|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Child sexual abuse
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
The Oscar-winning film "Spotlight" has provided a fresh focus on the issue of sexual abuse of children by people who are supposed to be looking after their welfare. Although that film focussed on only one such institution, namely the Roman Catholic diocese of Boston (USA), the problem is of course far more widespread than that; shipmates may wish to comment on other institutions who have likewise been more concerned to cover up their failings (sins!) than to do anything to prevent them.
In Australia, there is a Royal Commission on child sexual abuse, which has been holding public hearings for the past several months. In an ironic co-incidence, on the very day that the film Spotlight won its Oscar for best picture, the Royal Commission began its 4-day examination of Cardinal George Pell, formerly Archbishop of Melbourne and then of Sydney, and now a senior official in the Vatican.
Pell's reputation in Australia is as someone who gives much greater weight to the hierarchy of the church than to compassion for suffering parishioners. Hence his nick-name among nuns I know: "Pell Pot". Pope Francis must have picked up this when he appointed Pell to be(in effect) be the senior auditor of the Vatican finances, rather than a pastor of souls as a Bishop.
The Royal Commissioner was extremely sceptical of Pell's testimony to the effect that there was conspiracy among senior members of the church to deceive him about what was going on when he was priest in the Diocese of Ballarat in the 1980s. So too were those victims of this abuse, who had flown specially to Rome to hear his testimony in person - especially the victims of Fr Ribsdale, who was at one time a housemate of Pell's , but was moved repeatedly from parish to parish in response to complaints reaching the then bishop.
Are there any shipmates who believe Pell's version of events? It sounds to me and to this cartoonist more like a case of "don't ask , don't tell".
For further background see these reports: day 2 day 3
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It is times like this that I almost hope for a real Hell for those who have covered up abuse.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I found a link making the way around Facebook to a priest who was asked to comment on these events and was asked if the victims bore any guilt for having 'gone along with it'.
Let me find it...
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/09/ny-bishop-rape-shames-abuse-victims/
Now to be fair he wasn't saying they were solely to blame but IMHO even thinking about this issue in the terms that he did just sums up all that I find desperately wrong with the Catholic Church.
I didn't say what I thought completely on Facebook because I was able to swallow my 'What the fuck is this disgusting bollocks of a moral system?' and actually get some nuance from the Catholics on my list. But still...what the fuck is this disgusting bollocks of a moral system?
And anyway after that, do I believe Pell? No, no I don't. I think people in his position would lie to protect the institution that is the basis of their power and prestige. Can't say for sure of course but the whole thing STINKS.
[ 04. March 2016, 02:39: Message edited by: Macrina ]
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
The Oscar-winning film "Spotlight" has provided a fresh focus on the issue of sexual abuse of children by people who are supposed to be looking after their welfare. Although that film focussed on only one such institution, namely the Roman Catholic diocese of Boston (USA), the problem is of course far more widespread than that; shipmates may wish to comment on other institutions who have likewise been more concerned to cover up their failings (sins!) than to do anything to prevent them.
After the truly damning story of covering up abuse that "Spotlight" tells, there scrolls a long list of places throughout the world where the church covered up abuse. It's chilling.
I think the impulse to cover up failings is a very human one, both at the personal and institutional level. It's a very natural response -- we don't want people to know, and often we don't want to even think about what we've done, or about what's happened in a family or a church. But I expect spiritual leaders in all churches to do better. They lose all credibility if they are not spiritually mature enough to recognize sin, acknowledge it, and do their best to stop it.
I have, thankfully, only the mildest experience of this. Many years ago, I went twice to a tiny, newly started Baptist church where a man both times felt me up during the greet-your-neighbor part of the service. When I told the pastor that the reason I only went to his church twice was because of what this guy had done, the pastor told me I was mistaken, that it was just that the guy was friendly. I insisted that it had happened, but he didn't want to hear it. And I thought, "If he won't even entertain the possibility that something is happening that shouldn't be, I'm not going near his fucked up little church."
