On Lateline last night, it came to light that Cardinal Pell dismissed the claims of a paedophilia victim in his Church as well as to dismiss the recommendations of a Church investigation into the incident. Pell's only comment was that he worded his letter wrongly to the victim. Like that makes his actions alright.

Well, blimey, I thought the Church was all about compassion. Then I realised that true Christianity is all about compassion, but that the institutionalised Church is all about making a motza out of pretending to be compassionate and pretending to be Christian.

George Pell, based on his actions as opposed to the dogma he professes to hold, is a failed leader and at best can only be called a Christian follower.

Time to go Cardinal. Get out of the way and let the real healing begin!!

RobP,

You were just ahead of me with your post, which I missed.

In the US, I understand from the "Insiders" on TV, that the Bishop of Boston, to escape justice, has been graned sanctionary in the Vatican.

- Should we pull Pells' passports pending police investigations?
- Should the Pope protect these guys?

This is the religious leader both our political parties (our PM and the opposition) love (really as christians) and defend actual child abuse, while complaining about some happy naked child..this hypocrisy/irony should be all over the media.

Were it proved that any hypothetrical Cardinal covered-up a major crime and said Cardinal, whom every he might be, were sent to gaol. That would be an excellent message for Australia to send the world, that All are equal under the Law.

In fact, if there is sufficient evidence provided to a magistrate, where a jury could render a guilty verdict, with guilt beyond reasonable doubt; then any such hypothetical Cardinal, should be arreigned into police custody.

Part of the problem is RC priests are fobidden to marry which is totally unscriptural and indicative of the unscriptural-ness of the system.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 says "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons...they forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods..."
Forbidding people to marry is demons in control of RC church doctrine.
No marriage partner and the man can easily become a lover of men... and/or boys.
This shows to be true in the number of paedophiles in the RC church system.

It is time that the Catholic Church
re-examine the quality of its leadership.
It isn't enough to put on a "wonderful show,"
such as World Youth Day, to try to re-inforce a
faith - when that faith as practiced by
it's leadership is morally corrupt.
It is not about compassion,as it should be,
but exclusion.

And the leading example - is Cardinal George Pell.

I agree, Cardinal Pell does not do honour
to the rank of Cardinal.

His speeches indicate his bias.

He talks about traditions of caring, love,
honesty, decency, justice and a fair go...
But he's extremely selective - for whom.
He qualifies those principles by applying them
only to what he considers to be "normal."
A family of
mother, father, and children. Excluding
anyone else in our modern society that differs
from this norm.

He's also a ferocious critic of a great many things,
abortion, euthanasia, stem cell legislation, the
ordination of women priests, and of-course - homosexuality.
Yet he's been accused of
protecting priests that are guilty of child abuse.
And, his refusal to give homosexuals Holy Communion -
is not a decision that an ordained
Man of God should be making.

It is sad that weak and compassionless men such as Pell,
get into such high positions within a religious
order. Men - who should be concerned with the healing of the world.
Not adding to its misfortune - with blinkered narrow vision.

Pell has a lot to answer for. Unfortunately, it will be quite
some time before he has to.
In the meantime, the harm continues to be done.

Not much seems to change, when it comes to the top hierarchy of
the Catholic Church. They seem to do as they please. The
two letters shown on Lateline seem to contradict each other
completely, despite being written on the same day. Something
is very very fishy here, IMHO.

Yet our adoring pollies still suck up to them. Ratzinger comes
to Australia and I've seen estimates regarding taxpayer cost
of 120-150 million $!

I guess that even some of our true believer pollies, are hoping
to buy their ticket to heaven, with taxpayers footing the bill.

But then the RCC used to flog indulgences to make a quid, yet
the true believers still believe.

After all this, we are then told by the Christians that us agnostics
have no morals. Hehe

Rob P

you now realize:

[Then I realised that true Christianity is all about compassion,]

and I applaud that.. 'hooray'.. lets hope and pray that others who are critical of God because of those using His name will realize that also.

Suggested reading for the day :) Luke 20 it is probably one of the most profound sections of scripture. In that you will definitely see the real Jesus.

cheers.

I would like to know if their are a higher percentage of paedophiles among the Catholic Priests than the rest of society. If so why? No doubt it would be politically correct to find this out. Less politically correct would be to find out what percentage of these abusers are homosexual. No one would dare go there!

Gibo puts his case but is it true?
Just seems to me pedophiles are attacked to Church's just as they can be to scouting movements and such.
Fire bugs join bush fire brigades, much the same.
Pell has no idea and maybe his church has either why has it never stopped?
Can anyone teaching their Gods word truly believe he exists after committing these crimes?
World youth day is a farce.

Gibo, I am in my forties and single and loving it. That does not in anyway what so ever make me a candidate for being a paedophile any more than a married man. Someone once told me that the percentage of paedophiles among Catholic Church clergy is the same as it is for the population as a whole.

I do agree however, that Priests should not be forbidden to marry, and the RC Church acknowledge that this is a man made law.

But what about those in the hierarchy of the Churches that protect their own. Jury, If guilty, then gaol? Look folks, this isn't a parking ticket but an alleged serious crime.

Cardinal Pell excuses himself this week by saying he made an error. The man has form.

Pell was a long-term associate and passionate supporter of one of Australia's most notorious pedophiles, Father Gerald Ridsdale. He supported Ridsdale when he was on trial in 1993 rather than support Ridsdale’s vitims. Pell was by then auxiliary bishop of Melbourne.

Pell was a priest in Ballarat from 1971 and vicar in charge of the Catholic education system in the Ballarat Diocese from 1973 to 1984. For a year from early 1973, Ridsdale shared a house with Pell at the Presbytery, next door to the St Alipius Primary School.
Ridsdale was the school chaplain and parish priest.

Three Christian Brothers teachers - Dowlan, Best and Farrell - were convicted of sex offences against students at St Alipius Primary and St Patrick's College in the early 1970s.

Ridsdale was eventually sentenced to 18 years in prison in 1994 after pleading guilty to 46 counts of indecent assault, including buggery, against 21 children. Among the hundreds of victims, most of those who laid charges were altar boys aged 11-14 from the Ballarat Diocese.

On the eve of his swearing-in as archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Pell said he had had "no idea" about Ridsdale's activities when they lived together. However, Ridsdale's 1994 trial heard evidence that the church had sent him to a psychologist as early as 1971, and that before arriving at Ballarat he had been shunted from parish to parish because of complaints.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/01/1022569845430.html

Pell himself was accused of sexual abuse, but the charges could not be sustained because of the absence of forensic evidence after a 40-year interval, the complainant's credibility, lack of corroborative evidence and Dr Pell's sworn denial of the accusations. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/14/1034561097748.html

A month before the allegations of his own improper conduct became public Pell stated that "[a]bortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people."

As Archbishop of Melbourne and Archbishop of Sydney, Pell unwaveringly refused communion to gay people which made his support of Ridsdale all the more hypocritical.
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pell#cite_ref-5

Pell must resign.

GrahamY,

Yesterday, I submitted a very, very similar to the first post of this thread. Seemingly, in your wisdom, you thought my contribution, duplication, and did not post it.

That's, okay. :-)

Clive, please note, we all don't split the dummy and appreciate Graham a job to do. And a good job at that!

O.

RobP,

“… a paedophilia victim ..”

Are you a journalist? If so why is any abuse by a Catholic priest labeled by journalists as “paedophilia”? The victim was 28 or 29 when the incident occurred. Paedophilia only relates to prepubescent children.

“Pell's only comment was that he worded his letter wrongly to the victim. Like that makes his actions alright.”

The main allegation was that he was misleading the victim by implying that the priest did no wrong. Pell informed the guy that he was the only one who had accused the priest of rape. He used the term "sexual assault" for rape. He then wrote another letter shortly afterward apologizing. Stating to the victim that the priest had never been accused of "sexual assault" previously was construed by the victim and the media as suggesting that the priest had never done anything wrong sexually whatsoever. The priest had been accused of making inappropriate advances to a minor as another letter evidenced.

Given that the contentious issue was the use of the term “sexual assault” and given the legality involved and thus formality of such correspondence his explanation of the terminology made sense.

”Well, blimey, I thought the Church was all about compassion.”

Not completely but it is important. That might explain his subsequent letter.

“George Pell, based on his actions as opposed to the dogma he professes to hold, is a failed leader and at best can only be called a Christian follower.”

Foxy expresses a perspective that seems more of an authentic grievance about Pell than the current media beat up to make World Youth Day more newsworthy.

If you think he is a failed leader due to his drafting of that letter I hope you are not a leader. At least the term “sexual assault” actually means rape. Your use of the term “paedophia’ to describe the attempted rape of a 28 year old is clearly wrong

"On the eve of his swearing-in as archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Pell said he had had "no idea" about Ridsdale's activities when they lived together. However, Ridsdale's 1994 trial heard evidence that the church had sent him to a psychologist as early as 1971, and that before arriving at Ballarat he had been shunted from parish to parish because of complaints."

When I first read your post I thought you were responsible for this then I saw it was from the media so I guess there is no reason to take issue with normal journalistic practice.

The innuendo is that Pell was lying when he said he had "no idea". Somehow Pell as a priest not a Bishop or even Auxilliary Bishop or someone working in some area investigating such complaints must have known about Ridsdale because that history prior to their sharing accomodation. The journalist has somehow caught Pell out cold and considers it appropriate to use the "However".

Without any legitimate reason to have official knowledge is there any reason to think that Ridsdale or anyone else would have been that open about the situation? Would Ridsdale have boasted? Would the Bishop shunting him around boast? I wouldn't think so. On what basis is it so definite (or even more likely than not) that Pell knew?

mjpb,

No, I'm not a jounalist. I assumed the incident pertaining to the man in question was when he was a minor. I missed a few minutes of the interview on Lateline, but I stand to be corrected if what I've put forward is an incorrect fact. I am writing this on the basis that the Lateline interview is not a fabrication or overblown grievance.

The leadership I am referring to in Pell is in the moral sphere, and not in the legal one. (Writing some letter just doesn't cut the mustard any more.) When someone in a position of authority like him is made aware of ILLEGAL and IMMORAL acts such as this, under the roof of his Church, it is encumbant on him to do more than just run to his lawyers and hide behind them. The real criticism here is the way the Church hides behind its name and always leaves the individual victim in these types types of cases to thrash it out for him- or herself.

So, in my view, ANY form of sexual abuse is wrong and immoral; and ANY type of cover up, including by wilful ingorance, is also wrong.

It's about time Pell and the rest of the Church took responsibility for the damage the Church has done to people. That's what I mean when I say he needs to get out of the way, because it's clear he doesn't have the G&D to face up to it and do anything about it.

It's clear all he's interested in is World Youth Day.

go easy on Pell so he is still there when I get to sue him - like I am too busy just now with my action against Howards Cash for Comment mens groups pirating my book A Blokes Guide to Family Law

but has anyone else [besides Pell himself] tried to get relief under the Parkinson Towards Healing Protocol/Farce?

*I do agree however, that Priests should not be forbidden to marry, and the RC Church acknowledge that this is a man made law.*

Ah, but that would cost the church far too much money! All those
wives and kids to feed. Its much cheaper this way. Don't forget
that running all that pomp and splendor in Rome is not cheap.

Hi to all the forgotten australians ,

we are the victims of rapes and abuse and slavery and much more than you can imagine,

we are the victims of ritual abuse in the states run institutions and churches of which the state of new south wales still cover up , till this day,

as for cardinal pell well he is just another digraces for us victims that suffered abuse in the institutions through out australia ,

he denies he lied , yet statements prove he did know about sexual abuse in the church homes ,

and surely he is aware that their are victims who were under state control that were raped and abused , dating back many many years ,

the state of new south wales is just as bad as cardinal pell because they too keep covering up and hiding the truth of what we victims suffered in the states run institutions,

yesterday on sky news ,cardinal pell was asked this question

does the pope know of this and will you tell him

pell replied no and it will be after world youth day before he speaks of this to the pope

how disgraceful cardinal pell you should be a shamed and be stood down for lying , about the cover up , as that of the state of new south wales as well ,for the abuse the victims suffered in the states institutions ,

from a real victim that was raped and abused in the states run institution daruk boys home , ( dharruk training centre ) windsor new south wales , now the john moroney correctional centre ,

the goverment the churches and the courts need to stand up and addmitt to the truth of what we victims suffered , and to give us all justice and a apology

i will not stop my fight for justice.

regards huffnpuff

mjpb, your defense of Cardinal Pell – ‘The innuendo is that Pell was lying when he said he had "no idea"’ - is misguided.

From evidence given at Father Ridsdale’s three trials – at which he pleaded guilty – and from Pell’s own statements we know some facts:

- The Church knew in 1970-71 and maybe as early as 1961 that Ridsdale was a danger to young people. They organised sexual counseling for Ridsdale in 1970-71, the mid-70s, 1982 and 1990.
- Pell and Ridsdale knew each other well - same school, seminarians together and served together, shared the same house in Ballarat in 1973.
- The Church moved Ridsdale around at a bewildering rate whenever there was a complaint. Pell would have been curious about this.

It’s inconceivable that Pell didn’t know what was going on.

However, put that aside. What did Pell know when he supported Ridsdale in his court appearance in May 1993? (The Church offered the victims no support.)

60 Minutes 2 June 2002:
(http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/lossfaith2.htm)

RICHARD CARLETON: Did David Risdale tell you that his uncle, Gerald, Father Gerald, had been abusing him?
GEORGE PELL: Never. Never.
CARLETON: Never?
PELL: At any stage.
CARLETON: He says he did.
PELL: Well, that's completely false.
CARLETON: It didn't happen?
PELL: Didn't happen.
CARLETON: He says that in January 93 he rang you and told you.
PELL: Oh, well, that's 1993. I thought you were talking about back in the '70s. Risdale would have been in jail I think by then.

No, Ridsdale was not in jail at that time. Pell knew about Ridsdale in January/February, months before he went to court in support of Ridsdale in May.

Why would he say he knew nothing when clearly he did?

He is equally unconvincing in defence of the practice of offering hush money to victims in exchange for secrecy. Why hush money? Pell says: “Because many of them don't want to be subjected to publicity and of course it's shameful for the Church.”

Humbug!

For the full story on Ridsdale see Broken Rites http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page116-ridsdale.html

Hi Foxy,

Do you feel that "where proven" bishops and their superiors cover-up illegal activities in relation to major crimes, these after-the-fact perpetrates should face a jury and potentially gaol?

On the Insiders about three weeks back it was reported that US Bishop of Boston skipped town and was given sactuary in the Vatican. I couldn't find the report on the Internet.

O.

Spikey,

“- Pell and Ridsdale knew each other well - same school, seminarians together and served together, shared the same house in Ballarat in 1973. “

I could have gone to the same school, same uni and worked in the same job as someone. That doesn’t mean that if I shared a house with them I’d automatically know they had a history of paedophilia. I would expect that they wouldn’t be boasting about something like that. Even if they went through school at the same time it doesn’t even guarantee they knew each other well. Besides Pell was born in 1941 while Ridsdale was born in 1934 you would hardly expect them to be close at school. If they also attended the same seminary at different times the proximity is even less.

”The Church moved Ridsdale around at a bewildering rate whenever there was a complaint. Pell would have been curious about this.”

How would he know? It didn’t happen while they were living together.

”It’s inconceivable that Pell didn’t know what was going on.”

Why? From the facts you present it would be surprising if he did.

”Why would he say he knew nothing when clearly he did?”

Didn’t he say he knew nothing about it when he was living with Ridsdale? That was in the 70s.

runner,
>>I would like to know if their are a higher percentage of paedophiles among the Catholic Priests than the rest of society. If so why? No doubt it would be politically correct to find this out. Less politically correct would be to find out what percentage of these abusers are homosexual. No one would dare go there!<<

You might want to check

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/index.html#exec
or
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2007d/111607/111607r.htm
or
http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/1267.

Dear Oliver (Olly),

Many years ago I read the book, "In God's Name,"
by David A. Yallop. For 4 months, it was on The
New York Times Bestseller List.

The book dealt with an investigation into the
murder of Pope John Paul I. and I quote,
"On September 28, 1978, thirty-three days after his
election, Pope John Paul I, "the Smiling Pope,"
was declared dead. No official death certificate
has ever been issued. No autopsy ever performed. His body
was hastily embalmed. Cause of death: Unknown. And Vatican
business continued as usual..."

