Loading ...
I’ve been fortunate enough to do a lot of traveling this summer, and one result of this is that I’ve been mentally filing away quite a number of possible posts that I never actually got time to write. One came back to me today as I was sorting through papers from our Alaska trip. I was going to write a bit about our visit to the Anchorage museum, and its, err, tribute to victims of the priestly scandals of the last few decades.
Due to one of those bizarre, inexplicable tricks of pricing for which airlines are so (in)famous, the Doctor and I ended up in Anchorage on the day before we were supposed to meet up with the rest of my family. So we had a day to ourselves to explore the city. The tourist attractions within Anchorage itself are somewhat limited, so we ended up investigating the Anchorage museum, located directly in the downtown area. A generous way of describing this museum would be to say that it has something for everyone. A less generous way would be to say that it has a fairly random collection of exhibits, ranging from natural history to modern art. It’s also pretty seriously out of date… the most contemporary exhibit in the “Alaskan history” segment had obviously been erected in the 1980’s, and offered grim predictions of the economic hardships the state would soon face due to plummeting oil prices. Ah, if only! (I was quite transfixed, however, by the dioramas depicting the daily lives of the native Alaskan tribes in the ancient days. How could I fail to enjoy seeing those pre-modern Inuit women cook, sew and tend their children in their traditional Eskimo coats, boots and pants?)
Having been duly warned of the coming crisis in overabundance of oil, we wandered into another gallery, this one featuring some contemporary “native Alaskan art,” created by local Anchorage artist Sonya Kelliher-Combs. Ms. Kelliher-Combs is apparently known in the art world for her attention to social issues. Entitled “Points of View,” this particular gallery uses simple collections of objects to draw the viewer’s attention to various “social problems.” Two exhibits feature native clothing and are intended to highlight the difficulties caused by the collision of these native tribes with the modern world. A third, in a similar vein, displays 38 pairs of gloves arranged with the fingers pointed upwards. The title is simply, “Goodbye,” and each pair represents an Alaskan native who has died by his own hand since 2005. Another exhibit features a box overflowing with corks, and then there was another box filled with pull-tabs, like those used in the gambling industry.
One of the more prominent exhibits (or at least the one that arrested my attention the most) featured three largish boxes set in a row on a sort of pedestal. Each box was full of white plastic rosaries (the same kind, in fact, distributed at 9pm on weekdays to newcomers looking to pray with the Cornell Society for a Good Time.) The title: “Forgive You, Father, for You Have Sinned.” You can probably figure out what that exhibit was supposed to represent.
It does seem to be the case that Alaska has had more than its share of priestly scandals in recent years. We got a sobering reminder of this when we went to Mass in Anchorage, and found printed in the bulletin the contact information for the person in charge of fielding accusations of priestly abuse. But I was acquainted with the problem a few years before these scandals became “famous”, thanks to a college friend who grew up in Alaska. “Alaska gets all the really bad priests,” she told me with a sigh. “The alcoholics and the pedophiles, they all somehow seem to end up in Alaska. Alaskan Catholics know not to leave their children alone with an unfamiliar priest.”
I was (quite properly) shocked by this, though it sadly became evident in later years that Alaska is not the only state to have had these problems. Of all the shameful things the American church has dealt with in the past few decades, this is surely one of the most horrific. What was it Jesus said about it being better to be drowned in the depths of the sea than…? And in some ways more horribly still, we see real American bishops and other clergy supporting these monsters in priestly garb, hiding their crimes, and putting them in a position to wound still more young Catholics.
Probably there were other mistakes made in the days after the Council that ultimately did more overall damage to souls. This, though, stands out as the clearest and most obvious reductio ad absurdum, the truest example of the depths to which the newly liberalized American church could sink. It might take a little conditioning (or rather, de-conditioning) before one can retch at the awfulness of the OCP “worship music”, but just about anyone can appreciate the utter baseness and depravity of a pastor, of all people, preying on the young and trusting souls that have been placed in his care. Is this the new springtime? Then I’ll stick with winter, thanks very much.
So obviously, I sympathize with some of the sentiments that inspired Sonya Kelliher-Combs to create this little display; nonetheless, the exhibit rankled. I felt resentful that this woman, who as far as I know is not a Catholic, would feel at liberty to drop Catholic priestly scandals in among her plethora of “social issues,” just another exhibit sandwiched between suicide and alcoholism. I felt as a Jewish person might feel if someone like me were to take it upon myself to build a memorial of Auschwitz, even though I am neither Jewish nor German nor in any other way specially connected with that tragedy. It seemed presumptuous, and the work of a person who, instead of feeling real sorrow, was merely fascinated by the sordid and the macabre.
In truth, that assessment probably isn’t quite fair. There were some cases of missionary priests abusing native Alaskan children, which would, I suppose, put the issue within the scope of Ms. Kelliher-Combs’ “native issues” theme. Even so, the exhibit seemed profoundly disrespectful. If the pull-tabs represented gambling and the corks alcoholism, what are we to conclude about the rosaries? That the main problems of native Alaskans are drink, gambling and… Catholicism? And that cheap plastic trinkets are really representative of what the Church has to offer? This display was not lamenting particular priests’ betrayal of their sacred office. It was lamenting that the priests ever came to Alaska at all. The irreverent, smart-alecky title emphasized this even further. And that made me angry, because it seemed like giving a further kick to those people who were already the most down in the wake of the scandals – Alaskan Catholics.
All this did get me thinking, though. Why don’t we see more properly Catholic expressions of grief and remorse over these terrible events? For Trads, I suppose, these problems seem so inexorably bound up with other problems in the Church that we don’t really think to do or say much about the priestly scandals per se. The heretical liberal Catholics don’t like to think about them for a different reason: it can’t be pleasant witnessing the putrid, rotted fruits of the trees that you helped to nurture. But for some Catholics in the middle, thinking about these events might be the ticket to beginning to see how far the Church leaders in America have strayed from where they should be. Some have moved from there into apostasy… but why not into orthodoxy, instead? In taking up this cause, traditional Catholics could hardly sound a more sympathetic note with the population at large. This is one of those very rare times in which orthodox Catholics can find common cause with the mainstream media against liberals within the Church itself.
Are there traditional parishes that have asked parishioners to pray novenas for the victims of clerical abuse (or, perhaps equally importantly, for the clerics themselves)? Have any pilgrimages been made in reparation for these terrible sins? If so, I’d be interested to hear. If not, perhaps we ought to think about doing things like this, for multiple reasons. For one thing, the prayers are surely needed! For another, there’s always a chance that some of the victims (or friends and families of victims whose faith was destroyed by the traumatic events) might return to the fold if they come to see that the withered branches they encountered are not representative of the whole tree. But finally, I left the Anchorage museum with the strong feeling that, if these stories do need to be told and lamented, they should be told and lamented by faithful Catholics. We don’t want to leave the job in the hands of Ms. Kelliher-Combs.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
I’m not sure that I’m comfortable with the idea that art and commentary about a specific religious or ethnic group should be reserved to members of the group, alone. Especially in a pluralistic society.
