Clare’s blog, aka rantspace

No, no… I’m not getting married again (I like the model I’ve got, thanks), or moving (god forbid!) or changing my diet (current one’s working well, thanks), or pregnant (god forbid that one too!). This is about my website.

Firstly, that I was asked to write an article for the WA Uniting Church’s The Transit Lounge website, on the recent release of the Ferns Report (Irish Catholic) and the Australian Anglican research into abuse allegations in their dioceses. However, the end result raised “concerns that there could be some sections that might be defamatory and/or damaging to our ecumenical relationships”, and Assembly therefore declined to publish it. I’m proud to prove that despite maintaining useful connections with people in key places in various denominations, I can’t yet be accused of selling out my principles

And the second half of that news is that I chose to post the article on my website rather than see its punch severely lessened by the diplomatic editing that would have been necessary for it to be published in The Transit Lounge. The direct link is here, but I have also added (and will continue to add, supposing I’m disciplined enough) various other articles I’ve written along the way, which you can find by going to the main page of the website and clicking on the “my articles” link which has been added to the menu.

And the second major thing I’ve added to the website is something I’ve been meaning to add for a long time - perhaps the most momentous piece of church documentation I possess after my ten-year fight with them, and that is the Notice of Relinquishment which proves that Vic Cole relinquished his holy orders as a result of his sexual abuse of me. I have also added the letter of apology I received from Peter Jensen at the end of the negotiations with the Anglican Church, wherein he also refers (somewhat obliquely) to the refusal of Harry Goodhew, Donald Cameron, and Vic Cole, to make similar apologies to me. Both can be accessed via links contained within my story.

<sigh> It’d be nice to have time to scan every letter I sent to, and every letter I received from, the church, but that’s still a long-ahead dream.

There’s a very incisive article at New Matilda about the power imbalance in the NRL/Matthew Johns/”Clare” episode (Disclaimer: In that case, Clare is a pseudonym, and I am not 19 years old ) and how that power imbalance affects the issue of “Clare”’s consent. However, I think there are a couple of points that the writers fail to make.

Firstly, that when consent is apparently given in an environment of coercion and/or power imbalance, it is, by definition, only after the event that the victim can really say whether she consented or not. And understanding that is crucial to appreciating why “Clare” did not object at the time, but only afterwards. In other words, only complaining afterwards is not necessarily an indication of a changed mind, but of a victim freed from the power imbalance or coercion and understanding properly just how that power imbalance prevented an informed consent at the time.

The other point that I feel the writers do not adequately explore is the label “group sex”. They rightly point out that “group sex” is a bad term for what happened, but fail to say why, or what would have been a more accurate description. Extrapolating from the rest of the article, I think that their perspective would be that “group sex” implies a degree of mutuality that is contradicted by the circumstances being the presence of several high-profile men and one young woman. A more accurately descriptive term might be “pack sex”.

According to Matthew Johns’ account, after it was over, he went to “Clare” and apologised about the others coming into the room. (According to quotes from Johns, initially “Clare” went to the room after an agreement to have sex with him and one other player, and he was unaware when others entered the room, and stepped away from the bed when he became aware of them.) However, that fact alone makes it very clear that “Clare” had NOT consented to their presence beforehand. But since “Clare” says there were six male participants and another half-dozen or so spectators, (and this number has not been denied by the police, who investigated the allegation at the time, or the club, who must also know the names of those involved), and given the public behaviour of footy players in the context of their sport (an emphasis on group activity, spurring each other on, on-field brawling, and egos fed by cheering), it seems very likely that whatever “Clare” consented to initially became something completely different when an extra 10 or so men entered the room. In such a situation (and particularly if the young woman had previously suffered some abuse), it is extremely unlikely that she would have been able to call a halt at the point where she felt that things had gone further than she wanted.

I think it highly likely that it was the cheering (each other) of the first few men that drew the others’ attention to what was happening in the room and caused them to enter and so “join in the fun”. And I also think it likely that if “Clare” had objected at some point, the guys would simply have ignored her, or possibly even have prevented her from leaving.

