An old-fashioned term for clergy is "a man of the cloth." The "cloth" they wear is armor tougher than layers of titanium and Kevlar.
I was an alternate juror on a case against a megachurch employee, a middle-aged father running the youth musical department of the congregation. He was accused by his two teenage daughters of molesting them on multiple occasions. The first trial ended with a hung jury, and the second trial, which I attended, also ended with a hung jury. The evidence was pretty damning, and I'm convinced that if I had been able to participate in the jury deliberations, they would have convicted him. (Alternate jurors hear all the evidence, but are barred from the jury room during their deliberations.) Apparently, somebody on each jury simply could not bring themselves to convict "a man of the cloth." Some religious folks are impervious to evidence. They think that believing something with strong conviction makes that thing true.
To my even deeper disappointment, the D.A. decided not to pursue the case a third time, and the charges were dropped. As with this case, the church declared this LACK of a conclusive trial a "vindication" for the perp.
My wife is friends with 2 sisters who were both sexually abused by their father when they were younger. He died a few years ago and we went to his wake. I remember both sisters standing in front of his casket crying their eyes out. I thought their showing such grief at the passing of this monster who was also their father as one of the saddest things I ever witnessed.
It's the one thing mine didn't do yet I still ask myself why I bothered to go to his funeral. I had cut ties with him and his toxic family several years before his death.
I went to my old man's funeral for two reasons. 1) As his only heir I was stuck paying for it, and I wanted to make sure I got my money's worth. 2) I couldn't have let myself miss out on the pleasure of seeing the drunken, abusive bastard plugged into the home of all those hungry worms, maggots and weevils.
One of his sister paid, the cost was then deducted from my grandmother inheritance (he died after his father and before his mother so the inheritance was a mess to untangle). My choice, if it was legal would have been to ditch him somewhere in the woods, wild fauna has a right to eat too).
Neither DM or me wants a funeral, we want to donate our corpses to help improve medicine and science.
I think because in the end he was still your father. Another friend of mine had a father who was a pretty horrible person. He skipped his father's funeral last year. I feel that he may come to regret that later in life. But I didn't criticize his decision, it's his life and his family.
No, it was a cousin who begged me to come, she somehow found our adress, I really didn't care and still don't. A couple years back DM and me didn't go to her mother funeral and we don't regret it.
“Although everyone must address their own convictions and consequences, our assignment as believers is not to condemn, but to be agents of God’s love, healing, justice, and reconciliation.””
Unless the subject is LGBT or female or person of color, then it’s no holds barred.
Plus, how does that statement fit with the other church statement:
“The Church condemns sexual immorality of any kind and in any form by its members and leaders and especially holds its leaders to a high standard of accountability on any lifestyle choices that could reflect negatively on the reputation of the Church or disparage the character of the Savior whom it purports to represent.
Rock Church is committed to honesty and integrity in dealing with charges or accusations of sexual misconduct or immorality among its leaders and will support any investigation…”
They seem contradictory. We can’t judge and must be forgiving, but we must hold our sinners accountable. Somehow I doubt they are supporting the investigation either.
Quite honestly, this is starting to read like some sort of twisted Christian soap opera. Yikes.
That said, I feel it's important to remember why these pastors get into this kind of trouble all too often: They have no oversight whatsoever, and Christianity promotes some incredibly lopsided bedroom dynamics as an integral part of its teachings. I suspect this sort of thing happens far more often than it gets reported, and I expect that trend to continue for the foreseeable future. Yes, I am saying that this is specifically part of the Christian faith, and that while those faithful to Christianity might want to argue, the evidence is clear. Quoting the Bible to try and defend abhorrent criminal behavior isn't helping in the slightest, either, considering the attitude so many churches have against other 'sinners'.
TL;DR: Blanchard won't be the last of these we hear about. It'd be nice if the government would pursue these cases like they actually mean to make it clear this sort of behavior is completely unacceptable regardless of the perpetrator's status or standing.
