The emphases in Church abuse cases seems to centre around the Catholic Church. Sexual abuse is not only carried out by some Catholic priests but by some ministers of all Denominations. Why is the Ho Har solely centred on Catholic priests?

These homosexual predators seek anywhere they can prey on children, kids sporting clubs, schools, cubs & scouts as well as bible study groups. Why don't they get as much attention?

I don't think the organization should be held responsible for the assault initially. I do think the organisation can be held responsible for not acting on the complaint immediately and if they have tried to cover the complaint up.

Frank Brennan is overly generous in his assessment of the Catholic Church's 'Towards Healing' protocol as a 'path to compassion, care and justice'.

'Towards Healing' is preferred by the Church because it is cheaper for them, produces minimal adverse publicity, secretly releases them from legal action (or tries to) and allows them to pick off individual complainants rather than deal with groups of victims.

The Church hates cases like the current Marist College case in Canberra where more than 30 former students have decided to sue dozens of individual teachers for pedophilia. The boys' claims are admitted by the Church but will be contested in court by the Church.

The Marists may use a legal loophole to escape liability for this alleged (but conceded) sexual abuse. A NSW Court of Appeal decision known as the Ellis case may be their salvation. In that case, the Church, in the name of Archbishop Pell, was successful in obtaining a judgment that priests were not agents of the Church and therefore it could not be sued for their actions.

Another legal impediment argued by the Church is the statute of limitations which allows liability to be waived if the abuse is too old in legal terms. Legal delays therefore are also part of the defence armoury.

There are plenty of victims who see 'Towards Healing' as a none-too-subtle sham to dodge legal liability for acts of sexual abuse by Church agents.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23934555-12339,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23933517-28737,00.html

Brennan is right when he says: 'The Church should not give any appearance of hiding behind the corporate veil'. But look at what they do.

I am pleased that Brennan concludes that the 'Towards Healing' protocol is not a substitute for criminal prosecution of sex abusers or a cheap alternative to civil liability for damages.

But whether it is, as he claims, 'a procedure available by choice to victims in addition to criminal prosecution of perpetrators or pursuit of civil damages for negligence by church authorities' is a moot point when so much pressure is brought to bear on victims to waive their right to take legal action.

Jayb “Sexual abuse is not only carried out by some Catholic priests but by some ministers of all Denominations. Why is the Ho Har solely centred on Catholic priests?”

Why not?

The despicable acts of non-catholics in no way excuses or diminishes the despicable acts of Roman Catholic priests.

For instance, Hollingworth, in his cover-up in Anglican circles lost his role as Governor General.

I believe every organisation is susceptible to infiltration by corrupt people.

A strong organization, secure in its values and beliefs, can admit publically when it has discovered corruption and what it has done to excise it.

A weak organization or organization lead by weak individuals, deals with problems, including corruption, behind closed doors hidden from public scrutiny and forment a cover up, the cowardly way.

Where a weak organization or weakly lead organization covers-up the corruption of its officers, it takes on responsibility for that corruption and deserves the wrath and abandonment of the public for its deceit and endangerment.

Strong organizations, founded in ethics survive. Weak ones, lacking in ethic, die.

I just wonder how much longer will any of these church organizations survive?

"Father Chris Riley went so far as to label it “a joke”, with the perpetrators being the only winners.

I beg to differ. Towards Healing, established in 1996 and revised in 2000, is continually reviewed."

And it is reviewed based on what exactly? The bad experiences of those who have been strong enough to force change by punching through the obfuscation, jumping over the hurdles and seeing through the false spin, of course.

What the glib comments of Brennan overlook is that many victims don't make it to the other side and the ones who do often get put through the wringer in the process. Compassion to victims - give me a break! It's not that the Church is without compassion, it's just that they normally are nice/compassionate to the people who are most like they are and who least need it. This fact then gets extrapolated to make it sound like they help all victims.

Dig a bit deeper below the surface, Frank.

I wasn't excusing the Catholic Church. I just find that if someone mentions sexual abuse in churches everybody looks directly at the Catholic church. A miriad of other denominations, such as, the Southern Baptists, are just as guilty of these crimes.

As I have said it is the individual that carries out the crime which is then expounded by the organisation.

Blame the individual for the crime. Blame the organisation for the coverup. But lets not just focus on ONE organisation. The focus needs to shift to ALL these organisations and their dereliction of duty & care.

The way it is now the focus is solely on the Catholic Church alone and these other organisations are getting away scott free.

It's just a little bit... smug, is it not?

The entire tenor of this article appears to be "don't try suing the church, they've got all the angles covered".

"There are many hurdles for a victim wanting to sue anyone but the criminal perpetrator...."

"A victim faces one additional hurdle when suing for abuse by a priest or other church personnel...."

But this one's the doozy:

"the New South Wales Court of Appeal clarified that in the case of the Catholic Church, there was no point in trying to sue the “Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church”, the statutory trust corporation that holds title to all the church lands of a diocese. That corporation may hold the assets but it does not supervise, employ or oversee clergy or other church workers...."

They appear to have engineered a situation where the body that supervises has no assets, and the body with the assets does no supervision.

Neat.

But the article's title is spot on: the Church's abuse protocol is no joke.

Unless you happen to be one of the abused, of course, then you will hear them laughing.