I haven’t seen the work of Sonya Kelliher-Combs, and I have no idea if she’s Catholic. But she is an Alaskan, and I think it’s perfectly human for her - as an Alaskan - to feel sorrow and anger when children in her community are abused, whether or not they are Catholic.
Yes, there are plenty of people who have exploited the priestly abuse scandal as a means to attack the Church. But I think the Church needs to acknowledge that the damage of these scandals extends well beyond the Church walls, and into civil society.
That said, I totally agree with you that trads - heck, all Catholics - need to do a better job of expressing sorrow and outrage at what has happened.
Interesting name you picked, WorldlyJanis. Is that meant to keep you humble?
Anyway, I don’t quite know what you mean when you say things shouldn’t be “reserved to” particular groups. I mean, I don’t think Kelliher-Combs should be arrested. But I do think her piece is disrespectful to my faith. It leaves the impression that Catholicism is a “social problem” on a level with gambling, alcoholism and suicide. I acknowledged that my knee-jerk “hands off my religion” attitude may not be entirely justified — for all I know, she herself could have been a victim of such abuse, or a family member could have been. The thing had a pretty impersonal air, though — more like a high-handed rebuke than an expression of personal pain. And if anyone were to attempt a similar display with regards to, say, misbehaving Jewish rabbis… well, there’d be hell to pay.
I’m guessing - or hoping - WorldlyJanis was being ironic.
Anyway.
Why all the focus on supposedly thin-skinned Jews, Clara? Actually, I think the Jewish community is very open to criticism and commentary from others. Holocaust museums in Europe and the US have been designed by non-Jews, and Roberto Benigni - an Italian Catholic - made a highly successful film about the Holocaust a few years ago with nary a peep from the Jewish community.
Really, please, keep it focused on the Catholics. Veering off into assumptions about what or how Jews will behave is tenuous, touchy, and not really grounds for argument, anyway.
Well, I wasn’t exactly meaning to say that Jews, as a rule, are easily offended. Individual Jews differ, I suppose, like any large and diverse group of people. Most of the American Jews I’ve known haven’t been particularly defensive, but then, they haven’t needed to be since they’ve grown up in a world in which respect for their faith is practically one of our society’s highest moral imperatives. Which is precisely my point. In our society, it is seen as utterly unacceptable to make any public (or, in most company, private) statement that looks remotely critical of the Jewish faith. And yes, when anybody does show the faintest sign of seeming anti-Jewish, it does normally raise an outcry, whether from the Jewish community itself or from other quarters. (Think, for example, of the furor after the MP about whether the Traditional Latin Mass was anti-Semitic, just because we pray for the Jews — together with lots of other people — on Good Friday.) And actually, your comment seems if anything to support my point in this. I hardly ever get people scolding me for making fun of Evangelicals, but if I seem the tiniest bit dismissive of the concerns of Jews, I am immediately called out for entering a “touchy” subject.
For Catholics, it is if anything the opposite situation. Of course it varies from place to place, but in general the Catholic church is everybody’s favorite bad guy. Consider, for example, the reaction to Gibson’s Passion movie… and then consider the reaction to Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. The same people who were wagging fingers at Gibson were perfectly okay with Brown’s little piece of pulp fiction. But, whereas Gibson’s movie went out of its way not to pick on the Jews, Brown’s made no secret of portraying the Church as a massive, evil, perverted conspiracy trying to control the world through murder and lies. And anyone who got upset by that was mostly dismissed as a crank. Does anyone else find this attitude a little inconsistent?
This is why the Jews sometimes provide a good litmus test of whether something is offensive. Ask yourself: would this seem insensitive if a similar exhibit were made concerning Judaism? If so, it is probably reasonable for other religious groups to find it insensitive also. Well, I don’t think you’d be able to get away with an equivalent exhibit regarding Judaism, so I think it’s reasonable to resent them putting one up concerning my faith.
I know it’s spinning off my own example, but the kind of Holocaust movies you have in mind aren’t really the same. The Holocaust has to some degree become “common property”, but only provided the Jews are portrayed almost entirely as innocent victims of evil oppressors. I’m not saying that they weren’t, but it’s obviously easier to stomach outsiders making statements about your ethnic/religious group when they’re making them look good.
Clara, as you realize, LintenStatin’s comments seem to have made your point. Have you fallen for a case of blog irony?
“And actually, your comment seems if anything to support my point in this. I hardly ever get people scolding me for making fun of Evangelicals, but if I seem the tiniest bit dismissive of the concerns of Jews, I am immediately called out for entering a “touchy” subject.”
Well, I did point that out, but perhaps you’re right that the comment was not intended to be serious. It is rather hard to tell sometimes… but it didn’t sound to me like a deliberate farce.
If it was intended that way, though, then hats off to LintenStatin! You got me.
Whether LintinStatin’s comment was the genuine article or a perfect masquerade your response, Clara, was right on.
Let me admit that the thought of reparation for the pederasty of priests has not entered my mind before your post, nor have I been praying for the victims or the perpetrators. I do believe in making reparation on First Fridays and Saturdays but have not thought to single out the sins mentioned, which certainly must wound the Sacred Heart very much. Yours was a good point.
The enemy of all mankind must mock Our Lord and Our Lady for these victories of his over the Mystical Body much like Sonya Kelliher-Combs is mocking the Church. It is he and his agents who are behind it all. Stupidity, human weakness, and over leniency just can’t account for it. Modernists made a concerted effort to infiltrate the Church in the days of Saint Pius X. Later the Communists did the same, and shortly after the Council, likewise the Homosexuals. Granted there have always been some among us but never like today, all helping one another get into high places and covering for the ones who are not so bright.
In the current issue of Catholic News and Commentary, Steve Maholwald points out that when confronted with homosexuals among clerics, Saint Peter Damian was for rooting out all homosexuals from the priesthood and seminaries. Here is a more active response attributed to Saint Basil the Great. (379) “For the cleric or monk caught making sexual advances or sexually molesting young boys or men. The convicted offender was to be whipped in public, deprived of his tonsure (head shaven) bound in chains and imprisoned for six months, after which he was to be contained in a separate cell and ordered to undergo severe penances and prayer vigils to expedite his sins, under the watchful eye of an elder spiritual brother. His diet was that of water and barley bread. Outside his cell, while engaged in manual labor and moving about the monastery, the pederast monk was to be always monitored by two fellow monks to insure that he never again had any contact with young men or boys.” This is a far cry from shuffling the offenders from parish to parish and listening to the advice of psychiatrists and “sex experts.”
