Sir, – Dr John Gibbons (May 8th) infers incorrectly from my views (May 5th) to make some unconnected but valid points. He ignored my underlying argument: the pursuit of the guilty and the criteria used by politicians when judging the ethics of bankers or clerics should be consistent and balanced. Neither is the case.
Calling for the resignation of one person following a sordid affair does little to ameliorate a system; however, the removal of that person by his superiors is an indicator of a desire to tackle a problem. It is now very clear the Catholic Church hierarchy (like many banking institutions) suffers from a misaligned corporate culture and shares a propensity to rationalise and sanction unethical actions through application of “the rules”. Following the rules as interpreted by lawyers (canon or civil) does not necessarily make any given action ethically “right”. The subsequent inaction by senior clerics and corporate bodies on transgressions is a clear indication of their unwillingness to assume their responsibilities, moral or professional.
Politicians should decry all equally. – Yours, etc,