Re the response from the church

From Anna 03/03/2016
I wish I could say something helpful, though nothing I think about this about these detestable people, this contemptible time and history and all they did would be new to you. Were they moral criminals? Yes. Did they abuse the law? Yes. Did they use unequal power to wreak paternalistic punishment in the name of their morality? Yes. Were their actions repugnant and unconscionable? Yes. Will they ever accept the depth of their crimes and their impacts? No. Do abusers/persecutors ever truly feel regret, sorrow, remorse over their terrible actions and the impact on their victims? No, in my experience. Can you appeal to their better natures? No. They use this as a new opportunity to deflect blame back onto victims and revictimise them. Are victims then powerless? No, though many unwittingly give their power away, by asking for something that abusers know they have the power to withhold. Are they afraid of exposure? No, because it has been exposed already, and they evade the acceptance of responsibility with the time-honoured cop-outs – “that’s how things were then” “we weren’t the only ones, so why pick on us” “we are sorry you feel like that” “we were only trying to help”.

I don’t want to increase your current pain and anger (which I understand). I don’t think that re-articulating what they did will be effective in terms of the outcome you want, it will use your energy and probably not bring about any positive outcome. So what can you do at this point? There are always possibilities, though the only one that immediately presents itself to me is perhaps to recount how they re-victimise complainants – because that is the current understory here, because re-victimising victims is an inherently shameful act, and the ploy of offering counselling is more often than not a ploy to relocate fault to, and re-silence, the victim and give themselves a further cop-out “We offered her counselling out of the goodness of our hearts”. Nonsense.
At this stage they see their power as being a well resourced ‘respectable’ organisation against individuals with comparatively limited resources whose complaints they know they can dismiss as ‘historic’. (Because something is historic does not mean that time has justified it, of course not). That’s a significant power imbalance, and they know it; so I think possibly a more useful way to use your energy is to name what they do to silence people now and how they do it.

St Marys Otahuhu Auckland New Zealand, controlled by the Anglican Trust, an Adoption Farm, where the herd were young women forced to remain behind fences in confinement as broodmares to supply offspring to the adoption market, here the farmers were warders whose primary motive was to coerce the herd into powerless docility so the church could profit in a number of ways, promoting itself as a “helping” organisation while tearing families apart and inflicting harm on the inmates.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s