Clare’s blog, aka rantspace

I blogged some 18 months ago about having gone to hear Geoffrey Robertson promote his book The Statute of Liberty, and the musing about that which followed.   What I didn’t mention in that blog entry was that I had asked Robertson a question afterwards about how human rights legislation might be used to provide justice for victims of clergy abuse.  Robertson, in the midst of a long queue of book signings, gave an off-the-cuff answer which, let me admit it frankly, I found somewhat disappointing at the time.  A moment’s logical thought, though, told me I couldn’t really have expected much more in the circumstances.  And so I didn’t.

But it seems now that asking him that question may have sparked some thought about it on his part, to judge by these public statements by Robertson since:
Pope must answer for crimes against humanity
Robertson wants Pope to resign over child abuse
and even more fully in his new book, The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuses (see review)

I confess to being somewhat chuffed if my question 18 months ago brought two such significant things as clergy abuse and the attention of Robertson together.  But while I accept that the Catholic Church is in a somewhat peculiar position in terms of its claim to statehood, I hope that Robertson won’t confine his attentions to the Catholic denomination alone.  Anglicans, after all, claim the Queen as the head of their church, and she vowed at her coronation to “maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England”; does that mean victims of Anglican clergy could accuse the Queen of supporting human rights abuses – or, at the very least, turning a blind eye to them?  Will Robertson come to the aid of clergy abuse victims of other denominations and argue that ALL clergy sexual abuse (and its cover-up) is an abuse of human rights under international law?

No, no… I’m not getting married again (I like the model I’ve got, thanks), or moving (god forbid!) or changing my diet (current one’s working well, thanks), or pregnant (god forbid that one too!). This is about my website.

Firstly, that I was asked to write an article for the WA Uniting Church’s The Transit Lounge website, on the recent release of the Ferns Report (Irish Catholic) and the Australian Anglican research into abuse allegations in their dioceses. However, the end result raised “concerns that there could be some sections that might be defamatory and/or damaging to our ecumenical relationships”, and Assembly therefore declined to publish it. I’m proud to prove that despite maintaining useful connections with people in key places in various denominations, I can’t yet be accused of selling out my principles

And the second half of that news is that I chose to post the article on my website rather than see its punch severely lessened by the diplomatic editing that would have been necessary for it to be published in The Transit Lounge. The direct link is here, but I have also added (and will continue to add, supposing I’m disciplined enough) various other articles I’ve written along the way, which you can find by going to the main page of the website and clicking on the “my articles” link which has been added to the menu.

And the second major thing I’ve added to the website is something I’ve been meaning to add for a long time – perhaps the most momentous piece of church documentation I possess after my ten-year fight with them, and that is the Notice of Relinquishment which proves that Vic Cole relinquished his holy orders as a result of his sexual abuse of me. I have also added the letter of apology I received from Peter Jensen at the end of the negotiations with the Anglican Church, wherein he also refers (somewhat obliquely) to the refusal of Harry Goodhew, Donald Cameron, and Vic Cole, to make similar apologies to me. Both can be accessed via links contained within my story.

<sigh> It’d be nice to have time to scan every letter I sent to, and every letter I received from, the church, but that’s still a long-ahead dream.

Hollingworth has conceded he thinks the job of GG was wrong for him (see here).  Let’s hope it hasn’t taken him until now to come to that conclusion, because abuse victims could have told him that years, if not decades, ago. They could have told him that when he reassured victims he was “keeping a close eye” on how abuse complaints were being dealt with, but which later inaction he justified as “not being directly involved in”. They could have told him that when he refused to defrock a clergyman (a bishop by the time of the complaint) for underage sex, which he justified as the (14yo) victim’s instigation. They could have told him that when he appointed a clergyman against whom there were two known abuse allegations to a post on the diocesan sexual misconduct complaints committee.

And now Hollingworth tries to justify his failure based on some perceived, or unperceived (it’s not really clear which) separation of church and state. He obviously still doesn’t get it! The public disillusionment with him was nothing to do with any link or otherwise between church and state – it was simply and purely that he stood exposed as miserably inadequate in dealing with sexual immorality in his subordinates, and pitifully shameless in his attempts to wriggle out of responsibility for his poor judgement. Moreover, his supposed moral (religious) and ethical (social welfare degree) education had obviously done nothing to improve him.

