Posted by Siamang on: 12.17.2007 /
This is a page from a new coloring book released by the New York Archdiocese. According to Newsweek, the comic book, “Being Friends, Being Safe, Being Catholic” is mostly pretty innocuous, with pages of general safety, piety and charity. But then there’s the page included above. A smiling angel warns of the dangers of being alone in some very Christian room while the altar boy reaches into some sack.
I don’t want to call the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal a scandal, because for me this is way worse than the trivial things we call scandals in our society. I think the word “scandal” refuses to acknowlege the horror and gravity of the situation, and the cover-up and the culture of infallibility that contributed to it.
And hopefully besides the prurient interest in seeing this comic book page, we can use this moment to reflect on how we talk to children and what we teach them. So what does this panel teach?
I might have a strange perspective as an atheist, but I probably see a lot of things in this panel that aren’t intended.
Visually, the image seems to be saying a number of odd things. The angels somehow imply that there are angels watching over us, but don’t think they’re going to protect you if that door is shut. Look at the body posture of the priest… his arms are folded, not relaxed at his side. He’s waving but the rest of his posture isn’t reassuring to me. The angel on the other side of the door is frightening to me… she’s just there, right outside that door… but blocked from coming in the door by the folded arms of the priest. Is she kept out because she’s female, and females aren’t allowed to touch whatever magical objects are kept hidden in that sack in the Cross Room?
And let’s look at that door for a moment. First off, it’s got a big cross on it, as do all the cupboards. But what’s really creeping me out is the stuff piled behind that door. This makes the room seem like a broom closet, and I see that stuff hidden behind the door, and I think, man, if that stuff tips over, it’ll shut that door. That door wants to shut. Personally, I’m a visual artist, and so I look at the imagery for clarity and intention… and putting stuff behind the door says something. It’s probably not intentional, but I just see that door and the staging of this scene, the angel’s entry being blocked by the waving priest, the boy wrestling with something unshown under what looks like a blanket… and I’m frightened for that lad.
Now, this angel (female, naturally) is telling children “For safety’s sake, a child and an adult SHOULDN’T be ALONE in a closed room together.” Now, that’s just stupidly imprecise. You can’t teach children to watch out for things and give them such wrong information. Children are OFTEN alone with one parent, one grandparent, one babysitter, etc. You have to teach children what you really mean, because this is so intentionally vague. Any child reading this will see that it’s contrary to what is done in their own family, and disregard the warning.
Educators warn parents not to teach their children “never talk to strangers”. Why? Because they see their parents talk to strangers every day, and parents encourage them to say “say thank you to the nice lady who liked your hat”. So they know that sometimes you talk to strangers. They’re practiced in talking to strangers. What they aren’t practiced in, if you just tell them “DTTS”, is the ability to tell who to talk to and who not to. If your child is lost, you WANT them to talk to a stranger, and not wait until a stranger talks to them. The key is, teaching a child to be able to “find a mommy” and know when it’s okay to talk to a stranger and when it’s not. Children can be taught how to tell if it’s okay to talk to someone or not… if you’re open and honest with them about the dangers and how to spot the danger signs.
So let’s get back to this comic. It should read, “For safety’s sake, church policy states that church adults shouldn’t be alone in a closed room with children.” Not the other way around. Children should know where the danger actually is, and not a blanket ban like “don’t be alone with an adult.”
I look at the image of this room, with five crosses, a chalice, a sunset, two angels and a priest, and the weight of that door… and I wonder, are children reassured by this? Do they feel safe in this room? Do they feel safe in this religion, where priests and angels alike failed them, and their protection is now up to them?
-Siamang
Comment by: Karen
1Wow, your visual training really comes to light with this post. I looked at it, decided it was vaguely “creepy” but could never pick out all that detail that you got! I didn’t even notice the brooms and stuff piled behind the door until you mentioned it.
This must be why they pay you the big bucks, right?! ;-)
I too objected to the “don’t talk to strangers” commands that my kids got from school and TV and Sunday school when they were young. It made them unnecessarily fearful and caused them not to respond to friendly adults who engaged them in public, even when they were with me.