I didn't mean to digress here Olly, but it's the
only way I know to answer your question that concerns
bringing members of the Catholic clergy to account.
I don't think it's going to happen in a public forum
like a court. The Church won't let it happen. It will
deal with matters within its own ranks in its own
way.

Do I think the clergy should be held accountable - yes,
if they have committed a crime, and there is strong
evidence of it. I do not however condone, "Trial by Media."
Or smear tactics, without concrete proof.

But, what we think - won't make an ounce of
difference. The Church, like Royalty, appears to be
a law onto itself.

huffnpuff,

The Pope's email address is:

benedictxvi@vatican.va

With hundreds of thousands of priests, statistically, some are going to be deviants and criminals. What annoys me is the bishops whom protect the criminals. In this frame, I feel anyone concealing the commission of a very serious crime should be goaled, if convicted by a jury in a fair trial. Render their bodies to Caesar.

Further, should bishops be barred from hearing Confession from clergy?
The Confession process is open to abuse by the criminal priests.

In someways good priests are like good cops, they themsleves do the right thing; but, will never, never dob in their peers, who should be prosecuted.

Most people don't like dobbing, but with heinous crimes, come on now, think of the victims.

George,

Interesting surveys and data.

OK so none of "yous" has actually HAD "a bad Catholic Day" personally, or perhaps did have one but has not had the balls to "complain" [either via a court or the Towards Healing protocol]

Any takers to take this thread from media Boo Hoo to ACTION?

any experiences we can build upon?

I was taught by both priests and nuns.A amall percentage were perverted,but most were the best human beings you'd ever have the privlidege to meet beyond god.
Personally I don't like Pell,but we should not judge a man or any person on a moments indiscretion.

Pell has again changed his story.
Police phone taps have forced him too.
I have no hate for the Catholic church,but I distrust them.
A thread about that QLD child molester must be highlighted here.
In what way are the ofending priests world wide any different?
This thread gives mounting evidence Pell at least did not take proper action.
In my view he covered up for some.
If world youth day is to be a day of saying sorry the church must convince the world this dreadful crime will not be part of the future of the church as it is part of its history.

Belly,

Nicely and succinctly put.

Oliver,

"...statistically, some are going to be deviants and criminals. What annoys me is the bishops whom protect..."

You aren't alone.

RobP,

"The leadership I am referring to in Pell is in the moral sphere...The real criticism here is the way the Church hides behind its name ..."

The issue you raise is clearly a very real problem. In fairness, at a "Church" level, the problem gets worked on and Pell is probably not the best example (given the systems he set up even including free counselling to victims). In this case his second letter to the victim apologising is noteworthy. Nevertheless the issue has added so much to the actual abuse.

A major problem that the Church has faced is that not only were people abused (sounding even worse when media use the word paedophilia for almost any abuse) but that Bishops outraged the public by failing that moral duty. As a Catholic I'd picture their role as being like shepherds rather than just moral leaders but that only adds to the responsibility. I believe the medical profession has had a higher proportion of abuse cases but without that complication they rate better in trusted profession lists.

Unfortunately some Bishops have taken the approach of just hiding behind lawyers trying to minimise liability as if they were good company managers not shepherds. Worse yet they have also shirked moral responsibility for managing their priests with regard to the actual paedophiles. The Pope has pronounced words to the effect that such people cannot be priests. However he should not have had to. In the religion paedophilia is considered an extremely serious sin. God can forgive them but they aren't suitable to function as priests. Instead of taking responsibility for considering the moral aspects the Bishops passed such priests over to psychiatrists. In those days psychiatrists would say the priests were cured and pass them back. The priests would be relocated and the process would go on. It was a reprehensible abdication of responsibility to consider moral implications by the Bishops with obvious tragic consequences.

mjpb

Yes, Pell and Ridsdale were some years apart in their schooling (at the same school in Ballarat) but they were seminarians together and shared the same small (4-person) house in Ballarat. They had lots in common and were friends. Pell knew the Ridsdale family very well. You would expect Pell to follow Ridsdale's career with interest. Pell attended court as a personal friend to support Ridsdale while no-one in the Church supported his victims.

It is common knowledge that for priests to be moved as often a Ridsdale was there is something significant interfering with their vocation. Pell would have had to be brain-dead not to have known that Ridsdale was in serious trouble with the hierarchy. He certainly knew when he personally chose to defend Ridsdale but not his victims.

Visit the website of Broken Rites where you will see a litany of cover-ups of sexual abuse by Catholic priests over many years including when Pell was top dog. His own scheme for dealing with cases - introduced while he was Archbishop of Melbourne - is more secretive and less supportive of victims than the Towards Healing system introduced by the other Catholic bishops throughout Australia.

Pell's treatment of claimants has been consistently hard-line and mean-spirited. Church-centred as opposed to victim-centred. Defending priests and defaming victims.

On a more general note, Broken Rites has a data base of thousands of complaints, and documents 107 cases in which it was involved (and that doesn't cover all cases) where Catholic priests and religious brothers were sentenced by Australian courts.

We must stop putting our heads in the sand and deal honestly with the problem. It's time for Pell to give way to someone more compassionate and willing to seek solutions, not just cover-ups.

http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html

mjpb,

Overall, a pretty decent post. But I still have a bit of a problem with "...In this case his second letter to the victim apologising is noteworthy. Nevertheless the issue has added so much to the actual abuse."

I don't think being noteworthy is anywhere near enough. If Pell really was a shepherd tending to his flock, he would understand that, in the real world, there is a large difference in power between the clergy and the laity. So when he said on TV over the last couple of days that he took the views of both Fr Goodall and the victim evenly, he is overlooking the fact that both have uneven platforms from which to put their views. He is also, I strongly suspect, implicitly judging the situation against the Church's preferred outcome.

The real reason the victim felt even more isolated, and even more abused, by Pell's comments was that Pell took a RC doctrinaire approach to the incident and left the victim to fall between the cracks. I believe Pell really has failed this man. As has the whole Church culture for centuries. Pell is a great functionary for the Church "enterprise", but in so doing he has overlooked the central core tenet of Christianity: compassion for the ordinary man.

Foxy,

Thank you for the time taken for a considered answer. I pretty-much agree with all you, including the Crown and Church being treated somewhat different. Perhaps, for the stability of those institutions?

That said:

After Cromwell, the Crown was made quasi-accountable to Parliament. Now, perhaps, "all" criminal elements in the Church should be accountable to the Courts.

The Courts and Parliament accountable to the People.

I am not saying that RC priests should give-up say the sanctity of of Confession, rather higher-ups who cover-up [like secular company directors] should be held for crimes after-the-fact.

Nonetheless, your post is probably the most realistic. Yet, imagine the good press and the boast the justice system were a Cardinal arraigned under suspicion, while the Pope was in Oz. It world show "no one" is above the Law in Australia.

George,

I am Catholic so I already have a passing familiarity with these things. I can’t fit in a response to Runner’s post that will incorporate discussion of the first link but will hopefully get to it eventually.

Further to my previous post regarding Bishops. I note that your third link demonstrates that they haven’t changed their attitude much. From your third link:

“Reaction appeared to suggest that many bishops don’t want to shoulder the burden of blame by themselves, with several urging researchers to consider advice given by mental health professionals. “Very often, we were told that this can be treated by conventional psychotherapy,” said Bishop John Ricard of Pensacola-Tallahassee, Fla. “I think this was a prevailing belief on the part of the mental health profession. The bishops followed that advice, with obvious consequences.”

How pathetic! Granted the media didn’t acknowledge such things but the Bishops are still passing the buck. The issues addressed may well have been partly moral and partly mental health but their duty to the victims was to deal with the moral side of it not just pass the buck.
With regard to your second link it seems strange to find an article on public school sex abusers in a supposedly Catholic magazine. I hope they aren’t trying to imply that some other group is worse so internal problems aren’t so bad.

With regard to your first link I’m happy to digest and expand on it but am deferring due to word and post limits. I note that Bishops true to form reportedly commented was that the result was good because the Church was no worse than anywhere else. That probably misunderstands the findings which were actually more favourable for the Church than that suggests but their belief should hardly be comforting for them as members of a moral focused organization.

spikey said [via broken rites]

Visit the website of Broken Rites where you will see a litany of cover-ups of sexual abuse by Catholic priests over many years including when Pell was top dog. His own scheme for dealing with cases - introduced while he was Archbishop of Melbourne - is more secretive and less supportive of victims than the Towards Healing system introduced by the other Catholic bishops throughout Australia.

See THAT was the reason for my question, having TRIED Towards Healing.

Of course, as I relate in my Child Support chapter in http://www.ablokesguide.com I was totally aware of Howard's Little Mate Professor Parkinson and his Draconian amendments to the Child Support Acts, essentially REMOVING the rite [if I may use the same spelling] to appeal against the CSA

So it was total deja vu with Towards Healing

Do you realise that Pell himself got off by using Towards Healing, but does not use it in Victoria [or somewhere]

in any case I HAD to use Towards Healing in Qld, but I DID carefully record every abuse of justice therein

Spikey,

“Yes, … some years apart … but they were seminarians together and shared the same ... house ... They had lots in common and were friends...”

Yes they were some years apart at school. The first seminary they both went to was also the same one being Corpus Christi, Ballarat. According to Broken Rites Ridsdale was ordained in July 1961. Pell was ordained in December 1966. Broken Rites advises that for the previous 2 years Ridsdale had been in a seminary in Ireland. I believe ordination takes about 7 years. If so then Pell presumably started late 1959 at Corpus Christi. At the time Ridsdale had been in Ireland for half a year after a stint at Genoa Italy and before that at Corpus Christi.

Is describing them as “seminarians together” is the best way to put it?

Again, they would have known each other quite well from the time they shared that house but …

It is timely to revisit the reporter’s relevant comment:

“On the eve of his swearing-in as archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Pell said he had had "no idea" about Ridsdale's activities when they lived together. However, Ridsdale's 1994 trial heard evidence that the church had sent him to a psychologist as early as 1971, and that before arriving at Ballarat he had been shunted from parish to parish because of complaints.”

Broken Rites advises that in the 60s he only had 3 ongoing placements (plus short relieving stints). A new priest at 3 ongoing posts in a decade (and one other in 70s) hardly looks like he was “shunted from parish to parish”.

“His own scheme for dealing with cases - introduced while he was Archbishop of Melbourne - is more secretive and less supportive of victims than the Towards Healing system introduced by the other Catholic bishops throughout Australia... It's time for Pell to give way to someone more compassionate ...”

There are other opinions. On the link you provided most recently: “Broken Rites considers that the Melbourne scheme, … better than the Towards Healing system that applies in the rest of Australia.”

mjpb

Thank you for the additional forensic detail. And your point is...?

Defence of Ridsdale?

Defence of Pell?

Defence of the Church's handling of sexual abuse and exploitation of position?

Defence of the status quo and deflection from possible means of preventing abuse in the future?

I'm trying to represent the interests of the victims. Whose interests are you representing?

Dear Oliver,

Cardinal Pell sees himself as a defender of
traditional Catholic values. But more than
that he in intent on pulling off, "World
Youth Day." As he has said, "...The logistic
challenges will be met, and we'll put on a
wonderful show, but if the event doesn't
strengthen pilgrims' faith, it will be for
nothing."

Your suggestion of him being placed under
arrest or on trial in a public court is
not something that realistically, I see
happening.

The law may not be fair - but it is the law.
Proving a case against the Cardinal - is
something that would be difficult at the
best of times. But almost impossible - with
the arrival of the Pope in Australia.

Foxy,

Sadly, I know you are correct.

Kind regards,

Oly.

p.s. I am saying there is enough smoke for a trial. It is up to a juty to convict or not.

mjpb,

Thank you for your comments. I did not write those reports, and I do not want to defend them since I am neither legally nor psychiatrically qualified. I only know that also the German authorities - I have been living in Germany for the last couple of years - "follow the advice" of "mental health professionals" when e.g. releasing from jail/asylum a convicted paedophilia rapist/murderer after he has been "cured", who might rape/kill children again (as actually happened a couple of times during my stay here, without any compensation to the victims' families from those responsible).

All I wanted was to point to the other side of the story in case somebody following this thread was interested. Nevertheless, it is hard for me to believe that the fact this story - about Cardinal Pell's ill-informed five years old letter to a "paedophilia victim" (who was 29 years old when it happened!) - appeared just a few days before WYD and the Pope's visit to Australia, is pure coincidence.

I was troubled by Pell's comments the other night when asked by a journalist about the scandal coming before World Youth Day and he stated he/the Church was coping with it as best they could and the timing was unfortunate.

It appeared the Cardinal was more concerned about the timing and impact on WYD than the feelings and hurt experienced by the victim. The exposure of 'lettergate' paints a damning image for any Church representative.

The problem with the Catholic Church is it has become, like any large organisation, too institutionalised and divorced from the grass roots. Too corporate and obsessed with business interests.

I don't know if the proportion of paedophiles in the Catholic Church mirrors that of the general population, but the point is priests, like teachers, doctors, scout leaders etal, are in a position of trust and authority. Abuse of this position is inexcusable.

Mr Jones has been trying to get justice for years and his advisers have been pretty smart in getting Pell to sit up and take notice - at last - when it was getting too embarrassing to ignore.

You could ask a variation on your question: Why has it taken so long for Cardinal Pell to take an interest in this matter and why has he suddenly announced a review of the case at this particular time?

Could it be that he has been expecting it to just go away? That he didn't intend to listen to Mr Jones - and that it was only when the pressure of the Pope's visit became unbearable that he was forced to respond?

Cynicism is possible on both sides.

I do not know more about the case than what is in the article

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sex-abuse-coverup/2008/07/07/1215282750977.html.

However, if one wants to speculate, quite a few questions can be asked.

There is no mention of rape or even buggery (only attempted), only "indecent assault" that the (secular) court punished with a sentence of four seconds. There is no mention of the physical conditions of those involved, whether the 29 years old victim could not have defended himself. Obviously, what happened should not have happened, but to say, as the victim does, that "the apology that the Pope may give [to church abuse victims] has no meaning if the Archbishop of Sydney is still covering up sexual assaults," thus comparing his case with what happened to many children in the USA and elsewhere (a comparison I personally find disrespectful of these victims), to whom the Pope's apologies have been addressed, makes one ask another speculative question. Namely, whether Mr. Jones had known that the unfortunate Father Goodall assaulted also a nine year old boy (which must have been a crime deserving more than a four second sentence) so he was vulnerable and ... well, the speculation must stop here, since there is no mention of compensation in the article. Another speculative question: did not Pell err only in not paying enough attention to what turned out to be a "four second crime" when occupied with much more serious misdeeds by the same priest that he had proofs of?

Well, from what is in the article, I do not think that "the pressure of the Pope's visit became unbearable" just because of this cover up of "a four second crime": the poor Pope had to get used to news of much more serious sexual crimes and cover ups in the US, and perhaps also in Australia.

Oliver,

"
- Should we pull Pells' passports pending police investigations?
- Should the Pope protect these guys?"

The first part has been covered by Foxy - I agree that police investigations probably won't get anywhere.

As to the Pope, of course he shouldn't put up with this situation for a second. While he has apparently [only] said this is his view, the practices of the Church are still lagging far behind. What the Pope should do is make it clear to all his clergy that none of them will get promoted into the Church hierarchy until they back up their piousness with Christian actions. That is, they need to do more than just pontificate about their faith - they need to practice it so that the whole world can see exactly what they believe and what they are about.

Broken rites says

If a victim is not satisfied with the amount of compensation offered through the *Towards Healing* process (or through the Melbourne diocese process), he/she can reject the offer and then *launch a civil action through solicitors*, seeking damages from the particular diocese or religious order which inflicted the offender on the victims.

yes indeed, I was hearing the tiny patter of lawyers feet back on page 3 of this thread

Anything to do with Professor Parkinson simply means more billions to lawyers as we found out in Family Law

so I will just say no thanks Mr Slater/Gorden etc and catch you all later in another thread

RobP and Foxy,

Defiance of the Pope is not unknown to history. Innocent III demanded Frederick II [Germany, Sily & Italy] kill and torture his people. Fortunately, Fred [who ironically was a ward of Innocent from the age of four] did not. He sided with rightful behaviour, rather than the excesses of the Church. The secular won out.

If memory serves, it was the same Innocent III, who invalidated the Magna Carta, which amongst other things stated, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice”.

