Pell's testimony struck me, coming from the third most important person in the Catholic Church, in his role akin to that of a Finance Minister in the Vatican. Personally, his most amazing pronouncements were:
- •that the abuses of a certain priest Gerald Ridsdale, including against Ridsdale's own nephew David, while a source of sadness, were not of much interest to him (although later Pell claimed he had said this as he was confused)2;
- •that the Bishop of Ballarat (in Victoria), Ronald Kulkearns, and the Catholic Education Office, hadn't informed him with the details of what paedophile priests and teachers were doing. In particular regarding Bishop Kulkearns, Pell described the concealment of abuses that were going on for decades as serious and unexplainable3;
- •that he had tried to get rid of the paedophile priest Peter Searson (deceased), and realising he was not supported by the Vatican, he went ahead anyway and told him to resign.4
Pell repeated that he was not aware of the amount of paedophilia that was going on. Whether this is credible or otherwise I'll leave you to judge, however I will say I did take the impression he had preferred not to know.
The more stories I hear, the more I come to the conclusion that the institution of the Catholic Church, of which I'm a member, preferred to deal with those suspected of paedophilia by moving them from parish to parish, from school to school, rather than reporting them to the police for action to be taken. It was more interested in temporarily silencing the anger of its victims and their families, and protect the Church's reputation, than to do what was legally (by reporting to the police) and morally (by stopping the abuse immediately and permanently, taking care of its victims) required.
However here I want to state that the point of this article is not to condemn this extraordinary evil. This is already occurring. I wanted to draw attention to what I see as our own responsibility, mine and yours, in all of this. Before you chop my head off, hear me out!
I feel that thos of us who are part of this Christian community, although not being involved directly in this abuse, were in some way complicit. This is because we did not even believe that this abuse was possible, especially by clergy. Therefore when early stories started to surface about what was going on, we did not take them seriously, and did not demand action.
Many of us regard clergy too reverentially, especially the leaders of the Church (bishops and the Pope), as we consider them to be representing God himself. Kissing the hands of priests, as a mark of respect, is still within living memory. This no longer the case, but these over-the-top gestures evidence the impression we have, or had, of infallible clergy within an infallible Church.
I ask you, have you heard of any case where a child went home with a story of sexual abuse, whether light or heavy, and was disbelieved, silenced, shouted at or even received a slap with the back of the hand? I was devastated to find that a story of sexual abuse by clergy had also touched a member of my extended family, and this in Malta.
I have long ago formed the conclusion that one can blindly trust no one - no one, not even our Church, to always do the right thing. Naturally we have to be careful not to paint everyone with the same brush, and we also need to consider whether there is any relationship with the new tradition of priestly chastity which the Church introduced in the 4th century. Nevertheless, we have to accept that mistakes occur, some small, others obscene. This is coming to light with the tragic area of sexual abuse, but is not limited there.
To give another example of mistakes, here in Australia, (today) there is shame in the involvement of Catholic institutions (and that of other denominations) in the forced taking of aboriginal children from their families (the so-called Stolen Generation) and their forced conversion into the Christian faith by missionaries, and with the denial of their culture. Today you wouldn't find a Christian institution that still works in this way, or declares that it is good to do so.
We are told that we shouldn't judge past actions according to today's social and cultural awareness. However I ask, isn't the Church's teaching, based on Christ's gospels, sufficient as a moral compass? It is clear to me that it is not!
It is clear to me that Christian institutions, which must be ackowledged as doing useful work in society, need a good dose of realism, transparency and scrutiny; need to listen to the cries of those who are hurt; and also need to accept the moral judgement of the communities they serve. They have no monopoly on values or truth.
I am irked by the assumed model of moral teachings, with the Church deciding its teachings and the Christian faithful only expected to accept and obey, with those not doing so considered sinners. I am hurt by the image of this Church which knows it all, and us Christians only presumed to know what the Church has taught us.
I'm annoyed that over the years, during mass one can only speak in turn, and then only to say what is known by rote or what can be read off a screen or bulletin. I was relieved to note, in the parish I attend in Blacktown, that towards the end of the mass, the parish priest asks those present if there is anything that needs to be said. This is a fresh, open, even revolutionary idea. Unfortunately I haven't seen this anywhere else.
I think you've got used to me by now, I won't mask my words. I'll make my position very clear.
My faith in Jesus is based on trust, but not blind trust. Being in a position of authority in the Church (including the Pope), or speaking in his name, does not automatically lead to my acceptance of what is being said or done is inspired. The Good Lord has granted me a brain, and I'm determined to use it, against the background of moral values that have been nurtured, whatever their origin.
Do you trust, or trust blindly?
