“He states that Catholicism has remarkable staying
power, an ability to survive unmatched by any
contemporary institution.”

What about the Mafia? Just because an institution can survive does not mean it is a valuable institution. Institutions can survive because they are able to bully and intimidate its members and hold them by fear. If you are told as a child that you would go to hell and suffer eternal punishment if you failed to turn up to church on Sunday you would believe it because you had no good reason not to trust the adults in your life. It makes good sense to remain in the institution if the fires of hell are the alternative. There are millions of otherwise rational adults who still believe this today.

The church has staying power not because it is an institution that has values worth embracing but because it taps into the fears and insecurities of human beings and promises a solution. It survives like the drug trade survives because it is a quick fix for human problems

“The other thing in the Church's favour is that the
Australian church is just the right size.”

How can a church be the right size? Surely if what you belief is crucial for your life then how can it be optional for everyone else? Religion is not a ‘boutique accessory’ it is fundamental to all human behaviour according to those who adhere to it. Does God have a lifestyle preference? “Common Muslims a billion adherents is enough now you risk going out of style”.

Geraldine Doogue tells us that:

Dr Paul Collins' central challenge is not to
the broader society but to Catholics.
His suggestion is that maybe our version
should be about hope. That 21st century
Catholics should hope and be revived. His message
regarding his Church is to encourage Catholics to
act as though there is more to life than meets the
eye. This is the call that many of us can hardly
bear to hear. We can but live in the hope that some
of us do.

*Foxy* I am starting to sense that you would prefer not to be shown certain images? I had this sense a little while ago on another matter which kind of surprised me initially actually. OK then, how about this?

Would you prefer, say, more like FIFA? A problem of an entrenched and corrupt leadership which gives rise to a challenge for the membership to purge, purify and renew?

..

I have not read any of his books *Foxy* but I have seen him on Geraldine's show more than once. But as said, he loses me when he does anything other than name a heinous crime for what it is.

..

So many terrible atrocities in Australia, including in my life time with nuns stealing babies (and I was a little bastard from the word go with my biological father's name only appearing after I was more than 3 years old) and yet no one truly responsible ever seems to get charged.

That needs to change *Foxy*

Dear DreamOn,

Nobody is denying the fact that the Church must
be held to account. As Dr Collins points out -
The Church has made some dreadful mistakes.
Sexual abuse of children is horrendous and
intolerable and the failure of the Church to deal
with it effectively has done immeasurable damage
to victims. The cover-ups, the protection of
abusive clergy and the refusal to admit egregious
mistakes are unjustifiable.

I fully agree this cannot continue.

We have not yet even begun to calculate the damage
these crimes have done to people's trust and to the
reputation of the Church.

Law had simply moved demonstrably abusive priests from
parish to parish, thus giving them access to new
victims.

There is no doubt that the clerical profession has
taken a severe battering and that respect for the
priesthood is, understandably at an all time low.

The Church must now be willing to confront both
the difficulties and opportunities that it now faces.
This is something that Dr Collins also points out.

However - whether this happens with Cardinal Pell's
visit - well I won't be holding my breath.
The man has been in denial all along.
I doubt whether he'll surprise any of us.
As I stated at the beginning of this discussion - I
have my doubts about anyone being able to challenge
any powerful institution or those whose job it is to
protect it. However I would be happy to be proven
wrong.

There are a number of issues that come under the topic titled: "The scandal of defending George Pell: Amanda Vanstone's moral support".

Personally, I couldn't go through all of them. There are a lot of simplistic assumptions in this discussion topic, and if taken seriously would have serious public implications. These include:

1. The author of the article could or would (deny) people in principle the right to be defended;

2. The author could or would deny (in this case Amanda Vanstone), the right to free speech;

3. The author could or would use an important issue, (like serious child abuse) and not highlight (abuse in principle), to not offend others (due to say their actions in terms of abuse).

As a person who had serious false allegations made against myself, I was left to defend myself, put a strong argument to the police and yet I still had to go through a strong process with the police force.

Basic principles seem to have been thrown in the bin, by simplistic individuals, authors and some who are very hateful towards religion (like a Christian Church) for example.

A lot of other forms of violence (in the community) is therefore not looked at (in depth) as a result.

u r right Nathan. I would imagine the same press that goes hard at Pell would of been the same to defend Henson taking naked shots of young girls and the Rotherham scandal. Usually for the left it is all about sides not the victims they hide behind. Abbott received ten times more press about punching air 40 years ago than Shorten did on his rape case. Thats our balanced abc.