Alternatively, Friar Francis of Assissi lived a life of caring for his fellow humankind. I wonder what St Francis would make of the Pell, the past Bishop of Boston and their ilk?

Pell is no a policeman and Pell is not a jury and Pell is not a secular judge.

Of course, you are correct. Complementing the heircharchical structures in society are horizontal peer structures, where those at top look after each other's interests

Spikey,

“ Thank you for the additional forensic detail. And your point is...?”

The reporter made a false innuendo against Pell and the supporting evidence is fabricated or grossly misleading. Making false innuendos that Pell covers up paedophilia or anything remotely similar may make Pell even more unpopular but it should be exposed for what it is.

” Defence of Ridsdale?”
No

” … Pell?”
Yes

” … Church's handling of sexual abuse and exploitation of position?”
Read my other posts.

” Defence of the status quo and deflection from possible means of preventing abuse in the future?”

No and if the status quo wasn’t dynamic we’d still have as much abuse as we did in the 80s. People might not like Pell’s views on abortion etc. but he is certainly a clever, strong leader not wishy washy like most Bishops including those in charge in the 60s to 80s when abuse peaked. It is therefore not surprising that he was capable of producing a programme that the clergy victim support group considers to be superior for victims than that produced by other Bishops throughout Australia. If preventing abuse (or, more realistically, minimizing it) is a priority (cf. pro-abortion issues) he would be the most logical candidate to take the lead.

” I'm trying to represent the interests of the victims. Whose interests are you representing?”
Martin Luther King once said words to the effect that you can’t achieve good ends through evil means because the means and the seeds and the ends are the tree. False information that makes Pell looks like he is lieing about sex offenders will not promote any positive interest.

George,

“All I wanted was to point to the other side of the story in case somebody following this thread was interested.“

I am a Catholic so I’m not completely hostile toward the Church. I stand by my comments while recognizing that it is a media beat up to make Pell look bad at an effective time and the paedophilia thing is misrepresented in the media.

Spikey,

“Why ...Pell ... suddenly announced a review of the case at this particular time?”

Ridsdale claimed the encounter in his bed with the 29(?) year old was consensual to Pell. Police taped Ridsdale admitting to the victim the sex was non-consensual. The media have just brought that to Pell’s attention. Pell considered that that warranted re-opening the investigation.

George,

“I do not know more about the case than what is in the article”

This article creates more confusion than the original coverage by paraphrasing that Pell wrote that no other victims had come forward. Pell wrote that no one else had complained that Ridsdale raped (“sexually assaulted”) them. Ridsdale wasn't characteristically so forceful with victims and others were kids. The victim and reporters do not accept that Pell could write "sexual assault" to mean rape cf. any sexual misconduct. I have a different view. This paraphrasing explains the cryptic quote of Pell at the end of the article:

"There was no attempt at a cover-up," he said. "The letter to Mr Jones was badly worded and a mistake - an attempt to inform him there was no other allegation of rape."

Obviously the paraphrasing means that the quote makes no sense. Burying that at the bottom of the article without explanation of what Pell was saying is probably the reporters idea of balanced reporting.

I agree wholeheartedly but the victim did allege attempted rape to the Church. I in no way wish to blame the victim for the priests conduct. It does look odd but he probably had a good reason to sleep in Ridsdale’s bed after having his penis fondled in the pool. He had every right to expect to be left alone if he rejected Ridsdale’s earlier advance. But his situation is incomparable with that of the children who get molested and bluntly if he complained about being traumatised about a letter (promptly apologised for) relating to an encounter with someone who wasn’t a priest in a similar situation he would probably get howled down as an extreme case of homophobia not be considered a paedophilia victim.

mjpb,

Thanks for clarifying that you're not defending Ridsdale or the status quo (although you are not altogether convincing on that) but that you are defending Cardinal Pell.

Your defence of Pell is based primarily on the assertion that one journalist misreported one set of circumstances - although you use words like "false innuendos" (plural) and "the supporting evidence is fabricated or grossly misleading".

You contest the claim that Pell covers up innuendo about pedophilia. How are undisclosed financial settlements and secret agreements different from 'cover up'?

Your further defence of Pell:

(a) "...he is certainly a clever, strong leader not wishy washy like most Bishops including those in charge in the 60s to 80s when abuse peaked."

What evidence can you produce to sustain your claim that abuse peaked in the 60s-80s?

(b) "...he was capable of producing a programme that the clergy victim support group considers to be superior for victims than that produced by other Bishops throughout Australia."

One comment on Broken Rite's website. It is clear many dissatisfied and frustrated victims - Anthony Jones being one of them - strongly disagree. Moreover, if you're happy to quote one sentence for Broken Rites, why are you not happy to quote more directly from them on their assessment of Pell?

e.g. When in 1993 Ridsdale faced 30 charges of indecent assault on 9 boys aged 12-16 dating from 1974-1980, "Ridsdale arrived at the court, accompanied and supported by Bishop George Pell (a former colleague, who had become one of Melbourne’s four auxiliary bishops). Ridsdale pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months jail (with parole after three months)."

Where was Pell's support for Ridsdale's many victims?

(c) "If preventing abuse (or, more realistically, minimizing it) is a priority (cf. pro-abortion issues) he would be the most logical candidate to take the lead."

Bold unsubstantiated assertion. Not many victims would agree with you.

(d) "False information that makes Pell looks like he is lieing about sex offenders will not promote any positive interest."

It's not 'false information' that makes Pell look like he's lying. It's Pell himself.

"But another letter showed Cardinal Pell was aware of a second allegation of sexual abuse against Father Goodall.

It was also revealed that an internal church report found Father Goodall had had sexual encounters with a 16-year-old female, as well as Mr Jones and the other young male complainant." - SMH

What is SMH read:

"But another minute showed Managing Director Pell was aware of a second allegation of the theft by General Manager Goodall.

It was also revealed that an internal company report found G.M. Goodall had had sexual encounters with a 16-year-old female junior staffer, as well as ayoung office boy complainant."?

What would happen to Drector Pell? Would Tony Abbott be singing the MD's praises?

FYI

An apology by the Pope is essential for all care survivors raised in Australia’s 114 Catholic Orphanages, the national care survivor support and advocacy body, CLAN, said today.

‘CLAN joins with Broken Rites and The Esther Centre in calling for a heartfelt and meaningful apology by the pontiff for the abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests, nuns, brothers, lay workers and church employees’, said CLAN President Leonie Sheedy.

Ms Sheedy stressed that it is not only sexual abuse which is the issue. In its eight years of existence CLAN has supported and assisted many thousands of Australians who suffered neglect, cruelty, physical assault, slave labour, and emotional and psychological damage during their time in Catholic institutional care. While CLAN acknowledges that some carers tried to do their best for children, the majority were part of an institutional ‘care’ system which abused children on a daily basis.

‘Children had their names changed and were called by numbers, were separated from their brothers and sisters and families, some left their Home illiterate, some were denied an education and worked for no wages in laundries, kitchens and on farms, and provided the free labour essential to keep the institutions running’, she said. ‘We were called no-hopers, guttersnipers, that our parents were dead or if alive didn’t love us or want us. We were made to feel hopeless, useless and worthless and told we would never amount to anything. Those who survived lost their trust in humanity and, for many, their faith in the Catholic church. The legacy of this childhood continues to affect not only survivors, but their children and families and society at large.’

Despite the evidence of numerous inquiries, state and federal, the Catholic church continues to deny and to hide its shameful role in the child welfare history of Australia, said Ms Sheedy: ‘We hope that the Pope will take the opportunity while he is a guest in our country, to show leadership and the true values of Christianity by humbly and sincerely issuing this Apology, to enable the healing to begin.’

Leonie Sheedy (0425 204 747) www.clan.org.a

Leonie,

I did not know this history. Tragic. Sad.

O.

"many thousands of Australians who suffered neglect, cruelty, physical assault, slave labour, and emotional and psychological damage during their time in Catholic institutional care. ... the majority were part of an institutional ‘care’ system which abused children on a daily basis."

Though I do not understand the relevance of this to the topic of Cardinal Pell's dealing with Mr. Jones, I think it says a lot about the author's emotional motivation for the position he/she is taking. That is a sad fact one must accept.

As far as I know, the Catholic Church was not the state religion at those times. The quote implies that other CONTEMPORARY institutions (Christian or not) did a better job when viewed from the position of PRESENT DAY standards and knowledge of psychology and pedagogy. Does there exist such a comparative historical study to support this claim? For instance, as far as I know, the "stolen generation" problem is not regarded as a merely Catholic affair.

George,

Leonie Sheedy is calling on the Pope to apologise while he is in Australia. You might be aware that the Pope - head of the Catholic Church - is paying a rare visit to Australia.
Ms Sheedy is not calling for the Pope to apologise for all churches who ran children’s hell-holes, just those run by the Catholics.

The connection to a thread on Cardinal Pell, you ask? Pell is the head of the Catholic Church in Australia. He has failed to apologise to child abuse in Catholic-run institutions. He needs to be shown some moral and Christian leadership on this issue.

Several of the other churches and State Governments have issued apologies.

As for your inference that the quotation “…implies that other CONTEMPORARY institutions (Christian or not) did a better job when viewed from the position of PRESENT DAY standards and knowledge of psychology and pedagogy”, please tell us precisely which of her words imply that? I think you are reading too much into it. A tad defensive?

Spikey,

If Leonie Sheedy did not imply that the Catholic Church's educational institutions were worse than others at those times, then even more it seems to me that her/your calls for apologies NOW are not so much motivated by the fact of educational callousness (as common as it, sadly, was) as by the fact of the forthcoming World Youth Days (and the associated Pope's visit). This is all I wanted to point out.

George,

Your right. Lots of us think that if Cardinal Pell won't take any notice and won't respond then why not take the opportunity of calling his hand when the Pope's visit is on.

I don't see any problem with this. In any organisation, if you can't get a response to a complaint from you immediate superior you go up the line until you do.

Let's hope the Pope does what he did in the USA and apologises to all victims of sexual abuse.

Thank you for your interest in this issue.

"Lots of us think that if Cardinal Pell won't take any notice and won't respond then why not take the opportunity of calling his hand when the Pope's visit is on.

I don't see any problem with this."

I don't see any problem either. When Anthony Jones went to Pell asking for redress, he was vulnerable and his core grievances were subsequently ignored by Pell. Now Pell is vulnerable because he has to be on his best behaviour for World Youth Day and the allegations against him are coming up like a bad smell.

There is a phrase for this in the Bible: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Importantly, what it shows is that the Church is NOT above God's Laws.

Spikey, RobP

>> Lots of us think that if Cardinal Pell won't take any notice and won't respond then why not take the opportunity of calling his hand when the Pope's visit is on <<

Exactly, that was my point, my worry. As an Australian living in Cologne (the venue of WYD 2005 as well as, e.g., of the annual Cologne Gay Pride) I am only worried that Sydney might turn out to be less hospitable than was Cologne towards the hundreds of thousands of young people who are coming just to celebrate their faith, not to hurt anybody.

It is one thing not to identify with what WYD (or Gay Pride for that matter) stands for, and another thing to use this occasion to play out one's prejudices, frustrations and grievances (real or not) thus giving these young visitors a bad impression of Australia.

Cologne's archbishop is certainly not a liberal either, and he has been involved in many controversies. Also, there are probably more Germans who dislike the Pope, are critical of him, want him to apologise for all sorts of grievances that took place in the past, than those who like him. However, these convictions and sentiments were not allowed to surface during the WYD in 2005 in such a way as to dominate them, to spoil the image of Cologne in the memory of these young people.

Of course, there were discussions and talk shows on TV, involving Catholics loyal to the Pope, dissenting Catholics, Protestants, irreligious etc. I do not know how many young visitors watched these, many of us older certainly did, and gained a lot from broadening our view of the problems involved. But that is something different from wanting to disrupt a gathering of young Christians just because one dislikes the Cardinal or even the Pope.

I just hope my worries are unfounded, that I will not have to hear remarks along the lines that Sydney was less civilised, less tolerant, than Cologne was during WYD 2005, and is every year during the Gay Pride.

George

You seem to be asserting that's it's more important to put on a good show than to confront the truth and satisfy justice.

As for your assertion that it's "...another thing to use this occasion to play out one's prejudices, frustrations and grievances (real or not) thus giving these young visitors a bad impression of Australia", which particular prejudices, frustrations and complaints did you have in mind? And which of these are the 'imagined' ones?

Funny how all the concerns of sex abuse victims are constructed as "prejudices, frustrations and grievances (real or not)" while your concerns are centred on not having a nice time with His Holiness. Is your attitude not symptomatic of the problems and inadequacies of the Catholic Church around the world?

In your limited world view you can only imagine people who try to air their grievances (the real ones that Pell won't deal with) must be "...wanting to disrupt a gathering of young Christians just because one dislikes the Cardinal or even the Pope". What has liking the Cardinal or the Pope got to do with whether you were abused or not?

I'm sure you must have definition of 'civilised' and 'tolerant' in mind when you say you hope that won't be found to be: "...less civilised, less tolerant, than Cologne was during WYD 2005".

I think it must be different from mine. I believe that a civilised society would insist that the Church immediately and effectively cleans up the stench of sexual abuse by Church employees, that it would not tolerate for one nano-second any abuse by clergy, and that it would provide unstinting compassion for victims as opposed to treating them as nuisances to be hushed up lest they rain on the Church's parade.

Priorities?

Spikey,
As you might remember, my mention of "frustrations and grievances" was in response to your post bringing up educational malpractices in Catholic institutions of times bygone, not to the crimes of sexual abuse of minors by clergy, a very different topic that probably the Pope himself will bring up, as he did during his USA visit, though certainly not in a manner to make these young people feel co-responsible or something.

Otherwise, I agree that we have very different ideas about how to say welcome to young visitors - over one hundred thousand of them visiting Australia for the first time - who carry no guilt or responsibility for either of these two injustices.

In spite of what you think should be done, I still believe that at the end Sydney and Australia will turn out to be as hospitable and polite (if you do not like the term civilised) towards these young visitors and their faith, as did Cologne three years ago, despite the fact that in Cologne the Church and the Cardinal are probably even less popular than in Sydney .

Pell if he is not forced too leave will be proof the Catholic church is not ready to change.
My earlier post about saying sorry and not repeating these crimes looks to be a dream.
Even with world youth day at any cost, Pell should have stood aside.
Right now today some in the church are covering up his wrongs.

Belly,

"Pell if he is not forced too leave ...the Catholic church is not ready to change.
My earlier post about saying sorry and not repeating these crimes looks to be a dream..."

What are you talking about? The Pope has apparently already indicated he will apologise. Why should Pell stand aside? His letter? The program he introduced to address clergy abuse has been lauded by a victim organisation as superior to other programs. His track record is good.

Yep the journos hate him for being anti-abortion etc. and will try on the letter nonsense but can you look into your heart and say he should resign because he failed to properly turn his mind to the characteristics of his letter recipient when choosing wording? He was dealing with an upsetting paedophile matter at the time.

George,

I suspect that people who might get confused by the language of anti-Catholic bigotry need some definitions. Please let me know what you think of the first two:

Paedophilia = any abuse of anyone at any age
supporting victims = lieing about a Catholic official to make them look bad if you form the view they aren't the best person to act in victims interests

BTW Did the lynch mob mentality of not caring whether an allegation is right or wrong as long as the recipient gets punished influential on you moving to Germany or was it other reasons?

Spikey,

"Your right. Lots of us think that if Cardinal Pell won't take any notice and won't respond then why not take the opportunity of calling his hand when the Pope's visit is on."

Considering his track record there is no basis. It is already indicated that Pell won't have the opportunity to speak to the Pope about this until later so that is unlikely to explain his prompt action. If the "lots" of you are confident in your beliefs then why wasn't it tried a year ago to find out. The motivation isn't to taint world youth day because you hate Catholicism is it?

First let me say I am not a Roman Catholic but respect peoples rights to find solace in the faith of their choice.

Whilst the following could be viewed as anti-religious, it is not. It can be equally applied to secular organisation who cover up corruption, such as various police forces and child welfare agencies and even federal government.

Every one of us make choices.

As individuals those choices may effect both ourselves and others but they will reflect on the quality of the person who exercises the choice..

When a person is, however, in a position to make choices as leader or representative for an organisation, any organisation, the quality or wisdom of the choices he or she makes reflect back on that organisation.

Not one of the religious organisations has a leadership which has made an effective attempt to rout out the evil of paedophilia from within its ranks.

