It may seem like I'm getting away from the point, but recently I have posted here how the former Abbot of Ealing has been sent to prison for a term of eighteen years for mutliple counts of child abuse. It will come as no surprise to regular readers that I hope the cunt dies in prison. Not because he has abused children - I suspect there are many men and women who have urges to do so and do a full and frank inventory on themselves resulting in them taking action to keep children safe. For example they wouldn't because a teacher. It is only the same sort of action I have taken to stop myself smoking, but writ large. I have performed a full and frank inventory and know that I can't smoke. Or rather, I can't smoke just one or the odd one, so I cannot smoke at all. This is only really the same action - I am keeping myself away from a behaviour which I know I cannot manage and will cause harm - in this case - to me rather than to others.
But Mr Soper (as he is referred to on the Ealing Abbey website) is not showing signs of doing a full and frank inventory. Remember that in English law, for a criminal conviction it has to be proved *beyond reasonable doubt* that you have actually committed the crime you are accused of, which indicates that in this case there is a large body of compelling evidence that he's guilty. The smallest hint that you might not have done it and you don't get convicted. But in the face of this evidence Mr Soper didn't plead guilty. He claimed to be not guilty to the multiple crimes, in the face of multiple accusers and witnesses, to the bitter end. His non guilty plea meant that his victims had to be retraumatised by a criminal trial which needn't have happened. The accounts of the lengthy trial suggest that his defending counsel tried her absolute damnedest but she had absolutely nothing to work with and was on a losing wicket.
Not only has he not caved in and admitted that he's as guilty as hell, there are indications on the internet that he has started using diversionary tactics (phew, managed to get the post back on its subject). He is playing for sympathy. He was very upset at the reaction of other prisoners in the prison van to having a nonce among them. What a pity. You can imagine how sorry I feel for him. 'Look at poor little innocent me' is what the diversionary tactics are aimed at saying. And it's spotting and dealing with these kind of diversionary tactics that are my current focus - they create further abuse for existing targets and indicate that the person employing the tactics is either ignoring the problem or looking after number one.
The other discussion which has broken out on the internet in the wake of his conviction is whether his victims should forgive him. There is one blog (called Sceptical Thoughts) which has tended to become solely about child protection and at Ealing Abbey and the English Benedictine Congregation in particular and a particularly lively discussion has broken out on there about the power of forgiveness to enable healing. Again it will come as no surprise that the Hound's official position is that the target of abuse should feel no obligation to forgive their abuser - particularly in a case like this where the abuser is not willing to carry the can for his actions. In fact my opinion is that in the maelstrom of strange experiences and emotions which happen after trauma, keeping hold of the fact of it happening may be one of the few things which create healing as being a source of validation for the target, in the face of overwhelming denial about the fact of it happening. This is to my mind a very good reason for refusing to be diverted from the fact of abuse happening.
I did actually meet Mr Soper once when I visited Ealing Abbey. The visit was for a matter of hours only and I wasn't there for long enough to get an impression of what he or the community were about. He is the second convicted clerical/monastic abuser I have met - the other was Fr Phillip Temple of Cockfosters Monastery. Now I have to confess with him that he is the person who has made me understand why people say they didn't know an abuser was abusing, because I thought I had him sussed and had *no* idea. Even other people who knew him better than me werer surprised when he was convicted. He did the right thing and after an initial non guilty plea, changed his plea to guilty and fessed up. This is the opposite of using diversionary tactics.
The other things which has been making me think about diversionary tactics recently has been comments on Bishop Pat Buckley's blog. These tend to follow the more classic arguments used by those who try to divert attention from the problem at hand. So that, say, when the topic under discussion is the fact the Catholic church is a cesspit of sexual abuse and clergy not living in any way in the way they are supposed to do so, we get answers such as this:
'You're forgetting about the many good priests who get on with it and live celibately'.
'The abusive priests are only a few bad apples.' [This is the most ridiculous one because Catholic clerical abusers may not exceed the proportion in the general population but have been extensively facilitated by their bishops]
'You are anti-Catholic.' [Another ridiculous one]
'Those things happened in the 70s and the 80s but things have changed now.' [Let me see, child abuse was a crime and a mortal sin even then, so the behaviour and response to it was illegal and sinful, and the recent inquiry has been hearing about a teacher abusing a girl pupil at Ampleforth in the Noughties]
'We all have sins and you should think about your own.' [Pause for laughter - I have a lot of sexual sins between consenting adults and am very proud of them indeed]
And so on and so on. You get my point, which is that diversionary tactics divert from the actual problem, whether making the odd case out to be an aberration or denying its importance, or diverting attention to the person pointing out what has happened. The Christian milieu is particularly vulnerable to diversion because of the dangerous custom of confessing things and having them wiped off the slate. This is dangerous because it - literally - 'absolves' the person of any future responsibility for it. It's gone. It's exactly like me smoking the 19th Camel in a packet and thinking 'I'll just have this one, because I have stopped.'
The key to recognising and dealing with diversion is tha one I suggested above - a full and frank inventory of what is actually happening, which will always be bound to be embarrassing and painful. Especially painful when one is considering how one may be using diversionary tactics as a defence mechanism in ones own life. Personally I find it helpful to think of it in a diagram. When you draw arrows to indicate who is talking about what, diversion will always appear as an arrow pointing away from the person. I can tell that this year I'm going to be drawing a lot of diagrams!
Happy new year, everyone.
Ooh, you just managed to prevent a reenactment of that illustrative picture. Although, it was touch and go until the fourth paragraph!
ReplyDeleteI hope you have plenty of drawing pencils and a good pencil sharpener?
And a Happy New Year to you, too!
Well half a greem crayon, a discarded lipstick and some blotting paper have sufficed so far!
Delete