|
|
|
|
Are
Controversial "Recovered Memories" about Pedophile Priests
Trustworthy? Lost in
the current scandal involving Roman Catholic priests who have sexually
abused minors is just how some of that abuse seems to be coming to light.
While most observers might think that if someone has been sexually fondled
or worse by a priest, that the abuse's memory would always be with them,
a segment (just how big is yet to be known) of the current accusations
are coming from people claiming to have "recovered" repressed
memories of abuse after years and sometimes decades have passed. Such
memories are, according to many skeptical
scholars, the result of atrocious therapeutic technique and highly
suggestible patients' imaginations. According to Harvard psychiatry
professor Dr. Harrison Pope (cited by the AP), "At present there
is insufficient scientific evidence that it does exist." But others are cautiously leaving the door open, if only a crack. As the American Psychological Association notes, "There is a consensus among memory researchers and clinicians that most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them although they may not fully understand or disclose it. Concerning the issue of a recovered memory vs. a pseudo-memory [false memory], like many questions in science, the final answer is yet to be known. But most leaders in the field agree that although it is a rare occurence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been forgotten can be remembered later. However, these leaders also agree that it is possible to construct convincing pseudo-memories for events that never took place." It seems undeniable that the Catholic Church's current scandal is largely of its own making. In hundreds of cases no "recovered" memories play a role; the victim always knew he or she had been victimized, and furthermore had often publicized that fact to one degree or another. Priests themselves had often admitted to such abuse of minors. The Church's response (which all too has been mirrored in protestant denominations as well) was to move the priest from parish to parish rather than deal with the abuse. This case of collective denial is now over, at least one hopes so. But along with it comes a hard price: it may be impossible for the Catholic Church to defend itself, or its priests, against erronious or downright spurious "recovered memory" allegations without being seen as doing what it has done before. Since some of the most high-profile cases against priests involve this controversial element, it seems nearly impossible for the church to suggest such cases be viewed differently than more mainstream abuse cases might be. Around the country: Tucson, Arizona: In an open report to his diocese, the Bishop of Tucson, Manuel D. Moreno, notes that seven of the nine initial cases brought against that diocese are repressed memory cases. That number grew. In a later settlement the diocese, according to the Arizona Republic, "settled eleven lawsuits totalling an estimated $15 million with plaintiffs who claimed they had repressed memories of sexual abuse by four priests in Tucson and Yuman during the 1960s, '70s, and '80s." Five non-repressed memory cases were also settled. We're left to wonder if there was evidence in the eleven cases, or whether the Church merely decided not to contest them and so avoid further public rehashing of the sexual scandal. Boston, Massachusetts: Paul Busa says that he was reading his newspaper when an article about a priest molesting a child suddenly opened the floodgate. Busa for the first time remembered abuse by a priest that he says went on for years, darkening his life from six to thirteen years old. The priest he accuses is none other than the Rev. Paul Shanley, who is also alleged to have attended the founding of NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Assocation). Such cases as Busa's raise the issue of whether he really 'forgot' the abuse or in fact did remember it while choosing not to think about it. The whole issue of memory repression gets more complex the more it is explained, as the term "repressed" can be defined in various ways. Chicago, Illinois: One of the first repressed memory cases garnering national attention victimized Chicago's Cardinal, Joseph Bernadin, in 1993. Steven Cook accused Bernadin and another priest of having molested him in the 1970s. Later, Cook recanted his testimony, saying that he'd been led into false memories by his therapy. Only three years later, Bernadin was dead of cancer. May 8, 2002, Bernadin's memory was being invoked by a 69-year old Chicago-area priest, John Barrett, who also has been accused via one individual's recovered memories. "I am innocent. My reputation has been tarnished, and I wonder how I am supposed to refute unsubstantiated and terribly false statements," Barrett said. The abuse allegedly occurred some thirty-seven years ago. Cornerstone will hopefully post a lengthy overview of the Catholic church's struggles to face sexual abuse among priests, along with an overview of its ideas on sexuality compared to a traditional protestant view. For now, it seems obvious that Catholic leaders' inaction in the past has led to their present difficulties. That said, recovered memories both as a scientific concept and as a specific "experience" by those having them deserve very close scrutiny. As Father Barrett observes, the innocence of someone accused via such memories is almost impossible to verify. Trials involving the sexual abuse of young children seem no place for experimental, non-verified psychiatric theories masquerading as science; just as it is a crime to abuse a child, it is a crime to abuse an innocent priest with pseudo-memories of sexual abuse. For Further Reading: Satanic
Ritual Abuse, False Memory Syndrome, and Recovered Memories, Cornerstone
Online special Links:
posted June 22, 2002 on Cornerstone Online; all rights reserved. |
|
