|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Showing remorse by giving something tangible up to victims?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I cam across this story which is about an archbishop being asked to give up his pension and donate to victims he didn't do enough to protect, by his own admission.
Is this really fair? to ask someone to personally compensate because they omitted to do something? Do we ask others besides clergy to be so moral?
My thought is, however obnoxious, horrid, unsatisfactory and unfair lawsuit outcomes and formal inquiries are, that they the mechanisms for such compensation and restitution in our societies, and not by self-conviction and donation of wrong-doing. But others may differ in opinion.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My thought is, however obnoxious, horrid, unsatisfactory and unfair lawsuit outcomes and formal inquiries are, that they the mechanisms for such compensation and restitution in our societies, and not by self-conviction and donation of wrong-doing. But others may differ in opinion.
You're correct that lawsuits are "the mechanisms for such compensation and restitution in our societies", but obeying a civil legal judgment isn't the same as "remorse". It's more along the lines of "doing the bare minimum necessary to evade contempt of court charges". Genuine remorse is voluntary, not enforced from outside. In that sense a legal judgment, while it can compensate victims, is no sign of remorse on the part of perpetrators or their co-conspirators.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
But does anyone else ever get asked to do it other than clergy?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But does anyone else ever get asked to do it other than clergy?
Quite often. The perceived remorsefulness of non-clergy child molesters and their accomplices is very often taken in to account in assessing charges, sentencing, and penalties in much the same way as it is for the clerical molesters and accomplices you cite. If anything, recent scandals indicate that the threshold of accountability for predatory clergy expressing remorse is a lot lower than for other predatory individuals, remorseful or not. Coupled with Christian teachings on forgiveness, feigned remorse by predatory clergy has been a fairly powerful tool in silencing abuse victims.
Unfortunately a convincingly persuasive performance of remorse is one of the tools serial predators use to escape accountability and re-ingratiate themselves to others, which is why something beyond a mere verbal expression of remorse is often appropriate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
It's necessary to note exactly what ++Roger did and did not do. He did not molest any children himself. He did not fail to take steps necessary or desirable in protecting children from molestation. What he did not do was give adequate support to victims quite some time after the event.
Now, that is something he should have done, no dispute about that. But it is rather less heinous than the other matters I mentioned. Giving up his pension rights would be too extreme for his failure.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It's necessary to note exactly what ++Roger did and did not do. He did not molest any children himself. He did not fail to take steps necessary or desirable in protecting children from molestation. What he did not do was give adequate support to victims quite some time after the event.
I guess that depends on what you consider "steps necessary or desirable in protecting children from molestation":
quote:
One of the nation's most senior Anglicans, the Archbishop of Perth, Roger Herft, received complaints about a priest involved in a paedophile ring but allegedly failed to formally report him to police, according to an Anglican Church insider.
Admittedly this may be a matter of interpretation. Some may argue that credible accusations of child molestation should be passed along to the various authorities our societies have set up to deal with such things. Many would consider this a "step[] necessary [and] desirable in protecting children from molestation". Others apparently consider it an optional extra that has nothing to do with preventing child molestation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
That link does not work????
Certainly that particular allegation has been made outside the Royal Commission. I cannot now remember the extent to which it was raised before the Commission, but IIRC there was no suggestion that the alleged failure to report that paedophile ring led to any further molestation.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I cam across this story which is about an archbishop being asked to give up his pension and donate to victims he didn't do enough to protect, by his own admission.
Is this really fair? to ask someone to personally compensate because they omitted to do something? Do we ask others besides clergy to be so moral?
Just to broaden the application of the principle. Philip Green was asked - sort of - to sell off one of his yachts to pay for the deficit left in the BHS pension scheme, after 11,000 people found themselves on the dole and with no pension. He it was who, after creaming off the good things for himself and his family, sold off BHS for a quid to a no-hoper 'business-man'. Some people thought, as a gesture, he could afford to sacrifice at least one of his boats, such as the £100 million pound yacht he'd just purchased, just as a sort of 'thank you' and 'sorry' to the people he'd sacrificed.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Genuine remorse is voluntary, not enforced from outside. In that sense a legal judgment, while it can compensate victims, is no sign of remorse on the part of perpetrators or their co-conspirators.
But presumably giving up stuff as a result of social pressure, since the pressure also comes from outside, isn't really a sign of remorse either.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think many people give something up as a sign of their guilt, not sure about remorse. It's very common, if not universal, well, no, strike that, as there are people who have very little or no guilt.
It becomes pathological when we harm ourselves severely as reparation for something. People will actually sabotage their lives in order to do this.
The old joke about this is that the guilty person is a narcissist, as they are obsessed with themselves, not the other person. There is a grain of truth here.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Anselmina: quote:
Just to broaden the application of the principle. Philip Green was asked - sort of - to sell off one of his yachts to pay for the deficit left in the BHS pension scheme, after 11,000 people found themselves on the dole and with no pension. He it was who, after creaming off the good things for himself and his family, sold off BHS for a quid to a no-hoper 'business-man'.
That's not quite the same thing though, is it? That's making restitution to a group of people you have directly harmed. IANAL, but wasn't he was asked (instead of told) to do this because what he did with the BHS pension fund was technically legal (though immoral)?
As far as I can make out the archbishop in question is being asked/pressured to make restitution for a sin of omission. And as Croesus says, genuine remorse comes from inside.
BTW the public performance of remorse has a long history. Why does everything in the modern world come down to a question of money? Make the archbishop walk from X to Y carrying a candle and covered in sackcloth and ashes, and call it quits.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
That's not quite the same thing though, is it? That's making restitution to a group of people you have directly harmed. IANAL, but wasn't he was asked (instead of told) to do this because what he did with the BHS pension fund was technically legal (though immoral)?
As far as I can make out the archbishop in question is being asked/pressured to make restitution for a sin of omission.
Didn't Philip Green omit to behave like a decent human being towards his erstwhile employees while enjoying the profits of their labours? Anyway, I thought the OP was about seeking reparation from the culpable neglect of someone in power who should have known better. I apologise if that wasn't what the OP was about.
And yes, you're quite right. He was asked, after a fashion, to consider compensating the sacked workers because he had behaved immorally. To be honest, if he had, in addition, been legally liable I doubt it would've made much difference, in the end.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Why does everything in the modern world come down to a question of money?
Why indeed?
In a completely unrelated line of speculation, I wonder what percentage of the Archbishop's pension the lawyer who wrote that letter is hoping to retain as payment for his (as far as I can tell unsolicited) services?
It's at times like these I can't help but recall a few lines from the Eagles' song Get Over It:
quote:
You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if they gave you some cash
The more I think about it old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
