Reflections on the Priest Scandals
Read the article this discussion is about
- IMADAG2
- Zanzi
- Zanzi
- IMADAG2
- IMADAG2
- StCatherine
- IMADAG2
- StCatherine
- IMADAG2
- IMADAG2
This archived discussion is "read only".
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» IMADAG2 - opportunity costs
In response to message posted by all:It's a helpful article..helpful in that it aims to discuss a volatile issue in moderate terms.
"I really believe that doing the right thing will have wonderful consequences for the future." Well, I reckon unfortunately, the optimum right thing to do this has long past. So, any good effort to repair work now needs to be diverted simply to address the credibility factor. There is a perception that the Church, as a corporate organisation, still hopes it will all go away before any hard yakka is required..and more of the wealth of the Catholic Church Property Trust is at risk.
There is an almost obscene infrastructure of silence and embedded process that allowed it to happen..and still limits frank recovery to occur. "I couldn't have known coz we shouldn't question anything"
How did each country totally co-incidentally suffer the same problem? Do international networks exist eg opportunities at international conferences to discuss techniques to offend or cover up...out of session. What were the broader consequences of transferring offenders to newer fertile grounds..or promoting them to oversee these same offences..or their acceptance into other denominations..into schools etc. Over here, we've recently had a nun become a police officer..so the infiltration capacity is endless. Yet polite society wonders why.
So language such as "inappropriate touching".."disappointment".."priest scandal"..etc somehow fails to sheet home to me just how aggressive any recovery action will be, let alone gow effective.
A dilemna of the Church's own making and its adherence to the sanctity of the offender over the victim ie confessional..remains an obstacle. But I recognise this is NOT unique to the Catholic Church nor should every priest and parishioner be tarred with the same brush. But no-one should expect me to enter any church any day soon.
Jeff
-- posted by IMADAG2
» Zanzi - Re: I recently talked
In response to message posted by StCatherine:I was/am so glad that my friends are still delighted with their faith in God and are dealing maturely with this great disapointment in their former priest.
They have obviously understood that the faith is not about one particular person, i.e. the priest, but about God. Similar situations can be seen in many different denominations, when a leader is found to not live up to his reputation. Sadly, not many people are as mature in their understanding of faith as your friends.
-- posted by Zanzi
» Zanzi - Re: opportunity costs
In response to message posted by IMADAG2:But no-one should expect me to enter any church any day soon.
You just said yourself that not every priest and parishioner (should) be tarred with the same brush. How does this go in harmony with your statement referenced above?
-- posted by Zanzi
» IMADAG2 - Re: Re: opportunity costs
In response to message posted by Zanzi:Hi Zanzi. You also made an (unrelated?) comment: "Sadly, not many people are as mature in their understanding of faith as your friends." The maturity or strength of one's faith or having harmony within one's beliefs, is not fully reliant, if at all, on ritual church attendance...as I've understood many a thread here.
That parishioners are able to rise above "it" may be admirable loyalty. But at today's starting point of being a non church member, I have no such obligation to return to what was an unsafe place on some vague promise it is now safe to all. As an individual, I am completely safe from a defenceless inappropriate 'touching up' and worse..by another individual. BUT I guess what's hard for the "other side" to see is the permanent harm done..the broader consequences..of the absolute abuse of trust..of power..the cover up..the innocence lost etc.
Reasonable response? Who will re-invest in the same finance company that has embezzled their life savings when you have renewed funds? Who keeps their front door unlocked because of a profound hope in the honesty of all their neighbours despite being burgled yesterday by one? Some Christians even refuse to regularly converse with non-Christians for fear of being tainted.
not every priest and parishioner (should) be tarred with the same brush For there to be disharmony on the matter that matters..one's beliefs..there would need to be inappropriate clinging to the past. I am a survivor..not a victim. Looking ahead, I find my current spiritual journey sustains me.
I am street-smart enough to know the difference in the way Christianity, democracy, communism etc exists in day to day life...and what their philosophies otherwise intended. The child sex abuse issue otherwise known as the scandal that priests find themselves in ie as victims..is only one indicator of church hypocrisy. A mindset to only abuse the defenceless is not consistent given flow on effects..at best is hard for me to reconcile on available facts.
I wish fair dinkum Christians well in their journey. I continue to try and identify them here and in real time.
Jeff
-- posted by IMADAG2
» IMADAG2 - an after thought
I know myself and others frequently give personal feedback to questions on topics such as this, throughout suite101. Questions freely answered. But at times there seems an imbalance in who does the explaining. We discuss the wrongs of priests and the church heirachy in all this, how to rescue the priest and church. It's kinda glossed over what actions have been taken by the ordinary church member to rescue the children.We read frequently how little the parishioner knew of what was going on. So did parents never discussed priest transfers with other parents? Never confronted priests or the supervising bishops, let alone the police? Did parents or teachers or counsellors never wonder about changed behaviours in their children et al? If it was all so truly concealed totally out of sight, what response when it's finally revealed?