Every religious organisation has sought to cover it up.

My only conclusion is the “leadership” who make these choices are frail, feeble, scared and weak people.

There is no shame in any organisation publicly admitting its failings. Appointment of paedophiles among them.

There is no difference between a corrupt cleric and a corrupt policeman (except the colour of their uniform). Both need to be excised from the body of the organisation to ensure the health of the organisation.

We have been through any number of public castigations of the police, rightly so and the police have growing stronger through it.

The churches would do well to view what they should have done, instead of performing the apologists’ coverup as demonstrated by a few years back by Hollingwirth and now, apparently by Pells.

This is one of the reasons I support no organised religion of any kind.

There are many double standards at play.

Everyone calls for tolerance unless it is tolerance of Catholic/Christian belief.

Everyone calls for fairness unless Catholic clergy is involved. If he uses the wrong words extremely tenuous attributions are made. Anyone else and the media wouldn't bother.

The mental health profession face no backlash for finding paedophiles cured. If members of the clergy accept their advice they are covering up. (I note that this raises other issues as I discussed earlier but I won't overcomplicate here - see my earlier posts)

If lawyers don't dob in their clients it is okay. If a priest confesses to a Bishop and the Bishop doesn't dob him in the Bishop is a criminal.

Prior to Dennis Fergusson, paedophile priest (and general sexual abuse labelled paedophile priest) cases got the lion's share of media attention and all public cries are for the Catholic Church to take some action as if it is the main source of the problem. However, in just one Australian state there can be 6486 child molestation charges between July 2005 and June 2007 but in a country with the population of the US of A, using an extremely broad definition of sexual abuse, there are only 4,392 allegations of abuse by priests of people up to age 18 between 1950-2002.

The flavour of the “paedophile crisis” can be found in an example. Historian Philip Jenkins who (from memory) examined 20 years of records observed the following.: “Of the fifty-seven accused priests examined in the Chicago survey...the commonest complaint involved boys of fifteen or sixteen.... There was only one founded case of pedophilia, involving a priest-uncle with two six-year¬ old nieces.” Without this one sad individual, the "pedophile crisis" in Chicago would have conspicuously lacked pedophiles."

I fully support a papal apology for the tragic wrongs that have occurred in the Catholic Church and the fact that it has done better than comparable institutions provides little comfort. I condemn Bishops who have failed their flock. But something more than genuine concern about paedophilia must be involved here.

mjpb,

"The program he [Pell] introduced to address clergy abuse has been lauded by a victim organisation as superior to other programs. His track record is good."

Funny! I could have sworn that organisation is on very recent record as having slammed both the program and Pell. Moreover, other organisations totally disagree and you may have seen footage of Broken Rites' and other groups' demonstrations over the weekend.

Your sarcastic definitions of 'Paedophilia' and 'supporting victims' are grossly insensitive cynically designed to shift the focus away from Pell's and the Church's ineptitude and lack of Christian charity. Won't work, I'm afraid. Your words tell us a great deal more about you than about the real issues.

Your defence of Cardinal Pell: "Considering his track record there is no basis" is spot on - there is no basis for a proper defence of this failed leader.

To your ad hominen and rhetorical question: "The motivation isn't to taint world youth day because you hate Catholicism is it?" the answer is a resounding NO.

There are many intelligent and compassionate Catholics out there who are appalled at the Church's track record on this matter. The motivation is to bring justice to the victims of Church sexual abuse and exploitation and to ensure accountability for breaches of the law and violations of human decency using the name of God as pretext.

mjpb,

"I could have sworn that organisation is on very recent record as having slammed both the program ..."

I read their website recently and quoted from it. After your claims about Pell going to school with Ridsdale etc. I'm not going to take your word for it.

"...and you may have seen footage of Broken Rites' and other groups' demonstrations over the weekend."

They probably thought Pell was protecting a paedophile from his paedophilia victim. Otherwise they are attracting attention to their cause seeking a papal apology. I didn't see the demonstrations.

"Your sarcastic definitions ...are grossly insensitive cynically designed to shift the focus away from Pell's and the Church's ineptitude and lack of Christian charity."

The hell they do. Every time I expose lies you try to whitewash over it by claiming it supports victims. You are unethically using victims. Misrepresenting any sex scandal as paedophilia and making false allegations to support a dubious allegation to make the perception of a public figure contrary to reality in no way supports victims.

"the answer is a resounding NO."

Then why the false allegations? If Pell is benefitial to victims, and this view is supportable, then why make false allegations and claim he needs to be removed? There must be some motive. If you are confident that Pell is not the best in this area why resort to that?

"There are many intelligent and compassionate Catholics out there who are appalled at the Church's track record on this matter."

I am sure Cardinal Pell is one of them. But for the actions of people like him things could have been worse.

"The motivation is to bring justice to the victims of Church sexual abuse and exploitation and to ensure accountability for breaches of the law and violations of human decency using the name of God as pretext."

Like anything else that can only be done effectively based on accurate information.

mjpb,

I admit my errors. e.g. on 10 July I clarified that "...Pell and Ridsdale were some years apart in their schooling..."

But the substance stands. Pell was Ridsdale's friend and went to court in his support while denying Ridsdale's many victims.

You 'recently' read Broken Rites website and implied that I was lying when I said that they were unhappy with Pell's procedures.

Use up-to-date sources. Here's this afternoon's ABC report: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/14/2302758.htm

"Chris MacIsaac, from sexual abuse advocacy group Broken Rites, has been a strong critic of Cardinal Pell's actions. Ms MacIsaac says an apology by Pope Benedict is a good start but the church must also address systemic problems in the way it deals with sexual abuse.

... "We are constantly hearing from victims that they feel re-abused by the church process, by the bishops' reaction to their claim."

MacIsaac is President of Broken Rites.

Without a scrap of evidence, you scurrilously accuse me of "...unethically using victims. Misrepresenting any sex scandal as paedophilia and making false allegations to support a dubious allegation to make the perception of a public figure contrary to reality in no way supports victims.

My answer:

1. I myself am a victim - and so was my brother. He is taking legal action because the process forced him to do. I couldn't bear the pain again.

2. I challenge you to produce any evidence to support your baseless claim that I have misrepresented "any sex scandal as paedophilia". You lie.

3. I further challenge you to itemise my "false allegations" against Pell (other than implying he and Ridsdale went to school together when I should have said they went to the same school).

Your final distortion is in response to my claim that "There are many intelligent and compassionate Catholics out there who are appalled at the Church's track record on this matter."

You say: "I am sure Cardinal Pell is one of them."

Pell appalled at the Church's track record? Pell is head of the Church. How can he be appalled at his own record which you say is excellent?

About nine months ago, I emailed Pells' Office several times and requested his support to speak with Tony Abbott, whom failed to honour a promise made on the 7.30 Report, to release a Commttee's findings of the need for and potential benefits of P.E.T. scanners.

While, normally for the separation between Church and State, I thought this one time the Cardinal could simply pick up the phone, I a have a chat. Abbott had been under pressure from oncologists and cancer suffers to acton his word, but didn't. Pell's Office basically said it wasn't matter for the Cardinal. It is only in recent days I have learned these two are quite close. [I have been living overseas.]

Also, I emailed Ben at the Vatican. Silence.

mjpb,
As to your two definitions, I agree that unfortunately some people accept them, perhaps unconsciously.

>> Did the lynch mob mentality of not caring whether an allegation is right or wrong as long as the recipient gets punished influential on you moving to Germany or was it other reasons? <<

The simple answer is no. I came to Germany in retirement because I married here. Both my wife and I escaped Czechoslovakia in 1968, she and her family to Germany, I and my late first wife to Australia. She came to love Germany, her new home, as I do Australia, where I found freedom. She is sad when she thinks Germany is giving itself a bad name, so am I, when I think Australia is doing it. That was the reason I got involved here.

Nevertheless, I have been following OLO, not only this thread, long enough to realise that nowadays not only religious, but also anti- (religion, Christianity, Catholicism etc.) zeal can degenerate into an ideological zeal and worse. Of course, not only in Australia.

As to the term "lynch mob" I would be more careful. If you were a policeman, being a victim, or just being personally related to the victim, would disqualify you from being involved in the investigation of the case. Here the situation is much more complicated, but I think one still should distinguish between a victim, whom one should compassionately listen to, and somebody who is just an ideological free rider and attacks (the Church, the Cardinal, any religion etc.) for preconceived reasons. I think it is only the latter that one could refer to as "the lynch mob", as hard at it is sometimes to tell which is which. (ctd)

(ctd) Otherwise thank you for the illuminative remarks, and factual information, in your argument with poor Spikey. I used to tell my math students that "I cannot mark you on what I think you think, only on what you write down". Well, life is different, and sometimes we have to judge people on what we as Christians think of those who deserve our compassion, than on what they write down trying to rationalise their pain (or rather their reaction to it).

"Not one of the religious organisations has a leadership which has made an effective attempt to rout out the evil of paedophilia from within its ranks.

Every religious organisation has sought to cover it up.

My only conclusion is the “leadership” who make these choices are frail, feeble, scared and weak people."

This hits the nail right on the head. In particular, I think the last sentence illuminates the character of Pell and other senior clerics in the Catholic Church. They would rather hide behind their towering intellects than face up to real-world problems which, if they were to do so, would force them to get out of their comfort zones - something they are reluctant to do.

mjpb you offer me evidence that my fears are well founded.
I am aware you are Catholic, and that you say not biased one.
Pell has form he covered up for his mates and his church.
Is it not true your church claims God is the one God who loves us all?
And that he died for us all?
In fact in a church making those claims, yes in other Church's other followers of the same God.
Children have been assaulted by men said to teach us how to worship that God?
How can Pell, a hundred times one hundred Pells not serve that God by removing the threat?
If men who have committed such crime can stay in the church, sometimes still working in the name of compassion, you may as well find a place for Dennis Ferguson.
Ten years from now posters will write about more crimes committed against children post this world youth day, maybe during it if.
The church fails to truly confront its sins.

Stickey,

I admit my errors. e.g. on 10 July I clarified that "...Pell and Ridsdale were some years apart in their schooling..."

”But the substance stands. Pell was Ridsdale's friend and went to court in his support while denying Ridsdale's many victims.”

That wasn’t the substance or even a good summary of the fact. Only the first half is correct. Pell had been his friend. He was his boss. Ridsdale was going to plead guilty. He would no longer be a priest. He would go to jail. Pell may have been there out of curiousity as his boss. But if he was there to offer support then although personally paedophiles make me uncomfortable, as a Christian I can't fault Pell for being compassionate. It isn’t the Christian ideal to spit and jeer people on their way to the gallows.

The substance was an innuendo by a journalist that Pell must have been lieing when he said he didn’t know Ridsdale was a paedophile when he lived with him because Ridsdale was had already done wrong. That seemed an extremely unlikely possibility. You adduced many “errors” that highlighted the implausibility.

”You 'recently' read Broken Rites website and implied that I was lying when I said that they were unhappy with Pell's procedures.”

I did point out they said it was better than those of other Bishops.

"Chris MacIsaac, from sexual abuse advocacy group Broken Rites, has been a strong critic of Cardinal Pell's actions. “

I’d take that to mean he got sucked in by the recent media coverage not that he was going back on their earlier claims.

"We are constantly hearing from victims that they feel re-abused by the church process, by the bishops' reaction to their claim."

An Australian Bishop recently defied the Popes direction that paedophiles can’t be priests. He has a convicted paedophiles saying Masses. Not all Bishops are as benefitial to victims as Pell. Rome does a lot to address the issue but that doesn’t mean Bishops follow the direction. In the Catholic Church there is something like a civil war going on.

Stickey,

”Without a scrap of evidence, you scurrilously accuse me "...unethically using victims.""Misrepresenting any sex scandal as paedophilia and making false allegations to support a dubious allegation to make the perception of a public figure contrary to reality...”

I did get a little frustrated. The misrepresentation evidence is in our many posts above. You supported the dubious allegation. When I highlighted your “errors” you wanted me to sweep them under the carpet because supposedly false allegations about Pell help victims. Likewise when I pointed out the media’s misuse of the word paedophilia you even defended that saying I was being grossly insensitive etc.

”1. I myself am a victim...”

In spite of our earlier discussion I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt because I’d hate to be wrong in the other direction. Please understand that you need to promote the interests of victims. If you don’t support people like Pell who can address the issues you will condemn future people to the same fate.

”2. ...any evidence ...I have misrepresented "any sex scandal as paedophilia"..."

The media do that. You seemed to come in reasonably early in the discussion so I thought you would have encountered that. Apologies if that assumption created a misunderstanding.

”3. I further challenge you to itemise my "false allegations" against Pell (other than implying he and Ridsdale went to school together...).”

Stickey please don’t.

”Pell appalled at the Church's track record? Pell is head of the Church. How can he be appalled at his own record which you say is excellent?”

Pell wasn't always head. Any abuse is too much. One thing Belly got right is: “Children have been assaulted by men said to teach us how to worship that God?” Add that to my criticisms of Bishops in earlier posts and you can see why Pell (and I) are appalled irrespective of comparison with other organizations. A “good” comparison isn’t good enough. It is legitimate to point out the result of the comparison if the media misrepresent the comparison but no abuse and no dereliction of duty by Bishops is acceptable.

I was utterly appalled last night to hear Pell say words to the effect:

‘and go out and have lots of babies because at the moment you er we er are not keeping the population up to a stable level’

He seemed to say this just out of the blue, not connected to any question or line of discussion, as though it was one of his most important beliefs!

I’m not one for offensively branding people but…what an enormous goose!

His comments on climate change also seemed to be a very long way short of being informed even at a most basic level.

I now get the impression that he has been living in some insular environment for decades, well removed from the real world.

Ludwig,

Perhaps it is something important to him. I can't think of any other explanation. You wouldn't think he would want to be controversial at the moment.

"His comments on climate change also seemed to be a very long way short of being informed even at a most basic level."

There was something of a furore when he said that before we spend a fortune on preventing climate change we should ensure that we actually influence it. I didn't think of that before in my 'reasons why people hate Pell for things he has really done' list but that would probably be a biggy.

Your comments reminded me that on the news last night one of the first things the Pope said after arriving was that we need to care for our environment. The reporters immediately referred to Pell's global warming comments with relish as if they were wielding the Pope's comments against him like his boss was kicking him up the bum. I don't know if Pell made any new comments in the interview you saw but his original global warming heresy still has the media, and many other people, after his blood.

mjpb

My nick-name is Spikey. And Chris MacIsaac had not had a sex change when I last saw her.

So Pell had been Ridsdale's friend and now you say he was 'his boss' (I'd like evidence of that claim). But you also offer: "Pell may have been there out of curiousity as his boss." Not exercising his managerial responsibility?

Although you keep denying it, it remains the case that Pell did not support Ridsdale's victims. Yet, you say "...as a Christian I can't fault Pell for being compassionate". Well, you may not be able to fault him, but I'm certain Ridsdale's numerous victims could.

How does the Church generally and Pell in particular show Christian compassion by supporting the pedophile but not his victims?

It's interesting to learn from you that "In the Catholic Church there is something like a civil war going on." And Pell is the head of this Church in Australia? Does that signify anything to you?

Do you think it's OK to make malicious false claims about me because you got "a little frustrated"? More Christian compassion?

I repeat: I have never ever on OLO or elsewhere represented "any sex scandal as paedophilia". I challenged you to find where I had. You failed to do so because you couldn't so I accept your half-hearted apology - but reject your explanation: that you confused me with "the media".

If I say, "I myself am a victim”, I don't want you to tell me "I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt". Nor do I need your patronising "Please understand that you need to promote the interests of victims."

When you say: "If you don’t support people like Pell who can address the issues you will condemn future people to the same fate" are you saying that Anthony Jones should go away and be satisfied with Pell's mismanagement and failure to show him compassion?

I'm pleased with your clear assertion that "...no abuse and no dereliction of duty by Bishops is acceptable". I'd be even happier if you extended that to Cardinal Pell.

“Perhaps it is something important to him”

Yes, very important by the sound of it, mjpb.

But his [Pell’s] comments on the need to breed up in order to maintain a stable population were just so profoundly wrong and abjectly stupid!! So if the subject is so important to him, why hasn’t he learnt about the world reality of rapidly growing population, and the same in Australia??

It seems that he is going to get away with it without being harangued by the media, or anyone! Incredible! He should be condemned left, right and centre for this stupidity…much more so than for his comments on climate change.