According to the Dallas Charter of the U.S. bishops, “Dioceses/eparchies are to comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and cooperate in their investigation in accord with the law of the jurisdiction in question.” (Art. 4 Revised Charter of Protection of Children and Young People/2005.) This is just the opposite of what Saint Thomas A Becket did when he maintained that the Church had jurisdiction over its clergy. Of course, we would not have reached this stage today if the bishops had taken the abuses in hand from the beginning. They have in effect relinquished all jurisdiction over their clergy in this matter.
i moved up to anchorage last june. the only traditional priest left for baker city oregon and the only priest that was able to celebrate the traditional mass died recently. so i attend a byzantine church. the archdiocese up here is pretty lame.
about the natives. from what i’ve been told and from my own personal experience, they have a huge chip on their shoulder. they by and large hate the white man because they blame him for all their problems. i think they must have been taught this b.s. from typical self-loathing liberal whites when they were in school.
the natives have everything handed to them here, from free medical care to jobs and government subsidies. i think you get the picture.
Yes, that’s interesting, Dr. VanNostrum. It’s a tough thing, I suppose, because it’s a hard thing (particularly for certain sorts of liberals) to tell people, “your culture is defunct now, go do something else with your lives.” But in many ways, that’s just the truth. And, as we’ve seen time and again, no-strings-attached external support from an outside source can be quite devastating to a culture. Anyway, I’m sorry things are so grim there… I hope the situation improves.
I thought that I might give you all a little background on my Points of View Exhibition titled
Con-Census
Here is my statement followed by a review from the Anchorage Daily News. I do find it interesting that people might respond in this manner to an exhibition from which they have not experienced themselves. I am sorry that someone like Dr. Van Nostrum might pass judgment on people from whom he might have never met.
My intention for curating Points of View was to create a show that addressed many issues that are close to my heart. In working on this exhibition it became clear that, with the items I selected, I had something to say. As single objects they might speak softly about history, culture, family, and the life of our people. But collectively they could speak loudly about the abuse, marginalization, commodification and struggle of a people. I have created an exhibition that will question and challenge the perception of these functional objects selected from the Anchorage Museum of History and Art collection. My goal is to present a conceptual installation that is unconventional, a personal exploration of the transformative power of these utilitarian objects. I did not want to display these articles in a conventional manner with historical and biographical information unless it was pertinent to the installation itself.
There are several groups of objects articulating this subjective examination. Con-Census is a work made up of garments of all shapes, sizes, and material from many Alaska Native Cultures. If there had been more garments, I would have filled the entire gallery with these works. I oppose the tally and blood quantification of Alaska Native People. Although I know the basis for the establishment of the Certificate of Indian Blood and its justification, there are reasons to argue against its existence. As Alaska Natives we should not have to carry a card to authenticate our race. What other groups have a certificate quantifying their ethnic background? Who determines what constitutes an Alaska Native today?
The second installation focuses on wooden bowls used in the preparation and gathering of foods. The sustenance has been replaced with rosaries, bingo cards, pull-tabs, and wine corks. Contemporary Alaska Native people have experienced both positive and negative exposure to religion and have lived with historical trauma as well as loss of identity. These vacancies seem to have been replaced by negative life patterns, including addictions.
Forgive you father for you have sinned is for those who have suffered the wounds of abuse by clergy and the church. The total number of those who were scarred by the hands of those whom were sent to ”save” them will never be known. Overflow addresses the issue of alcoholism and the effects on culture, health and community. Offering is a commentary on the compulsion to gamble, touching the surface of issues underlying gaming in the Alaska Native and Native American community.
Alaska Natives and our creations have become a commodity. We are the number two attraction for visitors to our state. I was once offered five dollars if I would give an Eskimo kiss to a tourist while his wife snapped a photo. The stereotypes of Alaska Native People abound. You can find them in just about every corner of the world. A movement presently exists in which to educate and empower our people. We are working to share our knowledge and life experiences in order to promote understanding. The economic benefit of the sale of cultural products has been realized and offers a forum for us to improve our socioeconomic status, promote awareness and pass on our culture.
Footwear and the Silver Hand Certificate make up the piece titled Brand.
Foot and hand prints are unique to each individual. A Brand is an identifying mark. The Silver Hand has long been established as an indication of true authentic Alaska Native art. For most Alaska Native artists the Silver Hand is a way of both marketing and authenticating their work. Frequently we are required to obtain a Silver Hand Certificate for participation in Alaska Native art markets and craft shows. It is a way for organizers of these events to qualify Alaska Native vendors. This branding has become a hot bed issue within the Alaska Native art community, for those who sell Alaska Native art and for those within the institutions that represent these artists. The intent of this program is to be an educational tool and a way of identifying counterfeit Alaska Native art.
Goodbye is a memorial to those who have lost their lives to suicide. This personal and deeply wounding experience has affected nearly every person we know. Our family has lost three uncles and three cousins to suicide. Within this exhibit are 38 pairs of gloves and mittens representing those Alaska Natives who died by their own hands in 2005. Although Alaska is two times above the national average in the rate of suicide, Alaska Natives are three times above the national average. Healing is a process that takes a lifetime, and sometimes generations.
In closing, I would add that despite the negative tone and the taboo of speaking of these issues, the objects themselves are a positive testament to the innovation and perseverance of our cultures. These problems, although challenging, must be voiced in order to transform and promote healing. Through self-expression, empowerment, community and voices coming together we can heal from the past and move forward.
Sonya Kelliher-Combs
Show a refreshing wade into a whirlpool of social issues
By Don Decker
Daily News correspondent
Published: April 22, 2007
Last Modified: April 22, 2007 at 10:42 AM
“Con-Census,” an exhibition of Alaska Native art showing at the Anchorage Museum, is a skillful blend of aesthetics and education, visually striking, thought-provoking and boldly personal. It is a meld of traditional and modern elements, set within a minimal format and layered with references to intellectual challenges and moral dilemmas. Anchorage artist Sonya Kelliher-Combs was selected to develop the exhibition as the current offering in the yearly series “Points of View.” The stated purpose of the series is to use guest curators to “bring a unique vision” to the museum’s extensive collection of art and artifacts. These curators are encouraged to take a fresh look at the collection, draw new conclusions and highlight pieces not usually exhibited.
