This past week there were two
high-profile jury decisions regarding child abuse in Pennsylvania. In both instances persons held
in high regard and trust were found guilty. In both instances it appears that
the high regard gave them what amounted to a “free pass” to do as they pleased
– one was pleased to be the originator of abuse, the other was pleased to hide
behind a chain of authority. Granted the cleric did not actually engage in
physical and emotional abuse, but did that make him less culpable? Considering
that the cleric was supposed to be representing God it is, in some ways, all
the more sad; and to hear a defense that amounts to, “I wasn’t authorized to do
anything about it” puts one in mind of Nuremberg.
As I said to a coworker in
response to another matter, “This ol’ world is full of pain.”
Is the person who looks the other
way also guilty? Is the person who enables the perpetrator through silence also
guilty? Is the protestor who, silenced the first time, refuses to speak out yet
again also guilty?
Thirty or fifty years from now
will these be criminal actions?
Fifty years ago much of what we
expose children to today may have been criminal, and if not explicitly criminal
it would have certainly been deplored by society. Fifty years ago much of what
we expose children to may have been considered child abuse, today what was once
irresponsible and perhaps criminal is the norm; so who knows if fifty years
from now the crimes of which these men were convicted will be crimes.
The Federal Department of Health and Human
Services defines the abuse of children in part as: Emotional abuse
(or psychological abuse) is a pattern of behavior that impairs a child's
emotional development or sense of self-worth. This may include constant
criticism, threats, or rejection, as well as withholding love, support, or
guidance.
Some of the many definitions on
the HHS website are straightforward; some can be a slippery slope. If we take
the above definition of emotional abuse (this is only a part of the HHS
definition) can we ask ourselves whether what many children are exposed to on
an ongoing basis via the media and entertainment industry constitutes abuse, for it
certainly affects their emotional development. Of course if our view of
humanity is that we are the products of time plus matter plus chance then we
have the conundrum of what is right and what is wrong and how there can be any
right or wrong outside of our immediate personal needs. To expose children to
sex and violence, to introduce those images and words into their hearts and
minds to live in them for the rest of their lives and therefore to influence
their character and relationships – is this not abuse? But of course it is
abuse sanctioned by economics and social engineering and by the adult world’s
desire to justify its own moral and ethical and spiritual and economic
promiscuity. And let not the individual family decide that they will not expose
their children to societal toxicity – otherwise the peer pressure of both
adults and children will come into play…and we certainly don’t want little
Susie or Johnny to feel different from other children. So we become like the
recently convicted cleric in that we have an excuse, “What was I to do?
Everyone else was doing it and I couldn’t have my child growing up “different”
from those around her.”
An adult society without shame
without shame exposes its children to the shameful.
Posts
