The silence that hurts: the cover-up of sexual abuse across churches

The debate about sexual abuse in the church environment is no longer just a question of individual excesses. It is becoming increasingly clear that the key problem lies not only in the actions of the perpetrators themselves, but in what follows – the reactions of the institutions that are supposed to bear moral authority. This is precisely where, in some cases, a second, no less serious level of damage arises: trauma caused by inaction, trivialization or insufficient reaction.

Current Czech cases indicate that these mechanisms are not alien to the domestic environment either. An investigative article by journalist Janko Kroupa brought statements from women who accuse a well-known clergyman of sexually inappropriate behavior. Similar information was published by other media. At the center of these cases is, among others, a clergyman of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church known as Aleš Jaluška, whose actions, according to the women's testimony, exceeded the boundaries of the pastoral relationship and interfered with their personal integrity. He himself rejects the accusation, however, it was the reaction of church structures that became the subject of public debate.

It is not only what should have happened, but how the institution reacted to it that is crucial. According to available information, the matter was handled largely internally, with an emphasis on the lack of evidence and the problematic nature of the reports, including anonymous tips. In such a situation, the role of the church leadership comes to the fore, specifically the bishop of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church in Králové Hradec, Pavel Pechance, who stated that without verifiable documents, fundamental measures cannot be taken. This position corresponds to formal legal logic, but at the same time it opens a fundamental question: what should be the priority - procedural caution or the protection of potential victims?

For the victims themselves, such a situation often has a devastating impact. To go against spiritual authority is to cross not only personal but also community boundaries. The perpetrator in these cases is not "just" an individual, but also a representative of faith, authority, and often a trusting relationship. If the institution does not respond clearly and quickly, an environment is created that victims perceive as hostile. Inaction or procrastination then acts as an indirect form of pressure – a signal that their experience is not serious enough.

This mechanism is described in the literature as secondary victimization. Victims are met with questioning, isolation or calls to "protect the good name of the church". Even without direct intimidation, an atmosphere is created that discourages others from speaking up. In this way, the trauma is not closed, but rather deepens.

In the Czech environment, another level also comes to the fore – personnel and institutional interconnectedness. In the case of clergyman Aleš Jaluška, his ties to other church structures through his family background are also mentioned, namely his ex-wife Hana Jalušková, emeritus evangelical pastor of the Ochranov seniorate of the Czech Brethren Evangelical Church. These ties are not in themselves illegitimate, but they show how close and interconnected the religious environment is in the Czech Republic. It is in such an environment that it can be more difficult to ensure an independent and impartial assessment of similar cases.

At the same time, foreign experience shows where long-term reliance on internal solutions can lead. Investigative reports from France, Germany or Ireland have repeatedly described a pattern in which caution turns into inaction and institutional protection into systemic failure. Perpetrators are not consistently confronted, victims lose confidence, and the entire environment closes itself off from outside scrutiny.

The Czech Republic has not yet faced such a large-scale scandal. However, this does not mean that the problem does not exist. Rather, it suggests that it is not being systematically researched enough. Individual mediatized cases can only be a fragment of a wider reality, which remains hidden precisely because of the absence of transparent mechanisms.

And it is here that the fundamental question of the role of the state opens up. If the state resigns from any supervision over the functioning of the churches, it also resigns from the protection of those who find themselves in a vulnerable position within these structures. Autonomy without responsibility does not create space for freedom, but for an imbalance of power.

Therefore, stronger control mechanisms – including the obligation to respond to suspicions, ensuring transparency and the possibility of external review – cannot be seen as an attack on religious freedom. On the contrary, they can be its necessary supplement. Without them, every other case remains not only a personal tragedy, but also a warning that the system as a whole is unable to provide basic protection.

If the church environment is to have real moral authority, it must be able to confront not only the failings of individuals, but also its own structural weaknesses. Otherwise, silence becomes the norm - and the victims of these acts are people who pay twice: first for the act itself, and second for not believing or being able to help them.

Source:

1. KROUPA, Janek (2024).He sexually abused us, accuse the wives of the well-known priest. He talks about massages. List of News, 18/11/2024.

2. KROUPA, Janek (2024).Accused pastor admits to "inappropriate behavior" towards women and quits the church. List of News, 18/11/2024.

3. KROUPA, Janek (2024).Church obfuscation: The case of a well-known priest is revived by a new testimony. List of News, 25/12/2024.

4. SOCHOROVÁ, Barbora (2024).The dark side of the priest: Janek Kroupa describes the fall of the media priest Jaluška. List of News (podcast 5:59), 11/19/2024.

5. CTK (2024).Hussite priest Jaluška quits. He faces sexual harassment charges. Liberecká Drbna, 18 November 2024.

6. MURPHY, Yvonne et al. (2009).Report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin (Murphy Report). Dublin: Government of Ireland.https://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2009_11_26_Murphy_Report/

7. McDONALD, Henry (2009).Irish church and police covered up child sex abuse, says report. The Guardian, 26. 11. 2009.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/26/ireland-church-sex-abuse