So often the papal “we” sounds ponderous and pompous. It has its merits it seems. The Pope's Australia apology for the sexual abuse of children by clergy hardly employed that term. In the texts I read it was almost always “I”. Almost.

A quick check on several other texts/quotes from Australia confirmed that he seems to have dropped the editorial/Papal we generally. The more personal approach seems to be to his credit and certainly more listenable for younger people, more 'authentic' for us older folk. In this instance though, I wonder if it really implied a different message.

In the arena of papal authoritative statement, public relations and media savvy, it seems that every word, every phrase is purposeful. The interviews reported in the lead up to his Australia visit had his spokesmen imply meaning and intentions and subtelties in his choice of words. So, I wonder whether the use of “I” rather than ''we”("...as their pastor, I share in their suffering") or even the use of “we” implies that his apology and his deep sensitivity to the harm to victims, the evil of the perpetrators is a personal statement and a studied avoidance of responsibility and accountability by the institution, papal, hierarchical, administrative.

With this minor 'jaundice' I read his statement for its subtleties. “I would like to pause to acknowledge the shame which we have all felt as a result of the sexual abuse of minors by some clergy and religious in this country.” Allen quotes. He goes on: “I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops, and to work together with them in combating this evil”. While he does say that “those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice”, he seems to have succinctly, absolved himself and “your bishops” from being among “those responsible” and situated them within the category of “we” who have been astonished and scandalized by the actions of “some clergy and religious...”

How really can I work together with my “bishops” when that bishop is as much, and in reality more responsible and accountable than the sick, perverted person who engaged in the acts? How can I cooperate with my bishops in confounding, confusing, denying and obfuscating the individual moral and legal culpability, the systematic and systemic roots in the system, and the culpability and accountability of members of the hierarchy who knowingly facilitated , tolerated, denied, turned a blind or not so blind eye, harrassed victims, etc., etc,? How can I cooperate with my bishops, if my essential role is to listen, accept and obey?

Murphy is right: if something bad can happen, it will. The liklihood of abusive behaviour being absolutely eliminated is unlikely. But, we must respond and act as if it can, will. Let's face it, real healing will not even begin unless and until, “our pastors” adequately and appropriately demonstrate acknowledgement of, who and how responsibility and accountability, and indeed change, meet the high standard of law, the credibility of the ordinary person, the needs of victims and the virtues which the message of Christ deserves and which these same pastors expect of us. We are not even close.

July 20, 2008