The best kept secret

Recent contributions on the Church and sexual abuse in pastoral activity have referred to questions of transparency, accountability and secrecy. But perhaps the best kept secret is the work of the Interdiocesan Commission on Cases of Sexual Abuse in...

This report is an important statement of principle and intent, with a clear commitment to truth and reconciliation, as well as justice. It deserves a close, wider reading than it has got to date.

In this article I will start by commenting briefly on issues that I believe are very positively addressed in this report and then on others that may, in my opinion, need further thought and fine-tuning.

General principles and basic attitudes

The report opens with a dedication to victims of abuse "who feel neglected and maybe abused a second time by the sins of omission and a conspiracy of silence". A pledge of solidarity and support is made to them.

The report directly refers to the well-known issue of power in unequal relationships, which is the context in which sexual abuse occurs. It continues by iterating that sexual misconduct in ministerial relationships results in "the breaking of sacred trust" and "contradicts the evangelical inspiration".

Like other service professions, pastoral functionaries² in the Church should offer clients "the greatest possible safety". The report refers to the "untold harm" to the victim, and to the Church, that is rendered by these acts.

The policy is inspired by the two basic attitudes of compassion and responsibility, which extend to both victims and those close to them, as well as to the accused. The report calls for a search for "appropriate remedies", various forms of response, and reconciliation. Three guiding principles of justice, including calling the accused to accountability and "reform"; diligence, in dealing with cases promptly and thoroughly; and respect for civil authorities and their proper jurisdiction, are acknowledged.

In the case of child sexual abuse, the commission wants the Church to be committed to the Welfare Principle (p.10). Here, the highest priority is to be given to protecting the child. Suggestions are made to those who have to determine what course of action to take in all proceedings concerning children.

The report holds that as a principle of Christian morality, every person in possession of reliable information related to child sexual abuse is strongly encouraged to disclose the information to the "competent Church authority". What this is, or how an ordinary person, especially a child, is to have knowledge of it, remains a mystery.

All allegations are to be taken seriously. Notwithstanding a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, the report recommends immediate "prudent investigation". False accusations are to be taken very seriously. In the case of those made due to "profound psychological need", suitable help will be suggested to the person.

This is an impressive commitment to the welfare of both victims and the accused. In no other forum is there the attempt to place the welfare of the victim at the forefront, to have a process which is least harmful to all concerned, avoiding the terrible publicity, psychologically damaging interrogations and invasion of privacy of criminal trials, at the same time as ensuring justice. It is also the only way that abuse that is not part of the criminal code, such as the unethical behaviour of professionals, in this case, pastoral ministers, with adult clients, can be addressed.

The process towards reconciliation should help many victims, who more than anything else want their hurt to be acknowledged both by perpetrators and by the Church, as well as to be reassured that no further harm be done to other potential victims, by effective and lasting action.

Reconciliation is a first step towards a perpetrator acknowledging his part in causing harm, and can lead to an authentic repentance, an asking for forgiveness with the hope of redemption, as well as being a crucial phase in the healing of psychologically disordered perpetrators. The setting up of a Response Team, with the objectives outlined in the report, is salutatory in this regard.

Definitions

There are a number of important definitions made in Section I of the report. In the case of sexual abuse of adults, it is firstly held that any behaviour that is sexual "by nature or connotation with non-consenting adults" is abuse. Furthermore, the report holds that failure by these adults to reject such behaviour does not imply consent. This is an important point. Perpetrators cannot hide behind the state of fear or shock that prevents some victims from forcefully rejecting the assault, to claim that there was "consent".

Secondly, even more categorical is the statement that when a "pastoral functionary engages in sexual contact or sexualised behaviour in a pastoral relationship, or in cases of an existing power imbalance, such behaviour is considered to be always abusive whether with or without consent". This means that, as with other service professionals, pastoral functionaries cannot abuse their mission to engage in sexual relationships with "clients".

This recognises that, in such circumstances, the adult (whether female or male) is subject to a power imbalance, which in itself removes from the adult victim the agency to give the consent freely that one would normally require in other equal and reciprocal "right" relationships. I understand this to mean, as it does with the Church in other countries, that sexual contact or behaviour with someone who one is preparing for marriage such as through Cana courses; in a faith community such as CLC, Neo-Catechumenate, CRISCO, etc.; in marriage counselling; in help during illness or bereavement; in dealing with an abusive husband; in a depressive or spiritual crisis; or even as a student or in a seminary; or in Confession, is, by this definition, abusive.

Equally clear is the report's definition of child sexual abuse: "for the purpose of this policy, a child is a person under 18 years of age". The abuse is described as "the improper exposure of a child to sexual contact, activity or behaviour".

Section III (p. 22) reminds us that "sexual misconduct between a cleric, a consecrated person, or a member of a society of apostolic life and a consenting adult, remains a serious offence under canon law". This is because, stresses the commission, "when social relationships become sexualised, even with consent, they are to be considered inappropriate, unacceptable and possibly scandalous".

The report makes an important distinction between abusive and inappropriate adult sexual relationships but does not state whether such cases of inappropriate behaviour are to be referred to the Response Team or to any other institution or person. A clarification from the Curia PR would be welcome here.

Finally, it is worth noting that while the Church recognises that the penal code may classify some cases as time-barred, the Church itself "is morally bound" to deal with "historical cases" (p. 20), including the taking of "prudent preventive measures for the benefit of both the alleged offender and the community at large". This is an invitation for those, who possibly because of fear, of lack of knowledge about the process, or any other impediment, to come forward now, in the interests of the faith community.

