I realize that this happens in every denomination, including some dreadful cases within Sydney Anglicanism. But this response, concerning sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic church here in Sydney, seems to be too little, too late.

The specific matter that George Pell is now apologizing for happened in February 2003, and has still not been resolved, despite the high profile of similar issues and the recent papal apology for clerical sexual abuse.

I wonder how our churches can better help those who have been abused, whilst ensuring that those responsible are called to account?

There are also cases where a person is accused, but this is proven to be false, but the person can no longer work as a Christian minister because of having been accused of sexual wrongdoing.

David, that’s bad news as well. I would hope that we wouldn’t have to choose between the one evil and the other.

With stories like this around, however, we really want our local churches and denominational authorities to be on the front foot in tackling these questions.

My anxiety about George Pell’s current stance is that it appears to be reactive. There was a lesson to be learned from Peter Hollingworth, and it worries me that it hasn’t been attended to carefully enough.

Please get your act together, Gordon.  “The specific matter that George Pell is now apologizing for happened in February 2003,” but that act was not a sexual assault, it was “a poorly worded letter” regarding the sexual assault.  The sexual assault itself occurred in 1982 when the man assaulted was aged 28.

Ordinarily I’d expect a man that age to be able either to fend off a sexual assault or to be wiser than to be sitting, clad only in a towel, on the bed of a priest who had already fondled his genitalia. 

The girl Anglican ex-Bishop Donald Shearman abused was only 14.  Shearman, it was reported, refused to apologise.  Read this and weep for your confrere and the girl he led on and betrayed.

[edited for clarity]

I don’t justify Anglican misdeeds any more than I do Roman Catholic misdeeds. But the compounding problem is the subsequent response, which implicates not just the guilty party but the institution of which they’re a part.

So yes, the Shearman matter is another example that highlights the need for the institutional church responding better than it has. So I am glad that the Pope apologized while in Sydney, but sad that more hasn’t been done to follow this up at the local level.

Anyway, just to follow up on this, I wonder if a lax attitude to discipline of priests who turn out to be pedophiles has a basis in theology?

If you really believe that a priest is a special class of person, who happens to be closer to God because God has made it so through the sacrament of ordination, then you would feel inclined to take no action on such matters.

This attitude is capable of infecting Anglican ministers too, and Shearman may be an example of this. But I’m not interested in picking a fight along party lines.

The question is really a theological one. If your priest is ordained by God, how dare you question him? Even if he turns out to be a pedophile or serial abuser of some other sort.

Anyway, just to follow up on this, I wonder if a lax attitude to discipline of priests who turn out to be pedophiles has a basis in theology?

Interesting hypothesis, Gordon.

Now, if you can quote the relevant sections of the Catechism, Church Councils and encyclicals and flesh your logic out a little further, we might be able to move forward in this conversation.

Joshua Aldersley - 17 August 2008 07:32 PM

Anyway, just to follow up on this, I wonder if a lax attitude to discipline of priests who turn out to be pedophiles has a basis in theology?

Interesting hypothesis, Gordon.

Now, if you can quote the relevant sections of the Catechism, Church Councils and encyclicals and flesh your logic out a little further, we might be able to move forward in this conversation.

Touché.

Could be an interesting week coming up Gordon.

A beautiful thing, this Catholic-Anglican encounter. I never knew Sydney Diocese to be so ecumenically driven.

The relevant section of the roman Catholic catechism regarding Holy Orders is here.

Paragraph 1547 indicates the essential difference between the priesthood claimed for those ordained within the Roman church, and other believers, saying:

The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.

Now such a belief may find practical outworking in all sorts of ways. But whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox or other, such a belief would contribute to explaining why there was a reluctance to bring ordained individuals to legal or institutional account. Another explanation is sin.

But if I can ask a question of you Joshua, how do you account for the type of incidents highlighted in recent SMH reports? I’m sympathetic to the idea of media beat-up, of course, given the nonsense that is regularly printed about Sydney Anglicans. But isn’t there more to the picture?

If this thread is going to continue (as it appears it will), can I suggest at the very least that a moderator change the title. It may or may not have been Gordon’s intention, but the title certainly postures the discussion as just another “Catholic bash”. How about “Sexual abuse in the church” as an alternative.

Angus Johnson - 17 August 2008 11:16 PM

If this thread is going to continue (as it appears it will), can I suggest at the very least that a moderator change the title. It may or may not have been Gordon’s intention, but the title certainly postures the discussion as just another “Catholic bash”. How about “Sexual abuse in the church” as an alternative.

Yes, I’d agree, Angus. I was prepared to give Gordon the benefit of the doubt, but the subsequent lack of depth in his response seems to suggest that he is simply using this recent event as an ideological vehicle for his virulently anti-Catholic prejudices. Personally, I think its fairly tacky of him to do so and he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

Angus Johnson - 17 August 2008 11:16 PM

If this thread is going to continue (as it appears it will), can I suggest at the very least that a moderator change the title.

The title is in response to the article in the SMH and is currently topical.

I would also like to see Joshua give his own view on the SMH report in the OP.

Dear all,

Another factor to be tossed into the mix is the Roman Catholic understanding of the indelibility of orders ie the doctrine that ordination confers a permanent ontological change such that a person cannot cease to be a priest, although they may be prevented from exercising any priestly functions.  I wonder if disciplinary action would be more effective if there was a recognition that some acts are so serious that they may actually change how we and others relate (and hence our being) and not merely what we are allowed to do do. 

NB I am aware that’s its only in recent years that the Anglican Church of Australia has allowed the deposition from or relinquishment of holy orders.  However, the fact we were able to make the change indicates we had more freedom to move than our RC brethren.

Mark Short.

Thanks Mark, that is very similar to what I was trying to say, although I think you have said it better.

Gordon,

“I realize that this happens in every denomination, including some dreadful cases within Sydney Anglicanism. But this response, concerning sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic church here in Sydney, seems to be too little, too late.”

The devil is in the reporting. You picked a bad example. I was following the story on the ABC which was driving it. The article you picked is particularly misleading. Pell wrote 3 relevant letters. There is the 2003 letter to the homosexual abuse victim which Pell is apologizing for. (The victim was 29 when the actual alleged assault occurred) There is a letter to a paedophile victim the same day. There is a letter a few months later to the homosexual abuse victim in which Pell apologized to him.

When the article you cited states:

“In February 2003, Cardinal Pell wrote to Mr Jones saying his complaint of sexual assault could not be substantiated because an investigator had found no other victims had come forward and that the priest, Father Terence Goodall, had denied the claims.”

The comment summarizes an aspect of the ABC report in a way in which the meaning is lost. It is essentially reporting the ABC’s innuendo/opinion as fact to Pell’s detriment.

On the ABC it was reported that Pell used the term “sexual assault” to refer to rape. The priest had not been accused of raping previously. The ABC and the victim opined that Pell couldn’t have meant to refer to rape when he used the term “sexual assault”. From memory they had a law professor comment that sexual assault isn’t necessarily so specific. Pell observed in his letter that the priest had never been accused of sexual assault before. Accordingly, the ABC opined or implied that Pell was denying in his letter that there were any other victims of any sexual indiscretion whatsoever.

I personally don’t share the ABC viewpoint as I have always understood “sexual assault” to refer to rape and am open to the possibility that Pell didn’t chat with that law professor whilst drafting his letter.

The ABC’s innuendo was that Pell was attempting to cover up the gay sexual assault and that they had caught him out. Personally I find that ludicrous considering the other letter from the same day included an apology and frank admission that the same priest had engaged in criminally inappropriate behaviour toward a child. If ABC is correct and Pell’s terminology explanation is of no substance then Pell was covering up to protect a priest from allegations of a homosexual assault while openly admitting the same priest engaged in paedophilia to the paedophilia victim. Does that make sense to you?

However Pell clearly didn’t use terminology suitable for uneducated people and journalists. He sees the error of his ways and has now apologized. In Pell’s defence though he was dealing with a paedophile matter the same day he wrote the letter to the homosexual assault victim so he had grounds to be upset and any poor choice of wording would be understandable.

“The specific matter that George Pell is now apologizing for happened in February 2003, and has still not been resolved, despite the high profile of similar issues and the recent papal apology for clerical sexual abuse.”

As I’ve explained above Pell apologized in 2003 when he became aware of the actual incident. He is now apologizing for the misunderstanding resulting from his poor drafting. Two different things.

The issue is unresolved in the sense that Pell has commenced a reinvestigation in response to becoming aware that the priest admitted that the act wasn’t consensual to the complainant. However the following article provides a rather compelling reason why Pell’s reinstating an investigation may be unnecessary because the admission may need to be contextualized.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24040493-7583,00.html

Again, I think your general issue is discussion worthy but you picked a poor example.

Sorry Janice I now realize that you already clearly explained that Pell was apologizing for the letter not the incident. I could have omitted that bit.