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.