I think the only way of proving it to be false is with a free press and people prepared to be whistleblowers, and the outcome of such publicity is usually a grudging and minimising apology.

The Allies did it during the two World Wars (“the Japs torture their prisoners, but we Christian nations always treat our prisoners humanely”) – see this article for a different story.

News Ltd are doing it at the moment here in Australia as they watch the implosion of News Corp in England (“just because that was the culture in News Corp doesn’t mean you’ll find anything like that here”) – see this article.

Christians do it almost constantly these days with regard to Muslim fundamentalists (“Islam breeds fanatacism, but Christianity is a religion of love”) – see the current breaking story about Anders Breivik for a different tale. In Breivik’s manifesto he styles himself a “Christian conservative, patriot and nationalist”, and in internet posts he “blamed Europe’s left-wing parties for destroying the continent’s Christian heritage by allowing mass immigration of Muslims”.  And of course Christians the world over will say “just because he claims to be Christian doesn’t mean he is, or that Christianity supports actions like his”.  Which is true, of course, but they fail to allow Muslims the same opt-out when it comes to Muslim terrorists.

And the Catholic Church is still doing it by offering such a reluctant apology to the unmarried mothers they forced to put their babies up for adoption.  (At the time, it was “we’re the ones doing the loving actions; you’re not, or you would do what’s best for your baby”; now, it’s “that was a different time, a different culture, and there were different standards”. Funny – I thought the church’s ethics were supposed to be set by God and never change!). And yes, we are talking force – threatening to keep them in hospital until they signed the adoption papers, or drugging them till their resistance was too low to keep resisting, are not the actions of a loving group of people empowering the vulnerable in their care.

The clue that the attitude is still entrenched is in the wording of the “admission by Catholic Health Australia that ‘a small number’ of church-run hospitals and women’s homes maintained unwanted adoption practices from the 1950s to the 1970s.” A small number?? ALL Catholic hospitals and mothers’ homes did it (and not just the Catholic ones, either; it was pretty standard practice throughout), and there were many of them. AAP says “CEO Martin Laverty said he is prepared to front a Senate inquiry to make an expression of sorrow and regret if such an apology brought healing and comfort to the women who had their newborns forcibly removed.” It’s not going to heal them, but it is going to help. But why does it take a Senate Inquiry to elicit the apology?

Remember, too, that this is the organisation which STILL (at least as its official line) insists on no abortion, no contraception, and ideally no unmarried parents. Those among the unwed who fall pregnant are still, by Catholic standards, left with few options and little choice, although not subject to such brutal force as those of 50 years ago.  (One suspects that any change since is more in society than in the church, though.)

The reality is that none – or all, depending on the way you see it – of the ideologies involved are the problem. It’s not usually ideology per se which dictates evil actions. It’s ideology combined with a love of power and/or a disregard for others’ opinions. That desire for power or disregard for others’ opinions makes the person or group think they can do something nasty and feel justified about it. Whether it’s a news magnate, a lone radical, a government or the church doesn’t matter.

I do happen to think, however, that it’s nastier when it’s standard policy in a faith group simply because a faith group almost always tries to authenticate its position by claiming that they’re following God’s will.

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?

Which brings me to my point.  Currently, a major character (Sergeant Smith) in The Bill is facing investigation for beating up a criminal who was, in turn, beating up a fellow officer.  And the only person who knows the truth of what happened (apart from the crim) is Smith’s fellow sergeant Calum Stone, who himself has been shown to be somewhat inclined to administer what we might call rough justice.

Stone is prepared to back Smithy up, regardless of the truth, because “the crim deserved it”.  And this brought me to musing on the “protect one of our own” mentality that prompted Stone to lie for Smithy.  Police are encouraged to think this way, and there’s good reason for it.  Watching and defending your fellow officers’ backs might save their life one day.  Or they might save yours.

