BishopAccountability.org
	The Sins of the Fathers – and an Apology Sydney Morning Herald July 5, 2010 http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-religious-write/the-sins-of-the-fathers--and-an-apology/20100705-zxq6.html The Vatican might have named 2010 the Year of Abuse Revelations, rather than the just concluded Year of the Priest. But in Melbourne, Archbishop Denis Hart has just made the most comprehensive apology for sexual abuse by clergy that I’ve yet come across. As I wrote about the apology at the weekend – here, and its delivery here and the very valid concerns of victims and their advocates here – I was asked, is this groundbreaking, does it introduce a new era? I said no, because Archbishop Hart, the Australian church and the Pope have apologised more than once before. But there were important innovations. The abuse was unequivocally recognised as criminal, as well as a failure, sinful etc. Archbishop Hart spoke of his and the church’s "shame", a word rarely heard from bishops until now. He acknowledged the church’s failures in responding to abuse (covering it up, moving priests on) and that it still had lessons to learn. He spoke of the suffering, especially of the victims, but also of the wider church, and the “crisis of faith” many are experiencing. Groundbreaking? Perhaps not, but comprehensive - it’s hard to imagine what more any church leader could say. Had this sort of mea culpa been issued by the Pope a decade ago, when the scope of the abuse crisis began to be unveiled, a huge toll in pain and loss of credibility might have been averted. I’m interested to know whether there are other words you believe the church’s leaders should be saying, if you feel he has not yet gone far enough by way of apology. But, of course, words are only part of what is needed. They are needed, and the archbishop should be commended for saying them. But actions, a response in which victims feel heard and acknowledged as well as compensated, are much more important – a consistent theme in the Bible. I think, for example of James, chapter 2, verses 15 and 16: “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?” (New American Standard Bible). Yet after Noreen Wood’s story was told in The Age last month she received a letter from the church saying she would no longer get food vouchers. She is 65, in poor health so that she has had to stop work, and in a parlous financial state. What, one wonders, would James have made of that? Many victims feel like Noreen – bruised, angry and despairing. While the church may not be able to solve every problem for every victim (and every victim’s story is unique and complicated; and many are satisfied), victims and many within the church believe that the lawyers have far too much influence. As Geelong priest Kevin Dillon has told me more than once, the response to victims has to be pastoral, not legal. Before you do anything else, just sit down and listen to them. Without the lawyers. I don’t doubt that Archbishop Hart’s abhorrence of abuse is genuine and his apology sincere. But who was the pastoral letter really aimed at. According to some victims, it was aimed not at them but to shore up the faithful in the pew. Despite the name, Voiceless Victim proves pretty articulate on this blog, saying the letter is trumpeted by the church’s PR machine as an apology but it is no such thing. “If the letter were truly targeted to the victims of Catholic Church sponsored child sexual abuse, it would not be delivered from Church pulpits. Because most victims are so damaged by their abuse, and by their mistreatment by the Catholic Church, they are unable to enter a Church or sit through a mass. “If the letter were truly intended to help victims recover, to bring offenders to justice and to protect children, it would include specific actions to achieve those aims, not a self satisfied assurance that the current system is already perfect and that there is no need to consider any changes. “Because if you ask individual victims or victim support groups, they will tell you the current Melbourne specific system administered by Denis Hart, and the very similar Towards Healing system covering the rest of Australia, are inadequate, abusive to victims, and riddled with conflicts of interest.” Archbishop Hart defends Melbourne’s abuse complaints system, though the police and victims have criticised it. Now, if the apology is to be genuine, there has to be a full and wide-ranging review. The church must not hide behind lawyers or spin. It must sit down with victims and hear where they believe the system let them down. At the moment there seems to be a policy of evasion, victims believe. Over to you. Any blog on clergy abuse is going to attract some strong Catholic-bashing, but I’m hoping for some considered remarks. What did you think of the apology? What more might the church say? What must it do for its actions to match those words? Does the church get too much criticism, given that the enormous majority of sexual abuse happens through other perpetrators? If you were a church-goer disenchanted by abuse, what might draw you back? NOTE: It appears that in the blog program used by Fairfax, comments copied into the comment window from Microsoft Word create a conflict and disappear into the ether. They do not reach me as moderator. Please type straight into the comment window, or copy from a plain-text file such as Note Pad. Thanks, Barney
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.