Catholic-bashers worldwide have new reason to bask in schadenfreude at the recent arrest of former Connecticut pastor Kevin Wallin, AKA “Monsignor Meth,” on drug-trafficking charges.
Except for pedophilia, the alleged details in Wallin’s sordid saga combine nearly all the elements that tend to please such blood-sniffing unbelievers. Wallin’s case is a clerical version of Breaking Bad where the antihero vends huge quantities of crystal meth, attempts to launder money through a sex shop called The Land of Oz & Dorothy’s Place, and engages in sexual trysts with “odd-looking men” while dressed as a woman. These details inevitably lead to lascivious headlines such as “The Kinky Priest Who Sold Meth” and “Cross-dressing priest indicted for dealing meth liked sex in rectory.”
(Oh, I’ll bet he liked it in the “rectory,” all right!)
As expected, the snark and smarm are bulging thick, veiny, and purplish on comment threads, as Christianity’s ever-emboldened naysayers use the story to indict Christianity generally and Roman Catholicism in particular. There are LOLs, LMAOs, and ROTFLMAOs in abundance, as well as entirely unconcealed glee at the Catholic Church’s ongoing public-relations self-immolation.
But it would seem to be a severe case of overreaching to indict the entire Holy Roman Church here. In Wallin’s case, Church officials appeared to act swiftly the moment there were allegations of impropriety. He was asked to resign in June 2011 soon after accusations of his rectory-rump-wranglin’ started to surface, and officials only found a bag of “sex paraphernalia” in his room after he officially left his post. And his acts of meth-dealing all appear to have occurred after he was suspended from public ministry in May of last year.
(Full disclosure: I was raised Catholic—including a dozen years at Catholic schools—but I now describe myself as agnostic, because I feel the only truly honest thing to do is admit that I have absolutely no idea why I’m here on Earth. I also strongly suspect that I may simply be too dumb to ever understand why. I didn’t have quite the best experiences with the Catholic clergy, and when stories of priestly sex abuse were gobbling up headlines ten years ago, my main objection was that no one seemed to be paying attention to the grievous and exceedingly sadistic sexual misdeeds of nuns.)
Still, as someone whose only training at a non-Catholic school came in college while obtaining a journalism degree, I often find myself wondering why our popular media tend to create an impression that clerical malfeasance is almost exclusively the domain of white Christians. One occasionally sees headlines about high-profile black pastors who allegedly molest boys or choke their own daughters, but they never seem to be reported with the same degree of triumphant lasciviousness as when the press catches a goyishe man of the cloth with his pants down.
Bloggers quickly compared “Monsignor Meth” to Protestant minister Ted Haggard, who also showed an affinity for sucking schlong and snorting crystal. But I’m reasonably sure I’m the first person on Earth to compare him to Baruch Chalomish, a “millionaire rabbi” who traded cocaine for sex in his “synagogue of sin.”
During a new millennium in which the term “Catholic priest” has been rendered synonymous with “pedophile,” there have been scads—scads, I tell you!—of stories involving Rabbis Behaving Badly, but somehow our modern media milieu has generally overlooked them.
As someone who takes his four years of journalism training far more seriously than his 12 years of Catholic indoctrination, methinks there are multitudinous sins of editorial omission afoot.
I’m reasonably sure that if a white Baptist minister gave a male infant a fatal case of herpes by sucking on his penis, it would have been a bigger national story than, well, the story of a rabbi who gave a male infant a fatal case of herpes by sucking on his penis. I also suspect that if a Catholic bishop had been trafficking in human organs, the story would have had a lot more traction. My guts also tell me that if it had been a priest rather than a rabbi (or another rabbi…or another rabbi…or another rabbi…or another rabbi…or another rabbi…or another rabbi…or another rabbi…or another rabbi…or nearly a hundred Orthodox Brooklyn Jews), you likely would have heard a lot more squawking in the news about all those cases of clerical pedophilia. After all, those cases are multiplying like…like…well, like rabbis! Maybe part of the reason for such stories’ relative obscurity is that certain segments of the Jewish community appear to enforce a much more stringent snitches-are-bitches-who-get-stitches policy than do large swaths of the Catholic world.
But then, maybe I’m an anti-Semite. There’s always that excuse, right?
To make yet another effulgent and frankly tasteless display of my hyper-tolerant and blamelessly ecumenical soul, I will not refrain from tsk-tsking the near-institutional level of pederasty in the Islamic world, the existence of anti-white Muslim rape gangs in England, not to mention (although I’m getting ready to mention it right here) the Prophet’s severely underage child bride. Just as I went hopping across lily pads from one pervy rabbi to another, I will not shy away from noting that one imam after the next (after the next…after the next…after the next) has been nabbed for illegally sampling what I shall discreetly refer to as “hummus fashioned from chickpeas that have yet to ripen.”
And none of this is meant to exonerate Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, nor the leaders of those multitudinous minor-league religions commonly disparaged as mere cults. In a sincerely general and, yes, ecumenical way, I caution you not to blindly trust anyone who claims they know God personally. In far too many cases, these types turn out to be nothing more than weirdos who want to get in your pants.
As a lapsed Catholic and someone who’d be a card-carrying agnostic if only they issued cards, I’m not convinced that any one religious creed predisposes someone toward sex crimes more than any other. But as someone who’s an occasional critic of modern culture, I am fascinated that when the major media cast an eager spotlight on Sexual Improprieties of the Religious Kind, they focus almost exclusively on non-Jewish white male Christians.
Despite the ultimately tedious cut-and-paste digital-graffiti SPAMmin’ mania of the “anti-racist is code for anti-white” guys (after the 100,000th time, we GET it!—knock it OFF!), the major media and academia’s selective application of the word “racism” gives ample credence to their message. Only a fool or a paid mouthpiece would deny that white “racism” gets played up at the expense of all other kinds.
And as I’ve graciously and dutifully demonstrated, perverts come in all faiths and colors. How, then, to explain the selective focus on white Christian pervs? I posit, however delusionally, that beneath all the religious vestments may be lurking some real ethnic/genetic tribal conflict.
Is it merely an accident that the terms “Christendom” and “the Occident” used to be nearly synonymous? It all starts to feel like an expansive and possibly intentional modern form of blood libel. Maybe I’m only having a religious vision, but I’m starting to notice that slowly and insidiously, “anti-Christian” seems as if it’s becoming code for anti-white.
Copyright 2013 TakiMag.com and the author. This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order reprints for distribution by contacting us at firstname.lastname@example.org.