2137 K Mon 24 Jun 2002
Terry Lane had an interesting article in The Sunday Age:
Being a whisle blower isn't much fun. Russell Crowe also conveyed this in his Academy Award winning role in The Insider.
Peter Ellingsen had an article on page 3 of Saturday's Age. He reports that Brother Edward Dowlan was convicted of interfering with boys in 1996 and was released on parole in September 2001. According to Peter Ellingsen's article:
He quotes Archbishop Pell as saying "At a distance of 28 years I have no recollection of any such conversation. If I was approached and thought the stories plausible I would have informed the Christian Brothers. I do not remember hearing rumours about Dowlan, a man I hardly knew. ..." At the time he would have been aged 34.
The student, who is now aged 40, does not wish to be named. The grounds for the belief or suspicion are not given. He is quoted as saying "Dr Pell said he did not think the story could be true." ... "We expressed our suspicions, but he did not ask us any more."
So what happened? It seems to me that if everyone is being truthful then Dr Pell was approached and Brother Dowlan was discussed. Dr Pell thought the suspicions implausible. So he did not "blow the whistle" or "dob in" Brother Dowlan.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
The first footnote is the Code of Canon Law, canon 220:
The second footnote is from the Bible Catholics recognise, in the book of Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) 21:28
Hopefully I am following the teaching of the Catholic Church. When I criticise, for example the way liturgy is done, I try to be just. My objectively valid reason for doing so includes explaining what the liturgical laws are and trying to improve how things are done.
Yesterday Richmond were beaten in Australian Football by 84 points, scoring only 70 themselves. After the game the coach, Danny Frawley, said:
They are severe comments but I respect his judgement.
Copyright J.R. Lilburne, 24 June 2002.