IT IS Friday, and I am
returning home after a week-long retreat, during which I have had
no contact with the outside world. I switch on my mobile phone, and
upload messages. Many of them are about the latest failure by
senior clergy in the Church of England to respond appropriately to
allegations of child-sexual abuse. Here we go again!
What sense do I make of
these "failings", the media ask? Their query reflects the deepest
questioning "Why?" of those who have suffered abuse in the Church,
and who were dismissed, vilified, or had their suffering minimised,
when they reported it to church authorities, while the perpetrators
were protected.
Over the 20 years I have
walked alongside victims and survivors of clergy-perpetrated sexual
abuse, I have come to understand that, just as sexual abuse is
about abuse of power, so, too, is the response of the Church: the
responses now being uncovered within the Church of England are a
continuum of the original abuse suffered by the victims.
THE continuing inquiries
and police investigations into child-abuse perpetrated by clergy
and church officials in the diocese of Chichester have revealed
that multiple perpetrators were allowed to remain in active
ministry, or to move to positions where they still had access to
children, even though church au- thorities were aware of police
convictions, cautions, confessions, and/or reported allegations of
child-sexual abuse made against them.
Those who were supposed
to be pastoral leaders took decisions that effectively cut the
victims off from processes of justice and reconciliation,
re-traumatising them because they were not listened to, or were
dismissed as damaged and unable to forgive; and protected the
reputation of the perpetrators, who in some cases went on to abuse
more children.
The actions taken by
church authorities included lying to congregations, parents, and
others who raised concerns; deliberately keeping information from
external agencies and the police; and even burning files when
inquiries were conducted into child-protection failings. The Bishop
of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner, has rightly identified that
"deception and cover-up" took place; for that is the effect of such
responses (News, 10
May).
THE current mantra from
church leaders, when asked to explain why they failed to report
allegations to the police, is that they followed the
child-protection policies that were in place at the time. Indeed,
they often did, but survivor organisations have consistently called
on Churches in the UK to have more robust and effective policies in
place, which do not collude with perpetrators, and which respond to
the victims/survivors when they come forward.
Time and again, survivors
have had their views dismissed, and have been vilified for
suggesting that bishops and church officials should not be trusted
to act in an objective way when faced with serious allegations of
sexual abuse against their friends and colleagues.
Since the early 1990s,
survivors have called for child-protection policies in Churches to
make central the need to listen to the victims, and to respond
appropriately. Yet both the C of E House of Bishops and the RC
Bishops' Conference of England and Wales have repeatedly refused to
include in policies the mandatory reporting of allegations to the
police and external authorities, or to develop procedures for
responding appropriately to victims and to ensure that their needs
are met.
While senior church
officials seek to hide behind inadequate policies to explain their
failures, no one within the Church of England is telling the media
and the public that the current child-protection policy still does
not require bishops to report cases to the police or other external
agencies. The current policy still maintains that if clergy confess
to other clergy and bishops, they are protected by the seal of the
confessional; that clergy cannot be compelled to have a
risk-assessment; and that there is no duty on bishops to disclose
to external agencies allegations of child-sexual abuse held on
clergy files.
Most alarming of all is
that even the most notorious convicted sex offenders remain
ordained ministers, as their "nature" is believed to have been
irreversibly changed by ordination (would that this were true).
This takes us to the heart of the matter, the privileging of the
priestly state over the safety and welfare of the most
vulnerable.
WHILE there is
understandable anger at these continuing failings, if we seek to
blame someone, we miss the point, and risk tearing ourselves
asunder in recriminations. What we know is that, to date, only the
tip of the iceberg has been revealed in terms of the extent of
child-sexual abuse perpetrated in the Church of England, as well as
in the Roman Catholic Church and other religious communities.
Child sexual abuse is
notoriously difficult to detect when it occurs. Children do not
have the language, the maturity, the independence, or the right to
understand what is happening to them and why; the perpetrator
grooms not only the child, but the community around the child, and
his or her colleagues and friends, so that they remain silent and
disbelieving, even as compelling evidence emerges.
Victims often come
forward decades after the abuse has occurred, when they have
understood what happened, and when they feel strong enough to seek
justice.
WHAT is needed now is for
the Archbishop of Canterbury and other church leaders to take
responsibility for what has happened, and for the Church to stop
colluding with those who abuse power and prey on the most
vulnerable for their gratification.
The Church needs to
repent; to turn from the institutional instinct to protect itself,
its reputation, and its power; and to open itself up to public
scrutiny. It needs to call on those who have suffered abuse and
those who have concerns to come forward. An independent standing
commission should be set up to establish the truth of what has
happened in the Church over the past 50 years. The Church should
develop processes of reconciliation for all who have been affected:
victims/survivors, families, congregations, and other clergy.
Only in this way will the
Church be able to reconcile itself to what has happened; only this
way will trust in the Church be restored; and only this way can the
integrity that sits at the heart of its mission be re-
established.
Anne Lawrence is a
barrister in private practice, and formerly chaired Minister and
Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors.