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.