Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

[Paidiske]

So the Commission has finished its work, the final report and recommendations have been released. It's been a long and difficult process for anyone involved in it, and I think the effect it's had on Australia has been profound.

I thought we might want a thread to talk about all of that, process the recommendations, debrief... anyone else?

 

[Occams Barber]

So the Commission has finished its work, the final report and recommendations have been released. It's been a long and difficult process for anyone involved in it, and I think the effect it's had on Australia has been profound.

I thought we might want a thread to talk about all of that, process the recommendations, debrief... anyone else?

Thanks Paidiske.

The ABC has a scrollable copy of the Commission's “Preface and executive summary” (288 pages) at;

15 recommendations from the royal commission you should know about

For those of you interested in a summary of where religion (basically Christianity) sits in all this, go to page 43 (page 53 on the page counter). If you are under the impression that this is all about a few rogue Catholic priests and some passing paedophiles - think again. The problem goes deep and wide across all Christian groups and within multiple Christian institutions.

Of the 8000 reported instances of abuse, 59% related to religious institutions. The following figures show the percentage of total religious abusers, by religion and the number of institutions involved:

61.8% Catholic - 964 institutions
14.7% Anglican - 244 institutions
7.3% Salvation Army - 64 Institutions
4.2% Protestant (undefined denominations) – 57 institutions
2.9% Presbyterian & Reformed - 40 institutions
2.4% Uniting Church - 50 institutions
1.9% Other Christian - 42 Institutions
1.7% Baptist - 30 institutions
0.9% Pentecostal - 30 institutions
0.8% Brethren - 12 institutions
0.7% Churches of Christ - 21 institutions
0.6% Judaism - 10 institutions
0.6% Seventh Day Adventist - 21 institutions
0.5% Lutheran - 12 institutions
0.2% LDS - 6 institutions

Contrary to the “bad apple theory” abusers were generally brothers, priests, minister, parsons, youth leaders, principals, teachers etc. In other words, people who were leaders within their religious groups.

Add to this the fact that religious institutions actually protected and, in some cases, aided and abetted the perpetrators and it brings into question the role of Christianity as a gatekeeper of moral behaviour.

While Christian teaching would rightly condemn child, abuse, child abusers and those who allow it, it appears that Christianity as a whole has failed to live up to its own values in a somewhat spectacular fall from grace.
OB

 

[Paidiske]

The issue that most concerns me now is whether churches will really listen to what the Spirit is saying to us through the Commission; whether we will repent and change. Whether we will do public penance for our sins by being willing to put the welfare of the vulnerable ahead of our own sense of exceptionalism.

I am not convinced that we are there yet, and I fear what it will take to humble us so.

 

[Occams Barber]

The issue that most concerns me now is whether churches will really listen to what the Spirit is saying to us through the Commission; whether we will repent and change. Whether we will do public penance for our sins by being willing to put the welfare of the vulnerable ahead of our own sense of exceptionalism.

I am not convinced that we are there yet, and I fear what it will take to humble us so.

One thing I've noticed is the piecemeal nature of the response by Christian denominations. A bishop here or minister there will mumble some formulaic response. It's as if they have no real clue where to go from here. Some organisations (the Salvation Army for example) come across like the proverbial 'deer in headlights' - too startled by it all to do anything. Some churches have yet to speak.

The beginning is a collective response by the full leadership (down to local level) of each church. No solicitors, no spin doctors, no fake front men. I also believe that church communities need to be brought into this. A church is it's people and only when they are made fully aware of the sins of their church can there be a real force for change. Perhaps each church needs to go, scapula in hand, to its congregation with a full admission of its wrongdoing. Perhaps there is a role for the laity to also accept some responsibility for their church's actions and be a part of any penance.

I would also like to see a single, agreed, collective, response from all Christian organisations. Perhaps I am being ecumenically optimistic.
OB

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, I think that's ecumenically optimistic.

There is more going on than the deer in the headlights response, at least in my denomination. In our last general synod we passed a stack of legislation dealing with various aspects of this, and I was there for the debates on adopting it in Melbourne's diocesan synod. We passed it all; even the new canon making an exception to the seal of the confessional for child sexual abuse.

My sense at the moment is that we have begun well to deal with issues of prevention of abuse, or how to handle reporting and responding, in the future. What we are not dealing with well is issues of healing from the past. We still fail people who have been abused, largely because (it seems to me) we have no idea how to build a system which puts them and their needs at the centre.

So that is difficult.

 

[Radagast]

The issue that most concerns me now is whether churches will really listen to what the Spirit is saying to us through the Commission; whether we will repent and change.

Much of what was brought up before the Commission was ancient history. There is, I think, a clearer sense of "best practice" now, and some Christian denominations put appropriate processes in place quite some time ago.

However, I note that the Commission is recommending abandoning both the "seal of the confessional" and clerical celibacy. These recommendations are guaranteed to get intense pushback from the Catholic Church.

