The Emerson Avenger's Point-By-Point Response To Peacebang's Theological Reflection About Sexual Abuse
From - Violating the Privacy of the Mind And the Body
:This just makes me ill. It's like a primer on Pathologically Not Getting It:
:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/washington/20priest.html?th&emc=th
Well what about this Peacebang? Doesn't this just make you ill?
http://www.townonline.com/norwell/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=584268&format=text
:Oh yeah, they swam nude and the priest fondled him when he was 12 years old but it wasn't "rape or penetration or anything like that," so "let bygones be bygones."
Oh yeah, they had a sleep over and the parishioner had intercourse with her when she was 11 years old and that was in fact "rape or penetration or anything like that", so let's not "let bygones be bygones" Peacebang.
:"Remember the good times we had" and get over it already. And the neighbor, what a BRILLIANT insight: "He couldn't have done this because he was so quiet." Let's make her our new poster girl for community denial.
Well quite frankly I think that Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein and Rev. Diane Miller, to say nothing of Krystina Matula, Elizabeth Champion Speyer and a few other DIM Thinking female U*Us that I have the misfortune to know make pretty good poster girls for U*U "community denial"; however, I can't help but wonder if Peacebang would care to make Richard Buell's nephew a poster boy for "community denial" in light of this BRILLIANT insight that he expressed on his blog a while back. . .
upsetting
Apparently my uncle has been charged with the raping of a child. Richard Buell of Norwell Mass. that's not like him and I don't believe that crap for a second. He is the nicest guy in the world and would never do that to his own kids! God. Not to mention his kids are drugies so they are probably lying for money or something.
Assholes. *sigh*
:It goes on and on and on. Generation after generation.
Indeed it does Peacebang, as does U*U "community denial" about various U*U injustices and abuses, and not just sexual abuse by any means, that goes on and on and on. Generation after generation. . .
:This is why we have to have rules and laws that legislate morality -- because so many men still don't get that you don't treat children in a sexualized way, period.
Well I hate to say so Peacebang but a whole lot of women treat children in a sexualized way too. . . Just who goes out and buys young girls the clothing, make-up and various other accoutrements that "sexualize" them if not their mothers? Just who writes for and edits the mainstream media that "sexualizes" young girls? Do tell oh U*U fashion maven. . . BTW U*Us have various rules and laws that "legislate" morality within the U*U religious community but they flagrantly disregard them, cynically manipulate them, and even knowlingly and willfully outright violate them. U*U rules and laws are utterly meaningless and worse than useless if U*Us are not ready, willing, and able to responsibly and effectively enforce their own purported rules and laws in a genuinely moral and ethical manner. In my experience U*Us much prefer to cynically bend justice than genuinely "bend toward justice" as they so hypocritically claim to do. . .
:You don't fondle, you don't rape, you don't penetrate, you don't exploit them for your pleasure. Why is this so hard to understand?
Well perhaps your parishioner Richard Buell might be able to enlighten you somewhat on why it was apparently so hard for him to understand. . . Maybe you can penetrate his mind when you visit him a pastoral visit in the Massachusetts Correctional Institute. Convicted rapist and former U*U minister Mack Mitchell may be able to shed some light on that issue for you too Peacebang, if you can find him. . . I expect that a number of other U*U clergy or lay people who have fondled, and possibly even penetrated and raped, children could enlighten you as well but the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee seems to be remarkably skilled at keeping their identities "confidential" and out of the public eye. I dare say that the UUA might well be able to teach "other denominations" a few tricks about how to cover-up and deny U*U clergy sexual misconduct. Maybe you should ask your colleague Rev. Deborah Pope-Lance to debrief you about U*U clergy sexual misconduct, and how the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee and the U*U religious community as a whole has "largely failed" to responsibly address it in a genuinely just, equitable and compassionate manner.
:Why is this still considered a grey area for so many men, and even priests, who should be more deeply in touch with the inherent dignity and privacy of the developing child than the average guy?
Well shouldn't U*U guys and gals be even more deeply in touch with the inherent (worth and) dignity and privacy of the developing child than the average guy Peacebang? Yet some U*U guys, even U*U ministers, fondle, rape, penetrate, and exploit children for their pleasure.
:We blame a lot of Catholic sexual abuse on the hierarchical structure of the Church.
Um. . . Could you please explain just how "we" blame a lot of Catholic sexual abuse on the hierarchical structure of the Church? And just what do U*Us blame a lot of U*U sexual abuse on? The allegedly non-hierarchical structure of the U*U Church perhaps? Please do share your insights about what you blame U*U sexual abuse on.