I know allegations are not believed and I question the reasoning in the few where a reason is offered. But when the belief bell belatedly tolled, what happened? Who were they, when and where did the childrens' champions emerge? It's surely overdue for them to get a pat on the back, isn't it?
Jeff
-- posted by IMADAG2
» StCatherine - Re: an after thought
In response to message posted by IMADAG2:The childrens' champions you refer to are from two camps. 1 - Abused persons and their families bringing their cases public and 2 - Church leaders (including my bishop) who are truly concerned about parishioners, friends and neighbors.
But it takes everyone working together to make a better world.
-- posted by StCatherine
» IMADAG2 - Re: Re: an after thought
In response to message posted by StCatherine:Thanx for the response and thanx for bringing us the article.
I guess my questions aimed for closer answers. These allegations arose, were bravely pursued despite obvious Church resistance and vigorous attempts to cover up. Over here, a member of parliament (name forgotten) was vilified for "outing" offenders and forced to resign. An opinionated radio 'personality' Derryn Hinch, was jailed for publicly naming a Catholic paedophile priest Michael Glennon, later convicted of 50 child molestation offences. Correct, less PC terms.
Culpability is still being resisted..all the way to Australia's highest court...the High Court. I can't imagine the USA has gone belly up over this issue.
Only one High Court judge bravely dissented. "It is the state's duty to protect the pupil, and the conduct of the teacher constitutes a breach of the state's own duty."
The other six 'learned' judges believed: "sexual contact...that it is almost intuitively classified as a personal and independent act rather than an act in the course of employment"."
This ruling only 12 months ago! And there are clear parallels between teacher and student and priest and child.
And within the USA, the denials in the decade long saga of the USA's own "aptly" named Cardinal Law were never going to be unique or isolated to that Archbishop.
""By all means we call down God’s power on the media, particularly the (Boston) Globe." (Law 1992)
"When the Rev. James Porter abuse cases became public in the early 1990s, and again in January 2002 when the Globe revealed the extent of Rev. John Geoghan's abusive behavior, Cardinal Bernard F. Law characterized these as isolated incidents."
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/ab...
One of OZ's Archbishops became our Head of State (Governor-General)..the first appointed from within a church..and needed to be removed once the "scandal" of his inaction broke.
It would be nice to think it's all been dismantled...not driven further underground. Or now that there are the ubiquitous fundraisers and protocols, the 'appearances' are it won't happen again. The Catholic Church here resisted forming part of an all church coalition in terms of national protocols.
It's in the totality of all this that I think reasonable doubt remains.
"But it takes everyone working together to make a better world." Yep..the ideal world. But no church, let alone the Catholic Church, will allow outside, independent quality control.
From your article, I simply pondered the question of the strongest action taken at the earliest time by other than the victim. The priests' scandals go upwards to Archbishops and methinks across to others within the Church who by any measure..simply must have known.
Before we all hop on the road to recovery, let's hope the bus's brakes work and the road's potholes are fixed or known. Blind faith only takes me so far.
Jeff
-- posted by IMADAG2
» StCatherine - Re: Re: Re: an after thought
In response to message posted by IMADAG2:"From your article, I simply pondered the question of the strongest action taken at the earliest time by other than the victim"
Hi, Jeff. I really don't know the answer to this query.
-- posted by StCatherine
» IMADAG2 - Re: Re: Re: Re: an after thought
In response to message posted by StCatherine:Maybe, regretfully, there is no good answer.
In 2002..."A new row broke out yesterday over the way Catholic Archbishop George Pell handled child-sex abuse cases, with claims his appointment of a psychiatry professor to deal with victims was "insensitive". Dr Pell, when he was archbishop of Melbourne in 1996*, set up Carelink, a free counselling and support service for victims of clergy, in response to scandals plaguing the Catholic Church. The man he chose to chair Carelink was Richard Ball, the former chair of psychiatry at St Vincents Hospital, Melbourne. Professor Ball provided independent expert psychiatric reports which have been used in court for the defence of Catholic clergy. He had also helped treat priests accused of sexual abuse. Several of the pedophiles for whom Professor Ball provided expert defence were well known to the Archbishop.
*The Pope appointed him as Archbishop in 1996.
In 2002, George presided over the fact the church has paid more to its spin doctors than to victims. In 2003, George became our newest cardinal.
Another question relates to which church claims to have done the most in recovery? Maybe, regretfully, there is no good answer.
Jeff
-- posted by IMADAG2
» IMADAG2 - credit where due
I'm unsure what's happening lately within the Catholic Church, but within the Anglican church in OZ, changes are occurring. There is a national register of all church workers to prevent offenders hopping from State to State undetected. Abusers stay in the church but under supervision on congregational duties only, bishops and archbishops removed from the loop of reported abuse to a director of professional standards..hopefully to stop their interference rather than focus on the 'compromising' situation of removing them from knowledge of what's going on..as with the US Prez. Sounds a reasonable framweork reasonable people can live with.-- posted by IMADAG2
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.