@tasfleur wrote:
It seems to me that consecutive popes should have been dismissing many priests over the years.
Instead, the church hierarchy and administration set up "treatment" centres in quite a few countries to "treat" (or hide and treat) these predators, knowing that it is not possible to cure them (for the want of a better word), and knowing that once they left those centres and went right back into the job, it would all start again, which it did.
Why other offending priests were shifted from parish to parish as a cover could never have halted that inherent condition and there were/are so many of them.
In my opinion, to cover it up like they did, cast an enormous slur on priests who were totally innocent, honest and genuinely did not know just what they were surrounded by.
Not for one moment do I believe that it still does not go on, albeit in a much more covert way.
I agree.
I think it is easy for us nowadays though to look back and ask why wasn't more done but I think a lot of the innocent priests would not have known a lot about paedophilia & weren't experts in treatment. Plus they were trained to believe that if someone said sorry and was remorseful, they were to be forgiven and given another chance.
Then there was the shame aspect. This was extremely shameful subject matter.
It's not just in churches it was covered up.
That of course is the sin of pride, if you want to think of it that way, and it has come back to bite them and a lot of other people who had reespected positions in public.
I was reading an article a while back in the Herald Sun. A woman reporter who said that in her early days on radio they had Rolf Harris in & her colleague warned her not to be alone with him as he had a reputation around younger people. Sure enough, he did a slightly questionable grope/hand pass even when getting into position for the group photo later!
But here's the thing. Did any of those media people who 'knew' about Rolf go to the police or report him? Are they being asked to please explain? Of course not.
I would say if questioned they would say it was hearsay, they never 'saw' it for themselves.
Preying on young girls & boys has been rife for centuries. Doesn't make it right, but it is more widespread than a lot of people realise, I am sure.
Is George Pell guilty of paedophilia? I personally have serious doubts that he is. I know in his younger days he worked with a priest who was but I totally believe it is possible to live or work alongside someone and not know. I have a friend who worked for a child centre where the boss was charged with porn images of kids-she & other workers were shocked to the core, had no idea.
I do believe though that Pell heard about some cases & made mistakes in judgement. Believed some of the priests' versions or believed some of the witnesses were exaggerating. Didn't deal with things anywhere near as well as he could have.
But is he himself guilty? It will be up to a court to hear all the evidence, I suppose. Just not sure we should assume innocence or assume guilt.
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
