*Trigger warning: This post is about child sexual abuse and may cause distress for some readers.
by PETE DILLON
So Joe Hockey doesn’t think a Royal Commission will help survivors of clerical sexual abuse? I, for one, disagree.
For decades, thousands of Australians have suffered immeasurable mental, emotional and psychological trauma because of rape and abuse committed by members of the Catholic clergy. For decades, the church has covered up, hushed up and hidden those abusers. The survivors, or victims, if they had not taken their own life or suffered through incredible amounts of mental anguish have been mostly forgotten and forced to pick up the pieces on their own. The perpetrators were allowed to move on and be hidden by the organisation that should have been protecting its flock.
If this was another organisation, like the Boy Scouts for example, there would have been a Royal Commission well before now. There would be thousands of these criminals imprisoned rather than simply being moved on to another parish where they can continue to abuse other children, or collude or cover up with their colleagues, the abuse of women and children in the church.
I know because I survived.
I was an 8-9 year old when I was sexually abused by a member of the Catholic Church. I was an altar boy at a small parish in regional Victoria, and I was forced to commit acts that I did not understand. I had no idea what I was being forced to do. All I knew was that I knew it was wrong, I knew it did not make me feel special like the priest said it would. I did know that I was being told not to tell anyone, for fear of getting in trouble, that no one would believe me if I told them and that I was bad.
Top Comments
A priest (Roy Bourgeois) was excommunicated from the Church on the basis that he publicly supported women's ordination. Yet a Patrician Brother, a convicted paedophile who raped a 10 year old boy (Brother Thomas Grealy – Principal of Patrician Brothers School in Granville), remains a Patrician Brother after serving 4 years in jail for his crime and has been welcomed back by the Catholic Church, retaining his title, housing and financial support. Mr Grealy, in the school's most recent newsletter was named as one of Granville's 'treasures'.
Shall we remark that the obvious homosexual nature of the crime, which is at odds with the Catholic Church's vehement rejection of homosexuality and which breaks the vow of celibacy a brother must undertake, has been completely overlooked by the Church. Does the stance against homosexuality only apply to lay-people? And is committing sexual offences against children, or adults, alright if its perpetrated by a messenger of God? And is the vow of celibacy just an empty something to say during ordination?
There is an irreconcilable and obvious double-standard at play here, Catholic Church officials can rape a child, a male child in many cases, and not be disowned by the Church, but if a priest so much as nods his head in agreement about attaining a scintilla of equality for women, he is harshly punished. In Mr Bourgois' case, he faced the most severe punishment within the Church, excommunication.
The Church has a culture of protecting its own, even when criminal offences are perpetrated. There are hundreds of thousands of similar cases, where priests or other officials of the Catholic Church perpetrate rape and child sex abuse, who have gone unpunished or who are sometimes silently moved to serve in another geographical area if the abuse becomes too public. All this without any recognition that the life of an innocent has been irrevocably damaged.
As the Thomas Grealy story illustrates, it is clear that membership to a Catholic brethren or order does not provide legal immunity (fortunately priests and brothers are subject to our criminal laws just as other paedophiles and offenders are), however the law is obstructed by the systematic covering-up of these crimes by officials within the Catholic Church. If the law cannot get to the perpetrators of the child sex abuse, then the law can begin to prosecute those who knowingly withhold information from the police. People and organisations can be prosecuted for this, which includes the church.
Charges include, "Obstruction of Justice," or "Impeding a Police Investigation" and depending on the type and seriousness of the information you're withholding, a person might face the charge of being an "Accessory" to the crime.
The only exception to this is if the information being withheld pertains to your spouse. As an overwhelming number of Catholic official posts are held by men who are protecting priests (who can only be male) they cannot marry each other (before the law in most places, under the vows as a priest, and certainly not within the Catholic Church for those who are not priests) and therefore, are not entitled to the privilege of this exception.
National Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse. Let us take a moment to reflect, using one particular comparison as an example to start with...
It certainly is a baffling moral code the Catholic Church implements.
A priest (Roy Bourgeois) was excommunicated from the Church on the basis that he publicly supported women's ordination. Yet a Patrician Brother, a convicted paedophile who raped a 10 year old boy (Brother Thomas Grealy – Principal of Patrician Brothers School in Granville), remains a Patrician Brother after serving 4 years in jail for his crime and has been welcomed back by the Catholic Church, retaining his title, housing and financial support. Mr Grealy, in the school's most recent newsletter was named as one of Granville's 'treasures'.
Shall we remark that the obvious homosexual nature of the crime, which is at odds with the Catholic Church's vehement rejection of homosexuality and which breaks the vow of celibacy a brother must undertake, has been completely overlooked by the Church. Does the stance against homosexuality only apply to lay-people? And is committing sexual offences against children, or adults, alright if its perpetrated by a messenger of God? And is the vow of celibacy just an empty something to say during ordination?
There is an irreconcilable and obvious double-standard at play here, Catholic Church officials can rape a child, a male child in many cases, and not be disowned by the Church, but if a priest so much as nods his head in agreement about attaining a scintilla of equality for women, he is harshly punished. In Mr Bourgois' case, he faced the most severe punishment within the Church, excommunication.
The Church has a culture of protecting its own, even when criminal offences are perpetrated. There are hundreds of thousands of similar cases, where priests or other officials of the Catholic Church perpetrate rape and child sex abuse, who have gone unpunished or who are sometimes silently moved to serve in another geographical area if the abuse becomes too public. All this without any recognition that the life of an innocent has been irrevocably damaged.
As the Thomas Grealy story illustrates, it is clear that membership to a Catholic brethren or order does not provide legal immunity (fortunately priests and brothers are subject to our criminal laws just as other paedophiles and offenders are), however the law is obstructed by the systematic covering-up of these crimes by officials within the Catholic Church. If the law cannot get to the perpetrators of the child sex abuse, then the law can begin to prosecute those who knowingly withhold information from the police. People and organisations can be prosecuted for this, which includes the church.
Charges include, "Obstruction of Justice," or "Impeding a Police Investigation" and depending on the type and seriousness of the information you're withholding, a person might face the charge of being an "Accessory" to the crime.
The only exception to this is if the information being withheld pertains to your spouse. As an overwhelming number of Catholic official posts are held by men who are protecting priests (who can only be male) they cannot marry each other (before the law in most places, under the vows as a priest, and certainly not within the Catholic Church for those who are not priests) and therefore, are not entitled to the privilege of this exception.