:There's good reason for that blame, but I am beginning to think that this is more than an ecclesiological corruption.
Well "ecclesiological corruption" does not necessarily explain U*U sexual abuse or indeed other forms of clergy misconduct but I and others can most certainly blame U*U "ecclesiological corruption" for the ongoing failure of the UUA, its Ministerial Fellowship Committee and the greater U*U religious community to responsibly acknowledge and properly redress not only sexual abuse by U*U clergy but also other non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct that may be every bit as damaging to both the victims and the community as some forms of sexual misconduct.
:I am beginning to see a correlation between violating a child's private inner life in the form of catechisms and doctrines that permit no freedom to privately discern important existential truths, and the tacit institutional permission to similiarly violate the privacy of the child's body. I'm not trying to be a theologian here, just an angry woman who would like children to be able to come of age unmolested by adults.
Well Peacebang, aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein of First Unitarian Parish Norwell, Massachusetts, it seems to The Emerson Avenger that you have ample material for dealing with that issue within your own parish. Why get up on your self-righteous soap-box, and loudly and publicly waggle your U*U finger at the Catholic community because a Catholic priest massaged and possibly fondled a young boy, when within your very own U*U "church" you have an elder lay person (as it were) who was not only very recently convicted of raping his neighbor's daughter but was also convicted of raping his own daughter? BTW May I ask just what "correlation" you might "see" that would serve to explain tacit, or indeed even explicit. . . "institutional permission" for U*Us, both clergy and otherwise, to violate the minds and the bodies of both children and adults?
:If it's part of the Catholic tradition to penetrate children's minds at a young age and demolish their privacy regarding theological reflection and decision-making, can it really be so shocking that penetration and violation of the privacy of their bodies is not far behind?
Well I think that it would be highly advisable to establish that it is indeed "part of the Catholic tradition to penetrate children's minds at a young age and demolish their privacy regarding theological reflection and decision-making" before making that kind of "correlation" and conjecture Peacebang. Have you done so somewhere? I have not really seen any evidence that you have. Could you possibly direct me to a web page where you have clearly demonstrated that it is in fact "part of the Catholic tradition to penetrate children's minds at a young age and demolish their privacy regarding theological reflection and decision-making"? While you are at it could you please formulate a similar conjecture that might help to explain why some U*Us, including U*U clergy, are guilty of "penetration and violation of the privacy" of the bodies and minds of both children and adults?
:We must protect children's freedom of religious imagination just as surely as we protect them from physical molesters and exploiters. They are two pieces of the same cloth.
Why must we protect only children Peacebang? Why should U*Us not similarly and equally protect adult's freedom of religious imagination just as surely as U*Us protect them from physical molesters and exploiters? Which by the way isn't very surely at all as far as I can see. . . In fact I can present compelling evidence that U*U "ecclesiological corruption" and U*U "institutional permission", to say nothing of U*U "community denial" quite regrettably does allow individual U*Us, including U*U clergy and lay leaders, individual U*U "churches", and thus by extension the greater U*U religious community as a whole to violate the minds and the bodies of both children and adults.
:This just makes me ill. It's like a primer on Pathologically Not Getting It:
:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/washington/20priest.html?th&emc=th
Well what about this Peacebang? Doesn't this just make you ill?
http://www.townonline.com/norwell/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=584268&format=text
:Oh yeah, they swam nude and the priest fondled him when he was 12 years old but it wasn't "rape or penetration or anything like that," so "let bygones be bygones."
Oh yeah, they had a sleep over and the parishioner had intercourse with her when she was 11 years old and that was in fact "rape or penetration or anything like that", so let's not "let bygones be bygones" Peacebang.
:"Remember the good times we had" and get over it already. And the neighbor, what a BRILLIANT insight: "He couldn't have done this because he was so quiet." Let's make her our new poster girl for community denial.
Well quite frankly I think that Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein and Rev. Diane Miller, to say nothing of Krystina Matula, Elizabeth Champion Speyer and a few other DIM Thinking female U*Us that I have the misfortune to know make pretty good poster girls for U*U "community denial"; however, I can't help but wonder if Peacebang would care to make Richard Buell's nephew a poster boy for "community denial" in light of this BRILLIANT insight that he expressed on his blog a while back. . .
upsetting
Apparently my uncle has been charged with the raping of a child. Richard Buell of Norwell Mass. that's not like him and I don't believe that crap for a second. He is the nicest guy in the world and would never do that to his own kids! God. Not to mention his kids are drugies so they are probably lying for money or something.
