by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
On the very same day that Fiona Barnett published her major statement – August 2, 2018 – the bishop of Harrisburg Pennsylvania announced that the names of former bishops (back to 1947) would be removed as names of schools or other buildings.
Many bishops have served the diocese of Harrisburg in the last seven decades, and it would probably be very inaccurate to say that they all participated in the great harm done to children who were sexually abused by priests.
But neither did they act to stop it.
The story was carried by The Boston Globe and The New York Times. I am quoting from the version published at patheos.com:
In an unprecedented and stunning move, the head of the Diocese of Harrisburg on Wednesday ordered the removal of all former diocesan bishops who over the decades failed to protect children from sexually predatory priests.
Just weeks ahead of a bombshell report into clergy sex abuse in the Catholic Church in Pennsylvania, Bishop Ronald Gainer on Wednesday said that all names of bishops dating back to 1947 will be removed from buildings, halls and rooms.
“The decision to remove names of bishops and clerics may prove to be controversial, but as bishops, I strongly believe that leaders of the diocese must hold themselves to a higher standard and must yield honorary symbols in the interest of healing.”
Initial Resistance and Cover up
I am adding this article to the series on Fiona Barnett in order to raise a point about symbolic gestures in Australia (see below). But first let us consider the story of the Catholic Church’s cover-up. Lately there have been messages of remorse. The above-mentioned Bishop Griner used the phrase “deep sorrow.”’ But that was not always true.
As we heard at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse children, parents, teachers, and at least one police detective – noted anything but remorse when they tried to get the hierarchy’s attention on this matter. Many said they were insulted and threatened when they approached the Church. Can you imagine how that would have shocked these persons!
Even when the news about pedophile priests was no longer able to be suppressed, we saw bishops offer a new excuse – a financial one. They said the Church had to damp down the complaints to avoid bankruptcy through lawsuits. Still later, efforts were made to perform some feats of redress. For example, Cardinal Pell established “the Melbourne response” which paid compensation to victims and offered psychotherapy.
What about the elite pedophiles that Fiona Barnett mentions? Are they going to change their position from one of denying that there’s anything wrong, to admitting their deeds and apologizing, to finally agreeing that it is a matter of “deep sorrow” to them?
I doubt it. But we could help them reach that state of mind, by drawing from Bishop Gainer’s book. We could remove names of known pedophiles from buildings and cancel titles of honor.
Whoops, There Goes Your Knighthood
From the beginning of the British colony in Oz, in 1788, up until 1985, the monarch awarded knighthoods, or damehoods, to prominent people. The majority of recipients held major positions such as chief justice, navy admiral, or Governor. Possibly the purpose was to reinforce the authority of the position. Occasionally a citizen was knighted for a contribution to the arts or sciences.
The practice seemed to go out of style after 1960 or so when Australia’s cultural cringe (towards the Mother Country) was identified and denigrated. When Prime Minister Bob Hawke announced in 1986 that Aussies would no longer be “Sirred,” that seemed a natural progression, and was especially appropriate to the Labor Party’s egalitarian outlook.
Only a small number of pre-1987 knights and dames are still living. These include Sir Anthony Mason (judiciary), Sir Peter Cosgrove (army), and Sir Gustav Nossal (medicine). Rupert Murdoch’s mother, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, who died in 2012 at age 103, received a damehood for philanthropy.
There’s also Dame Edna, of course.
In 2014 under the prime ministership of Tony Abbott, a liberal, the practice came back in again. One of the first persons honoured was Dame Bryce the Governor Quentin general and Marie Bashir, a former governor of New South Wales. However, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull abolished the practice again in 2015.
So I ask, what if some authority attempted to follow Bishop Gainer’ lead and strip the honors from any who hold them?
And It’s Not Just Knighthoods
There are other honors. Parliamentarians enjoy calling themselves “the Honorable.” I ask, are any of our parliamentarians honorable? I would like to meet him or her. There may be schools, public parks, and other facilities subjectable to a review at this stage.
In the United States, airports and courthouses seem to acquire names without public debate. Two that get my goat are the George Bush (senior) Airport in Houston?? And the Bill Frist federal courthouse in Tennessee.
I don’t know what the mechanism would be for removing someone’s name from an airport as the airport may be privately owned. For a courthouse, the honor was voted in by Congress so can be repealed by Congress.
In Australia the local honor known as “Order of Australia” can be revoked — and occasionally has been. You must write to the Governor General to take up that issue.
What Caused the Pedophile Priest Problem?