And frankly, the whole "we're all human, we all fall short" argument doesn't fly here. If Christianity doesn't make its adherents better people, if we can't legitimately expect Christian leaders to be better than average human beings, there's something deeply wrong with the whole religion. The RCC has some pretty ugly characters in the persons of men like Pell and Law, but it hasn't cornered the market on craven religious leaders, not by a long shot.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think the impulse to cover up failings is a very human one, both at the personal and institutional level. It's a very natural response -- we don't want people to know, and often we don't want to even think about what we've done, or about what's happened in a family or a church. But I expect spiritual leaders in all churches to do better. They lose all credibility if they are not spiritually mature enough to recognize sin, acknowledge it, and do their best to stop it.
...I insisted that it had happened, but he didn't want to hear it.
Jimmy Savile. "alleged offences took place at 13 hospitals as well as on BBC premises" (Wikipedia) with several hundred victims.
Looks like covering up is what institutions do, religious or not. That doesn't decrease the evil of the church coverups. Be we as a society and as people need to know that if we banned all churches the problem would continue, because it isn't just a church issue, it's something much bigger and broader.
I guess we humans write off people who say things we don't want to hear? Because if we hear it we have to do something about it? And we prefer the comfort of not confronting someone popular, or "important", or even just familiar to us?
Must be LOTS of people complained about Savile and were ignored. Not surprising complaints in a church were ignored, people have more emotional investment in their church than in their hospital.
As to churches, we need to NOT tell people "church is a safe place." It's not. It's people, and they are not safe.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Having read the coverage of Pell's testimony, he was either asleep at the wheel for most of his ministry, or he's lying through his teeth. Either way, no good.
Certainly he doesn't have a clue how he's coming across.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The Royal Commission is not into abuse generally, but into institutional abuse. By far the greatest amount of abuse is not by clergy, or school teachers, or those in charge of orphanages - it is by family members (family including step-parents).
That said, Pell's appearance this week has been appalling. At least in the witness box, he has shown no compassion for the abused. In none of his evidence overall has he shown any pastoral skills. Not saying he does not have any, just that none has been shown.
Was he telling the truth? Like many at the Sydney Bar, I know Justice McClellan, and not only trust him absolutely but am confident in his ability to answer this question.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Looks like covering up is what institutions do, religious or not. That doesn't decrease the evil of the church coverups.
I think it increases the evil.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Be we as a society and as people need to know that if we banned all churches the problem would continue, because it isn't just a church issue, it's something much bigger and broader.
Of course the RCC is not the genesis of the problem and of course the larger the organisation, the more it serves itself rather than its stated intent. This is a reason the coverups happened at the scale they have, not an excuse.
[ 04. March 2016, 06:58: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
By far the greatest amount of abuse is not by clergy, or school teachers, or those in charge of orphanages - it is by family members (family including step-parents).
This is true, but it also points to the reason why abuse is high in schools and churches. Trust and access.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, that's true, but the general attitude coming through the press reports of the Royal Commission is that abuse is limited to institutions and in particular to churches or bodies such as schools associated with churches.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
I do think people forget the pace of cultural change over this issue. Child protection standards have changed massively, alongside a major change about how the adult's behaviour is understood.
Freudianism didn't help, with theory that children had psychodynamically driven sexual fantasies about adults.
Also, many things were simply not taken as seriously. In my childhood, I recall being advised that if I saw a flasher I should ignore them , or laugh at them, and just walk away. I do not recall being told to run for it, or call the police.
I am not sure it is reasonable to expect people to have reacted in the same way in 1970 as they would have done in 2000.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It is that the reaction in 2000 wasn't what it should have been either. Naught really started until JPII popped his fancy red clogs. Even then it was no quick thing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
People still don't recognise this sort of thing unless a prosecution is mounted - John Peel is dead. He married a 15 year old in the US where it was legal at the time - she subsequently killed herself. He publically stated that he didn't check the age if his groupies when he was a young man. But there has been no public backlash, no stripping his name from things.