Assholes. *sigh*
:It goes on and on and on. Generation after generation.
Indeed it does Peacebang, as does U*U "community denial" about various U*U injustices and abuses, and not just sexual abuse by any means, that goes on and on and on. Generation after generation. . .
:This is why we have to have rules and laws that legislate morality -- because so many men still don't get that you don't treat children in a sexualized way, period.
Well I hate to say so Peacebang but a whole lot of women treat children in a sexualized way too. . . Just who goes out and buys young girls the clothing, make-up and various other accoutrements that "sexualize" them if not their mothers? Just who writes for and edits the mainstream media that "sexualizes" young girls? Do tell oh U*U fashion maven. . . BTW U*Us have various rules and laws that "legislate" morality within the U*U religious community but they flagrantly disregard them, cynically manipulate them, and even knowlingly and willfully outright violate them. U*U rules and laws are utterly meaningless and worse than useless if U*Us are not ready, willing, and able to responsibly and effectively enforce their own purported rules and laws in a genuinely moral and ethical manner. In my experience U*Us much prefer to cynically bend justice than genuinely "bend toward justice" as they so hypocritically claim to do. . .
:You don't fondle, you don't rape, you don't penetrate, you don't exploit them for your pleasure. Why is this so hard to understand?
Well perhaps your parishioner Richard Buell might be able to enlighten you somewhat on why it was apparently so hard for him to understand. . . Maybe you can penetrate his mind when you visit him a pastoral visit in the Massachusetts Correctional Institute. Convicted rapist and former U*U minister Mack Mitchell may be able to shed some light on that issue for you too Peacebang, if you can find him. . . I expect that a number of other U*U clergy or lay people who have fondled, and possibly even penetrated and raped, children could enlighten you as well but the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee seems to be remarkably skilled at keeping their identities "confidential" and out of the public eye. I dare say that the UUA might well be able to teach "other denominations" a few tricks about how to cover-up and deny U*U clergy sexual misconduct. Maybe you should ask your colleague Rev. Deborah Pope-Lance to debrief you about U*U clergy sexual misconduct, and how the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee and the U*U religious community as a whole has "largely failed" to responsibly address it in a genuinely just, equitable and compassionate manner.
:Why is this still considered a grey area for so many men, and even priests, who should be more deeply in touch with the inherent dignity and privacy of the developing child than the average guy?
Well shouldn't U*U guys and gals be even more deeply in touch with the inherent (worth and) dignity and privacy of the developing child than the average guy Peacebang? Yet some U*U guys, even U*U ministers, fondle, rape, penetrate, and exploit children for their pleasure.
:We blame a lot of Catholic sexual abuse on the hierarchical structure of the Church.
Um. . . Could you please explain just how "we" blame a lot of Catholic sexual abuse on the hierarchical structure of the Church? And just what do U*Us blame a lot of U*U sexual abuse on? The allegedly non-hierarchical structure of the U*U Church perhaps? Please do share your insights about what you blame U*U sexual abuse on.
:There's good reason for that blame, but I am beginning to think that this is more than an ecclesiological corruption.
Well "ecclesiological corruption" does not necessarily explain U*U sexual abuse or indeed other forms of clergy misconduct but I and others can most certainly blame U*U "ecclesiological corruption" for the ongoing failure of the UUA, its Ministerial Fellowship Committee and the greater U*U religious community to responsibly acknowledge and properly redress not only sexual abuse by U*U clergy but also other non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct that may be every bit as damaging to both the victims and the community as some forms of sexual misconduct.
:I am beginning to see a correlation between violating a child's private inner life in the form of catechisms and doctrines that permit no freedom to privately discern important existential truths, and the tacit institutional permission to similiarly violate the privacy of the child's body. I'm not trying to be a theologian here, just an angry woman who would like children to be able to come of age unmolested by adults.
Well Peacebang, aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein of First Unitarian Parish Norwell, Massachusetts, it seems to The Emerson Avenger that you have ample material for dealing with that issue within your own parish. Why get up on your self-righteous soap-box, and loudly and publicly waggle your U*U finger at the Catholic community because a Catholic priest massaged and possibly fondled a young boy, when within your very own U*U "church" you have an elder lay person (as it were) who was not only very recently convicted of raping his neighbor's daughter but was also convicted of raping his own daughter? BTW May I ask just what "correlation" you might "see" that would serve to explain tacit, or indeed even explicit. . . "institutional permission" for U*Us, both clergy and otherwise, to violate the minds and the bodies of both children and adults?
