Roger Canaff » Religion

Of Angels, A Stranger, and an Absent Father

Roger Canaff — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:59:18 +0000

“Though we share so many secrets, there are some we never tell.” William Martin (Billy) Joel

He called it “The Stranger” and titled a 1977 masterpiece after it. In my business we sometimes refer to it as the “third persona” with a nod to Jungian psychology. A persona is simply a mask, the figurative one we put on to interact with others as we go about our lives. Most of us wear several of them. Our first persona, generally, is what we show to the viewing world. A second may be what we show a lover or a trusted friend, sometimes intermittently and whether we want to or not. But the third is a dark animal indeed. It’s the face we show to no one. It’s the side of ourselves we seek to conceal at all costs. We all have these shadows of ourselves, these Strangers, inside of us. As the song says, they are not always evil, and they are not always wrong. But whether our third persona is harmless or not, a wicked trick of the mind is that we almost always to fail to recognize that it exists in others. We assume, tragically at times, that we can fully know people around us because of the personas they reveal to us. We tell ourselves that we can sense, we can see, we can discern.

We can’t. The Stranger remains, hidden and invisible.

Jerry Sandusky is no exception. He was charitable. He was hard working. He was skilled, admired, and accomplished. He was also, according to eye-witness testimony, a child rapist. His third persona was apparently demonic, and regardless of how ugly and evil, his closest relatives, his wife, his co-workers and his legendary boss would not have detected it based on what he chose to show them. Thus reveals the one merciful thing that can perhaps be said about the group of men who, from all appearances at this point, conspired to protect Jerry Sandusky at the expense of so much. They didn’t understand the third persona, and believed they knew a man because of accomplishments and attributes that say nothing about what he is capable of otherwise.

But mercy for men like Paterno, Curley, Schultz and others in the Institution that is Penn State evaporates with the reality that Sandusky’s persona was exposed at crucial times. There were revelations- a smaller word will not suffice- that vomited a glimpse of it to the great Institution and to its “sainted” mastodon at different points on a long timeline. These revelations are sometimes the only indications an otherwise decent community will receive that a predator stalks its children. The child victims themselves, God bless them, are often the last who will reveal the Stranger in the man; it’s just a bridge too far most of the time.

Those without faith will call these revelations nothing more than dumb luck, inattention on Sandusky’s part, or the blind weight of circumstances. But my own framework of faith suggests to me that these brief flashes of light in the darkness- the anal rape Mike McQueary saw in 2002, for instance, or the oral rape the janitor before him saw in 2000- represent the extremities of desperate and semi-potent angels, using whatever cosmic power they can summon to poke momentary holes in the darkness, thereby alerting the powerful to what the powerless cannot utter.

When these extremities reached Joseph Paterno in March of 2002, the angels must have shouted with joy. A more powerful man, one with more credibility, perceived decency and moral authority, could not possibly have been reached in the community in which Sandusky apparently hunted. Ironically enough, a recognized origin of the name Paterno is a shortening of the Latin Pater Noster, or Our Father, the first two words of the only prayer Jesus allegedly taught his disciples. The great man, the father figure, “St. Joe” himself now knew, and the Stranger in Sandusky would be exposed.

But alas, there was an Institution to protect as well, and in the end it won out. An all-too human Paterno responded as feebly as he legally could. The two officials he went to responded by restricting Sandusky’s access to facilities and his ability to bring boys onto campus. The Institution was protected. The community that surrounded it, and its wide-eyed, star struck boys, could be damned.

Perhaps these men can be forgiven for not knowing what I know; that the eight victims Sandusky is alleged to have abused is probably more like 80 or even much, much more than that. That the after-effects of child sexual abuse result in a panoply of emotional, psychological and physical disorders that literally truncate lives, poison future relationships, stunt potential and shred hope itself like shrapnel. That the “loss of innocence” suffered by boys abused in the way Sandusky is believed to have done so is almost trivial compared to the bleak, mental torture that follows. That the only way out is through, and that many simply never make it through. That the morally bankrupt and cynical decisions made in 1998, 2000, and 2002, as well as before and after, allowed a man to further manufacture misery, betrayal and violence that will haunt lifetimes in its wake.

Perhaps. But at the end of the day, in 2002 and God only knows how many times before and after, these men bet an Institution and its football program over their community and the tender lives of its children. While the victims themselves have paid most dearly for this terrible wager, their fate is tied inextricably to that of the community. Now the suffering of both will echo louder than the joyful sound of the throngs in the stadium, and longer than the legacy of victories under fall skies.

And the angels wept bitterly.

The Seebergs Gain Ground- Thank God

Roger Canaff — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 02:52:00 +0000

Elizabeth “Lizzy” Seeberg passed to the next life on September 10, 2010, a little more than a year ago. I did not know her. Readers of this space, however, know that I was profoundly touched by her life, her death, her courage, and finally the courage of her parents as 9/10/10, for them, bled brutally into the following fall and winter.

For the Seebergs, last fall was not a typical one for a Roman Catholic, Chicagoland family with multi-generational ties to Notre Dame du Lac and St. Mary’s. There was no warm delight in the football schedule, the changing of the seasons, or the approach of the holidays. Instead it was a dark struggle in the wake of a nightmare with a suddenly impenetrable bureaucracy that was the Notre Dame administration. Since I and others have described them before, I won’t recount here the missteps I believe Notre Dame took, both with the investigation of Lizzy’s attack and with its interpretation of federal privacy laws. Suffice to say the Seebergs, already dealing with the worst nightmare any parent could face, were met largely with incompetence and then obstruction where her attack and death were concerned.

However, their resolve yielded some progress earlier this year when Notre Dame agreed to significant reforms in its response to sexual violence after an investigation by the Department of Education (DoE) in the wake of Lizzy’s death.