Look at the abuse directed at the 15 year old girl whose allegations against Sunderland footballer Alan Johnson have just been upheld in court.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I note also from this wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peel that John Peel was another example someone who having been subject to sexual abuse, went on to commit sexual abuse.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It seems a lamentable reality that institutions tend to change people to the extent that they begin to serve the needs of the institution over the needs of humanity or the feelings of victims or the understanding of the way excuses are perceived.
It seems like the RCC is just one end of this particular reality, many different types of institution seem to attract abuse, particularly of children. The excuses just seem to make it worse, but I can believe that the kind of institutional thinking (brainwashing, in a way) may indeed mean that individuals really believe this shit they come out with, and really believe that they're just innocents swept along by events.
Even when they're shown documents and proof that they were there and knew, they often seem to want to stick to their guns and insist that no, my memory is correct and the documents are wrong.
The most tragic part of this, for me (as a non-victim looking at this on a macro-scale) is the desecration of the things we thought were holy. I'm not sure I can trust that there are no dark corners and parallel moral universes in the institutions around and about us.
And then when you get people, apparently coherently and consistently, making allegations of child murders etc from many years ago, it is very hard to know what to do with it. It sounds terrible, something out of a barely-believable horror novel. But given all this other shit that has been dug up, it can't be dismissed as impossible.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I note also from this wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peel that John Peel was another example someone who having been subject to sexual abuse, went on to commit sexual abuse.
The criminal appeal reports here are full of case after case where someone abused as a child turns at a very early age to alcohol and then increasingly worse drugs in an attempt to blot out what has happened - then engaging in crime to get the money for the drugs needed, or becoming more and more violent to others. It's not just becoming a sexual abuser, but a slide into a life where crime is accepted as the norm.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina
I found a link making the way around Facebook to a priest who was asked to comment on these events and was asked if the victims bore any guilt for having 'gone along with it'.
Years ago here a shippie told of an episode that happened when she was in parochial school. Apparently an assistant priest at the church was caught sexually molesting some children. The parish priest came to the school and lectured all the children about how wicked they were to lead this fine man astray. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
People still don't recognise this sort of thing unless a prosecution is mounted - John Peel is dead. He married a 15 year old in the US where it was legal at the time - she subsequently killed herself.
are you drawing a line between that marriage in 1965 and her killing herself in 1988?
between their divorce and her death she was married 3 more times...
I wouldn't have wanted marry a 15 year old when I was 26, and we might all feel queasy that anyone would, but it was legal - so it would be a bit difficult to mount a prosecution even were they both still alive. Allegedly she was the violent one in the relationship too...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The Royal Commission is not into abuse generally, but into institutional abuse. By far the greatest amount of abuse is not by clergy, or school teachers, or those in charge of orphanages - it is by family members (family including step-parents).
There's also the fact that institutions usually have greater resources at their disposal than most families do to cover up abuse when it occurs. I came across an account of abuse in a smallish Pennsylvania diocese. Most families would not have the luxury of having a hand in selecting the chief of the police force investigating their offenses.
quote:
One diocesan official under Hogan, Monsignor Philip Saylor, told the grand jury that church officials held such clout in the eight-county diocese that “the police and civil authorities would often defer to the diocese” when priests were accused of abuse, the report said. Saylor told the grand jury that the mayors of Altoona and Johnstown even consulted him on their choices for police chief in the 1980s.
“Politicians of Blair County were afraid of Monsignor Saylor, and he apparently persuaded the mayor to appoint me as the chief of police,” former Altoona Police Chief Peter Starr testified.
