Sunday, October 14, 2012

it makes me cross

"The Catholic Church on Thursday fended off accusations by Victoria Police that sexual crime victims were too often talked out of reporting it to police, while suspected offenders were sent elsewhere."

"Father Mackinlay said abuse victims were vulnerable and while the church actively encouraged them to report incidents to police, they respected their choice not to.
…Father Mackinlay said the police submission contained many errors and failed to consider the choices of victims."

Can someone please explain to me how a 9 year old boy, for example, can make an informed choice about reporting their rape to Police?

This disgusting twaddle has gone on too long.

"The Catholic Church of Victoria's Father Shane Mackinlay said if police had any evidence church members were deliberately hindering their investigations, they should take legal action."

Evidence? Is it not hard enough to provide evidence in any kind of sexual assault case? Bad enough when the victims are similar in age to offenders, harder still when the offender is in a position trusted by the community, a position of authority over, and much, much older than the victim.

The standard of evidence required in a court would be problematical for police. On the other hand,
  • many of these sods have been successfully prosecuted
  • prosecution of these cases has confirmed time and again that the standard response was relocation to a setting where re-offending was easy - which does NOT meet a common law duty of care

What I would like to see is a civil, class action against the Church for failing in its duty of care, by not removing these a-holes from public contact. The church should be taken quite literally to the cleaners. 

I hope it happens while Cardinal Pell is still in Australia. I don't like his face.

We can readily infer from the Church's claims some victims "choose" not to prosecute, that the extent of abuse cannot be measured by prosecutions alone.  


"The Catholic Church in Victoria has backed mandatory reporting of child abuse to police for religious ministers and personnel,

……….with an exemption for information received during confession."

Presumably, the relocation response of old - supposedly no longer policy since 2009 - used the sanctity of confession as its basis/excuse.

The Church's attitude to this issue [amongst others] is a slur on decent people who call themselves Catholics.
It also feeds the miscomprehension that Catholics can do what they like with impunity - do what you like, confess, then go out and sin again.

While I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member, I still hate to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater, and any good a religion might do lost to the world because of its leaders' failings.


The point of confession is to provide people with a reason to try harder. If we cannot forgive ourselves or be forgiven for our mistakes, then we have nothing to lose by just continuing to do the wrong thing - nothing to gain by trying harder.

The privacy of a traditional confessional, in one of those little boxes that look like toilets, affords people an opportunity to test their ideas or feelings with someone neutral. Sometimes it can be a good place to talk about problems that are not even necessarily about "wrongs".

If someone has committed a grave wrong, a priest is in a very good position to try and encourage someone to do the right thing and report themselves to the Police.

The Church clings to the idea that confession will lose its power to achieve something positive, if matters confessed become subject to the law. To some extent I can see the benefits of this confidentiality.

Ultimately, though, there are rules about who can or cannot be forgiven. A Priest can refuse to give absolution. The sinner
  • must know he has done wrong
  • feel true remorse for what he has done
  • do every thing possible to atone
Then and only then should a Priest wipe the slate clean.

Why in God's name would any Catholic confessor or big-boss-bishop provide absolution to a paedophile before the crime is resolved?
How could they forgive such a person at all who does not feel any remorse? How could anyone demonstrate remorse and atonement unless by handing themselves in?

At the very least, compassion demands they not call their victims liars.

How, in the name of common sense if not compassion, could the hierarchy put these bastards in yet another situation where they can do the same thing again?

Can we imagine, for one moment, the outcry if some Muslim, Jewish or other religious leader claimed religious privilege for not reporting a heinous crime? Is there a reason why the Catholic Church should be exempt?


Which brings me now to a question of proportion.

Mr Rabbit is unashamedly Catholic. He finds the idea of abortion abhorrent.
Why is it wrong to destroy a child before it is born, but okay to destroy them afterwards?

Why is Mr Rabbit outraged by the filth Slipper was texting but not standing up screaming outrage against the Church's continuous refusal to accept responsibility for the sins of its employees?
Which is the greater filth?

What has Bernardi to say on the matter? Surely Priesthood leads to paedophilia as inevitably as gay marriage will lead to bestiality?

"Suffer the little children" indeed.

Just because the current enquiry is being conducted by the Victorian State government, this does not make it a "State" issue. Religions enjoy taxation and other privileges courtesy of the Federal Government.

The silence is deafening, and the Church is laughing all the way to the bank.


  1. I think the reason so many men are against abortion, in and out of the church, is to simply keep women confined and powerless.
    It's interesting how crazy people get over here about pedophiles and then do nothing about the catholic church's offenses. I keep thinking there is something more that I'm missing like is there a silent agreement among the elite (those with money and power) that having sex with children is okay for them. Kind of like how the elite are okay with hard drugs but act so innocent in public and make laws that keep the illegal drug trade strong and certain people in their place. Then sometimes I think the masses are so ignorant maybe they deserve to be treated this way. That's frustration talking because I just can't understand how people can be so blind.

    1. Rubye, there are a million stupid laws no one cares about except they are a means of social control. You are quite right about drugs. A good example is all the fuss made of pot during the Vietnam war. Once conscription stopped, pot became a ho hum issue again.
      Too many laws are applied quite selectively by those with more power than others.

      No one who doesn't harm others deserves to be treated badly, though I understand your frustration. I suspect people just feel powerless and need to believe or do something that eases their own frustration, so they clutch at straws. Maybe they align themselves with "god" because at least in theory he has more power than the scum that are treating them badly.

      The Catholic Church is an exceptionally grating case. As they say, it is a big business with a branch in every major city.

      In terms of the national budget though, winding the church back would be like trying to de-privatise a 'hell' of a lot of social services.

  2. 'Can we imagine, for one moment, the outcry if some Muslim, Jewish or other religious leader claimed religious privilege for not reporting a heinous crime?'

    There is a Jewish case underway here now and like the Catholic Church, those in charge tried to deal with the matter in 'in house'. It has been very divisive issue in the local Jewish community. Last I heard was that the not so old accused is now in the US

    1. That story rings a bell, Andrew. It's a sad business.