And this is where the tension between truth and mateship pulls me in both directions.  Because it’s that “watch your mates’ backs” attitude that sets up this kind of situation, where protecting your mate takes precedence over the truth, and it seems that while the basic attitude can be life-saving, it can also – in non-life-threatening situations -  destroy those to whom justice is denied as a result.

Is Smithy still a good police officer despite stepping over the line on this occasion?  Hell, yes.  Is the truth more important than his career?  I confess I’m not sure.

And perhaps you can see where this is leading, because the situation isn’t all that different in the church.  Clergy step over the line, their mates close ranks, cover up and lie for them, and justify it on the basis of his career (and possibly the reputation of the church).  And I’m quite clear that that is wrong, but not so clear on it in the police force.

But I think there are two fundamental differences.  Firstly, that in the police force, they can and do face life-threatening situations.  In the church, they don’t.  So in the church, there’s no real justification on that basis for a culture of closing ranks.  And secondly, that the church supposedly puts morals first.  In fact, many denominations or church spokespeople argue that morality outside the church is necessarily deficient.  To argue for morality, yet not place primary importance on truth seems to me to be duplicitous.

In some ways, maybe, it comes down to who do you protect first – your mates, the criminals or society/injured victims?  I don’t support vigilantism, but neither do I support excessive societal protection of those whose actions put them outside society.  And I certainly don’t agree that anything less than the truth is appropriate in the church.

Last night my father, myself, my sister and a friend went to hear Geoffrey Robertson expound on why Australia needs a Bill of Rights.  Not surprisingly, he was impressively convincing (though I did wish for a Hypothetical on the topic), but it was the supper conversation that prompted groans and laughter, both at the time and in the reminder that popped into my head for something I’d meant to follow up on.

As usual, when my sister, father and I get together, the conversation leaps from one varied topic to another, broken by interspersed explanations to Dad, who’s missed hearing some significant punchline due to his obstinate refusal to wear his hearing aids, or emphatic point-making to Dad, whose general socio-political stance is far to the right of ours. Again not unusually, clergy abuse and church hierarchy stupidity in general formed a part of the conversation. Roberston’s reference to George Pell’s inane argument against a bill of rights (“it hasn’t worked in Zimbabwe”) perhaps put church inanities in our minds, but I also mentioned the pope’s recent effort on washing machines and the liberation of women. Jaqi, in the midst of her frenetic life and recent forced dietary headshift, had missed that spicy piece of news, and nearly choked on her supper at the ludicrousness of the pope knowing anything about the liberation of women. And I don’t want to simply repeat Jac’s own blog comment, but we did agree on a conclusion that is worth putting up on the Net in more than one place: that the pope had a point – but only with regard to women who aren’t allowed to use the Pill.  First groan.

The second arose from the memory – an irrelevancy to the topics over supper, but something I’d meant to do – that I had on my agenda to read through the transcript of Marcus Einfeld’s recent Four Corners interview, to find out just how he thought he could explain those lies he told. I couldn’t bear to sit through the actual broadcast, but thanks to Aunty’s obliging habit of posting transcripts, I could read the show later. And I found roughly what I had expected to find: a Hollingworth-esque (though somewhat more intelligently offered) self-justification full of holes. Einfeld’s “frank admission” that he simply did the wrong thing, and he’s sorry, doesn’t quite mesh with these statements from the transcript:

1) “Look I don’t want to commit myself, to commit another crime by admitting to something here, but I’m trying to be as honest as I can be so, Let’s put it this way, I, I, um, I must’ve had doubts about it [that he had lent his car to a dead friend].” Oh, so there’s another crime you haven’t been charged/convicted with here, Mr Einfeld? And your remorse doesn’t quite extend to putting your hands up to that as well?

2) “It was [a straight out lie]. And it’s, probably more shameful in a way than the driving.” Only probably, Mr Einfeld? As a judge, one would have thought that there would be no question that lying under oath is more shameful than driving 10kmh over the speed limit. As you’ve found out (but should have known anyway), the first garners you a 2-year jail term, the second merely a $77 fine.