It's also notable that most families don't have either a "payout chart", nor the financial wherewithal to provide large quantities of hush money.
quote:
In a practice seen in other dioceses, the bishop created a “payout chart” to help guide how much victims would receive from the church, the report said. Victims fondled over their clothes were to be paid $10,000 to $25,000; fondled under their clothes or subjected to masturbation, $15,000 to $40,000; subjected to forced oral sex, $25,000 to $75,000; subjected to forced sodomy or intercourse, $50,000 to $175,000.
I think the fact that such charts exist speaks to the widespread nature of the problem. The other thing that jumped out at me was this.
quote:
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops estimates that American dioceses have paid nearly $4 billion since 1950 to settle claims with victims.
Deciding to essentially buy $4,000,000,000 of child abuse seems like a very misplaced set of priorities. If you want to put it more charitably (which I don't particularly) you could say that the U.S. Catholic Church wagered it could successfully cover up massive amounts of child molestation and lost that wager to the tune of $4,000,000,000 (to date). Either way, $4,000,000,000 buys a lot of human misery.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I find it interesting and encouraging that there seems to have been an overwhelmingly positive public response to Spotlight by US Catholics.
I'm certainly glad to have seen it and on the whole would commend it highly.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
From the article:
quote:
Malta’s Archbishop Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s former chief prosecutor of clerical sex abuse cases, told the Italian daily La Repubblica that “All bishops and cardinals must see this film, because they must understand that it is reporting [abuse] that will save the Church, not ‘omertà.’” (Omertà is a term from Mafia culture meaning a code of silence and non-cooperation.)
Whoa! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
People still don't recognise this sort of thing unless a prosecution is mounted - John Peel is dead. He married a 15 year old in the US where it was legal at the time - she subsequently killed herself.
are you drawing a line between that marriage in 1965 and her killing herself in 1988?
between their divorce and her death she was married 3 more times...
I wouldn't have wanted marry a 15 year old when I was 26, and we might all feel queasy that anyone would, but it was legal - so it would be a bit difficult to mount a prosecution even were they both still alive. Allegedly she was the violent one in the relationship too...
I suggest her life history demostrates she was quite a disturbed individual. I suggest not checking the age of your groupies, along with marrying a 15 year old indicate little understanding of - or concern for - child protection.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I would further suggest that becoming a child bride might have a significant effect on successive relationships you might have.
(whoops read dates wrong.)
[ 04. March 2016, 22:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
From the article:
quote:
Malta’s Archbishop Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s former chief prosecutor of clerical sex abuse cases, told the Italian daily La Repubblica that “All bishops and cardinals must see this film, because they must understand that it is reporting [abuse] that will save the Church, not ‘omertà.’” (Omertà is a term from Mafia culture meaning a code of silence and non-cooperation.)
Whoa!
Yeah, I liked that bit too.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Years ago here a shippie told of an episode that happened when she was in parochial school. Apparently an assistant priest at the church was caught sexually molesting some children. The parish priest came to the school and lectured all the children about how wicked they were to lead this fine man astray.
Moo
Something similar happened to me but the people involved were Methodists.
Getting back to Pell, I know understandings were different in the 70s, but he doesn't seem to have even acknowledged the current pain that the survivors are experiencing.
Also saying that the Church (I mean the wider church not just a particular denomination) was no worse than any other institution is a cop out when it held itself up as better. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I hold no brief for Pell, but this is heard alot in various enquiries on the subject, after those concerned have said we are sorry, it was catastrophic, indefensible (paraphrasing Pell) etc What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like ?
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I would further suggest that becoming a child bride might have a significant effect on successive relationships you might have.
(whoops read dates wrong.)
Yes, definitely, I would argue it is evidence of the damage to her attachment schema cascading forward in her life.
There are three types of psychological damage you tend to see in survivors of csa who are unfortunate enough to lack support and resilience: problems in forming secure attachments, problems in regulating emotions - especially a struggle to control intense emotion and self-comfort and (depending on the nature and extent of the abuse) low self-esteem often dependent on others opinion. The effect of this to make people vulnerable to future relationship failure and/of being drawn into abusive relationships.