:If it's part of the Catholic tradition to penetrate children's minds at a young age and demolish their privacy regarding theological reflection and decision-making, can it really be so shocking that penetration and violation of the privacy of their bodies is not far behind?
Well I think that it would be highly advisable to establish that it is indeed "part of the Catholic tradition to penetrate children's minds at a young age and demolish their privacy regarding theological reflection and decision-making" before making that kind of "correlation" and conjecture Peacebang. Have you done so somewhere? I have not really seen any evidence that you have. Could you possibly direct me to a web page where you have clearly demonstrated that it is in fact "part of the Catholic tradition to penetrate children's minds at a young age and demolish their privacy regarding theological reflection and decision-making"? While you are at it could you please formulate a similar conjecture that might help to explain why some U*Us, including U*U clergy, are guilty of "penetration and violation of the privacy" of the bodies and minds of both children and adults?
:We must protect children's freedom of religious imagination just as surely as we protect them from physical molesters and exploiters. They are two pieces of the same cloth.
Why must we protect only children Peacebang? Why should U*Us not similarly and equally protect adult's freedom of religious imagination just as surely as U*Us protect them from physical molesters and exploiters? Which by the way isn't very surely at all as far as I can see. . . In fact I can present compelling evidence that U*U "ecclesiological corruption" and U*U "institutional permission", to say nothing of U*U "community denial" quite regrettably does allow individual U*Us, including U*U clergy and lay leaders, individual U*U "churches", and thus by extension the greater U*U religious community as a whole to violate the minds and the bodies of both children and adults.
Comments
Other than Buell aparently being UU, does this case have anything to do with UUism? (Was he/the children involved in RE?)
Do you have any evidence for any denial, ignorance, or minimization by UU's in this case? You paraphrase the minimization by the preist, is this because you have no real-world examples?
Keep in mind that no matter what horrible things this UU has done, it does not change the fact that you are a liar.
What did Drennan say?
Well I think that it would be highly advisable to establish that it is indeed "part of the Catholic tradition to penetrate children's minds at a young age and demolish their privacy regarding theological reflection and decision-making" ...
I was raised Catholic, it is indeed.
I don't know if he was involved in RE but he may well have been. I would suggest asking Peacebang that question as she is in a position to answer it. In that he has been convicted of raping a neighbor's daughter and his own daughter I think that it would be irresponsible for Peacebang's congregation not to investigate whether or not he might have had sexual contacts with children at the church.
:Do you have any evidence for any denial, ignorance, or minimization by UU's in this case?
I am not sure that I specifically accused U*Us of engaging in DIM Thinking Denial, Ignorance, or Minimization in this particular case but Rev. Victoria Weinstein's self-righteous pointing of the finger at Catholic sexual abuse on her blog while remaining totally silent about the much more serious case of sexual abuse that at the very least indirectly affected her congregation can be seen as a form of Denial and Ignorance if not psychological projection. . . Peacebang very promptly deleted the post that I made to her blog about the Buell case and this act of U*U church censorship and suppression of criticism can be seen as "cover-up and denial".
In a private email that she sent to me very soon after I sent my post Rev. Weinstein said - "I don't post (my parishioners') names or discuss their trials and tribulations specifically, and I expect you not to, either." That was an obvious attempt to persuade me to keep my lips sealed about the Buell case, at least in terms of identifying Richard Buell himnself. I dare say that this great expectation of Peacebang constitutes an attempt to "cover-up" if not "deny" the Buell case.
In any case I was primarily accusing Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein of being a poster girl for U*U community denial of Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive clergy misconduct and related injustices and abuses.
:Do you have any evidence for any denial, ignorance, or minimization by UU's in this case?
See above. Peacebang "memory holed" my posts in which I spoke freely about in in accordance with my conscience. She also privately told me that she expected me not to name Buell.
:You paraphrase the minimization by the preist, is this because you have no real-world examples?
My paraphrase of the priest's minimization was a contrast with the Buell case. . . It is a very real world example.
:Keep in mind that no matter what horrible things this UU has done, it does not change the fact that you are a liar.
