Clare’s blog, aka rantspace

The closure of the Catholic Church’s in-house treatment programme for sexually abusive clergy, Encompass, has brought out some interesting figures. Firstly, Professor Timothy O’Hearn, a former board member, said that a review found that maintaining the programme would cost $750,000 a year, and the cost can’t be justified.

Can someone tell me, then, how the Catholic Church can spend 20 times that on World Youth Day, and not see the equivalent 20 years of treating abusive clergy being worth the money?

Secondly, a Sydney Morning Herald article says this:
“Opened in 1997 by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and the Australian Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes, Encompass treated more than 1100 people, 250 of them in an intensive six-month residential psychosexual program, according to its final newsletter.”

So that’s an average of 100 clergy treated per year for 11 years, of which 23 or so each year were considered serious enough problems to be doing the intensive residential programme. Those weren’t all Catholic, by the way – other denominations referred problem clergy to Encompass too. But given that there are around 12,000 clergy in Australia at any given time, having to treat 1100 of them gives some idea of how big this problem is.

So given a) the scope of the problem clearly set out in their own newsletter, and b) how much the church is prepared to spend on other things, how can they not find justification for maintaining the Encompass programme?

The money’s not really an issue (even if their priorities are).
The number of clergy to treat isn’t an issue (the less to treat, the less it will cost, after all).

About the only answer I can logically conclude is left is that the treatment has been found to be unsuccessful.

If churches really wanted to deal properly with sexual abuse by clergy and church workers, they could issue the following compulsory directives:
1. All complainants must be advised to seek police opinion on whether any part of their abuse constitutes a crime (it is neither appropriate for a church nor within the church’s areas of speciality to be providing an opinion on criminality). If police proceedings are instigated, the perpetrator should be immediately stood down for the duration of the investigation, and the parish notified as to the reason.
2. No perpetrator can be moved to another parish as part of handling the complaint.
3. No church moneys may be used to support perpetrators defending themselves against accusations of sexual abuse.
4. Victims must be offered open-ended therapy by therapists of their choice, paid for by the church until the therapist and victim deem treatment is completed.
5. All credible accusations must be made public and the perpetrators defrocked.
6. All perpetrators convicted of a crime of violence (including sexual abuse) should be immediately defrocked.
7. No perpetrator may be allowed to resign from the church during (or as a way of avoiding) an investigation into an allegation of misconduct. If the perpetrator has already resigned at the time of complaint, the investigation must still proceed, and the findings be notified to the appropriate body under Working With Children legislation.

Obviously, the directives would need to be issued by authoritative bodies, which vary according to denominational structures. In the Catholic Church, for instance, the Pope could do it. In the Anglican Church, each diocesan synod would be the relevant body. In denominations with congregational structures, each congregation would have to do it. But whoever decrees it, and however it is done, such decrees would show that they are really serious about eradicating abuse within their ranks, and providing care and concern for victims.

Any suggestions for additions to the list?

Churches often stand on the principles of “natural justice” when explaining to a clergy abuse victim why their complaint must be handled a certain way. And since victims are often seeking justice, they end up confused about why applying natural justice principles doesn’t seem to achieve justice. A closer look at the Uniting Church’s explanation makes it abundantly clear (the UCA does, at least, explain it in their policy – most other churches don’t!).

According to the UCA policy definitions:
“Natural Justice refers to a specific group of common law principles that are designed to ensure that a person is given a fair hearing before a decision is made that might adversely affect their livelihood or status. In general natural justice refers to two broad principles:
1. An adequate opportunity must be given to a person to present their case to the complaint committee before a decision is reached that might adversely affect them. This includes providing reasonable notice and time to prepare and sufficient information about the matter to be decided to enable the person to prepare their case.
2. The complaint committee must be free from bias or the appearance of bias. This requirement means that a person who has a close personal or family relationship with any of the parties is precluded from being a member of the complaint committee. It also precludes a person who might have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the decision from being involved in the decision.”

And the clue to why it isn’t justice for victims is in the opening sentence – “principles that are designed to ensure that a person is given a fair hearing before a decision is made that might adversely affect their livelihood or status”. In other words, the principles expressed (adequate opportunity to present their case, and freedom from bias in the complaint committee) apply to the perpetrator, whose livelihood and/or status are under threat, but not to the victim.

