Abuse

Part I - The Problem of Child Sexual Abuse in Churches

1.   The Risk of Child Abuse in the Churches

2.   The Extent of Child Abuse in the Churches.

3.   Explanations for abuse in Churches

4.   Factors in church life which contribute to the propensity for abuse

6. The parable of the compassionate church leader

7. Current practices and procedures

8. What does the Lord require of us?

In recent years, an increasing amount of attention has been given to the problem of child sexual abuse in church communities. Most attention has been paid in the media to the problem of sexual abuse by priests, ministers and members of religious orders, perhaps because these people represent the official ‘face’ of the churches. It may be also that sexual abuse is perceived as a particularly shocking crime if committed by clergy, given the betrayal of trust involved when clergy abuse their position of authority in this way. Case after case has emerged in the press of clergy and members of religious orders being charged with sex offences against children. Some of these cases go back years or even decades. Often, the offenders concerned have been charged with multiple offences involving more than one victim.

However, sexual abuse by clergy is only one part of the overall picture of sexual abuse in churches. Sexual abuse is also perpetrated by lay people in church communities and organisations. Churches are very vulnerable to the problem of child sexual abuse since they have an extensive involvement in work with children and young people. There are Sunday Schools, youth groups, church affiliated boys and girls' associations, holiday clubs, church camps and other such activities. It is likely that churches are the largest organised providers of activities for children outside of school hours.

Churches thus offer many opportunities for people to work with children. Most of the children’s and youth work in churches is done by volunteers, and with the range of activities which churches provide, volunteers are always needed. The work of teaching in Sunday School or running a youth group requires enthusiasm and commitment, but not formal qualifications. Therefore anyone who joins a local church is eligible to volunteer. The great majority of people who volunteer to work with children are dedicated and give of their time sacrificially. It should not be surprising however, that churches are likely to attract people with a sexual interest in children, or contain within their ranks those who have paedophilic tendencies. The tendency to paedophilia crosses all sectors of the population and includes people with a great variety of beliefs. Paedophilia knows no boundaries.

It is not surprising then, that churches have a problem with child sexual abuse. It would be surprising if they did not. The issue is how well churches have addressed the problem and what measures they have taken to seek to prevent abuse.

Little, objectively, is known about the extent of CSA in church communities. Most is known about the extent of the problem in the Catholic Church. A considerable number of priests and members of religious orders have been jailed for sexual molestation in the United States (Burkett and Bruni, 1993, Jenkins, 1996). The same pattern may be seen in other parts of the world, including Australia. An Australian support organisation for victims of religious abuse, Broken Rites, released statistics in mid-1999 which indicated that 61 Catholic priests and brothers have been sentenced for sexual offences in Australia in recent years (Broken Rites, 1999, p. 20). Further cases are currently before the courts.

Some indication of the extent of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy comes from a survey conducted in the United States (Rossetti, 1995). A questionnaire was sent to more than 7000 adults who were randomly selected from the mailing list of a religious publishing house which had mainly a Catholic readership. 25% responded. Most of the people who completed the questionnaire were either priests, nuns or actively involved in lay ministry within the Catholic Church. 3.3% of the men in this sample said that they had been sexually abused by a priest before the age of 18. The corresponding figure for females reporting abuse by priests was 1.7%. The results need to be treated with caution since the response rate was quite low. It is possible that people who had been abused might have been more likely to respond to a mailed questionnaire on the subject than those who had not. However, it should also be noted that most of those who responded to this survey were almost all active participants in church life, and many of them were following religious vocations. Many victims of molestation by priests abandon an active religious commitment.

One expert on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, himself a former priest and a psychotherapist, has estimated that 2% of the population of priests in North America are paedophiles abusing pre-pubescent children, and a further 4% become sexually involved with adolescents (Sipe, 1995). These estimates are based only on his clinical experience and have not been corroborated by rigorous research. Nonetheless they are supported by others working in the field.