I was much more receptive to the instruction they were given about not letting anyone (stranger or not) touch them in certain private places. I thought that was much more useful and practical.
Comment by: Julie Marie
2I think the boy is getting ready to put on his altar robe.
I agree, though, that the message here is poorly delivered. The business about the doors and windows is really adult stuff. My son’s daycare has frosted glass in all the doors that are outside the classroooms, and clear glass in all the classroom doors. My son doesn’t know why this is, and that is fine with me.
Parents, educators, coaches, clergy and facility designers are the ones that need educating on the points listed in this cartoon.
Children need specific basics, as mentioned above, plus they need to know they can talk to Mommy and Daddy.
Siamang, I really like your idea of “find a mommy”. I’ve been turning the whole “stranger danger” idea over in my mind, trying to figure out how to help my son make a good decision if he needs to, without tearing away his perception that the world is a friendly place and the people in in are happy he is here. “Find a Mommy” is very useful. Thanks!
Comment by: Eliza
3Very astute observations, Siamang. Thanks for taking us through the picture.
I’m sure it’s just me, but the boy looks like he’s about to deliver a baby, from under some lady’s hospital gown. (But seriously, after reading your comments, I’m struck by how the rack of gowns on the right seem to hem the kid in. He doesn’t have anywhere to run!)
Who is the priest waving to, and why?
And, since when do angels look like Bratz?
Comment by: Julie
4Yeah…good observations. But I think that kid is actually putting on one of those gowns, not reaching into a sack.
You know, the weirdest thing to me isn’t WHAT the angel says but the fact that she’s warning the kid. She’s putting the responsibility for not getting molested on the kid, really. Shouldn’t she be telling the guy in the doorway this rule?
Teachers are often told not to be alone in rooms with students. I wonder if priests are ever told that in any official capacity.
Comment by: Siamang
5I’m sure their lawyers tell them this a lot now.
Comment by: Siamang
6Julie Marie, I think the key really is to try and keep your child able to make decisions on who to talk to.
Quiz them when you’re out in the world, at the mall, at the park… Say “okay, let’s say you got lost right now… look around and tell me who you’d approach.” Then give them feedback on who you’d want them to approach– find a mommy. Say “what would you tell them?”
Because really, you WANT them to tell a stranger they’re lost. They will be better at finding a good person this way. You want them making the choice as to who to approach, and “stranger danger” doesn’t teach them that. You don’t want a child who’s too afraid to talk to someone just waiting for someone to approach them.
Comment by: benjamin ady
7siamang
thank you for the post.
It wierds me out that the origin of the voice bubble seems to be pretty vague–is it coming from the cross on the doorway?
Why aren’t more specific instructions being given? How about something like “It’s never okay for an adult to touch your penis or vagina. And it’s never okay for an adult to show you their penis or vagina, or to touch you with thier penis or vagina. And it’s never okay for an adult to touch you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable. and if any of these things happen, here’s what to do …”
I mean we role play having safe bodies and strong boundaries, and practice saying “NO!” very loudly, and “I don’t keep secrets from mom and dad, and that’s not okay, and I’m leaving now, and that’s my private ________” and so forth.
The Roman catholics could avoid a shitload of trouble in the future if they would just let the fricking priests marry, like normal people. I mean … quintuple DUH-ola!!! Dams are *never* engineered with no way at all for water to get through, ya know. Cause that would be a bit … stupid.
Comment by: BobbyEarle
8The floating angel is kinda cute…
Is that mascara?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
9As Siamang and Benjamin have pointed out, the vagueness is unhelpful.
I think a coloring book is the wrong way to deal with a topic like unsafe adults. I agree with warning children but this seems a weird way to broach the subject.
Benjamin, I can see that allowing married priests could help by opening up the field for more candidates who are not interested in doing illegal things with children. I assume this is what you meant rather than, “if we let the people attracted to children get married they’ll leave children alone” - since it’s not usually that simple. By limiting the priesthood to people who don’t want to get married, the church makes the pool of eligible candidates much smaller, while continuing to include anyone who doesn’t want to get married because the people they are attracted to aren’t eligible marriage partners.
