Skip to main content
Bondi Media

The Church is 💩

Despite claims by god-botherers that morality comes from religion there's nothing divine about accepting responsibility for evil. How many children need to be raped — orally, vaginally or anally by holy men? The latest in a string of cweepy chwistian cunts to fall is the arsebishop 🍩 of Canterbury who's quit in complete humiliation and disgrace (and he wasn't even the worst protector of the most prolific child abuser in church of England (coE) history.

caterbury cathedral
@zoltantasi

That there is no god is well-established. How much evidence do people fucking need? But the dogrooting fuckwits and fools who used to burn others at the stake — or murder in homes, streets or in camps — are still trying to control lives. These are not good people. At best, they're silly, ignorant and uniformed but increasingly they're complete cunts covering up crimes. It's of no coincidence that societal support for them is dependent on lower education.

As with that piece of talking 💩 excrement George Pell, their ‘church’ is more important than anything — including children.

Even now church members are claiming back the moral high-ground by saying no other bishops should pay — that the cunt from Canterbury has sacrificed enough — like their fictitious ‘lord and saviour’ jesus christ the fatherless man who is himself his father and an eschatological jew to boot!

They've even (begrudgingly) started posting ‘news’ about abuse by cunts like Christopher Brain trying to look transparent. But never ever fucking forget that until the early 2000s, most didn't believe churches systematically raped children and protected the perpetrators yet Sinéad O'Connor knew it at least a decade earlier. Anyone who criticised and abused her for denouncing that dope the pope should show some self respect and self harm because they are evil. They won't but because god dogs are just that — dogrooting dogs.

Fight the real enemy! Sinéad O'Connor, 1992.

The Boston Globe exposed euphemistic phrases like ‘on sick leave’, ‘between assignments’ and ‘reassigned’ used by the catholic church to cover up the industrial scale rape and abuse of children. And coE atrocities — found by an independent review into the abuse of children by John Smyth — include:

John Smyth was an appalling [is there any other kind of?] abuser of children and young men. His abuse was prolific, brutal and horrific. His victims were subjected to traumatic physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual attacks. The impact of that abuse is impossible to overstate and has permanently marked the lives of his victims. John Smyth’s own family are victims of his abuse.

John Smyth's activities were identified in the 1980s. Despite considerable efforts by individuals to bring to the attention of relevant authorities the scope and horror of Smyth's conduct, including by victims and by some clergy, the steps taken by the Church of England and other organisations and individuals were ineffective and neither fully exposed nor prevented further abuse by him.

Church officers and others were made aware of the abuse in the form of a key report in 1982 prepared by the Reverend Mark Ruston. The recipients of that report participated in an active cover-up to prevent that report and its findings – including that crimes had been committed - coming to light. There is no excuse or good explanation that justifies that decision. Different – and we strongly suspect better, for subsequent victims – outcomes would have followed had appropriate reports to the police and other statutory authorities been made then.

In line with the ToR, we have placed the actions of individuals and Church bodies in context, and considered against the standards of practice which applied at the relevant time. An argument which has been offered in order to partially explain John Smyth’s abuses is that they were examples of over-enthusiastic corporal punishment. The conclusion of the Review is that he committed criminal acts of gross abuse.

Further abuse could and should have been prevented. John Smyth's victims were not sufficiently supported by the Church and their views on escalating his abuse to the police and other authorities were not sought.

In the period between 1984 and 2001, at which time John Smyth relocated to Zimbabwe and subsequently South Africa, Church officers knew of the abuse and failed to take the steps necessary to prevent further abuse occurring. Throughout this period – and particularly given the Church's adoption of formal safeguarding policies from 1995 – the Church had sufficient knowledge of the abuse to have taken those steps.

The requirements of the safeguarding policies adopted by the Church, coupled with the moral and legal responsibilities to which Church officers were subject, demanded that more be done.

There were individual failings by senior clergy, and clergy who subsequently became senior. That grouping includes a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Diocesan Bishops and Canons and Reverends.

Following specific developments in 2012, from July 2013, the Church of England knew, at the highest level, about the abuse that took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s. John Smyth should have been properly and effectively reported to the police in the UK and to relevant authorities in South Africa. This represented a further missed opportunity to bring him to justice and may have resulted in an ongoing and avoidable safeguarding threat in the period between 2012 and his death in 2018.

The Church's reaction to the expose of John Smyth's abuse by Channel 4 in February 2017 was poor in terms of speed, professionalism, intensity and curiosity. The needs of the victims were not at the forefront in terms of thinking and planning; the response was not trauma-informed.

Thematic concerns

The institution [in this instance, the coE] is every bit as responsible for the long-term psychological harm as the original abuser. It is in their betrayal in failing to protect and in communicating the shamefulness of what has happened through the cover-up that carries additional traumatic impacts. The Conversation.

And what happens to the the royal fucking family now that the coE CEO has been sacked? We dare anyone to mention the ‘divine right of kings’. 🤨