Spikey,

George said it best when he said:

"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."

"I don't know about others ..."

I believe you are failing to differentiate between not being emotionally blackmailed to get out of the way when you unfairly slander a human being and being disrespectful.

" "that Foster guy", you call him. He's not just 'that guy'."

No man is just "that guy" and I know his history but it is a normal manner of describing people.

"He and his family ..."

See George's quote above.

"...a guy ...aching need to understand..."

Understandably.

"It's not a "floor show" that people whose ... want."

But it would be a floor show if Foster had met with the Pope. He has a demonstrated tendency to respond with determined hatred and contempt to compassion and assistance even from Church representatives who didn't do the crime.

"It's acknowledgment..."

Clergy turn the cheek and close the door when someone takes a swing. Other people might swing back. If you go looking for revenge it gets in the way irrespective of any burning need for acknowledgement etc. hidden away.

"...to no avail?"

Please define "to no avail".

"Why don't you come and meet some of the members of Broken Rites? Are you sufficiently 'grounded' to accept that challenge"

I'd consider it. Perhaps it is a limitation of this communication but I'm floored to read that as you don't seem counselled. Aren't they a victim support group? Have you just joined?

After distilling the debate as well as noting the response of the Church to date, I think it's a fair summary to say that the whole issue of sexual abuse in the Church is not going to be addressed unless a) it's easy for George Pell and the rest of the senior clergy to do so or b) someone else does it.

The bottom line is that the clergy do not want to muck in and fix the problem. The status quo has prevailed as usual because they fundamentally do not understand the issue.

>> I think it's a fair summary to say that the whole issue of sexual abuse in the Church is not going to be addressed ... The bottom line is that the clergy do not want to muck in and fix the problem. ... The status quo has prevailed as usual <<

Which one of the contributors on this thread - that you know was a (senior) clergy - was telling you this, hence justifying your claim that this as "a fair summary" of the debate initiated by you? I do not know if "the clergy do not want to fix the problem" (I rather think they desperately do) but I am sure it is not something you can claim follows from this debate. The only conclusion you can draw is that some contributors to the debate think this way, and some contributors think that way, about the issue.

>> they fundamentally do not understand the issue.<<

Apparently another "fair summary" of this debate would be that you (and those who agree with you) understand the issue better than the psychological counsellors advising the clergy. What about the Church finally understanding the issue but not knowing a fast way, fair to everybody involved, out of the mess?

George,

My whole argument hinges on leadership in fixing the problem. There are people who can do things about the problem, as opposed to the many clergy in the Church who manifestly can only politically position themselves on the issue.

If the Church could have fixed the problem, they certainly would have by now. The fact they still have a problem shows they can't. (Are you arguing it's solved? If you are, I'd suggest the problem is layered and the Church needs to look deeper.) That's what I've distilled out of the debate and my own observations.

Another (different) wave of action is now needed to advance on this issue. I'm not sure what the solution is exactly, but it will only happen when the dogmatic grip the senior clergy have on the Church is loosened. Hence, my initial call for George Pell to get out of the way.

“My whole argument hinges on leadership in fixing the problem.”

But you think the highest ranking cleric in the country, famous (or infamous depending on perspective) for his strong leadership, who has initiated the program which a victims organization considers the best in the country should “get out of the way”.

“If the Church could have fixed the problem, they certainly would have by now.”

Theological issues aside do you think that the Church likes to be sued and shamed in the media and has thus done nothing? It isn’t a problem that just gets “fixed”. High ranking clergy will never be able to completely monitor the bedrooms of all clerics so it can happen in the future. By comparison even blue card holders get caught engaging in paedophilia sometimes. Plus recovered memory therapy which identified victims of some of the worst paedophile priests in America could bring more old ones to light. Further, even the victims of 40 years or so ago still remain today and nothing will erase their past. Plus the media won't leave old victims alone unless celibacy is abolished and gay priests openly ordained. Additionally, there is something of a civil war going on in the Church that makes implementing constructive actions challenging. A recent example is the Pope requiring that anyone known to have engaged in paedophilia not act as priest but the Brisbane Archbishop ignored the direction with a convicted paedophile. A theological conservative (relatively speaking) like Pell may jump to attention when faced with a Papal direction but many Bishops are more liberal.

That said, actions have been taken which have clearly dramatically reduced the incidence of abuse (in America it statistically seemed to die in the early nineties and this is the same Church with the same rules) and programs have been introduced to assist victims which have included apologies, compensation, and free ongoing counselling but nothing will fix the problem. It can only be reduced and the approaches to dealing with it improved but only changing the past would fix the problem

mjpb,

We could go on and on, but let me say this.

1. If Pell really has put in place some changes that have had a good effect that some in the community, including me, can't see, good on him. However, he can't expect to get universal support and kudos for it if it's not of universal benefit to people. The trick here would be for the Church to make sure its healing process spreads as widely (and sustainably) to as many people as possible. This will require it to compromise on some of its dogmatic views.

2. As long as victims feel as though they are being left out in the cold by the exclusive tendencies of the Church, it is entirely understandable that they express a negative view. And this is good because it is the only thing that spurs on the Church to improve itself. Once the well of outrage dries up, what's going to drive change then? One hopes that when this point is reached, Life itself will seamlessly step in and force the necessary changes.