Colm O’Gorman, a survivor of Irish clerical sexual abuse and a campaigner on behalf of other victims, said the pope had failed to “acknowledge the cover-up of the rape and abuse of children by priests, to take responsibility for it, and to show how he would ensure it never happened again.”
“There was no acceptance of responsibility for the now-established cover-up, no plan to ensure that children will be properly protected around the global Church, and no assurance that those who rape and abuse will be reported to the civil authorities,” O’Gorman said in Monday’s (March 22) Herald newspaper.
The pope could commit hari kari and they wouldn’t be satisfied. They want money.
#1,
Maybe they want some humility and contrition? Maybe some effective discipline? Doesn’t seem that there’s been much of any of it. Sure they want money, and I would too. Can you say you wouldn’t, as a victim, if you knew the Archbishop sat by (as a priest) while vows of silence were signed, and now says he will only resign if asked to by the Pope (still waiting on that)? They want money because they want to hurt the institution that protected itself. Makes perfect sense to me. It’s amazing how similar the shape of a millstone is to a bulls-eye.
I think [url=http://burkescorner.blogspot.com/2010/03/benedict-gets-its-wrong-badly-wrong.html]Burke’s Corner has a good take on it[/url].
Obviously they are not reading the same documents I am reading.
I think abuse victims have sadly been so let down they are not the beat people to discern balance in such a document. And I think the press an society want to bay for Benedicts blood until he admits the church is not divine- as it is that which sticks in thier gulletts and can be read between every line.
I think that what we’re going to see here, as in Germany and a few years ago in America, is a modern replay of the old Donatist controversy: is the validity of the Church, her sacraments and witness, dependent on the morality of her ministers? For those of a certain bent of mind, the answer is a defiant “yes”. And, of course, as with the ancient pagans, so with their more appealing yet no better informed secular descendents. They will remain bewildered that anyone would believe in such a discredited institution. Yet the orthodox Christian answer will be what it ever has been and the Church Catholic will soldier on, her divine identity ever counterbalanced by her human frailty.
As it appears that the church treated these situations as though the priests and the Church were the greater victims in this and failed to acknowledge that a sin committed can also be a criminal act, it is difficult to find much support for the church’s late attempt to issue soothing words. How many souls will have been lost through the desire to get on with it?
I wonder why this is just now coming to light in Europe. This all came to light in the States in ’02? Was the American press just that much ahead of their European colleagues? Of course, you can’t devise a plan that assures that no children will ever be abused, but the Church in the States has certainly implemented a plan that will allow the Church to take every reasonable precaution.
#7 – Perhaps you haven’t actually read the pope’s pastoral, since your comment doesn’t reflect what he wrote.
#8 – The problem actually became known in the 80’s, but in rural south Louisiana, where the redoubtable Boston Globe wasn’t selling advertising. For that matter, there was a similar story in San Antonio, but, again, the Globe and the NYT were busy with their work in the center of the known universe.
It’s arguable that the U.S. problem came to light because it’s more widespread here, defining as the “problem” the tendency of the bishops to protect their turf like CEOs of Enron than to do their jobs as shepherds of Christ’s flock. If memory serves, the Irish problem involved 4 dioceses (one bishop has resigned, at this point); in the U.S. as many as half of the bishops moved offending priests or defended the practice. It’s hard to know what’s the situation in Germany, since the press is salivating over the possible “gotcha” with the pope.
Also, while some of these bishops were acting in the social norms of the times, some were genuinely vicious – one (I’ll skip the name) is said to have threatened to sue complaining families and some were really ugly to the families. When they should have been talking to and praying with victims, they were holding strategy sessions with lawyers. Again, not all of those bishops acted badly out of malice, but enough did to bring out the hounds of the press.