BishopAccountability.org
	The World around US By Howard Hodgson Malta Independent April 11, 2010 http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=104334 Sexual abuse of children is unforgivable but proof is essential Whatever else might be said about the Pope's visit to his loyal flock on the very Catholic island of Malta, I guess that he is happy to have it scheduled just now rather than a trip to Ireland or the US. There, genuine concern about the abuse of children under the care of priests and nuns from the 1950s to 1990s is rampant. More importantly, the alleged cover up and the potential involvement of the Pontiff is causing the Roman Catholic Church its biggest crisis for centuries. In addition, he cannot view his forthcoming visit to the UK with much confidence either, given the extent of world outrage and the British traditional scepticism towards the Roman faith, based mainly on the politics of the 16th and 17th centuries, starting with a king's desire to divorce his queen rather than any ideological difference. Naturally, a lot has been written about the apparent sexual abuse and beatings of infants placed in the hands of men and women whose faith in serving Jesus was not strong enough to overcome the sexual fantasy of some gay priests or the sexual frustration of some cruel nuns. A lot of this may be true. We should wait and hear the evidence fairly. However, it is almost equally certain that if there is a sniff of compensation there will be a lot of people who will also want to make false accusations and jump on the bandwagon in order to claim the cash. I was educated at a British Anglican preparatory school in the late 1950s and early 1960s. From the age of eight until 13 I was regularly beaten – on the odd occasion drawing blood. I was not nearly as wicked as many kids on an average British housing estate of today, but I was mischievous and I deserved it. It did me no harm. It taught me a sense of right from wrong and how I might grow up as a credit to the then final days of the Great British Empire. We should remember the discipline of this era and therefore not brand every nun or priest as a sexual deviant because they disciplined children with some form of corporal punishment that was widely accepted then as both quite common and proper. However, that said, the Roman Catholic Church would be well advised to remember that the sexual abuse of any child of whichever sex and by whichever member is wholly unacceptable and its cover up, for the sake of personal or secular interests, is utterly wicked and not only a betrayal of their loyal flock but also of the teachings and memory of Jesus Christ. The Church of Rome has got to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff and put goodness above power. I'm afraid that history indicates that it won't. Perhaps it's time for a second coming? Do all roads lead to Rome You will recall that, in 2005, Her Majesty the Queen visited Malta. We all had to suffer the disruption of any roadon which she was to travel being ripped up and re-laid. We all thought at the time: "Oh well, we have only just joined the EU and we did so to get the roads sorted out." The years have flown by and the roads have remained among the worst anywhere in Europe or often much further afield. But now the Pope is here and, guess what? Yep, you're right – all the roads on which the Pontiff will travel have been ripped up and re-laid, cheaply and in a fashion that will not last, just for him to ride well and therefore not think badly of the Maltese government. Neither the Queen nor the Pope pays Maltese tax. We do. Isn't this a bit of an insult to us? And isn't the government behaving a little like a third rate African state, trying to hide how poor its infrastructure really is from the outside world while ignoring the needs of the people? Why can't historians get history right? I have, for a long time, been bothered by Hollywood re-writing history in order to sell more cinema tickets in the US. The filmmakers obviously believe, perhaps rightly, that American self-esteem is so fragile, and levels of ignorance so high, that 'true stories' of heroics, usually by the British, have to be attributed to American forces in order for the film to be a hit. This may be commercially sound, but it is very dangerous because entertaining films reach millions more than do historical books or documentaries and so world history becomes contaminated with falsehoods. As a result, it is essential that historians get their facts right in order to defend the truth, and this should be their priority above expressing their opinion or pushing their own political propaganda. However, this is not always the case. The truly great British Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, often allowed his personal opinions to overshadow the facts in his historical books and has therefore played his part in colouring the characters of history according to his liking rather than the facts. Queen Elizabeth I became a major