He did have something to say about the environment:

"We also very clearly have a moral obligation not to damage and destroy or ruthlessly use the environment at the expense of future generations." http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24016095-5012321,00.html

But it seems as though they were just words with no substance.

I repeat: what an enormous goose (to put it mildly!).

I dearly hope that old Joe Ratzinger is a little more genuine in his expression of environmental problems.

Lateline tonight.

Yet another Pell mishandling of a very serious rape case by one of his priests of two very young girls - one of whom has since committed suicide.

Their father has the reasonable view that Pell showed them no compassion and, after first conceding that the priest had committed the crimes against the girls, had his lawyers defend Church funds and forced them through a bitter eight-year legal battle.

The father of the girls (not the Father of the church) stressed that it was Pell who stuffed up and his system of redress was totally inadequate and a flawed process.

How many more of these cases do we have to endure before Pell is man enough to resign and hand over to a man of compassion? Or will it take a sacking to rid us of this troublesome priest?

Spikey,

“ Chris MacIsaac had not had a sex change when I last saw her.”
Noted.

”… 'his boss' (I'd like evidence of that claim).”
Wasn’t Pell a Bishop of the Diocese when Ridsdale went down?

“Not exercising his managerial responsibility?”
Perhaps.

”… Pell did not support Ridsdale's victims.”
He demonstrated clear support for a paedophile victim the same day he wrote a less clearly compassionate letter to a 29 year old subject of a gay advance.

“How does the Church generally and Pell in particular show Christian compassion by supporting the pedophile but not his victims?”

He did support the victims prior to Ridsdale going to court to plead guilty and go to jail. Pell has even provided free counseling to victims. An image of a split second in court may be deliberately used for rhetorical purposes. But there are too many assumptions required to conclude that the situation definitely doesn’t demonstrate compassion, demonstrates a lack of compassion, or contradicts Pell’s history as a compassionate person.

” Does that signify anything to you?”
No because the war has been evident since the 60s and was clearly bubbling away prior to that.

”Do you think it's OK to make malicious false claims about me because you got "a little frustrated"?”
No while I would have probably been more tactful had you claimed to be a victim at the time malicious is an exaggeration for jumping to a conclusion that motive and practical effect equated.

” Nor do I need your patronizing”
Stop witch hunting with human beings and stop shooting yourself in the foot and I’ll stop saying things that you might construe that way.

”… are you saying that Anthony Jones should go away and be satisfied with Pell's mismanagement and failure to show him compassion?”

No I’m saying that Pell is the best choice for paedophile victims. Many Bishops are insipid, less capable, and quicker to delegate to victims detriment.

"…I'd be even happier if you extended that to Cardinal Pell.”

As I’ve demonstrated I’m happy to condemn Bishops who genuinely fail in this area.

Spikey,

“Lateline tonight. Yet another Pell mishandling of a very serious rape case by one of his priests...”

I googled and got this link:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/parents-fly-in-to-confront-pell-over-abuse-case-20080716-3fl4.html

Mishandling = taking responsibility for the late priest’s behaviour, apologizing and offering them a large sum of money in circumstances where they rejected it, went to court, and obtained an unusually large payout of its kind?

Are you saying that because they did better in court, even though the resulting payout was described as “one of the largest of its kind in the country” Pell mishandled it by not realizing that they would be awarded an unusually high sum of money? In other words if Pell doesn’t accurately predict the legally unpredictable he is mishandling things?

”Their father has the reasonable view that Pell showed them no compassion and, after first conceding that the priest had committed the crimes against the girls, had his lawyers defend Church funds and forced them through a bitter eight-year legal battle.”

I know media twist things but I find it hard to believe that The Age asserted that Pell offered them compensation if he didn’t. If he did it sure isn't reasonable. It has the appearance that Pell apologized and saved them the trouble of going to court by offering them what (likely based on legal advice) was probably the amount they could expect in court but the family chose to go to court to try for more money. The fact that they got an unusually high award was lucky if the word lucky can be applied to someone dealing with such tragedy but it doesn't change what Pell did.

”The father of the girls (not the Father of the church) stressed that it was Pell who stuffed up and his system of redress was totally inadequate and a flawed process.”

He would clearly be very upset by what happened. He is still so knocked around by his tragic past that he indicated that he believed the recent tripe about Pell obstructing sex offense cases and took this action accordingly. But is there any logical grounds for his assertion?

mjpb

My archbishop right or wrong?

Your comment is so brief I might misinterpret it.

If you mean was I referring to your archbishop when demonstrating that I will condemn a Bishop then if your archbishop is the Brisbane one who defied the Pope's direction and retains a priest even having him saying Mass after a paedophile conviction then yes.

However I was more referring to my comments about Bishops historically who were derelict in their duty by simply delegating to mental health professionals when they became aware of a paedophile priest and my comments about the remarks of the US Bishops in one of the links that George gave. They still don't see the problem with that approach and effectively claimed they had done nothing wrong because the people they delegated to told them the wrong thing.

The main point I was making is that if a Bishop deserves it I'll give it but if he is the victim of a media beatup and he is does what he can for victims then I'll defend him. I note that the organiser of World Youth Day has gone on the line saying that Pell has done everything he can for victims.

No mjpb, I was referring to you inability to concede that Cardinal Pell might have, perhaps just a teeny-weeny bit, handled the many examples of sexual abuse by Church employees a little better.

Even now, you continue to characterise all the problems Pell confronts as a media beat-up.

Oh dear, I think I'll give up on you and see if I can find some Catholics who might be a little more capable of understanding.

I do not understand what is wrong with asking your layers' advise and help, when you are accused of being legally vulnerable for something, or with asking psychologists' (or psychiatrists') professional opinion when you have to decide about the nature and extent of psychological damage to a particular victim (or victims in general related to this case) of your alleged negligence.

[Or, for that matter, with asking professional researchers to quantitatively assess to what extent are the occurrences, that you are being held responsible for, specific to what you represent. A US bishop commented on the results of this survey by saying that they are like being told your diagnosis of cancer is not worse that that of the patient in the bed next to you. I'd just add that we have to hope a "cure" will be found for both patients.]

I think it is rather strange to be blamed for seeking such advice and help, irrespective of what blame you deserve for the situation that led you to ask for legal or psychological advise and help in the first place.

Of course, another thing is what is morally defensible, but I still think that the doctor is morally (and also for practical reasons) justified to warn me against the dangers of overweight or smoking, even if he himself is overweight or smokes.

Dear mjpb,

You stated that Cardinal Pell has done
all that he can for victims.

I disagree strongly.

My husband attended a Christian Brothers
Catholic school.
On his visit to the Principal's office
at the age of thirteen, for a fitting
of a school jumper, on leaving the
office, my husband was surprised by a group of
fellow class-mates asking him, "Did the
Principal lock the door behind you, and
did he do anything to you?"

"No," my husband replied.

It appears to have been a common occurrence
amongst some of the pupils at the school.

That same Principal - took classes in my
husband's classroom. And openly expressed
fondness for one of the pupils, a quiet,
shy, student, who a few months later, took
his father's shot-gun, put it under his chin,
and blew his head off.

The following year, the school built a junior
prep-school, in another suburb, and transferred
that Principal to be in charge of the school.

Ignoring problems - is not a solution. It just
makes thing worse.

As Anthony Foster said on Lateline, Pell can offer
continuing help to victims and he can stop fighting
the victims in court.

The Church must do more than it has so far to help
victims of sexual abuse. The church must respond to
the concerns of its members.

Pell should be part of the solution,
not part of the problem.
And transferring his clergy from one
school to another does not help anyone.
Least of all the victims.

"I do not understand what is wrong with asking your layers' advise and help, when you are accused of being legally vulnerable for something, or with asking psychologists' (or psychiatrists') professional opinion when you have to decide about the nature and extent of psychological damage to a particular victim (or victims in general related to this case) of your alleged negligence."

George,

The problem with the Church is that all they ever do is to run to their lawyers. While that is always a legitimate element in cases such as this, if it stops there without any independent probing of the situation, how is anyone ever going to get to the truth of what happened? How is justice ever going to be done for the genuine victims? In light of the allegations, you'd think the Church would be rushing to find out the truth and letting the world know about it.

The fact that it has been stalling should tell you something about the internal risk assessments the Church principals have made regarding allegations of this type. The Church knows the allegations are often true, it probably can't easily stop them and it's decided to go to ground as a result (or as someone recently put it, turn into 'Scotch mist').

The problem with this approach is that it puts too much strain and pressure on the weaker party (ie the genuine victim who is looking for justice) as well as allowing a perpetuation of the culture of abuse ... while the indolent hierarchy has a nice and comfortable life.

The point is that the Church has to do much more.

George,

You make a good point regrading legal advise. Most people in his position would seek legal advice, which the right of all Australian citizens.

Even corporations. When a national marketing manager of a bank, over a decade ago; I didn't practise the Univesity's Marketing School's 4Ps, product, price, promotion and place; rather, product, price, always on the phone to legal and watching informations systems development. [Place was handled by branch representation; I was only one on three or for people who sign-off adds.]

I have two issues with Cardinal Pell. One his silence on critising Tony Abbott, who was apparately breaking a promise to release the findings on the needs to buy more PET scanners for financial reasons, costly to the Howard government.

But, most importantly, like many of his peers there is much smoke to assume he is covering-up for priests. The police force has a similar problem.

I have met Cardinal Clancy but not Cardinal Pell, so have no personal impression of the latter. Like you once said in more eliquent wording the I, there are good & bad people and smart & challenged people, regardless of religiosity.

Take care.

Oly.

All,

Who is that masked man? It is the Scarlet Boaz.

George,

"I do not understand what is wrong with asking your lawyer's advice and help, when you are accused of being legally vulnerable for something,"

Certainly but if you are a moral shepherd you have that common sense need PLUS the duty to care for any victim. Contrast Pell's approach of getting necessary legal advice and then apologising and offering the money to the victim to attempt to protect them from the stress of court with disgraceful Bishops throwing lawyers in their face to prevent paying out any money if possible.

"or with asking psychologists'(or psychiatrists') professional opinion ...to decide about the nature and extent of psychological damage to a particular victim ( or victims in general related to this case) ..."

The problem was Bishops who handed in the abuser and took them back when the mental health professional said they were cured and stuck them somewhere else. There may be a medical issue but the Bishops are responsible for the morality of their priests and the care of all. A priest may have a grossly disordered inclination but if he chooses to action it contrary to Catholic belief and law he is not suitable for priesthood. A secular "expert" may say that he is cured but, even if somehow an abuser could still be a priest, sending them to a new parish is a risk that can't be taken. That is not to say that I agree with media labelling the situation a "cover up". But I do consider the actions of the Bishops appalling.

"A US bishop commented on the results of this survey by saying that they are like being told your diagnosis of cancer is not worse than that of the patient in the bed next to you."

Only if there was a context eg. prefacing it by complaining about the undue focus on the organisation. This isn't just a cancer that people catch. It is a cancer that undermines the moral authority of the organisation. Thinking that it is no worse in the next bed should be no consolation to anyone.

Foxy,

A sad story you tell. I have heard of similar cases with regards the "transfer" only, via CEO teachers.

Good, I am allowed a second post.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world-youth-day/stop-dwelling-crankily-on-sex-abuse-case-bishop/2008/07/16/1216162910430.html

Who would not be cranky if their children were dead and had been raped? What a dispicable comment.

Moreover, Fisher's comment is a prime example of false argument, Argumentum ad Misericordia... Like saying a union doesn't have a case/argument, because a strike will inconvenience the community.

Shame, Anthony Fisher, shame.

I hope the Pope and all Christian vistors enjoy Sydney, but the point is we have Pell appearing to cover-up to protect the Catholic Church, a .*. [Graham would delete the word] bishop making the statements cited above and some priests committing, crime after crime.

Look Pell should have publicly accepted the cover-ups, BEFORE the Visit. Yet, an an international figure, I accept that the Vatican is probably the place from which the Pope should acknowledge these crimes.

RobP,

>>The problem with the Church is that all they ever do is to run to their lawyers.<<
How do you know "what they ever do", especially if you accept, as I do, that the Church is secretive about many things?

>> without any independent probing of the situation, how is anyone ever going to get to the truth of what happened?<<
What would you suggest as "an independent probing of the situation" beside engaging lawyers and psychologists, knowing that the other side is doing the same thing, and there is a court to adjudicate.

>> How is justice ever going to be done for the genuine victims?<<
By first separating them from the "not-so-genuine victims", which needs the engagement of professionals. I am not familiar with Australian statistics, but in the USA, between 1950 and 2002 there have been 4000 cases (about 2-4% of all priests) involving about 13 000 minors, victims of sexual abuse, with a total payout of over US$ 2 billion leading to the bankruptcy of a number of dioceses. This makes in average about US$ 150,000 compensation per victim. Compensation plus a formal apology is all that the secular world can ask the Church to do. How, in addition to this, the Church (should have) approached the victims who still feel related to the Church is a different matter which should not be confused with the above, where legal and psychological advice was essential.

>> In light of the allegations, you'd think the Church would be rushing to find out the truth and letting the world know about it. <<
Again, how do you know they did not "rush out to find out the truth" once they realised how naive they were both about the extent of psychological damage on the minors, and about thinking that the perpetrator is cured by a psychiatrist, or even just in the confessional? As to not "letting the world know about it", do you know of many people with a bad conscience who let "the world" know about it? This, of course, does not excuse them. (ctd)

(ctd) >> The problem with this approach is ... allowing a perpetuation of the culture of abuse ... while the indolent hierarchy has a nice and comfortable life.<<
Well, you can accuse the hierarchy of letting the situation become what it has become, but certainly not of still "allowing a perpetuation of the culture of abuse". Whether they have completely learned their lesson or not, I am sure they have now more headaches than those who attack them in the media. This or that bishop might still try to cover up past misdeeds but I do not think any of them would want to allow the abuses to continue. As to the "indolent hierarchy (who have) a nice and comfortable life", well this has been said not only about the hierarchy but also about university academics, politicians, artists, etc

mjpb,
I agree with most of what you write. I appreciate your defence of Pell of whose activities I am not that informed. Neither do I know any "disgraceful Bishop throwing lawyers in their face to prevent paying out any money if possible". So I can only speculate: The Bishop might have offered some money, prior to any objective investigation, as charity, which the victim might not have accepted, either because it was not enough, or he found it disgraceful to be treated as a recipient of charity instead of having the just compensation awarded by the court. In both cases the Bishop‘s natural reaction would be to get a legal representative. After all, the compensation did not come from his pocket but from the pockets of those hard working parishioners who had financially supported his diocese for years, and whose interests he had to support alongside the interests of the victims.

>> and took (the abusers) back when the mental health professional said they were cured and stuck them somewhere else<<
As mentioned before, not only bishops are that naive to believe that a person who abuses minors, or even rapes and murders, can be cured.

>> I do consider the actions of the Bishops appalling.<<
So do I, except that I would say “some bishops” to avoid a sweeping statement.

>> Thinking that it is no worse in the next bed should be no consolation to anyone. <<
The remark does not sound to me as a consolation only as a statement of a fact (if that is indeed what the survey established). If you are a Catholic, this finding should certainly not make you happy. However, to an outsider it simply says that on average in this respect Catholic educators were neither better nor worse than other educators. I think this is what the US bishop had in mind.

George,

>>How do you know "what they ever do", especially if you accept, as I do, that the Church is secretive about many things?<<

My first impression is that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. One can only go on things like one's experience, intuition, comments from other people and, importantly, the overall effects of what the Church has done. This goes a fair way to informing my view. Of course I'm engaging in some degree of hyperbole, but you need to in order to make your point.

>>What would you suggest as "an independent probing of the situation" beside engaging lawyers and psychologists, knowing that the other side is doing the same thing, and there is a court to adjudicate.<<

An independent probing of the situation means getting professionals, ethicists, etc who are NOT in the employ of the Church to make case assessments. This should be coordinated by some third-party body like a Government tribunal, which could impose penalties on organisations that have done the wrong thing.

Also, I agree there are always some "not-so-genuine victims". That doesn't mean the Church can't work out who's who and treat them accordingly and fairly.

>>Compensation plus a formal apology is all that the secular world can ask the Church to do<<

Not quite - they can also ask for permanent reform of the Church's practices.