---------------------------
Laqtitni x-xieħda ta' Pell, li jitqies li hu t-tielet l-iktar persuna importanti fil-Knisja Kattolika, fir-rwol tiegħu li jixbaħ dik ta' Ministru tal-Finanzi tal-Vatikan. Ngħid għalija, l-iktar dikjarazzjonijiet li għaġġbuni kienu:
- •li l-abbużi tal-qassis Gerald Ridsdale, inkluż kontra n-neputi ta' Ridsdale stess David, filwaqt li kienu ta' niket, ma' tantx kienu ta' interess għalih (għalkemm iktar tard Pell qal li kien qal hekk għax kien konfuż)2;
- •li l-isqof ta' Ballarat (in Victoria), Ronald Kulkearns, u l-Uffiċċju tal-Edukazzjoni Kattolika ma kinux qalulu bid-dettalji ta' x'kienu qed jagħmlu qassisin u għalliema pedofili. Partikolarment fuq l-Isqof Mulkearns, Pell iddeskriva l-ħabi tal-abbużi li kienu qed isiru fuq medda ta' għexieren ta' snin bħala gravi u mhux spjegabbli3;
- •li kien ipprova jeħles minn qassis pedofilu Peter Searson (illum mejjet), u wara li ma sabx appoġġ mill-Vatikan għamel fattih xorta waħda u qallu jirriżenja.4
Pell irrepeta li ma kienx jaf bl-ammont ta' pedofilija li kienet għaddejja. Jekk dan hu kredibbli jew le nħallih għalikom, biss ħadt l-impressjoni li kien jippreferi ma jkunx jaf.
Iktar ma nisma' stejjer, ngħid għalija diffiċli ma nasalx għall-konklużjoni li l-istituzzjoni tal-Knisja Kattolika, li tagħha jien membru, kienet tippreferi li lil dawk issuspettati bil-pedofilija, tmexxihom minn parroċċa għall-oħra, minn skola għall-oħra, milli tirrappurtahom lill-pulizija biex tittieħed azzjoni kontrihom. Iktar interessata li tmewwet temporanjament l-għadab tal-vittmi u l-familjari tagħhom, u tipproteġi r-reputazzjoni tal-Knisja, milli tagħmel dak li huwa xieraq legalment (tirrapporta l-att kriminali) u moralment (li twaqqaf l-abbuż immedjatament u permanentement u tieħu ħsieb lill-vittmi).
Imma hawnhekk nistqarr li l-iskop tal-artiklu tiegħi mhux li nikkundanna dan il-ħażen straordinarju. Dak qiegħed u jkompli jsir. Jien xtaqt niġbed l-attenzjoni għal dak li nara li huwa r-risponsabbilta' tagħna, tiegħi u tiegħek, f'dan kollu. Qabel ma taqtgħuli rasi, ippruvaw ifhmuni!
Jien inħoss li aħna li qegħdin parti minn din il-komunità Nisranija, għalkemm ma konniex direttament involuti fl-abbuż, konna b'xi mod kompliċi fih. Dan billi aħna stess lanqas konna biss nemmnu li dan l-abbuż huwa possibbli, imbagħad mill-kleru! Għalhekk meta nqalgħu stejjer bikrija ta' dak li kien qed jiġri, ma ħadnihomx bis-serjetà, u ma tlabniex azzjoni.
Ħafna minna nħarsu b'mod riverenzjali wisq lejn il-membri tal-kleru, b'mod speċjali l-mexxejja (l-isqfijiet u l-Papa), għax inqisuhom li qegħdin hemm minflok Alla nnifsu. Fil-passat konna niġru nbusulhom idejhom meta niltaqgħu magħhom fit-triq, bħala sinjal ta' rispett. Dan m'għadux isir, imma dawn ir-riverenzi żejda jixhdu l-impressjoni li għandna, jew li kellna, ta' kleru infallibli minn Knisja infallibbli.
Jien nistaqsikom, tafux b'xi każ fejn xi wild mar id-dar b'xi storja ta' abbuż sesswali, ħafifa jew gravi, u ma ġiex emmnut, ġie msikket, qala' xi għajta jew saħansitra laqqat xi daqqa bil-maqlub fuq wiċċu? Jien kont wisq imnikket meta smajt li istorja ta' abbuż sesswali mill-kleru messet anke lil membru tal-familja estiża tiegħi, u dan f'Malta.