Judged by each of the criteria, “Con-Census” is successful. Previous guest curators in the series have made statements with items selected from the museum storerooms and by their arrangements of those selections. Kelliher-Combs, however, takes items from the museum’s closet - old handmade mittens or mukluks - and deploys them in conjunction with outside material - boot boxes, wine corks, identification cards - in assembled installations that become new and complete artworks in themselves.
Kelliher-Combs, 37, might be considered one of a younger generation by some old-guard artisans, except that she has a payload of achievement in her skyrocketing career. Her mark is apparent in the selections, arrangements and expressions. She has bravely waded into a whirlpool of social issues: certification of Indian blood, negative aspects of religion, stereotyping, commercialism, exploitation and suicide. Her perspective is seasoned by her own experiences and communicated with a refreshing candor. The show is not just for or about Native Americans. It addresses the common human condition. We are all touched by the consequences of governance and social class, of faith and death.
The installation is deceivingly simple and sparse at first glance: rows of garments, boots, stacked boxes, uniformly mounted photographs, a collection of gloves - all arranged with an acute sense of space. Beneath the veneer of order and calm lie symbols of controversy and pain.
The show is divided into social issues. “Forgive You, Father, for You Have Sinned” consists of three bentwood boxes filled with white plastic rosaries. The image and reference are stark. Kelliher-Combs writes in her statement that the number of people “scarred by the hands of those who were sent to ’save’ them will never be known.” The truth is undeniable, and the presentation is visually and emotionally stunning.
A section titled “Brand” consists of a variety of footwear in a row along the wall. Underneath each pair, other footwear is stacked - in chain-store mode - in boxes labeled with the “silver hand,” the state-sanctioned symbol intended to authenticate and market Native Alaskans’ work. Kelliher-Combs refers to the program as a “hotbed” issue within the Native art community.
Politics aside, the boots are awesome. There is, as our experience confirms, a deeply personal quality to someone’s shoes. That is particularly true in the case of the finely crafted and worn selections on display. One is reminded of empty military boots reversed in the stirrups.
“Goodbye” is a memorial to those who died as a result of suicide. Thirty-eight pairs of gloves and mittens representing Alaska Natives who died by their own hand since 2005 are arranged on a platform, fingers pointed upward. Kelliher-Combs has used mittens and their accompanying “idiot strings” as metaphors in much of her own work. The sincerity and warmth expressed in the memorial are moving.
“Overflow” is a single container - a fine example of bentwood utilitarian craftsmanship. It is heaped with wine corks. In “Offering,” the filling in the container consists of pull-tabs from the gambling industry.
A major component of the exhibition is a row of garments displayed as if worn by anonymous people standing in line. The clothing is beautiful in its form, functionality and craftsmanship. In front of each piece is displayed a Certificate of Indian Blood issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The incongruity is the point.
“Con-Census” is an important show, a vehicle in which the curator reveals her sensibilities as an artist and Native and showcases her ability to confront difficult subjects with candor and grace. She assumed the challenge of assembling art but expanded the concept into a forum of ideas and took it into a realm of theater that few others could envision. Her exhibition is a testament to what a creative artist and a museum can be. She has, in a genuine and artful way, brought honor to her ancestors and her community.
Artist Don Decker lives in Anchorage.
Alaska is filled with “Recovering Catholics” who do not wish to be associated with that organization. Your ignorance of the artist meaning in “Con-Census,” her culture, religious beliefs, and right to depect the truth of what is happening in Alaska to Alaska Natives, is probably as great as your ignorance of the Jewish people.
The Catholic Church is one of the organizations that came to Alaska, and received government funds to educate the Natives and teach them about God, to violate them sexually is indeed one of the eggregious acts that are a part of the destruction of Alaska’s Native populations.
Your description of the display of “Con-Census” defines you ignorance beyond anyting else. What are you - just another white person trying to say the Alaska Natives are nothing but drunks? Your statement supports your ethnocentric and bigoted views?
Ida Hildebrand, Anchorage, Alaska
Sorry, Ms. Hildebrand, but I had to edit your comment a bit since some aspects of it failed to meet our normal standards for civil discourse. If you’d prefer to have it deleted entirely, let me know; I always like to leave people that option when editing their remarks.
Actually, if you go back and read carefully, I think you’ll find that I didn’t say much one way or the other about Ms. Kelliher-Combs’ wider agenda, or about Alaska’s Native populations. I have some tentative thoughts about that subject, but that wasn’t the point of this post, and I don’t claim to be particularly knowledgeable about such things anyway. I certainly never implied that Alaskan natives were “nothing but drunks”; in fact, the only value judgment I gave of them was in complimenting the women for their stylish pants.
But your comment does support my point very nicely. Here we have a two-thousand-year-old organization that, at least in the eyes of, I don’t know, some-billion people in the history of the world represents the human race’s only hope of salvation. But a few particular members once hurt some native Alaskan children, so, you think it’s totally fine for you to speak contemptuously about the church as a whole, and for Ms. Kelliher-Combs to mock one of our most potent religious devotions (the rosary) and to use our holy Sacraments as a source of biting, ironical titles.
Now, my skin’s really pretty thick, and I didn’t leave the exhibit fuming, or anything like that. I’m already well aware that a large portion of the world doesn’t respect my religious views, and sometimes I actually find it refreshing when people are up-front about that fact. Still, the example is interesting for highlighting this feature of our society: for some groups of people, tax dollars will be used to pay artists to document the tale of their oppression and woe. For others, abusing them and dismissing their beliefs and customs is pretty much standard fare, so much so that it’s not even considered controversial. I doubt whether it even occurred to Ms. Kelliher-Combs to wonder whether her exhibit might be perceived by Roman Catholics as callous or insensitive. (She’s welcome to speak to that point herself if she wishes.) That as regards my concerns, is the interesting point.
This is a very disheartening example of the ignorance of one being spread to the many. Catholic priests did horrible things to many, many young children often orphans put in their care by the US government. Often every single child in the school or orphanage and village were harmed and the abuse continued well into the 1980s. This is our truth and the damage it has done is immeasurable.
My Irish Gram was an ex-communicated Catholic having chosen a marriage that lasted until her death almost 63 years later. I went to Latin mass in the summers because it was over an hour before our church let out. She taught me that not all white people are speak out before taking the time to understand.
You can dismiss our words but not our truth. Ida and Sonya at least had the courage to use their names. Your blog names make it easy to hide in the comfort of your home or office and write about your very limited encounter with our only too real history with Catholic priests. For the first 100 years of contact not a single case of child abuse, domestic violence etc. was documented by the trappers, missionaries, whalers, miners or explorers who lived among us. It didn’t exist. This is part of our truth. Great shining white father brought rape, child abuse, violence into our communities, homes and now we are speaking out trying to figure out how to stop what is now an epidemic.