Churchman or not, such qualities are not what we want to see in a GG.

Not a title that narrows it down very much, really, when we’re talking about the church! But in this case, it’s about the arrogance of conservative members of the worldwide Anglican communion (about 1000 in total, a quarter of whom are bishops), who are at present in a meeting in Jerusalem which will probably see them deciding to boycott the next Lambeth Conference. There’s a nice article in The Age which more than adequately demonstrates their arrogance. Here are some excerpts, along with explanations of the arrogance for those who aren’t attuned to seeing it:

1) Peter Jensen asserts that the conference members are “the true keepers of the authority of the Bible.”
Arrogance: To suggest that just because they think (oops, sorry – know) their interpretation of the bible is right, that they are somehow “the true keepers” of its authority! Surely it’s God who is the keeper of scriptural authority??

2) Jensen also says “the Christian church has a constitution which is the Bible…it’s as if you’re a member of a [club] and you decide to break the rules…That’s understandable to the man on the street, surely.”
Arrogance no.1: Jensen and his conservative cohorts, again, are asserting that the rules they decide are the right ones actually are.
Arrogance no.2: [Unspoken translation] “Even the idiots who are just ordinary people can understand this when I’ve explained it so clearly, can’t they?”

3) Jensen said the church would not reunite until the current divisions over human sexuality were resolved. “There is no reason why we should leave the Anglican Church because we have not shifted. It is others who have shifted.”
Arrogance no.1: Knowing that because they’ve believed it for years, they must be right. (Supporters of slavery justified that from the bible, too, until Wilberforce and others worked on persuading them to a new viewpoint, which they finally found more biblical.)
Arrogance no.2: The assertion that if unity is to be restored, it’s “those others” who will have to return to the conservatives, rather than finding ways to compromise or move forward amicably. (Even given their assumption that they’re right, it’s still not the way forward in a contentious issue to just keep telling the other party that they’re wrong and they have to change!)

This all leads to another blog entry (as yet unwritten) about the need (or not) for definition of who’s “in the club” and who isn’t, and – with regard to the church – who makes the definition and how.

A: To shoring up the shortfall in government dollars created by giving churches such incredible tax exemptions.

What sort of $$ are we talking about? Take a look at this comment in Crikey for some actual figures. The Catholic church, despite being a business (with charity sidelines), gets tax exemptions amounting to millions of dollars per year. The Anglican Church likewise, though no figures are given. But just stop to think about how many churches there are, and realise that each one is exempt from land tax, council rates and capital gains tax (to name just a few of the taxes from which they are exempt), and you begin to get the idea.  Think of the size of St Andrew’s Square, in the Sydney CBD, and wonder for a moment what the council rates on that would be! The totals across all denominations are in the billions. One wonders, if the churches were forced to separate charity from business operations and only claim tax exemptions for the charitable operations, just how much of those billions would remain tax exempt. The government would certainly suddenly find itself a lot richer!

Kevin Rudd has back-pedalled on his calls for federal agencies to investigate the Brethrens (see story). Now this may be merely a tactical move, allowing him to gather forces to promote such an enquiry at a better time. But it may equally be that Rudd has discovered that Brethren influence is strong enough to stop him proceeding. And such behind-the-scenes, clout-wielding political manoeuvres are not unusual. Catholics and Anglicans both do it too (how else do you think an archbishop got to be GG??). But people don’t raise an eyebrow at that, because they’ve been around a long time and their beliefs are well-known. In other words, they’re “safe”.

People get scared about the thought of weirdos wielding power, and with good reason. But just because a religion (or a denomination) has been around a long time doesn’t make their high priests any less prone to misuse of power. Or, indeed, any less weird!

And it’s no good sitting back and thinking the government will come to our rescue, because they’re often subject to the power themselves. It takes ordinary people – mostly outside the church – to see, and keep calling attention to, the failings of churches.

***
<sigh> I said this much better at my first attempt, but that version disappeared into the ether. Don’t you hate that?