and the same Rolling Stone reporter behind the fake rape case against UVa started that witch hunt... except in this case, three innocent priests were jailed and one died there.
so why claim abuse when nothing happened? TheseStoneWalls explains:
Do you recall “ ,” my 2005 article in Catalyst? It quoted a prison inmate who reacted to the flood of decades-old claims against priests with a dose of brutal self-honesty about his proclivities and his enablers:
“So let me get this straight. If I say that some priest touched me funny all those years ago, I’ll be seen as a victim, I’ll be paid for it, and my life will be seen as his fault instead of mine. Do you have any idea how tempting this is?”
the problem with "witch hunts" is not that there are not "witches" (even in Salem, the girls who started the accusations were involved in petty conjuring) but that the hysteria leads to people embellishing the story, claiming major abuse when minor things happened to get money or attention, and sometimes outright fraud.
I did the abuse exams on girls for years when I was in private practice in the 1980's and 1990's, because I was the only woman doc around.
Half the cases were overwrought moms or social workers, a few were things that went over the line but not bad enough to put the person in jail (e.g. voyeurism, touching, stealing a kiss, sex with a willing 15 year old), and a few cases were terrible.
as for the Boston "coverup": The main priest involved was often lauded in the newspapers for his work with street kids. That meant he, like Bill Clinton or Woody Allen, got an automatic "get out of jail free" card by the media, at least until the reporters figured out a pattern of abuse was going on.
The bishop was made a scapegoat deserved it: not because he covered things up, but because he was lazy and left the priests running his office do these things, and one suspects they covered up these "minor" problems for their "friend", in the same way that cops and doctors often cover up problems.
When I was in medical school, Freudian theory assumed most of the accusations of abuse by children were "projections" of a child's wishes. To make things worse, some psychiatrists in the 1960's and 1970's assured us that children wanted sex, and allowing it would eliminate their "hangups".
Finally, Newsweek was part of the problem: way back in the 1980's they ran an article stating that incestuous fathers should not be reported by their therapists, because it would break up the family. (duh).
And I remember when California was lauded for it's "progressive" ideas when they decided to treat all "non violent sex offenders" as outpatients.
and many priests were reassigned after psychiatrists assured the bishops that these priests had been "cured". Johns Hopkins anyone? From a 1992 BaltSun article:
The clinic, set up in 1980, has maintained a caseload of 200 patients for the last few years. Many of the patients have been convicted criminals given the opportunity to avoid incarceration by entering therapy. Others have been voluntary patients fearing apprehension if their deviant behavior were to continue.
Over the years, Dr. Berlin earned the scorn of many with his position that therapists specializing in the treatment of pedophiles -- child molesters -- should not have to report sexual offenses to law enforcement authorities. He said the threat of criminal prosecution kept many offenders from seeking help.
He won an exemption from the state's mandatory reporting law, but it was repealed after one year in July 1, 1989. Child advocates persuaded lawmakers that the "loophole" allowed offenders to traumatize new victims while escaping punishment.
Evil exists, and a lot of pedophilia is covered up: but the problem is that the coverup brings out the people with false memories, the mentally ill, and the con men... as this BBC examination of a similar hysteria against their politicians finds out.