Oliver,

"...statistically, some are going to be deviants and criminals. What annoys me is the bishops whom protect..."

You aren't alone.

RobP,

"The leadership I am referring to in Pell is in the moral sphere...The real criticism here is the way the Church hides behind its name ..."

The issue you raise is clearly a very real problem. In fairness, at a "Church" level, the problem gets worked on and Pell is probably not the best example (given the systems he set up even including free counselling to victims). In this case his second letter to the victim apologising is noteworthy. Nevertheless the issue has added so much to the actual abuse.

A major problem that the Church has faced is that not only were people abused (sounding even worse when media use the word paedophilia for almost any abuse) but that Bishops outraged the public by failing that moral duty. As a Catholic I'd picture their role as being like shepherds rather than just moral leaders but that only adds to the responsibility. I believe the medical profession has had a higher proportion of abuse cases but without that complication they rate better in trusted profession lists.

Unfortunately some Bishops have taken the approach of just hiding behind lawyers trying to minimise liability as if they were good company managers not shepherds. Worse yet they have also shirked moral responsibility for managing their priests with regard to the actual paedophiles. The Pope has pronounced words to the effect that such people cannot be priests. However he should not have had to. In the religion paedophilia is considered an extremely serious sin. God can forgive them but they aren't suitable to function as priests. Instead of taking responsibility for considering the moral aspects the Bishops passed such priests over to psychiatrists. In those days psychiatrists would say the priests were cured and pass them back. The priests would be relocated and the process would go on. It was a reprehensible abdication of responsibility to consider moral implications by the Bishops with obvious tragic consequences.

mjpb

Yes, Pell and Ridsdale were some years apart in their schooling (at the same school in Ballarat) but they were seminarians together and shared the same small (4-person) house in Ballarat. They had lots in common and were friends. Pell knew the Ridsdale family very well. You would expect Pell to follow Ridsdale's career with interest. Pell attended court as a personal friend to support Ridsdale while no-one in the Church supported his victims.

It is common knowledge that for priests to be moved as often a Ridsdale was there is something significant interfering with their vocation. Pell would have had to be brain-dead not to have known that Ridsdale was in serious trouble with the hierarchy. He certainly knew when he personally chose to defend Ridsdale but not his victims.

Visit the website of Broken Rites where you will see a litany of cover-ups of sexual abuse by Catholic priests over many years including when Pell was top dog. His own scheme for dealing with cases - introduced while he was Archbishop of Melbourne - is more secretive and less supportive of victims than the Towards Healing system introduced by the other Catholic bishops throughout Australia.

Pell's treatment of claimants has been consistently hard-line and mean-spirited. Church-centred as opposed to victim-centred. Defending priests and defaming victims.

On a more general note, Broken Rites has a data base of thousands of complaints, and documents 107 cases in which it was involved (and that doesn't cover all cases) where Catholic priests and religious brothers were sentenced by Australian courts.

We must stop putting our heads in the sand and deal honestly with the problem. It's time for Pell to give way to someone more compassionate and willing to seek solutions, not just cover-ups.

http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html

mjpb,

Overall, a pretty decent post. But I still have a bit of a problem with "...In this case his second letter to the victim apologising is noteworthy. Nevertheless the issue has added so much to the actual abuse."

I don't think being noteworthy is anywhere near enough. If Pell really was a shepherd tending to his flock, he would understand that, in the real world, there is a large difference in power between the clergy and the laity. So when he said on TV over the last couple of days that he took the views of both Fr Goodall and the victim evenly, he is overlooking the fact that both have uneven platforms from which to put their views. He is also, I strongly suspect, implicitly judging the situation against the Church's preferred outcome.

The real reason the victim felt even more isolated, and even more abused, by Pell's comments was that Pell took a RC doctrinaire approach to the incident and left the victim to fall between the cracks. I believe Pell really has failed this man. As has the whole Church culture for centuries. Pell is a great functionary for the Church "enterprise", but in so doing he has overlooked the central core tenet of Christianity: compassion for the ordinary man.

Foxy,

Thank you for the time taken for a considered answer. I pretty-much agree with all you, including the Crown and Church being treated somewhat different. Perhaps, for the stability of those institutions?

That said:

After Cromwell, the Crown was made quasi-accountable to Parliament. Now, perhaps, "all" criminal elements in the Church should be accountable to the Courts.

The Courts and Parliament accountable to the People.

I am not saying that RC priests should give-up say the sanctity of of Confession, rather higher-ups who cover-up [like secular company directors] should be held for crimes after-the-fact.

Nonetheless, your post is probably the most realistic. Yet, imagine the good press and the boast the justice system were a Cardinal arraigned under suspicion, while the Pope was in Oz. It world show "no one" is above the Law in Australia.

George,

I am Catholic so I already have a passing familiarity with these things. I can’t fit in a response to Runner’s post that will incorporate discussion of the first link but will hopefully get to it eventually.

Further to my previous post regarding Bishops. I note that your third link demonstrates that they haven’t changed their attitude much. From your third link:

“Reaction appeared to suggest that many bishops don’t want to shoulder the burden of blame by themselves, with several urging researchers to consider advice given by mental health professionals. “Very often, we were told that this can be treated by conventional psychotherapy,” said Bishop John Ricard of Pensacola-Tallahassee, Fla. “I think this was a prevailing belief on the part of the mental health profession. The bishops followed that advice, with obvious consequences.”

How pathetic! Granted the media didn’t acknowledge such things but the Bishops are still passing the buck. The issues addressed may well have been partly moral and partly mental health but their duty to the victims was to deal with the moral side of it not just pass the buck.
With regard to your second link it seems strange to find an article on public school sex abusers in a supposedly Catholic magazine. I hope they aren’t trying to imply that some other group is worse so internal problems aren’t so bad.

With regard to your first link I’m happy to digest and expand on it but am deferring due to word and post limits. I note that Bishops true to form reportedly commented was that the result was good because the Church was no worse than anywhere else. That probably misunderstands the findings which were actually more favourable for the Church than that suggests but their belief should hardly be comforting for them as members of a moral focused organization.

spikey said [via broken rites]

Visit the website of Broken Rites where you will see a litany of cover-ups of sexual abuse by Catholic priests over many years including when Pell was top dog. His own scheme for dealing with cases - introduced while he was Archbishop of Melbourne - is more secretive and less supportive of victims than the Towards Healing system introduced by the other Catholic bishops throughout Australia.

See THAT was the reason for my question, having TRIED Towards Healing.

Of course, as I relate in my Child Support chapter in http://www.ablokesguide.com I was totally aware of Howard's Little Mate Professor Parkinson and his Draconian amendments to the Child Support Acts, essentially REMOVING the rite [if I may use the same spelling] to appeal against the CSA

So it was total deja vu with Towards Healing

Do you realise that Pell himself got off by using Towards Healing, but does not use it in Victoria [or somewhere]

in any case I HAD to use Towards Healing in Qld, but I DID carefully record every abuse of justice therein