It does so by publicly accepting the responsibility (more publicly than a hard to find Resolution on a not highly trafficked web-site) for the corporate and institutional guilt associated with Rev. Bell’s actions and telling its story of the actions it has taken and is now taking, to rectify the wrongs of the past and what it is doing to confront those problems going forward.
The latter, the current actions and statement, after all, are all that the Church--or for that matter, any of us—is responsible for at the end of the day. We cannot undo the wrongs of the past; we can only do right, right now. Allowing the Church to present its story in this context, allows for that to happen.
Unfortunately, the Committee has never responded to our proposal made to and through its attorney, Chancellor Michael Rehill. He has not responded to phone calls or emails. The only communication to Mr. White was that it was a mistake for him to engage an attorney.
The Committee’s and Mr. Rehill’s stonewalling, coupled with Bishop Bartlett’s back-door attempts to sweep this problem under the carpet, and the Standing Committee’s initially insulting offer to do justice by offering him assistance with transportation, are less than one would have hoped for, but unfortunately are not surprising.
The admission of responsibility for Rev. Bell’s horrific abuse of Mr. White and the subsequent cover-up and ill-treatment of Mr. White by the church came undoubtedly only after a determination had been made that such admission could not result in any financial exposure. Such is the quintessential cynical act by a cynical body more concerned with the appearance of justice than the real thing.
Bishop Bartlett has stated to Mr. White that the Standing Committee desires to deal openly and honestly with this terrible crime, and that is why the Standing Committee has listened to Mr. White, believed him and apologized to him—even though they had “no direct responsibility” for what was done to him.
It may be that no one on the Committee was “directly” involved in the abuse that took place. It may also be that none of the current members of the Committee were involved in keeping the truth of Rev. Bell’s monstrous behavior from coming to light, although the active silencing of Mr. White has only recently ended. Even so, All Saints Parish, the Committee and this Diocese are the direct beneficiaries of Rev. Bell’s actions, having received some of the money wrongly bequeathed to him.
************
It is a duty the Committee is mocking by refusing to address it
**************************
But were that not so, they still have a duty—directly to Mr. White--to redress the wrongs he suffered at the hands of those who preceded him and who were acting for and on behalf of the Church when they abused him, imprisoned him and then actively and maliciously silenced him, taking his voice and crushing his spirit.
This is a duty that goes beyond those that might be imposed by civil or even canon law. It is a duty the Committee is mocking by refusing to address it, to respond with even a simple return telephone call to open discussions.
Again, we invite the Diocese to dialogue with Mr. White and to take the affirmative actions we have asked them to take previously to do the justice the Gospel demands they do.
********************
********************
(CAN: Good luck. City of Angels googled Rev. Gibson Bell and found this interesting note on Page 166 of The Handbook of Private Schools by Porter Sargent, published 1918:)
Montgomery School, Wynnewood, is a country day school providing instruction for boys from seven years old upward, opened in 1915 by the Rev. Gibson Bell
-- From Google Books at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8bEAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=rev+Dr+Gibson+Bell&source=web&ots=Sh0O5aHSmF&sig=ZNctbYA9E3Kl5qsKb9dtDSHw0Zk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result
In Wynnewood, PA, there is now a Montgomery School Lane.
************
The Story Goes Onward. . .
The latter, the current actions and statement, after all, are all that the Church--or for that matter, any of us—is responsible for at the end of the day. We cannot undo the wrongs of the past; we can only do right, right now. Allowing the Church to present its story in this context, allows for that to happen.
Unfortunately, the Committee has never responded to our proposal made to and through its attorney, Chancellor Michael Rehill. He has not responded to phone calls or emails. The only communication to Mr. White was that it was a mistake for him to engage an attorney.
The Committee’s and Mr. Rehill’s stonewalling, coupled with Bishop Bartlett’s back-door attempts to sweep this problem under the carpet, and the Standing Committee’s initially insulting offer to do justice by offering him assistance with transportation, are less than one would have hoped for, but unfortunately are not surprising.
Bishop Bartlett has stated to Mr. White that the Standing Committee desires to deal openly and honestly with this terrible crime, and that is why the Standing Committee has listened to Mr. White, believed him and apologized to him—even though they had “no direct responsibility” for what was done to him.
It may be that no one on the Committee was “directly” involved in the abuse that took place. It may also be that none of the current members of the Committee were involved in keeping the truth of Rev. Bell’s monstrous behavior from coming to light, although the active silencing of Mr. White has only recently ended. Even so, All Saints Parish, the Committee and this Diocese are the direct beneficiaries of Rev. Bell’s actions, having received some of the money wrongly bequeathed to him.
************
It is a duty the Committee is mocking by refusing to address it
**************************
But were that not so, they still have a duty—directly to Mr. White--to redress the wrongs he suffered at the hands of those who preceded him and who were acting for and on behalf of the Church when they abused him, imprisoned him and then actively and maliciously silenced him, taking his voice and crushing his spirit.
This is a duty that goes beyond those that might be imposed by civil or even canon law. It is a duty the Committee is mocking by refusing to address it, to respond with even a simple return telephone call to open discussions.
Again, we invite the Diocese to dialogue with Mr. White and to take the affirmative actions we have asked them to take previously to do the justice the Gospel demands they do.
********************
********************
(CAN: Good luck. City of Angels googled Rev. Gibson Bell and found this interesting note on Page 166 of The Handbook of Private Schools by Porter Sargent, published 1918:)
Montgomery School, Wynnewood, is a country day school providing instruction for boys from seven years old upward, opened in 1915 by the Rev. Gibson Bell
-- From Google Books at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8bEAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=rev+Dr+Gibson+Bell&source=web&ots=Sh0O5aHSmF&sig=ZNctbYA9E3Kl5qsKb9dtDSHw0Zk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result
In Wynnewood, PA, there is now a Montgomery School Lane.
************
The Story Goes Onward. . .
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
