One would have thought that one of the most evil consequences of the sexual abuse by Catholic and C. of E. priests and teachers would have been the likelihood that those poor children themselves became abusers, that they were sexualised and then imposed that perverted sexual behaviour on other children.

So in the light of all that, I'm sure that, governments being usually fairly sensible, they have built in all manner of safeguards into this "Safe Schools" program, to ensure that children are not sexualised, that such perverted behaviour is not in any way encouraged.

How they may be doing that, in an age of easy access to the internet, is not clear to me but I have some confidence that no government would ever want a repeat, through their incompetence, of the ghastly misuse of power which many churches have hitherto put in the hands of some of their members.

And which is now, with the "Safe Schools" program, largely in the hands of teachers, whether they like it or not.

Joe

Joe, are teacher equal to priests in the life of a child, and are teachers free from sexualizing or grooming children from their own ends?

“no government would ever want a repeat, through their incompetence, of the ghastly misuse of power which many churches have hitherto put in the hands of some of their members”

Joe, I can see what you are getting at but if we are to rid society of the curse of child sexual abuse in the church then we have to make sure parents take a lot of the blame. It is parents who make the decision to send their kids to church schools or who put them in a position where they could be abused by priests. No one forces them to be religious but they can surely force their kids to be religious and in doing so they are responsible for putting them into a dangerous position. The paedophiles are responsible for their behaviour but they could not have got away with such behaviour if parents had not sent their kids to churches and church schools in the first place. Many parents of abused kids know this but try to shift the blame for their part in such soul-destroying events.

A lot of adults who were sent to church schools do not want to open up that ‘can of worms’ because sexual abuse was not the only form of abuse that was metered out by the clergy and many of those adults want to ask their parents ‘why did you send me to that place? The anger becomes a little too close for comfort so it is easier to just join the chorus of church-shaming even if you were not on the receiving end of sexual abuse. Sometimes the outrage is meant for someone a bit closer.

The government is not responsible or ‘incompetent’ because there is nothing they could have done to stop parents from ‘religionising’ their kids. Any parent who does that to their kid must accept the responsibility for any outcomes that occur because the parents do not have to be religious.

Hi Josephus,

No, I don't think so, considering the influence teachers have on children. With the internet, they may have a double duty - and a double influence - on how they introduce children in their care to issues of sexuality. I'm not sure how asking children, long before they can think in formal-operational terms, how they would react if they had no genitals, or the 'other' set of genitals, would clarify their own 'nature' or their potential relationships with other people, male, female, and everything in between, who they may encounter later in life.

Hi Phanto,

I agree, many religious people put enormous faith in the integrity of key carers. I suppose that faith has taken a bit of a flogging.

As well, modern means of communication put extra burdens on parents, religious or not, to be vigilant to ensure that their children are not utterly confused, corrupted or otherwise bamboozled about - to the children - what may be crucial issues in their necessarily self-absorbed lives, and that a minority of carers are not able to exploit their uncertainties to their own perverted ends.

Cheers,

Joe

The State has a very poor record itself where abuses of children are concerned.

The ONLY protections are:

- freedom of speech (but staff are easily gagged and the 'clients' are powerless);

- a program of regular, random, COMPREHENSIVE audits (but CEOs and political parties are less than welcoming and proactive where audits are concerned); and

- the audit program to be based on a professionally conducted, comprehensive risk assessment.

"child sexual abuse in the church then we have to make sure parents take a lot of the blame" What a load of rubbish phanto. Those who knew that abuse was taking place, there is a very serious question mark over the head of George Pell for one, as to what he knew, or should have known, along with the abusers and the organisation itself for failing in its duty of care are responsible. Parents are no more reasonable than to the extent they knew the abuse was taking place, and failed to act. It is fair to say when children were sent to church or school it was to receive religious instruction or education, not sexual abuse.
You could extend you logic to say, catching a taxi, if you are attacked in someway by the driver without cause then you are some what responsible for catching the taxi in the first place.

In the Catholic Church many priests and brothers were uncovered as pedophiles, and when thing got too hot, the church hierarchy simply moved them on to new fertile ground. The motivation was to protect the "good" name of the church. The church also had no mechanism in place, other than reporting the matter to police, which they failed to do, to deal with the problem.