With the nation in the grips of the scandal over pedophilia within the ranks of Roman Catholic priests (and the apparent coverup by church officials), the obvious question was how long would it take for someone nutcase academic to defend those actions? Just such a defense appeared, in fact, in the March 26, 2002 edition of The Minnesota Star Tribune.
There are, believe it or not, individuals and groups within academia who want to redefine and defend pedophilia. For the most part, this impetus comes from the same folks who believe that heterosexuality is simply an ideological construct forced on hapless people by an patriarchal and oppressive society. On the extreme end of this view are people who believe that the taboo prohibiting adults from having sex with children is the last holdout of that “old morality” which must be vanquished in order for a new, liberating morality to emerge.
As political science professor Harris Mirkin puts it, “Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality,” and Mirkin and his ilk want to destroy that old sexual morality even if it destroys children.
So how do the defenders of pedophilia intend to rehabilitate this crime? By pointing to research suggesting that the victims of pedophilia are not always harmed by it.
This was the source of a major controversy within the American Psychiatric Association a few years ago. A study published in the 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin studied 59 college students who were sexually abused as children by people older than themselves or by other children. What they found was that there was no single approach to how those 59 people dealt with the abuse.
The authors then want to say that in cases where negative effects are non-existent or there actually seem to be positive effects, that the encounter be called “adult-child sex” instead of “sexual abuse.” There are numerous serious problems with the study — in fact the study’s methodology is downright laughable. Besides, this is exactly like saying that physical abuse of children is okay in those few cases where the children do not experience any long-term negative impacts from the abuse.
But back to the priests, the University of Minnesota Press is publishing a book due out later this year called, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex by journalist Judith Levine. Levine explicitly defends priestly pedophilia. Here’s what the Star Tribune reports,
She said the pedophilia among Roman Catholic priests is complicated to analyze, because it’s almost always secret, considered forbidden and involves an authority figure.
She added, however, that, “yes, conceivably, absolutely” a boy’s sexual experience with a priest could be positive.
Thank goodness we can rely on academic presses to ensure that such ideas get wide circulation. I’m sure those priests engaged in pedophilia will be overjoyed to hear that they have support among some in the academic community.
Source:
Some in mainstream contend certain cases of adult-minor sex should be acceptable. Mark O’Keefe, Minnesota Star Tribne, March 26, 2002.