And beyond Notre Dame, hope also sprung forth in the form of DoE policy with the publication of an April, 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter from Russlyn Ali, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. The bottom line is that just about every U.S. public or private institute of higher learning relies on federal funding for various parts of its mission. The DoE Office of Civil Rights is empowered to condition receipt of federal dollars on meeting certain standards of protection for students at risk for discrimination. The office considers sexual harassment and assault to fall under that category. The letter outlines several things colleges need to do in order to be in compliance with best practices where the response to sexual violence is concerned. Examples are things like preventing offenders from personally cross-examining victims in non-legal disciplinary hearings, and requiring a preponderance standard in determining the outcome. These things are hardly revolutionary or anti-due process.

Nevertheless, a backlash has arisen from various pundits who see these measures as some sort of perverse manifestation of political correctness that threatens to derail some precious and flowering aspect of adolescent college life.

One commentator, Sandy Hingston, unsurprisingly a romance novelist, tragically conflates the sexual exploration of adolescence with rape. She harkens back to what were apparently her and her counterparts’ own experiences of awkwardly waking up with boys in compromising situations and just not making a big deal of it. To the extent that such consensual liaisons happen, she’s correct- a big deal shouldn’t be made of it.

But here’s the rub: It isn’t.

Those awkward, fuzzy situations continue to occur every night in college life- more so now than then. But they almost never produce complaints of rape, and nothing in the DoE’s guidance will change that. The fact is, most women and men who are clearly sexually violated in liquor-fueled, late-night encounters do not wake up and cry rape, let alone what victims of murkier situations do. The over-riding response to being violated sexually is to blame oneself and say nothing, and that will not quickly change. The DoE guidelines are simply helping to level the playing field in cases where the violation is clear enough, as in the case of Lizzy Seeberg, where an outcry is not only just, but necessary to the security of the campus and all of the students on it.

But this is lost on commentators who type with panicked fingers about how these changes will surely quell romance, stunt the college experience, and lead to the rounding up of men and permanent victim-hood of women.

Nonsense. This is argument in a bubble, utterly unschooled or unaware of how sexual violence actually occurs between people in the real world. Another commentator, Peter Berkowtiz, wonders aloud in the Wall Street Journal which campus leaders will come forward to challenge this new, frightening world order. Among others, he entreats literature professors to instruct that “particularly where erotic desire is involved, intentions can be obscure, passions conflicting, the heart murky and the soul divided.”

Really? So when a woman (or a man) is trembling in a strange bed, or stumbling, half-dressed from a backseat or a back room with the dawning horror of having been sexually assaulted, what she must first do is consider the divided and murky nature of her passionate soul?

Both commentators can be forgiven for naiveté, but neither have a clue what sexual violence really looks like. The reality is, when complaints are made- or even contemplated- it’s almost never a close call. It’s almost never a gray area. Despite the musings of Mr. Berkowitz and others, sexual violence isn’t simply an unfair moniker for the complicated, erotic interplay of Rhett, Scarlett and a swollen, harvest moon in a sultry, starlit sky. It’s really much more banal, blunt, and evil than that. When it happens, and it does, it needs to be dealt with competently and fairly.

Competence and fairness. That’s what Lizzy Seeberg needed, and in large part what she was denied. That’s why her parents fight on, not for Lizzy now, but lovingly in her memory and valiantly for the millions of women they know will face what she faced. They could have been easily forgiven for shutting down and tuning out after the loss of the light in their lives, yet they are doing neither. Their angel is gone from this life, but they are not content with waiting to see her in the next. They are fighting to protect the angels of others who will wander onto campuses and into situations unmistakable in their criminality and deserving of a realistic, healing, and just response. The DoE’s efforts and its hard look at Notre Dame are a product of that fight. Both are welcome steps toward a better world.

Casey Anthony, and Where to Put Your Anger

Roger Canaff — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 06:51:56 +0000

A terrific character actor named Daniel Benzali once scored a role on NYPD Blue (it led to an OJ-inspired 90’s TV series) where he played a marquis defense attorney with a shady reputation. When dispatched to help a cop charged with murder, the client initially rejects him, stating that she wants no part of an attorney with his reputation defending her. Benzali’s character smiles and delivers one of the most brilliant lines I’ve heard describing bare-knuckle trial law: “That’s entry level perception, detective. Reputations swiftly give way to the skill of the practitioner once the doors of the courtroom are closed.” Amen.

I wasn’t there to witness Jose Baez’s advocacy on the Casey Anthony case. But I know from the coverage that he and his team brilliantly exploited an alternative explanation for her child’s death, and in so doing painstakingly and methodically generated the necessary amount of precious doubt necessary for 12 Florida citizens to utter “not guilty” on charges of murder. Perhaps, as some have claimed, the jury was cowardly or malfeasant in ignoring the legal weight of circumstantial evidence. Perhaps they were collectively cynical or stupid, as some have speculated. The declaration by one of them to the gossip site TMZ that he’d talk about the case but only if he was paid to do so certainly lends some credibility to that theory. But all of this is beside the point. Baez did his job.

As offensive as it is to many, Baez is technically correct when he claims he could tell his daughter after the trial that he “saved a life today.” He did. The state of Florida, under its death penalty statute, sought to end the life of Casey Anthony for the murder of her daughter. Baez and his team stopped that from happening. In pretty much every sense of the word, he is correct.

I happen to wish Baez had failed. I believe Casey Anthony is a psychopathic killer, and I know how to use the term “psychopath” professionally, not just colloquially. It’s not easy to find a doctor who will do a permanent tubal ligation on a 25 year-old woman, but despite what my religion commands I hope she gets one. I’d very much prefer that she bring no further children into the world, as I am convinced that she will snuff out their lives as quickly as she snuffed out Caylee’s once they become inconvenient. That’s what psychopaths do with things, living or dead, that inconvenience them. They remove them. The creativity, skill and labor they must engage in to eliminate the obstacle differs depending on its nature. But the underlying drive is the same.