Not only will Blanchard not be the last one we hear about such events, this will repeat and repeat and repeat until the justice system gets it through its head that the purpose of too many churches is to enable its leaders to do whatever they please with the least amount of consequences attached. Until and if the concept of faith as a positive value and those who promote faith as such is debunked, all you are going to see is rerun after rerun.
THIS. This and damned little other than this. Oh, throw in Christian privilege and probably some money under the table, but the two-tiered justice system is alive and well and living in Virginia Beach, VA ... among other places.
Electing lawyers to a legal office has its downside, perhaps this is one. But a failure to prosecute because "it's political" is a win for someone who deserves a day in court and perhaps time in prison.
Men who rape, or plan to rape underage girls do not fare well in prison and may become someone's "boyfriend" there. That could be life-changing, like raping underage girls is life-changing for them.
So Christians are persecuted in America, are they? Where in America is this alleged persecution taking place? I've yet to see it. In other countries, yes. But here? Not that I can see.
Oh, and that claim believers are not to condemn? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Given the recorded history of the Christian religion, I find that "no condemnation" claim a bit like a communion wafer: hard to swallow.
OT but related: Portugal has joined the ever-growing list of countries with published reports on the number of child-molesting priests. Of course, since the report was commissioned by the church, it's probably safe to assume the numbers are off by a factor of (at least) 10.
A real nice basket of context and continuing facts about this case, too!
Journalism isn't just 'breaking the story' , but, like a lot of pieces in The New Yorker, following and reporting on the story as it evolves. That follow-up is what is so completely missing for many stories like this, and it is that short-term memory loss that the Bought-and-Paid-For Sector of the US Legal System seems to thrive on.
Everyone please be careful to remember, now: It's gay men and absolutely NOT conservative christians who groom children for sex with adults. I'm sure Pastor Blanchard must be quite scrupulous about reminding his congregation of that immutable, God-given moral truth. More evidence of it crops up all the time. 🤪
And lest anyone try to claim that Blanchard's shenanigans are "an isolated incident," more and more demonstrations of what I say crop up all the time. I'm sure we all remember the attempt in Tennessee last year to legalize marriage to children with no age limit whatever. Now it's Wyoming Republicans pushing for what they claim is a constitutional right to marry children: https://www.wonkette.com/wyoming-republicans-fight-for-their-constitutional-right-to-marry-children
But remember, always remember, never ever forget that beyond any doubt whatever it's gay men who groom children for sex. Amen, brothers and sisters, amen.
"Think of the Children" has been used to excuse atrocities before.
They drug out parental rights
Loved the dig at marriage equality.
It amazes and sickens me that the attitude "better a child bride than a bastard" is alive and well in the 21st century.
Kids can get married, but can't get divorced. Because they're too young to be trusted to sign a contract.
And are way too young to know their own gender, so the state has to protect them against all these predatory doctors and parents (what about parental rights?) that want to force these confused boys to be girls (no one cares about trans men until one tries to follow the law and use the women's restroom) and mutilate them (not that most of their parents did that without their consent days after birth).
Okay. That paragraph won't win any A's in writing class. :)
I don't know how many times I have to say this: Children aren't property. They are a sacred trust from society (or a deity if you believe in one)
Sadly, here even if officially marriage age was raised from 15 to 18 for girls, 16 and 17 years teenagers can still be married but at least underage marriage = automatic emancipation.
I've been following the WY case a bit. One pastor in the state writes a weekly column, it usually should come with a tinfoil hat, but his argument is that if you get an underage girl pregnant, you should be allowed to marry her so the child can have two parents. A couple days later, I saw a legislature making that same argument in a different article. I'm not sure who came up with it first.
A child can have two parents without one of them being a rapist. Or one of them too young to hold a job or a HS diploma (which is only barely worth the paper it's printed on). Plenty of people are waiting to adopt a baby. The problem is getting someone to adopt the older kids.
Plenty of grandparents are ready and willing to raise their grandchild if their child is too young to do the job.
Marriage is not the solution. One good parent is better than two neglectful or abusive parents.
"Since young men and women may be physically capable of begetting and bearing children prior to the age of 16, marriage MUST remain open to them for the sake of those children.
