Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

David Eastwood: "Misogyny, racial discrimination and homophobia to name three are all belief systems that have lasted far longer than Christianity thus far."

And they are as likely to be found in a cyclist as a Catholic I suspect.

The point is, however, you can use such tendencies to slander the Catholic Church in ways that are shown to be patently absurd when you direct them against the International Cycling Union on the basis of similar evidence.

That some people cannot tell the difference between a logical conclusion and reductio ad absurdum is in itself revealing, though.

I assume others saw, as I did, Kevin Rudd's amazing performance as he milked the audience with his "talking in tongues" welcoming messages to the Pilgrims.

Hark back to our Roman Catholic former PM Paul Keating who kissed the ground when the last pontiff visited but his performance was nothing on Rudd's.

I see a new side to Rudd all the time – I reckon this guy has got a clever mind that can milk an opportunity whilst appearing to be still just a bespectacled slightly mild mannered PM.

If the Catholic population of Australia is around 35%, has Kevin secured their votes plus a whole lot more from other Christians ?.

I can't wait to actually view the PM in person and gauge his "charisma" factor which certainly doesn't come across in the media, but humbleness can be deceiving. I well remember the times I encountered Howard at some charity function or so – he really had so little presence – especially noticeable when he and Bob Hawke walked into a room together. Bob used to positively glow (perhaps it was something to do with that hair !) by comparison.

And the main thing that struck me was that both were actually the same height while Hawke had successfully portrayed Howard as "Little Johnnie".

It's no guide to the inner person of course but certainly an asset in these days of media driven election campaigns – as Peter Costello would find if the latest rumours were true.

Kathy, you're on a fool's errand to seek to engage with aggressive, socialist atheists. You're on a hiding to nothing. You'll be confronted with ridicule, bigotry, intolerance and mindnumbing ignorance.

In such circles it's not fashionable to be so grotesquely insulting to Muslims but as you'd surely be aware by now, it is entirely acceptable be to that way toward Christians and in particular the Catholic variety. It's a sot of pig-ignorant pick and choose affair based upon a shallow, bone-lazy view of the world. In one breath of course they'd maintain they embrace diversity but in the next breath, they'd dismiss the faith of hundreds of millions not in a nonchalant way but in an agressive, disparaging way.

They wouldn't do it toward Jews or Muslims and it's worth considering why. It gets back to that intellectually lazy, pull-string doll approach to life. Pull string, mention United States, get canned disparaging response. Pull string, mention Catholic Church get canned disparaging response.

Pull the string on Jews or Muslims and you'll get a more measured response from such types. It is also lazy, hackneyed and canned but it's ever so cautious and of course utterly fake and inconsistent.

Forget it, Kathy. There's no logic to it. There's no consistency. They just know what they hate. Let them hate it. It belittles you and it certainly belittles me to even engage with them. Surely you can see it is a waste of time.

This is aggressive bigotry and the bigot is like the hungry bear. Feed it and it just gets stronger. There is no respect for diversity. No tolerance. Simply bigotry and ridicule. The best thing to do is disengage. With minds that closed, any dialogue at all can only be a waste of time.

Marilyn Shepherd: "The cycling club, however, is still responsible for the cyclists and coaches."

It's been referred to His Most Holiness Lance Armstrong. May the pedal be with you.

Yep, there are still people named Jesus but you'll be hard pressed finding anyone named Adolf these days. The youngest Adolf I could Google was Adolf Ogi born in 1942. Fancy that: Hitler pretty well killed off a name.

Dylan Kissane: "Can you explain why you think an international organisation should apologise to a girl who alleges an incident took place between her and a cycling coach? "

Michael and Malcolm … I keep pointing towards Dr Jim Hopper’s site as a point of departure for informed discussion.  Here is more information about Dr Jim Hopper:

... a researcher and therapist with a doctorate (Ph.D.) in clinical psychology, and an Instructor in Psychology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. He has studied rates of child abuse and its potential long-term effects – initially psychological and behavioral effects in men, more recently effects on biology and regulation of emotions – as well as treatments to help people recover from child abuse. His research colleagues include Dr. Bessel van der Kolk and Dr. Roger Pitman, leaders in the field of psychological trauma; he is  a licensed clinical psychologist, and for for over 15 years he has been a therapist to men and women abused in childhood, providing individual and group treatment.

I haven't yet read the Harvard report, Anthony Nolan, but I will.

The images I see in the media of Ferguson are of a man being driven potty by constant attention. As he has served his sentence, I don't know how anyone can call for his permanent incarceration. If we start locking people up for what they may do in the future, it's a very sticky road to go down.

