It was decided
The Vatican has tossed out one of the two abuse survivors on its commission for the protection of children.
UK child sex abuse lobbyist Peter Saunders, who was given a “leave of absence” from his role in the Holy See’s Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, has said that the “Vatican system” seems “essentially corrupt and unwilling to do the right thing”.
After a commission meeting on Saturday, the Holy See announced “it was decided” that Mr Saunders would take a leave of absence in order to “consider how he might best support the commission’s work”.
Ah that agent-free passive voice. “It was decided” – by whom, exactly? God? The EU? The combined will of humanity? And that butler-like circumlocution – a leave of absence to think hard about how he can be more obedient to the church, is what they mean. Why else would he be singled out for a “leave of absence” i.e. a suspension?
According to Vatican sources, this was prompted by concern among members that Mr Saunders had a conflict-of-interest created by his dual role as a campaigner with the UK child sex abuse lobby Napac and as a policy consultant on the Vatican commission.
Ahhhhhh yes. You know who else has a conflict of interest here? The Vatican. The whole entire Vatican, which has an interest in convincing the world that there was no child abuse and that the Vatican never turned a blind eye to that non-existent child abuse and that the Vatican never concealed that non-existent child abuse and never protected the priests who perpetrated it.
So yeah. Take a leave of absence yourselves why don’t you. Disband. Break up. Go away. Stop telling the whole world what to do. You’re a mafia wrapped in a cloak of goddy respectability. It’s a racket, and you should take an extended leave of absence to think about it, one lasting ten or twenty centuries.
Last week Saunders dared to criticize the pope for not attending the meetings to answer questions, when he’d said he would. Shock-horror among the assembled bishops.
He also criticised the pope’s appointment last summer of controversial Chilean bishop Juan Barros to the Diocese of Osorno. Bishop Barros has been accused of covering up the sex abuse crimes of Fr Fernando Karadima, a Chilean priest.
Yes but he’s Pope Frankie, he has a nice smile, he lives in a little guesthouse instead of the Vatican best bedroom, he drives around in a small car.
Speaking to The Irish Times on Sunday, Mr Saunders said he was “shell-shocked” and disappointed at the manner in which the “inquisition” had expressed a vote of no confidence in him.
As far as he is concerned, he has not taken a leave of absence, while he says the only person who can sack him is Pope Francis.
So “the Holy See” told a big fat lie. Imagine my astonishment.
On Sunday, Vatican spokesman Greg Burke confirmed that Mr Saunders was now on a leave of absence, adding that he had had problems with his fellow commission members.
His departure means Irish survivor Marie Collins is now the only sex abuse victim serving on the 17-member commission, which includes eight women. She confirmed to The Irish Times that commission members had been dismayed by Mr Saunders’s critical remarks, often made to the media and not to the commission itself.
Wow. That really takes the biscuit. Saunders is a survivor of the abuse dished out and concealed by the church, and members of the church commission are “dismayed” by his failure to be deferential enough.
At least it’s a holy meal biscuit?
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/1118641911487602/?type=3&theater
Sooooo the Catholic Church itself says that there is a conflict of interest between the CC and anti-paedophilia organisations. Can it get any more blatant than that? Unless they come clean and admit that the CC has a paedophilia problem, I guess.
HAH! I jest.
This is the exact reason why witnesses and other lines of evidence are called in during a trial: the defendant, if pleading not guilty, is always considered to have a conflict of interest when declaring themselves innocent. Otherwise, court truals would play out something like…
“On the charge of murder, how does the defendant plead?”
“He pleads not guilty, your honour.”
“Oh cool, I guess he’s innocent then. Charges dismissed.”