Because they care so much about the children

As you all know, the media jihad against the Catholic Church is driven entirely by their caring so much more about our children than we do.

Interview with Dave Pierre: (H/T:  Mark Shea)

When I was living in Los Angeles, I became a contributing writer to, the popular media-bias blog of the Media Research Center. I would frequently look at the Los Angeles Times. A number of years ago, I noticed that the paper published a very large, 3,800-word piece on the front page about decades-old abuses that were alleged to have been committed by Catholic clergy in remote villages of Alaska. Indeed, many of the stories were heart-wrenching, painful, and tragic. However, months later, the shocking story of a Southern California teacher who may have molested as many as 200 children was buried on page B3.

I soon began to notice a trend: the Times was often giving front-page coverage to stories about Catholic priests alleged to have committed abuse decades ago. Meanwhile, arrests of public school teachers for abuse happening today were often not reported or buried in the “news briefs” section.

The double standard was glaring.

A 2004 report commissioned by the US Department of Education relayed the shocking finding that “nearly 9.6 percent of [public school] students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.” Yet the report was barely touched in the major media. The author of the report, Hofstra University’s Charol Shakeshaft, later said, “Think the Catholic Church has a problem? The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”

Another section of that report chronicled an early 1990s study that revealed that zero of 225 cases of teacher sex abuse in New York were reported to police.

Two hundred and twenty-five abusers. None of them reported to police. By all measures, this would be defined as a cover-up. Yet the media has never seemed too motivated to follow up on this.

As far as statistics of false accusations, I have read credible estimates that as many as one-half of all abuse accusations against Catholic priests are “completely false” or “greatly exaggerated.”

However, the most recent and reliable numbers in this matter come from the Archdiocese of Boston. In August, the archdiocese released sweeping lists of all of its diocesan priests who have been publicly accused of abuse in past decades.

One can examine the number of Boston priests who were found to have committed abuse versus the number of those whose cases were studied and found to be false. In the end, one can demonstrate the sobering figure that one-third of accused priests in the Archdiocese of Boston were accused falsely. (I provide all of the supporting numbers in my book.)

Again, this is an important matter that the media has not been eager to explore.

One Church leader who once thought that it would be productive to reach out to SNAP is Archbishop Timothy Dolan. When he was a prelate in Milwaukee years ago, he believed that making himself available to the group would be a constructive expression of support to abuse victims.

He soon learned the hard way that such an overture would not be welcomed.

At a contentious visit to a parish in Milwaukee, a member of SNAP actually spat in Archbishop Dolan’s face. The member then roared that he would not be silent “until there was a ‘going out of business’ sign in front of every Catholic parish, church, school, and outreach center.”

“That’s when I knew I should have listened to those who told me that working with them would not be helpful,” recalled Archbishop Dolan.

I also asked the reporter, “What if someone anonymously telephoned the newspaper today and said, ‘(I used the reporter’s own name) abused me 30 years ago?’ Would it be OK if the newspaper published this accusation and publicly suspended you while it conducted a months-long investigation?”

The reporter seemed genuinely sobered by such a thought. He understood the point I was trying to make. It’s easy for people to agree that a Catholic priest should be publicly suspended when someone lodges a decades-old accusation against him. But would people accept this same strict policy at their own workplaces and apply it to themselves? Most people would not, especially if it meant that their name was going to be plastered across the media landscape as a “credibly accused child molester.”

Also, I’m sure that the New York Times, in its boundless concern for THE CHILDREN, is going to be all over this story any day now:

Speaking of little boys, leave it to The New York Times to find a front-page story unfit to print because it wasn’t anti-Catholic: The Brooklyn DA recently arrested an astounding 85 Jewish Orthodox men on charges of child sex abuse. Back in 1985 a Hasidic “therapist” was indicted for abusing five boys, but police suspected he abused more than a hundred. Avrohom Mondrowitz fled to Israel, where he remains to this day a free man. Those nice guys who shoot rock-throwing Palestinian children refuse to extradite him. Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes now has to tread carefully. Fifty rabbis have signed a public announcement in Yiddish denouncing the Hasidic family who went to the cops. They asked—now get this—for any believer to kill the family that informed “on fellow Jews.” So what will happen to the 85 perverts? All I know is the Times has not published a word, whereas when the Catholic Church sex scandal broke, it led the news in the front page for months.

So far, about 38 cases in the Brooklyn D.A.’s Project Kol Tzedek — which the [New York] Post translates as Hebrew for “voice of justice” … — have been closed, with just under two thirds resulting in the perps walking free. Many pleaded to lesser changes, with the Post claiming that some got off mostly scot-free because “victims or their parents backed out under community pressure.” (see here)

12 Responses

  1. 1. You’re right that Catholic clergy aren’t anymore prone to sexual abuse than teachers or other clergy, and you’re right that the media doesn’t give Catholicism a fair shake.