May the Creator keep you and guide your minds to a greater understanding. May you never know the pain we have all experienced burying our brothers, cousins, friends etc. and the shearing pain left behind.
To begin with I want to say that you should have spent part of your day reading the descriptions at the Anchorage Museum, or maybe going to the Alaska Native Heritage Center. You would then know that the Eskimos in Alaska are not called Inuit, they are Inupiaq, Yupik or Siberian Yupik. There are also Athabascan, Tlingit, Haida and Tsimsian Indians and Aleut tribes in Alaska.
Secondly, you know nothing of the extent of Catholic Priests abuse in Rural Alaska. Entire generations in some villages were sexually abused, and once complaints were made the priests were moved to different villages to continue the cycle of abuse. I felt offended by your trivialization of this abuse “There were some cases of missionary priests abusing native Alaskan children, which would, I suppose, put the issue within the scope of Ms. Kelliher-Combs’ “native issues” theme.”, and “But a few particular members once hurt some native Alaskan children.” Without being more specific, I am speaking of many of my relatives and friends. The Catholic church “Here we have a two-thousand-year-old organization that, at least in the eyes of, I don’t know, some-billion people in the history of the world represents the human race’s only hope of salvation,” worked very hard to “educate” and “save” the natives of Alaska, particularly on the Yukon River. By doing this, in a few short decades, they almost single handedly annihilated a culture and belief system that has been around for ten thousand years. You talk about people not respecting your religion, “I’m already well aware that a large portion of the world doesn’t respect my religious views.” Where was the Catholic Church’s “respect” for an older, ancient belief system? Other church groups did not do this. They translated the bible into native languages, and educated natives to be leaders in their churches. They respected Alaska native traditional ways and did not forbid them from practicing them. I can understand Ida’s mistrust of the Catholic Church.
I was not offended by the exhibit. I was thankful that something was being said about the abuse. Every person I have talked to, whether white or native, catholic or not, from Alaska, found the exhibit strong and powerful, speaking about a people who adapt and persevere and the issues that we are now facing. You seem to have missed the point. I thought a church was its people, not its symbols. You seem to be unbelievably upset about what you perceive as a slight to the “symbol” of your religion. God is the sacred here, not the rosary.
As for Dr. VanNostrum’s comments, I believe that there is no room in any religion for closed minded, ignorant, bigotry. Get your facts straight. I am Alaska Native and I do not hate white people. Generalizing about a group of people is always perilous, and in my point of view short sighted. And finally, you completely misunderstand the special relationship between indigenous peoples and the Federal Government. Maybe you should do some research, or go out and meet some Alaska Natives.
Pagalagivsii (greetings to all);
Very powerful commentaries and opinions expressed herein. Sensitive, yes. Hurtful, definitely, and yet, quite insightful in a human mindset sort of way. You know, how we are ever judgmental of other humans “in the name of God”.
I am very proud of my neice Sonya’s creations. Is the Father likewise proud of his creations (man and woman)?? I would like to believe it is so. Or is the Father there just to exercise forgiveness for their sins and other transgressions, of which there any many indeed?? Answer that if you must, but I choose to listen to my heart, which God has filled…….
With love,
Assaingatak (my Inupiat name, after Ahna).
“This display was not lamenting particular priests’ betrayal of their sacred office. It was lamenting that the priests ever came to Alaska at all. The irreverent, smart-alecky title emphasized this even further. And that made me angry, because it seemed like giving a further kick to those people who were already the most down in the wake of the scandals – Alaskan Catholics.”
I concur with Clara here.
Yes, the priests came to save the Alaskans’ souls. Yes, they opposed pagan practices, JUST as they ended the paganism of my Germanic, Scandinavian, and Celtic ancestors. I hope that they were duly respectful of those aspects of Native Alaskan religion that were in synch with natural religion, but let’s face it, the position of the Catholic Church is that it’s here to evangelize people.
Some of the priests, perhaps many, were abusive. I’ll take your word for it. For that they should have been locked up. They will pay in hell or purgatory for what they did. But the “art” in question identified a wholly good symbol — the Rosary — with a wholly evil thing — sex abuse. This is unjust. This is literally throwing out the baby with the bathwater. No one here is making excuses for the horrible child molesters! No one here is diminishing the victims’ anguish! But please, please find some other way to exhibit this outrage than to identify OUR sacred religious symbols with the horrible acts of those who *defied their own religion* by abusing children. Did the Blessed Virgin Mary harm Alaska? Did her Son harm Alaska? Well, the Rosary honors the Blessed Mother and her Son. It represents what is good and right with Catholicism, not the sometimes horrible sins of the Church’s clergy.
I have seen the exhibit Con-Census. It is a unique, challenging and wonderful approach to the Anchorage Museum’s guest curator program. In responding here, however, I want to say that the Catholic church, and religion in general, most certainly is a social issue. It weilds wealth and power in our legislative branch of government and throughout the world. If Jesus entered the temple/cathedral today he would be hard-pressed to knock over the money-changers’ tables. In this country a person cannot sucessfully seek office without proclaiming to be a christian, yet the term “christian” has been appropriated to mean conservative and narrow-minded. Jesus was a radical. A religion of pharisees is what we have today, with little tolerance, and no love, for our enemies. The “axis of evil” is not outside ourselves. As our country loses its historical separation of church and state and civil rights are stolen by a fear-mongoring administration, we can only hope that artists will continue to remind us to think and speak out.
I think Tobias Petrus has put the matter very simply and very well — better than I did — so really, the best thing might be to reread his comment. But I’ll reiterate a few points.
To a Roman Catholic, a rosary is a holy thing, and the means by which we honor and love the blessed lady who bore and raised our Redeemer. Meanwhile, the priestly offenses in question were (to quote myself from the post above to which you are reacting), “the truest example of the depths to which the newly liberalized American church could sink.” Our Lady is, for a Catholic, our truest mother, the help of Christians, the Queen of Heaven, the morning star, and the cause of our joy. The priest in question were (again quoting myself) “base and depraved” and “monsters in priestly garb.” Can you see how representing this terrible crime with a sacred symbol is deeply insulting and hurtful to Catholics?
