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.