Church Difficulties

dod

Saying that the Church and its agents have been on the receiving end of a lot of bad press in recent years is unlikely to foment much controversy. Certainly there is a considerable disillusionment with the church and with the relevance of its message. People are repulsed at the insensitive manner in which they have handled extremely delicate matters. Their approach in dealing with some of the difficulties indicates some askew priorities, in that their first concern seems to be the protection of their considerable assets rather than the admission of culpability, an expression of remorse, and a readiness to make amends. The chasm between Christian teaching and the practice of the church has never seemed so wide.

The Church is a huge (and yes, inordinately wealthy) organisation. Though every right thinking person will, of course, rightly criticise those agents of the Church who have behaved deplorably, particularly with respect to defenceless children in their charge, I believe that there are some Church representatives whose gut reaction to the problems is to want to condemn the perpetrators outright and unequivocally, but who cannot because of organisational concerns. As with other business organisations, the action of a representative of the organisation can create contingent liabilities for the organisation when they speak or act on behalf of their employer. I am not a legal person, but I think the term that they use is that an employer is vicariously liable for the actions of an employee when that employee is acting on behalf of the company.

It is for this reason that I believe that it is important for us to distinguish between the abhorrence of the individual priests, bishops, cardinals and so forth at the repulsive actions of the few, and the message which we hear them relating when they speak publicly. I believe that their hands are, to some extent, tied by the possibility of their creating difficulties within their organisation, a concern to which it is not difficult to relate in these increasingly litigious times.

It would be refreshing to hear a branch manager of Bank of Ireland come out and say that they are operating in a cartel with the other banks and that the gap between the margin they charge on loans and the rate they pay on deposits ensures unjustifiable profits that would be unsustainable in a competitive market. Just for the entertainment value I’d love to see that interview, but I cannot see it happening in the foreseeable future. Similarly, I cannot see the agents of the Church being permitted to voice what they may personally feel about the current problems because of consequent difficulties it could cause organisationally.

I went to a boarding school run by diocesan priests, where there were some very unsuitable individuals who had been ordained in charge of adolescent boys, so I believe that I am not speaking from a position of naivety. I must say that whilst there was considerable physical abuse-beatings and so forth that they administered to us in their position as ‘guardians’- I was never aware of any sexual impropriety at the school. Whilst this situation certainly troubled us in school, really these problems pale into insignificance when compared with the disgraceful abuse that was visited upon some people in other situations.

I am no apologist for the outrages perpetrated by those priests that abused their positions of trust with defenceless victims. I believe that no amount of monetary compensation can ever heal the difficulties that families have suffered, return to us the victims who saw no exit but suicide, undo the troubles that victims have themselves endured with subsequent relationships. I do hope though, that by recognising the rot that was institutionally inherent in the church, by acknowledging that individuals that were intrinsically unsuitable to operating in positions of trust were admitted to seminaries and subsequently ordained, that by trying to read between the lines of what the agents of the church are able to say, we can come to a position where we can all emerge stronger from this dark period.

It is crucial that we do not forget the problems that we have endured at the hands of the Church. However, I believe that to allow these problems to continue to fester within us as a society will only limit our capacity to move on and become stronger people as a result of this adversity. It is important that we can see some set of circumstances that will allow us to see a closure to these difficulties rather than to dwell on them in perpetuity, a set of circumstances that will allow us to end this sorry chapter and to move on, stronger as a result.

Sparks

It is important that we can see some set of circumstances that will allow us to see a closure to these difficulties rather than to dwell on them in perpetuity

It's called disestablishmentarianism, or for the americans, seperation of church and state. In conjunction with criminal prosecution of the criminals involved. A dog collar is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

bonkey

Originally posted by dod
It would be refreshing to hear a branch manager of Bank of Ireland come out and say that they are operating in a cartel with the other banks and that the gap between the margin they charge on loans and the rate they pay on deposits ensures unjustifiable profits that would be unsustainable in a competitive market. Just for the entertainment value I’d love to see that interview, but I cannot see it happening in the foreseeable future. Similarly, I cannot see the agents of the Church being permitted to voice what they may personally feel about the current problems because of consequent difficulties it could cause organisationally.

Sure, but given that some "agents" of the CHurch have been convicted of wrongdoing, your comparison strikes me as a bit misleading.

The church's closing of ranks would be like seeing any employee of Enron today - anywhere from Middle Management to board of Directors - making a public statement to the effect that Enron has done nothing wrong as an entity, and it (as an entity) would internally discipline anyone it had found to be "letting down the side", and that it was no concern of anyone else's.

Also, remember that there is a significant difference in focus : the church preaches morality and the right way of living and all that goes along with that. The banks - being a business - "preach" the notion of profit. We can argue that the banks (and Enron's) underhanded tactics were still true to their basic purpose...the making of money. They may have been illegal, but this is a case where the law was ignored / made secondary in order to promote the prime purpose for the company's existence - the making of money.

Conversely, the actions for which the church is being dragged through the mud are the antithesis of what they preach, as well as being illegal. Not only are these people ignoring the law, they are being hypocritical to their own purpose.

It is important that we can see some set of circumstances that will allow us to see a closure to these difficulties rather than to dwell on them in perpetuity,

Yup. I know exactly what circumstances would be a good start :

1) No protection by the church for its members in criminal cases.
2) Public admittance by the church that these events have happened, that they carry a significant degree of responsibility for them, and that such actions will happen again unless change is made.
3) An explanation and apology from the church for knowingly having protected such wrongdoers in the past.

Of course, such things would probably involve explaining (at some point) how the infallible voice of God on Earth made a mistake, so I can't ever see it happening.

jc