>> Again, how do you know they did not "rush out to find out the truth" ...<<

I reckon some of the smarter clergy did. But you've got to ask, what was their purpose in doing that? Was it to really help the victim, or was it to build a stronger defence? Why take so long to get around to doing something? Most importantly, when the Church realised it was wrong, it should have moved more decisively against rogue clergy.

BTW, given your comment that the Church is "secretive about many things", how do you know it DID "rush out to find out the truth"?

Oliver,

I agree that the Bishop’s comments were inappropriate and I’m sure he must know better. He made the comments in close proximity to pointing out that Pell has done everything possible for victims after Pell was unfairly targeted by Mr Foster. I suspect he was pissed off that Foster is not besmirching Pell’s reputation after getting an apology, an offer of money without going to court, and free counseling paid for by the Church in the context that Pell wasn’t the actual abuser and the abuser got jail and has now died.

Again there is no reason to accuse Pell of “cover ups”. That was just a media beat up. Look at it more closely. Do you seriously think he would admit a priest was a paedophile but try to cover up the priest’s homosexuality?

George,

I agree with everything you’ve written including pulling me up for mind reading. I note that you and Arjay (who I believe is either Muslim or atheist) appear to be a little bewildered by the lack of substance for all the hatred directed toward Pell and in your case also bewildered by the focus on the Catholic Church while all other potential targets are ignored.

You have made some common sense observations and I am starting to see what I think is your point. As a Catholic I am “not happy” with how things have happened including made worse by certain Bishops. But if I were not Catholic why single out the Church and current Bishops?

The Foster case demonstrated Pell doing everything possible compassionately and everything else essential but nevertheless attracting vigorous criticism. The court thing is nonsense as you have explained. The Bishop not only wants to compensate greedy dad but also other victims and needs money to look after parishioners. In the circumstances it would be absurd not to have used lawyers. Now for the father it makes some type of sense. He is upset. But when people with no excuse start grabbing onto the accusations and pretending they are compelling something more is at play.

CONT

The Church has a surge of sexual abuse in the 60s to 80s. In a number of cases it is mishandled as discussed. By the 90s attitudes and knowledge had changed and the cases were made public. Actions were taken to prevent reoccurance resulting in dramatic success. Programs were introduced to assist previous victims including apologies, compensation, and counseling. Yet in the 2000s the media are calling every old sexual abuse case “paedophilia” thus developing a misleading construct in the public consciousness contrary to the level of that problem in comparable groups. Relying upon mental health professionals and not advertising embarrassing internal problems in accordance with norms decades ago is labeled as a “cover up” in the media thus developing a clear construct in the public consciousness and 1990s plus attitudes and norms are used to judge 1960s procedures. It even gets to the stage where the Pope is leaving a trail of apologies to sex abuse victims. After all this the media and many in the public are claiming that the Catholic priests are all paedophiles who abuse whoever they feel like and it gets covered up by the Bishops. Even a little thin sophistry with the wording of a letter from long ago is implied to be evidence of a “cover up”. Many atheists even mount theological criticisms even though they don’t believe in God.

I guess to a thoughtful external observer not caught up in anti-Catholic sentiment it might seem rather strange and unfair to the Church. It might also seem strange that the media do not devote the same attention to paedophilia in groups who owe an identical duty (if you don’t believe in God) and who often have a higher incidence of the problem and who may also have taken steps to reduce it but haven’t offered public apologies or provided free counseling such as teachers, or scout masters, or medical practitioners with regard to general abuse etc

George,

Thank you for your reply.

George et al,

Actually regarding these cases, internationally, I would not so much promote the Church paying compensation rather that the priest not be given any protection by the Church, stop. If a Bishop does he or she [Potestants]are guilty being an accessory to the crime.

Were someone, an executive, say, from the Department of Lands, the Commonwealth Bank or DJ's, to hide and assist a rapist staffer or a pedaephile staffer, the Police would have them for dinner. More so, where there exist a duty of care and loco parentis: A secular school principal whom was found to covered-up a rape or a molestation by a teacher would be in gaol.

Chris Masters, Four Corners:

"In 1983 my first programme 'The Big League' put the former NSW Chief Stipendiary Magistrate Murray Farquhar in gaol. The report had raised questions about whether or not he and NSW Premier Neville Wran had influenced a fraud case brought against the Head of the Australian Rugby League, Kevin Humphreys. Royal Commissioner Sir Laurence Street found that Farquhar had influenced the case but not at the request of the NSW Premier. I don't think Mr Wran has forgiven Four Corners.

Four years later another programme precipitated the gaoling of the Queensland Police Commissioner. He won't talk to us either. Medical entrepreneur Geoffrey Edelsten also went to gaol following revelations in a 1984 Four Corners programme."

All these criminals were put behind bars, for serious, but less serious crimes, yet somehow being a cleric makes the State, tread more causiously.

Further to my response to George above I located an onpoint albeit American article but it is a subscriber one so I'll excerp below.

Looking for sin in all the wrong places

by James O. Clifford Sr. retired award winning reporter and editor.

"... the mass media and its dropping the ball on national coverage of another sex scandal: sex cases and cover-ups involving public school teachers. There's a scandal within a scandal here because the media appear to have engaged in their own cover-up.

...The Merc story didn't bother me. The Church authorities, I felt, deserved what they were getting. Can't blame the messenger, I told myself. The shock came not long after, when an educational organization held its convention in San Francisco. One of the topics on the group's agenda was sex cases involving public school teachers and the possible legal ramifications...

Teachers, who have charge of children, seem to have escaped unscathed in the media. The profession had this apparent immunity despite the fact that we all have to pay taxes for public schools. (No one is forced to support a Church.)

When the priest scandal took off like a rocket, I expected the teacher troubles to follow the same path. After all, school dealings are usually a matter of public record and open to press scrutiny. What I saw was a double standard growing and growing....

Oh, yes, there would be the occasional well-covered titillation story about a woman teacher having an "affair" with a student...

I witnessed this while at the AP and kept my mouth shut. At my age and a retread, I was lucky to have a job. Now I am free to speak. If you want, do your own search on the Net. As far back as December 1998, Education Week was reporting on "Passing the Trash," recounting how school districts freed sexual predators "to hunt again." Education World followed a year later...

I hope I have connected dots so well that some reporter will run with this and win a Pulitzer. Why not? The Globe did when the dots were priests

RobP,
Thank you for making me think about an issue with legal and psychological ramifications, which is not exactly within my expertise.

>> professionals, ethicists, etc who are NOT in the employ of the Church to make case assessments. <<
You have to abide by the decisions of the court, whether you like it or not, but would you like some “ethicist“ who does not subscribe to your code of ethics, asses you, e.g. whether you are donating enough to charities, whether you have shown enough compassion towards those whom you harmed, maybe just indirectly, etc.?

>> Government tribunal, which could impose penalties on organisations that have done the wrong thing.<<
I am not a lawyer, but is this not exactly what the judicial system, the courts, are already doing or supposed to do, provided “the wrong thing” is against the law?

>>(The secular world) can also ask for permanent reform of the Church's practices <<
This is against the principle of separation of church and state, unless these practices are against the law, a case that is already taken care of by the existing judiciary system.

>>how do you know (the Church) DID "rush out to find out the truth“ <<
By the simple reason that when I am accused of being responsible for something immoral or even criminal, I would want to know exactly what I am accused of. Wouldn’t you? This is quite different from trying to deny, hide or cover up what I found, which sadly happened in many of the cases we are talking about.

In general, I think I can understand your outrage, which I share up to the details I tried to point out. In a sad situation where both compassion and compensation are involved, there is always the danger that people will confuse the two.

mjpb,
What a beautiful summary of a position on this tragedy which is identical with mine. Thank you also for the very interesting excerpts.

The Pope is to be commended for his apology. Proper.

Thankfully, Benedict sees how serious the problem of crime, within the Catholic Church, has become. One trusts the Attorney-General and the Commissioners of Police take note and start investigating the Catholic Church, the Scouts and similiar places, where these deviants hand-out.

We need to "get", if like, the higher-ups, who by protecting crimials, become criminals themselves.

Do we need a Royal Commission?

Optimately, it is in the best interests of these bodies to submit to investigation by the Authorities of the Land.

The Pope's apology:

"...Here I would like to pause to acknowledge the shame which we have all felt as a result of the sexual abuse of minors by some clergy and religious in this country.

Indeed, I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured and I assure them that as their pastor I too share in their suffering.

These misdeeds, which constitute so grave a betrayal of trust, deserve unequivocal condemnation.

They have caused great pain and have damaged the Church's witness.

I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops, and to work together with them in combating this evil.

Victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.

It is an urgent priority to promote a safer and more wholesome environment, especially for young people. ..."

Let's hope this acts as a catalyst to change things.

Oliver,
I like your zeal, but I think you sometime go overboard.

>> One trusts the Attorney-General and the Commissioners of Police take note and start investigating the Catholic Church, the Scouts and similiar places, where these deviants hand-out. <<

This is exactly what the rightist groups in Germany demand, except that it is not the Catholic Church as such but all Muslims living in the country, and the reason is not sexual abuse of minors by some clergy but - planned or actually performed - terrorist acts by a tiny minority of them which the rest are allegedly covering up. The Muslims would see such a sweeping investigation, where there is no concrete suspicion of a criminal act or at least intention, as an infringement of their basic rights in a democratic country, and so would I although I am not a Muslim.

It is certainly terrible when a father rapes his own daughter, though these things unfortunately do happen. However, does it mean that the "Attorney-General and the Commissioners of Police (should) start investigating" all fathers?

Besides, I did not understand what were these "deviants" supposed to hand out.

mjpb,
I think you would (and other contributors to this thread should) be interested in this:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24040493-7583,00.html.

I sat there with tears in my eyes
as I listened to the Papal apology
on television this evening.

Finally, a step in the right direction!

Let us now pray that this will initiate
change.

It didn’t move me Foxy. All I could do was half-raise one eyebrow and take a slightly deeper breath than usual.

A very staid apology. The Pope was expressionless. He didn’t look up. He just kept reading his script without showing any emotion.

Those most directly affected by the crimes of the Catholic Church weren’t even allowed to be in the immediate presence of the Pope as he uttered the apology. I think that this was appalling. They so easily could have been allowed to be right up the front, in a position where the Pontiff could have looked up and addressed them directly as he uttered the vital words.

I hope that it is a major step in the right direction… and will initiate the necessary change.

But I doubt it.

Dear Ludwig,

The fact remains, the Pope did apologise,
nothing can change that.
It will go down in the Church's history.

And the words were strong.
Coming from the Head of the Church,
it has to have an impact.

"... Victims should receive compassion and care,
and those responsible for these evils must
be brought to justice. It is an urgent
priority to promote a safer and more wholesome
environment, especially for young people..."

I truly believed that the Pope would not utter
these words.
I felt that Cardinal Pell and the lawyers
would simply exert their
influence and it wouldn't happen.

I so happy that I was wrong.

As I said, its finally a step in the right
direction. Acknowledging a problem is the
first step in fixing it. We can only hope
that this will now initiate the needed change
within the Church.

As for the Pope lacking emotion.
To me he simply appeared tired.
He is afterall 82 years old - and not
a good traveller, as the media reported.
All things considered, he's done remarkably
well for his age.

I didn't realize that the victims of sexual abuse
and their families were not allowed to sit
in the front rows of St Mary's Cathedral for the
Pope's speech. Who could stop them in a public
place like a Cathedral? I assumed they simply chose
not to attend.

Let's not diminish the Pope's
apology as a first step in the right direction.
Let's now encourage that this be followed by
action within the Church's ranks.

Fair enough Foxy.

Let’s hope that this will be followed by significant action.

Ludwig,

Further to the points Foxy made and which I agree with I note a news item today I heard on the radio whereby it said that the Pope later had a private meeting with victim groups and victims to talk to them personally on his last day.

George,

Your comparison with prejudice (my description not yours) against Islam was well made and the Pell article was very informative. Lateline does have the advantage of being able to investigate in depth yet they missed an awful lot of stuff. I wonder if Lateline's gross mishandling in the circumstances risks any kind of professional liability? The suggestion in your article that Pell should have lawyers sign off on all his correspondence to avoid facing this situation again certainly raised my eyebrow considering the extreme but ubiquitous suggestion that lawyers should not be involved at all. Pell was even criticised for using lawyers after the other guy's family got an apology and a compensation and counselling offer but chose to take the Church to court.

I previously stated: "1990s plus attitudes and norms are used to judge 1960s procedures". On the weekend I stumbled upon a neat quote that expresses something similar made by Peter Steinfels in a September, 2002 article in the magazine The Tablet. Although quite critical of the "morally culpable" bishops the author stated:

"...It is quite another matter, however, implicitly to measure bishops' decisions, as has been frequently done, as though the bishops possessed - and deliberately and perversely ignored - knowledge and attitudes that were decades later in coming."

George,

Thanks for your perspectives.

The idea posited is not to catch the Church out somuch, but like the police to recognize that, there is, being unable to avoid an unfortunate pun, a "brotherhood". As with police, it would wrong to say most are corrupt, yet it would be an understatement to say there is only the occassional rotten apple.

Both organizations, by there very nature, attrack these problems. There is sufficient smoke to suggest some skew towards wrong in both instances.

When doctor performs a cholestral test [Royal Commission], he or she will be looking for good and bad cholesteral. The aim being to trusmute the body [Church/Police Service] towards its optimum [charter].

It is good that the Church does compensate victims and it is excellent that the Pope has apologized. But, the fundamental problem stays in place, to surface, again & again.

I do not advocate the Church being "caught", rather the perpetrators and the cover-up agents being "caught". The Church is not a criminal but individuals that maintain and protect a cone of silence are a conduit to civil liberitarianes [suggest myself, small just institutions] to others wanting deliberate harm.

Criminals must not be insulated by the Church. If the Bishops wont do this, the secular authorities need to identify the criminals, because they are criminals, and, dangerous to the public good.

From a Roman Catholic perspective, I guess, there is the "sterotype" of the man of god [or for the secularist the man of good] with regards the clergy. Herin, one can be inclined to build the premisses backwards from the conclusion in this situation. We have the opposite pole to the witch-hunt.

Cheers

George,

[Alleged*] Deviants: Handed-over. Given-over to the police.

As you will have heard the Pope Visit to Australia went well.

O.

*Juries determine, not Bishops.

Oliver,

"Criminals must not be insulated by the Church. If the Bishops wont do this, the secular authorities need to identify the criminals, because they are criminals, and, dangerous to the public good."

While the spotlight is so firmly on the Church I'd expect it to be the last place that would dare do any insulating. Look how much sophistry was levelled at trying to create the appearance of a cover up by Pell in the absurd situation that he would be open about paedophilia but hide homosexuality. With such enthusiasm clearly if the media could find something of substance they would.

As regards identifying criminals the centralised organisational aspect and extremely pedantic record keeping of the Catholic Church assists greatly. In the bad old days when the Church was less open about such things when a baddy was located prosecutors would scour the personnel records and locate any others.

In this day and age you have little to worry about. In many protestant churches the decentralized nature confines prosecutors to the records of variable quality kept by individual churches. Prosecutors would love the Catholic Church.

mjpb,

Some interesting points, upon which, I shall reflect. Thank you.

Were I, a secularist; to assume the guise of a believer; I would still remain very concerned that familial-style piety towards a church acting to protect the institution against its best interests. Were that church a company, I would advise to go back to core values and prune the deadwood. Herein, within a belief structure, familial-style piety may have a place, regarding conformance to righteous dogma. But the idea of a church seeing itself as some sort of Middle Kingdom between Man and a god, is problematic; because it lends itself independent determinations aside from valid society dimensions.

Perhaps, Cardinal Pell is a good man, who has just been in te cross-hairs of the press, lately. Yet, even so, he must act fast to clean-up shop and set a good example. Corrections shall require abandoning many langyne attachments and old behaviours.

Were I a believer, I would be looking for a moral compass inside a church, rather than seeing churches need to find said compasses.

Oliver,

Some interesting thoughts from you. Thank you.

The Catholic Church doesn't see the Church as a middle kingdom between man and God but nevertheless value Church and community. The most important relationship is seen to be that of God and nothing is of any consequence without that. The Pope is seen as a head of the Church in Christ. Irrespective of practical shepherding Christ is the head.

Were you to be both a theist and to believe in the Church as having value I would think that you would consider the ethical determinations to be based on divine revelation that were valid. I'm suspecting your comments were prefaced on more assumptions than what you were saying.