There is no clear research evidence to indicate one way or the other whether sex offending against children is more prevalent among Catholic priests and religious than among ministers in other denominations. What is clear is that if one compares the two largest Churches, far more Catholic clergy and religious than Anglican clergy have been convicted of child sexual abuse in the last decade in Australia (Broken Rites, 1999 pp 19-20). Catholic clergy probably represent the majority of all ministers of religion who have been sentenced for crimes of child sexual abuse in recent years. One possible explanation for this over-representation is that Catholic religious have been extensively involved in the care and education of children and young people in schools and children’s homes. There is not the same tradition in Protestant denominations of clergy or other people called to religious vocations running schools and children’s homes. Such institutions tend to be run by lay people. Catholic priests and religious have thus had a much greater opportunity for abuse than their counterparts in other denominations.

It should be noted, however, that the problem of child sexual abuse by clergy and other religious workers is not confined to the Catholic Church. It is clear from all the evidence that sex offenders are found in all denominations and in people of many different theological persuasions (Parkinson, 1997). Little systematic research has been done on the problem of child sexual abuse in churches other than the Catholic Church, and finding out the extent of the problem is difficult. One survey in the United States provided an indication of the problem in a denomination within the reformed evangelical tradition of faith. 643 adult members of the Christian Reformed Church in the United States responded to a survey about a range of sexual issues. 3% admitted to some form of sexual abuse of others. This included sexual abuse of adults (Calvin College, 1992).

There is no evidence that the sexual abuse of children is a greater problem in church communities than in the rest of the population. On the other hand, there is no good reason to believe that the extent of abuse is much less than in the community as a whole.

Some writers have sought to explain the problem of sexual abuse in churches by reference to factors which are specific to churches in general or to one or more churches in particular. In this way, CSA is seen to be a symptom of problems in the life of the Church and part of the solution lies in institutional reforms. For example, attempts have been made by writers influenced by feminist thought, to explain the problem of sexual abuse as an outworking of patriarchal structures and beliefs in churches which denigrate the position of women and justify male dominance over others (Imbens and Jonker, 1992). Such explanations generally have more power in explaining the sexual abuse of girls than of boys.

In seeking to explain the problem of child sexual abuse in church communities it is important not to ignore what is known about sex offending generally, as if the phenomenon of abuse in churches was entirely unique to those who practice a religious faith. General explanations for sexual abuse and paedophilic tendencies are as applicable to perpetrators in churches as in the rest of the community. Sexual offending against children is a multi-faceted problem and there is more than one reason why a person might feel a compulsion to abuse children or otherwise choose to do so. There are bio-genetic explanations, psychological explanations and socio-cultural explanations (Marshall & Barbaree, 1990) and all of these may be as helpful for understanding sexual abuse in the churches as in the rest of the community.

Some sex offenders have a persistent and fixated sexual interest in children as their primary sexual orientation, which leads them to offend. Such men are to be found in churches as much as in other parts of the community or other walks of life. The psychological explanations for abusive behaviour also have equal validity in explaining abuse in churches. For example, there is a clear link between a history of childhood physical or sexual abuse and adult sex offending by males, even though the great majority of victims of abuse do not go on to abuse others (Garland and Dougher, 1990, Briggs, 1995). There is evidence also that this is a contributing factor in sexual abuse by clergy. One study which compared 24 Roman Catholic clergy who had admitted sexual abuse with 45 non-clergy child molesters together with control groups found that the likelihood that persons reporting childhood sexual abuse would go on to offend against children did not differ significantly between clergy and non-clergy (Haywood et al, 1996b).

It is important to note however, that sex offenders against children are a heterogenous group. There are differences between offenders in terms of whether their targets are primarily within the family or outside it, whether they target mainly boys or girls, or target both, their age preference, whether they engage in sadistic behaviour or not, and whether their offending is characterised by violence, or threats of violence towards victims. There is no one psychological profile for a person who sexually abuses children. There is not even one profile for incest offenders (Smith and Saunders, 1995; Williams and Finkelhor, 1990).

While sex offending in church communities reflects the range of patterns of abusive behaviour in the community at large, there may still be factors peculiar to church communities which influence the patterns of offending within that community. These factors may either contribute to the propensity of people to abuse children, or they may create a context in which it is easier for a perpetrator to get away with abuse. While these factors which are specific to churches are not complete explanations for abuse in themselves, they are factors which churches might be able to address in reducing their vulnerability to problems of sexual abuse of children.

