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"?