Comments on: Groans amid the laughter http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2009/04/02/groans-amid-the-laughter/ Opportunities to say what I think about current church stuff. You're welcome to add comments, but please forgive me if I'm very slow to answer them. Comments are moderated, too, so don't expect them to appear immediately you post them. Note:This blog is independently accessible at http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:55:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Clare http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2009/04/02/groans-amid-the-laughter/#comment-1318 Clare Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:17:58 +0000 http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/?p=56#comment-1318 I'm not sure actually whose responsibility it is (wouldn't be hard to find out, but I can't be bothered looking it up right now, being in the throes of rearranging my personal space). I'd guess it comes down to the WWC people pressuring the church to remove a guy. But the legislation has a lot of grey areas - for instance, recently I investigated the situation with regard to a community musical society which often has children in the cast. But because the activity wasn't <b>primarily</b> working with children, the WWC office advised that the society wasn't required to abide by the WWC rules. Parish ministry might well come under the same grey area (never mind whether we think it should or not) in the sense that the WWC decision might be that a priest's primary ministry in his parish is to adults, not children. The same could apply with something like hospital chaplaincy. I'd imagine (whisper here) that the church has enough behind-the-scenes clout to force the WWC office to "not notice", anyway. I’m not sure actually whose responsibility it is (wouldn’t be hard to find out, but I can’t be bothered looking it up right now, being in the throes of rearranging my personal space). I’d guess it comes down to the WWC people pressuring the church to remove a guy. But the legislation has a lot of grey areas – for instance, recently I investigated the situation with regard to a community musical society which often has children in the cast. But because the activity wasn’t primarily working with children, the WWC office advised that the society wasn’t required to abide by the WWC rules. Parish ministry might well come under the same grey area (never mind whether we think it should or not) in the sense that the WWC decision might be that a priest’s primary ministry in his parish is to adults, not children. The same could apply with something like hospital chaplaincy.

I’d imagine (whisper here) that the church has enough behind-the-scenes clout to force the WWC office to “not notice”, anyway.

]]> By: Jaqi http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2009/04/02/groans-amid-the-laughter/#comment-1296 Jaqi Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:45:56 +0000 http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/?p=56#comment-1296 If it's an offence to employ a convicted child sex offender in a position working with children, who should be prosecuting the various churches/parishes/schools/etc who are doing so? I bet if more of them were done for it they'd think twice about doing it. If it’s an offence to employ a convicted child sex offender in a position working with children, who should be prosecuting the various churches/parishes/schools/etc who are doing so? I bet if more of them were done for it they’d think twice about doing it.

]]> By: Clare http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2009/04/02/groans-amid-the-laughter/#comment-1195 Clare Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:27:28 +0000 http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/?p=56#comment-1195 Well, technically it sort of is. Illegal, that is. The Working With Children legislation (see www.kids.nsw.gov.au) makes it an offence to employ a convicted child sex offender in a position working with children (and, incidentally, the legislation also covers those who have been the subject of an investigation, even a workplace one rather than a criminal one). But there are three main problems with it: 1) It requires the offender to be honest when filling out the declaration to say they're not an offender. 2) It requires the employer to be diligent about doing the necessary checks (applicants for paid work must have their declaration checked, applicants for volunteer positions only need to sign the declaration - it doesn't have to be followed up). 3) With regard to the church, it depends what you mean by "employed as a priest". If you mean, in a parish, then that's covered by the WWC legislation. But there are many other ways a priest can be employed - in admin, in chaplaincy work (hospitals, schools, retirement homes, etc), and in a range of ministries, some of which are voluntary and some paid. So the borderline of a) what needs to be checked, and b) what constitutes working with children, can be pretty hazy when it comes to clergy. Moreover, if the perpetrator is opportunistic rather than focused (ie. he doesn't care what/who his victims are so long as they're available), it may not be enough to switch him to hospital chaplaincy or work with people in special care. They're not kids, but they're still vulnerable. To me, the significant thing is not removing a perp from opportunities to abuse (it's impossible), it's the church saying "this guy is no longer one whom we endorse as being worthy of the title Reverend". Until they're prepared to do that, it will continue to appear as though the church supports their abusive actions, or at least doesn't think it's a terribly heinous contravention of their ordained status. Well, technically it sort of is. Illegal, that is. The Working With Children legislation (see http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au) makes it an offence to employ a convicted child sex offender in a position working with children (and, incidentally, the legislation also covers those who have been the subject of an investigation, even a workplace one rather than a criminal one). But there are three main problems with it:
1) It requires the offender to be honest when filling out the declaration to say they’re not an offender.
2) It requires the employer to be diligent about doing the necessary checks (applicants for paid work must have their declaration checked, applicants for volunteer positions only need to sign the declaration – it doesn’t have to be followed up).
3) With regard to the church, it depends what you mean by “employed as a priest”. If you mean, in a parish, then that’s covered by the WWC legislation. But there are many other ways a priest can be employed – in admin, in chaplaincy work (hospitals, schools, retirement homes, etc), and in a range of ministries, some of which are voluntary and some paid. So the borderline of a) what needs to be checked, and b) what constitutes working with children, can be pretty hazy when it comes to clergy. Moreover, if the perpetrator is opportunistic rather than focused (ie. he doesn’t care what/who his victims are so long as they’re available), it may not be enough to switch him to hospital chaplaincy or work with people in special care. They’re not kids, but they’re still vulnerable.