When I went to church I was glad most of the leaders understood what it was like to be a spouse and parent. It seems like a priesthood entirely of unmarried people who aren’t parents would not be able to relate as well to all their parishioners who are married with children as a mixed one which includes at least some spouses and parents.
Comment by: cautious
10In heaven, all the angels automatically have mascara.
(and zero body fat, but, that goes without saying)
Comment by: Eliza
11…including Gabriel.
Comment by: cautious
12Angels appear as the gender we wish them to, so, Gabriel sometimes wears mascara and sometimes doesn’t.
(stops making up theological claims, although it is so fun!)
Comment by: Laser Potato
13Sonic Sez: THAT’S NO GOOD!
Comment by: cautious
14If an angel wants to touch you in a place or a way that makes you feel uncomfortable?
Comment by: Julie
15You should let the angel touch you. That’s not a sin. It’s just good clean fun.
Comment by: Siamang
16“Touched by an Angel?”
Comment by: Matt
17Great post.
One thing I’d say this does well is hone in on the fact that the majority of abuse cases perpetrated against children are committed by someone whom the child knows and trusts.
The reason I bring that up is actually in reference to another picture from the book you can see here.
I’d be interested to hear what you make of this one. Personally, I always shake my head a little at messages aimed at scaring people from the Internet. This isn’t to say that the Web can’t be a dangerous place and that education isn’t a good thing. I just feel that the number of abuse cases that begin on the Net are by far the minority, yet receive the majority of media attention.
Your take?
Comment by: Kathleen
18They’re in the sacristy, definitely not a broom closet. I’d guess that the “brooms” behind the door are collection baskets. No comment as to whether they’re precariously positioned or about to fall and close the door. The altar boy is putting on his robe. Also, I don’t think that’s a sunset, but an image of the radiant Eucharist.
I agree that the vagueness and flat-out incorrectness of “Don’t be alone with an adult” is unhelpful, but I’d imagine the Church is trying to put out a message that would be helpful to a kid in any potentially dangerous situation - not just one involving a “Church adult” - and maybe mitigate the assumption that abuse is more likely to happen within the Catholic Church than anywhere else.
I know Catholic groups who took issue with this particular page of that coloring book for similar reasons. It’s got good intentions, and trying to say something important, but does the priest have to look like a complete sketch ball? (Actually, he’s the spitting image of my high school Vice Principal.) Must the angel really look like a Bratz doll? What is that other angel at the door doing anyway? It’s a very odd way of getting their point across, and they seem to send mixed messages.
As for “stranger danger,” I remember reading that the little boy who was lost for several days earlier this year on a Scouting trip was on the trail the entire time - except when he heard people coming, at which point he hid from them, because they were strangers, and he wasn’t supposed to talk to strangers. I wish I remembered the specifics of the case, and I’d link you, but it was very high profile, and I think within the past year.
Comment by: Siamang
19Hi Matt…
My take on that other image is that it’s so CLUTTERED. It’s got the kid, the newspaper clippings, the pervert, the angel, two computers, the back of the girl’s chair, a third of the page is text-bubbles… It’s so busy that it fails ultimately to be a coloring book. I mean, really, what kid is going to color that?!?! “I’m going to color the pervert’s stained wifebeater tank top Butter Yellow!” If they were going to make a comic book, they should do it. But this is a failure as a coloring book.
This whole panel reminds me of a Jack Chick comic, except that the leering perv isn’t saying “Haw Haw Haw”.
Thanks for the input, Kathleen, I’m unfamiliar with the details of what’s depicted here.
My thinking is, if you’re going to educate kids about personal safety, you need to really educate them, and not put out a coloring book. I think this book fails as education and fails as a coloring book.
That is, unless the other pages are much more crayon-friendly than these!
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
20To me, the cartoon says, “Don’t trust men, but you can trust women.”
Comment by: Amy Black
21Wow- this post was right-on. It’s totally unfair to put all the responsibility on the kid to not get molested. Sounds like the PRIESTS are the ones who need the coloring book, not the kids.