You are hilarious Indrax. The "lies" that you are accusing me of are a figment of your imagination and very few, if any, intelligent people of conscience will agree that what you call "lies" are anything other than well documented truths. Rev. Ray Drennan did in fact say what I am accusing him of saying and it is widely reported on the internet. To use Rev. Ray Drennan's own words, my allegations about him and my claim that what he said to me is "all over the internet" (obviously a figure of speech indicating that there are lots of posts that state what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me) are "true enough" and they are definitely not "lies" as you so ridiculously assert.
:What did Drennan say?
You know perfectly well what he said but instead of badgering me about it why don't you ask him what he said or ask the Unitarian Church of Montreal what he said or ask the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee what he said? I doubt that any of them will tell you anything substantially different than what I have already told you time and time again now. Unless of course they choose to tell some lies. . . I told you that I can bury U*Us under a mountain of their well documented lies so keep falsely accusing me of being a liar or at least find some real lies that I may have told which you are unlikely to be able to do as I have been very truthful and honest throughout this conflict.
I have every reason to believe that PB is handling this responsibly, and no reason to believe she is not.
I am not sure that I specifically accused U*Us of engaging in DIM Thinking Denial, Ignorance, or Minimization in this particular case
Oh, you don't remember?
Let me remind you: Yes, you did.
in this post.
remaining totally silent about the much more serious case of sexual abuse that at the very least indirectly affected her congregation can be seen as a form of Denial and Ignorance if not psychological projection. . .
Don't you mean psychological denial, as exhibited by his nephew? Nothing PB's done or said indicates that.
Not talking about it might have been a sign of willful ignorange, except for the fact that she is having special meetings to discuss this issue in her congregation, and may be dealing with it offline on a daily basis.
On top of all that, she invited you to examine how UUism could lead to abuse, this show that she is very willing to deal with the issue.
Peacebang very promptly deleted the post that I made to her blog about the Buell case and this act of U*U church censorship and suppression of criticism can be seen as "cover-up and denial".
Lots of people delete your posts for very good reasons. peacebang stated hers, You are a spammer.
She decides the issues and quality of discussion on her blog, you decide the issues and quality of discussion on yours. That's how blogs work.
In a private email that she sent to me very soon after I sent my post Rev. Weinstein said - "I don't post (my parishioners') names or discuss their trials and tribulations specifically, and I expect you not to, either."
Firstly, PB maintains a blog that she has not tightly linked to her real-world identity, and you outed her without good reason. That is incredibly rude, on many blogs it would warrant a blanket ban forever.
Secondly, she is very right and very responsible not to have this on her blog, and you are thoughtless and irresponsible for handling it the way you have.
Has it occured to you that PB is not only minister to the perpetrator, but possibly also the victim? Perhaps she holds the victim's privacy and well being in higher regard than you do.
Has it occured to you that the nephew's initial denial makes it easier to positively identify one of the victims? (and insults them at the same time)
Unlike you, some abuse victims prefer not to bring attention to their own identity. By needlessly drawing attention to her identity, you have reinforced the fears that abuse victims have of being stigmatized by coming forward.
Privacy in sexual assault cases matters. If I were a friend of yours, I would be showing my anger.
In any case I was primarily accusing Peacebang aka [...] of being a poster girl for U*U community denial of Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive clergy misconduct and related injustices and abuses.
Ahh, so you took a post about catholic preist abuse, outed the author's identity, tied that to a local case about an abuse that happened to be unitarian, so that you could talk about your case of alleged UU clergy abuse.
:Do you have any evidence for any denial, ignorance, or minimization by UU's in this case?
See above.....
No, I said 'in this case'. You are irrelevant to this case, PB's interations with you are irrelevant to the case.
From the information I have now, this didn't happen at the church, no one at the church knew or suspected, there was no 'turning a blind eye'.
You present no evidence of any collusion by any UU. You use the term DIM thinking, but your claimed institutional denial is itself invented.
My paraphrase of the priest's minimization was a contrast with the Buell case. . . It is a very real world example.
Except no one commited any such minimization in the real world. It was imaginary, not real.
Rev. Ray Drennan did in fact say what I am accusing him of saying
And that is not what I'm accusing you of lying about.
I still don't know all of what you allege Drennan said, because you refuse to tell me. I can't make a decision about the truth of your claims untill I know exactly what your claims are.
I told you that I can bury U*Us under a mountain of their well documented lies
Why do you brag about witholding information? What lies do you have documentation of?
Lay it out. Make your case.