The sad fact that physical maturity may not be matched by emotional and intellectual maturity is an indictment of our modern educational system."
WTF does the educational system have to do with whether or not a 16-year-old is mature‽‽‽ And since WY repukes are in control, they are responsible for the educational system that they are condemning.
Not to mention, science has determined that the brain doesn't finish maturing until about 25 regardless of education. Even our Founding Fathers recognized that even if they didn't know why. You have to be 25 to be a U.S. Representative.
Maybe we should raise the age of adulthood. And a single age. Not 16 for driving and working. 18 to sign contracts and suck on cancer sticks. 21 to use legal mind-altering substances.
ETA: Unfortunately, the FF didn't make it a point that you had to *have* a brain.
I know one* escaped priests to finish in her teacher's (a woman) bed, she even was pregnant with his child. Unlike priests, she actually ended in jail. I wonder why.
My wife is an ex-Catholic – her priest ran off with a 14-year-old girl – to Ireland of all places. I never quite understood why Ireland, given that at the time it was close to being a theocracy.
A female cousin of mine got knocked up by a priest when she was 16. (To her credit, he was a really cute guy.) He had enough integrity to leave the priesthood and marry her. But old habits die hard--he used to say Mass at the kitchen table, using Wonder Bread (seriously) for the Eucharist. He once offered to give me communion, and I laughed in his face. I was never welcome in their home again.
Bet Joseph Smith used the 19th Century version of "tight young kitty" when he married Helen Mar Kimball when she was 14 (he also had a number of 16-year-old wives).
Substack is acting up again. When I typed my reply to B H m, your comment was invisible and only appeared after I refreshed the page. You beat me to it by 5 minutes.
Another item that proves their god doesn't exist. If he did and was the same being they claim he is, then this pastor would have found out what being hit in the taint by lightning feels like.
My Best guess: Bribery. They were bribed in one way or another to dropped the charges in the perverted preacher's favor. Otherwise they were threatened to drop the charges in his favor or else they get hurt badly or killed.
I wonder why I'm not surprised. A church valuing a preacher as more important than teenagers and children. Who would have thought?
An old-fashioned term for clergy is "a man of the cloth." The "cloth" they wear is armor tougher than layers of titanium and Kevlar.
I was an alternate juror on a case against a megachurch employee, a middle-aged father running the youth musical department of the congregation. He was accused by his two teenage daughters of molesting them on multiple occasions. The first trial ended with a hung jury, and the second trial, which I attended, also ended with a hung jury. The evidence was pretty damning, and I'm convinced that if I had been able to participate in the jury deliberations, they would have convicted him. (Alternate jurors hear all the evidence, but are barred from the jury room during their deliberations.) Apparently, somebody on each jury simply could not bring themselves to convict "a man of the cloth." Some religious folks are impervious to evidence. They think that believing something with strong conviction makes that thing true.
To my even deeper disappointment, the D.A. decided not to pursue the case a third time, and the charges were dropped. As with this case, the church declared this LACK of a conclusive trial a "vindication" for the perp.
I just hope the girls could flee their incestuous father, otherwise the congregation would take revenge on them for slandering this "good" man.
My wife is friends with 2 sisters who were both sexually abused by their father when they were younger. He died a few years ago and we went to his wake. I remember both sisters standing in front of his casket crying their eyes out. I thought their showing such grief at the passing of this monster who was also their father as one of the saddest things I ever witnessed.
It's the one thing mine didn't do yet I still ask myself why I bothered to go to his funeral. I had cut ties with him and his toxic family several years before his death.
I went to my old man's funeral for two reasons. 1) As his only heir I was stuck paying for it, and I wanted to make sure I got my money's worth. 2) I couldn't have let myself miss out on the pleasure of seeing the drunken, abusive bastard plugged into the home of all those hungry worms, maggots and weevils.
One of his sister paid, the cost was then deducted from my grandmother inheritance (he died after his father and before his mother so the inheritance was a mess to untangle). My choice, if it was legal would have been to ditch him somewhere in the woods, wild fauna has a right to eat too).
