I am irresistably reminded of the words of Lord Denning when speaking of " the Birmingham Six". These 6 people were wrongly convicted of terrorism offences, and they were in jail for a very long time. Denning opposed the moves to right this wrong, and he said this:
Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further." [83]
This kind of thinking is not exactly unusual. You sometimes see it in very large corporations as well, I think.
It seems to me that our attitudes to that approach have changed radically over the last 30 years and we now expect that any large institution will respond to the discovery of wrong doing with an open admission of that wrong doing: with effective action to right it: and with due regard to, and involvement of, the criminal justice system.
But as the exampe of Denning shows, the criminal justice system is itself a powerful institution, and it is itself subject to the same processes which lead to the problem in the first place.
What I think is crucial here is not that the church has been slow to accept the changes in societal views of how such things should be handled: that is what you would expect. I think there is reason to believe that most of the very large and long-lived institutions have at least some members who would take the same view. And it is an arguable position (though seldom argued openly)
That is not to say that I agree with it: I think it is wrong and I am glad it is no longer accepted. But it seems to me that we should oppose on rational grounds, and so the dispute is not about the repugnance we feel about this particular issue. It is rather an argument about fundamental moral principles and there are some interesting questions in there
Denning and Ratzinger are essentially utilitarians. Their position is actually my main reason for rejecting that position as a basis for moral thought, because what leads to their conclusion is a notion of "the greater good". It is somewhat startling to find that the head of the catholic church is utilitarian in his standpoint: that the judiciary or other large scale institutions are, not so much. I think that some of the surprise arises from a view of the church as a pastoral entity and all of the expectations which arise from its "mission statement": all the rhetoric of care and compassion and "suffer the little children" etc etc. But mission statements are hurrah document: they seldom make explicit that part of the purpose of any organisation is to survive and grow and prosper and increase their power/influence/ market share. It is arguably the biggest part of their purpose and the omission is striking. Same with advertising: while it is probably true that the makers of Daz want to help you get your clothes cleaner, they want your money more: gettng your clothes cleaner is a means to that end for them: but not for you. We all know this but we do not keep it to the front of our minds as much as we should: or at least some of us don't. And of course they do not help us to remember it: why would they?
From the perspective of an honest but firmly institutionalised person it is perfectly possible to reconcile the conflicting aims: that does not make you evil though it does speak to a different set of values or at least to a different way of weighting moral conflicts. But why would that surprise us? Many here are moral relativists and they make a powerful case. Not one I accept, it is true, but it is a strong argument nonetheless
For this type of person there is a great focus on the importance of stability and societal cohesion. A threat to that is a threat to civilisation itself and they can honestly believe that undermining confidence in "the establishment", for want of a better word, will lead to anarchy. They consider that to be the worst of outcomes for all of us. They also think that they are working with the grain of human nature (or some variation of that theme) and that it does not matter what arrangments we make in society there will always be those who commit crime, or sin, or whatever word is applied to the problem in their particular appreciation of its source or its nature.
Seen in this light the organisation cannot avoid "evil" in its ranks: business men will embezzle; priests will sin; judges will reach conclusions not entirely based on the evidence. But for this mindset it is the respect for the organisation as a whole which stands between us and a breakdown in society. And there is a problem there too. An organisaton is made up of the people who run it together with the "mission statement" it avows. It is inevitable that we expect that every individual should embody the expressed values: and at the same time we know that this is childish.
They know too. We cannot really escape some culpability in the conclusions the powerful reach: for we collude. We recognise that we are all human: yet we jump on the human failings of those with power, and we look for "leaders" in peculiar terms. Why does it matter that Tiger Woods is not faithful to his wife? His golf is good and that should be all that matters. But it isn't. If we are to say that his admitted talents are in some way undermined by his private failings in an irrelevant sphere, then we will get hypocrisy on a stick. There can be no other outcome. And having forced that, we cut up rough when we get it.
If that is how we behave it is not irrational for an institution to wish to keep the failings of its personnel private. It does not follow that they do not take them seriously nor that they do not deal with them. Internal disciplinary codes etc are in place, for example in the police and professional bodies. This is not unusual. And those are subject to all the dynamics of small and large groups, just as the public judiciary is, as Denning's quote shows
WE have become aware of the failings of all these systems: and we have become distrustful of power. That is an interesting outcome because it the very thing which the lack of transparency seeks to avoid. Slowly those institutions are adapating to the change in the public mood. More and more "transparency" is called for and I have heard pundits in the business world say with confidence that the way to retain trust when bad things happen is to admit it; fix it; show that you have fixed it. Perhaps that is true: in the short term it certainly is, IMO. But unless we stop being indignant when such things come to light then in the long term I am not sure it is enough: and to that extent I understand the mindset I am describing. If you honestly believe that widespread lack of confidence in all and any institution will lead to the breakdown of society and the rule of law then it makes sense. It does not mean that you will not deal with any problems: just that you will wash your linen in private.
This particular scandal rests in part on the fact that sexual abuse was not really recognised in the past. The church is not alone in thinking that it was a very small problem in terms of prevalence: that is what most people thought (and still think). We are still learning how widespread it actually is, and that has not been easy because we are all uncomfortable with the idea that it might be more than just a few monsters who are not like us. Yet that seems to be true.
It is likely that the church thought it could deal with this internally: many have seen paedophilia in terms of a disease model, for example: you do not throw those with an illness to the wolves, if you are a decent human being: and that idea of supporting those who are troubled is also part of the particular values of the church. The complete failure to take account of the needs of the victims is where this fails hard. But again they are not unique in this: think of thalidomide or bhopal. It is what institutions do.
What do we prefer? We insist that part of the solution is to ensure that priests and businessmen and everyone should be subject to the civil and criminal law which applies to the rest of us: that seems right to me. It comes at the price of centralising power, and that may well be a good thing: on the whole I think it is. But it is perfectly possible to argue that a plurality of power-bases has value too. In the work place it is helpful to have some version of a union, else the employer can do what he likes: and he will. Absent union power we have various levels of employment law which ought to serve the same function as a check on power: but it is remote and there are losses from that approach as well as gains.
If we are to argue (as I do) that we must all live under the same law, then we absolutely must have confidence in it, and respect for it: or so I think. I have sympathy with those who see building and preserving that as a goal in itself. It is wrong to do so by hiding mistakes: but if we are unforgiving when things go wrong then they will be hidden. Within the establishment there are many who believe that the "great unwashed" are not fit to have the facts: but I think we often give them cause for that belief: enough to feed confirmation bias, at any rate.
On this board I have seen it argued that some people should not have the vote: this has been put forward quite seriously, and those who propose it are not monsters. But it is exactly the same mindset of elitism, so far as I can tell.