To me, the significant thing is not removing a perp from opportunities to abuse (it’s impossible), it’s the church saying “this guy is no longer one whom we endorse as being worthy of the title Reverend”. Until they’re prepared to do that, it will continue to appear as though the church supports their abusive actions, or at least doesn’t think it’s a terribly heinous contravention of their ordained status.

]]> By: Jaqi http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2009/04/02/groans-amid-the-laughter/#comment-1194 Jaqi Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:59:18 +0000 http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/?p=56#comment-1194 It's kind of puzzling about Einfeld - the whole sordid saga is detailed on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld" rel="nofollow">his Wikipedia entry</a> along, of course, with the details of his career as a distinguished fighter for human rights (one-time president of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, named a National Living Treasure, etc). But I just don't get it. Why would a retired Supreme Court judge do something as silly as lie on oath again and again to avoid a $77 fine? He wasn't even going to lose his licence, although he would've only had one point remaining. But something doesn't add up. I can't help wondering if he might have, you know, a cocaine addiction or something - something to cause him to lose his sense of perspective and save his pennies in all the wrong ways. There was also the collapse of Australian Legal Resources International, of which he was president, but presumably that's all been properly investigated and so on. Still, I feel we haven't seen the real cause behind his actions, and wonder whether it will come out while he's in jail. There's <a href="http://www.watoday.com.au/national/inside-the-two-heads-of-marcus-einfeld-20090326-9c4h.html" rel="nofollow">an interesting article</a> on the news site WA Today discussing his attitude in psychological terms and referring to compartmentalisation - so common among clergy abusers. Which reminds me - I think we should start a campaign, a nice quiet little thing that can simmer along getting the odd signature here and there from victims and their supporters until some high profile case gives it wings. A campaign to make it <i>illegal</i> for churches to employ convicted child sex offenders as priests. No use trying to get the churches to do it off their own bats - make it law. It’s kind of puzzling about Einfeld – the whole sordid saga is detailed on his Wikipedia entry along, of course, with the details of his career as a distinguished fighter for human rights (one-time president of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, named a National Living Treasure, etc). But I just don’t get it. Why would a retired Supreme Court judge do something as silly as lie on oath again and again to avoid a $77 fine? He wasn’t even going to lose his licence, although he would’ve only had one point remaining. But something doesn’t add up. I can’t help wondering if he might have, you know, a cocaine addiction or something – something to cause him to lose his sense of perspective and save his pennies in all the wrong ways. There was also the collapse of Australian Legal Resources International, of which he was president, but presumably that’s all been properly investigated and so on. Still, I feel we haven’t seen the real cause behind his actions, and wonder whether it will come out while he’s in jail.

There’s an interesting article on the news site WA Today discussing his attitude in psychological terms and referring to compartmentalisation – so common among clergy abusers.

Which reminds me – I think we should start a campaign, a nice quiet little thing that can simmer along getting the odd signature here and there from victims and their supporters until some high profile case gives it wings. A campaign to make it illegal for churches to employ convicted child sex offenders as priests. No use trying to get the churches to do it off their own bats – make it law.

]]>