Imagine the situation where a young child finds themselves being abused by an authority figure. If that authority figure was a child carer, a relative, or a public figure of some sort there would - when it was discovered - be outcry and almost certainly criminal prosecution.
Yet if that public figure is a religious authority figure different rules apply, as this current example demonstrates. Listening to ‘Today‘, we had the pathetic bleatings and script-reading/question avoiding from Pearl Luxon that ‘Robust polices are in place‘ and ‘it wouldn’t happen today‘. Hardly the reassuring statements I would expect, and demonstrating, to me at least, that these organisations are so far up themselves with their own inflated sense of importance and demands of special treatment, that they really aren’t to be trusted. There seems to be an endemic historical and organisational attitude problem that they are above the law and appropriate practice.
Supposedly the church is “committed to the safeguarding, care and nurture of the children within the church community“. I have great difficulty with this. Quite simply they should, on discovery of crimes such as this, notify the appropriate authorities - police and social services would be a good starting point - rather than naively attempt to forget all about it. They certainly don’t seem to be in a position to claim they are safeguarding the children in their ‘protection’. Needless to say, I have grave concerns about the ‘nurturing’ too.
The argument against this is that ‘not all Priests are bad’ and this sort of thing is a ‘rarity’ (Although Irish priests don’t help such a claim. 3% of priests in a region?). Indeed, generally, they’re not bad people. I actually have fond memories of the village vicar when I was a child. But in a wider setting not everybody is a criminal, but we have a set of rules that are supposed to apply to everybody. Churches, and the people who hold authority within them, should NOT be exempt from the rules and practices that every other member of society is required to adhere to, especially when the welfare and safety of the vulnerable is concerned.
And these are sorts of organisations this government is encouraging to run schools… Worried? I certainly am.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I loathe ‘religious’ schools and always have done. Education should be by the state and have no religious teaching whatsoever. OK maybe a bit in history - but that is as far as it should go. Keep religion out of schools and let the parents deal with it - if they so desire.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Whilst certainly not condoning abuse, I think this is another case of applying today’s standards retrospectively. There is no reason to disbelieve Pearl Luxon in regard to the situation NOW ( although I agree her performance on “Today” was abysmal). However, 20 years ago the media in particular did not regard such abuse with such vehemence, and after all it is the church’s job to encourage repentance. There are numerous other examples of changing perspectives from the trivial ( children today telling their grandparents to stop smoking) to the serious (people making moral arguments in favour of slavery 200 years ago), and I think this is one of them. I would accept the existence of a cover-up if it could be shown that the priest who demanded the choirmaster’s resignation knew of his subsequent work with children in spite of the conditions imposed on his leaving his previous post.