“Hare, hunter, field” — Castration for deviancy

Get Religion ^ | March 21, 2012

[NYer]

Read through the journal article and you will find all the details you will ever want to read about a dark chapter of Western medicine which saw castration as a tool in a public health program to improve the human race through eugenics and to combat what that age saw as criminal sexual deviancy.

Vindicated!

[NYer]

Ping!

[immadashell]

“This case is especially painful because it concerns a victim who was victimized for a second time,” said Peter Nissen, a professor of the history of religion at Radboud University in the Netherlands.

He was castrated twice?

[livius]

Exactly.

Aside from the fact that this was a common procedure (the Dutch have always been leaders in eugenics and involuntary medical procedures, such as death...), the whole premise that the Catholic Church could “order” the castration of anybody is ridiculous.

[livius]

Exactly.

Aside from the fact that this was a common procedure (the Dutch have always been leaders in eugenics and involuntary medical procedures, such as death...), the whole premise that the Catholic Church could “order” the castration of anybody is ridiculous.

[Triple]

Vindicated?

“The Catholic pedophile scandal in Holland is a horrific case of abuse, betrayal and evil. Tossing the incendiary charge of castration into this cesspit of moral corruption cheapens the suffering of those who were abused.” - article

Facts not in dispute:
- A boy growing up in Catholic care was sexually abused
- At age 20 this victim of abuse was castrated

Vindicated?

Really?

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Now abortion serves as the primary tool of eugenics. And it’s not being promoted by the Church.

[squarebarb]

As other replies have pointed out, castrated by whom?

Also as other replies have pointed out, the pedophile/homosexual abuse scandal in Holland has been exposed and rightly vilified and so even more reason for the church to reject homosexuality.

So what’s your point?

[Triple]

Q: As other replies have pointed out, castrated by whom?

A: A doctor, I would presume.

While I agree that the reporting at The Times is slanted and atrocious, the Church should keep to a *much* higher standard.

One of the open questions I have here:

Was the victim under the authority of a legal guardian at the time of castration? If so, who?

My point:

THE CHURCH SHOULD NOT FOSTER AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE ANYONE IS MOLESTED.

The story should get the facts correct, but the Church’s actions are indefensible, and are not “justified” under the facts not in dispute.

Vindication: “justification against denial or censure” - Webster

Am I clear?

[NYer]

It helps to read a thread in its entirety:

Read through the journal article and you will find all the details you will ever want to read about a dark chapter of Western medicine which saw castration as a tool in a public health program to improve the human race through eugenics and to combat what that age saw as criminal sexual deviancy.

Facts not in dispute: - A boy growing up in Catholic care was sexually abused - At age 20 this victim of abuse was castrated

Again, according to the article:

It offers uncorroborated anecdotal evidence from a man dead 54 years to insinuate the Church was complicit in a gruesome crime — yet we don’t know if it was a crime. The history offered is full of gaps and makes assumptions — was the victim in the care of a Catholic institution when he reported the abuse? Was he passed from Catholic institutional custodial care to a Catholic-affiliated psychiatric hospital to a Catholic-affiliated surgery center for sterilization? Under what circumstances was the claim of abuse made? The journal article reports that castration was ordered by the state for those found to be mentally deficient or who were incorrigible sexual offenders. Who was the victim? Could the Catholic Church order the castration of a young man? How was that possible?

Perhaps like the NYT, you would prefer to view the Catholic Church as the oppressor.

[A.A. Cunningham]

I would presume.

Presumptions aren't facts. You should see what Webster has to say about that.

Am I clear?

No, you're confused. During voir dire you'd be challenged by both the defense and the prosecution.

[dangus]

Yes, Triple. In this case, the Catholic Church acted in precise accord with ethical standards. The offense was reported by people within the Church, two people went to prison, and the abused were treated in what was at at the time considered ethical and humane.

In contrast, the modern standard would probably be to tell the victim to “celebrate his newfound sexuality,” leading him to a life of debauchery, perdition, and quite likely a host of STDs.

[Triple]

OK -

I get it.