beneficiary of this tendency. I am currently spending my Easter, as usual, in the magnificent Reid's Palace Hotel in Madeira – where Churchill was often a guest. Also as usual, I have a clutch of historical books with me. One, by the American author Carolly Erickson, is entitled Brief Lives of English Monarchs. The front cover boasts: "Erickson is one of the most accomplished and successful historical biographers writing in English" – Times Literary Supplement. The back cover contains more equally high praise. Upon inspection, such praise appears to be somewhat unwarranted. For example, Ms Erickson describes Charles II as the firstborn of King Charles I and Queen Henrietta Maria. In fact, he was born on 29 May 1630 – almost a year after their first child, Charles James, had been delivered and died. This is but one example of such inaccuracies. However, worse follows, when she allows her admiration for the deeply flawed Princess Diana to cause her to describe Prince Charles's life as "hollow and generally useless". Has this ignorant woman, typing away in Hawaii, failed to grasp the fact that His Royal Highness has spent the last 30 years building perhaps the world's most successful voluntary public service charity – The Prince's Trust? Does she not know that Prince Charles has done more good for the under-privileged youth in British society than any politician in the last century and probably beyond? Was it ignorance or a determination to allow her opinion to cloud the truth that caused this inaccuracy? Look love, if you are going to be so unconcerned about the truth, why don't you become a Hollywood scriptwriter instead and leave writing history to people who really care about recording it accurately? French politics is becoming increasingly like a bad soap opera! Rachida Dati, the former French cabinet minister, reportedly lost her limousine and bodyguards after being blamed by President Nicholas Sarkozy for spreading rumours about the state of his marriage to ex-model and part-time crooner Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. Did the Cuban-heeled little dwarf president have a previous affair with ex-Justice Minister Dati as some newspapers report? Who fathered her child? Did she falsify her legal degree? Did Carla really say to Rachida while showing her the Presidential bed: "Pity you never made it to here"? Will more photo-graphs of a naked Carla fall into Rachida's hands? Is the President's wife really dating a French pop star called Benjamin Biolay? Is the dwarf himself having an affair with Ms Chantal Jouanno, the ecology minister or even a midget woman who ran away from the harem of the murderous Russian dwarf Putin? For answers to these and other important questions about the state of French politics tune in to the next episode of Elyse Dynasty. Will the British public rid themselves of the one-eyed monster? By the time you read my next dispatch the British will have voted in a general election. Will they elect Mr Cameron and his Conservative Party or will they return Mr Brown and the Labour Party? Cameron and his crew are largely an unknown quantity. On the other hand, Brown's government is well known, because he, and before him Tony Blair, have held power these last 13 years and their achievements are clear for everyone to see. Brown, as Chancellor and then Prime Minister, has destroyed the healthy British economy he inherited and allowed the social life of Britain to become so ill that some think it is terminal, as the British now top just about every despicable social league table in the EU. In addition, it has wasted billions of pounds on ensuring that all public services became nightmares of Stalinist bureaucratic central control – hideously inefficient and more concerned about hitting government-set targets than delivering public service. However, the Brown government's incompetency is bettered by its corruption, lies, deceit, dirty tricks and obsession with spin. Its willingness to misuse taxpayers' money, bully civil servants and ignore the correct functions of Parliament has served this once great and respected nation very poorly indeed. The present Labour government is the worst of any party for hundreds of years. If Britain is to be saved and eventually restored to a position of some form of Christian morality and self-esteem, then this government will have to be defeated at the ballot box. Will Mr Cameron be successful if given a chance? I can't promise you that – only time will tell. However, I can promise you that he couldn't possibly be as bad, in every sense of the word, as Mr Brown. The next Prime Minister's name will either start with a 'B' or a 'C'. A vote for anyone one else is a wasted vote. The British nation's fate will be known within a month and in a democracy the people will get the government they deserve. Therefore, if the next Prime Minister is again the one-eyed monster let us not feel sorry for them, for they will have re- elected him.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.