In recent years we have encountered news reports of famous, well respected individuals being exposed as having a dark side in their lives; very dark side of sexually abusing women or children. Famous philanthropists, spiritual leaders, musical conductors, and people of great wealth have been credibly accused, and now fortunately some of whom are being convicted, of utilizing their position to exploit people under their influence. The list does not exclude psychiatrists, therapists, or healers – professional or otherwise.
We presume that those we revere conduct themselves in accord with high moral standards both in public and private. We then feel betrayed and at a loss to understand their (formerly) hidden heinous conduct that has now been exposed.
I am writing this as part of my personal response to the case of Jean Vanier. His life’s work inspired many people, including me, in their attitude and service towards the mentally challenged. But Vanier, always characterized during his life as a devout Catholic, had “manipulative and emotionally abusive” sexual relationships with six women in France, between 1970 and 2005. This is according to a statement by L’Arche International, the organization he founded that did and does so much to benefit the mentally challenged. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51596516
While I truly hope the recent charges that surfaced after his death does not harm the work of the L’Arche International, I have no doubt that it will. Here was a man who for all intents and purposes was an extremely good person in public but whose dark side was kept hidden as he violated women in private.
It is important to remember that his conduct did not just the harm the women he abused. He knew or should have known that it would be revealed at some point and, as a result, that it would definitely harm the work of L’Arche. He put his own self-interests ahead of his care for the marginalized group that was the foundation for the power/charisma that he then abused.
There is a painful and extreme cognitive dissonance for me. I followed his public career with joy as he helped a very marginalized community. But the characterization of Vanier as a “devout Catholic” doesn’t compute with the abuse charges confirmed by his own organization. I feel betrayed both by his public persona and by myself in my presumption that his public deeds were in keeping with what I imagined were his private morals.
In trying to make sense of this, I thought about when I watched Cowboy movies as a young child. The first thing I did was try to identify who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. Until I did that, I couldn’t settle in to watch the movie.
Just like me, most young children are told that people are clearly divided into good and bad. This is simply not true. In the real world, that presumption is not useful in navigating one’s way because people are almost never 100% good nor 100% bad. There is no clear line of demarcation separating them.
For a child, it is their parent(s) that are responsible for protecting them from the bad people and bad circumstances that one encounters in life until they are old enough to have learned how to navigate this world of moral grays for themselves. For a very young child, they cannot possibly navigate the world unaided. For a child being abused by someone who others presume are indeed protecting that child, the level of betrayal is incredibly more horrific – as detailed in the work of Dr. Jennifer Freyd.
For such abused children, it is no surprise that abusers often appear to other adults as ordinary decent individuals while behind closed doors they are the exact opposite. A young child keys off of the attitude of other adults toward their abuser, and so are often unable to understand what is safe, what is normal, and what is simply evil. But children try to bond with their primary caregiver, no matter the conduct of that caregiver, because that bonding to the primary caregiver is a biological imperative.
This episode of Jean Vanier is a painful opportunity for me; a very small echo of the betrayal experienced by an abused child. It remains only a very small echo because Vanier was not responsible for me: I never met him. He did nothing to me personally but it is an echo of sorts because I do feel deeply betrayed.
At the same time, it confirms the advice I gave my patients when I was practicing psychiatry 1) to never ignore the messages from internal system protectors; 2) to be very careful when engaging with anyone those protectors caution about; and 3) to completely avoid anyone those protectors are going full red alert about. In particular, I recommend re-reading my posts on the issue of forgiveness: https://www.engagingmultiples.com/meaning-forgiveness-part-1/