But none of this was Jose Baez’s concern, nor should it have ever been. He was rightfully focused on his client alone, protecting her as best he could from the efforts of the state to imprison and execute her. That’s how the system works. Baez stated publicly after the trial that his client did not murder her child, and perhaps he believes that. But frankly, he doesn’t have to. Far more offensive were the crass remarks of co-counsel Cheney Mason who insinuated that the media had engaged in “character assassination,” presumably with regard to Casey. Note to Mr. Mason: Your client was not found “innocent.” She was found “not guilty,” meaning that the government failed, in the jury’s determination, to meet an extremely heavy burden regarding her legal guilt. They adjudicated that question in the negative, and thus it is legally correct that Casey go free for those charges. Whether it is morally correct, logically correct or factually correct is beside the point. The verdict addresses none of these questions.

In terms of what disgusts me, (other than what I believe were the actions of Casey herself), I can’t help but mention the fixation this country had for this particular case when children suffer fates like Caylee’s every day across 3.8 million square miles of America and generate no media frenzy. It’s perhaps awkward but no less accurate to note that Caylee herself was a white, physically beautiful child, and her mother a telegenic, thin, and yes -sexy- woman. The media hyped photographs of Casey (other than the ones with evidentiary value) showing her taunting the camera with pursed lips in Halloween costumes or football jerseys were no accident. There are certainly aspects of this case- the search efforts, the slowly leaked details regarding evidence and litigation- that made it particularly compelling. But ultimately, when it comes to what sells copy and gets people to tune in, the murderer is more interesting, and so is her act, when both she and her victim are photogenic and culturally appealing.

Baez acknowledged correctly that there were no winners in the the State of Florida v. Casey Anthony. His mini-rant regarding the death penalty was misplaced as the issue wasn’t reached in this case, but his other remarks, including the tender message in Spanish to his mother and family, were appropriate. His statement about the American Constitution was particularly spot-on, regardless of his point of view. Casey Anthony was tried, competently and at great cost, in a public trial by the representatives of an elected attorney empowered to bring the force of the law and its iron accouterments against one citizen. Efforts to prove her guilt to an appropriately lofty standard failed. Out she goes, then, into the stream of life with the rest of us.

Casey Anthony, it can be compellingly argued, will not face justice in this life. But as a prosecutor I learned a long time ago that earthly justice is a “long ball” concept that must be viewed separately from any particular case.

If you are among the many, many people convinced that justice was not done in this case, I beg you: take that long view. Let Caylee’s fate not be in vain by raising your own awareness and that of others to children everywhere who suffer neglect, abuse and death in cases less titillating but no less horrific. Support groups that fight for the lives of children. I’ve listed a few below, but it is by no means exhaustive.

The greatest gift of faith, to me anyway, is the impish games it plays with the blunt force of words in our language; the ones I’ve been battered with an an attorney for 15 years.

“Caylee is dead.”

“Casey is free.”

Examine those two statements through the prism of a God-gifted, God-ordained and God-ordered world, and they are not so horrific, offensive, or final.

Again. Amen.

National Child Protection Training Center

National Center for Missing And Exploited Children

Love Our Children USA

National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse

Necessary Conversations, But Stubborn Questions

Roger Canaff — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:20:44 +0000

My hat is off to Shea Streeter, the Notre Dame senior who took it upon herself last week in a letter to the Observer, an independent college newspaper serving both ND and St. Mary’s, to address campus sexual assault. And not just generally, but her own victimization, which happened twice. Ms. Streeter was reacting to an interesting production that has graced the ND community since 2005, a completely student-produced show called Loyal Daughters and Sons that showcases themes of sexual assault, gender, religion and sexuality generally in the atmosphere of a Catholic college campus.

Ms. Streeter’s issue wasn’t with the show’s content, which is well-regarded and apparently quite popular. Rather, she was dismayed at the reaction of the students after it was over (actually the lack of a reaction). She wondered aloud how students exposed to stories about sexual violence in their very midst could so easily switch gears and discuss whatever was next on their calendar. She followed this with a blistering challenge: Aware of the “one in four” statistic regarding women on college campuses subjected to sexual assault (see a snapshot of campus crime generally at NCVC here), by her calculations she is among over 1000 victims at ND at the present time. If that’s the case, she argues, then there’s a conversation that needs to be had- and she doesn’t want it swept under the rug.

I salute this young woman’s courage, because it is remarkable. Perhaps it’s driven in part by what I read from her tone, which is outrage, confusion, and understandable mystification at the silence that surrounds her on this devastating issue. While her own searing experiences give her more of a right to comment than I do, she nonethless doesn’t suggest that she knows what produces sexual violence or motivates those who perpetrate it. She mentions things like the degradation she apparently sees aimed by some ND men at the women who attend St. Mary’s. She mentions the college hook-up culture and binge drinking. She demands respect and an appropriate reaction to the word “no” by the men in her community. She has every right to demand those things.

But there’s an awful rub that I nevertheless feel compelled to mention: Teaching men to respect women and to avoid objectifying them as “dumb and easy” or whatever else, is a laudable and necessary goal. But it shouldn’t be confused with effective rape prevention. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but research backs me up here: Most women aren’t raped by simply disrespectful guys intoxicated by liquor and the hook-up culture. The urge to rape- taking sex by force or while their victim is incapacitated- is not something that comes out a bottle or even a culture of hyper-masculinity or sexuality. Most women are raped by men who are predatory, who choose their victims carefully, and who do it over and over again.

Ms. Streeter asks aloud, if there are over 1000 women at ND who are victims, how many perpetrators are there? The answer is probably far fewer than most would believe. But they are prolific and will not stop. They won’t stop because someone points out that it’s wrong to objectify women. They won’t respond when taught to respect, cherish and honor rather than to take, use and discard. They likely wouldn’t have responded as younger adolescents, and they won’t respond as older men. They might be chiseled athletes or they might be goth artists. They might be smiling, completely harmless-looking guys seemingly cut from the very cloth of American college normality.

