I told you not to be surprised

I think of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) as a faux church (some comments here and then again here )
I have commented more than once that I would like someone to challenge their use of the term "Anglican Communion" and indeed the word "Traditional" in juxtaposition.
There can only be one meaning of the expression Traditional Anglican Communion....and that is churches which see their roots in the Church of England and continue in Communion with that Church...and particularly as represented by its chief bishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Clearly the so called TAC (which may see its roots in the C of E) has severed its communion with Canterbury...the most traditional link with Anglicanism!
Any way, it's falling apart!
In the last couple of weeks a majority of TAC bishops have met and voted out their Primate (who happens to live within my parish boundaries) John Hepworth.
Mr Hepworth (as the Roman Catholic Church of which he was once a member seems intent on calling him) along with his long term amigo John Fleming (a former Anglican priest who became a Roman Catholic) who has had his own troubles of late (see here..and then have a Google....but currently tied up in the courts)....well they have always been intent on claiming credit for the so-called Anglican Ordinariate (see a tangled web here)
Finally....Hepworth has been deposed. Of course he claims that the majority of Bishops had no right to do it.
But I was interested to hear conservative Anglican commentator David Virtue the so-called and self-declared "Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism" at least admitted on ABC Radio that the outlandish claim that the TAC had 400,000 adherents worldwide was always fanciful. He exposes some other bizarre issues here in his account of Hepworth's deposition.
A great churchman once said to me about breakaway churches "Once they've broken away, it's only a matter of time before they split and split again!"  These words have been proved to be very prescient.

More remarkable

I am glad that the stuff about Xenophon and Hepworth is sort of petering out (see my original blog).
Alexander Downer would no doubt be bemused to find that I agree with him about anything, but writing in the Murdoch Press today he has a fairly measured analysis of the process and principles of the use of Parliamentary privilege to name individuals.
Perhaps one highlight of his article is detailing his drive in southern Cyprus and coming across the church of St Xenophon! It's easy for all of us to make barbed comments.
Reflecting on Sunday last on the need for Christians to reflect the generosity of God I said (perhaps tongue in cheek) to one of my parishioner-friends that I had been unusually generous during this week of confusing controversy about John Hepworth. I noted that in the first conversation I had with anyone about the sad state of affairs I had to say to a bunch of fairly aggro-people that we needed to remember that the first principle of abuse is that we presume the alleged victim is not making this up.
Now, I recognised that this required of me an openness to Hepworth that I may not always have had. He is a very difficult person to like if you are not on the same side. But that is probably not the point.
His appearances in the media have not been pleasant to watch and listen to, Julia Baird did a very skilful interview on on ABC radio's Sunday Profile last night....this can be heard here.

Racial slur

Everyone gets that no one "means" racial comments, and that they "should be put into context".

This week we have seen an iceberg-tip (I would suspect) of comments from three football figures

(see some of the ongoing debate here...Timana Tahu & Andrew Johns & Mal Brown here & here)

When we discount these sort of comments and say (as Brown said) that he apologised 'reservedly', and when other commentators note that such a person has "been a wonderful advocate" as St Kevin Sheedy did, sort of implying that he should therefore be allowed to be as red necked as he liked...we rather miss the point.

It is this discounting that is the problem.

When we say it is OK for some people to behave poorly because at times that they have behaved well we are also saying that the subject of their bad behaviour does not have sufficient importance.

For example:

"No one should make racist marks"...but if you've taught or trained aboriginal people then that's ok.

It is not only this area. We realise too if we were to say

"No one should sexually molest a person under 16"...but if that person is gay, or dresses provocatively, or has 'asked for it' then that's ok

In the end. The "advocates", the "Trainers and the teachers", the "parents", the "tole models"...and so we might go on...are the ones who particularly need to set the example.

