In response to new allegations of clergy abuse of children (MaltaToday, 22 January) Daphne Caruana Galizia raised a number of important questions (TMIS, 29 January). Some of these have been taken up by the Curia’s PRO on behalf of the Response Team (TMIS, 5 February). Since the questions ask us to get to the heart of the very difficult issue of clergy abuse and the best way to deal with it, it might be worth considering the complexity of the subject, before making suggestions to what procedures and structures could deal with, even prevent, such abuse from occurring.

Not surprisingly, given the MaltaToday report, Daphne confines her comments to clergy sexual abuse of children, which is considered a crime in Malta, as in other countries. If I have understood her correctly, she is concerned that the crimes are not reported to the police, and that there is therefore no judicial process, nor is there any sentencing, such as might lead to the prevention of further crimes both by the accused perpetrator as well as by others. The judicial process should serve as a deterrent. In her argument, and it is a progressive one, based on respect for the rule of law and trust in institutional structures and processes (a respect and trust that most of us, myself included, would wish to have) the resort to the State’s methods of redress for wrongdoing is superior to resort to the Church’s Response Team.

While I have a lot of sympathy with Daphne’s arguments here, it might be more helpful to see what is being offered by the State and how far agreed goals to stop abuse can be achieved, and then to do the same with the Church Response Team. I will argue that both the State criminal process and the Response Team have positive aspects, just as they have problematic ones, which we would wish to improve. It should be remembered that clergy misconduct is not criminal according to Maltese law, which does not have a Code to deal with misconduct with adult clients in unequal relationships of power. This behaviour is abusive and harmful nonetheless, especially in a pastoral relationship. Beyond inquiries and investigations however, there should be a third way, based mainly on prevention, but also on developing a redemptive culture when harm has been done.

Unless clergy misconduct with adults is discussed openly and understood for what it is, then it will be difficult to prevent the incidence and cover-up of clergy abuse of children. Focusing only on child abusers treats cases as if they are problems of an individual, rather than the problem of a culture. In institutions, and the Church is no exception here, serious abuse happens not simply because there are serious abusers, but because there are also less serious abusers in whose interest it is that the whole issue of abuse is not dealt with openly. The people who commit minor or more serious misdemeanours cover up for the very serious ones, since they too have something to lose. Moreover, cultures of silence, bystander states, states of denial all flourish when there is widespread tolerance of wrongdoing. The more minor infringements there are, the more the serious ones can be concealed. “Atrocity triangles” include victims, perpetrators and observers who stand by and do nothing about the abuse. Perhaps we are even confusing forgiveness with justice, thinking that to be forgiving means to let things be, not correcting offenders nor adjusting institutional cultures. It is the Church as an institution and a culture that needs to be examined.

Supporting children and their

complaints

In this section I am going to give a brief overview of the complaint process and its effect on children, comparing the advantages and disadvantages of both the State system and the Response Team process. These will be assessed in the light of what professionals in the field know about the feelings and behaviour of abused children.

There are some differences between adult and child victims, which suggest we need different procedures and different personnel to deal with their cases.

The reaction to sex abuse is different, even in conflict with, normal reactions to other life stresses.

Children do not react uniformly to sexual abuse – this varies according to age, sex, ethnicity, culture and education, as well as variables of the abusive relationship such as the threat, force or perversity of the intruder.

Adults often fail to recognise what is happening, so the child feels “orphaned” since he or she is left alone in this.

Adults have their own idea of what is “normal credible victim behaviour” which does not match the experience of children – so the ways children respond are not seen by many adults to be reliable indicators of abuse.

Child responses to the stress of abuse include secrecy (sense of guilt, confusion and isolation, because of threats); helplessness (no effective protest made to abuser); accommodation (can show no pathology, dissociate stressful events, adaptive silence); delayed, conflicting and unconvincing disclosure (minority only disclose, deny at first, advance tentatively, need “safety signal” to talk); retraction (do not get emotional comfort through disclosure, dismay of adults scares them, fearful for plight of offender).