They are everywhere, and this is true far beyond Notre Dame. I’ve had no issue sharply criticizing the leadership of this phenomenal university and cherished community, but I’d be deeply remiss if I suggested in any way that Notre Dame was worse than anywhere else. If anything I’d like to believe, as a Catholic myself, that the values and ideals of the school- whether or not they are always met in the reality of the human condition- nevertheless provide a measure of inspiration to be better. And indeed, I think the ND community does live up to those ideals in many areas.

Every institution- academic, corporate, military, social- is plagued with this phenomenon. Is it related to the hook-up culture and the “dumb and easy” garbage that is spewed at women? Yes, it is. Is it related to the obscenity that is how we regard women and girls generally in Madison Avenue America? Yes, it is.

But for preventing sexual assault, the value of addressing these important issues is mostly in strengthening things like the bystander response. That is, getting more boys and men (and women as well) to step in when an undetected rapist with a sweet smile and a college sweatshirt is ready to strike. It is also a crucial goal in and of itself, and may someday create a culture less coarse, degrading and tragically unfair. But as for preventing the development of, or changing the makeup of the predators themselves? Right now, I don’t think so. Still, good on you, Ms. Streeter. And thank you.

The Baby Ad: Myth, Reality, and Danger in Prevention

Roger Canaff — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:39:48 +0000

They call themselves Men’s Rights Advocates, or MRA’s. I’ve aimed a fair amount of criticism their way over the years as paranoid-sounding myth perpetrators, which I believe many of them to be. So I was surprised when I found myself agreeing with them- marginally- on an anti-rape video produced by a Midwestern rape crisis and DV advocacy center run by a male advocate named Josh Jasper, now the poster-boy enemy for the men’s rights movement. Jasper, a former Marine, ex-cop and now CEO of what appears to be a vibrant, multi-location facility, is a guy I’d probably admire and agree with more often than not. But I think his video misses the mark, although not exactly for the reasons the MRA pitchfork crowd is seething about.

The video depicts an adorable and utterly innocent, smiling male infant as a potential future rapist, and suggests that teaching him different ideas of masculinity is the key to ending sexual violence. So presumably he can be taught to rape, or taught not to rape. Jasper himself contends that no one is born to be a rapist or a batterer, but rather that it’s learned behavior. MRA’s, though, seem to believe that Jasper wants us to think all boys are by default potential rapists who must be taught to behave more gently than the naturally crazed beasts they are. That, in their view, constitutes misandry (a hatred of men and boys) and is part of a hyper-feminist, emasculating pandemic fueled by government largess and the self-hatred of guys like Jasper (and me).

But I think Jasper believes the way many of us did in the early days of studying non-stranger sexual violence. He sees a boy’s default setting as non-sexually violent, but believes the wrong rearing and education can turn almost any boy into a rapist. It’s probably a distinction without a difference for the MRA’s, but I think it’s important. I also think, unfortunately, that Jasper is wrong.

As I’ve written in this space before, the best research we have shows that most men, regardless of what they’re taught, naturally won’t commit acts of sexual violence. A good upbringing certainly promotes respect for women and a view of them that isn’t grossly objectifying (although societal cues are anything but helpful). But what we’ve learned is that, even of the cads and womanizers out there, most naturally recognize and respect the boundaries of consent or incapacitation. And a minority of men, some of whom seem quite upstanding otherwise, view sexuality in a way that leads them to rape, and that they do so repeatedly and won’t be deterred regardless of what they’re taught as boys. They do most of the damage.

In a way, this is a kind sentiment for men to hear. We’re not, as previously suspected, all potential felons with testosterone fueled libidos in need of restraint. But the other side of the coin is a very dark one indeed. Domestic violence, it might be argued, is more of a learned behavior. But where do rapists come from? What causes a boy to emerge in adolescence as a rapist or a sex offender? The fact is, as researchers like Anna Salter have disturbingly but compellingly suggested, we just don’t know. A tempting but inaccurate answer is that men who rape or otherwise offend sexually were themselves perpetrated upon as children. I believed this for a while as an ADA. But Salter and others have revealed that claims of abuse (over 90% for convicted sex offenders) is almost completely the result of self-reporting. Even threatening offenders with polygraphs takes that number way down. Will a sex offender or convicted rapist claim earlier abuse before a sentencing judge? Of course, because he knows it’ll usually produce a more favorable sentence, and he’ll be seen as less of a monster than an offender who alleges no previous abuse.

What’s much worse is when this argument is reversed; when it’s believed that boys and girls who are offended against need to sufficiently “heal” in order not to become abusers. This “vampire theory” is both appallingly cruel and completely inaccurate. The vast majority of survivors grow to become more protective and cognizant of the risks when they have or interact with children, even if the pathology they suffered leads them to make bad choices in other areas of their lives.

Both of these ideas- one benign but mostly wrong and one malevolent and completely wrong, nevertheless stem from usually well-intentioned, Judeo-Christian efforts to understand evil acts by people allegedly created in His image. I’ve argued this for years with religious friends who can’t accept that a loving God creates people within whom malignant, torturous things simply bloom and create monstrous behavior. People just aren’t born with broken souls.

Except that they might be.

I’m only a lawyer; I have neither the ability nor the inclination to draw ontological conclusions. As my father was snarkily fond of saying when I asked him as a kid what God was thinking about this or that, “I don’t know, I haven’t talked to Him lately.”

