FOR an institution in which confession is a sacrament, the Catholic Church struggles to openly acknowledge its responsibilities for the sins of its priests.At times, it has given the clear impression that it wishes sexual abuse victims would shut up and go away.
A year ago, the World Youth Day organiser, Bishop Anthony Fisher epitomised that attitude when he accused those calling for a papal apology of ''dwelling crankily on old wounds''.
Now, in response to calls for a review of the Melbourne Archdiocese's system of handling abuse cases, known as the Melbourne Response, the Catholic Vicar-General, Bishop Les Tomlinson, tells The Age: ''You could perhaps draw a conclusion that there is what could be termed a victims' industry … willing to exploit these victims for their own gain.''
Then there is Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart who told a woman who had been sexually abused by a priest to ''go to hell, bitch''. He told The Age he did not recall this, although he apologised in court in 2004 for what the magistrate said was an ''appalling and ungracious act''.
To be fair to the archbishop, the magistrate said that while the behaviour of the woman, who knocked on his door at 1.20am, ''may be entirely understandable in one sense, it is absolutely unacceptable behaviour in all other senses''. The woman had been subject to an intervention order after harassing him and his staff.
While Archbishop Hart's words have come back to shame him, the bigger issue is church leaders' evasive responses and their reluctance to take responsibility for what has happened to abuse victims since the Melbourne Response was set up by then Archbishop George Pell in 1996.
Far from being ''old wounds'', the 450 cases handled since include many fresh instances of abuse, some of which have been made possible by the church's actions or omissions.
In the case of the woman who confronted Archbishop Hart, in 2001 she was abused by notorious priest Barry Whelan - who has been accused of abuse by five women - after his suspension in the 1990s for abusing another woman had been overturned.
There has never been any public review of whether any of the 450 or so cases shed light on how priests were able to reoffend.
As The Age reports, church investigators have even compromised police investigations. In the case of priest Paul Pavlou, the Melbourne Response told him about a police investigation. When police searched Pavlou's house, his computer's hard drive was, unsurprisingly, wiped.
But some material was retrieved and Pavlou was sentenced last month to a suspended 18-month jail term after he pleaded guilty to two counts of ''indecent acts''.
In a 2002 case, a victim who was raped as a boy by priest Terence Pidoto, says he was told only after being interviewed by the church investigator of his right to contact police and that Pidato's lawyers could use this interview to question him in court - as they did.
The Melbourne Response has not been as fair and as compassionate towards victims of abuse as it should be. Sometimes, the church has appeared to be protecting offenders from the full weight of the law.
Church leaders may feel they are protecting their institution. However, they should heed the lessons of this year's Ryan report, which found the institutional responses of denial, obfuscation and excuse left the Irish church complicit in the evil acts of individuals.
Rather than protecting the church, such attitudes undermine it by eroding the trust and belief that are the source of its strength.
Calls for a review of the Melbourne Response have the support of retired Sydney bishop Geoffrey Robinson, who headed the church's response to the crisis of sexual abuse in the 1990s. He says some victims have felt intimidated by the system and a thorough review would be timely.
Newcastle bishop Michael Malone has applauded a collective formed by abuse victims and said he would not excuse a church ''which refuses to listen or admit there is fault''.
As one collective member, the mother of the boy abused by Pavlou, says: ''I want the church to improve the way children and parents at schools and parishes can seek help if they encounter inappropriate behaviour by a priest. That is all I have ever asked for and the Melbourne archdiocese has never delivered on this.''
These are not the words of a ''victims' industry'' focused on compensation. The Melbourne church must be more open to what victims of abuse are saying and more understanding of their suffering, which its internal processes perpetuate.
Only by becoming more open and accountable can the church demonstrate true contrition and end the institutionalised cycle of abuse.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
SIC: TA