A retraction should not be seen to nullify previous claims, nor are any of these inconsistent with a history of sexual victimisation, they just show that there is a gulf between adult and child behaviour (though adult victims often respond in similar ways too).

The burden on the victim

In both the State’s and the Church’s method of dealing with abuse, a complaint needs to be made against an alleged perpetrator. This may be made by a parent or guardian of the child or a third party, but in each system, the victim, i.e. the child, needs to be a willing witness. Even if an adult has good evidence for the accusation, the victim-child still needs to go through all the trauma involved in talking about the abuse. Disclosing what has happened is never straightforward for a victim, still less for a child-victim. Apart from the fact that children are often not believed by adults, or are misunderstood, as they respond differently to the stress, the very task of remembering what has happened is problematic. There may be different types of confusion, denial and retraction as outlined above. In both systems the questioning of children causes distress, though attempts have been made to improve the process.

Reducing distress

In the courts there have been improvements in that a designated magistrate for child abuse has been appointed. This person can build up expertise in the field. Video-conferencing has been introduced and attempts are made to keep perpetrators and victims apart. The Response Team also keeps them apart.

Currently, Magistrate Padovani Grima (TMIS, 19 February) employs a range of strategies to put the child at ease, to help understanding and to reduce distress. The Response Team appears to be less well-prepared in this regard. Firstly there is no separate team for children, so there is no investment in expertise in child sex abuse. Though the Response Team has often had female members (and most perpetrators are male) it is often a male-only Team. The Team does not make any special arrangements for the questioning of children, and it does not appear that there is a strategy to develop a cadre of professionals (psychologists, counsellors, social workers) who are trained to deal with children. Sometimes the Team has a psychologist but this is not a statutory requirement. However, it should be said that even in the most supportive environment, disclosing abuse and being questioned is very distressing for victims, and it is therefore no surprise that concerned parents, guardians, and professionals responsible for children, might decide that it is not in the child’s best interest to go forward.

Allocating responsibility

Those of us who are more communitarian than individualistic, may be disconcerted by the under-reporting of abuse, holding that for the sake of the common good, we all have an obligation to make sure that those who abuse are investigated. However, victims and their carers (such as parents, psychologists, counsellors, social workers) are correct to argue that it is not the responsibility of the victim to right the wrongdoing. The victim has only the responsibility and the right to look after him or herself, which in itself is a considerable challenge, given the annihilation of abuse. If the victim is strong enough to make a complaint, then that will help the common good, but it is known that for victims, it is unusual to achieve lasting comfort from disclosure. All this suggests that we need to look elsewhere to find where the responsibility for stopping abuse lies.

Confidentiality: privacy or

cover-up?

Regarding confidentiality, the Curia PRO, on behalf of the Response Team, is correct to point out that most victims want to be assured of this, are reluctant to go to the police, and are fearful of media exposure. The need to protect the privacy of victims is important. Even when in the case of the courts, there is a ban on the publication of names, information is often leaked. Moreover, the Law Courts are very public places and there is little opportunity for protection of the victims’ privacy. Apart from this, the defence may even call on witnesses to divulge information about victims which further invade the victim’s privacy, this when the abuse itself is already an assault and invasion of the victim’s privacy.

It is the case that perpetrators have been the adventitious beneficiaries of the Church protection of the confidentiality of all parties. The consequence is that those guilty may be able to continue abusing others who are not alerted to their practices. This is serious and should not be allowed. There is nothing to stop the Holy See from changing its practice and encouraging dioceses to make a public announcement regarding a finding of guilt. At the same time, it can also offer faith communities, non-offending clergy and the families of the offending clergy member (who are secondary victims) support. By announcing the result of an inquiry, the Church shows public accountability and also gives other silent victims the opportunity to come forward. One advantage of the State process, therefore, is that it is usual for a guilty party to be named once the accusation is proved. Here, an informed society is protected from further abuse from this particular perpetrator and the sentencing may serve as a deterrent to other erstwhile abusers.