No problem here, everyone just move along. It’s old news anyway. The Church did what it should have. The Times is biased. Some of the facts are in dispute. The church did not castrate the victim, a doctor did under legal conditions. Are we sure he was really a victim of abuse?

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK, so now it turns out that the "uncontested" facts are:

• 400 men --- men with sexual disorders, and sex offenders --- were castrated under Dutch psychiatric "care" for therapeutic, eugenic, and punitive purposes;

• ONE of them--- Henk Heithaus--- had this done to him at a psychiatric institution sponsored by the Catholic Church. One, "and possibly nine others."

• Thus, 0.25%, or possibly up to 2.5% ,of these castrations were allegedly done by psychiatrists and surgeons in institutions "under the auspices of" the Catholic Church. I.e., at least 97.5% were not.

• In fact, castration for eugenic, psychotherapeutic or punitive purposes, is forbidden by the moral doctrines of the Catholic Church.

• And any possible connection to pedophilic abuse is impossible to subsantiate, since perpetrators or victims, guilty or innocent, moral monsters or slandered caregivers of 60 years ago are not "available for questioning."

There's the story.

What? That wasn't in the story? Why not?

Because 97.5% --- or up to 99.5% --- of the truth, was not considered by the media to be "news we can use".

And The Media Never Lie!

[Triple]

I agree with your post. I submit that you missed just one point, that Henk Heithaus was a victim of abuse while a minor in the care of Catholic institutions.

Now look at two of your own five points:

“Henk Heithaus-— had this done [castration - triple] to him at a psychiatric institution sponsored by the Catholic Church. One, “and possibly nine others.” “ - MD

“In fact, castration for eugenic, psychotherapeutic or punitive purposes, is forbidden by the moral doctrines of the Catholic Church.” - MD

[immadashell]

There's the story. What? That wasn't in the story? Why not? Because 97.5% --- or up to 99.5% --- of the truth, was not considered by the media to be "news we can use". And The Media Never Lie!

No, they just castrate the parts that they don't want to disclose.

[dangus]

>> No problem here, everyone just move along... Are we sure he was really a victim of abuse?<<

Obviously there’s a problem. Someone was sexually abused. But your absurd straw-man arguments contribute nothing to any conversation; no-one suggested he wasn’t really a victim of abuse. In fact, the Church turned in the culprits, and he was sentenced and sent to jail, so your reason for putting hateful and ridiculous statements into other people’s mouths is what?

You apparently feel like haranguing on the malfeasance of church officials. There should be plenty of good targets: Mahony, Bernardin, Weakland. You write like I’ve been arguing to whitewash the episcopacy, when I know very well that you’ve read my posts about black masses, the pink mafia, etc. But apparently you have nothing constructive or informative to say, so I’ve had enough.

[dangus]

>> No, they just castrate the parts that they don’t want to disclose. <<

You mean where in this case, the Church actually helped send him to prison. Find a different thread about a different case.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for the tone of good will in your last comment.

From what I've read from various sources,- A boy growing up in Catholic care was sexually abused; the criminals who abused him were reported by Catholics who made sure they were prosecuted and imprisoned; and the victim of abuse was later castrated while resident in a Catholic institution to "treat" a sexual disorder, in accord with psychiatric doctrines of the time, and an violation of Catholic doctrines then as now.

Further inquiry into the reprehensible details of this story (including the aspect of a Catholic institution operating in Heithuis' case in violation of Catholic doctrine) is impeded by the fact that the people involved have been dead for two generations.

Nobody can justify this: it is utterly repugnant morally, medically and religiously.

My point is that this revolting incident, evil in itself, is being used worldwide to defame something which is not evil: the Catholic Church in its millionfold holy doctrines, people, and ministries.

The deeds done against Henk Heithuis are damnable, and it is precisely the Catholic Church that teaches that they are damnable. Those who use this to globally defame the Church have as their larger agenda the destruction of faith and morals, teachings and ministries of Catholics everywhere.

How can I say that? Because the worldwide headlines are not "Psychiatrists castrated boys," but "The Catholic Church castrated...">

The "Catholic Church" did nothing of the sort.

I detest broad-brush slanders and defamatory lies. I presume you do, too.

Are we finished with that now?