I’m still religious, and I still don’t know. But I believe what methodological research and my own anecdotal experience suggests: There is evil in the world and we really don’t know where it comes from. That doesn’t mean that efforts like Jasper’s, though, are in vain. If you view the ad as the MRA’s do (part of a continuing effort to demonize those of us with penises, even tiny innocent babies) then yes, Jasper is a misandrist. But I don’t think that’s the case. And there is great value in teaching boys gentleness, decency and even chivalry as long it’s understood that their female counterparts are not fragile, weak things to be protected and lorded over, but equals to be viewed on par in every way. This is particularly important given how popular culture and Madison Avenue sell and objectify women and sex, and it can be done without eliminating gender roles and the life-affirming interplay of sexuality. So were I Josh Jasper, I’d adjust fire (a reference I’ll bet he gets as a former Marine) but I wouldn’t back away from seeking to change how men view women.

And I’d damn sure be careful to avoid assumptions that are tempting in their ability to explain the unfathomable, but potentially unfair to survivors of abuse or cynically exploited by abusers themselves. With that said, I wish Josh the best as he continues his mission. And I’ll gladly share the target with him where the vitriol of the men’s rights movement is concerned. Semper Fi.

Life, Sweetness, Hope

Roger Canaff — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:45:08 +0000

It is the motto of the University of Notre Dame Du Lac, taken from an 11^th century Marian hymn and a simple, lovely description of the woman we refer to as the Queen of Heaven. And yet in the shadow of her statue there, a dutiful commitment to the safety and physical security of the women of her community seems dreadfully lacking. So, apparently, is the pastoral compassion she would clearly have shown to a family suffering in the aftermath of a disaster.

The focus of what happened when Notre Dame authorities were charged with investigating Lizzy Seeberg’s sex assault allegation against a football player last fall must not be lost. District Attorney Dvorak’s decision not to file charges was an inevitability without a living victim; it says nothing about the truth of her allegations. What’s worth focusing on instead is what the school has done or will do under its own disciplinary process, which has lower standards of proof than the DA and no need of her testimony. What’s worth questioning is the fully accredited police department and veteran detectives whose full response to what Elizabeth Seeberg alleged was pitiful, slow and feckless.

But rather than doing the painful work of self-examination and sincere contrition, Rev. John Jenkins, ND’s president, continues to insist that the investigation was “thorough and careful,” signaling that “we followed the facts where they led” as if he knows something we don’t, and that this was all a misunderstanding or worse on Lizzy’s part. He’ll go as far to admit that things could have been done faster, but in the same breath asserts that “care in the investigation is more important than speed.” This is breathtaking. How can this undoubtedly erudite man not understand that, in an investigation like that one, speed and thoroughness are inextricably linked? NDSPD had a duty to react- quickly. They had a compliant, cooperative victim. They had detailed facts. They had remarkably easy to find witnesses and suspects. They had the reality of a threat communicated to Lizzy the next day. They dragged their feet and then she died. And when her parents sought answers the university stonewalled unnecessarily, incorrectly citing federal law to do so.

Of course, as my detractors will quickly note, we can’t ever really know what happened. This was a “he said, she said” case, and I don’t have a crystal ball. No, I don’t. And I don’t need one. Are we to believe that Lizzy Seeberg, with no history of being remarkably vindictive or divorced from reality simply made up every detail of that night (the accused- whose attorney says was a “complete gentlemen” telling her she’d need to “pee in the sink” for instance)? Does any serious person really believe she just fabricated this measured, reasonable account to her friends that night and the police the next day? It’s been pointed out that she never accused him of rape. Correct- she didn’t. And if she were an attention seeking liar doesn’t it make sense that she would have concocted a bigger story? Does it really resonate that a bright, hopeful young woman, new to a campus community, would choose to begin her first semester by taking on the most venerable football program in history for the sake of seeking attention? Over a regretful incident of touching? In order to “get back” at a student athlete she barely knew? And all of this after finally getting the opportunity to try again at college in such a promising environment after a long and difficult struggle? Are we to believe she made all of this up just because she wanted to risk the exposure, the backlash, the alienation of challenging the entire raison d’etre of her surroundings? Even if she can be accused of merely misunderstanding his actions, are we to assume she reported them anyway just to be on the safe side?

This is utter, vacuous nonsense and it would be laughed out of any other argument that didn’t involve a sex crime. Indeed, the people divorced from reality are the ones drawing nonsensical parallels between this case and Duke Lacrosse and claiming some veneer of plausible deniability in this player’s name. I’ll stake everything I’ve ever been or will be that the player she accused manhandled and scared the hell out of her exactly as she claimed. And he got away with it, allowed to continue playing football despite her complete, immediate, comprehensive and compelling account to authorities. Nothing- not even the snuffing out of a brilliant young life- was enough to convince Notre Dame’s football program to simply ask this young man to sit out a few games until it could gather facts and lend appropriate gravity to the situation. Her blood cried out for that, at very least. But it wasn’t to be, anymore than tracking down this football player- whose whereabouts in season are as easily traceable as the President’s- was to be before 15 days passed.

Lizzy’s father, Tom Seeberg, says what’s at stake here better than I could: “We are parents fighting for our daughter. We’re fighting for our sisters, our nieces and our granddaughters. If not at Our Lady’s university, then where? Where in the world would you fight for women? Where in the world would you fight for a cause like this?”

The cause is a noble and crucial one indeed, and it’s about more than this lovely young woman and the heartbreaking truncation of her life. It’s about more than Notre Dame, a school the Seebergs still love and admire. It’s about how we view girls and women, and how we respond when they are sexually degraded, exploited and attacked. What we’re facing is a plague, on college campuses as much if not more than anywhere else. And yet these environments, the very places where enlightenment should flourish and protection for young lives should be most prized, seem the most tone deaf to this problem no matter how much evidence is placed before them. I hope ND’s response to Lizzy Seeberg wasn’t colored by the fact that her accused was a football player. But that’s the perception many are left with. And under it flows a bitter current of resignation: The women of the Notre Dame community, as in most communities, are worth less than the men. Less than athletics. Less than reputations.

