E 'can express a point of view of civic scandal of pedophilia in the church? And 'that can assess the facts and make judgments from a different perspective than those that now seem legitimate to do so, those of the believer or the unbeliever, the Catholic and secular, the theologian or philosopher, the historian or pastor, and so forth?
The most common response - we know - it would be: no! Arguments against - with an extreme simplification - can be reduced to these. The Church has nothing to do with the time dimension and deals with sins. For the offenses of the individual's the judiciary. Which must take its course, but which deals criminals.
Conversely, there are several reasons why citizens may express a view on the matter.
First rights. People who have been abused - in other words, the victims - are citizens like everybody else. The violation of their rights is therefore less significant than in other cases. Anyone who sets - quite simply - from the perspective of citizens must take account of these violations, reports and complaints. Moreover, in cases collected - thousands in Italy and around the world - the breach occurred in structures that have specific characteristics and applicants can therefore be evaluated they have in common. This turns these facts in a matter of general interest. Not just a third court case, with its internal dynamics between perpetrator and victim. The civic point of view it also plays an acting within the public sphere, marked by the recurrence of those conditions is fulfilled in which the violation of the law.
Second, transparency. For years, the crimes committed in the church structures have been hidden. The solution of the problem took place in secret or, more simply, was not the case. Citizens, on the contrary, it should be recognized in all situations in which you establish a relationship with an institution that exercises powers and responsibilities full access to information about their rights. Including, for example, there is also the safety and physical integrity. The cases of abuse and violation - of any kind - that occur in any public buildings are normally exposed to public scrutiny. And to prevent their recurrence. Conversely, the silence that has surrounded the situations for years has finally been recognized and reported he had two serious consequences: on one hand the spread of acts which create transparency, they could have intercepted and prevented, and secondly, the ' secondary victimization 'of all those abused that, having suffered the breach, had to suffer the silence, denial, marginalization and exclusion.
Third: responsibility. The arguments made so far lead us to evaluate the mode of action of the church structures. Again, notwithstanding any other subject (theological or historical, etc..), It is possible to formulate an opinion concerning the management of the affair by the men of the church and, in particular, those who hold positions of responsibility. The way in which govern the internal problems is a risk assessment by the community. In this case, no argument can be used in relation to an alleged autorefenzialità those structures, as some have tried to do. These are not problems within the church, for the simple fact that the abuses took place in schools, seminars, speakers, churches. Places where they perform functions of a public nature, especially educational. And where, in each case, establish relationships with people who use public services and cultural training. On the other hand, if one rightly believes that an oratory exercise public functions that are recognized and supported, it should become irresponsible when it violates the rights? In essence, the victims, the victims' families, the community of reference of those structures (in other words, ordinary citizens) are entitled to ask for the bill.
Fourth confidence. The way in which we deal with and resolve these crises - which obviously could occur in other contexts - is also crucial to strengthen relations of trust. The families who entrust their children to parishes or schools, or do the speakers on the basis of a fiduciary relationship. Believe they can be quiet and do not fear anything. The severity of these events is not only in serious abuses that have been made, which already own this undermines trust. But it is also in the fact that these abuses will not be immediately remedied. This increases the climate of suspicion and the perception of risk. Citizens have every right to assess whether these are reliable or not and whether their children should attend or stay away. What would happen if such facts can occur, for example, in hospitals?
As you can see, there are all conditions to express a viewpoint on a civic issue like that.
A little defensive are worth two arguments that have the objective of raising these structures from the view of the community.
The first is the fight against pedophilia, but should be done across the board! But here you are not doing a general struggle against pedophilia. The issue is not ideological but practical. In recent weeks are on trial for concrete and specific acts that occurred in structures that covered them with the secret. This is dealt and you have to judge. And it's a civic point of view, the assessment of specific situations and attempt to resolve an issue of public interest beyond the political, philosophical or religious reasons for each. The second defensive
argument is: Why all this fury against the Church? Assuming that some commentators un'acrimonia there can be quite specific and based on other reasons, can you really think that a widespread public alarm would not be exploded at the international level if similar events had rooted, widespread and entrenched, for example in schools or hospitals Italian, Irish, German, Australians, Americans, etc..? You really can not ignore that the level of gravity - and thus social alarm - increases when certain violations are carried out in certain contexts?
In conclusion, leave some issues to be improper cultural superstructures, to light the facts in light of their concreteness, consider building on the experience of the fallibility of human structures, embody the views of people in the flesh in the direction of consistency with the reality and respect for human rights seems to us that represents progress in all situations. And that helps you learn a method and a way to discern who are perhaps more accurate and universally acceptable.