Ferguson is not the first to have received this almost unsolvable problem. There are four case I can think of in the past few years where the media have done their damage and, having milked the final drop out of the case, lay off (until perhaps a few years down the track when there is a quiet news day and they can seek out the offender and begin all over again).

Bear in mind, though, that the judge who dismissed the case also stated that, as Ferguson had been in jail on remand, any sentence he received would probably have already been served.

If you think the Queensland laws need changing that is your right, but you need to lobby politicians.

As for the Fosters, I don't know them so I can only imagine what they are going through. There are some facts, though – they did not accept the compensation offered (as others have) – they chose to sue for a much larger sum which they got. I don't necessarily accept that was for purely mercenary reasons – perhaps a continuing fight is a sort of cathartic therapy for them.

But I can't see the purpose of the Pope doing anything other than a symbolic apology to all victims of the church collectively. He was not Pope when the abuse happened, he isn't responsible for it, and the Catholic Church is now addressing the problem correctly and in the only way it can despite its past transgressions.

You also seem to be accepting the premise that all accusations are truthful and that there are not a lot of very nasty people out there – some who abuse children – and others who will claim they were abused in order to claim compensation.

We haven't yet gone as far as the UK but we could. You should then read this by Richard Webster: The Secret of Bryn Estyn, his truthful and accurate account of how dozens of child care workers were caught up in abuse allegations in a Welsh children's home. Some committed suicide, some were wrongfully convicted and later released on appeal (but their lives destroyed anyway) and, even worse, the British police engaged in a new tactic called "trawling" – identifying a person and then seeking out whether they may have committed a crime or inviting people (such as former home inhabitants) to report on that person.

And that's exactly what happened, with one of the BBC's most respected programs producing six or seven men who all claimed they had been abused by suspects who were subsequently charged. But allegations began to unravel as it was proved time and time again the accusers were never at the homes when they claimed – either arriving years after a suspect had left or before he or she began working there.

Even after being found innocent, those accused had their lives destroyed by the allegations. And those making the false allegations walked away scot free. And this is just one of many similar cases in the UK – and always the media is on hand to do its destructive best.

Now I don't believe Australia is in that position – yet – but given that we have a media so similar in its tendency to make exaggerated and sensational claims without fear of the consequences, it could happen.

However, we are lucky as we seem to have generally police forces that are more sensitive about child abuse. Most States do not want offenders’ locations identified (although NSW is a worry under John Hatzistergos who bizarrely claims that his strict bail conditions means crime has decreased – strange when those on remand are yet to face trial) as it either drives them underground or makes their monitoring process far more difficult and costly – as in the Queensland case.

We don't yet have programs like the US’s To Catch a Predator with a profit-driven private company inducing men online to attempt to commit a crime. That is, however, beginning to unravel with the TV company facing a multimillion dollar lawsuit from the sister of one of those caught in the "sting" (after he committed suicide) and several local sheriffs now being dismissed for co-operating in a vigilante style operation.

To me, that is where the hysteria leads to, and unfortunately I believe the Fosters are just a very small cog in that process.

I agree with Malcolm Duncan (and Claude) that this is a very real problem, but it needs trained police co-operating with specialist psychiatrists. I think the police would prefer that – we would be better off as a society and perhaps the thousands of reported cases that go unattended because staff are over-stretched will have the funds and time to do their job – and save a few more kids.

A point by point response for Michael:

You say..."the extraordinary hysteria that surrounds the subject ... precludes any sensible discussion" ... but media responses are not where one expects to find reasonable discussion. Webdiary is, among others, where one expects that.

Sensible discussion commences with informed opinion which is why I posted the link to a website about child sex abuse run by a Harvard Uni. academic on the subject. It presents data about prevalence, sophisticated analysis of the nature and reliability of the data and considerable evidence about the serious psychological consequences of child sex abuse. See the Perverts thread.

On Dennis Ferguson: he is so severely damaged that my view is that he ought to be in custody forever. If you read about his history of assaults on children it is clear that he is dangerously deranged, unpredictable and, in my view, beyond the possibility of rehabilitation. Clearly the parole and release process in Queensland is deeply flawed and the current situation is unacceptable. His case exemplifies the inadequacy of the entire judicial-legal process around child sex abuse matters.

You write that: "I'd also say that the opposite now happens - rather than claims being "denied", each and every claim is accepted as proven with the accused being forced from day one to prove their innocence."

This statement is not evidence-based. The process of bringing a charge is so difficult that the overwhelming majority of potential charges never see the light of day.

You cannot grasp the logic of expecting the Pope to meet with and apologise to either the victims or their families. This is a failure of imagination on your part. Humble contemplation is the answer.