Neither DM or me wants a funeral, we want to donate our corpses to help improve medicine and science.
I've considered that, but I'm leaning toward being fertilizer.
I think because in the end he was still your father. Another friend of mine had a father who was a pretty horrible person. He skipped his father's funeral last year. I feel that he may come to regret that later in life. But I didn't criticize his decision, it's his life and his family.
No, it was a cousin who begged me to come, she somehow found our adress, I really didn't care and still don't. A couple years back DM and me didn't go to her mother funeral and we don't regret it.
"...our assignment as believers is not to condemn, but to be agents of God’s love, healing, justice, and reconciliation.”
Unless you're a trans kid. Then plenty of condemnation.
Probably for gay kids, as well, given how often the two go together in right-wing Christians' minds.
“Although everyone must address their own convictions and consequences, our assignment as believers is not to condemn, but to be agents of God’s love, healing, justice, and reconciliation.””
Unless the subject is LGBT or female or person of color, then it’s no holds barred.
Plus, how does that statement fit with the other church statement:
“The Church condemns sexual immorality of any kind and in any form by its members and leaders and especially holds its leaders to a high standard of accountability on any lifestyle choices that could reflect negatively on the reputation of the Church or disparage the character of the Savior whom it purports to represent.
Rock Church is committed to honesty and integrity in dealing with charges or accusations of sexual misconduct or immorality among its leaders and will support any investigation…”
They seem contradictory. We can’t judge and must be forgiving, but we must hold our sinners accountable. Somehow I doubt they are supporting the investigation either.
They can't keep their stories straight.
Not a surprise. Look at their hole-y book.
I'm sure they support the "prosecutor"
They are not contradictory when pastors/elders are considered victims to be protected beforehand.
There are no contradictions in that statement...no more than there are in the Bible.
Well if we go by the Bible standard of contradictions, then the GOP isn’t hypocritical. No one is.
Quite honestly, this is starting to read like some sort of twisted Christian soap opera. Yikes.
That said, I feel it's important to remember why these pastors get into this kind of trouble all too often: They have no oversight whatsoever, and Christianity promotes some incredibly lopsided bedroom dynamics as an integral part of its teachings. I suspect this sort of thing happens far more often than it gets reported, and I expect that trend to continue for the foreseeable future. Yes, I am saying that this is specifically part of the Christian faith, and that while those faithful to Christianity might want to argue, the evidence is clear. Quoting the Bible to try and defend abhorrent criminal behavior isn't helping in the slightest, either, considering the attitude so many churches have against other 'sinners'.
TL;DR: Blanchard won't be the last of these we hear about. It'd be nice if the government would pursue these cases like they actually mean to make it clear this sort of behavior is completely unacceptable regardless of the perpetrator's status or standing.
Not only will Blanchard not be the last one we hear about such events, this will repeat and repeat and repeat until the justice system gets it through its head that the purpose of too many churches is to enable its leaders to do whatever they please with the least amount of consequences attached. Until and if the concept of faith as a positive value and those who promote faith as such is debunked, all you are going to see is rerun after rerun.
Hold the same mindset. Get the same results.
𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘺𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴...
THIS. This and damned little other than this. Oh, throw in Christian privilege and probably some money under the table, but the two-tiered justice system is alive and well and living in Virginia Beach, VA ... among other places.
Electing lawyers to a legal office has its downside, perhaps this is one. But a failure to prosecute because "it's political" is a win for someone who deserves a day in court and perhaps time in prison.
Men who rape, or plan to rape underage girls do not fare well in prison and may become someone's "boyfriend" there. That could be life-changing, like raping underage girls is life-changing for them.
So Christians are persecuted in America, are they? Where in America is this alleged persecution taking place? I've yet to see it. In other countries, yes. But here? Not that I can see.
Oh, and that claim believers are not to condemn? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Given the recorded history of the Christian religion, I find that "no condemnation" claim a bit like a communion wafer: hard to swallow.
More like a ball gag than a wafer no matter how bland it is.
Communion hosts are still easier to swallow than supernatural deities and realms.