And no, I really don’t think that I was “missing the point.” There are times, of course, when very holy symbols are juxtaposed against evil deeds, with the idea being to emphasize the blackness of the bad through a contrast to something very good. Think of the ending of The Godfather, for example. The Church is not being mocked in the famous baptism scene; rather, the holiness of the words of baptism allow you to feel more keenly the depravity of the evil deeds that are simultaneously being done. But that wasn’t what was happening in this exhibit. I can perceive this through 1) the deliberate choice to use cheap plastic rosaries instead of more beautiful ones, 2) the fact that the rosaries were placed in company with corks and gambling tabs, items obviously intended to directly represent pernicious influences, and 3) the irreverent and ironic title. The cheapening of a sacred Catholic symbol, and the rebuke to the Church as a whole were clearly deliberate.
I was not, as one poster claimed, “unbelievably upset” by the exhibit. I assumed that Ms. Kelliher-Combs was more thoughtless than deliberately sacrilegious. (It is interesting, though, that a person can be thoughtless in that way without making much commotion; as I’ve said before, you couldn’t get away with doing that to just any group of people.) And if you actually read through the original post, you’ll see that my primary purpose was not to comment on native Alaskan issues, nor to critique this exhibit in general, but to urge Catholics to pray fervently for the victims of this abuse, as well as for the perpetrators. I certainly have not, at any time, tried to defend these traitorous priests, nor to deny that the suffering of their victims has been acute.
But I am not trivializing that suffering when I say that you all need to get some perspective. Here I am being accused of bigotry and ignorance, and I never even voiced any criticisms of native Alaskans. Meanwhile, several of you obviously feel justified in venting your rage against the Catholic church as a whole without seeming to care, in the first place, that the Catholic faithful absolutely do not support the terrible actions of pedophile priests (our people have suffered from the same crimes!), and secondly, that this is a miniscule part of the total history of our Church. When you disrespect the rosary, you’re not just taking a knock at these pedophiles (who probably didn’t use theirs much anyway.) You’re insulting Fr. Damien, the leper priest of Molokai who spent his life ministering to lepers and eventually died of the same disease. You’re disrespecting Mother Theresa, who picked up the dying from the streets of Calcutta. And St. Vincent de Paul, and St. Francis of Assisi, and St. Nicholas, and St. Padre Pio, and many, many other great humanitarians, from all through history, who all loved Our Lady and the holy Rosary. And behind these great saints stand legions of humble Catholics, scattered across the world from Poland to Peru, cherishing their rosaries as symbols of hope and grace and tender love shown to their dear Mother. When you pile rosaries up and plunk them down next to a bucket of wine corks, you’re taking a shot at all of those people. But you probably didn’t think about any of that. You’re fixated only on one group of people, one time, one place. And yet, Ida Hildebrand feels fine about calling me ethnocentric.
We’ve now had comments from several native Alaskans, telling us how much they loved the exhibit, and telling me how ignorant I am. But not a single person has even tried to argue against my basic claim: that this exhibit was disrespectful to my faith. So I’m going to take it that you agree, and that most of you are okay with that. Anyway, thanks for writing; it was interesting to get input from some native Alaskans.
I happen to know Sonya, and know that she grew up Catholic. She knows what she’s talking about, and thinking about, and creating about. The point of art is to have an effect on emotions, which clearly, Con Census did.
So in other words: her insult to the Blessed Virgin and those who love her was more deliberate than I’d supposed.
That is interesting, thank you.
SORROW OF THE PLURAL
I am saddened that so much ignorance abounds! I grew up in Catholic faith and also managed to learn to appreciate people of other cultures outside of my own (as well as their views). I have visited Sonya Kelliher-Combs’ “Con-Census” at the Anchorage Museum of History and Art and with my Western, Catholic cultural lens and was not offended in her use of the Rosary. In fact, I commend her courageous voice as well as the Anchorage Museum for the open dialogue in our community.
To decide that the Rosary was used in a disparaging way is one interpretation, and frankly judgmental on your part. Judgement is not a Christian value that I was taught. The dialogue, “Forgive you Father, for You Have Sinned” lets the viewer know exactly who is being chided for their reprehensible behavior.
I was offended by your ignorance in many other remarks related to “Con-Census” including your assumption that Sonya was not Catholic and when you don’t see a clear connection between abuse and suicide and alcoholism. You’ve obviously never been near to someone who has been victimized in such a heinous act or can’t empathize with what this might be like.
I’m embarrassed that Catholics like yourself, Dr. VanNostrum, and Disciplus have such a tenuous relationship with the Rosary to think that one person’s use of it in an exhibit (to shed light on a subject that needs to be dealt with to move beyond)could disparage it’s meaning.
I found Dr. VanNostrum’s remarks hateful and beyond ignorant.
I hope you do some more research before writing callous and insensitive remarks like this in the future.
Angie Demma
Judgement is not a Christian value that I was taught.
Clearly.
(Given how you’re using “judgement”, I understand you to mean something like, “the exercise of the rational faculty”.)
Well, if nothing else, this discussion has succeeded in making the picture a little clearer to me. Angie Demma and Sonya Kelliher-Combs “grew up” in the Catholic faith. In other words, they are ex-Catholics. Ida Hildebrand refers to the multitude of “Recovering Catholics”; presumably she, too, takes this to be a reflection of the artist’s feelings about the childhood faith she abandoned.
I may not have known many Alaskan natives in my life, but I’ve known scores of ex-Catholics. I seem to encounter them everywhere — at Notre Dame, in the Peace Corps, in graduate school — and they always seem to want to tell me why they stopped being Catholic. Sometimes it was a bad experience with a priest, (or a loved one’s bad experience with a priest.) Sometimes it was a complaint about some moral teaching they didn’t like (usually involving sex), or just a general feeling that the Church wasn’t very “modern.” I’ve had lots of long, searching conversations with these types of people, so I’m familiar with that complicated mixture of guilt, bitterness and resentment that ex-Catholics carry around with them every day, a grief that they cannot even name, and a loss that they can never get over. In that light, I can look on this exhibit with compassion.
But surely you realize, Angie Demma, that your claim (that the exhibit is not an attack on Catholics) must be a weak one in light of the other comments that have been left here. Ida Hildebrand speaks belligerently about “Recovering Catholics,” Chatty Catty defensively references her excommunicated Grandmother, C.M Gingrich accuses the Church of (more or less single-handedly, it seems) destroying Alaskan culture, and Sandy Gillespie calls it a “church of pharisees.” None of them denies that the exhibit is anti-Catholic, and all in one way or another praise Sonya Kelliher-Combs for “speaking out” about important issues. Obviously they see their many and various complaints echoed in her exhibit. And when I make this observation (”it seems you all agree that the exhibit is attacking the Church”) a friend of Sonya’s quickly replies with “Sonya knows exactly what she is doing.”
You seem to be in a minority in thinking that the exhibit was not an attack on the Catholic church.
