An atrocious scandal at a Benedictine abbey

[fpb]

I am not well disposed about charges against the Catholic Church. But what has come out from the Benedictine abbey of Ealing, west London, and its school, is so atrocious that I am firmly convinced that the whole abbey ought to be investigated as a criminal association. It is not just impossible, it is inconceivable, that abuse could have gone on

Comments

[sabethea]

I apologise for taking the tone of this down from world religion, but to put it in simpler terms - basically, it's like suing a millionaire Minister for Education because one teacher (or even one school) committed a crime. Because the Minister in question (hypothetically) happens to be astoundingly rich, and they can request he pays from his own pocket.

On the other hand - and again, I'm probably showing my ignorance - shouldn't one start from the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty', whether it be the Catholic Church, a single person, or an Abbey? So I'm not sure that Lord Carlisle's premise that the abbey itself was innocent until proven otherwise was necessarily wrong (if he was cheerfully ignoring evidence - quite possible - which proved this wasn't true, that's another matter). Again, I will lower the tone and talk about football: the controversial inclusion of John Terry in England's squad is because he has been accused (but it has not been proven) of racism. From what I've heard of the evidence, it seems hugely likely he's guilty - but my opinion is that he should be given the legal backing that the UK allegedly works by, which is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

I'm asking for information more than anything else, because I'm only going on what I've understood from what you've said (which again, may not bear any resemblance to what you've ACTUALLY said!).

[fpb]

Point one: yes, to a degree. The parallel with the Minister is good because the Minister can be assumed to be rule-setter and overseer for schools, but every school or administration - I suppose - would have its own budget and its own administration, correct?

About "innocent until proven guilty", you have to remember that the defining characteristic of a monastery is the common life. Most monks sleep in dormitories, and spend much of the day in each other's company. And as monks aren't stupid, and there are centuries of experience behind their rules of life, they are supposed to correct each other and, if there are problems, report any sign of incorrect attachments or pursuits. (You don't snitch first, but if you see that a problem carries on it is your duty to go to your superior.) Now, like GK Chesterton (another Catholic), "I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable." Tell me that the Devil manifested himself in the monastery, and I shall be agnostic. But tell me that a consistent pattern of criminal attachments and sex can have been carried on, over a matter of forty years, by at least eight different members of staff, monks and lay, in the cheek-by-jowl conditions of a monastery, WITHOUT ANY SUPERIOR NOTICING, LET ALONE INVESTIGATING, and I shall not be agnostic at all. It would take a much greater and more horrible miracle of evil than a physical manifestation of Satan to make such a thing happen unnoticed. And the fact that, in these circumstances, Lord Carlisle busied himself not in investigating criminal connections and covers, but in making recommendations to take the school away from the abbey, suggests to me that he had his agenda already written.

[sabethea]

Yes to point one.

And oh, I love your simile in point 2 and can understand it (Oh, Father Brown!). But would potentially suggest ignorance from Lord C. Which, to be honest, in certain circumstances can be as bad/worse as starting with an agenda (because for goodness sake, can't one RESEARCH the area one is looking in to?) because I might have started by thinking "innocent until proven guilty", but I would like to think that I'd have enough knowledge to KNOW I didn't know anything about the situation as a whole and then to try and GAIN that knowledge before moving further through things. So yes - I can argue that Lord C might just be ignorant, but that to stay ignorant in the circumstances (as far as you tell them to me, and I am trusting you because I am *not* in a position where I am required to look into the entire case as a whole: I fear I would take NO one person's explanation as 'true' if it were otherwise, which I'm sure you appreciate) is actually really no better than starting with an agenda.

[fpb]

Coming across this after a month, I find that I want to say a couple of things. First, that I entirely appreciate your position ("I trust your view, but I don't know enough to underwrite it other than in trust") and ask for nothing more. In fact, it would bother me to be quoted as Absolute Authority on this or most other matters, the exception being things that actually happened to me. The second is that, forcefully though I expressed my view that this Abbey had degenerated into a criminal association within the meaning of the term, it was still only my view, and if a properly conducted investigation and/or trial proves that it was otherwise, I would not reject its findings.