OT but related: Portugal has joined the ever-growing list of countries with published reports on the number of child-molesting priests. Of course, since the report was commissioned by the church, it's probably safe to assume the numbers are off by a factor of (at least) 10.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/13/portugal-catholic-clergy-abuse-nearly-5000-children-since-1950-inquiry-finds
Where there's a parish, there is child abuse. Sad to say, but it may be that simple.
P𝙖𝙨𝙨tor Blanchard has quite the talent for projection, doesn't he?
"Best Legal System Money CONTINUES TO BUY!"
A real nice basket of context and continuing facts about this case, too!
Journalism isn't just 'breaking the story' , but, like a lot of pieces in The New Yorker, following and reporting on the story as it evolves. That follow-up is what is so completely missing for many stories like this, and it is that short-term memory loss that the Bought-and-Paid-For Sector of the US Legal System seems to thrive on.
Also OT but related: Five Jehovah's Witnesses in SW PA are charged with child sexual abuse:
https://www.wesa.fm/courts-justice/2023-02-08/five-pa-jehovahs-witnesses-members-charged-with-child-sexual-abuse-charges
It never rains, but it pours. And you can just bet that Jehovah witnessed the whole thing and did nothing to stop it.
But those men had free will. (nevermind the children. Children are property and property doesn't have free will)
Everyone please be careful to remember, now: It's gay men and absolutely NOT conservative christians who groom children for sex with adults. I'm sure Pastor Blanchard must be quite scrupulous about reminding his congregation of that immutable, God-given moral truth. More evidence of it crops up all the time. 🤪
And lest anyone try to claim that Blanchard's shenanigans are "an isolated incident," more and more demonstrations of what I say crop up all the time. I'm sure we all remember the attempt in Tennessee last year to legalize marriage to children with no age limit whatever. Now it's Wyoming Republicans pushing for what they claim is a constitutional right to marry children: https://www.wonkette.com/wyoming-republicans-fight-for-their-constitutional-right-to-marry-children
But remember, always remember, never ever forget that beyond any doubt whatever it's gay men who groom children for sex. Amen, brothers and sisters, amen.
"Think of the Children" has been used to excuse atrocities before.
They drug out parental rights
Loved the dig at marriage equality.
It amazes and sickens me that the attitude "better a child bride than a bastard" is alive and well in the 21st century.
Kids can get married, but can't get divorced. Because they're too young to be trusted to sign a contract.
And are way too young to know their own gender, so the state has to protect them against all these predatory doctors and parents (what about parental rights?) that want to force these confused boys to be girls (no one cares about trans men until one tries to follow the law and use the women's restroom) and mutilate them (not that most of their parents did that without their consent days after birth).
Okay. That paragraph won't win any A's in writing class. :)
I don't know how many times I have to say this: Children aren't property. They are a sacred trust from society (or a deity if you believe in one)
Sadly, here even if officially marriage age was raised from 15 to 18 for girls, 16 and 17 years teenagers can still be married but at least underage marriage = automatic emancipation.
I've been following the WY case a bit. One pastor in the state writes a weekly column, it usually should come with a tinfoil hat, but his argument is that if you get an underage girl pregnant, you should be allowed to marry her so the child can have two parents. A couple days later, I saw a legislature making that same argument in a different article. I'm not sure who came up with it first.
A child can have two parents without one of them being a rapist. Or one of them too young to hold a job or a HS diploma (which is only barely worth the paper it's printed on). Plenty of people are waiting to adopt a baby. The problem is getting someone to adopt the older kids.
Plenty of grandparents are ready and willing to raise their grandchild if their child is too young to do the job.
Marriage is not the solution. One good parent is better than two neglectful or abusive parents.
Who came up with it first? Why, it was Almighty God! I'm shocked that you don't know that, you heathen, you.
How old Eve was when she had her first child with her clone ? 🤔
10, maybe 11 months. There was no drugstore for Adam to buy a condom.
Damn rhythm method didn't work worth shit, either.
They were white, of course they had no rhythm.
They were white, of course they had no rhythm.
