Joe:

“But if a carer is celibate, cannot get married, then it would be logical for a higher incidence of abuse to occur”

I don’t think that the percentage of priests who abuse compared to their overall numbers is any greater than the percentage of non-priests. I think it would roughly be the same but how could you know?

Abusing children sexually is not about sexual satisfaction but about trying to meet some deep-seated need for emotional attachment. How could a 25 year old priest find sexual satisfaction with a four year old child? Sexual behaviour is rarely just about sex. There are many emotions and other aspects that accompany sexual behaviour. That is why we call it ‘making love’ there is so much more to it.

It is like saying that rape is simply about sexual satisfaction. Why would a 20 year old man rape a 95 year old woman – just for sexual pleasure? If someone is maladjusted and expresses that maladjustment by sexually abusing children then they will do so whether they are married or not.

Very few people want to look at the emotions of the perpetrators of these crimes because they are so full of rage but that is never going to stop the problem. ‘Broadchurch’ was an English drama which dared to draw the link between emotional need and sexual abuse. For many men it is about holding the child ‘within’ who is in a great deal of pain. It does not excuse such behaviour but helps to understand it. There are lots of people who do not want to even look at that possible connection because it may become too personal for them so they join a lynch mob directed at someone remote enough to keep them from facing their own pain.

The really sad thing is that this is like turning to drugs – it cannot help.

Hi Phanto,

No, I don't think that sexual abuse or rape are solely or totally or 'simply' about sex - more likely about power, and how it can be abused. But one major way for one person to exert that unequal power over someone else is through imposing sexual activity on them. After all, in most 'caring' situations, about the only ways to abuse one's power are either unwarranted physical punishment or sexual abuse.

No, it's not the only way, and yes, married clergy and carers may be guilty of such abuse, but I doubt that they would be as inclined as single men, since, frankly, they may not have such power urges if they have a partner to share their sex-life with.

Joe

If the most senior executive of a private or public body is not responsible for implementing robust, effective controls, who is?

The responsibilities of the most senior executive and affecting Cardinal Pell are so evident as to not require a quote. In Australia, he had been devolved full powers from the Vatican and he was ultimately responsible. However, the management layers below him also have fiduciary responsibility.

A senior executive cannot manage everything and s/he must put trust in others. However, that always carries the requirement that s/he assesses the risks and ensures that proper management controls are in place and operating, and that there is a system of monitoring and assurance.

What interests the public is that while many are bagging Pell (and he is due censure, but for the right reasons), they are not so similarly inclined where their own interests are involved. For example, the recent Royal Commission into Unions betrayed similar deficiencies in the management of unions and of the Labor Party as well.

As for the State itself and its handling of its young charges eg State Wards and other vulnerable citizens, for instance the abysmal, very sad role of the federal and State governments in the forced adoption scandal that went on for decades and up until very recent times, all politicians and others who should have known and acted better should be hanging their heads in shame too.

The then PM Julia Gillard should be given full credit for her apology to the surviving affected parties,

http://tinyurl.com/gqk6d9j

The obvious deficiency of this thread is that it is aimed at and has largely been responded to as a political exercise - mud-slinging and shabby political point-scoring.

There is a higher plane for the discussion than the relentless personal attack on Pell, skewed to avoid the larger issues.

"The obvious deficiency of this thread is that it is aimed at and has largely been responded to as a political exercise - mud-slinging and shabby political point-scoring."

Today's belly laugh provided by otb...

onthebeach appears to be the only poster who has attempted to "hijack" this thread for political ends.

Eg.,

"Interesting and predictable that the focus in some quarters is on Pell, but others are somehow treated with kid gloves?

In politics too, the ministers have escaped Scot free. Why so?

Politicians like Willie Shorten (and others from both sides) are always quick to duck everything but the power, pay and privileges of position, saying that it is only where they are actually convicted by a court that it matters, but even then they wriggle out."

"For example, what is there about the management of the BBC (or unions in Australia)..."

"What interests the public is that while many are bagging Pell (and he is due censure, but for the right reasons), they are not so similarly inclined where their own interests are involved. For example, the recent Royal Commission into Unions betrayed similar deficiencies in the management of unions and of the Labor Party as well."

Nice line in mud-slinging and shabby political point-scoring.

Can you point me to anyone else who attempted to skew this discussion for political ends?

What's this?

"There is a higher plane for the discussion than the relentless personal attack on Pell, skewed to avoid the larger issues."

Um...this thread is titled "Should Cardinal Pell accept Responsibility?"

What do you suggest we discuss with a title such as that?

To take an example, it is very worrying for parents and carers that the Safe Schools program is being funded and implemented without an independent, professionally-conducted examination of risks and possible treatments.

What about public consultation? It is impossible that any effective risk analysis could be conducted without reference to parents, school councils and parent and citizen associations.

How in the world a Marxist-inspired experiment in social reengineering could ever have won free access to children and taxpayer funding is beyond the understanding of most people.

Frankly, the public are fed up to the back teeth with political correctness and lazy politicians who leave it all up to the few, while occupying themselves sorting their own entitlements, especially their travel to tourist destinations overseas.

And here's more...

"How in the world a Marxist-inspired experiment in social reengineering could ever have won free access to children and taxpayer funding is beyond the understanding of most people.

Frankly, the public are fed up to the back teeth with political correctness and lazy politicians who leave it all up to the few, while occupying themselves sorting their own entitlements, especially their travel to tourist destinations overseas."

Btw, where your proof for "Marxist inspired"? You predictably never got back to me on that one.