The current process

It should be clear by now that both the objectives and the definitions applied in this report are comprehensive, progressive and support the main thrust of the work of the commission, that is to achieve compassion and responsibility, as well as truth, justice and reconciliation.

However, it may be that the process, as actualised through the work of the Response Team, as well as other factors, currently in vigore, are not in fact fully sustaining these objectives. Some of the current obstacles are listed below.

Many people who are active in the Church and thereby most likely to be victims of abuse or inappropriate behaviour do not know what is considered abusive and inappropriate. The commission recommends a detailed preventive approach in Section IV of its report, which includes an education plan, guidelines and a programme of assessment of candidates for the ministry.

So far there is little sign that any of this is actually being implemented. As I write, the Continuing Formation Programme for the clergy is currently running with the theme "The identity of the priest". From the media announcement it does not appear that the issue of abuse will be dealt with.

Similarly, while the Synod Committee felt it necessary to add a theme on Protecting the Environment, there has been little interest in this, the main challenge to the Church's sanctity which is also the cause of much lack of trust in the Church.

The excellent Report of the Interdiocesan Commission, despite being presented to the press some four years ago, is not well known to the point of being a secret. It seems strange that a Church that may be justly sceptical about the press should trust the dissemination of such an important policy to it. Many priests have not seen the document and even provincials of religious orders do not have one at hand. It is currently out of print.

It would be helpful if every person with responsibility for others in the Church, which would include those running groups, had a copy of this and regularly discussed it with members. Moreover, a poster displayed on every church or chapel could present some key points and give the names and telephone contact numbers of the persons designated to deal with this. It is not enough to give the name of the parish priest, leader of the group etc., since they well may be perpetrators themselves.

A number of women should be designated for this work since, in their majority, perpetrators are men. The person designated to approach should least resemble a perpetrator. Both Il-Gens and RTK radio and the Church Website should regularly provide information and carry the helpline number and names of whom one can approach.

The report makes some recommendations (in the section on Structures) about the composition of the Response Team. Guidelines on procedure are not appended. Most victims would feel uncomfortable entering a process, with members, a procedure and outcomes of which, they have no or little knowledge. The more transparent this part of the process is, the better. Some points to consider are:

The choice of delegate and members is very important, as the report rightly points out. It would be helpful if the Church made sure that these people are not only recommended by one or a few advisors, but that all measures are taken to make sure they do not represent a narrow constituency, especially not of an advisor who may have himself been instrumental in covering cases of abuse. A "buddy" or "friends of friends" system should be avoided at all costs.

If the objectives mentioned above are to be reached, it might be better to disassociate the office of the delegate from those of a judge or magistrate in secular criminal proceedings. Recent proclamations on television by the present delegate (who according to the report, p.15, should not have been the mandated spokesperson for the Response Team) showed both lack of awareness on the issue of historical cases since he spoke about prescription even in cases falling under the team, and also about the nature of abuse, when he spoke about "evidence".

Most people know that in cases of abuse it is very unlikely that an abuser will abuse in front of others or leave the type of evidence normally presented in a court of law. To talk about evidence in these cases as if it is comparable to evidence in a court of law is misleading.

There appear to be no guidelines about what members of the team should do in cases of conflict of interest. Many victims do not come forward because they do not even know who the members of the team are. What if a member is a perpetrator, or related to one, or an intimate of one?

To reassure victims, the names of members should be published in accessible fora, and regularly updated. Clear guidelines on what happens in cases of conflict of interest should also be easily accessible, so that victims, their parents or guardians and any Church functionary knows these well and feels reassured enough to come forward.

Rotation of members

Recently, the present team was found to be in error in one of its deliberations. The same case was then heard by the same team. It is advisable that not only should this not happen for the simple reason that an appeal should never be heard by the same group against whom the appeal is being made. The team should regularly have new members. This work is very demanding and time consuming. Too much exposure to these terrible truths could render a person less sensitive to subsequent cases. The rotation of members, and a list of possible stand-ins for cases of conflict of interest, are advisable here.

It is not clear whether both the victim and the perpetrator are able to hear or read each other's testimony, nor whether they will each be given an opportunity to reply. It would be in the interests of both if they could hear or read this, and also that they be given as many opportunities to reply as necessary for a conclusion to be reached.

It is also not clear what the standing of other witnesses is and whether the parties can access this testimony. While the report suggests that children may be represented by their parents or guardians, it is not clear how the procedure deals with adults. Since the report correctly warns against false accusations, at the same time victims know how powerful are the lies of perpetrators who may for years have already been preparing for the eventuality of exposure.

Perpetrators, by their very office, are often in a more powerful position than victims, who in turn are groomed precisely for their vulnerability. It appears that if the team take an overly legalistic approach, then victims need to have legal counsel with them.

These suggestions are made in good faith and in cognisance of the very comprehensive work already carried out by the Interdiocesan Commission. It is likely that other institutions, such as the Response Team itself, the College of Parish Priests, or any other group are currently updating the policy.

If this is the case, it is to be lauded, but given that this is an issue not only for the Church but also for Maltese society in general, it would be helpful if the debate were broader, based on dialogue, and more open to the public. The development of an informed public sphere and a reciprocal and respectful exchange between the public and the Church should be encouraged in the best interests of us all.

1. On Cases of Sexual Abuse in Pastoral Activity: Statement of Policy and Procedures in Cases of Sexual Abuse (Maltese Ecclesiastical Province, 1998).

2. Here including (p. 9) clergy, consecrated persons and members of societies of apostolic life as well as adult lay people working in areas of pastoral activity, catechesis and teaching, spiritual care and guidance (both as employees and volunteers).

Dr Mary Darmanin is a sociologist and teacher educator.