In my opinion the gesture of removing names of all previous bishops from diocesan buildings in Harrisburg PA is very striking. In this case it is not because we have found out that they committed a crime. It is that they did not perform their duty of care.
In two ways these bishops – whom, we presume were aware of “the problem” — did not do the right thing by the children, and did not do the right thing by the congregation.
I could also say they did not do the right thing by the priests. I do not understand the circumstances in which the condition known as “pedophilia” attacks a man. The reason I have not investigated the pathology of it is that my research base has been persons that were led into pedophilia by an outsider who was controlling them, as one would control a slave.
And by the way, we should not rule out that the priests were under some sort of spell, the object being to “bring down the Church,” which is certainly what took place. I was disappointed that Australia’s otherwise diligent Royal Commission (which had four years in which to figure things out: 2013 to 2017) never asked if any priests were led into it.
In fact, it irks me that one of the recommendations of the RC is that the requirement of celibacy for priests be lifted. This suggests that we do know the cause, and that it was sexual loneliness on the part of priests. I doubt that a sexually lonely man would develop a lust for minors.
Who Has a Duty of Care in Regard to Children?
There are laws in place to force certain workers, such as teachers and nurses, to file a report if they suspect that a child is being abused (not just sexually, but it includes sexually). Fiona Barnett has recorded her efforts to report abusers of other children (not herself) in Queensland. She was punished for doing this. I am sure the persons who punished her ought to be prosecuted. Why ever not?
But what about the many school principles whom the Royal Commission identified as not acting in protection of children? The name Bugg comes to mind – he was housemaster of Highton House in Geelong Grammar School. I saw him on the witness stand at an RC hearing in October 2015.
Bugg was absolutely defiant of the commissioners, insisting he was unaware of the problem, despite the fact that one of his dormitory assistants was later jailed for molestation of numerous boys at Highton House. Was he referred for perjury? If not, why not?
Do we want to get top the cause of the problem or not? It was my impression that Bugg condoned the sexual abuse of boys “under orders.” Orders from whom? Any why?
More Symbolic Gestures Please
Citizens are too concerned that nothing is punishable until it has been proven in a court of law. Nonsense! Nothing is punishable by the state until it has been proven in a court of law, but there are many social punishments that can be meted out by anyone at any time. A dirty look is one. Omitting someone from a guest list is another.
To my (limited) knowledge, the only punishment that the official torturers of Abu Ghraib ever received – so far – occurred when one-fourth of the seniors at Boalt Law School, Berkeley University, stood up during their graduation ceremony and turned their backs on Professor John Yoo. Marvelous. It went down in history without any need for a court of law. Thank you, Graduates.
Please send me suggestions for the social punishment of any of the persons who are known to have participated in the evil things outlined by Fiona Barnett. I don’t know if she wants any punishing to occur. I myself am not nearly as punishment-minded as I often sound. But if we act like there’s nothing we can do, this adds to our passivity, and ultimately our complicity.
No?
— Mary W Maxwell yearns for mail at mary.maxwell@alumni.adelaide.edu.au
The Catholic Church is a money making machine same as most institutes with a bonus of attracting perverts who are protected by state and church, interesting that many politicians are involved with perversion able to get away with it as a result of power, we have to acknowledge that many if not all of the masses whom put there trust in a institute to avoid personal responsibility for self, the fact is it some difficulty in entering to self doubt, and as I listened to a drone operater a American state its all part of the job description to kill people, of course when you see a jet fighter pilot who is at home in killing people the enticement of a several million dollar jet plane gives credibility to being self identity of self rightous authority to kill those who are usually not technology up to what these killers are about, of course the underlying cowardice comes to the fore when the superior race has the dawning that the enemy may have equal technology and the same as the church when they come up against a individual who hass a superior intellect to say the church’s intellectuals they wane fast and seek cover, ie check Huxley’s conversation with the church.
Don, could you link us to that? Which Huxley? When?
And thank you for your constant insight which has yet to look flawed.
Many of the public would inflict their own social punishments if only they could protect themselves from claims they are acting without any evidence or without sufficient evidence.
To make errors of judgment with this issue is to find oneself in the cross hairs of the powerful.
Then again, by doing nothing one is complicit.
Damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
“To make errors of judgment with this issue is to find oneself in the cross hairs of the powerful.”
I’d say “To be spot on wit one’s judgment about this issue is to find oneself in the cross hairs of the powerful.”
I’d also say “We’re damed if we don’t, and they’re damned if we do.”
yay.