There is a bit of a storm brewing at the moment in Ireland with regard to the forthcoming report on Child abuse in the diocese of Raphoe. The Church's own investigative organisation and the HSE are due to release their findings into the way the diocese dealt with accusations.
A report in the Irish Independent claims that the reports will reveal that hundreds of children were abused by priests. The bishop of Raphoe, Dr Philip Boyce has refuted the newspaper's claims as exaggerated, and, as expected, he is being condemned from the heights by the usual suspects who have now suddenly rediscovered their voices after their temporary bout of chronic laryngitis around the time of the revelations about Senator David Norris. Reading some reactions to his intervention I see one person dismisses the bishop and tells us that the Church is constantly trying to hide the truth. Interesting.....
I do not know what is in the reports, we will have to wait and see. If Bishop Boyce is incorrect and hundreds were abused he has certainly made himself a hostage to fortune, but then he could also be correct. We cannot, however, presume he is lying. The question of truth, however, is very topical. But I would like to ask of our liberal secularists and anti-Church critics what they mean by truth? As Pilate said to the Lord: "Truth? What is that?"
I ask this because it is almost certain that their definition of truth is not that which is found in the Oxford English Dictionary which is the definition the Church tends to go along with. You see if it was then the secular media would not be making a distinction between child abuse by priests and child abuse by others. If it was then the celebrity would get the same grilling as the priest and those who protect abusers regardless of who they are or their sexual orientation would all be treated the same. But that is not the way it seems. If you are a celebrity, a liberal or gay there is another set of rules for you, there are lots and lots of excuses which will be offered for your behaviour, or if they can't come up with any, then they just won't cover the story and try to kill it.
In response to this I have other questions: what about the victims? Is the victim of a non-clerical abuser somehow less important? Is their pain and suffering not enough to spark a rage? I try to imagine (though to be honest I cannot because it has not happened to me and I dare not presume to undermine their suffering by pretending to understand) how these victims feel when the media excuse or cover up their abusers or even defend them? Or when they interview these abusers with the deepest respect and understanding and treat them as if they were the victims of right-wing conservatives? How do these victims feel when their abusers court national sympathy as "victims of homophobia" and those who protect them are considered fit to hold the highest office in the land?
It seems to me that, for all their pontificating about the Catholic Church and truth, the liberal secularists and Irish media need to listen to their own diatribe and implement it themselves. In this sordid affair of child abuse, truth is the last thing they are interested in.
In relation to this, this is a deeply disturbing story emerging from Hollywood with regard to paedophilia. Corey Feldman, a former child star, has spoken about the prevalence of paedophilia in the film industry and seems to suggest that the tragic suicide of fellow actor Corey Haim was related to his being abused by people in the industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment