A few people who read the blog have commented to me that despite often mentioning the fact that I'm a Roman Catholic, I've not written a single line about Peadophile priests or the abuse in Ireland. They've asked if I have a policy of ignoring the failings of the church, some have suggested darker motives. First, I'll explain why I mention I'm a Catholic, albiet a rather unholy one. I think that it's important to state interests if we have one. If I write about football, I say I support Manchester City. That way any United fans understand any bias. If I write about politics, I state I'm a Labour member, albiet a very lazy & inactive one. If I write about morality, I think it's only fair to say that I belong to a faith. Sometimes my views clash with those of the church (eg Birth control). It may on occasion open me to charges of hypocricy, where people say "How can you support the church if....". If I didn't state my interest, then you the reader would be unaware and that would be dishonest. In my eyes, that is worse.
Which takes us on to the issue of Peadophile priests. I've met good priests & I've met bad priests. The best ones have been inspirational, the worst - anything but. The one thing I've not had personal experience of are sexual advances from one. As such it is not an issue that has touched me personally. On top of that, some of the priests I've met have been extremely positive influences. As such, I've felt that putting the boot into the priesthood would not be fair or constructive, given that I believe that the bad ones are a tiny minority.
Having read some of the recent coverage of the situation in Ireland, I've come to realise that there is something seriously wrong with the institution of the Catholic Church. Whilst around the globe, individual priests are doing great work, the powers that be have systematically covered up endemic child abuse. Priests who should be in prison, have been moved from parish to parish. The church has used it's moral authority to silence parents. Abused children have been made to feel "responsible" for the dreadful abuse and have been permenantly damaged. As details emerge in Ireland, it has reached a point where it could destroy the church. The comments of bishops has displayed a terrible, head in the sand approach. There can be only one approach which will regain the confidence of the congregation. The files must be opened, the abusers must go to prison. Those who conspired in the cover up must be prosecuted. The church is unique in having the means to accomodate these paedophiles when they are realeased from prison. They should be sent to remote, sealed monastries, with big warning signs saying Paedpohile priest home. There they can while away their lives praying for gods forgiveness, on humdrum diets. Just to be completely clear about this, they'd be sent there after their release. Preferrably these monastries should be on remote islands, with no internet access. I'd not be unhappy for non priest paedophiles to join them. If they are truly sorry for their sins, they'd accept this without complaint. If the church did this, then maybe they would eventually recover the trust of the congregation. I was struck reading this by the words of a friend of mine who used to be the governor of the Maze prison during the troubles. I asked him about his view of Paedophiles and whether they could be reformed. His words were "In my experience, they only stop abusing when they are physically incapable of it or when they die".
Reading this coverage, I realised how much there was in common with the scandal regarding MP's expenses. Again, there are some MP's who do a great job and do not abuse the expenses. There are probably many MP's named in the Telegraph, who never dreamed before they entered Parliament that they'd behave like this. The reason they got embroiled was because they thought that there would never be any public scrutiny of their claims. A culture sprung up where the worst that could happen was that they'd get their claim knocked back. As such, many people were corrupted and encouraged in bad behaviour. They felt as if they were untouchable. Like the priesthood, they were wrong. Like the priesthood, they have lost public trust. Like the priesthood, radical measures are required to regain the trust of the public.
This leads us back to Barnet. As discussed above, the problems with priests and MP's have come about because matters were hushed up, discussed in private. Deals were done, problems coveredup. Where did it end up? In ruins. At Barnet Council, there have been repeated financial problems. These did not start under Mike Freer's regime. When Mike was in opposition, he was a keen advocate of scrutiny. Mike was a deadly inquisitor. Alison Moore, the leader of the Labour group once told me that being on the end of a Mike Freer inquisition was the most unpleasant moment of her political career. She admitted Mike Freer was a great opposition councillor. Her comments reminded me of John Prescott MP. In opposition, he was a fearsome opponent. If a train crashed, he'd turn up in his hard hat, berating the government. When it came to running the show, a different set of skills were required.