"Perhaps, Cardinal Pell is a good man, who has just been in te cross-hairs of the press, lately. Yet, even so, he must act fast to clean-up shop and set a good example. Corrections shall require abandoning many langyne attachments and old behaviours."

I hope that he will do everything possible.

"Were I a believer, I would be looking for a moral compass inside a church, rather than seeing churches need to find said compasses."

I don't think it was deliberate but that sounds a little like proseltysing. If you became involved with any Church I believe that you would not last unless you believed both that the Church in teaching the Word of God can act as a moral compass but also that imperfections will accumulate in a group of human beings. The Church may teach one thing but that doesn't guarantee that its members will walk perfectly with the Lord. Noone has perfect ethics irrespective of group ideals and some people for various reasons will join a Church who don't hold the ideals. Paedophiles who became priest for example probably did it to get near kids rather than a call to piety.

Oliver,

Further to the middle kingdom issue you raised there are a lot of nuances relating to Church and God and individual and Catholic and Protestant. Given the sacramental approach taken in Catholicism some Protestants do caricature Catholicism like you described it and what I said is only part of the picture. Many people try to separate Protestantism from Catholicism on that dimension or on a dimension of Grace and Works. A caricature of each makes it easy but the reality is more complicated and closer together than the caricatures would suggest. The caricatures give an accurate ranking but not a correct location on the spectrum. The huge number of Protestant denominations complicates the issue further.

Personally the only difference I have thought of that doesn't require a full encyclopedia to explain and doesn't vary between Protestants is that Catholics accept the Pope as a type of Shepherd whilst Protestants reject the Pope as being part of Catholicism which they are not a part of. Sorry if all this discussion on the Christian family is more than you bargained for and completely boring to you.

The failure of Cardinal Pell and the Catholic Church in Australia to understand what they are dealing with was amply demonstrated in yesterday's farcical mass to which four anonymous 'victims' were said to represent all victims of sexual abuse by the Church.

Pell admitted that these four 'victims' had been selected by his officer appointed to handle claims. There are some obvious questions:

1. Why would the Church hierarchy think they were best placed to identify the four 'representatives' of all their victims?

2. Why were real victims who have asked to meet the Pope not invited to nominate their own representatives (e.g. through Broken Rites)? Or at least consulted?

3. Why was the Pope not allowed to talk with real victims as he has elsewhere? What's he being shielded from, and by whom, and why?

4. Why did Pell tell the media a few days ago that there was to be no such event and then explain to them yesterday that the 'victim representatives' had been chosen weeks ago?

5. Why does the Church hierarchy in Australia continue to think they can fool the public in Australia with such a charade?

6. When is the Church going to start taking sexual abuse by its agents seriously?

Cardinal Pell has clearly shown himself to be incapable of dealing with this matter - and the Church is being done untold damage. It's really time for him to be replaced by someone who gets it.

If I may, Spikey.

1. Why would the Church hierarchy think they were best placed to identify the four 'representatives' of all their victims?

A. Because they can pick the people and the time and the place. It's all about not getting out of their comfort zones.

2. Why were real victims who have asked to meet the Pope not invited to nominate their own representatives (e.g. through Broken Rites)? Or at least consulted?

A. Because something might come up out of the blue that they can't control and would show the senior Church leaders really don't have any idea about the problem and thus how to fix it.

3. Why was the Pope not allowed to talk with real victims as he has elsewhere? What's he being shielded from, and by whom, and why?

A. Same as 2.

4. Why did Pell tell the media a few days ago that there was to be no such event and then explain to them yesterday that the 'victim representatives' had been chosen weeks ago?

A. It's a political tactic to get through the media cycle unscathed. It's the same as Government spin saying the Budget is going to be tight a few months before the election and then softening its stance just before in order to get votes.

5. Why does the Church hierarchy in Australia continue to think they can fool the public in Australia with such a charade?

A. Because apathy abounds in society and they know it. In fact, their power base depends on it.

6. When is the Church going to start taking sexual abuse by its agents seriously?

A. Whenever an event comes along that threatens to make its life uncomfortable.

Spikey, RobP,
What a nice Dorothy Dixer!

George

Yes, but what do you think of the questions, and what are your answers?

Substance please.

George,

The point is that the senior clergy of the Church are no different to the Public Service bureaucracy ... they just parrot off what is required to maintain their jobs, careers, institutional supports, etc.

I wish it wasn't that way, but you've got to call it how you see it.

1. Why would the Church hierarchy think they were best placed to identify the four 'representatives' of all their victims?

Perhaps they wanted grounded victims who the Pope could meaningfully apologise to. There would be no point apologising to someone like that father who will complain no matter what. If he talked to the Pope he would then dedicate himself to attacking the Pope instead of Pell. Nothing would be gained. The guy flew over from England to badmouth Pell. He is the type of person that would probably make the effort to attend if a more sensible selection process wasn't applied.

2. Why were real victims who have asked to meet the Pope not invited to nominate their own representatives (e.g. through Broken Rites)? Or at least consulted?

How insulting to the victims who met with the Pope to suggest they weren't real victims.

3. Why was the Pope not allowed to talk with real victims as he has elsewhere? What's he being shielded from, and by whom, and why?

See 2

4. Why did Pell tell the media a few days ago that there was to be no such event and then explain to them yesterday that the 'victim representatives' had been chosen weeks ago?

Didn't hear about it.

5. Why does the Church hierarchy in Australia continue to think they can fool the public in Australia with such a charade?

Whatever.

6. When is the Church going to start taking sexual abuse by its agents seriously?

About the early 1990s I believe.

mjpb

George (both of them) will be well pleased with your answers; but on any objective view you have fumbled badly.

On the question of choice of representatives, your distinction between 'grounded' and 'ungrounded' is utter nonsense. You could just as easily replace the word 'grounded' with the words 'compliant' or 'unlikely to argue the point'.

You could just as readily argue that the very people who should be offered an apology are those who are not 'grounded' because the withholding of an apology is the cause of their being 'ungrounded'.

In any event how is the Church to know which victims are 'grounded' and which are not if they won't meet with a wider representative group?

Your claims: "There would be no point apologising to someone like that father who will complain no matter what. If he talked to the Pope he would then dedicate himself to attacking the Pope instead of Pell" are sheer arrogance. Not to mention rude.

'That father' is named Anthony Foster and his wife is Christine Foster. On what basis - other than guesswork and media speculation - have you assessed the Fosters' motives and likely responses?

On what basis do you declare Mr Foster to be "the type of person that would probably make the effort to attend if a more sensible selection process wasn't applied"?

And how do you define "a more sensible selection process" other than a rejection of an open and transparent process? Isn't 'sensible' in this context just a weasel word meaning designed to keep putative troublemakers out?

The rest of your answers with the exception of no. 6 are mere evasion of the issues.

You tell us that the Church started taking sexual abuse by its agents seriously "about the early 1990s". Would that be explained by the fact that Broken Rites began its work and that they have seen 107 priests and brothers convicted of various sex offences since that time?

Your claim raises further questions. What did victims do before that era? Why has the incidence of clergy abuse continued unabated?

Oliver,

Nobody denies that the perpetrators of crimes should be punished, the same for those who cover them, clergy or not. I agree that these “criminals”, like any sex offenders, are “dangerous to the public good” and should be jailed or at least isolated from the society, in spite of the fact that most of them are probably just sick (these people have an urge the majority of us lack, so that must be in their genes), and often regret their deeds immediately afterwards. I also agree that there is a solidarity - your “brotherhood” - among clergy the same as there is among policemen, doctors, members of the same political party, public servants etc. There is nothing to investigate unless there is a concrete suspicion that a crime was actually committed or is being covered up.

As to your other comparison, we have no separation of police and state, only of Church and state. In both cases the state has the right and duty to investigate and prosecute behaviour that is against the law, but only in the case of police to go further and investigate behaviour that is not illegal, only incompatible with the special role of police. In case of the Church the latter remains the duty of the Church, since the state does not, is not supposed to, recognise the special moral position of the Church (only its service to the wider community, hence the tax exemptions as disputed as they are).

Also, demanding that the bishops do everything possible to prevent these things happening again is quite different from demanding wide-ranging, often explicitly unspecified, changes. You like to compare the Church to a company, but there if they harmed somebody, the courts can require that they pay damages, compensation, and make arrangements preventing these things from happening again, but not that they introduce changes that would change the character, the very identity, of the company just to give satisfaction to the plaintiff.

RobP
>>they just parrot off what is required to maintain their jobs, careers, institutional supports, etc.<<
Well, last Sunday there were about 400 000 mostly young people gathered at the Randwick Race Course who would not agree with you. So I do not think I am in a bad company on this.

Spikey,
You are right, I could not have answered your questions better than mjpb even if I wanted to, because I am not that informed as mjpb, and I do not see any point in trying to answer loaded questions like “When did you stop beating your wife?”.

Let me just add this: As sad as it is what happened to you and many others, there are victims who still believe that the Church can contribute to a healing process, and those who seek only satisfaction or even revenge, as understandable as it is in the light of the severity of their hurt. However, the pope neither abused any minor nor did he personally cover up anything, so I think it should also be understandable that he thinks that only a meeting with those of the first category can be helpful to them and lead to reconciliation, although he obviously addressed his apology to all victims, irrespective of their reaction.

George,

"Well, last Sunday there were about 400 000 mostly young people gathered at the Randwick Race Course who would not agree with you. So I do not think I am in a bad company on this."

Everything I've said on this thread should be seen in the context of trying to bring to light a very real problem within the Church and its governance and culture, and not about trying to denigrate the positives of other aspects of the Church.

But, this simultaneously is the problem, because, as I've said before, the Church tends to concentrate on issues it can be seen to be positive on and omits to mention its failings (unless forced to by others). It's easy for 400,000 pilgrims, mostly youngsters, to join with the happy flow and focus on nothing else. That's why it's important that others also bring the Church's dark legacy into focus.

BTW, I have no problem with the WYD. I'd much rather have 400,000 generally happy and inspired youngsters around than that many boguns, blue-singleted truckies, Ockers and Bay 13 yobbos.

RobP,
Well, I am in a different company than you only as regards that one sweeping statement of yours that I quoted, not in general.

>>the Church tends to concentrate on issues it can be seen to be positive on and omits to mention its failings (unless forced to by others).<<

Who does not prefer positive aspects of whatever one stands for? If you are naive about something, as the Church was about the psychological damage their deviant clergy were inflicting, you probably need a push from the outside to see that the problem is more sophisticated and consequence more dangerous for the victim.

For instance, the Church needed Catholic biologists and other scientists - not their own theologians - to rid them of the naive world view (believed in today by only e.g. Richard Dawkins) that these scientific theories, like evolution and Darwinism, are on loggerheads with the Catholic faith. In our case it was the psychologists (and lawyers), Catholic or not, who explained the Church office holders the psychological (and legal) naivete of the way they treated both the victims and the perpetrators.

George:
"...I could not have answered your questions better than mjpb even if I wanted to, because I am not that informed as mjpb..."

Wow! It's as bad as that?

"...and I do not see any point in trying to answer loaded questions like “When did you stop beating your wife?”."

Who asked you to answer that sort of question? Let's repeat my questions and you tell me which of the six is like a stop-wife-beating question.

1. Why would the Church hierarchy think they were best placed to identify the four 'representatives' of all their victims?

2. Why were real victims who have asked to meet the Pope not invited to nominate their own representatives (e.g. through Broken Rites)? Or at least consulted?

3. Why was the Pope not allowed to talk with real victims as he has elsewhere? What's he being shielded from, and by whom, and why?

4. Why did Pell tell the media a few days ago that there was to be no such event and then explain to them yesterday that the 'victim representatives' had been chosen weeks ago?

5. Why does the Church hierarchy in Australia continue to think they can fool the public in Australia with such a charade?

6. When is the Church going to start taking sexual abuse by its agents seriously?

I agree with you that "...there are victims who still believe that the Church can contribute to a healing process..." I'm one of them and I have some ideas that I'd like to put to Cardinal Pell.

How can the Church decide who these people are if they won't meet with a range of victims? Divine wisdom?

"...and I do not see any point in trying to answer loaded questions like “When did you stop beating your wife?”."

"Who asked you to answer that sort of question? Let's repeat my questions and you tell me which of the six is like a stop-wife-beating question."

2. Why were real victims who have asked to meet the Pope not invited to nominate their own representatives (e.g. through Broken Rites)? Or at least consulted?
tick

3. Why was the Pope not allowed to talk with real victims as he has elsewhere? What's he being shielded from, and by whom, and why?
tick

5. Why does the Church hierarchy in Australia continue to think they can fool the public in Australia with such a charade?
tick

6. When is the Church going to start taking sexual abuse by its agents seriously?
tick

Did I miss any?

The Pope made a public apology to all victims. He also made a private apology to those who were presumably grounded. It would be absurd to have someone ranting aggressively who would not benefit from the apology present. Imagine if the floor show if that Foster guy had managed to invite himself? What purpose would it serve? You are just scraping the bottom of the barrel to find excuses to say something negative.

"I agree with you that "...there are victims who still believe that the Church can contribute to a healing process..." I'm one of them and I have some ideas that I'd like to put to Cardinal Pell."

He is at the Sydney Archdioecese. Why not write a letter or join the Towards Healing program?

"How can the Church decide who these people are if they won't meet with a range of victims? Divine wisdom?"

Surely they do meet with a range of victims. There is anything from the grounded victims to the ones like that guy I used as an example.

From my point of view, the bottom line on this is that the senior clergy of the Church are the equivalent of the board of a company in that they both set the tone for the culture and conduct of their respective organisations.

Every so often, companies change directors to get new blood, find a new perspective or change direction. The Church will not fully solve the problem of sexual and other abuse until they do likewise. It's just like a law of physics: a body has inertia until acted on by an outside force.

I think this apology stuff is pretty easy to understand. WYD is basically a marketing exercise. Why would you want to taint the product by allowing the agenda to be switched to negative aspects of the product.

The Pope planned to apologise, but he was damned if he was going to let this detract from the recruitment drive, so he did it at the end.

It also had the advantage of leaving on a positive note, in an environment where nobody is listeneing anymore about the products flaws, as the event is over now anyway and people are bored of it.

Quite intelligent PR I think.

mjpb

You just don't get it , do you?

e.g. a question like "Why were real victims who have asked to meet the Pope not invited to nominate their own representatives (e.g. through Broken Rites)? Or at least consulted?" in your mind is the same kind of question as loaded questions like “When did you stop beating your wife?”.

Try thinking on a conceptual level. And put your pre-judgments to one side to hear the voices of the victims.

I don't know about others on OLO, but I've had enough of your rudeness and inability to treat people with respect - "that Foster guy", you call him. He's not just 'that guy'. He and his family have had the most outrageous evil perpetrated against them - two young daughters serially raped by a man of God followed by one suicide and one wheelchair bound probably for life. He's not just 'that guy'. He's a guy who has some aching need to understand how the trust he put in God and the priest was so betrayed.

It's not a "floor show" that people whose children have had their lives shattered by priests want. It's acknowledgment, dialogue, owner ship of the problem and commitment to change within the Church, opportunities to start to see if they can put their lives back together. A shoulder to cry on not a closed door to bang their heads against.

As for telling me or any other victim to write a letter or join the Towards Healing program, why would you assume that we have not already done that - to no avail?

Why don't you come and meet some of the members of Broken Rites? Are you sufficiently 'grounded' to accept that challenge

Spikey,

George said it best when he said:

"As sad as it is what happened to you and many others, there are victims who still believe that the Church can contribute to a healing process, and those who seek only satisfaction or even revenge, as understandable as it is in the light of the severity of their hurt. However, the pope neither abused any minor nor did he personally cover up anything, so I think it should also be understandable that he thinks that only a meeting with those of the first category can be helpful to them and lead to reconciliation, although he obviously addressed his apology to all victims, irrespective of their reaction."

"I don't know about others ..."

I believe you are failing to differentiate between not being emotionally blackmailed to get out of the way when you unfairly slander a human being and being disrespectful.

" "that Foster guy", you call him. He's not just 'that guy'."

No man is just "that guy" and I know his history but it is a normal manner of describing people.

"He and his family ..."

See George's quote above.

"...a guy ...aching need to understand..."

Understandably.

"It's not a "floor show" that people whose ... want."

But it would be a floor show if Foster had met with the Pope. He has a demonstrated tendency to respond with determined hatred and contempt to compassion and assistance even from Church representatives who didn't do the crime.