A small subset will grow up with poor internalised understanding of sexual boundaries, a learnt undestanding of relationships as a way to control others - to maintain a sense of personal safety and meets ones own needs. Some of these people will go on to abuse others - and abusers tend not to abuse just one person - and so the whole fucked up generational cycle continues.
If you wonder what difference it makes that a fifteen year old gives a blow job to pop idol she worships ? Well depending on her resilience, how often she is in that situation and what support she recieves in the aftermath - one of the risks is that she becomes a person who crucially derives their self esteem from those connections, from the person who is her current boyfriend.
These people are a magnet for abusers, vulnerable and easy to exploit - because they are desperate for the partner not to abandon them - even if the partner hits them, even if their partner hits their child, even if their partner rapes them, even when they choose not ask why their partner leaves the bedroom when they are half asleep at 2am and their child seems out of sorts and wary of their partner.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I hold no brief for Pell, but this is heard alot in various enquiries on the subject, after those concerned have said we are sorry, it was catastrophic, indefensible (paraphrasing Pell) etc What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like ?
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
The second part of this is the cover up and protection of those who let this happen. For ezample, from Boston where I lived; the treatment of the Church of Cardinal Law after he hastily left Boston during inquiries.
We're sorry, but after we obstructed bringing those to justice who did these atrocities and bringing those to justice who concealed the record and saying "It was bad, but it was a long time ago..." doesn't make the apology meaningful. So among those who Pell said lied to him how many are still happily in the Church or honored in retirement?
[ 06. March 2016, 02:26: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
The second part of this is the cover up and protection of those who let this happen. For ezample, from Boston where I lived; the treatment of the Church of Cardinal Law after he hastily left Boston during inquiries.
...saying "It was bad, but it was a long time ago..." doesn't make the apology meaningful.
As I remember it, Law was on the verge legal trouble in USA when the Vatican suddenly gave him a job outside USA jurisdiction, a job regarded as a promotion.
Law is now comfortably retired
This promotion and the Vatican's continued affirmation of Law today in spite of all the evidence of his personal involvement in coverups, is why people regard any apologies as insincere. An insincere apology is never "enough." As long as Law is honored instead of sent to a remote barren monastery to meditate on his sins, why believe the apologies for the past or promises to do differently in the future are sincere?
As Eliza said in My Fair Lady - "I'm sick of words, show me!"
And yes, it's not just RCC.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I hold no brief for Pell, but this is heard alot in various enquiries on the subject, after those concerned have said we are sorry, it was catastrophic, indefensible (paraphrasing Pell) etc What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like ?
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
Those in Rome to watch the proceedings are some of the survivors of substantial abuse. The trouble is that nothing can amount to an adequate apology. Cynics say that all that the victims are after is a large sum of money. Quite how and why never gets explained, but success in obtaining compensation will not be enough. Nor will words. They are asking that the Pope remove Pell from his position - that may give some satisfaction to them, but it will not be adequate. Perhaps some positive action to minimise the chances of future abuse will help.
I don't know what follow-up others may have seen but the press here is loudly condemning Pell. Certainly the impression which his evidence has many has left the RCC with a substantially diminished reputation.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
Some cynics claim that Pell chose not to return to Australia to give his testimony in order to avoid having to face his many critics in Australia. But the Commissioner accepted medical evidence that such a long journey would endanger Pell's weak heart.
Either way, giving his testimony in Rome gave it (and whole issue of institutional sexual abuse of children) extra publicity worldwide as Vatican correspondents from media around the world turned up to report on it.
In response to a question upthread, Pell personally is accused only of "turning a deaf ear" to stories of abusive priests. Most of the priests in question are now either dead or in gaol. The former Bishop of Ballarat - one of those who persistently moved abusive priests on to other parishes,is now long retired and terminally ill. Nevertheless he too is being questioned by the Royal Commission.