So what often happens, and the occurrence of which is actually allowed in the policy, is that perpetrators are given full details about the complaint against them, whereas victims are not given details of the perpetrator’s defence and a chance to rebut lies that might be included. Given that most victims prepare their statement as a personal account, without the aid of a lawyer, whereas perpetrators often seek legal advice to prepare their defence, and victims are not warned of this discrepancy before submitting their complaint, this is not a level playing field. And secondly, although the complaint committee members may not have a close personal or family relationship with the perpetrator, the collegiality within the clergy profession makes it likely that the complaints committee includes people with far greater connection to the perpetrator (and the perpetrator’s position) than to the victim.

For a victim seeking justice, the principles of natural justice end up being either unnatural, or unjust, or both.

So, the Pope’s apologised to Australian victims of clergy sexual abuse. So far, not so good. Because he didn’t tell victims it was going to happen (check out this page of my site for what should be the minimum requirements of such an apology, to see how the Pope fell short), thereby keeping them in quite unnecessary suspense. Secondly, he chose to do it during a mass for clergy! How inappropriate is it to be saying the apology – as part of a prepared speech – to the group of people who contain the perpetrators, rather than the victims?? The victims couldn’t even be there to hear it in person! Thirdly, he seemed to place equal or greater weight on mentioning the shame of (presumably non-perpetrating) clergy and the damage caused to the church’s witness, as to the needs of the victims. And fourthly, he referred specifically to sexual abuse of minors, thereby completely ignoring those many adults also abused by clergy.

So given that this apology falls well short of what he should have said, and where and to whom it should have been said, it will be very interesting to see just how much action happens when the dust from WYD settles. Let’s just revise the checklist the Pope imposed on his clergy for future action:
1) these misdeeds should receive unequivocal condemnation
2) victims should receive compassion and care
3) those responsible must be brought to justice
4) it is an urgent priority to promote a safer and more wholesome environment
5) the Church must work together to combat this evil

Isn’t it interesting that out of 5 action points, three of them (points 1, 3 and 5) are things that the church should be doing already – but obviously isn’t, or the Pope wouldn’t need to exhort them?

But I still think the most inappropriate part was to do it at a mass for clergy, thereby not only effectively offering the apology to the perpetrator group, but specifically excluding the victims who should have been able to be there to hear it.

Cardinal Pell is, as we all know, all over the pages of the press again – this time for a “badly worded” letter (his words) that just happens to have come across as denial of an abuse victim’s allegations and the ongoing problem with the priest in question. You can read about it in more detail here and here and here. Quite apart from the questionable plausibility of his claim that though church lawyers had the tape evidence of the incident being non-consensual from 2005 they didn’t happen to mention it to him, to have dismissed the claim a) on the grounds of consensuality, and b) on the offender’s word, is both stupid and immoral. By 2002, when Anthony Jones brought his complaint to the church for the second time, church authorities had absolutely no excuse for accepting an alleged offender’s word unquestioningly. (And it must have been unquestioning, because it was directly opposed to the church’s own internal investigator’s assessment.) Moreover, it would appear that to Pell consensual homosexual sex between priest and parishioner is ok – which flies in the face of 1) his own conservative anti-gay stance, 2) the clearly understood power imbalance between clergy and parishioners, and 3) the priest being supposed to be celibate.

(Aside: How come politicians who support homosexuality and/or abortion bills get threatened by Pell with denial of communion, but a gay priest doesn’t?)

But what we must not forget is that this wriggling out of negative publicity on abuse issues is not the first time Pell has had to do so. It’s only a few years since he flatly denied that the church ever imposed gag orders (confidentiality agreements) on victims settling abuse claims – a denial he also had to make excuses for when the Daily Telegraph printed a double-page spread showing photos of the very gag orders Pell denied existed. His excuses then had a similar ring: the lawyers didn’t tell me, I really meant well, look at all I’ve done for abuse victims.

I know of at least one other instance, in 1994, when Pell’s assistant wrote to a victim denying prior knowledge or earlier correspondence with a victim of a De La Salle brother, but the then-head of the De La Salle order said that Pell had previously contacted him after receiving the complaint.

And further back still, when Gerald Ridsdale was at the height of his abusive career (for details, see his entry in my perpetrator list), Pell declared he knew nothing of Ridsdale’s activities, despite the abuse being common knowledge, and Pell sharing the presbytery – where many of the abuses happened – with Ridsdale for a year. Ridsdale has been convicted of multiple counts against 47 boy victims. Presumably Pell was either blind or stupid, or he turned a blind eye.

(Note: A fuller treatment of the Pell/Ridsdale links can be found here.)