ND has a solid policy on paper to deal with sexual assault. It needs to give life to that policy with investigations that don’t make a mockery out of serious allegations. Father Jenkins and the leadership of his great university need to own, not duck, dodge and explain away what happened when his system encountered and then badly mishandled the plea of a young woman who approached it with an open heart and the desire to do the right thing. But much more than that, they need to contemplate more deeply the commitment they are willing to make not just to the Blessed Woman they venerate but the mortal ones who cross their campus as young, imperfect, and sometimes vulnerable students in need of respect, protection and at least a vigorous, competent response to violent behavior against them. Because on August 31, 2010, five months ago to the day, one of those women walked onto their campus and endured a jumbled, sick perversion of the Notre Dame motto.

She lost sweetness. Then hope. Then life.

A Letter from a Prosecutor to a Young Woman

Roger Canaff — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:11:33 +0000

Dear Elizabeth:

I don’t see what more you could have done.

As you well know, reporting sexual assault is a remarkably difficult act. It is deeply emotional, terrifying for many reasons, unpredictable and often thankless. You may not have known while you were alive that the great majority of sexual violence is simply never reported to authorities. But you did report it, quickly and comprehensively. I’m in awe of your courage.

I can only imagine how difficult it was for you in particular, Lizzy. You were a 19 year-old college freshman who had struggled with depression; a lovely young woman who had just started studies again after a difficult first year. But you made it to St. Mary’s, an excellent, close-knit school and one situated along with Notre Dame in the heartland of Catholic education. Arriving in this environment from a strong Catholic background must have been an incredible and hard-won joy for you.

But I’m sure it also made it infinitely more difficult to come forward and report what happened on the night of August 31. Being sexually assaulted at a place like Notre Dame and by a member of its football team- the very beating heart of the school for many- is an act that would have silenced most. Few things are more difficult to come to terms with than being attacked in a dorm room by a football player on one of the most venerated sports campuses in the world. The idea of telling anyone must have been horrific, especially as you were just settling into a new school, a new semester, a new season of hope. I’ve spent a career learning how hopes like that can be destroyed in the space of moments, and it never gets easier to hear.

Still, you faced down your fears and took action. You told your friends and wrote down what happened that very night. You went to campus police the next day. Despite the fear of being portrayed as God-knows-what and the fury that might rain down on you for reporting against a football player, you reported anyway. Despite the discomfort of an invasive physical examination, you endured one. Despite the fear and exhaustion that comes with entering counseling in order to fully recover from such an attack, you did that, too. You did everything that could possibly have been asked of you.

That’s why I’m trying to understand why Notre Dame, the world-class, excellent institution where you were attacked, has reacted the way it has. I don’t know why campus police didn’t turn over a case file to the St. Joseph’s County prosecutor’s office until just several days ago- after your case became national news and your hometown paper began demanding answers. Nor do I understand what’s behind the school’s refusal to release police records regarding what they know about what happened to you- even to your parents.

Finally, and most disturbingly, I don’t know why the man you reported against has played an entire season of football. While it’s true that he is and should be considered innocent until proven otherwise, his privilege to play football isn’t in any way related to his legal rights as a citizen. The fact is, you reported swiftly and completely a serious crime to the proper authorities that control his ability to play, and you followed through with evidence collection, counseling and cooperation. Yet still they have chosen to refuse to even acknowledge your complaint, let alone bar him from playing at least until the investigation is completed. This despite your death. Coach Kelly won’t state whether he’s even spoken to the player you identified. He’s quick to remind us that he stresses respect for women in his program, is a father himself, and wants “the right kind of guys” on his team. Well, the player hasn’t been benched in three months; from this we can fairly deduce that Coach Kelly supports him as someone who is “the right kind of guy” and worthy of wearing the uniform. If that’s so, why won’t he give his reasons?

The sad fact is there’s an ocean of ignorance out there regarding what happened to you, Lizzy. Many who are watching the case unfold are repeating over and over again the meaningless mantra that that we must all “Remember Duke Lacrosse.” It’s because many believe, with nothing to back it up, that women regularly accuse men falsely of sexual assault, and especially athletes. They’re happy to extrapolate one example of a false accusation to every possible situation, despite the mountain of evidence suggesting that women just like you endure what you endured day in and day out, usually in numbed silence.

Even worse, some just don’t think that sexual assault is nearly as important as college athletics, and they’ll sacrifice the vindication of a budding, brilliant life like yours in a flurry of nonsense that will trivialize your suffering and ruthlessly twist reality. They’ll call it regret. They’ll call it a misunderstanding. They’ll call it anything but what it is, and they’ll ensconce and defend the man who did it so he can simply do it again. So even the prompt, thorough complaint you made and the investigation you participated in until your death wasn’t enough to bench a football player for a few games until some evidence came to light, one way or another.

But as you know, there are also wonderful people both at Notre Dame and at St. Mary’s. Both are beloved, respected schools for a reason, and I know you felt and still feel that. To the heroic staff from St. Mary’s Belles Against Violence who worked with you and actually found you before you died, I hope you smile on them from where you are and bless their work.

I believe in a loving God, Lizzy. Although I’m a Catholic as you are I don’t believe He punishes those tortured enough to take their own lives, and I’m confident that you’ve reached a plane of existence that will give you not only blessed relief but also infinite understanding. So I guess this letter is more for me than for you; you have the answers now.

Still, I’m sorry. I’m sorry I didn’t know you in this life, and for what it’s worth l would have been honored to work with you to see the case against your attacker proven. I would have had much to go on, given the dedication you showed to pursuing justice and the courage you summoned to do what most of us wouldn’t have dared. Thank you.

