Skip to main content

Guess Where You Can Find the Real Pedophiles

When political discourse turns to pedophilia — which it should never, ever do — it helps to separate fiction from non-fiction.

The fictional narrative, widely disseminated by QAnon-addled propagandists, is that the Democratic Party is a vast conspiracy of ravenous child abusers, who just barely managed to cover up Hillary Clinton’s bloodthirsty coven in the basement of a D.C. pizza parlor.

The non-fiction narrative — profusely-documented but with a much lower profile — is that both the priesthood of the Catholic Church and the ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) have indulged and protected a stunningly large number of child molesters, and allowed them to enjoy long and predatory careers within their respective churches.

In the last few weeks, these two stories flew somewhat under the radar, but both are worth looking at, not so much for the staggering hypocrisy of its characters — hypocrisy fatigue has long since rendered us numb — as for its legal and political implications, which have yet to play out.

The more widely-circulated of the two stories was the brutal report from the SBC’s own third-party investigation into alleged sexual abuse by its own ministers. Over at least twenty years, hundreds of parishioners had reported abuse at every level of the ministry, from top leadership to youth pastors, while the SBC either turned a blind eye, or actively worked to discredit the accusers.

The investigation was commissioned by the SBC in the wake of a damning 2019 article, which reported on the nearly 400 preachers who had been convicted of sex crimes. Many of these felons have continued to work within the church, moving on to other congregations that were not informed of their new pastor’s criminal past.

At the instigation of SBC’s lawyers — who are rightly concerned about the litigation-rich environment their clients have conjured — the SBC was backed into hiring a third party to assess the allegations and what they might mean.

Among the findings, big surprise, was that "survivors and others who reported abuse were ignored, disbelieved, or discredited.”

In other words, the victims suffered twice — first from the abusive acts themselves, then from the shunning and shaming of the people they turned to for help. Blaming the victim is a tried-and-true tactic these days, whether that victim was raped by a minister in church, or shredded by an active shooter in school.

The report further revealed that the SBC had, for several years, been keeping its own secret list of apparent abusers, yet took no action against them. Again, big surprise. Cover-ups always take on a life of their own, and they tend to unravel at the first sign of real scrutiny — leaving heartbreak, yes, but also litigation in its wake.

Activist Christa Brown, now 61, who was herself abused in her church at age 16, put it in perspective:

[Being a preacher in the church is] a perfect profession for a con artist. All he has to do is talk a good talk and convince people he’d been called by God, and bingo he gets to be a Southern Baptist minister. Then he can infiltrate the entirety of the SBC, move from church to church, from state to state, go to bigger churches and more prominent churches, where he has more influence and power...

And with that influence and power come more and younger prey. The real pedophiles, the non-fictional ones, see churches as “soft targets,” where children are taught to trust and obey their pastoral leaders. This, of course, makes it easy — literally child’s play — to violate that trust and terrorize those children into silence. The emotional trauma stays with the victims the rest of their lives.

Which brings us to the other, similar story, the one about the Catholic Church, whose history of pedophilia goes back far longer, and whose recent legal problems surely represent but a fraction of the criminal predation swept under the rug by its hierarchy over the last dozen centuries.

As the Church continues to grapple with the worldwide deluge of lawsuits arising from institutionalized sexual abuse, it is the State of California that is now bringing the wrath of God, so to speak, down on it.

State legislators looked at the entire pedophile-priest scandal, so richly documented over the last two decades, and decided that too many victims had been cheated by time. They’d been abused by their priests in the past — often in the distant past — and the statute of limitations had unfairly excluded both their testimony and any chance at restitution.

So the legislature passed a new law giving victims a three-year window, within which they can file civil lawsuits against the Church, regardless of when the abuse occurred. That window expires at the end of this year, and it has yielded a bumper crop of new abuse claims.

Appellate courts have already upheld the legality of such claims, which leaves the Church no choice but to take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes, that Supreme Court. The one that recently reinvented itself as an arch-conservative Catholic tribunal, a quasi-subsidiary of Opus Dei. The one that now effectively runs America.

That very Supreme Court is being asked to rule on the constitutionality of a California law that would cost the Catholic Church untold billions in damages. Any bets on who wins that ruling?

The interesting part will be the majority opinion, and how the Court tries to spin pedophilia in the context of organized religion. Do they just ignore the overwhelming evidence of the priesthood’s criminal behavior? Do they sidestep the torment and subsequent sliming of the victims? Do they dance around the Church hierarchy’s efforts to downplay, buy off, and otherwise cover up for pastoral predators?

Maybe they’ll trot out some QAnon-ish version of both-siderism, declaring that “the left” is somehow equally to blame for the “epidemic” of pedophilia that seems to exist only on the right. Maybe “Pizzagate” will be cited. Maybe non-fiction will be ruled inadmissible.

However these two stories play out, it’s worth remembering that it’s the church officials who are implicated, not their parishioners.

Which does not excuse the parishioners. They have been, in many ways, complicit in their own victimhood. They’ve passively accepted a culture of willful gullibility, where grifters and predators are allowed, even encouraged, to flourish.

A church that would tolerate monsters preying on its young would surely tolerate any amount of chicanery, as long as it comes wrapped in the trappings of religion. 

From there, it’s but a small step to the vapid propaganda of a Tucker Carlson, or the world-class predations of a Donald Trump. A step both these organized religions have long since taken.

 

Comments

  1. It's not a stretch to imagine that the parents of some of the children in question were culpable in the cover-up. Now, as adults, those children must come to terms with a society that cared more about other things. I can't fathom how that manifests among "good Christians."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great in-depth analysis of the church-child setting.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I