In any case, I don’t think even you are denying that it was using Rosaries to represent pedophiles, while the sacred words of a holy Sacrament were ironically twisted into a rebuke. The Rosaries were being put “in company with” corks and gamblers’ pull-tabs, as if that is the level on which they belonged. I don’t think there’s any way to avoid the conclusion that they are thus being used in a disparaging way.
You try to get around this by arguing that the Rosary is powerful and sacred enough that it cannot be disparaged by a mere museum exhibit. This further shows how little you understand about spirituality. It’s rather like those people who defend blasphemy with the argument that “God can handle it.” Of course God will not be damaged by mere human words! And in the case of the Rosary, did you think we were worried about Our Lady’s self-esteem? Trampling sacred things cannot harm them, but it can harm you, and it rightly and properly wounds the feelings of those who love holy things. Our Lady is the one being disparaged, but it is especially for your sakes, and for the sakes of those whose souls are likewise damaged in seeing this exhibit, that we grieve.
The priestly scandals that followed in the wake of Vatican II were a terrible, terrible episode in the history of the Church, and the spiritual damage that these priests did in alienating souls from their Mother Church was tragic. This post was intended to impress that on our readers, but ironically, all of you, by showing us a bit of the hurt and resentment that you harbor against the faith, have illustrated this better than I could ever have done. So for that I thank you, and I will remember you when as I pray my rosary.
The Church exists to bring God’s message to us.
When the Church fails to value the people and allows pedophilia which is a sin of generations they have no right to think they should be protected. Forgiveness is not forgetting. The Native people and all people who have been abused in the Church need to have a voice. If their voice had not been raised this would still be happening in the church. The people did tell the church leaders these things were happening and the people were ignored. Now they have a louder voice and are being heard. This exhibit is a voice that leads us to understanding.
The rosary is indeed a symbol of the Blessed Virgin a pure woman who had the courage to accept the role of an unwed mother. At that time she could have been stoned for the role she accepted. Mary was pure and brave. It takes bravery to speak out against an institution that has existed for 2000 years and has had billions of followers. It doesn’t take much to imagine how Mary must feel about the priest who gives communion, says the rosary and abuses the parishioners. Maybe Mary would be proud to have her symbol used in the fight agains greater evil.
Could the rosary symbolize the purity that was taken away from these children? The rosary,a symbol, is nothing compared to the loss of innocence and faith of children and people trusting their spiritual leader. We cannnot give them back their purity and trust but we cannot deny them the right to speak.
The Faith that was handed down to us by Jesus did not ask us to honor the Church more than the law of love or the commandments.
PS. I am sure pedophilia did not just happen after Vatican II.
Joan, you need to distinguish between the Church and church*men*, i.e. clergy. The Church is the Bride of Christ, the victim of what these horrible churchmen did. Didn’t Vatican II make it clear to everyone that the Church is more than the guys in collars and robes? The *Church* did not cover up pedophilia. For I am a member of the Church, and the victims of pedophilia are, or at least were, members of the Church, and we never covered up the crimes. Some clergymen did. The Church must always be protected. These criminal clergymen should not. And we should not confuse the two.
Of course the Blessed Virgin would be glad that the Rosary was used to fight pedophilia. But this display quite simply equated the Rosaries with the sins. Or if you argue the contrary, then at least admit it created an ambiguous symbol that scandalized the faithful, i.e. us. Itself another sin. No good comes this way. You cannot equate Rosaries with pull-tabs and corks and think that you have made a sufficiently clear “statement.”
Furthermore, Our Lady was betrothed to her husband, St. Joseph. He considered divorcing her, until an angel told him not to do so. She was not an “unwed mother,” per se, at least not in the modern sense. St. Joseph was initially confused as to what to do, but it is not clear that she was publicly known to anybody else as “an unwed mother.”
“It takes bravery to speak out against an institution that has existed for 2000 years and has had billions of followers. It doesn’t take much to imagine how Mary must feel about the priest who gives communion, says the rosary and abuses the parishioners. Maybe Mary would be proud to have her symbol used in the fight agains greater evil.”
This shows utter confusion. Yes, the Blessed Virgin must be very much upset at priests and bishops and cardinals and I dare say Popes who betrayed the faithful. Absolutelely. But once again, it is simply not right to speak out “against the Church,” the 2,000 year old institution with a billion followers, because the “Church” never committed pedophilia, the “Church” never covered up. Horrible, wretched, abominable men who abused their office IN VIOLATION OF THE CHURCH’S OWN LAWS AND MORALITY did that. These horrible men deserve to be defrocked, prosecuted, persecuted, hounded, scorned, drowned in the Alaskan waters with millstones around their necks, but the CHURCH is innocent. For the Church says that these men should and will suffer.
Until Kelliher-Combs and her defenders finally get this, they will be guilty of ignorance, of false judgment, of insensitivity. This is truly an evil result of the perverted priests’ depravity, that the victims and their allies confuse the guilty with the innocent.
I don’t have access to JSTORs, but there seems to be a wealth of academic articles out there illustrating traditional practices of the Inuit people prior to the arrival of Christianity. These practices seemed to have included the deliberate killing of the youngest daughter of the family during times of famine. Also, many article suggest that the elderly were sometimes killed when they could no longer contribute to the community.
Of course the ultimate evil of the Inuit people were not these institutional killings of the weak, but the practice of false religion and the worshiping of pagan gods.
From all of this they were saved when the hope of salvation from eternal damnation was brought by those first black-robes, those early 17th Century Jesuit fathers.
The acts of the pervert priests in the 2nd half of the 20th Century are horrible and they will be punished for these crimes, if not in this life then surely the next. But the eternal balance sheet of credits and debits will always show that all people owe God and His Church praise and thanksgiving for saving us from the powers of darkness, despite the actions of some modern day churchmen.
Reviewed Work(s):
· Inuit, Glimpses of an Arctic past by David Morrison, Georges-Hebert Germain
Author(s) of Review: Susan K. Short
Arctic and Alpine Research, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Nov., 1996), p. 532
One more thing about the meaning of the Con-Census exhibit, just to add to what Tobias Petrus said. When I saw it, I thought the intent was pretty plain, and that it was mocking the Church and Our Lady. But any doubt I might have had about that have vanished entirely in light of the comments left on this thread.
