For all the media attacks, the Church has remained remarkablyrnresilient and has even won political successes, forrnexample through its leadership of the pro-life movement. Itsrnopponents had therefore to be even more resourceful in seekingrneffective weapons for sabotage. One problem they facedrnwas that many of the traditional rhetorical devices of prejudicernno longer worked, because of changing religious attitudes.rnWith the Bible playing so little role in mainstream society, itrnwas scarcely effective to argue that Catholicism was “unscriptural”rnor that the Pope could somehow be identified with thernScarlet Woman or the Whore of Babylon. However, therernwere other things that had replaced religion as the most cherishedrnsocial value and that could be used to denigrate thernChurch. The ideal solution would have been to identify thernChurch with racism; but that was wholly implausible in view ofrnthe consistent liberal activism of clergy in this area. That leftrnthe two other modern shibboleths, namely sexuality and children,rnhere combined in the late 20th-century nightmare ofrnthe sexual abuse of children. Might it be possible to revive thernancient stereotype of the priest as sexual predator?rnThe solution to the anti-Catholic dilemma emerged in thernmid-1980’s, with the first of several cases involving the repeatedrnsexual abuse of children by priests and members ofrnreligious orders. One of the most celebrated was that of FatherrnGilbert Cauthe in Louisiana, who was first identified as a molesterrnin the early 1970’s but was moved to several other parishesrnbefore his crimes came to public awareness. In other words,rnthe local hierarchy seemed to connive with his horrific crimesrnby failing to intervene at a sufficiently early stage and in fact byrnplacing at risk the children to whose parishes he was subsequentlyrnsent. This tragic case involved (at best) serious misjudgmentsrnand organizational failings on the part of thernChurch, and there was a widespread scandal when the affairrncame to court in 1985.rnOver the next three years, there were dozens of notoriousrncases following broadly similar lines, sometimes involving thernmanufacture and distribution of child pornography. In response,rnthere emerged literature suggesting that there wasrnmore to the problem than the existence of a few individualsrnwith serious moral failings. Clergy sex abuse was a social epidemicrnon a vast scale, and it was permitted, even encouraged,rnby the structure and institutions of the Church. The lack ofrnfull investigation and disclosure permitted “pedophile priests”rnto carry on their sinister careers for years. Another recurrentrntheme concerned the reluctance of secular law enforcementrnauthorities to arrest and prosecute these legions of delinquentrnclergy. This appears to revive the archaic charge of “dual loyalty,”rnthe suggestion that Catholics holding secular office obeyrnthe demands of their church before their public duties.rnBy the late 1980’s, the materials for a panic were in place, inrnterms of cohorts of self-styled “experts” like Jason Berryrnand Marie Fortune and of a literature applying to clerical problemsrnthe wisdom of secular child abuse experts. This literaturernbroadly accepted an essentially feminist analysis, that childrnabuse was a manifestation of patriarchal tyranny, an all butrnubiquitous atrocity that had appalling and lifelong effects onrnits millions of victims. As Father Andrew Creeley has written,rnabusers are far worse than alcoholics or drunk drivers: “alcoholicsrnare dangerous only to themselves, their families, andrnthe people they smash with their cars, but each pedophile is arnthreat to the future lives of hundreds of children.”rnThese beliefs supported the view that clerical abuse wasrnboth pervasive and destructive, which came as music to thernears of a growing profession of lawyers who now won huge liabilityrnlawsuits against Catholic dioceses. It is estimated thatrnby the mid-1990’s, the cumulative total of damages from thisrntype of ease will exceed a billion dollars. The ensuing scandalsrnhave had a snowball effect, encouraging past victims, real orrnimaginary, to come forward and register their complaints—allrnof which gives real social momentum to the panic. Lawyersrnhave been among the greatest beneficiaries, but also significantrnwere the profits to be made in organizing and teaching therncountless seminars, workshops, training programs, and “encounterrngroups” on abuse-related issues that now litter thernadvertisement pages of every religious newspaper and journal.rnOf course. Catholic clergy were not the only targets of thernpanic, and we found lawsuits against most of the major Christianrndenominations, as well as Jewish groups; but the image ofrnthe celibate priest naturally attracted particular suspicion andrnhostility.rnThere were sizable vested interests at stake (both financialrnand ideological) in generating a “clerical abuse” problem, andrnthese efforts reached fruition in the early years of the presentrndecade. Following new Catholic-focused scandals, especiallyrnin the diocese of Chicago and in the Canadian province ofrnNewfoundland, reports of “priestly pedophiles” became anrnalmost daily occurrence in the media—though in some cases,rninvestigations were reaching back to alleged misdeeds committedrnmany years before. Recently, there has been greatrnscandal about a case of this sort where a priest in North Attleboro,rnMassachusetts, was said to have been involved in hundredsrnof incidents as long ago as the 1960’s. The literature onrnthe topic mushroomed, with major investigative reports inrnmost leading newspapers, as well as in Time, Newsweek, andrnjournals like Ms. and Vanity Fair.rnIn this atmosphere, both secular and ecclesiastical authoritiesrnstruggled to respond, with proposed solutions potentiallyrndraconian. The diocese of Chicago has now suggested a laydominatedrnboard that would hear and investigate chargesrnagainst priests, even when such accusations were received overrnan anonymous hotline. Accused clergy would be suspended atrnan early stage of the process.rnFor no one was permitted to doubt that this was a crisis.rnThe language employed by the media repeatedly suggestedrnboth the vast scale of the problem and the role played by officialrncover-ups and wrongdoing in high places. This was thern”S&L disaster of the Catholic Church,” an “ecclesiastical Watergate,”rna “meltdown.” Andrew Creeley drew comparisonsrnwith the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill farrago, which in contemporaryrnliberal martyrology represents the ultimate manifestationrnof a patriarchal cover-up of male wrongdoing. Accordingrnto Catholic writer Thomas Doyle, pedophiliarnrepresents “the most serious problem that we in the Churchrnhave faced in centuries”: quite a claim when the issue is consideredrnalongside the Enlightenment, Darwinism, wholesalernsecularization. Communism, and Nazism. When the problemrnwas quantified, it appeared to be immense. Several accountsrnindicated that five or six percent of American priests might bern”pedophiles” or molesters, suggesting a total of nearly threernthousand troubled and dangerous individuals.rnIn a full-scale panic, it is often difficult to pause and askrnwhether the concern is entirely justified or whether there is anyrnsubstance whatever to the issue; but this “crisis,” more thanrnDECEMBER 1992/25rnrnrn