Personal qualities:
1. Pre-eminent in courage, strength and skill
2. Loyal to an ideal.
3. Gentle and kind.
4. Much greater courage, resolution, strength of character and generosity than ordinary humans.
5. Comparatively short adult life.
6. Does battle against evil.
7. Dies as a sacrifice in order to win the battle.
8. Ventures into a different world, at great personal peril.
9. Performs some great feat and/or acquires immortality as a result of being in that world.
10. Returns triumphant to his own world, and brings back something that enhances human life.
11. Demonstrates that human life can be richer, more intense and fuller than we think.
12. Ends up being considered divine.

How many of you said Jesus? You’re wrong! Or at least, only partly right. That’s the summary of qualities of the quintessential hero of myth and legend I found in a book about the symbolism of the Arthurian legends. Jesus isn’t really so unique after all, is he?

A discussion with a family member brought me to musing on the “I am the good shepherd” analogy. And you can bet that, having grown up in a conservative evangelical church, I’ve heard it all before - what a shepherd did (and does) to protect the sheep and lead them in safety and good supply. But what I realised I’ve never heard is the other side of the analogy. If Jesus is the shepherd, then christians are the sheep, right? Now start thinking about the characteristics of sheep:
1) They do everything as a group
2) They’re pretty defenceless
3) They don’t think for themselves, they just do what the sheep in front does.

So the extension of a shepherd analogy is neither complimentary nor a portrayal of intelligence. Perhaps that’s why conservative christians hate people questioning their beliefs… because it’s a signal of a sheep who doesn’t obey the unspoken rules.

Of course, encouraging sheep-like behaviour suits the church down to the ground - and when I say the church, I mean the organisation. Obedient, unquestioning followers make for order and safety of those higher up the hierarchy. But - as with many of the church’s policies - it also makes for a member-mass that’s ripe for abuse.

I’ve been musing on PSTD and its symptoms, and this may turn out to be a multiple-entry thread, hence the no.1 in the title. But this first entry I want to explain a rather obscure symptom described in the DSM as “a sense of foreshortened future”. Now that doesn’t mean that I can’t visualise a tomorrow. But someone once put it this way: suppose you thought that your life would end tomorrow, or the next day, or even in a week’s time, what would you do differently? Ironically, that question is often used by christians to spur them to greater obedience and witnessing activity (though it’s not usually asked as one’s own life ending, but Jesus returning). And the point is not dissimilar. It is this - that your priorities would change. You would do things differently, and you would place emphasis on different things. And that is the reality that PTSD sufferers live with. One might almost say their priorities are skewed, and in a way they are. Some things seem pointless, while others take on a disproportionate urgency.

From this skewed perspective, and looking at one side of its coin - why push yourself to do the vacuuming if you’re not going to be here to enjoy the result (or suffer the consequences)? Why make an effort to keep yourself healthy, or looking good, if in a week’s time it isn’t going to matter? But the second side of the coin is an urgency to getting things done. When a PTSD sufferer thinks that something needs doing (in other words, something moves to the top of their priority list), that sense of foreshortened future compels them to do it NOW.

And that’s what a “sense of foreshortened future” means. On the one hand, it brings a lethargy, an apathy, over doing things that would otherwise be merely part of life’s routine, or part of self-care, because the ongoing sense of purpose in them that would see them done is simply not there. But on the other hand, it brings an urgency to dealing with things - often very small matters - that can push the imbalance even further off-centre, as normal priorities make way for a compulsion that often makes little sense, even to the sufferer themselves.

I don’t know how many times some well-meaning christian has said something to me along the lines of “but God has used your experience of abuse to bring good out of evil”.  And the “good” has usually been identified as one of the following: 1) it made you stronger, 2) your website is a great good, 3) your action has changed the way the church deals with abuse allegations… or something like that.

But what those things really mean, albeit often unconsciously for those who say them, is an attempt to make some kind of sense of what happened to me.  And many christians feel the need to make sense of abuse because there’s no other way of accounting for such evil being done while god is in control of the world.  But the cold harsh reality is that abuse doesn’t make sense.  And attempts to rationalise it as somehow part of god’s unfathomable plan simply don’t make sense either.  If god was really so great, and so much out for our good, then s/he could bring good without such evil being necessary first. Far better to see and acknowledge abuse as it is - an act of wanton aggression (once or many times) perpetrated on a defenceless victim.