    However, I don’t think it’s quite true that the Catholic church hasn’t had particular problems dealing with the abuse in it’s midst. It’s often not the crime that gets you, but the coverup. And the Catholic hierarchy often did try to sweep their problems under the rug. From an article you cited before:

    “The Catholic Church has certainly had a history of acting in a highly defensive manner and circling the wagons on this topic. This has made people both inside and outside of the Catholic Church see red. In many cases, they have not treated victims and their families with understanding and compassion. This has made victims and non-victims alike also see red. Individual church leaders have not managed many of these cases very well.

    One of the main reasons why this problem has plagued the church is because, unlike most other religious groups and organizations, the Catholic Church does not have the checks and balances of having a powerful, influential, and large board of directors who hire, fire, and frequently evaluate clergy performance and behavior that can nip this problem in the bud.”

    2. The case of the rabbis here doesn’t seem to be a data point in favour of traditional communities in general. The clerical establishment in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Jewish communities has often seemed more concerned with maintaining their own authority than in dealing properly with the cases of abuse before them. It does bring the ability of traditional religious authorities to clean their own houses into question.

    The common denominator in both cases seems to be clericalism.

  2. I agree that the media is much less aggressive in its reporting of alleged abuse within the public school system. They tend to do the same thing with abuse alleged within a homeschooling family as well.

    I think The Man Who Was rightly notes that the charges of a cover-up played a large role in the RCC story and added to the determination of reporters to leave no stone unturned. The fact that they have an ideological bone to pick with the Church just made it that much worse.

  3. It’s not about the kids and they know it. It’s about bludgeoning the Catholic Church with whatever they’ve got at the moment.

    These same groups and media outlets will be penning op-eds in 10-15 years about how “inter-generational sex” should not be outlawed and that opposing pedophilia amounts to bigotry (see here: ). You know, “born this way.”

    Of course, we hear today this is “unthinkable” and that it will never happen because it is obviously wrong and a morally atrocious. They should be reminded that homosexual marriage was, some 20 years ago and even for the most committed liberals, “unthinkable,” “obviously wrong” and “morally atrocious” — adjectives that are now used to describe the opposition.

  4. Right. The intense focus on abuse in the Catholic church comes from two sources:

    1. The particularly poor way that the RCC hierarchy handled these cases.
    2. The media having a pre-existing ideological axe to grind.

    Both were necessary.

  5. Is the public school systeem a clergy-ridden traditionalist community?

    Also, has anyone but me thought about how the media and civil justice system making it ruinous for an organization to have an accusation made against one of its members might be a driving force behind cover-ups?

  6. You just don’t tend to find public schools sending teachers who are caught abusing kids to a different public school to get them out of their hair. Nor refusing to co-operate with authorities when its found out.

    The cover-ups in the Catholic church happened decades before any part of the media ever went into a feeding frenzy over this.

  7. >You just don’t tend to find public schools sending teachers who are caught abusing kids to a different public school to get >them out of their hair. Nor refusing to co-operate with authorities when its found out.

    Yes you do. As they say in the article I linked, it’s called “passing the trash”.

  8. If the NY Times is to be believed, the U.S. military is already normalizing sensitivity training to encourage troops to be non-judgmental towards Afghan pederasts.

    See RICHARD A. SHWEDER’s 2007 NY Times commentary “A True Culture War”:

    “Nevertheless the military voices on the show had their winning moments, sounding like old-fashioned relativists, whose basic mission in life was to counter ethnocentrism and disarm those possessed by a strident sense of group superiority. Ms. McFate stressed her success at getting American soldiers to stop making moral judgments about a local Afghan cultural practice in which older men go off with younger boys on “love Thursdays” and do some “hanky-panky.” “Stop imposing your values on others,” was the message for the American soldiers. She was way beyond “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and I found it heartwarming.”

    Even if the NY Times columnist is exaggerating for the sake of “irony,” the NY Times’ own indifference is telling.

  9. The most amazing thing about this media saturation-bombing of the RC Church is how – throughout it all- homosexual pederasty has been kept *completely* distinct from homosexuality; such that the powerful statistical correlation simply does not register.

    This really *is* amazing – although I suppose there was a precedent in the opposite direction with Oscar Wilde – who is at the same time a homosexual martyr and saint (celebrated) and a convicted homosexual pederast (ignored).

  10. Absolutely. It baffles me how Leftism manages to use homosexual child abuse as a weapon against people who are AGAINST homosexuality.

    Has anyone, on TV, print, or whatever, EVER pointed out that child abusing priests are HOMOSEXUALS?

    This is just another illustration of how conservatives, non-Leftists, etc. are completely incapable of making any sort of defense against the Leftist onslaught, even when they are thrown softballs like this.

  11. I was once at forum where a liberal was claiming that males that sexually abuse (young) males are heterosexual. A couple of people where trying to say that it is males that sexually abuse (young) women that are heterosexual but nope he keep with his nonsense. It’s terrifying when you can’t even dialogue with basic semantics (e.g. homosexual = same and therefore one person of one sex sexually abusing a person of the same is homosexual).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: