An opportunity not to be a missed

By Fr Joe Borg
Times of Malta
February 16, 2014

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140216/opinion/An-opportunity-not-to-be-a-missed.506942

The handling of child abuse cases by the Catholic Church in many countries had been, for many years, nothing short of scandalous. This attitude constituted a horrendous betrayal of the Church, its mission, and worse still, the vulnerable children it was bound to protect. It is true there was a time when the appraisal of the significance from the abuse, its effects and remedies was different from what it is today. But, at best, this can only slightly attentuate certain reactions.

The overall reaction was appalling and we are still paying a horrible high price for the lack of effective action taken. That is the way it was and that is the way it should be described: nothing more, nothing less.

Having said that, I add that the report penned by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child under the guise of a purported defence of children is also worthy of disdain. The report (at least in several parts) smacks more as an endeavour to engage in a culture war against the sexual mores and pro-life stand of the Catholic Church than a genuine attempt to protect and defend children.

Its recommendations for the Church to abandon its teachings on, for example, abortion, same-sex marriage, and contraception are not only beside the point but downright counterproductive.

The report could strengthen the hands of those in the Church who still won’t support the Church’s official policy of zero tolerance to child abuse. They will try to skirt around some of the valid recommendations by rubbishing it as if it were only a secularist attack on the Church, which it certainly is in several parts.

Let me react by the least important – but still valid - argument, an ad hominem one. How can a bunch of people whose support for abortion makes them guilty of the suffocation of the ultimate right of children – the right to life – have the temerity to condemn the abuse of others?

Besides, the UN Committee had representatives from Ghana, Ethiopia, Malaysia, Russia, Sri Lanka, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Egypt. Do several of these countries protect children’s rights – particularly – as much as children’s rights are protected by Church institutions today?

Isn’t the Saudi support for the barbaric practice of child marriage a form of child abuse? In 2011 The Guardian commented on the marriage of Atgaa, aged 10, and Reemya, aged eight, to men in their 60s. In December 2012 The Moscow Times reported that according to various estimates, 50 to 95 per cent of children who grow up in Russian orphanages become drug addicts or alcoholics or commit suicide. The paper said that Russian orphanages essentially produce children who suffer from Mowgli Syndrome – that is, they are ill-equipped to function in any capacity in society.

Last August, media sources in Malaysia reported that child abuse is on the rise in that country. A 2010 report by UNICEF says that one fifth of Egyptian children live in poverty. I will not go on as my main argument is a different one.

In line with the position I took in the introductory paragraph of this commentary I support the criticism levelled at the Church because the Holy See had not presented a report for a good number of years. I thoroughly understand the frustration of the committee for the distinction made by the Holy See between its responsibility and the responsibility of local bishops for priests.

There is quite naturally a legal basis for this distinction but the general perception of lay people is that the head office is the head office and the buck should stop there. People do not buy the passing of the buck to the local bishops.

In fact, I would have wholeheartedly supported the report had it just condemned past or present abuses of children in Church institutions, asked for stronger preventive measures. I would have been content that the official zero-tolerance policy be scrupulously adhered to, and insisted that all such cases be passed on to the police for the appropriate action and maintained that bishops should be held accountable.

For credibility’s sake, the report should have noted that a lot has been done particularly by Pope Benedict XVI and his right hand man, our own Bishop Charles Scicluna, to take the toughest action possible against abuse.

Together, they made zero tolerance the universal law of the Church. It is outrageous that Pope Benedict is still sometimes criticised for his passiveness when faced by this plague even after it was revealed by a secular media organisation no less that he defrocked close to 400 priests.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, his was the voice that was the first to be raised against this abhorrence when he spoke about the “filth in the Church” a month before his election to the See of Peter.

A year after he had the courage and the humility to take the heroic decision to resign the papacy one can appreciate better the greatness of the man. He might not have been a media superstar, but he more than compensated for this with his substance, depth and wisdom.

Abuses should surely be reported to secular authorities and bishops who are not vigilant enough should be held accountable. Bishop Scicluna has been taking a strong stand on these issues. He recently said in an interview that “a bishop can’t be a true steward if he doesn’t make the protection of children one of his top priorities.” He also accepted the fact the Church does not have adequate needs a stronger structure to guarantee that bishops are truly held to be accountable if they fail to act on abuse complaints.

The clarity of Scicluna’s thought on the matter and that of others similarly opinionated is still not shared by all in the Church. The Italian bishops have only recently adopted national guidelines to combat abuse. (Our own dioceses have had such guidelines for some 20 years or so! It was among the first, if not the first.)

Not only do such guidelines not oblige bishops to report credible allegations to the police but the secretary of the Italian bishops’ conference was quoted as saying that bishops should not be expected to denounce his own priests. As if children abused are not “their own” as much as abusive priests are!

The Church must not be caught sleeping on the job ever again. Being angry at parts of the report of the UN committee is understandable. Ignoring parts of it which give valid recommendations would be a sin.