And for those unfamiliar with that system, a Royal Commission is essentially only an enquiry (though with extensive powers to force people to appear before it); it cannot bring charges in law, though it can recommend that the Public Prosecutor do so.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Fair enough, but if what people want is not an apology but a specific set of people sacked - then it would be clearer if that was what was asked for.
However, I think part of the problem is (certainly in the BBC enquiry reaction) people simply do not believe when they are told "x did not know".
As regards Pell, he has said re certain allegations that he did not believe the complainant when he was told - and it was the complainant's word against the priest's.
Question, a) was it usual for an uncorroborated child's accusation to carry weight over an adult's denial at that point in time in that country ? b) if not, was Pell's conduct unreasonable ?
Being told something you do not believe, is not equivalent to knowing something happened.
I do not know, for example, that David Cameron put his penis in a pigs head. Nor do I know if someone did that to him whilst he was in a drunken stupour. If the latter were true, it would mean someone had sexually assaulted Cameron. I am aware that alot of people have talked about this supposed event.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I hold no brief for Pell, but this is heard alot in various enquiries on the subject, after those concerned have said we are sorry, it was catastrophic, indefensible (paraphrasing Pell) etc What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like ?
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
And at least one Ballarat abuse survivor said following a meeting with Pell (after the latter's testimony) that he does now seem to "get it".
[ 06. March 2016, 08:50: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Having looked at wiki, I am guessing it is theologically and currently institutionally impossible to de-bishop a bishop or de-cardinal a cardinal.
So then it becomes a question of where you put them.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I hold no brief for Pell, but this is heard alot in various enquiries on the subject, after those concerned have said we are sorry, it was catastrophic, indefensible (paraphrasing Pell) etc What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like ?
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
Those in Rome to watch the proceedings are some of the survivors of substantial abuse. The trouble is that nothing can amount to an adequate apology. Cynics say that all that the victims are after is a large sum of money. Quite how and why never gets explained, but success in obtaining compensation will not be enough. Nor will words. They are asking that the Pope remove Pell from his position - that may give some satisfaction to them, but it will not be adequate. Perhaps some positive action to minimise the chances of future abuse will help.
I don't know what follow-up others may have seen but the press here is loudly condemning Pell. Certainly the impression which his evidence has many has left the RCC with a substantially diminished reputation.
I suppose what I am getting at, is that after every statement / enquiry, it is always said that the apology is inadequate - and it probably is. As you say words will never be enough - but I think it would be helpful to be explicit about what is a useful and feasible outcome.
You can not change the culture of an organisation 30 years ago, it can be different now - and I would argue in most cases it largely is. You can have a clear child protection policy. If for a multi-national organisation there are cases where you would not co-operate with the state - e.g. we will not pass our staff into the custody of an organisation that will subject them to torture or execution - then you need an alternative procedure (e.g. we will return them to the vatican and have them stand trial).
You could fire from any position of responsibility, anyone who ignored abuse complaints, or attempted to settle them without involvement of the courts. I think this probably what the survivors want. I think there are likely to be three issues with this, a) many of these people are dead b) for all their failure in this area of practice you are still talking about a skilled and experienced group of people, numbers and seniority being what they are, it may not be feasible to remove all these people at once without sucession planning - the more time passes the less this is true c) to what extent would this process be scapegoating individuals for institutional and cultural failure ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I have not seen the film, but have watched the many abuse speculations as they arise.
There has been a case where many institutions have been star-struck. That does not excuse anyone, but there was some looking the other way. The recent attitude to Jeremy Clarkson has demonstrated exactly the same attitude.
And I have never heard any actual suggestions of abuse about John Peel. Nothing here suggests that he did anything illegal, he did not commit abuse in the sense of anything illegal. To tar him with the same brush as people who have actually deliberately abused children seems disingenuous.
But the real problem I have is with the church. I would hold the church to a higher standard, and expect - maybe unfairly - that they should not be as subject to the same "star" problems. That they should be a place of sanctuary for those who suffer elsewhere. For me, this is an abuse of trust of the highest form. These are people who claim to represent God. While they may accept that they are poor representations, this is still unacceptable.
