I am interested that my little blog has attracted some attention in the last few days from unexpected quarters. In particular the entry of November 30 about the possibility of Bp Ross Davies being compensated by the Diocese of the Murray, in order to facilitate his early retirement.
I made the comment then, and I stand by it, that it would be unfortunate if the Church were to be seen to compensate one of its prelates, in a way that it has clearly not been able or seen fit to compensate some of its victims...or rather the victims of some perpetrators of abuse..
One telephone call a few days ago, made the point, with which I do not concur that one of the publicly named clergy was being hard done by. That remains to be seen.
He nevertheless commended me for the point I was making about the injustice, perhaps even immorality, of the institution doling out largess to the Bishop in order to get him to go away.
A commentator today criticised me for suggesting that one of the perpetrators may be being prejudged. I steadfastly deny that I am referring to any case in particular, but I suspect that the commentator may well be closely associated with said person. I have no way of knowing for certain.
But, indeed, my sympathy goes out to those who have to deal with the mess that other people have made.
I am just intrigued that obviously my comments do not go unnoticed.
But let not our personal involvements stop us from seeing that these processes need to be done decently and in order.
I reassert that the church must state uncategorically that the welfare of those who have been betrayed by so-called pastors must be our highest concern, the institution must take second place to those who have been so brutally wounded. If we don't get this right then we may as well shut up shop!