Good to see. BTW, the short-lived appointment of former Archbishop Hollingworth as Governor-General (a largely ceremonia position that corresponds in US terms roughly to VP x First Lady x Chief Justice) brought forth the usual cries about separation of church and state from the usual suspects. One being a minor party, the Democrats, whose elected Senators have included a minister of the Uniting Church, John Woodley (Uniting = Methodist + Presbyterian + Congregationalists) and which had invited Baptist Union President Tim Costello (brother of the federal Treasurer, a Liberal [= conservative] MP) to stand on its Senate ticket. No, they didn't realise the irony -- they were far too outraged over Hollingworth.
Tom R | 06.01.04 - 1:54 am | #

Can't Anglican priests marry? If so, they should not have had this problem, he said sarcastically.
Jeff | 06.01.04 - 7:36 am | #

Actually, Jeff, this is impressionistic but it seems to me that most (not all, but most) of the Anglican clergy who abused children either remained unmarried, or engaged in the abuse while they were young and single. Also, the majority of it seems (again, impressionistically) to be heterosexual. Not that that condones it, but it's a curious contrast to the situation among the Catholic clergy offenders.

OTOH, abuse by staff at Anglican schools seems to have boys and girls in roughly equal numbers.
Tom R | 06.01.04 - 8:06 am | #