And for those who cover up activity like this, who deliberately and explicitly protect people who fail in their duty is vile. The problem for me is that they bring the church, Christianity and God into disrepute. Two of these are very close to me.
I can only come to the conclusion that the church is an institution with its stars, just like so many others. And it has nothing to do with God. I am sure that many others feel the same.
And then some ask why people are not wanting to go to church?
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Even then, I don't think sackings will achieve much. Pell's at an age when many others would retire, and in June he may not be renewed. Regardless, what does he do? His health is such that he cannot fly back to Australia. A flat could easily be found for him in the Vatican but then there may well be press complaints about that. I don't know how the survivors would react to that.
Of course I have not seen his evidence, and rely only on press reports. It's impossible for me to reach any conclusion as to his credibility, but my suspicion is that he was telling the truth. His knowledge at the time probably was very limited and it would have been normal procedure for him to (for example) rely upon the Christian Brothers order to investigate and take action. After all, Dowlan was subject to their discipline.
There is extremely limited hope of obtaining any verdict against the RCC. For a start, there is no legal body her called the RCC. There are various trusts, but the trustees hold the assets on particular trusts, and those only. The trusts have not employed any of those accused or convicted of offences nor were they in any way responsible for them. Then, even if these problems are overcome, a plaintiff would need to persuade a court to extend the time to bring action against the abuser. The list of difficulties is considerable. The RCC could provide counselling directly or fund those who seek to make their own arrangements. The problem with that is that the wounds are now so deep and ingrown that I'd be surprised if any amount of counselling could really be successful. It certainly is a line which should be explored, though.
You say I think it would be helpful to be explicit about what is a useful and feasible outcome. Who do you think should be explicit? It's a very hard task for the victims to do that. I do not want to offend them but consider that having lived with the problems all these years none is able to suggest what may be useful. I certainly would not rely on their present champions in the press to have any suitable suggestions either.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
It's not only a matter of protecting the institution but in many churches and the RCC in particular the basic structure of the church contributes to a very un-Christian hierarchy of persons. quote:
From Mark:10
So Jesus called them and said to them, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all."
When priests award themselves the rights of kings and church members are brought up to view them as superior beings, then everyone concerned is off on the wrong foot. The priests value one another above the children, the children and their parents are taught to believe that their priests are smarter, more holy, and permitted to "lord it over," them by virtue of their title. I believe that's the root cause of the cover-up and the reason the congregants felt so helpless against it for so long.
----------------------
Maybe it's because, unlike the children were talking about, I know Ruth, but that man being allowed to feel her up during The Peace, just PISSES ME RIGHT OFF! That minister couldn't even be bothered to watch the man the next time and see for himself.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
To the extent that you're advocating following the law in places other than your current location, I must protest.
Or do you think Saudi women must not drive, even when they have relocated to somewhere else?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I'm not saying that he should be prosecuted for his marriage, I am saying his behaviour was sexually abusive, and that he would have known this was unlawful in his own country. And aspects of his own public statements suggest he comitted acts that would have been illegal both in Texas and the UK, and that he did not care whether they were or not.
If you read the article you will see that there are also some allegations from a specific individual.
My primary point being that despite the fact this information is widely known in the public domain - it has not significantly affected public perceptions of him because it is still the case that people don't recognise abuse when they hear about it.
An upholstery cleaner came to my house and got incvolved in a long conversation about his family - including a male relative who he thought didn't treat women well. He remarked in passing he'd not been right since he'd had an "affair" with a female teacher when he was 14/15. This man had not recognised that "affair" as sexual abuse.
This failure to see is really common unfortunately. Particularly as child sexual abuse covers such a wide range of behaviour.
[ 06. March 2016, 21:53: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Or do you think Saudi women must not drive, even when they have relocated to somewhere else?