3) On being asked wasn’t it rather tawdry to use the name of someone he admired in a perjurous statement: “I didn’t do a tawdry act. I ah, did something that I can’t explain.” Well, no. If you don’t admit that it was just cheap and nasty, then it’s hard to come up with any reason for a judge to do what he did.

4) “Ha. The joke about that is that I did know another person by the same name and I did meet her in Bangladesh, but she wasn’t the person driving the car.” Do tell me, Mr Einfeld, in what way it’s a joke that you tried to wriggle out of your lies when caught out – by telling another lie?

5) “Obviously the lie on oath is the, is the critical one as far as the law is concerned. But I treat it [all the lies told] all in the same category because I told a lie, I had opportunities to get out of it and I didn’t take them.” But you don’t put them all in the same category, Mr Einfeld, because only 30 seconds earlier, you said “That, that was a lie, but you know that was a lie to a journalist, I, I didn’t quite feel the same obligation [to tell the truth as I should under oath], if you don’t mind my saying so.”

6) “If you mean that I told more lies, um I don’t think so. Nothing of any significance anyway. I mean it would have only been follow up, the necessary follow up from what I’d said. … I possibly embellished the story with more detail but I, I don’t really think I made any significant change, no.” No, no significant change, Mr Einfeld, apart from managing to get two women to make supporting claims that they were in the car, with a dead woman, when it was caught on camera.

7) On being quizzed about the police implication that Einfeld had done the same thing (submitted stat decs saying he wasn’t driving) on several occasions before to avoid speeding fines, he said “I never lie in statutory declarations if I can conceivably have any hope of it being true. I never tell untruths.” So…what exactly was it, Mr Einfeld, if it wasn’t a lie (and given that you’ve already said it was a lie)? And did you notice the qualification – I never lie in stat decs if.  Ok, we get it. You never lie unless there’s a chance of getting away with it.

8] Answering the challenge that he’d done it before, on at least three occasions, and that it was a pattern, he said “Yes but that’s nonsense. Why would you name people who you, who actually existed? You can name people who don’t exist.” Well, Mr Einfeld, not only have you clearly done it this time, so why not those other times, but it’s nice of you to show us the way your mind works. Not “it’s unthinkable to do it”, but “here’s a much more plausible way of getting away with it”.

9) “No it’s not a lot of mistakes, I’m sorry. There were three events plus this one. I’ve admitted to this one. If I’d been called upon to meet the others I might have admitted to one of those when I’d got the facts and I’d checked up on them. …I don’t think you can accuse me of not being frank because I can’t remember the details.” But the details have been put in front of you, Mr Einfeld, you don’t have to remember them. You signed stat decs saying these people were driving your car when it was caught speeding, and in each case they were overseas (or dead) at the time. No ifs or buts. It’s not down to your memory now, and it wasn’t when you signed those stat decs. (Einfeld pleaded guilty in order to avoid those other incidents being raised in court.)

And it all came out by a mere fluke (though at least a predictable one) – the idle curiosity of a journalist. There are distinct similarities here with the unfolding of the Boston clergy sexual abuse scandal in 2002, which grew from one small journalistic question to 11,000 pages of internal church documents and several awards, including the Pulitzer Prize for public service,* for the journalistic team that uncovered the church’s lies. In Einfeld’s case, a journalist on a slow news day wondered who is Teresa Brennan, did a web search, and found she died three years before Einfeld claimed she did.