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes, I think that's ecumenically optimistic.

There is more going on than the deer in the headlights response, at least in my denomination. In our last general synod we passed a stack of legislation dealing with various aspects of this, and I was there for the debates on adopting it in Melbourne's diocesan synod. We passed it all; even the new canon making an exception to the seal of the confessional for child sexual abuse.

My sense at the moment is that we have begun well to deal with issues of prevention of abuse, or how to handle reporting and responding, in the future. What we are not dealing with well is issues of healing from the past. We still fail people who have been abused, largely because (it seems to me) we have no idea how to build a system which puts them and their needs at the centre.

So that is difficult.

I should have known the Anglicans would move on trying to sort things out. I'm particularly impressed by the decision to except child abuse from the confessional seal. You probably know my opinion about this. It's just a pity that it doesn't make the news.
(CONFESSION: Don't tell anyone but I have an Anglican bias. According to a piece of paper my mother gave me I was sprinkled Anglican before I was old enough to object. We're practically related.)
I think that the healing you are after can only happen if your efforts are public. Imagine an apology, published in the Australian, signed, not by bishops or Archbishops, but x thousand Anglican congregants. Imagine yourself facing your congregation on a Sunday morning and providing them with a warts and all description of the Anglican church's role in past child abuse and asking for their help in finding a way to respond to those it's harmed. Imagine if every Anglican minister did this.

I have no doubt that you have done and are doing what you can but it seems to me that this is the time for grand gestures to supplement the nuts and bolts solutions.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Much of what was brought up before the Commission was ancient history. There is, I think, a clearer sense of "best practice" now, and some Christian denominations put appropriate processes in place quite some time ago.

However, I note that the Commission is recommending abandoning both the "seal of the confessional" and clerical celibacy. These recommendations are guaranteed to get intense pushback from the Catholic Church.

This Ancient History happened well within my lifetime and within the living memory of the abused and there was no indication that there were any significant moves to sort this out before the pressure of the Royal Commission. There is much more to this than 'best practice'.

I agree that there will be push back from Catholic Church on celibacy and the confessional but I note Paidiske's comment that the Anglicans have now accepted child abuse as a confessional seal exception. Celibacy cannot be enforced by regulation but the confessional issue could become a legal matter. The Commission has recommended that failure to advise authorities of child abuse becomes a criminal offence. It will be difficult to argue in a secular context that the Catholic Church should be an exception to the rule.

I understand that Ireland has already set a precedent on this.
OB

 

[FireDragon76]

I think its a tragedy the Australian Anglicans moved to break the seal of confession, something that has been an inviolable rule for many centuries. That renders it non-sacramental as far as I'm concerned. No one should feel compelled to give a confession to someone who won't guarantee sacred confidence. Of course, Australian Anglicans are often evangelicals who don't care about confession anyways. This strikes me as cynical grandstanding.

I just see it as the usual sort of anti-Catholicism common among Anglicans, and Anglophones in general, it seems to be particularly prevalent in Australia. Child abuse should be addressed without attacking the integrity of religious freedom, especially religious rites. My feelings are the same about clerical celibacy as well, even if I come from a denomination that rejects that as a requirement for ordained ministry.

 

[Radagast]

This Ancient History happened well within my lifetime and within the living memory of the abused and there was no indication that there were any significant moves to sort this out before the pressure of the Royal Commission.

I'm kind of hazy on what "sort this out" means. Criminal prosecution of the guilty was outside the scope of the Commission, and the cases where sufficient evidence exists have probably been prosecuted already.

More important is preventing future abuse. That's tied in with evaluating current processes. That seems to have been outside the scope of the Commission as well, since the Commission focused its attention on the time when (in many cases) older processes were in place.

 

[Paidiske]

I think its a tragedy the Australian Anglicans moved to break the seal of confession, something that has been an inviolable rule for many centuries. That renders it non-sacramental as far as I'm concerned. No one should feel compelled to give a confession to someone who won't guarantee sacred confidence. Of course, Australian Anglicans are often evangelicals who don't care about confession anyways. This strikes me as cynical grandstanding.

I just see it as the usual sort of anti-Catholicism common among Anglicans, and Anglophones in general, it seems to be particularly prevalent in Australia. Child abuse should be addressed without attacking the integrity of religious freedom, especially religious rites. My feelings are the same about clerical celibacy as well, even if I come from a denomination that rejects that as a requirement for ordained ministry.

We had legal precedent for a break in the seal of the confessional. There was historically an Anglican exception where not revealing something heard in confession would make the priest liable to the death penalty. In that sense we were not innovating, but putting this matter on the same level of seriousness as that historical exception.

And several things should be noted; Anglicans already do not see confession as a sacrament. And this is the only permissible exception. (As was noted in the debate, a person can confess to murder and I have no ability to report them, but for child sexual abuse the priest now may). And no one is compelled to confess in Anglicanism at all (although sometimes it is advisable), so there is no compulsion.