"It's acknowledgment..."

Clergy turn the cheek and close the door when someone takes a swing. Other people might swing back. If you go looking for revenge it gets in the way irrespective of any burning need for acknowledgement etc. hidden away.

"...to no avail?"

Please define "to no avail".

"Why don't you come and meet some of the members of Broken Rites? Are you sufficiently 'grounded' to accept that challenge"

I'd consider it. Perhaps it is a limitation of this communication but I'm floored to read that as you don't seem counselled. Aren't they a victim support group? Have you just joined?

After distilling the debate as well as noting the response of the Church to date, I think it's a fair summary to say that the whole issue of sexual abuse in the Church is not going to be addressed unless a) it's easy for George Pell and the rest of the senior clergy to do so or b) someone else does it.

The bottom line is that the clergy do not want to muck in and fix the problem. The status quo has prevailed as usual because they fundamentally do not understand the issue.

>> I think it's a fair summary to say that the whole issue of sexual abuse in the Church is not going to be addressed ... The bottom line is that the clergy do not want to muck in and fix the problem. ... The status quo has prevailed as usual <<

Which one of the contributors on this thread - that you know was a (senior) clergy - was telling you this, hence justifying your claim that this as "a fair summary" of the debate initiated by you? I do not know if "the clergy do not want to fix the problem" (I rather think they desperately do) but I am sure it is not something you can claim follows from this debate. The only conclusion you can draw is that some contributors to the debate think this way, and some contributors think that way, about the issue.

>> they fundamentally do not understand the issue.<<

Apparently another "fair summary" of this debate would be that you (and those who agree with you) understand the issue better than the psychological counsellors advising the clergy. What about the Church finally understanding the issue but not knowing a fast way, fair to everybody involved, out of the mess?

George,

My whole argument hinges on leadership in fixing the problem. There are people who can do things about the problem, as opposed to the many clergy in the Church who manifestly can only politically position themselves on the issue.

If the Church could have fixed the problem, they certainly would have by now. The fact they still have a problem shows they can't. (Are you arguing it's solved? If you are, I'd suggest the problem is layered and the Church needs to look deeper.) That's what I've distilled out of the debate and my own observations.

Another (different) wave of action is now needed to advance on this issue. I'm not sure what the solution is exactly, but it will only happen when the dogmatic grip the senior clergy have on the Church is loosened. Hence, my initial call for George Pell to get out of the way.

“My whole argument hinges on leadership in fixing the problem.”

But you think the highest ranking cleric in the country, famous (or infamous depending on perspective) for his strong leadership, who has initiated the program which a victims organization considers the best in the country should “get out of the way”.

“If the Church could have fixed the problem, they certainly would have by now.”

Theological issues aside do you think that the Church likes to be sued and shamed in the media and has thus done nothing? It isn’t a problem that just gets “fixed”. High ranking clergy will never be able to completely monitor the bedrooms of all clerics so it can happen in the future. By comparison even blue card holders get caught engaging in paedophilia sometimes. Plus recovered memory therapy which identified victims of some of the worst paedophile priests in America could bring more old ones to light. Further, even the victims of 40 years or so ago still remain today and nothing will erase their past. Plus the media won't leave old victims alone unless celibacy is abolished and gay priests openly ordained. Additionally, there is something of a civil war going on in the Church that makes implementing constructive actions challenging. A recent example is the Pope requiring that anyone known to have engaged in paedophilia not act as priest but the Brisbane Archbishop ignored the direction with a convicted paedophile. A theological conservative (relatively speaking) like Pell may jump to attention when faced with a Papal direction but many Bishops are more liberal.

That said, actions have been taken which have clearly dramatically reduced the incidence of abuse (in America it statistically seemed to die in the early nineties and this is the same Church with the same rules) and programs have been introduced to assist victims which have included apologies, compensation, and free ongoing counselling but nothing will fix the problem. It can only be reduced and the approaches to dealing with it improved but only changing the past would fix the problem

mjpb,

We could go on and on, but let me say this.

1. If Pell really has put in place some changes that have had a good effect that some in the community, including me, can't see, good on him. However, he can't expect to get universal support and kudos for it if it's not of universal benefit to people. The trick here would be for the Church to make sure its healing process spreads as widely (and sustainably) to as many people as possible. This will require it to compromise on some of its dogmatic views.

2. As long as victims feel as though they are being left out in the cold by the exclusive tendencies of the Church, it is entirely understandable that they express a negative view. And this is good because it is the only thing that spurs on the Church to improve itself. Once the well of outrage dries up, what's going to drive change then? One hopes that when this point is reached, Life itself will seamlessly step in and force the necessary changes.

RobP,
>>We could go on and on<<
Here I completely agree with you. The only reason I re-entered the debate was your presentation of your own position as a "fair summary" of the debate. I think a fairer summary would be that the majority of respondents agreed with you.

This is not surprising. It is always easier to criticise and attack (for understandable, as well as ideologically preconceived, reasons) demanding wide ranging reforms (that in fact would bring down an existing, albeit with faults, system, whether that was the intention of attackers or not) than to look patiently for a constructive - compassionate but fair to the victims as well as to the innocent vast majority of members of the Church, clergy or not - solution within the two millennia old system. As mjpb rightfully remarks, the only perfect solution would be to undo the past.

mjpb and George,

"...only changing the past would fix the problem"

I think this is rather defeatist. What's wrong with the idea of healing the wounds of the past by fixing the future? In other words, from now on we face up to problems and deal with them as soon as they come up?

RobP,

We aren't throwing up our hands and being defeatist.

(cutting and pasting and tweaking a previous comment)

Actions have been taken which have clearly dramatically reduced the incidence of abuse and programs have been introduced to assist victims. The Towards Healing program apparently includes an independent investigation, apologies, compensation, and free ongoing counselling. Apparently Pell has come up with something considered better by a victims organisation. Personally I think I would struggle to do so. Perhaps more ideas will come forward (I believe Stickey has some) and the current approach will be improved but even if that happens it won't change the past and all we are saying is that the fact this happened will remain a tragedy and it will remain a problem in many ways. Does putting it that way make it any clearer?

mjpb: "Does putting it that way make it any clearer?"

No!

Are you saying what happened to people who were raped by priests, nuns and brothers should be ruled off because that was the past? And we can't change the past?

So there should be no redress? No apology? No accountability? No listening to the voices of the victims? No feelings of having been betrayed? No review of the circumstances that gave rise to these crimes?

We'll just wait until the next victims blow the whistle? And then insult them for having the nerve to feel abandoned? Is that what you're saying?

mjpb,

You sound just like a politician. And you have about as much grasp of the problem as the pollies do. Sod all.

On this issue the Church is an utter dead weight, a complete hypocrite. It reminds me of my uncle and his wife. All they ever do is sit around at home, read the Bible and evangalise "the Lord will provide" whenever something goes their way. But, all it actually is is a cover for their indolence. When I visited them as a kid, I felt it was the deadest place ever. No colour, no activity, no kids running around, nothing. They bought their mother's house and have never bought their own, even though they are nearing 80.

While they are actually harmless, their list of little hypocrisies is endless. They will always opt out of exerting themselves if they have a choice. This is exactly the type of people the Church snaffles in order to bump up its flock. Is it any wonder they haven't got the intestinal fortitude to face up to some difficult issues?

RobP,

To avoid being a dead weight and a total hypocrite what should the Church do besides an apology from the international leading authority in the Church for the wrongs of the past, taking actions which have clearly dramatically reduced the incidence of abuse and introducing programs to assist victims being primarily The Towards Healing program which apparently includes an independent investigation, apologies, compensation, and free ongoing counselling.

I'm not trying to be like a politician with sod all understanding but you will need to be more specific about what you want the Church to do to stop being judged by you as a hypocritical dead weight or I will remain in your eyes as having sod all understanding.

I'll put it another way in case it is a communication issue. If someone gets hurt by someone in an organisation the possible actions by the organisation (if the problem concerns them) is to do what they can to prevent reoccurance, ensure transparency through independent investigation, compensate victims, compassionately manage the human aspects through apology and counselling, and take responsibility through an apology from the top. That is what has been done here (as close to the top as you can practically get it anyway). However given the gravity of some of the actions of the representatives I nevertheless don't believe that will make everything perfect for the victims.

Spikey,

"Are you saying what happened to people who were raped by priests, nuns and brothers should be ruled off because that was the past?"

No I'm saying that the unique exertions expended in dealing with the problem (which were fitting given the nature of the organisation) won't change the past. Unless the past is changed there will still be victims. I consider it appropriate that so much work has been done on the problem but no matter what is done it won't erase the past.

I'm trying to explain to RobP why I said that the only thing that would completely solve the problem is to erase the past. He thought George and I were being defeatist by making that comment.

"It reminds me of my uncle and his wife. All they ever do is sit around at home, read the Bible and evangalise "the Lord will provide" whenever something goes their way. But, all it actually is is a cover for their indolence. When I visited them as a kid, I felt it was the deadest place ever. No colour, no activity, no kids running around, nothing."

Not the most vivacious couple by the sound of it.

"They bought their mother's house and have never bought their own, even though they are nearing 80."

That gives them the appearance of not having much material possessions to show for their long lives. Did at least one of them work? Did they give their money to the poor? Please give more details.

"That gives them the appearance of not having much material possessions to show for their long lives. Did at least one of them work? Did they give their money to the poor? Please give more details."

My uncle worked as a clerk in the Public Service (at the Post Office as I remember). Hardly the most dynamic of work environments. As far as I know, they don't help the poor, although Margaret goes to Church functions. I don't know what she does there, but I imagine it wouldn't be much. They are so weak they weasel out of helping their relatives (with whom they are on good speaking terms) when some of them have trouble.

Eg, my Mum, who's the type of person to help anyone if she could, asked them for help to drive my father, who had a weak pulse and is getting Alzheimer's, from Woodend to Melbourne to put him in hospital. (She gets flustered driving in the Melboune traffic and can't do it any more.) At first, they said yes, then rang up later to say they had to go to a party. As Mum had no support, I had to travel interstate at short notice to help out.

Now I'm sure this type of thing is not unknown out there, but when people call themselves Christians, you start matching up their actions with their rhetoric. They knew what the situation was but chose to opt out.

RobP

Your dad has a weak pulse and needs to go to hospital and their reason for not helping is they had to go to a party. Okay. They must not exactly be in your good books.

It is a complicated world out there and none of us are perfect but I have difficulty understanding such Christians.

I admit that faith isn't my strong point. I became Christian because it makes the most sense to me. And it makes sense if you love an omnipotent God who we are made to worship and are given the grace to do His will (well known to include helping people) then you want to do what He wants. This of course requires determining God's will.

An atheist's conscience can be informed in innumerable ways. In the Catholic faith God has revealed values and the Church protects and teaches these revealed values. Our conscience is informed by the Church which we believe points us to an understanding of God's revealed truth. Martin Luther rejected Church teaching believing Christian scriptures pointed him elsewhere "I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word...". His conscience was informed by his personal interpretation of God's written word.

However in contemporary society exists Christians who regard it as a fundamental right to inform their conscience in any way they see fit with little or no regard to ascertaining God's will. They neither seek counsel from the Church nor the pages of the Bible. To me that doesn't make sense. To them they know what is right and that is the end of it. It seems to conflict with the idea of an omnipotent God if they can do a better job of ascertaining values. Nevertheless it makes sense to them. I believe atheists draw the natural conclusion that such Christians must be expressing Christian values because they identify as a Christian.

The reason I've said all this is to explain that IMHO that type of behaviour and the values it expresses are inconsistent with the Christian faith.

mjpb,

Not that it's important, but there is no bad blood within the family at all, just a problem of weakness.

It's not really of any value to go any more into the detail, as everyone's situation is unique. If one doesn't actually meet the people face to face, one couldn't really understand the situation anyway.

"...no bad blood within the family at all, just a problem of weakness..."

Perhaps. But it appears that to your credit you are being very understanding by viewing them that way in spite of the consequences that they caused.

Coincidentally I am reading the book of a self identifying Catholic, Paul Collins, who may fit into the category I don't relate to and he includes information about contemporary abuse. I don't know what to make of the man but the information he compiles may give insight into the contemporary situation for priests so I'll include it just in case. This can be compared with the situation of certain priests who the church used to countenance in the 70s and who established the protected confident predator image eg.:

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories2/071002_shanley.htm

Their reputation may live on as a media construct and image but the contemporary situation may be quite different. An excerpt from Collins' book:

"Nowadays, however, ecclesiastical superiors are proactive and move with alacrity when accusations are made. Some priests now feel authorities have moved too far toward the other end of the spectrum... the rights of accused priests are often 'overlooked or ignored', ...often not been given legal advice or experienced support persons. They were frequently cajoled into making admissions and agreeing to resign... Priests are assumed to be guilty, their rights to fairness and a presumption of innocence ignored, and they are dismissed from ministry by bishops or superiors without any legal process, often before they have been afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. Accused priests have been kept in the dark by bishops witholding accusations or aspects of accusations. There is confusion between what are actually 'boundary violations', that is consensual adult sexual encounters, and the sexual abuse of children, which falls under the jurisdictions of criminal and canon law...A similar situation has emerged in the UK where a church lawyer who defends accused priests said that 'bishops cannot be trusted to help priests accused of child abuse'"

mjpb

You show a touching concern for priests accused of sexual abuse and I'm sure your sympathy is genuine (albeit through highly selective quote from Paul Collins' book).

Now what are your sentiments in relation to the victims? Or are they all imagining that the priest interfered with them?

Hi Spikey,

"You show a touching concern for priests accused of sexual abuse and I'm sure your sympathy is genuine (albeit through highly selective quote from Paul Collins' book)."

I'm sorry but I can't take any credit. I transcribed the information without any sympathetic thought whatsoever. I am not even sure if it is correct. It did of course make me wonder if things have got that extreme.

"Now what are your sentiments in relation to the victims? Or are they all imagining that the priest interfered with them?"

I can sympathise with both victims and also priests if that is true. If a sexual assault allegation were false it would be horrible for the priest with loss of vocation and unbelievable stigma.

Naturally I don't believe the victims are all imagining. As someone who has never had the experience of being traumatised by unwanted sexual advance as a child or adult I can only imagine how horrific it would be.

Thank you mjpb. That wasn't so hard to say, was it?

Stickey,

No. If if you wanted me to say that then I'm glad it came together.

In Paul Collin's book discussed above (p172) he quotes:

"The victim is to love his butcher. A monstrous proposition. But one shedding fathomless light. How are mortal men and women to fulfill it?"

and states

"Here is the real core of Jesus' moral teaching. Everything else is secondary."

Can I ask whether or not you agree with him?

When watching The Passion of the Christ which really brought out that love of people (I'm thinking the "Forgive them Father they know not what they do" bit) I had doubts about whether I could emulate Him.

George,

I get the impression that you are an abuse victim yourself. There are advantages and disadvantages in discussing it here. An advantage is the anonymity. A disadvantage is that you might feel that people don't understand or that you struggle to get them to say what you want them to say. It is also possible but less likely that someone may be genuinely disrespectful. Just a thought.

mjpb,
No, I am definitely not, on the contrary, my adolescent recollections of priests (and nuns) - I might have mentioned it in another thread that I grew up in a Stalinist country - is as of those who were persecuted by the almighty comrades (as you would know, they controlled not only politics, but the media, education, economy, everything). If not jailed or sent to concentration camps they were, at least the priests, asked to renounce their allegiance to the Pope, professors of theology were sent to backward villages to function as parish priests, and simple village parish priests were transferred to city parishes to preach to university students (of course, there was no separation of church and state) to prevent the priest becoming popular with his congregation. You could attend mass but being seen meeting privately with a priest (unless you were an old lady) was dangerous to you as well as to him. Similarly with nuns. There were occasions when peasants tried to prevent their parish priest being taken away with scythes, reminiscent of Vendée 1793 (of course, without the ensuing massacres), etc.

So you see my youth experience with priests and nuns is almost exactly the opposite of what you suspected. The priests were not massacred as during the French Revolution, the persecution was more subtle and “humane”. The contemporary public lynching and mocking of the Church as such (not just concrete persons who might be responsible for this or that misdeed or cover up) in the West is even more subtle and “humane” than what the Communists did. And it will take the Church a while to find the right response, which is certainly not to pretend they still had a privileged, and generally respected, position in debates about what is good for the society as a whole.