A sad tale of irresponsible journalism and a cowardly church

To add insult to injury, O'Shea wrote a piece for the West (Sept 18^th) informing us that "Priest pulls pin on top job." He sticks to his story that "Boy Seamen" is an off-colour joke by Nicholas even though I have written to the editor informing him of the intended slur and of information feely available on the web. This is corrupt journalism and O'Shea should be sacked for deliberately ignoring the truth for his and the paper's own ends. This is how civilizations decline. It will be now very hard to for us to attract a person to take up the role of dean because that person will know that the West will use all of its dirty tricks to bring down another tall poppy.

The other side of this story is that of the church. Since the exposure of sexual abuse in many institutions that deal with children, it is entirely reasonable to demand transparency and the duty to report. I wonder whether the church is so nervous about being caught out in this regard as to be jumping at shadows and unable to defend itself. Or, has the church built a bureaucracy that blindly follows up on all complaints, no matter what their veracity, thinking that if the left-hand does not know what the right-hand is doing it will be saved from bias?

However, there is in the statutes of the Professional Standards Ordinance a provision that allows for complaints to be dismissed: "The PSC may dismiss certain complaints if: (e) the PSC is of the opinion that the complaint is false, vexatious, misconceived, frivolous or lacking in substance" In the case of the new Dean, it should have been clear at the very first that the complaint had no basis. It could have been dismissed with five minutes investigation on the web and exposed for what it was; a deliberate and baseless smear. The question arises as to why the complaint was not quickly hosed down so that the prospective Dean felt no pressure to resign his acceptance?

Of course, the church is embarrassed about child sexual abuse perpetrated by its clergy and we repent about turning a blind eye. However, there is nothing intrinsic about the church that enabled it. We, as well as other organizations that deal with children, were preyed upon but duplicitous men who were skilled at covering their tracks. The church has gone to great lengths to safeguard the children in its care, but we cannot give a guarantee that it will never happen again because of the cunning nature of the abusers. Having said that, the church should not tremble at any manufactured whiff of sexual abuse but robustly stand up for the truth and protect its members and clergy from slander. If we do not do this we will remain an easy target that is expected to lay down and take it all because it is thought we have a guilty conscience.