Thanks Peter,

Your insights and research are appreciated.

1) I admit – and I’ve clarified to Bishop Dunn, who raised the same concern, that my use of the term “The Curia” was technically incorrect, and I apologise for that. I used the term casually, to inclusively refer to the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (who voted to suspend Peter Saunders), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who have been criticised in the past for both inaction and detrimental action, and the other bodies such as the Vatican Bank who Peter Saunders had reported as impediments to progress in the urgent face of this issue.

2) While published in New Zealand, the letter was prompted by the recent situation involving Peter Saunders, and informed by interviews and articles with George Pell and other senior clerics around the world. It is good that New Zealand has no confidentiality clauses these days – although I would hope that such stipulations from the past have also been retroactively quashed – but several Bishops around the world, including Pell, have admitted to the recent inclusion of such clauses (although they might and do debate the terminology).

3) It is undeniable that the incidence of Church abuse cases is lower today than before, and that the picture has changed a lot, but as your article “Church reluctant to look in the mirror” points out, that picture is not yet fully resolved. And as you rightly point out, six is six too many.

That mandatory reporting is the case in many Dioceses is good, but this is not yet the universal situation, and that provided much of the impetus for this letter: it is particularly directed at every English-speaking Diocese whose Bishops sympathise with the misguided views advocated by a few: that potential false allegations provide justification for not reporting current abuse of children.

4) My article is absolutely Western-centric, and that’s in part a personal limitation. The Bishops whose interviews partially prompted the letter also happened to be within Western countries, which also coloured my response. As you have pointed out above, I may also have played fast and loose with some terminology, and not all of the content may apply to the current New Zealand situation.

This is my personal response to global shortcomings I have perceived in recent events, and I stand within my own limited context to offer one biased and imperfect baseline to the English speaking bishops of the world; by which they might measure their own response to the crisis and decide whether further action or agitation of their fellow bishops is warranted. I would encourage others who disagree with any details but empathise with the cause to share their own recommendations to their Bishops, from their own language, context and concerns.

And it is absolutely true that in some countries some of my recommendations would be infeasible – but that doesn’t mean the Church institution can’t set a high standard within the realities of the local situation. Inertia is a clichéd attribute of the Church, but that should be about perception more than tradition.

Thanks again for your measured feedback.