I am no expert on this topic, or on how the UUA operates, but it looked to me like only one of the responses was truly researched, considered, and specific to the questions asked. And interestingly, it was the response provided in only a week, versus the one that took three.
I have yet to thoroughly analyze both responses but my initial impression is that Rev. Laurel Hallman's response in thgis particular issue was at least as good as that of Rev. Peter Morales and better than his in some ways, not the least of them being that she clearly indicated that -
"As soon as possible after the election, I will gather survivors of clergy abuse in our association to talk with me about their experience, whether recent or distant."
This beats pretty much anything Rev. Peter Morales said hands down. . . I expect that most victims of clergy sexual misconduct, to say nothing of non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct, would much rather have a thoughtful, positive, and perhaps most importantly *collaborative* response promising to take action that took a few weeks to reflect upon and formulate than a rapid response that seems to leave victims out of the decision making process. Quite frankly I got the impression that Rev. Peter Morales' response had to be "truly researched" because clergy sexual misconduct was very much off his "radar". . . It looks like he is doing some "catch up" whereas Rev. Laurel Hallman's response gives the impression that she was already aware of and concerned about this issue. At least in terms of my initial impressions, Rev. Laurel Hallman's response is on the whole the superior one. I will definitely provide more detailed analysis of both responses soon enough. I am not discounting Rev. Morales' response at all and, as is my wont, I would want to synthesize the best elements of his response with the best elements of Rev. Laurel Hallman's response.
Thanks for posting that LE.
ReplyDeleteHopefully a few other U*U bloggers will follow suit.
I will definitely be commenting on their responses soon but have a very busy weekend to deal with first.
I am no expert on this topic, or on how the UUA operates, but it looked to me like only one of the responses was truly researched, considered, and specific to the questions asked. And interestingly, it was the response provided in only a week, versus the one that took three.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to thoroughly analyze both responses but my initial impression is that Rev. Laurel Hallman's response in thgis particular issue was at least as good as that of Rev. Peter Morales and better than his in some ways, not the least of them being that she clearly indicated that -
ReplyDelete"As soon as possible after the election, I will gather survivors of clergy abuse in our association to talk with me about their experience, whether recent or distant."
This beats pretty much anything Rev. Peter Morales said hands down. . . I expect that most victims of clergy sexual misconduct, to say nothing of non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct, would much rather have a thoughtful, positive, and perhaps most importantly *collaborative* response promising to take action that took a few weeks to reflect upon and formulate than a rapid response that seems to leave victims out of the decision making process. Quite frankly I got the impression that Rev. Peter Morales' response had to be "truly researched" because clergy sexual misconduct was very much off his "radar". . . It looks like he is doing some "catch up" whereas Rev. Laurel Hallman's response gives the impression that she was already aware of and concerned about this issue. At least in terms of my initial impressions, Rev. Laurel Hallman's response is on the whole the superior one. I will definitely provide more detailed analysis of both responses soon enough. I am not discounting Rev. Morales' response at all and, as is my wont, I would want to synthesize the best elements of his response with the best elements of Rev. Laurel Hallman's response.