A Voice in the Wilderness

by Paul Hein

I’ve never told this to anyone before, but the time has come to unburden myself. For years, when I was an altar boy in grammar school, a certain priest touched me. After every Mass at which I served, when we entered the sacristy, he would put his hands on us (altar boys generally serve in pairs). And this priest went on to become a Bishop!

What actually happened was that, on entering the sacristy, we would kneel before Father X, who would then make the Sign of the Cross over us, and briefly touch our heads with his hands. And for the ensuing half-century, I’ve kept this bottled up within me!

Of course, except for this experience, I was never touched by any priest during my years as an altar boy, and in four years of an all-boys high school operated by Jesuits, I don’t recall a single episode of touching. I guess my repression is complete.

The existence of pedophile priests is a fact, and the offenses they have committed are real, and not to be minimized. But neither are they to be maximized, even though anti-Catholicism is the most beloved, enduring, and perennially popular of American prejudices.

It is odd that no one has pointed out that “it’s only about sex.” Nor has anyone urged tolerance toward an “alternative lifestyle.” Nor has there been any challenge to the assertion by the men who claim to have been fondled by a priest ten, or 15, or 20 years ago, of significant psychic harm, or permanent emotional injury. Of course, to find oneself being touched improperly by a priest whom one had previously respected or even admired would be humiliating and embarrassing, but it is hard to imagine any boy growing up without having some sort of humiliating or embarrassing experiences. How about some “horseplay” in the locker room? Nothing happened at any Scout meetings that made you blush, or become angry? What about the draft-board physical, where you were made to assume positions, and tolerate touching, that were demeaning and unpleasant? Nothing happened in the service that you’d rather forget, or maybe in jail?

None of this justifies improper sexual advances by a priest—or anyone else. But we aren’t being treated daily to news of suits against scoutmasters, or drill sergeants, or older teammates. Could that be because those individuals aren’t perceived as having deep pockets, and being members of a despised organization?

Once a priest has been accused of pedophilia, he is nearly defenseless against further charges. Although the assumption of innocence is given lip service, the fact is that accusations become virtually self-proving. Rape, like pedophilia, is a crime committed, usually, in the absence of witnesses. It boils down to whom you believe. In rape cases, the defendant often prevails, since to convict in the absence of any witnesses or evidence other than that of the accuser, is probably a greater risk to due process than to acquit the guilty. This doesn’t seem to be the case with pedophilia charges against priests. Moreover, the accusations involve alleged crimes committed 12 or 15 years ago. Imagine trying to defend yourself against a charge of pedophilia brought by a young man whom you certainly knew and associated with a dozen years ago, when he was 12. He says you fondled him. The more you protest, the guiltier you seem. And, of course, if he claims his life was blighted by the experience, and that he suffers from headaches and nightmares to this day, who can deny it? So offer a large cash settlement, and the pain will be eased, and the torment mitigated—until the next litigant appears with a remarkably similar story.

Pedophilia by priests—or anyone else, or course—is not to be tolerated. But a certain amount of cynicism regarding the extent and severity of the problem is appropriate, and certainly seems to be missing from the accounts we read every day. Even where priests are concerned, there must be the presumption of innocence, and an awareness that there are two sides to every story!

March 3, 2002