He would not dress in clothes such as those worn
by the cardinals who gathered in Rome after the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and during the process to select the new Pope.
The long dresses, red caps and fancy shoes are
designed to impress observers and let them know where the power lies.
This style of clothing shows a Church clinging to the trappings of power
despite the power abuses and criminality exposed over the past few
decades.
Irish media coverage of events at the Vatican
in recent weeks has been unbelievably deferential. Viewers and
listeners have been subjected to hours of news coverage and
commentators’ opinions, with little or no reference by anyone to
individuals in the Church’s criminal history.
Have people forgotten about the crimes
perpetrated against children about which Benedict XVI and other Popes
did nothing useful?
The report of the
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (
The Ryan Report
) 2009
devoted nine chapters to the abuses and crimes committed in Irish institutions.
“The harshness of the regime was inculcated
into the culture . . . by successive generations of Brothers, priests
and nuns. It was systemic and not the result of individual breaches . .
.”
Sexual abuse, ranging from molestation and
masturbation, to rape, “was endemic . . . and was managed in a way that
protected the perpetrator”.
lthough the recidivist nature of sexual
abuse was known to religious authorities, “the danger to children was
not taken into account”.
The Commission of Investigation (
The Murphy Report
) 2009
devoted almost 500 pages to the way allegations of abuse by priests were dealt with by the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.
The report concluded that “child sexual abuse was widespread throughout the period under review” 1975-2004 .
Covered up
The Commission had no doubt clerical sex abuse was covered up and did not accept the Church authorities’ claims that they were on a “learning curve” or were ignorant about the effects of child abuse.
“There is a 2,000-year history of Biblical,
Papal and Holy See statements showing awareness of clerical child sex
abuse.” The Church’s preoccupations in dealing with cases of child abuse
were “the maintenance of secrecy . . . the protection of the reputation
of the Church, and the preservation of its assets”.
The 2010 report of the Commission of Investigation into the
Catholic Diocese of Cloyne
examined allegations of abuse by priests between 1996 and
2009, after the Church put in place procedures, known as The Framework
Document, to deal with allegations of child abuse.
“The principal
feature of this report can be simply expressed . . . The Diocese of
Cloyne did not implement these procedures for over 12 years.”
The
Vatican’s response to The Framework Document was “unsupportive”,
particularly in relation to reporting to the civil authorities.
Many people think the Catholic Church is now dealing appropriately with child abuse.
This is partly true.
New procedures
However, the new procedures,
Safeguarding Children: Standards and Guidance Document for the Catholic Church in Ireland (2009), make no recommendations as to how the power imbalance, which
is the root of the problem, within and between nuns and clergy, and men,
women and children might be addressed.
Standard 3: Prevention, does not
say how to bring about a power-sharing culture.
Physical and sexual abuses of all kinds happen
because of abuse of power and for no other reason. Anywhere there is an
imbalance of power, there is abuse.
When people accept this simple fact
there can be no surprises about any organisation that facilitates and
covers up these crimes.
The massive abuse of power that occurred at
every level within the Catholic Church is no different to other power
abuses such as the case of Jimmy Savile and the BBC.
Children will never
be safe from physical and sexual abuse until power is shared equally.
This can be demonstrated by symbols of power such as a dress code.
When
cardinals and bishops start wearing ordinary clothes I will believe the
Catholic Church has changed.