Roger

God, Sex, Lies and Money

Roger Canaff — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 18:38:28 +0000

Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Matthew 19:21

I’ve never begun a blog post with a Bible verse. I’m highly hesitant to do, as the man I’m about to discuss (mega-church pastor Eddie Long), and any number of Christians could slap me down effortlessly in a Bible quoting contest if they had an opposing view to the one I’m about to express.

But still I begin with this plainspoken response from the itinerant rabbi named Jesus to a young rich man who wanted to know what else, other than keeping the commandments, he needed to do for salvation. I do it for this reason: I do not know if Eddie Long has failed as a Christian because he’s a predator of young men for sex (although the signs are troubling). But I’m confident he’s failed as a Christian by embracing remarkable personal wealth. Long’s civil liability is in dispute, but his possession and enjoyment of great monetary wealth is not. And if money is a common tool of the devil, well, Bishop Long is being used already.

Did Long lead these four young men into sexual activity by identifying them as attractive and vulnerable targets from a spiritual flock that attracted some from difficult backgrounds? Did he use his stature and the power of faith to create a “covenant” between them to ensure intimate access to their lives? Did he “employ” them in his vast enterprise and take them to far away places with the added attraction of gifts and celebrity access? Did he then engage in intimate, and then sexual contact with them while the gravy train rolled on, as well as the unending reminder of the power differential that existed between him, a world-renowned spiritual leader, and them as “spiritual sons?”

I don’t know. But the statements of facts within the legal pleadings are remarkably typical of predatory, “grooming” behavior, and ring very true. And Long’s words since the allegations first broke are far from comforting. As Jonathan L. Walton, a professor of African-American religion at Harvard Divinity writes, Long’s non-denial this past Sunday was odd at least. Long, on Sunday and on Tuesday, seemed almost to be preparing his congregation for further damaging revelations. He noted that, while he’s not a “perfect man,” he’s “not the man being portrayed on TV.” He then conflated himself with his congregation and compared himself to David against Goliath.

These are textbook diversionary tactics: Make the struggle about “us versus them,” and include your followers as victims under attack. Portray yourself as a martyr under siege and call up Biblical images that bespeak your status as an anointed struggler against great odds. Amplify your theatrical piety, but just in case something comes out that you can’t deflect, set them up for a bit of disappointment.

The attractive but meaningless admission of being less than perfect is a rhetorical device that allows the subject to fall far below a standard most are expected to meet and still be equated with them because, of course, no one is perfect. Former Congressman Gary Condit said exactly this in 2001 when attempting to explain his extra-marital affair with a murdered young woman whose missing-persons investigation he basically obstructed through lying about their relationship. “I’m not a perfect man,” Condit reminded us. What of it? My father is imperfect. But he is a deeply decent, humble and kind man. The issue isn’t whether Condit or Bishop Long is perfect. The issue is whether either fell below the standard of decency rationally and appropriately set for them. In Long’s case, that standard is high indeed, frankly higher than Condit’s even if (and maybe because) Condit was a member of Congress.

So why did I bring Long’s wealth to bear on the argument? After all, there are many Christians and other religious who believe that God not only sanctions but provides earthly gifts to the faithful, including pastors. Men like Joel Olsteen have made millions promoting a gospel of wealth and financial freedom, and far from apologizing for their riches, they celebrate their wealth and dare us to join them, somehow. These men can quote all the verses at me they wish. I’m no Biblical scholar but in my mind this kind of thinking is about as compatible with Jesus’ teachings as whiskey is to driving. I believe clergy should live in solid middle-class comfort; a good car and an air-conditioned house. A ready means of providing health care, recreation, education and security for themselves and their loved ones- the kind of middle class life that’s quickly disappearing in the U.S. Anything beyond that is spiritual theft.

In Long’s case, there is a cultural power-aspect that should be considered. Money is power, and Long, from a deeply oppressed minority, may believe his and his church’s wealth to be a marker of hard-won and well-deserved progress. With regard to his church and its influence over and attraction to world leaders and the like, he’s right. But the way he personally lives is despicable for a Christian minister of any stripe, and mocks the humility and simplicity of the rabbi who allegedly inspired all of it.

So based on what I know, Long is- in my view- deeply flawed as it is. And it’s simply been my experience that once the devil gets his foot in the door, it’s easier to kick it wide open. Based on what I am hearing, from the four plaintiffs and Long himself, I’d be saddened but not surprised if the allegations are true. My sadness, alas, extends to the abused men and Long’s family, as well as the tens of thousands of truly decent people who view him as a spiritual leader. It stops short of Long himself, who has gained richly in an ancient but filthy tradition of selling the greatest gift a loving Christ- the one that is supposed to be, above all, free.

Holy Week and the Nonsense Continues

Roger Canaff — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 23:12:51 +0000

It continues from the Church and its defenders, desperately trying to alienate further multitudes. And it continues from anti-Catholics and the anti-religious who want the institution brought to its knees, some justified because of personal betrayal but many out of sheer, gleeful contempt.

Ross Douthat, a conservative columnist for the New York Times, blames the crisis, in part, on the sexual revolution of the 60’s and 70’s. The insinuation is that some of the abuse, particularly long term abuse against post-pubescent boys by priests, is explainable by the (literally) “revolutionary” effects of that era. Douthat, in a blog post, attempts to shore up his argument by citing the formidable John Jay study that I’ve referred to here previously. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, makes the oft-heard but no less despicable argument that homosexuality is to blame, since most of the boys abused were post-pubescent. Donohue doesn’t even attempt to cite the John Jay study (which belies his central claim) or anything else. He’s got his scapegoat and an army of the uninformed applauding his analysis. Finally, many liberal Catholics and anti-Catholics continue to see the roots of the crisis in priestly celibacy, which has clearly “warped” so many of these priests and turned them, through repression and obsession with the forbidden, into predators.

Nonsense, all of it.

