Has 'the Church' commented on why they weren't there?

It's part of the same package, suzeonline

>>I would go one further and also suggest that the British Government also say they are sorry for sending their own children to an unknown fate half way round the world.<<

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/16/british-child-migrants-to-get-apology/

"The British government said Sunday that Prime Minister Gordon Brown would apologize for child-migrant programs that sent boys and girls as young as 3 to Australia, Canada and other former colonies. Many ended up in institutions where they were physically and sexually abused or were sent to work as farm laborers."

I would imagine that this was coordinated at some level.

Most regulars here would know that I'm no great fan of organised religion, but to its credit the Catholic Church does seem to have supported yesterday's apology from the PM. Indeed, they seem to have been apologising for their institutional abuse of children since at least 1996:

<< Statement from the Catholic Church on the National Apology to people who suffered in institutional care

Monday 16 November 2009
The Australian Catholic Bishops and Leaders of Religious Institutes welcome today’s national apology to people who suffered while in institutional care, and take the opportunity to restate their sincere apology for any mistreatment which occurred in Catholic-run institutions.

We pray that this apology, delivered by the Prime Minister in the national parliament, will play an important role in healing many of the wounds which were laid bare with great courage before the Senate Inquiry into Children in Institutional Care.

When the report from that inquiry was tabled in 2004, we formally renewed our apology to those whose abuse was perpetrated by Catholic Church personnel. An apology was first made to all people who suffered abuse by Church personnel in the 1996 document, “Towards Healing”. We sincerely renew this apology again today. >>

http://tiny.cc/chTGl

Credit where it's due, and all that.

CJM,

It is very good to see some effort was made by the Churches to apologise for wrongdoings. Still, I wonder why they didn't face the music, yesterday. I think being physically present on the day of the apology would have reflected more positively on the Churches than a press statement.

It would seem from the comments made on the Day, some the abused were unaware of the Churches' press statements. Pell et al. should have cleared their diaries for this one.

By way of comparison, usually, at the end of a war, there is some from of surrender with the leaders physically present.

I would suspect that these guardians were not parents themselves but behaved like school masters - teach the little children discipline and an ordered life. It was not till about the late 1960's child welfare institutions abandoned the institutional model for a family home atmosphere with not more than 8 children in the care of house parents.

I believe with our current knowledge we as a nation will not return again to use such institutions. My wife and I have a close friend who with several other women care for orphans in Indonesia. They run this home with about 40 orphans on compassion and the children treat them as mothers.

I am finding quite a different attitude toward the churches after this apology to the Forgotten Australians as opposed to the one delivered to the Stolen Generations.

I attended the latter occasion at parliament house with my family and reading some of the rural papers during our return trip I was struck by the amount of antagonism toward the apology with many making two points.

First it was the failures of the parents that resulted in the children being removed and secondly the Churches had only the best of intentions in the administration of care for these 'unfortunates'.

Thankfully I have heard not a whisper of these assertions on this occasion.

Only the idiotic would assert that the indigenous children left in these institutions received better treatment than the others and I would venture to say it may have been decidedly worse in many cases.

Why the difference?

I would be keen to know if Wilson Tuckey boycotted the latest apology.