And as I read the transcript, it all had a wearying sameness to me.  Einfeld, Hollingworth, Pell, the pope… the pattern of lies, cover-up, being forced to confront their lies publicly, and a simultaneous attempt to avoid responsibility while seeking to claim honesty and remorse.  None of which is to say they haven’t each done some good things.  But life isn’t as simple as saying “he’s done X good things, and Y bad things, and the number of good ones outweigh the bad, so he’s really a good person and shouldn’t suffer the normal penalty for this crime”. The truer view is that people are a mix of good and bad, and the more they promote the good and conceal the bad, the greater compartmentalism there is in their lives and the greater unreality they come to live in. Einfeld’s actions here demonstrate a wilful intent to go against all his judicial career stands for, and he still won’t just say “yes, I told a tissue of lies, I convinced other people to tell lies for me, I sustained it over quite a long period of time, including after it was first uncovered, I only admitted it when I had no choice, and I deserve all I get”.  So, second groan.

But wait, there’s more… (do I hear you groaning?)

Einfeld, of course, as a judge, should have known better. But at least his career doesn’t rest on claiming the moral high ground. His job is to administer the law (which is codified morality), not to define it. Church hierarchy, on the other hand…  which musing brings me to my third groan: I’ve been looking at just how many convicted clergy abusers may well still be in active or semi-active ministry.  Certainly very few are defrocked (see the perpetrator list section of my website for explanation on the difference between licence [aka faculties] being revoked – which is temporary – or defrocking, which is permanent).  And I’d like to see a church which actually believed that a conviction for child sex offences resulted in automatic defrocking, but not even the Uniting Church (perhaps the best of the lot in terms of policies) does.  But if one were to place articles 3 and 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”[emphasis mine] and “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein” side by side, one might interpret that as saying that the church is acting contrary to human rights principles when it reinstates convicted child sex offenders into the priesthood, thereby implying their good ability to uphold the “security of person” to which their congregants are entitled.

Which takes us back to Robertson. Robertson’s premise is that a Charter of Rights would provide an informed platform from which to argue for rights-based treatment of any application of law. So if a judge, for instance, made a decision that was contrary to the principles of the Charter, it could be pointed out to him, and change requested. And that, over time, people would come to expect that decisions informed by rights principles would be the norm. And as he detailed rights achievements over the centuries, he quoted the Magna Carta: “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right”. A basic human right, understood for 800 years, which is regularly ignored by the churches in dealing with clergy abuse victims. But if history can repeat itself, with systematic abuses of power causing the common people to force the authority figure to bow to their insistence on their rights, perhaps there is still hope that clergy abuse victims could receive better treatment from the churches.

.

Footnote:
* The other awards received by The Boston Globe team for their coverage of the clergy sexual abuse scandal were: the Associated Press Managing Editors’ Freedom of Information Award, the Goldsmith Prize for investigative reporting, the George Polk Award for national reporting, a medal from Investigative Reporters and Editors, the Selden Ring Award for investigative reporting, the Sigma Delta Chi award for excellence in investigative journalism from the Society of Professional Journalists, the Taylor Family Award for fairness in newspapers, the Worth Bingham Award for investigative reporting, the New York Times Company’s Punch Sulzberger Award, a media award from the Massachusetts Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers, and the Spirit Award for Media Responsibility from Jane Doe Inc., a Massachusetts coalition against sexual assault and domestic violence.

So given that this apology falls well short of what he should have said, and where and to whom it should have been said, it will be very interesting to see just how much action happens when the dust from WYD settles. Let’s just revise the checklist the Pope imposed on his clergy for future action:
1) these misdeeds should receive unequivocal condemnation
2) victims should receive compassion and care
3) those responsible must be brought to justice
4) it is an urgent priority to promote a safer and more wholesome environment
5) the Church must work together to combat this evil

Isn’t it interesting that out of 5 action points, three of them (points 1, 3 and 5) are things that the church should be doing already – but obviously isn’t, or the Pope wouldn’t need to exhort them?

But I still think the most inappropriate part was to do it at a mass for clergy, thereby not only effectively offering the apology to the perpetrator group, but specifically excluding the victims who should have been able to be there to hear 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.

No, I’m sorry – the “we didn’t know any better” excuse just doesn’t hold water…and especially not in an organisation that claims the moral high ground.