Guest Column: The Church, the Party and the Truth?

How many people actually feel that that the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church were “right” in their failures to act in the matters of child sexual abuse that have been revealed?

These persons—otherwise presumed to be “good” men—put their loyalty to their institution before their loyalty to their true vocation, justice and the wider law.

And I am not talking about the people who abused the children here, I am talking about those in authority who covered-up the abuses so that the Catholic Church could remain “protected” from the exposure of what was being revealed.

Many of us would do this for our own family, and some would do it for our business, our institution, or for our friends.

After all, loyalty is a virtue, and we all need to know that if we are in some form of trouble, that our friends might still be true to us.

Of course, depending upon the “trouble” and upon the relationship we have with the person in trouble, we may well be torn between what we know is our deeper duty, and our friendship or loyalty to an offending person.

Does a person deserve our “protection” from exposure and censure simply because they are perceived as good or decent in their other actions and behaviour? And since when does a transgressor offend only once?

Can you, as a person in some authoritative position over such a transgressor accept that this person will not offend again?

Probably not!

But how often would you turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to serious wrongs, simply because you wished to protect the institution which was rotting under the shame of successive scandals?

The truth is, and you know this, that if the transgressions were as shocking as what we have heard, you would say that it was your duty to speak out, to remove or punish the transgressors, and to find ways for the institution involved to be healed. For “cover-ups” never heal anything.

If your child came to you to say that they had been abused, would you silence your child, because the institution or person was generally considered to be above reproach?

At what point would your understanding of decency and your sense of justice override your loyalty to your institution?

And then ask yourself if the Catholic Church was better served by Bishops who remained silent about the abuses of children?

By Bishops whose loyalty to the church overrode their duty to the children in the church’s care?

Now let us speak specifically to a group of people, whom we all know. This group includes Kenneth Valley, John Rahael, Dianne Seukeran, Fitzgerald Hinds, Camille Robinson-Regis, Eddie Hart, Pennelope Beckles and scores of other “decent” members of the PNM.

No child molesters here, just reasonably decent people who joined and served an organization to which they had pledged their loyalty.

The PNM is an unusual institution in bacchanal-oriented Trinidad and Tobago. It has always been able to inculcate loyalty and internal discipline among its membership.

And of course these are honourable virtues, to be emulated and supported.

But how far? And for how long? The list above represents a few persons who were chosen by their constituents to represent the constituencies in parliament, but who were rejected by Patrick Manning and sent into oblivion.

They all harbor a deep concern for their country under Patrick Manning’s increasingly irrational leadership and his ringing calls that God is on his side.

And it is not these dismissed politicians alone. The educated and professional ranks of PNM support, the leaders and members of the Trade Unions—traditionally a support base for the Party, are deeply worried about Patrick Manning.

And, as we all know—with good reason.

They worry about Manning’s insistence on supporting Calder Hart. They are worried about that strange church scandal in Guanapo—even as many know full well how it was being paid for.

They are upset about the Abu Bakr affidavit, for most of them know the truth about that.

Indeed, some got their “walking papers”—albeit late—for preventing Manning from consummating his deal with Bakr. They probably wish they had the courage to speak out.

But you know, like the Bishops in another beleaguered organization, they sit confused as to where their loyalties should lie.

Like children in school, they remain silent in the face of wrong, because they have been convinced that they should not speak against the school bully.

But the time has long come for all of you to accept that you owe more to your conscience and your country than to Patrick Manning, whom, I suggest, is not the PNM!

-Peter O'Connor

Peter's columns also appear in Newsday