Jien ilni li wasalt għall-konklużjoni li ma tista' tafda lil ħadd - ħadd - b'mod għami, lanqas lill-Knisja tagħna, li se dejjem tagħmel dak li hu sew u xieraq. Naturalment irridu noqogħdu attenti li ma npinġux lil kulħadd l-istess, u wieħed irid iqis jekk hemmx xi rabta mat-tradizzjoni ġdida ta' kastita' tal-qassisin li l-Knisja introduċiet fir-raba' seklu. Madankollu rridu naċċettaw li żbalji jsiru, uħud żgħar, oħrajn oxxeni. Dan qed joħroġ fil-beraħ fil-qasam traġiku tal-abbuż sesswali, imma mhux limitat għal dan.
Biex intikom eżempju ieħor ta' żbalji, hawnhekk l-Awstralja (illum) hawn mistħija għall-involviment ta' istituzzjonijiet Kattoliċi (u ta' denominazzjonijiet oħra) fit-teħid għexieren ta' snin ilu ta' tfal aboriġeni mill-familji tagħhom u fil-konverżjoni furzata tagħhom għall-fidi nisranija mill-missjunarji, u miċ-ċaħda tal-kultura tagħhom. Illum m'għadekx issib xi istituzzjoni nisranija li għadha timxi b'dan il-mod, jew tistqarr li dan huwa tajjeb li jsir.
Jgħidulna li wieħed ma jridx jiġġudika l-aġir fil-passat skont l-għarfien kulturali u soċjali ta' llum. Ngħid jien, mela t-tagħlim tal-Knisja, ibbażati fuq il-Vanġelu ta' Kristu, mhumiex biżżejjed bħala gwida morali? Jidher ċar, għalija, li mhux biżżejjed, le!
Għalija jidher ċar li dawn l-istituzzjonijiet insara, li rrid ngħid li jagħmlu xogħol utli ħafna fis-soċjetà, għandhom bżonn doża ta' realiżmu, trasparenza u skrutinju; għandhom bżonn jisimgħu l-għadab tal-imweġġgħin; u għandhom jaċċettaw ukoll il-ġudizzju morali tal-komunità li qed iservu. Ma għandhomx monopolju fuq il-valuri jew fuq il-verità.
Jien ikiddni ħafna l-mudell preżunt ta' tagħlim morali tal-Knisja, b'din tal-aħħar tiddeċiedi t-tagħlim li jiġi ppreżentat lill-insara li hu biss mistenni minnhom li jaċċettawh u jobduh, u min ma jagħmilx dan ikun midneb. Tweġġagħni din l-istampa ta' Knisja li taf kollox u tagħna l-Insara li huwa preżunt li nafu biss dak li għallmitna l-Knisja.
Turtani li matul is-snin, waqt il-quddiesa wieħed jista' biss jitkellem meta tinġibidlu l-ispaga u meta jmissu, u meta jasal il-waqt jista' biss jgħid dak li jaf bl-amment jew li jista' jaqra minn fuq l-iskrin jew mill-fuljett. Għalhekk ħadt ir-ruħ meta fil-knisja tal-parroċċa ta' Blacktown li nattendi jien, lejn l-aħħar tal-quddiesa, il-kappillan jistaqsi lil dawk preżenti jekk għandhomx xi ħaġa li trid tingħad. Din hija attitudni friska, miftuħa, anke rivoluzzjonarja. Sfortunatament ma rajtha ssir imkien iktar.
Naħseb drajtuni s'issa, m'iniex se noqgħod ninħeba wara subajja. Il-pożizzjoni tiegħi se nagħmilha ċara.
Jien fidil (nemmen f'Ġesù) imma mhux fidil (naċċetta jew nibla' kollox). Billi xi ħadd qiegħed f'pożizzjoni ta' awtorità fil-Knisja, jew jitkellem f'isem Ġesù, u dan jista' jkun il-Papa, dan ma jfissirx li awtomatikament se naċċetta li dak li qed jgħid, jew jagħmel, huwa ispirat. Alla l-imbierek għoġbu jtini moħħ, u determinat li se nużah, fl-isfond ta' valuri morali li rawwimt, ġew minn fejn ġew.
U int, fidil, jew fidil?
1https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/public-hearings/case-studies, retrieved 6/3/2016
2http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2016/03/03/george-pell-credit-church/, retrieved 6/3/2016
3http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2016/03/02/bishop-mulkearns-recalled-to-face-commission.html, retrieved 6/3/2016
4http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-03/george-pell-child-abuse-commission-paedophiles-coincidence/7216072, retrieved 6/3/2016
1https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/public-hearings/case-studies, retrieved 6/3/2016
2http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2016/03/03/george-pell-credit-church/, retrieved 6/3/2016
3http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2016/03/02/bishop-mulkearns-recalled-to-face-commission.html, retrieved 6/3/2016
4http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-03/george-pell-child-abuse-commission-paedophiles-coincidence/7216072, retrieved 6/3/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment