Wednesday, March 20, 2002

SILENT VICTIMS
Michael Kelly "wanted to get up and leave ... in disgust" when a priest included the pedophilia victims and their parents as complicit in the "sin of silence".

But why? Does a person's victim status relieve them of all moral responsibility? Is it OK to let your silence be purchased so long as you were hurt really bad?

I understand that there's a slightly different dynamic when your people in representing your Church tells you that it's the right thing to do. But, I think a big part of our problems today in this country is that we expect nothing from victims. I had hoped that 9/11 taught us all that even victims have duties and responsibilities.

I'm not saying that these problems are primarily the victims' fault, and that's not what Kelly's priest was saying, either. But I don't think it's "disgusting" to observe that the victims did play a part in this with their silence, and I think it's healthy for the Church to encourage people who are hurting to make noise about it.

This strikes me as a lot healthier then Rod Dreher's solution of "cleaning out dissent."
Post a Comment