Back to MPD home page 
TopI’ve realized for a long time that vestments, especially in some colors, can be extremely hard for some. What was a new and surprising idea was that I was seen as "hiding" behind vestments. That sort of idea had never crossed my mind. I’ve thought about it since then, and I hope some others have done some rethinking about the idea too.
What vestments are for me are special clothes that are a sign of my role in the community, special because something special is being done. In a sense they are a kind of uniform, in another sense they are a sign of respect. I don’t "hide" behind them, and if there is a significant difference between what I say and do then and what I say and do at other times, to that extent I am a hypocrite or a liar.
What you are raising as an issue is profound. I know when I am in vestments and leading in prayer I don’t act like I am informally chit-chatting, playing with a puppy, disagreeing with the computer, or talking on the telephone. The style of prayer is different than at other times. In a sense, you could say that I am touching a different facet or aspect of myself. But, this isn’t switching. There is no amnesia, there’s no inner conflict, I don’t have to promise to let the "play with the puppy part" out later. That just isn’t part of it. The guiding beliefs and values of my life are exactly the same, but I usually don’t discuss those beliefs with a puppy.
I think a different phenomenon may be what you are connecting with the idea of vestments.
Is there a fear that someone you’ve come to know and experience in a normal, non-frightening way may suddenly, unexpectedly, "turn into" someone entirely different? I’ve heard suggestions that something like that experience is pretty common. For some, that may have happened with people who were well-respected religious leaders. At best, that would lead to a sense of continuous uncertainty. An additional question would be, "At what point can I relax?"
I’m bringing this up because it’s a dynamic that I think can interfere with growth in dealing with religious issues. If this discussion is too difficult right now, I’d suggest waiting for another time. (Maybe I should start a rating system, like the movies use, except I’m usually not sure how tough a particular subject will be, and I think it varies a lot from person to person.)
What happens with the typical perpetrator of sexual abuse? What goes on in their heads? What makes it possible for them to abuse repeatedly and go undiscovered for a long time?
One author who works extensively with convicted perpetrators as well as with victims of abuse has made some interesting observations on the characteristics he has found to be common in the perpetrator population. Almost invariably, they were abused, but rather than having upsetting flashbacks, rather than having post-traumatic symptoms, they reenact the abuse in various ways by taking the role of the abuser.
In doing that, they in effect create an alternate reality that they enter. In that reality, in a reversal of what they experienced in abuse, they make the rules, they are the center of all. Any wish, any desire, must be instantly gratified. In acting out the abuse on another human being, that other person becomes for them whatever they choose. All responsibility is transferred unto that other person. The victims becomes in his eyes less than a person and whatever age the perpetrator chooses. Any protests or tears or screams are heard as enjoyment. Afterward, the perpetrator may forget that the abuse ever occurred, or he may only retain a fuzzy, blurred memory of it. He may have a memory that has no connection with what really happened.
That alternate reality may be highly elaborate, or may be essentially simple and direct.
What is the point? The perpetrator in this view is fully able to live two very separate, very credible lives. Most perpetrators are able to keep the two realities highly separate. If they don’t, they are rather quickly identified and caught. If the two realities are successfully kept separate the person may present a picture to the world of a highly moral, respected family man, a good and conscientious worker, an active member of a church, someone charitable and a good citizen. Only those forced to enter his alternate reality see the other life, the other person, the other picture. The abused child, the battered spouse, the prostitute sadistically attacked see the amoral cruelty, the violence, or the breach of trust. The second view appears incredible in comparison to the first picture. Those who know the person in the "conventional" reality find it hard to believe that he could ever harm anyone.
Another author, doing research on the Holocaust, asked the very logical question: "How could a Nazi doctor do terrible things at the concentration camps and then return to his family and be a good husband and father? How could a doctor attempt to explain bizarre and generally useless experiments as reasonable science, in opposition to values and beliefs previously held?"
That author developed a term called "doubling" to describe living a double life.
The suggestion is that in both cases dissociative processes are used to allow activities and behaviors that otherwise would seem to be unlikely or impossible.
If someone had contact with a perpetrator operating from that kind of a stance, displaying that kind of a dynamic, it may very well appear to a victim that suddenly, without real explanation, the person changed. They might even come to expect that other people routinely have that kind of alternate reality as well. Before, survival depended on figuring out how to function within someone else’s alternate reality, and it may be difficult to understand that there are others who don’t live part of their life in that "dark side."
Vestments may be a kind of symbol for the fear of others suddenly ending up being very different people. There may be a sense of needing to go through life looking for an out-of-place gesture, a comment that doesn’t seem to fit, a contradiction in someone’s value or belief system, anything that might help identify those who have created that kind of alternate reality. In light of the past, that might be a very wise thing to do.
The problem is that no one is completely consistent. Everyone at times makes an unthinking statement or an uncharacteristic response. That doesn’t mean that they’re a secret perpetrator. That doesn’t mean that they’re living double lives or trying to hide their true identity. Maybe in some ways some victims find it easier to actually seek out someone who is abusive or violent—at least then you know where you stand.
In terms of religious issues, what implications would this have in trying to deal with the idea of God? Is this part of why it’s so difficult to handle uncertainty? The idea that some things just happen? Is this part of the difficulty in figuring out who is and is not "worthy of trust?"
Is there also a problem in directly asking what’s going on when someone appears to be very inconsistent? Can you accept the answer that is given? What happens when someone refuses to admit that they can be in error? What happens when another person insists that any difference of opinion means that your view is wrong?
These are some thoughts. Please let me know what you think.
© Fr J Mahoney