Investigative processes

Regarding the nature of the inquiries, police investigation can be more thorough and can include even forensic evidence, but this in itself may be problematic for the victim who is requested to allow examination and other intrusive processes on their own person. In effect, the victim can end up becoming the accused. While the Response Team does not usually have any evidence apart from that produced by voluntary witnesses, the police and the courts can look at other evidence, for example, child pornography on a computer. The courts can also subpoena reluctant witnesses, while the Response Team cannot do this. It is likely that some RT cases remain ‘unproven’ because witnesses are reluctant to come forward, this especially in the case of strongly bounded groups who collude in denial or think that loving the Church means avoiding tough action. It is interesting that the recent Curia/ RT clarification (TMIS, 5 February) stated that there were no cases brought before the Response Team which were considered “unjust accusations”.

Time: disturbing memory and time-barring

Regarding time, the Church process may be far better than the State process. Not only is the Response Team able to respond expeditiously, but the RT also hears historical cases. Canon Law has a 10-year prescription period and this is longer than the courts; the courts may actually prevent the prosecution from mentioning previous cases of the accused. The most important point, however, is that the RT usually interviews the child promptly, and this allows the child to then try to leave the sad memories behind and even ‘forget’ the case. With the length of time a case takes to get to the criminal court, children have to either spend years without being able to get effective therapy or try to forget the pain, or risk being accused of fabricating evidence when their memory (and it might be psychologically disturbed) fails them. If they have started the healing process, the hearing of the case in court will open all the old wounds. This is often a price too high to pay for the sake of stopping an offender. Again it is always the victim who pays the price.

Responsibility and

repentance

Thus, the question to be asked is, “Who is responsible for stopping clergy abuse of children (and of adults)?” There is no escaping the fact that the perpetrator is responsible for the abuse and should bear the main responsibility of these actions. Even if perpetrators have a compulsive psychological illness, in their majority they still know that what they are doing is wrong. That is why they hide it. Perpetrators can use their conscience and their free will as much as any one else. The choice to harm is theirs alone. The choice to cover up the harm, to continue harming through deception and lies and other complex and wicked strategies is also theirs. While we should be sensitive to psychological conditions that may make a minority of perpetrators incapable of free will, we should not make the mistake of thinking that wickedness no longer exists. Perpetrators can also make choices once they have already erred. If they truly want redemption, and one would expect priests to believe in true repentance, then they could confess their guilt and save their victims the further abuse of having to undergo a court case or a RT inquiry. This would include telling the truth and admitting their guilt beyond the confessional. Yet many abusers continue to lie even after they have been investigated and found to have erred. Strangely, they are still seen administering the sacraments. What is their state of grace when they persist in lying about their actions and their victims?

Finally, the responsibility for stopping abuse rests on the whole community. The Church has constructed a bystander culture. It has equated forgiveness with letting errors go uncorrected. It has valued silence over openness, hypocrisy over honesty. It has protected perpetrators more than it has victims. It has not taught members of the faith community to be intolerant in the face of abuse. It has contributed itself to the dominant culture of death by letting the bodies and souls of children, and even of adult victims, die while they are still alive. Instead of upholding moral standards, it has protected those who attack the moral development of both children and adults by giving them pastors who teach one thing, and do another.

A culture of redemption

To move beyond the crisis culture of dealing with individual cases as they arise, we need a different approach. This should be a long-term strategy for prevention that would include open discussion, training and education of the whole Christian community, including children. This requires support groups for both present victims and perpetrators, as well as secondary victims. Investment in professionals means that the Church needs to stop depending on the voluntary work of professionals but to pay these people for working in this field. A range of professionals should be employed. Other mechanisms widely adopted in other countries such as publicity campaigns how to keep the ministry healthy can also be planned. This would lead to a redemptive culture that would greatly reduce opportunities for abuse by controlling access to children and other vulnerable groups. Systems of accountability should be devised beyond the very weak method of spiritual directors, who seem to be completely ineffectual in stopping priests from harming others. The redemptive culture should encourage members of the faith community to show potential offenders their deep dismay when signs of erring become evident. The laity have a lot to teach their clergy in this and their support in helping lost shepherds should be sought. This redemptive culture would make us all responsible for stopping abuse.

[email protected]