"Since young men and women may be physically capable of begetting and bearing children prior to the age of 16, marriage MUST remain open to them for the sake of those children.
The sad fact that physical maturity may not be matched by emotional and intellectual maturity is an indictment of our modern educational system."
WTF does the educational system have to do with whether or not a 16-year-old is mature‽‽‽ And since WY repukes are in control, they are responsible for the educational system that they are condemning.
Not to mention, science has determined that the brain doesn't finish maturing until about 25 regardless of education. Even our Founding Fathers recognized that even if they didn't know why. You have to be 25 to be a U.S. Representative.
Maybe we should raise the age of adulthood. And a single age. Not 16 for driving and working. 18 to sign contracts and suck on cancer sticks. 21 to use legal mind-altering substances.
ETA: Unfortunately, the FF didn't make it a point that you had to *have* a brain.
From 1579 to 1792, majority was 25 for both men and women.
Sorry, my European history mostly comes from Mel Brooks, but was that the year of the infamous Revolution?
It was in 1789.
So lowering it was the idea of a fledgling government, though.
Ever notice they're never arguing for 30-year-old women to marry 13-year-old boys.
Women don't enjoy sex, silly. Besides. all the 13-year-old boys are reserved for priests.
I know one* escaped priests to finish in her teacher's (a woman) bed, she even was pregnant with his child. Unlike priests, she actually ended in jail. I wonder why.
* French case back in the 90's.
My wife is an ex-Catholic – her priest ran off with a 14-year-old girl – to Ireland of all places. I never quite understood why Ireland, given that at the time it was close to being a theocracy.
A female cousin of mine got knocked up by a priest when she was 16. (To her credit, he was a really cute guy.) He had enough integrity to leave the priesthood and marry her. But old habits die hard--he used to say Mass at the kitchen table, using Wonder Bread (seriously) for the Eucharist. He once offered to give me communion, and I laughed in his face. I was never welcome in their home again.
"using Wonder Bread"
Of all substances that least resemble actual bread...
Sorry, I read Wonderbra 😅
I'm surprised. Here in the states, the boy is usually a hero and about half the time the woman gets a slap on the wrist.
Could be because she was his teacher.
Doesn't seem to make much difference here. Teenage boy is lucky to sleep with his teacher. A teenage girl is either a victim or a slut, maybe both.
Heterosexual pairings only of course.
She was a vile temptress, a succubus, a Jezebel. How could they not imprison her?
Hey, with how prices skyrocket theses day, why forbid free maids/caretakers ? 🙄
"...ready for this tight young kitty."
And there we see how much import Christian pastors place on their marriage vows and the whole "sanctity" of "traditional marriage."
The bible doesn't say explicitly* that a man can't look for a replacement before repudi... divorcing his wife.
* No idea if it's true but that's the kind of excuse hypocrites would use.
Bet Joseph Smith used the 19th Century version of "tight young kitty" when he married Helen Mar Kimball when she was 14 (he also had a number of 16-year-old wives).
I heard a story once about an American singer marrying his 13 years old cousin back in the 60's. True or hoax ?
True.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lee_Lewis
It’s true. Jerry Lee Lewis IIRC.
Substack is acting up again. When I typed my reply to B H m, your comment was invisible and only appeared after I refreshed the page. You beat me to it by 5 minutes.
Same with me. Your and Val's comments didn't show up until after I edited my reply.
Well, you get what you pay for.
You're thinking of Jerry Lee Lewis. Yup, it's true.
(JLL died last year).
Another item that proves their god doesn't exist. If he did and was the same being they claim he is, then this pastor would have found out what being hit in the taint by lightning feels like.
I guess if a heavenly dove can get into tight little kitty it must be okay for Blanchard too.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/-jesus-gets-us-super-bowl-ads-hide-dark-truth-rcna69735
Liars For Jesus, lying as per standard doctrine.
My Best guess: Bribery. They were bribed in one way or another to dropped the charges in the perverted preacher's favor. Otherwise they were threatened to drop the charges in his favor or else they get hurt badly or killed.
Christians capable of violence? Inconceivable!