The Church of England and the Catholic Church are at it again.

First, it turns out that George Carey, whilst the head of the Church of England, protected Bishop Peter Ball, who was guilty of multiple sexual assaults on children and young men. An independent report just published says, “The church appears to have been most interested in protecting itself.” Amongst other things, after Ball’s arrest in 1992, seven letters were sent to Carey raising concerns about Ball’s activities. Only one, which was the least
damning, was passed to police. “The failure to pass six of the letters
to police … must give rise to a perception of deliberate concealment,”
the report said. In 1993, it reveals, Carey wrote to Ball’s brother (also a CoE Bishop!) Michael, saying: “I believe him to be basically innocent.”

Next, Catholic Cardinal George Pell is charged with multiple child rapes. Pell is said to be "one of Pope Francis' closest advisers". Things appear to be getting worse after the reforms of 2001. Last year, the Church released guidelines for its bishops telling them that it is "not necessarily" their duty to report accusations of clerical child abuse. In 2014, Pope Francis returned Mauro Inzoli to "a priestly state" after he had been defrocked for child abuse under Pope Benedict. The Church did not pass on its findings to the civil authorities, but a civil trial this year found Inzoli guilty of 8 sexual assaults. One cardinal, Caridnal Pinto, stood as a "cardinal friend" for Inzoli during the Church investigations and Pope Francis has subsequently given him authority over some clerical child abuse cases. Pope Francis is now said to be keen to "reform" some of the 2001 reforms that toughened Church procedures against priestly child abuse.

The Churches - and particularly the Catholic Church - have for decades acted as centres of organised child abuse. Time for the International Court of Human Rights to prosecute.     

It isn't only men who sexually abuse, of course. I've
worked with several child survivors of s.a. by women, and a couple of
female perpetrators, too. But it is mostly men.

Obviously, it's complicated. For some perpetrators it seems to be a way of expressing care and a need for intimacy which is highly distorted and conflicted by their own history and their inability to recognise or value or empathise.

Power and status is critical too. For women, status and self-esteem is perhaps bound up with their feeling of how connected they are to others - how many people look to them for support, and how many they can turn to get support? Whereas for men its much more about how many people look to them as a leader and how few people they need as sources of support? Trump is an interesting example - he clearly cannot tolerate any sense of vulnerability, a rapist "hiding in plain sight".

In abuse by clergy, the status of the priest (or whatever) must be an important part of it; the history and ideology of both Protestant and Catholic churches is obviously saturated with patriarchal privilege. Women aren't allowed to hold positions of power; there is an ethos that, as an ordinary lay person, you are dirty, sinful and deserve punishment, and that the priest stands in for the (male) god who can both judge, punish and forgive you. You are to offer your whole self up to him as a sacrifice etc.

 The Catholic nun Elizabeth Johnson has written well about this - and been subject to hostile criticism from the Church hierarchy as a result.