Banning child porn is right and banning women from driving isn't. Doesn't moral relativism suck?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
My primary point being that despite the fact this information is widely known in the public domain - it has not significantly affected public perceptions of him because it is still the case that people don't recognise abuse when they hear about it.
I'm not sure if that's entirely true. At one point Peel was the cuddly warm Saturday-morning voice of R4, telling the inane stories of other people's lives and odd habits. For a long while before that he was the oddball music DJ playing new and strange music to the R1 audience.
Immediately after his death I recall lots of people making public statements of grief for the national icon, but as it became clear that he had some pretty unpleasant skeletons in the cupboard, I think that generally waned. I think the lack of many lasting memorials suggests that many felt that Peel's legacy was pretty tarnished.
But then I think it is fair to also say that many 1960s and 1970s music "stars" sailed very close to the wind. Including the various DJs from pirate radio stations, musicians and others. It would not surprise me (sadly) to learn that many music and film stars still alive from that era were also having sex with girls of 15 - because the general attitude seemed to be not to ask and that it didn't matter.
From what I understand, Peel was not in the same league as Savile. But I'm still sickened by these stories.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like?
There's a lot of subtext to questions like that. Most of the answers generated on this thread so far indicate that this subtext is coming through loud and clear. What's being asked is "what words or actions does the Roman Catholic Church (or any of the other once-trusted institutions caught in a similar situation) have to say or do in order for the victims to shut up and go away?" In other words, what's being sought is a way to return to the status quo ante where the RCC (or other similar institution) can go back to being a well-respected arbiter of other people's morality. Or to put it more bluntly, you have institutions asking "what can we do so that people don't react to us the same way they react to other people who have operated child sex rings?"
In a lot of ways this is simply the latest iteration of the underlying problem that caused the situation in the first place: prioritizing the needs or desires of an institutional offender over the needs of its victims. The question of what the RCC (or other institution) needs to do always seems to be pitched in terms of what needs to be done to restore its good reputation. The focus is all on the needs and wants of the RCC, not what needs to be done to make its victims whole. Given the kind of damage done by child sexual abuse, there's probably nothing that can do this. Which is why most people have a low opinion of those who operate child sex rings, because the damage can't be undone.
So in answer, an "adequate" apology is one that makes the victims whole again. The fact that this is probably not possible is not a reason for the victims to shut up and go away. In fact, it's probably a reason they shouldn't.
[ 07. March 2016, 15:28: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So in answer, an "adequate" apology is one that makes the victims whole again. The fact that this is probably not possible is not a reason for the victims to shut up and go away. In fact, it's probably a reason they shouldn't.
More than that. Also remove from positions of honor and cushy retirement digs those who participated in abuse or coverup. For example as long as Law remains in splendid comfort, he is being rewarded for his despicable behavior no matter how often the church claims they disapprove.
Show us by actions, not just words. Use actions that demonstrate to today's active clergy they will NOT be protected if they do similar behaviors and coverups.
The typical institutional response (not just churches) is "he did more good than bad." That's why wrongdoers get promoted and protected instead of kicked downstairs.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Having looked at wiki, I am guessing it is theologically and currently institutionally impossible to de-bishop a bishop or de-cardinal a cardinal.
So then it becomes a question of where you put them.
As Belle Ringer suggested; in a secluded monastic cell, just big enough for a bed with the minimum daily caloric requirement.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
No door, though - just a window. Turn them into anchorites.
I.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Creosus, that is bollocks.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Having looked at wiki, I am guessing it is theologically and currently institutionally impossible to de-bishop a bishop or de-cardinal a cardinal.
So then it becomes a question of where you put them.
As Belle Ringer suggested; in a secluded monastic cell, just big enough for a bed with the minimum daily caloric requirement.
Jailing someone who hasn't broken the law is problematic.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Creosus, that is bollocks.
What, specifically? And why?
[ 08. March 2016, 02:22: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
