Steve Shaw says: I'm uncomfortable with the concept of big financial compensation for this kind of crime. If you're injured by a crime and can't work, or if you lose your money or property, that's different. Of course, there are mental as well physical injuries and it isn't possible to be black and white about it. But I'd hate to think that the prospect of a huge payout would be the main enticement to claim abuse. I also think that the prospect of having to pay out vast sums to many victims would be an enticement to cover up. I can see vast compensation prospects getting in the way of justice and closure.

I think maybe we're getting somewhere. I've been trying to say the same thing, but Steve said it better. I think that if Steve and I were to sit down and talk this out, I might suggest that compensation should be more generous that what Steve proposes.

I do not deny that priests and nuns committed crimes of both sexual and physical abuse - and the crime of obstruction of justice by covering up those crimes. I am appalled by those crimes.

But I've dealt with crime all my life, and I've learned to take a rational, constructive, methodical approach to it. I've also seen how the public naturally respond to crime, and it isn't very rational. When crime happens, we all have the tendency to place blame - and the tendency is to place the blame on all the members of a certain group. My town is in an absolute frenzy about homeless people, and there is a loud, frightened mob of people who blame homeless people for everything bad that happens - as if the mere fact of not having a home makes a person a criminal. And yes, there are a lot of crimes committed in our town by people who are homeless. The vast majority of crime is committed by people who do have homes, but people tend to ignore that. When we place blame, we humans do our best to place the blame on people who are "other," who have nothing in common with us.

So, if we are going to deal with crime rationally, we have to put aside our irrational responses and plan a measured approach that is targeted on the actual sources of crime. And that's all I'm asking for.

And part of this approach, is to take a very realistic view of the structure of the Catholic Church, and target those portions of the church that contributed to the crime and the coverups. We don't want to hear it, but the sources of crime that most affected us, are often very close to us.

Until very recently, there were Sisters of Mercy motherhouses scattered all over Ireland - and each one was independent. Some were very good, and some were seething with harshness and anger. The motherhouse at Kinsale had a particular reputation for harshness, and that motherhouse operated a huge industrial school up on the bluff above the harbor of Kinsale. That motherhouse was one of the first to be closed. But that harshness didn't happen everywhere. I visited the motherhouse at Tralee several years ago, and it was a friendly place - the women there were wise, honest, and happy. But the nuns died off, and the Tralee motherhouse closed last year. Each motherhouse controlled a network so schools and convents and other institutions. In some situations, the sisters owned and operated the institutions, and they worked in the employ of other institutions that were operated by outside authorities. But each motherhouse had a spirit of its own, and that spirit tended to be pervasive among all the nuns who belonged to that particular province. If the spirit of the motherhouse was harsh, there would still be a few strong women who could resist that harshness and carry on in a constructive manner - but it was very tough for them. If the spirit of the motherhouse was positive and generous, then it was easy for most of then nuns to be constructive - but there would still be a few troublesome nuns in every province, even the good ones. It's the "tipping point" rule - a small force for good or evil can have a remarkably powerful effect on a large group of people.

But there aren't many nuns left, and most of the motherhouses have closed or could no longer afford to operate independently in recent years. So, the Sisters of Mercy have consolidated, and the power structure has changed radically. I think we have five independent regions of the Sisters of Mercy, consolidated from dozens of motherhouses in about 2005. They will all be consolidated into one Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas in about 2020. By then, the primary function of the Sisters of Mercy, will be to operate nursing homes for their own members. By then, the average age of nuns in English-speaking countries will be about 80.

But I digress. My point is that each motherhouse of the Sisters of Mercy was an independent power center. Some were managed in a very positive way; and some were harsh communities of angry, unhappy women. All of the provinces had members who abused children, but only a few provinces were responsible for the worst of the crimes - but "a few provinces" is still many hundreds of women. The Irish Christian Brothers had particularly widespread problems, and some of their provinces had to file bankruptcy. For the most part, the problems in each province of each religious order happened independently - but in a parallel fashion, because the causative factors were very similar. And to a great extent, members of religious orders belonged to provinces where they came from, and they lived their lives in the area where they were born. And if they committed crimes, they committed them not far from where they were born.

The people who committed the crimes, were people who were known locally. They were not sent to the victims from outside powers. Rome had very little to do with sex crimes that were committed in local institutions. The crimes were committed locally, and the criminals lived locally. Blaming a faraway entity will not get to the root of the problem.

Wish I had time to write more.



-Joe-