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.