In my opinion, seeking to make sense of it actually violates the enormity of the abomination it is.

Ooh, look! - Adelaide Catholic bishop Philip Wilson has apologised for the excommunication of Mary Mackillop. He even said that the excommunication was invalid. Of course, given that it happened nearly 140 years ago in 1871, I’m not sure that Mackillop herself cares much now… Though perhaps she should count herself lucky - Galileo didn’t get an apology till FOUR hundred years later!

But it seems to me that the significant issues here are that a) the church does occasionally admit to being wrong, even over such important matters as excommunication, but b) it takes an inordinately long time for them to do so. Ok, so the Sisters of St Joseph - the order Mackillop founded - are appreciative of the apology, but it really doesn’t matter a whole lot to most people now. The time when the apology should have been made was back in the 1870s, when everyone who had accepted the excommunication’s validity had the chance to revise their opinion of Mackillop, and Mackillop herself could feel the injustice restored (not to mention her faith in the church).

Of course, given that she was beatified 14 years ago, it’s clear that the church no longer sees her independent thinking as evil, but perhaps it’s time they acknowledged that faith in - and obedience to - the church is not the same thing as faith in - and obedience to - God, and stopped setting themselves up as such an immutable authority.

Given my previous blog entry on Fr Kennedy, one can’t help wondering if - in a hundred years time - they might actually have to admit they were wrong to sack him, too!

There are many military/war metaphors in christianity, and I want to take issue with them on a number of counts.  Firstly, though, let me list some:

In the bible-
1) the “armour of god” passage in Ephesians 6:10-17.
2) the “fight the good fight” reference in 1 Tim 6:12.
3) “put on the armour of light”, Rom 13:12.
4) “with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left” 2 Cor 6:7  (Note: Normally, one would have an offensive weapon in the right hand and a defensive protection in the left, but not in this metaphor!)
5) “like a good soldier of Jesus Christ” 2 Tim 2:3-4  (Note: v.3 includes the quoted text, v.4 defines the good soldier as obedient to his commanding officer)
6) “the weapons we fight with…have divine power… We demolish…we take captive…and we will be ready to punish” 2 Cor 10:4-6

In songs and hymns-
1) I’m in the Lord’s Army (Sunday School chorus for children)
2) Onward Christian Soldiers
3) We are Marching in the Light of God (originally an African anti-apartheid protest song, but adapted as a militant expression of christian witness)
4) Fight the Good Fight

And why is this army/soldier metaphor so disturbing?  Because it encourages the kind of thinking that facilitates abuse and abusive structures.  Successful soldiers possess the following qualities:
1) obedience to their superior officers (and that’s not primarily to the general commanding the army, it’s to their immediately superior rankings)
2) unquestioning allegiance to the cause being fought for
3) a willingness - one might even say an agreed contract - to sacrifice themselves without question on the orders of their commander
4) a vision of themselves as the solution to the dissension and salvation of those on the right side
5) the ability to dehumanise (one might even say demonise, but certainly to depersonalise) the enemy in order to justify one’s own aggressive behaviour and one’s side’s policies
6) the mass-thinking and loss of individualism that comes from army discipline and structures

(Here’s something worth noting - christians define disciples as “followers”, a legitimate definition according to modern usage, but the etymology makes it clear that the word really means “those who accept being disciplined”)

And all the “good soldier qualities” listed above are also the qualities that comprise the setting for spiritual abuse, and foster the possibility of other forms of abuse, including sexual abuse.  That’s why militant christianity is really an oxymoron, and metaphors of battle and war have no place in a religion supposedly based on love.

This is a very important distinction, and one that’s too seldom made in general conversation about the church, as well as in my blog.  So I’m making it now, by way of clarifying what I suspect may be misunderstood by some that read here.