If you want good clean administration, you need open access to documents and good scrutiny. The best people to do this in the political arena are the opposition. Deals made behind closed doors, unminuted, undocumented and unscrutinised are bound to be flawed. In Barnet Council chambre, whilst discussing the Iceland debacle, the Lib Dems asked for the minutes of the meetings between council officials and Mike Freer, then head of the resource committee. Were these forthcoming? In fact the Lib Dems were criticsed by the Conservatives for putting pressure on council officers. As a result, the scrutiny committee and the people who pay taxes, ie us, are still unaware of how and why decisions are made.
As with the paedophile priests in Ireland and the MP's expenses, why are any of these decisions not being exposed to public scrutiny. This is the only way to ensure public confidence in the process. There is no earthly reason why the taxpayer shouldn't know why the Council decided to invest money in a certain way. I suspect that if councillors and officials knew that their decisions would be open to public examination, they'd be a bit more careful.
One thought for our Conservative councillors - where was "Freedom of Information" pioneered? In the worlds most successful economy - the USA.
Rog
ReplyDeleteCover-ups are never acceptable in any shape or form. If you know something is wrong, you should say so and try to do something about it, whatever the risk to your own position.
It is bad enough when politicians try to hide details of their own financial wrongdoing. The scandal in the Priesthood is many times worse because lives are ruined emotionally and sometimes physically.
The real question is, how do people get away with such wrongdoing for so long? How does this culture of secrecy prevail?
The simple is answer is a lack of accountability and transparency. Too many people in the decision making process are unelected and are legally permitted to carry out their business in private. This culture has to come to an end.
In America, they have elections for just about every public position going. The people who hold those positions have to make themselves available for intense scrutiny, and democracy is the better for it. During the Presidential election campaign last year, Obama and McCain both published their tax returns on line for everyone to see. Can you imagine that happening here?
We don’t question our leaders enough. In many instances, the mechanics to be able to question them doesn’t exist. But if religious and political leaders knew that everything they ever said or did would be available for public debate and scrutiny, then there would be far fewer scandals.
In simple terms, just look at what happens in Barnet. Or rather, doesn’t happen. The council does not allow recordings to be made of public meetings. Some forward thinking councils actually broadcast their meetings live on the internet. But in Barnet, the mushroom principle applies, very few people get to see and hear what goes on and that is why £27.4 million of our money is now at risk. And the person in charge thinks he should be an MP. It is shameful.
David,
ReplyDeleteThree different scenarios, one common factor. I believe that with scrutiny, we'd get the right sort of people in public life and better decisionmaking.
Bad administrators would get found out. To those who say that it wouldn't work, compare the performance of the USA vs UK over last 40 years.
I am an ex-Christian Brothers boy and I can tell you that there was plenty of corporal punishment dished out for the flimsiest of reasons. I grew up in the 1970s in Ireland and by that time the very worst excesses of corporal punishment were eliminated.
ReplyDeleteI was beaten in school in 1975 for loudly snorting with derision when my class teacher described General Franco as a "benign dictator" - having precociously read Time magazine's obituary I obviously did not agree!
Apart from that I managed to avoid getting belted in school but I did witness a lot of violence towards boys in my classroom. Most of our teachers weren't brothers and it has to be said the worst sadists were the lay teachers.
We accepted the physical punishments at the time because it was seen as normal. My parents witnessed far worse in the 1940s.
My mother was beaten by a Presentation Nun in school - to which my Grandfather reacted by going down to the Convent and ordering the Mother Superior to speak to him about it. Whatever was said resulted in my mother never being touched again.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteYou raise a good point. I was caned at Finchley Catholic High Scool on several occasions. Each time I was badly bruised, but I just accepted it. I didn't question it until I lived in Stockholm, where such practises had been abolished years before. Many teachers had their own little trademark "tricks" - pulling hair, throwing blackboard dusters, etc.
When I moved to Orange Hill school, a different ethos was order of the day. As a result the school was, shall we say, calmer with less violence & bullying (although the presence of girls helped).
Whilst the issue of paedophile abuse is clearly wrong, the issue of corporal punishment is one I've struggled to make my mind up over. I have come to the conclusion that in the classroom, it attracts sadist & encourages an atmosphere of violence. As such, I cannot ever support it.
I will say this though. The Swedish abolished it by re-educating & retraining teachers in strategies to deal with situatios where violence had previously been used. We just said "you can't hit the kids". As a result we suffered a loss of discipline which never happened in Stockholm.