Opinion

Birds of a feather play victim together

By Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D.
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Download a .pdf file for printing.
Adobe Acrobat Reader required.
Click here to download a free copy.

October 6, 2005—The indictment was still breaking news when Tom DeLay began playing victim. He claimed the charges were a "sham," a "politically motivated" attack, and that the Texas prosecutor was a corrupt "partisan fanatic" out to get him. Given his own history of partisan fanaticism and non-existent "ethics"—not to mention patently stupid statements—only someone as self-absorbed, self-righteous and conspicuously corrupt as DeLay would deploy the "political victim" strategy.

It's also not surprising that the House majority leader is being defended by perennial self-proclaimed "victim" Rev. Jerry Falwell, who sought to victimize "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians . . . the ACLU [and] People For the American Way" by blaming them for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. "Victim" DeLay had claimed to be on an evangelical mission to marry the "biblical worldview" to American politics. "Victim" Falwell's always thought that was his job. Naturally, both "leaders" have the same sense of faith-based politics and ethics. A brief summary of the latter's:

• In July 1984, Falwell was forced to pay gay activist Jerry Sloan $5,000 after losing a court battle. During a TV debate in Sacramento, Falwell denied calling the gay-oriented Metropolitan Community Churches "brute beasts" and "a vile and Satanic system" that will "one day be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven." When Sloan insisted he had a tape, Falwell promised $5,000 if he could produce it. Sloan did so, but Falwell refused to pay and Sloan sued, successfully. Falwell appealed, with his attorney charging that the Jewish judge in the case was prejudiced. He lost again and was forced to pay an additional $2,875 in sanctions and court fees.
   
• In October 1987, the Federal Election Commission fined Falwell $6,000 for transferring $6.7 million in funds intended for his ministry to political committees. In February 1993, the Internal Revenue Service determined that funds from Falwell's Old Time Gospel Hour program were illegally funneled to a political action committee. The IRS forced Falwell to pay $50,000 and retroactively revoked the Old Time Gospel Hour's tax-exempt status for 1986–87.
   
• In January 1991, siding with Americans United, the Virginia Supreme Court unanimously rejected Falwell's attempt to garner $60 million in state bonds for his Liberty University. During the litigation, Falwell tried to camouflage the school's rigidly fundamentalist character, telling the court that the school would no longer discriminate in hiring or force students to attend mandatory chapel, at the same time he reassured his congregation that Liberty had not changed, insisting chapel will be mandatory "until Jesus comes."
• In March 1993, despite his promise to Jewish groups to stop referring to America as a "Christian nation," Falwell gave a sermon saying, "We must never allow our children to forget that this is a Christian nation. We must take back what is rightfully ours."
   
• In late July 2004, the campaign watchdog group Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Falwell Ministries for politicking for the president by endorsing him earlier in the month, which they are barred from doing as nonprofit corporations. The CLC complaint followed a separate letter sent by a religious watchdog group to the Internal Revenue Service accusing Falwell of violating his ministries' tax-exempt status by endorsing a political candidate.

Endorsing a theocratic ideology and obedient candidates while proactively campaigning against those candidates, politicians, governments—and voters—that do not believe or act as they are told to is also the forte of another victimizer adept at playing victim, the Roman Catholic church.

The September 21, 2005 grand jury report was still breaking news when the Philadelphia archdiocese, in the person of Cardinal Rigali, said in an interview he thought the 418-page report was "slanted." He also said, "I don't think it's of value to families."

The grand jury's investigation took several years. The evidence is "clear," not "slanted."

Not of "value to families?" How could the grand jury's report not be of value to families who entrust their children to priests in Catholic schools and in other church-related environments? As assistant dean of Columbia University's School of Social Work Kathryn Conroy noted, "What is forgotten in all of the hysteria about priest sexual abuse is that pedophilia is about a sexual attraction to children (most often, regardless of their sex) and about access" (italics mine). Dr. Conroy also made another poignant point: "Reliable studies show that pedophiles (those adults who sexually abuse children) are overwhelmingly heterosexual. In fact, homosexuals are statistically underrepresented as those who sexually abuse children." But they do make great victims for the victimizer claiming to be a victim. Hence Benedict XVI's new Inquisition.

Victimizer playing victim was also the theme of Bill Donohue's September 30, 2005 letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Mr. Donohue is president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. His "thoughts" speak for themselves:

It is amazing that The Inquirer's Editorial Board is so fixated on priestly sexual abuse that it never once questioned why the Archdiocese of Philadelphia was singled out by Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham for a grand jury investigation when it was known in advance that it would lead to no prosecutions and there was absolutely no empirical evidence suggesting that priests have a monopoly on this problem.

If the real issue is protecting children (and not in getting priests), why hasn't The Inquirer or Abraham ever shown the slightest interest in investigating public school employees, abortion counselors (who regularly learn of statutory rape cases), rabbis, ministers et al.? Instead of addressing this issue, the Sept. 27 editorial, "Sad limits (or lack thereof) of statutes," asks why the law allows sexual abusers who allegedly committed their crimes long ago to go free but finds it OK to go after those who haven't paid parking tickets dating back years.

That's your idea of a level playing field?

That's the same Bill Donohue whose performance "graced" the stage of Justice Sunday, where he identified himself and the other performers as "the American Taliban." Donohue performed again at Justice Sunday II, which was headlined by none other than that pillar of religious virtue and political ethics, Tom DeLay.

Mr. Donohue seems unaware of—or is simply ignoring—the fact that since the grand jury's report the Philadelphia DA's office has been inundated with new allegations. Appropriately, Donohue's letter was published the same day as Jim Remsen's article "Reports of abuse grow by dozens":

"The complaints started the day after the report was announced and has continued to increase every day," Charles F. Gallagher, the prosecutor handling the cases, said yesterday. "It's been at least five to 10 a day, and increasing each day."

Like Cardinals Krol and Bevilacqua, and like John Paul II, who pretty much ignored the pedophilia scandal and its cover-up, and Benedict XVI, whose response was to launch a new Inquisition to remove gays from seminaries, Donohue is not interested in protecting children or punishing those who abuse them. He and the other birds of a feather are interested only in protecting themselves and their corrupt institution. Opus Dei indeed. One Philadelphia Inquirer reader responded astutely to Donohue's and Rigali's feigned claim to be victims:

How many children need to be abused, and how many priests allowed to commit these horrible crimes, before the writer and others realize there has been a pattern of evil allowed by church leaders?

The reporting of clerical abuse is not bias; it's a story that needs to be told. The Catholic Church is not the victim, even though that is the spin given by the archdiocesan lawyers. The reports give all the abused children, now adults, credibility that the church tried to destroy. This may save other children—of all faiths.

And last but certainly not least among the victimizers currently playing victim is William Bennett. In 1993 Bennett published The Book of Virtues. His 1995 sequel was titled The Children's Book of Virtues. "Virtue" was obviously lacking from comments he made last week:

"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could—if that were your sole purpose—you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

After making such an outrageous statement, naturally Bennett claimed he was being victimized:

In an interview with Fox News, Mr. Bennett said critics had distorted his comments by omitting his statement that aborting all black babies would be "morally reprehensible."

"When that is included in the quote, it makes it perfectly clear what my position is," Mr. Bennett said, "They make it seem as if I am supporting such a monstrous idea, which I don't."

Then why did you say it, Mr. Bennett? Why would you make such an overtly bigoted and "morally reprehensible" statement?

The answer is as familiar as the tactic. When used in a courtroom, it's usually followed by the judge telling the jury to "ignore that remark" and striking it from the record. But it's too late. The jury already heard it, which is why the lawyer said it in the first place. Let's hope the American jury convicts Tom DeLay, abusing priests and church leaders who engage in illegal cover-ups, and a former secretary of education who failed in that position and as "Drug Czar," and who apparently also failed Humanity 101: "Introduction to Civility."

An Online Journal reader sent me an appropriate comment and question: "Let's hope that people wake up soon or is it too late now . . . ?"