The charge of cynical grandstanding may have some grounds. It's my opinion that this exception will not change anything in practice. I do not believe that confession was providing a cover which permitted abuse to flourish. And given that we already had ways of dealing with disclosures of abuse in confession (eg. withholding absolution until a person has confessed to the police), I am not sure that this was necessary in order to deal with abuse or its concealment.

But what it does do is say, very loudly and publicly, We will not cover up abuse. There is no corner, no darkness, no silence, we will permit an abuser. Not the confessional; not anywhere. And that is a very powerful thing to do, and I think for that reason it was important.

Don't mistake this for anti-Catholicism; many of our more catholic clergy and laity were in the forefront of arguing for this in synod. And our formulation of our own canons attacks no one's religious freedom.

 

[Radagast]

I think its a tragedy the Australian Anglicans moved to break the seal of confession, something that has been an inviolable rule for many centuries. That renders it non-sacramental as far as I'm concerned. No one should feel compelled to give a confession to someone who won't guarantee sacred confidence.

I'm not all that keen on auricular confession, having come from a Calvinist tradition.

But it seems to me that auricular confession is inextricably linked to the confessional being confidential. I cannot see how it can survive otherwise.

 

[Radagast]

The charge of cynical grandstanding may have some grounds. It's my opinion that this exception will not change anything in practice.

What it does do is set the stage for what the ongoing dialogue with the Catholic Church is going to look like.

 

[Paidiske]

No one's suggesting that what's confessed should be grist for the gossip mill. What we've done is make one very specific instance of a serious crime (which the vast majority of us will never hear in confession) something which the priest may report to appropriate secular authorities.

In practice, as I said, it does not change anything at all for the vast majority of penitents or confessors. But it makes it clear that the confessional is not a shelter for abusers.

But I didn't want this thread to devolve into being just a debate on the value of the absolute seal on the confessional, or not. This Commission covered enormous amounts of testimony and made many recommendations, and the thread is a space for processing all of that as we find useful.

 

[Occams Barber]

I think its a tragedy the Australian Anglicans moved to break the seal of confession, something that has been an inviolable rule for many centuries. That renders it non-sacramental as far as I'm concerned. No one should feel compelled to give a confession to someone who won't guarantee sacred confidence. Of course, Australian Anglicans are often evangelicals who don't care about confession anyways. This strikes me as cynical grandstanding.

I just see it as the usual sort of anti-Catholicism common among Anglicans, and Anglophones in general, it seems to be particularly prevalent in Australia. Child abuse should be addressed without attacking the integrity of religious freedom, especially religious rites. My feelings are the same about clerical celibacy as well, even if I come from a denomination that rejects that as a requirement for ordained ministry.

As an atheist I have no comment on the Anglican/Catholic divide you're describing but I will comment on the idea that child abuse reporting can be trumped by religious freedom.

Like it or not Australia is a secular society. At the last Census in 2016 Christians were 51% of the population and falling. Based on trends they will now be under 50%.The biggest single 'denomination' in Australia is the religious 'nones'. Within the Christian minority only a fraction actually practice their religion by attending church regularly. In the recent Same Sex Marriage Survey 62% of Australians voted in favour of Marriage Equality. Within Australian society being an ardent Christian is more likely to be a social disadvantage and inviting someone to your church is a social faux pas.

In this context values tend to be secular even among the moderately religious. This means that the question of child safety is likely to be seen as more important than giving a particular religion a right that no one else has. I am aware that the seal of the confessional is important to many Catholics however you must also be aware that there is a legitimate secular argument against making an exception.

As I mentioned in my previous post even Ireland (that bastion of anti Catholicism) has refused to exempt the confessional from reporting child abuse.
OB

 

[Radagast]

Of the 8000 reported instances of abuse, 59% related to religious institutions.

Is there a breakdown of the other 41%? Presumably that includes government schools, government residential institutions, foster care, etc.?

 

[Paidiske]

Out of home care, schools, youth detention, sports/recreational clubs, health services, armed forces, supported accommodation, family and youth support services, childcare and employment.

But the largest category of that was in out of home care.

 

[FireDragon76]

In our country we have laws in most states protecting clergy from prosecution for holding information in confidence when it is part of their religious duties. Even at the height of the sexual abuse crisis in our own country, there were no serious allegations that somehow the confessional was protecting abusers. Most of the focus was on how the Vatican and diocesan bishops and cardinals were handling the allegations after they became known to laity.

Attacking the confessional is the stuff of the Black Legend, frankly, and it's an old anti-catholic trope among Protestants.

 

[Radagast]

Like it or not Australia is a secular society.

On the last Australian census, 52.1% reported being Christian, 30.1% reported being secular, and 8.6% (and growing) reported a non-Christian religion.

 

[Radagast]

.