Defrocked priest Paul Shanley was convicted today on 4 counts of child rape in connection with several incidents that occurred in the 1980's. Shanley's case has made national headlines since his arrest in 2002. More than that, though, this case has been a flagship cause for survivors of sexual abuse by priests and other clergy. Over the last two years a number of people came forward with stories of rape and horrific sexual abuse by this man that they were supposed to trust, their priest, Father Paul Shanley.
Ultimately, however, most of that testimony was deemed unusable at trial, and the case that went to court involved a man who had repressed memories of his childhood abuse and only later recalled them while under therapy, sometime in 2002. This is a phenomenon referred to as repressed memory and among those who believe it, repressed memory is thought to be a common response to childhood sexual trauma.
But repressed memory itself is controversial. Many psychiatrists believe it to be little better than myth, or even "planted" memories of events that never happened, things merely suggested by an unscrupulous therapist. Shrinkette has a good roundup of recent thought on the subject here, so I won't reinvent the wheel.
Which brings me to the point. What do you think ultimately convicted Paul Shanley? Was it the press, and their dogged coverage af every new victim's story? Was it faith in the system that brought him to trial, even after so many years and such questionable testimony? Or was it the conviction that someone needed to be brought to justice for all the suffering of the abused?
Or was it something else?