You accuse the Fosters of "an amazing arrogance" in expecting some particular recognition of their suffering. I see a man who is in an agony of masculine failure over his inability to protect his children from a predatory priest; I see deep suffering and feel profound compassion for that man and his wife. More, it seems, than the officials of the Catholic Church or you are able to muster.

So where is the spirit of Christ today?

I've never said or claimed " all claims of abuse cannot be taken seriously ".

I've questioned the extraordinary hysteria that surrounds the subject that precludes any sensible discussion and that's pretty well demonstrated with the mad case in Queensland whereby a convicted pedophile is being hounded from home to home with politicians claiming that all neighbours should be informed where he is living which means the process will be repeated ad infinitum.

And as he is now a free man that isn't acceptable no matter what you or anyone else thinks.

I'd also say that the opposite now happens - rather than claims being "denied", each and every claim is accepted as proven with the accused being forced from day one to prove their innocence.

Throw in the media and a few polticians and you get what you have today - hysteria which solves nought and that includes the bizarre claims that Pope Benedict must apologise to every victim, their family members and probably their children's children, and the amazing matter of one couple demanding they be personally met when there are obviously thousands out there who the Pope could not possibly meet nor should he. 

I don't deny that the particular couple may feel pretty awful but there is an amazing arrogance that they should be singled out and have a personal meeting (and what in the Hell is that meeting going to achieve?) when there are possibly victims in South America who will never get near the Pope, let alone fly from one side of the world to the other demanding a meeting.

I posted the following on the 'Perverts' thread some time ago only to find that you again appear to be running the same line here re abuse within the Church.  Your claims that all claims of abuse cannot be taken seriously are highly reminiscent of the sort of denial that meets original disclosures of abuse!  What is going on, mate?

Eliot brings everything down to this level "just because x did it y is just as bad if he did it too".

The cycling club, however, is still responsible for the cyclists and coaches.

The more I investigate Pope Benedict's past the more I like him, Kathy Farrelly. And I was a pretty fierce critic before without really knowing much about him.

As for the rules – no condoms, anti gay etc – I know just too many practising Catholics who ignore these rules to take them that seriously.

I believe there are far more positive things about this church than not – far more people amongst them who do good as opposed to those who don't.

Offending priests tend to dominate the news and everyone forgets the ones who do the really hard work, like the priest with a handful of nuns in the Philippines bush who look after dispossessed women and who found Vivian Alvarez Solon when she was misplaced by her own government.

As for not meeting the Fosters, I believe this was the correct decision. They had flown into town and were determined to get as much publicity as possible. For what reason I don't know. If the Pope were to meet with every family member of every abused person, where would it end? And for what reason? It appeared they were using emotional blackmail.

Of course this couple must feel terrible (although I don't accept the tenuous excuse that a person becomes a junkie or drunk or even suicides because of past abuse. Some may and many don’t. Unless we know the full psychiatric history of their life it's impossible to prove).

One aspect of past abuse disturbs me – the compensation angle. The Catholic Church offers (apart from financial compensation) unlimited funds without time limit for counselling. It's said that under 5% take up the offer of counselling but all pocket the cash.

In fact, the whole compensation matter is disturbing, and not just within the church. Compensation for sexual abuse is easily accessed (and in some cases doesn't even need to be proved as in the late MP Bob Collins case). In the past three years in the UK we have seen several cases of proven false allegations made against men with dire consequences for their lives.

And as in the late John Marsden case, we saw his accusers get off completely scot free while lying in court and accepting large sums of money from a TV station.

Myself, I know one person who I have known most of my life and discussed every angle of his and my lives, no matter how great or sordid and who I know with 99% surety that he has never been abused. He has just recently claimed a long-dead priest abused him (now at age 55 and broke) and is well on the road to receiving a payout.

He met four people hand picked by the PR mob who all felt they had been treated well by the church.

What a hoax.

And Eliot, I agree about the cycling club.

Kathy Farrelly: "Pope Benedict meets abuse victims before flying out."

By contrast...

"Leading WA cycling coach Rick Lee wore a condom while raping a 15-year-old girl in the US, the girl has alleged."

I demand that the head of the International Cycling Union in France apologise personally to the victims of sexual abuse by Australian cyclists.

It was in the end a fairly painless few days.

 Although I can't agree with some of the Catholic Church's more conservative policies - no condoms, anti-gay etc, I found Pope Benedict to be a warm and friendly bloke. The more I read and see of him, I think his heart is the right place.

No Fiona, this is an emoticom free zone!

BTW, why does the diagram remind so much of the reproductive diagrams we used to get in school biology textbooks? Or is it just me and my mind...