I was reading an
article this morning about Senator Xenophon publicly naming a priest
accused of rape many years ago, with my initial thoughts being around the
legality of naming and shaming people. I had heard his ultimatum yesterday,
and was wondering not only if he would do it, but also if he should do it. As
far as I know this isn’t the same as the recent kerfuffle surrounding a certain
Hinch, as there is no ongoing case, but then again that turns out to be part of
the problem.
As I read further the more striking issue seems to be how
the Catholic Church likes to see itself as somewhat anterior to the normal
routes of justice in our, or indeed any, country.
For instance the insidious George Pell had the following to
say about the way the Church deals with ‘complaints’ (a rather benign word when
we are talking about child rape I think):
“When someone who has been abused chooses to bring his complaint to the church rather than to the police, the integrity and implementation of the church's protocols (Towards Healing in this case) are of first importance in achieving justice for the complainant, and indeed for all concerned."
Oh really? Because I would have thought that the thing of
foremost importance in this country would be ensuring that justice is sought
through the proper channels, and through institutions that are designed, and
one would hope qualified, to meet out justice.
All pretence aside; I have no idea as to the legality of
this case, or whether the Senator should be giving this information to the public.
But I think it is somewhat overshadowed by the constant behaviour of the Catholic
Church all over the world in putting their own rules and regulations above that
of not only the nations they live in, but the societies they are a part of.
In the Church’s letter to Xenophon pleading that he not go
ahead with the naming, they pointed out how an investigation had already been
conducted by the Archdiocese in question, making reference to the fact that
they wanted to ensure “natural justice and procedural fairness”,
perhaps not realising that in Australia we have actual departments centred
around both of these principles. But then again, it’s all in the term ‘natural’
I guess.
Australian justice would be seen as paling in comparison to
the justice of an institution that believes it has its own communication line to
the answers of the universe, and that one slightly sinister looking guy in Rome
has his ear to the lord of the universe. Considering this mindset I am not
surprised that they seek to circumvent our own earthly legal institutions.
 |
| That's the Pope on the right I think |
The letter also goes on somewhat absurdly to state that "The
priest concerned has categorically denied the allegations and, objectively
speaking, it is not irrelevant that he has been a priest of good standing in
the Archdiocese for almost 50 years". Now I am no expert on the matter,
but I don’t think that a priests good standing is enough to absolve them of any
accusations leveled their way, after all there are numerous examples throughout
the churches history of seemingly upstanding members of the church being
anything but upstanding behind the scenes.
Honestly, I don’t know how anyone can trust the Catholic
Church these days, and given the recent opposition in Ireland, a former
stronghold of the Church, it seems as if less and less people are trusting of
them.
I read another
article recently that goes over the way the Catholic Church words its official
responses to make it appear more cooperative, regarding compliance with the laws
of whichever country it finds itself infecting, than it actually is.
In a recent response to the Cloyne Report (an investigation into
sexual abuse (cf. Rape) into a diocese in Ireland), the Vatican said:
“From the foregoing considerations, it should be clear that the Holy See expects the Irish Bishops to cooperate with the civil authorities, to implement fully the norms of canon law and to ensure the full and impartial application of the child safety norms of the Church in Ireland.”
A seemingly innocuous response, I thought, which even gives
a hint of proper cooperation on the Churches behalf. That is until I read Michael
Nugent’s thoughts on the matter. Apparently the important thing to notice here
is the use of the word ‘full’ or ‘fully’. Note its absence when talking about
cooperation with civil authorities, but its adhesion to anything Church
related.
Nugent compares the lack of the adverb when dealing with
civil authorities to an example from another abuse case the Church faced, again
in Ireland, back in 1997:
“This missing word “fully” is the exact formulation that the Dublin Archdiocese used in 1997 to mislead people about its response to the sexual abuse of Marie Collins. When the priest who had abused Collins was convicted, the Archdiocese issued a press statement claiming that it had cooperated with police in relation to her complaint. Collins was upset by this and told her friend Father James Norman. Father Norman told police that he had asked the Archdiocese about the statement and the explanation he received was that “we never said we cooperated ‘fully’, placing emphasis on the word ‘fully’.””
So here we see again that when it comes to matters of justice,
the Catholic Church cannot be trusted to be forthright and open with the civil
authorities, and is more than willing to hold back information which might
throw them in a bad light, than it is to help those who have suffered sexual
abuse and rape while in their supposed divine care.
In this case the Church was made aware of these accusations,
but it was ultimately the civil authorities who ensured justice prevailed,
through no help from the Church. Oh sure they cooperated, but just not fully.
And to me it seems that anything but a full cooperation with the law smells of
an intent to hide things, and circumvent the proper channels of justice and
truth.
Well I think that’s the end of that rant. I suppose after
two more laid back posts, it was about time I let fly with a rambling rant.
Cheers
MM