There are two basic divisions, theologically speaking, within the christian church.  One is liberal, the other is fundamental; that is, there are liberal beliefs and there are fundamentalist beliefs.

The best way to define fundamentalism is to give a bit of history.  Back in about 1905 in the US, a bunch of Presbyterians got together to agree on five “fundamentals” of faith.  Those fundamentals were, and are still - the inerrancy of Scripture; the divinity of Christ; the virgin birth; the substitutionary theory of atonement (in simpler words - Jesus took the punishment for our sins); and the bodily return of Christ.  However, the term fundamentalist wasn’t really used until the 1940s, when there was a split between those who believed in asserting the fundamentals from within their existing denomination, and those who believed in separating themselves from others who didn’t firmly believe the fundamentals.  Those who remained within denominations became known as evangelicals, and the separatists as fundamentalists.

Liberals, on the other hand, are much harder to define.  The reason for this is the basic characteristic of a liberal, which is that they do not assert rules about what must be believed in order to be defined as christian.  Instead, they would probably prefer to talk about beliefs that identify a faith as christian, the most basic of which is a belief in Christ.  But not simply a belief that Jesus existed (which is fairly universally accepted, these days), but that in encountering Jesus you are encountering God.*  And let me make it quite clear, at this point, that that is not the same as believing that Jesus IS God.  But beyond that identifying belief, liberals would argue that a wide range of interpretations of the bible are possible, and that no-one has a right to label someone else a non-christian because they interpret something differently.

(Note: The fact that the word fundamentalist is now used to describe anyone asserting their belief in a fanatical way bears out the common acceptance of the distinction I am making here.  Although in a christian context, fundamentalism still also refers to belief in the fundamentals, in a wider sense fundamentalism refers to an aggressive and uncompromising approach to communicating beliefs, rather than to the particular beliefs themselves.)

These days, most major denominations comprise both fundamentalists and liberals.  The Sydney diocese of the Anglican church, for example, is fundamentalist.  Much of the rest of the Anglican church in Australia is more liberal.  The Uniting Church allows for a wide range of beliefs, so many members have liberal beliefs, but some congregations are closer to fundamentalism.  Cardinal Pell could safely be labelled a fundamentalist, judging from his public pronouncements.  Many other Catholics are not.  And this internal difference in perspective and attitude to belief is, in many cases, at the heart of intra-denominational disputes about homosexuality, the ordination of women, abortion, etc.

However, where all this related to me blogging is that I often refer to “the church” - mostly in disparaging terms :-)  And I think it’s important to put on record that in these cases I am specifically referring to the fundamentalist end of the church spectrum.  Because to me it is not christianity, per se, that is dangerous, but the fundamentalist component of it.  And the same goes for any other religion - a faith that allows others to hold a different faith is harmless; a faith that insists that everyone should believe the same as they do, and is prepared to exert pressure (eg. claiming that if you don’t believe you’ll go to hell) or force (terrorist attacks, the Inquisition) to convince people to convert is profoundly dangerous and abusive.

Footnote:
* I am grateful to this site for this way of expressing it.

Father Peter Kennedy has been sacked from his church in South Brisbane (see here and see here), despite having the support of over 1600 congregation members. He has refused to leave, and the Catholic Church is now forecasting legal action to have him removed. Further, he has argued that mediation is pointless, given the church’s strong-arm tactics so far, and refused to be involved. The archbishop of Brisbane, John Bathersby, has even gone to the extent of saying that some sacraments performed by Kennedy were not legitimate and that he would nominate a future date for “valid baptisms”.

Why has he been sacked? Because of “a dispute over the use of lay people and politically correct language in services”. Oh, and he’s questioned the virginity of Mary! Dear me!

How ironic is it that the church would deny the validity of a priest’s ordination (by saying that the sacraments he performed are not legitimate) for simple doctrinal dissension, while sexually abusive priests are retained in the priesthood, cosseted and reassured?

Children sometimes play at “opposites”, where black is white and white is black - the church makes a living out of it!

.
Follow-up: Kennedy takes most of his congregation with him to a new location, and the diocesan chancellor foreshadows the diocesan response here.