sleight of hand

One of the ways the churches have tried to deal with offences by members of the clergy is by moving offenders away from the scene of the crime. It is a pretty draconian and certainly cynical strategy.
It assumes that the church can be saved embarrassment not by bringing offenders to (ecclesiastical) justice but by some sort of sleight of hand which moves offenders out of the public eye.
As a strategy it has worked quite well, from the church's point of view; those who have committed offence, say, in Melbourne might be moved to Perth where they were not known. And have begun again.
The only problem is that what often they have "begun again" is more of the same. The Church (and here I refer to the church of all persuasions, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Uniting Church...you name it) has discovered that they have granted forgiveness, moved people on but they have continued with their manipulation, exploitation and humiliation of individuals.
Even if they have not offended in the same sort of gross way this moving-people-on has denied those have been "sinned against more than sinning", the right to confront an accused and, as it were, have their day in court.
That the Churches still think they can do this sort of cheap sleight of hand is reprehensible. I suspect that in the next little while we shall hear of yet another priest who has been moved from one jurisdiction to another in the Roman Catholic Church. To what purpose?
I make no comment on said priest's guilt or innocence, though only months ago he was claiming he would cooperate fully with local enquiries, and now would appear to be moving himself outside the purview of the local scene.
It is astonishing that the Roman hierarchy would cooperate or encourage this sort of practice in the modern day.
If said priest has been found to be without fault then let that be declared, do not try to just shuffle him to another part of the pack in the hope that he will escape detection. He deserves nothing less than a declaration of his innocence if he is such.
His victims deserve nothing less than justice and compassion if he is not.

On not getting it!

One suspects that Rugby player and (former) media personality Matthew Johns is in for a rude shock today or soon in the wake of his 'apology' for participation in fairly aggressive group sex behaviour. He just doesn't get it
Last night on A Current Affair (ACA), I thought interviewer Tracey Grimshaw made a good attempt at asking the hard questions. Johns also did well at fending off some of the difficult ones.
When, for example, Grimshaw asked him whether or not a 19 year old girl who began what may have been "consensual sex" in a room with two men and ended up participating with considerably more than that, was subject to a power imbalance he just seemed to ignore it. Either he doesn't get it or he knows how to play the media. Perhaps both.
Increasingly as I have participated in more and more of this sort of education I have understood that sexual abuse is firstly about power, and only secondly about sex.
When Grimshaw used the expression 'sexual abuse', Johns steadfastly asserted he had not been involved in abuse. He just doesn't get it!
When you can use your status, physique, and charisma to influence the consent that others might give there is potential for abuse.
The footballer's wife, Trish Johns, looked tragic......one fears that her pain will not be easily resolved. He does get that no amount of apology will undo that woman's pain.
Whilst agreeing that the moment the woman's inappropriate consent to have sex with two men became something worse when others joined in, he was asked to identify the other participants. Out of seeming team loyalty he was obviously not going to name those persons. Even though, as it was pointed out, those other persons are possibly guilty of sexual assault and/or rape (since the woman did not consent to have sex with them). He just doesn't get it.
Former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Pru Goward, noted that the NRL should not condone Johns' refusal to pass apropriate evidence on to police (that may of course have been done).
There is of course the deeply disturbing issue that we may be witnessing damage control by the NRL and/or Channel 9. One suspects that the complainant will be already be being spoken to and great wads of cash are being waved at her.
Nor should we be satisfied to think that if the NRL deals with this then that solves the problem. It cannot be thought that this attitude towards women is confined to male sporting bastions.


(POST 999!!!!)

trouble afoot-on keeping one's nose clean

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!

A rock and a hard place

News that the embattled Bishop of the Murray, Ross Davies, is seeking $1 million in order to leave his job (The Sunday Mail..November 30) will come as no surprise. Though most will be horrified. It is a surprise (because it is news) but no surprise (because it is part of a litany of woes) that Archdeacon Michel Whiting has quit his post as Vicar General. One wonders why he took it in the first place.
I have a modicum of sympathy with the Bishop, he is after all slightly younger than myself and still has to think about proper provision for his family.Many would have thought that you just cut your losses and go back to being a parish priest, though I imagine he wants to join the Pope of Glenalta, who probably can't afford to pay him and Bp Ross most likely has no intention of staying in the Anglican Church.
Survivors of sexual abuse, none of whom I imagine has received $1 million, will be deeply hurt if the Church pays out that sort of money to one of its own, who some regard as part of the problem.