hotels and bed-and-breakfasts, mostly in the Warm Sands enclave. These clothing-optional places, protected from prying eyes by walls and towering bougainvillea, do year-round business for gay men from around the world."

Paul Shanley had been long active in the gay rights movement and got himself a lot of attention and trouble by publically supporting NAMBLA. Then there was the Saint Sebastian's Angels website where homosexual priests bragged not only about relations with other men but with boys as well--- some even suggesting resorts that catered to gay men looking for boys to "party" with.

What these people hope is that if they keep up with the well worn mantras of "more heterosexual than homosexual men molest children" and "pedophilia, not homosexuality is the problem"--- that we will be lulled into acceptance without looking at the details behind their mantras. They say by targeting gays the church will let the *real* abusers continue to abuse  (note the implication)--- They say they are worried--- concerned---and I believe this is true---but not for the safety of children as they claim--- I think they are afraid to see the results of the enforcement of the instruction--- what will they say when the assault of teenage boys dramatically drops--- or when we see statistics that are very different in areas where the bishops enforce the instruction as opposed to areas where they don't? I think what they really fear is finding out that there certainly is a link between the disproportionate number of homosexual clergy and the disproportionate number of Catholic boys and teens who were among the victims of clergy abuse.

The mounting number of shrill voices demanding that the Church stop scapgoating gays and deal with the *real* abusers is in indication that gay activists are not used to not being in control--- They cannot manipulate what comes out of the Vatican as they do every secular institution--- they cannot control how the Catholic Church will deal with its problems--- so they are frantic---what if they are proven wrong? Yup---I'd agree--- indeed they are very concerned about the issue....

*(1 K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.) (2. K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.)

Interpreter please!

St Joan's new pastor gave his first homily--- It is here. I have read it a couple of times and have yet to figure out exactly what Fr. Jim was trying to say---especially the last paragraph which says:

"So, if you don’t get it, and if St. Joan’s don’t get it, we are on trouble. You are the messenger, you have the power and only you can bring the message as it is given to you. But it takes effort. Part of why we belong to a greater Church is that sometimes we are wrong and it’s good to be challenged. Something which you are used to; being challenged, that is, not being wrong. I guess. I suppose. At least that is what everyone here maintains."

Anyone care to give their interpretation? I have to admit I'm left scratching my head.

Shivers up and down my spine

Right to assisted suicide 'irresistible'

"By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct"

So says Peter Singer --Princeton's pro-infanticide philosopher-professor. This is the same guy that believes in and advocates that animals be afforded the same rights as human beings. So in Peter Singer's universe who decides which lives are worth living? Haven't we gone down this road before in other places? How is it that we demonize Hitler and then give this guy an influential position in one of the most prestigious universities in the world?