I’ve finally been moved to write about the current child abuse/cover-up furore surrounding the Catholic church, and the pope (particularly his alleged actions as cardinal Ratzinger, when heading the Congregation of the Faith). I’ve avoided doing so till now, but it’s getting to me. It seems sometimes that the real issue is getting lost – in the same way as the real issue with the trial of ethics classes in NSW public schools is getting obfuscated or ignored.
The Real Issue
There seems to be a sense that on one hand “the church/religion is evil and bad and abuses children and must be brought down” (yes I’m exaggerating, but that is the sense I get), or on the other hand that the church is being (unfairly) attacked by those who seek to destroy it, and we mustn’t criticise the pope, because, well, he’s the pope. (And I don’t think I’m exaggerating there.)
In both the child abuse and ethics classes cases, the real issue is of course not the church, religion, the pope, or atheism. The issue is children. Teaching them ethics, and not abusing them. Those are the issues. Nothing else should get a look-in.
Calling these abusers to account is not an attack on the catholic church. I daresay I’m safe in assuming that abusing children isn’t part of the catholic doctrine, so calling for criminal responsibility for a bunch of perverted men who abused children should not be seen (nor framed) as an attack on the church – simply because the men in question happen to be priests.
I can understand that it distresses the church – in the same way that as a doctor one can feel attacked when there’s a lot of outrage about a doctor who abused his patients. But it’s not about me, or even us, so a rational person lets that feeling go.
The Pope
Ah, the pope. The man who as Cardinal Ratzinger, is alleged to have stalled or ignored numerous concerns about sexual abuse of children by priests. The man who wrote that “the good of the Universal Church” must be considered before defrocking (ironic term that …) a paedophile and removing him from children.
In other words, the man Ratzinger, who is now the man known as Benedict, considered the good of the church (and the cynical side of me might say: his own source of personal prestige and power) above the safety of children. I don’t care who he is; that is abhorrent, and completely morally bankrupt.
And to say that is not an attack on the catholic church or the office of Pope. It is an attack on that man.
There was also an older letter, sent by Pope John XXIII in 1962 to bishops worldwide. This letter instructed the bishops that if a credible allegation of sexual abuse by a priest was brought to them, they must not – under pain of excommunication – notify it to the civil (proper) authorities.
An analogy
If members of parliament had repeatedly abused children, and the prime minister had covered it up, calling those individuals to account would not be seen as an attack on democracy. It would – rightly – be seen as proper justice, and there would be much talk about no-one being above the law.
How. Is. This. Any. Different?
Final thoughts
Leave aside issues of religion for a moment. This is not about religion. This is about children, paedophiles, and men who covered up and enabled the actions of those paedophiles. I do not believe that any rational and moral person could disagree that the paedophiles and those responsible for covering up their actions, should be made responsible. Ok, so these morally repugnant people hold important offices in the catholic church (even the pope, it would seem). So. What? I submit that no secular or religious office makes it ok to molest children – nor to cover up said molestation.
It seems to me that Catholics worldwide should be clamouring at least as loudly as anyone else for these men to face justice. The longer this goes on, the worse their church and their faith look. Surely Catholics would want it to be made clear that Catholicism does not mean or condone child abuse. Venal attempts by Church officials to blame the victims, the Jews, and homosexuals for the church’s troubles actually have the opposite effect; they look exactly like what they are: flimsy excuses and obfuscation. To be worthy of any respect whatsoever, I believe the Church needs to stop trying to make excuses: ‘fess up contritely and sincerely, and co-operate really truly fully with civil/criminal authorities.
Popularity: 3% [?]