If I interpreted the exhibit wrongly, and if Sonya Kelliher-Combs had in fact intended to honor Our Lady and to invoke her protection on the victims of priestly abuse, she (or her friends) would have read my post and responded something like this: “Oh, is that how you understood it? Heaven forbid! We love the Blessed Virgin and would never want to insult her! This is what the exhibit really meant…”
That’s how I (or any faithful Catholic) would want to respond if I realized that something I had written or created was being misunderstood in a way that disparaged the Blessed Mother. But that’s not the reaction this post provoked. Most comments have focused on piling up a multitude of grievances against the Church (although, as Tobias Petrus well observed, these are really the mistakes of particular vile and traitorous churchmen, and not of the Church herself), and on praising the artist for giving these complaints a “voice.” I take this as good empirical evidence that it was not merely my non-Inupiaq ignorance that led me to understand the exhibit as an attack on the Church and on the Queen of Heaven. It was viewed this way by many, many people.
Nobody is denying you the right to “speak out” about the wrongs done to Alaskan children. But please, be careful to denounce those who actually did the wrong. This isn’t the fault of Our Lady, nor of the spotless Bride of Christ.
Wow, what a thread. Clearly some people have such a powerful stereotype of Catholics that they are simply incapable of noticing that Clara wasn’t denying the seriousness of the abuse, or claiming insights into the Alaskan natives, but responding to an ‘art’ exhibit.
The ‘artist’ in question should learn from her contemporaries in the ‘conceptual art’ field: the viewer’s subjective response is all that is important. There is no objective message or value in this kind of thing, which I why I use inverted commas. That she’s generated a response at all is an indication of success, so she should be jumping for joy.
Alas, the usual subjective response conceptual art generates in the viewer is the thought ‘what a load of rubbish’, which is why so many of them seem to want to vary it by generating the response ‘how offensive’.
I never saw it as an attack on the Blessed Virgin. I don’t think the Blessed Virgin would see it as an attack either. She asked us to pray the rosary for peace in the world. Again peace cannot be achieved if you do not allow the person or community that was hurt to speak. The artist in this case was speaking through her life experiences.
Symbols mean different things to different people. The rosary is a tool for peace. Prayer is a voice. If the rosary could be used a symbol against pedophile what would make the Blessed Virgin happier. Can’t you quiet down and feel the hurt that Sonia Kelliher-Coombs is trying to express for her people and in this one display for all who have suffered from this. By not allowing their voice you are nailing the casket on their return to the church.
The Church is the body of all of us. It again is the tool to bring us closer to God. The Church as this body contains the most holy and also those who deviate from God’s teachings. Those who have harmed others need the Church more than the holy ones. God gives us free will and forgiveness. I hope the people who have been hurt can eventually feel God’s grace working in their hearts and souls and not turn to suicide, alcohol or complete distrust of the Church and I hope the offenders can eventually come to ask forgiveness. The disgrace and darkness of their lives must be almost unbearable.
The Church was given to us all.
Just last night in our paper they had an article about Clerical Abuse. The Society of Jesus has settled 29 cases and has 104 pending. The Diocese of Anchorage has 135 cases outstanding.
Superior Court Judge Niesje Steinkruger said “the clerical sexual abuse cases are the most complex litigation within the Alaska Court system next to oil and fisheries negotiation.”
She said “This is one of the main important issues facing the Yukon-Delta”.
Finally I would like to say to Clara that we
have a shortage of priests but I have met some of the most grace filled priests in Alaska that I have ever met.
There is nothing more I can say.
Clara,
I am not defensive about my ex-communicated first generation Irish-American. When she died a Bishop
presided over her funeral, which I missed as I was taking my law school final exams. Your assumptions about why we responded are limited by your sureness of your righteousness. Comments being made about Inuit are amusing as we are not Canadian Inuit. Our customs are not all the same.
On a further note to JSP about our ultimate evil as pagans, we did not commit genocide in the name of our faith against millions around the world. I did not comment about the rosary simply because it does not invoke any emotional response from me as I am not Catholic. Nor does the accusation of eating the youngest daughter other than to know for Inupiat, as it is factually wrong. My favorite verses to memorize were about hypocrisy. Drove my Sunday school teachers mad.
Sonya knows her exhibit is successful and has generated discussion about a horrible and deadly sin that has left many lives shattered and lost to suicide. IF you had bothered to read the literature provided with the exhibit, you would have known she gave voice to issues not being addressed in our community.
I am very upset by your response to Sonya Kelliher-Comb’s exhibit. First of all, right is right and wrong is wrong. The Catholic church was absolutely wrong in their decisions to send these child abusing freaks to Alaska because they didn’t know what else to do with them. It is so wrong and by accepting their ignorant and biased opinion, you are not accepting what they did was UNACCEPTABLE. This did not go on in other states like they populated the villages of Alaska, it is so wrong that Alaska took these idiot criminals in and accepted them with open arms only to hurt, harm and get the distrust of their children, and not only a few of them but HUNDREDS of them in a state that has less than 650,000 people!!!!Who are you to judge? Who do you think you are? Obviously, not one of the people who were sacrificed by a person who they trusted and believed in and totally betrayed them! I am totally astonished someone could write what you did and think you are educated in the topic of abuse in Alaska. Obviously you have a ton of research to do to give you any credit to your statements. I am totally appalled and have worked with Alaska Natives who have been sexually abused? so Until you talk with them and really know your subject, I suggest you keep your ignorance to yourself as you really sound more than stupid. Sonya’s exhibit has at least done what it was meant to do to get people talking about the abuse and the people who ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, perhaps if your child was abused by your priest, could you understand the importance of this exhibit. I don’t even have children but it appalls me what they had to go through in these villages with no one to turn to when they thought the person they could turn to was honest. It is very sickening. And the Catholic church defends those who have done the most wrong. Very Sick. I want to vomit.
Shari
Wow, Clara, I think that this post is a great testimony to the vice of wrath. Almost everyone who has posted here has completely taken leave of their senses. They completely and absolutely refuse to take you at your word when you say that you are appalled by priestly child molestation. They refuse to differentiate between the Catholic Church, which is not at fault, and ChurchMEN who most certainly are. Everyone is so obsessed with what the display was “about” that they can’t see how the use of the Rosary in this manner was offensive. This is testimony to the way in which people can become so caught up in victimhood, whether their own or vicariously through others, to the point where they are blind to any other value than the satisfaction of their own grievance. They have assumed the mantle of the Disconsolate Victim, and GOD FORBID anyone offer the least criticism of something (anything!) they may do. This is why we must unite our sufferings to Christ, lest even our genuine trials turn into vanity.
Yes, it is a bit hard to understand, isn’t it? What does this last person take my point to be? That the exhibit offended me because it was too hard on the abusive priests? How could anyone possibly get that from my original post, or any of the comments that followed?
It was, of course, precisely because these crimes were so disgusting that I am offended to see them represented by Rosaries, symbols of that purest and most innocent Lady, who would not harm any creature on Earth, least of all a child.