When Denomination Leaders Call the Abuse Crisis a Hoax, What That Means for Your Own Healing

Reviewed by Heard & Believed · Updated 2026-07-28

Two top leaders in a major Protestant denomination recently dismissed years of documented clergy abuse as a hoax and a ruse. Survivors and advocates are demanding an apology. Here is why public denial like this causes its own kind of harm, and why it does not change what happened to you.

What Was Actually Said

This summer, the current president of a major Protestant denomination described its long-running clergy abuse crisis as a ruse and a snipe hunt, a phrase used for a made-up practical joke. A prominent pastor within the same denomination separately called the crisis a hoax. Both leaders also suggested that survivor advocates pushing for reform were driven by outside political motives rather than genuine concern.

More than 80 survivors and advocates responded with a public open letter demanding an apology from both men, arguing that language like this sends a clear message to congregations and the public not to believe survivors.

Why Public Denial Is Its Own Kind of Harm

Researchers use the term institutional betrayal to describe harm that happens when an organization a person depends on fails to prevent abuse, or responds poorly once it comes to light. According to the researchers who study it, this dynamic causes both practical harm and separate psychological harm, on top of whatever the original abuse caused.

Studies on institutional betrayal have found that survivors whose institutions respond with denial or minimization tend to show more severe trauma symptoms than survivors whose institutions respond supportively. In other words, what an institution says publicly after abuse comes to light is not a footnote. It measurably shapes how survivors recover, or do not.

The Longer History Behind This Moment

This is not the denomination's first reckoning with the issue. An outside investigation in 2022 found that its own leadership had, in the investigators' words, downplayed the issue of abuse for years, mistreated survivors, and stonewalled attempts to address it. That investigation led to a formal apology and a pledge to build a database tracking credibly accused clergy.

That database effort has since stalled, slowed by funding shortfalls, internal red tape, and costly lawsuits. Advocates say this summer's comments landed against that backdrop, which is part of why the response from survivors was immediate and organized rather than a one-off complaint.

If This Story Brings Up Something for You

You do not need any institution, religious or otherwise, to publicly affirm your experience for it to be real. Whether the setting was a church, a school, a workplace, or a family, institutions sometimes respond to abuse with defensiveness rather than accountability, and that response is a reflection of the institution's priorities, not a verdict on what happened to you.

If reading about a story like this one brought up old feelings, that is a normal trauma response, not a sign that something is wrong with you. It can help to name what you are feeling, reach out to a trauma-informed counselor if you have one, and remember that a headline about institutional denial does not get the final say over your own history.

Recognizing the Patterns of Institutional Betrayal

Researchers who study this pattern point to a recurring set of institutional behaviors. Here is what to watch for, whether the institution involved is a church, a school, a workplace, or something else.

1. Public minimization: Calling documented abuse a hoax, an exaggeration, or a political attack rather than acknowledging it.
2. Discouraging reports: Making the reporting process so difficult or discouraging that survivors decide it is not worth pursuing.
3. Slow or absent investigation: Allowing allegations to sit without a genuine, independent inquiry.
4. Protecting the institution's image: Prioritizing reputation management over addressing what actually happened to a person.
5. Punishing those who speak up: Treating survivors or whistleblowers as troublemakers rather than people raising a legitimate concern.
6. Reform that stalls quietly: Announcing accountability measures that later lose funding or momentum without public explanation.

You might also read

• What an Institutional Apology Actually Means, and What It Cannot Do
• When Abuse News Is Everywhere: A Gentle Guide to Protecting Yourself During Difficult Media Moments
• You Do Not Have to Follow Every Headline: Protecting Your Mental Health During Abuse Coverage