How many times can one man be proven to have lied when he said “I didn’t know” and “I meant well” before Rome decides he’s a liability?

I invite anyone who has clear evidence of Pell’s duplicity to post it here as a comment.

Following the recent brouhaha over Bill Henson’s exhibition of artworks including images of young naked bodies, Art Monthly has now published a photo of a 6yo girl, in a demurely naked pose taken by her mother 5 years ago (ie. the girl is now 11yo), by way of provoking debate on the issue. I wholeheartedly agree with the magazine reporting on, and discussing, the issue, though I think that such blatant publication as a means of doing so is unwise at best. After all, if the issue is as burning a one as the editor asserts, then discussion will happen with or without further examples to fuel the debate.

Yet it seems to me that the crux of the issue is – at what age is it appropriate to a) film, photograph or paint naked people (and does it vary depending on the literal accuracy of, and broadness of access to, the medium?), and b) decide whether you want your own body immortalised in such a way? And the answers to those questions probably depends a lot on exactly what people are worried about. Is it the possibility of children being manipulated into posing for such photos, or the potential misuse (by paedophiles, for instance) of the published images? Furthermore, at what age, and to what extent, is nudity ok in a general sense?

No-one seems to question the appropriateness of photos of naked babies and toddlers (think Anne Geddes, for instance, and see this and this and some of these), nor do they question the appropriateness of small children running around naked on the beach or at swimming pools. Yet there are many proven cases (proven by medical examination or other means, since young children are not considered reliable witnesses in court) of abuse of tiny children and babies. Youth and innocence is not sufficient protection against a predator, although it is taken as sufficient justification for nakedness in certain contexts.

So then one has to ask, at what age does it become not ok, and then at what age should it become ok again? At what age are children considered no longer innocent enough (or safe enough) to run naked? How can Kevin Rudd say it’s disgusting to see childhood nakedness in an art exhibition, but not on the beach? Do parents really think about the issues involved there, or is it somehow more confronting in permanent form? (And if so, what about naked cherubs in religious art?) Do parents merely assume that those who see their naked children playing are not eyeing them with sexual interest? (I’m prepared to bet that if they thought otherwise, they’d very quickly make their children get dressed!)

Yet to legislate against all public nakedness would see a return to the fears of the Victorian era, when even pianos’ legs were swathed in cloth rather than display nakedness! Heaven forbid we ever again get to that extreme!

And if one were to say that at such-and-such an age it becomes inappropriate, then when does it become appropriate again, and why then? There’s no magic enlightenment about the issues on one’s 18th birthday, so developing understanding of the issues has to play a role in the lead-up to whatever age is determined to be mature enough. However, the kind of education is also important. Children are taught at the moment that certain parts of them are “private”, and it is a concern if someone wants to touch them. But there’s no teaching, really, about someone wanting to look, let alone to draw or capture in a picture. And if children are taught to believe that “artistic merit” is sufficient justification, then how are they to deal with a paedophile who convinces them to model for photos “for artistic purposes”?

I think the debate throws up more questions than it can answer, and everyone’s slant (and therefore answers) is going to be different. I certainly don’t have any clear answers, although a respected friend of mine suggested that perhaps one solution would be to allow such artworks to be created but withhold them from public view until the child turns 18, at which time the child themself may decide whether the artwork may be released for public view or not.

Hopefully some of what I’ve said here will open up the issues from the perspective of abuse victims. There is also quite a well-balanced look at the issues here.

Apart from the quoted amounts spent on WYD by the church ($150M) and the NSW govt ($86M+), now we find that the Federal govt (ie. John Howard, just before the last election) threw in another $22M, which is being challenged as unconstitutional in the Supreme Court (see here). And new legislation especially to “protect the Catholic pilgrims from harassment” is in force. Has anyone stopped to wonder just what sort of political manoeuvering must have gone on behind the scenes to prompt all this? And Pell says the church didn’t ask for any of it!!! Yeah right!

So far I’ve been added to at least two other blogrolls that I know of. And I feel that common courtesy ought to return the favour. But I’m conscious that this blog is part of a wider website which is accessed primarily by clergy sexual abuse victims. Many of them are easily triggered by church-related and/or sex-related references, and I have always aimed to keep my site as a safe space for them, where anything likely to be triggering has a warning attached to it. It is in that spirit I have to refrain from including on the blogroll some blogs I otherwise would, so if yours is one of them, my apologies – it has nothing to do with my level of respect and interest in your blog.