The Church has a problem with predators because predators have found in it a haven, period. Whether these predators prefer boys or girls, pre-pubescent or adolescent, has nothing to do with society’s temperature on sexual expression or the sexual preference of the predators. They prey where they can, like any hunter does. Non sex-offender priests with homosexual urges, throughout the ages, have taken adult lovers within the priesthood or without. Were they emboldened to do so more during the post Vatican II sexual revolution? Probably. Nevertheless, they did not and have not feasted on the emerging, volatile sexuality of adolescents by betraying their trust, destroying their faith, and using as a weapon the very thing the child was brought up to turn to in times of crisis and discomfort. That’s what a predator does. And what they have done over the centuries, let alone in the decade and a half of the sexual revolution, should never be dismissed or excused as free-love experimentation between otherwise “well meaning” or “normal” priests and minor children. Well meaning priests, gay or straight, who struggle and fail with celibacy turn to adult lovers, period. Priests who manipulate, con, groom and then molest even older adolescents are sex offenders, period. The Church has more than its fair share not because she is manufacturing them but because she has proven to be the best and largest hunting ground of perhaps any institution known to man.

If the current Pope or anyone else involved in the shame and tragedy of this cover-up can be forgiven at all, it’s perhaps because of three things: The fear and distrust of outside, civil authority because of past persecution, an over-reliance on the power of psychotherapy and treatment to “cure” the problem, and the doctrine of reconciliation through confession that the Church values so highly.

Let’s be clear: None of these things excuses the ocean of evil and resultant misery. Even the lofty and still appealing idea that a person can enter a confessional and come out clean and ready to do better does not excuse the reckless judgment calls the Church hierarchy made over the years, at the expense of her most vulnerable followers. But these points, when fairly considered, provide a slightly less cynical view than that peddled by anti-religion enthusiasts like Christopher Hitchens (although he does make some fair points in a recent Slate article). Still, the Pope is not, as Hitchens claims, a “mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat.” He is in fact a remarkably intellectually disciplined and erudite man as was his predecessor. But this makes his missteps and continued ignorance on this subject harder to accept, not easier. I don’t fault the Church for not understanding sexual predators earlier. Our understanding of them now is still emerging, and good research is only decades old, if that. The Church has been victimized by predators also. But now she is gambling with her future by looking for a scapegoat in homosexuality and refusing to come to terms with the countless victims whose lives these infiltrators have stained forever.

This crisis has been the spiritual heartbreak of my lifetime. Armed with the professional knowledge I’ve been blessed with from working with the finest minds in the business, and being utterly powerless to affect any change from the pew I kneel in, makes it that much worse. And the nonsense continues.

Let The Little Children Come To Me

Roger Canaff — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:55:41 +0000

“Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’” Matthew 19:14 (NIV).

This lovely, simple sentiment is relevant to me again, after receiving it like a gift from my mother decades ago, because of the actions of my Church yet again. The archdiocese of Denver is refusing to re-enroll two children in a Catholic elementary school in Boulder because their parents are lesbians. The official position of the archdiocese is that, while God loves homosexuals and their children as much as He does anyone, the Church apparently cannot allow the children (!) of such persons to receive a Catholic education because marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. People with a different understanding of marriage and family life, says the archbishop, “have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children.” Indeed. The kids are five and six.

I’m not disrespectful of many of the rules and restrictions put in place by the Church as a part of Catholic life. I understand the importance of the sacraments to the core of the faith, and I don’t fault the Church for guarding them. But what sacrament is being challenged here? What bedrock principle is being torn asunder by these little ones who want to go to school? I wouldn’t ask the school to teach these kids differently. Apparently their parents are, for now at least, comfortable with Catholic teaching. The parents must deal with what the school may teach versus what their children will experience at home. So be it. I wouldn’t ask the Church to bend her view on marriage and family life to accommodate this family.

What I could ask, as others appropriately have, is whether the archbishop has made all the parents at this school reveal their sexual habits to test them against Catholic doctrine. But I don’t have to go there. And incidentally, neither will they, because they’d end up with a terrifically small school population if they did ask and then treated the honest responders the same way they’ve treated this couple and their kids. Honestly- are we to believe that Jesus, for Whose Sacred Heart this school is named, would bar these two from attendance?

I’m not a big fan of the popular and usually abbreviated “What Would Jesus Do?” It’s not that I don’t think WWJD is a nice sentiment. I just find the expression far too ambitious and outside the realm of understanding to just about any who would ponder it. Even with the best intentions, I think most people who ask WWJD are really asking for some earthly doctrinal, pastoral, or pop-culture guidance rather than Jesus’ own. I’m familiar with and respectful of the evangelical view that Jesus’ teachings, intentions, etc, are right there in the printed word. God help me, but that’s not my view. I personally believe that Jesus is divine; that’s where my lot is thrown as a Catholic. But for the time He was flesh and walked among us, I also think He was a remarkably complex and sometimes difficult guy. He did things that didn’t make sense to His disciples. He was playing on such a higher level that, as far as I can tell, He had to be the Son of God just to put up with the weaknesses and fallibility of the group of working guys He chose to tour with- not to mention the lot of us who have followed those original 12 over the centuries. So WWJD, while a much better sentiment than many that could replace it, is not one I find a lot of comfort in.

Sometimes, though, it seems pretty clear.

“Let the little children come to me.” So said the Man, on the Judean coast tending to a large crowd, when his well-meaning but befuddled disciples rebuked the kids who rushed to him. Jesus would have none of it. In my mind, He opened his arms, laughed kindly, and let himself get overrun like he was walking in the door after a long day to His own kids and an over-excited Yellow Lab. If I’m right, He let the unimaginable power He possessed flow gently to them in protection and healing.

If I’m wrong, He was an incorrectly messianic, but otherwise compelling philosopher and moralist who drew crowds and comforted them, sometimes by embracing their children. Either way, He didn’t ask about the sexual habits, or anything else, of their parents when He did so. My guess? He had bigger things to think about.