I read with keen interest the allegations of abuse on the occasion of an important feast day in St Anne's church, Bukit Mertajam.

Being a fellow Catholic, I reacted with shock, just as most people would. Shock was a natural reaction because nobody would have imagined that a parish pastor could openly display such vindictive spirit against disabled persons, while at the same time proclaim to be serving God in the capacity of an ordained priest.

The sex scandals that hit the Catholic community in the US and Australia have barely dissipated from memory and here we are, in the midst of witnessing yet another potentially scandalous drama unfolding on our shores.

As an outsider, I dare not presume to cast the first stone on the person whom the aggrieved party has implicitly condemned.

However, I beg to differ from Disabled Justice, who displayed impartiality by taking sides with the remark: "My heart goes out to all the people who must have been deeply insulted, and affected by Fr Cheah's actions."

Who was insulted in the first place? Have we gotten our facts right? Or have the children of the flock lost complete faith in the hierarchy of the Church?

Try to think about the psychology of normal and disabled persons. The former are those physically perfect to the extent that they are born with functional limbs.

The physically disabled are without the aid of perfectly functional limbs but are still very much part of our society. Hence, they deserve equally humane treatment, whatever the circumstances may be.

Nonetheless, it must be remembered that being physically disabled does not automatically imply that one can have one's way at all times, even at the cost of imposing inconvenience on those around them, lest patience may cease to be a virtue.

From a disabled person's vantage point, what is the standard for being "unreasonable"? Where is the limit of tolerance as far as ill treatment is concerned? Then again, one can easily (mis)interpret a polite request to the effect of treating it as an offensive slur?

A disabled person could reasonably expect gentle and kind treatment, especially from religious bodies. However, in the event that such high expectations are not met, should a scapegoat be faulted for failure to perform what he should have performed? On such a hypothetical plane, I think not.

Allow me to share a true story of a man in a wheelchair who wanted to purchase CDs in a music store. He claimed that he was ill-treated; and resorted to raising a commotion and trying to elicit public sympathy in the hope that the store would be boycotted for bullying a disabled person.

In response, the owner of the store called a press conference telling his side of the story: the alleged victim of abuse had wanted to test a couple of CDs without any intention of buying them later. With every CD removed from the plastic cases, which customer would want to buy them in future?

While the music store, which is profit-oriented, is not a comparable analogy to Fr Michael Cheah, the story does illustrate an important lesson: people can expect too much kind treatment, even when they unknowingly and unwittingly create inconvenience.

At the end of the day, we must recognise that priests are also humans; they make mistakes, sometimes costly ones. Our role, whether as normal and disabled persons, is to help priests learn and grow.

We will not make wise judges with small minds and hearts. Moral rectitude is also compromised when one attempts to sound too self-righteous, whereas self-righteousness may just be a disguise for oversized ego.

In the final analysis, why do the aggrieved parties have to write a letter to an online daily when they can solve the matter more amicably through consultation with the Archbishop?

Could not a senior member of the Archdiocese act as a mediator? Why do they wish the public to know what has arisen, even before Fr Michael Cheah has had the opportunity to furnish his defence?

Let us look at the implications of their actions. Venting frustrations via public media gains a faithful following of sympathisers, while further tarnishing the image of the Catholic Church. If a person professes to be a believer in God and a member of the Church, they should act with tact and compassion, just as they expect tactfulness and compassion to be showered on them.

While fighting for one's rights runs along the path of pursuing justice, the true meaning of justice has to be that of fairness - defending one's rights without encroaching on the rights of others to defend themselves.

Having said this, I would like put out a reminder that many orders of priesthood, in particular the Jesuits, have suffered countless persecutions - subtle and explicit - at the hands of the Church hierarchy. But these people are the true heroes for they did not do what Martin Luther did: take justice into his own hands.

Dialogue, forgiveness, level-headedness, compassion and prayer ... these are the tools for problem solving. Dragging the Church down is not too good an idea, despite the lack of ill intentions.