In understanding the factors specific to church life which may contribute to sexual abusive behaviour, it is helpful to consider the conditions which allow sexual abuse to occur. These are both internal (the motivation of the offender) and external (the opportunity for abuse). David Finkelhor, a leading expert on CSA, has described four preconditions for sexual abuse to occur. Finkelhor (1984) suggests that, in order for an abusive act against a child to take place, the perpetrator needs to have the motivation, must overcome internal inhibitors to abusing a child, must have the opportunity, free from external inhibitors (such as the supervision of parents) and must overcome the resistance of the victim to an abusive act. There may be factors in Church life which contribute both to the development of internal motivation, and which offer particular opportunities for abuse.

There is at least some evidence that in the Catholic Church, there are factors which may contribute to a propensity for sexual abuse. It is clear that sexual abuse by priests and male members of religious orders follows a different pattern from that of offenders in the general population. This suggests that there are aspects of Catholicism which contribute to the risk that clergy will offend.

What then are these different patterns of offending which may be observed among Catholic priests and religious? First, the majority of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy is abuse of boys, whereas in the general population, more than two-thirds of all victims are girls. While many female victims of abuse in the general population are molested by fathers or stepfathers, girls represent the majority of victims in the general population even if one excludes incestuous sexual abuse.

The gender pattern of abuse by priests may be observed in Rossetti’s survey in the United States (1995). The percentage of men reporting abuse by priests was nearly twice as high as the proportion of women (3.3% v 1.7%). Further evidence emerges from the work of Haywood et al (1996a). This team of researchers working in a sex offender treatment program in the United States compared three groups of alleged child molesters referred to the program for treatment. There were 30 Catholic priests and brothers, and 39 non-clergy child molesters. The latter group consisted of 13 incestuous child molesters and 26 men who abused children primarily outside the family. The researchers found that 77% of clergy were alleged to have molested boys compared with 50% of non-incestuous child molesters and 38% of incestuous child molesters.

Practical explanations for this phenomenon might be offered. The greater abuse of boys than girls in the Catholic Church may reflect the fact that priests have a greater opportunity to abuse boys than girls given the patterns of their ministry. In the past, at least, it has been more common for priests and religious to be alone with early adolescent boys or to have the opportunity to form unsupervised friendships with them, than with girls. Male religious orders have also been extensively involved in running educational institutions and boys’ homes, and this provides an all-male context within which abuse may occur. Nonetheless, the targeting of boys may also be a matter of sexual preference and orientation. Richard Sipe reported that of the priests with a tendency to abuse pre-pubescent children, about three-quarters had a preference for abusing boys. The gender preference was more evenly distributed among the group of priests who targeted adolescents (Sipe, 1995: 27).

Secondly, the victims of Catholic clergy and religious tend to be older than those of other child molesters. All the available research points in the same direction. Indeed, there is an influential view within the Catholic Church that the Church’s main problem is with ephebophilia rather than paedophilia (Rossetti and Lothstein, 1990). Ephebophilia refers to sexual abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors, whereas paedophilia, technically refers to sexual abuse of prepubescent children. In a discussion paper commissioned by leaders of the Catholic Church in Australia on sexual abuse by priests and religious, the research team concluded that most sexual offences against children committed by priests and religious can be described as homosexual ephebophilia (Towards Understanding, 1999, p.20). While it may be true that the Church’s biggest problem is with abuse of adolescent boys, this does not mean that the problem of abuse by clergy and religious is any less serious than would be the case if the victims were generally younger.

Thirdly, there is mounting evidence that there are differences in psychopathology between clerical and non-clerical offenders. Although there is some research which concluded that there were no significant differences between the two groups (Loftus and Carmargo, 1993), more recent research in the United States suggests otherwise. In a study of the differences between clergy and non-clergy child molesters, Haywood et al (1996b) compared a group of 24 Catholic priests or brothers who had admitted child sexual abuse with a group of 45 other admitted child molesters. They found substantial differences between the two groups in terms of psychopathology. The non-clergy offenders had significantly higher scores than the clergy offenders on such measures as psychopathic deviance and schizophrenia. The researchers concluded (Haywood et al, 1996b, p. 1241):

“Differences between clerics and nonclerics…suggest a different etiology of offending. Noncleric sexually abusive behaviour may be influenced more by psychiatric disorders and by antisocial personality traits, whereas cleric sexual offenses may be related more to psychosexual adjustment and developmental issues and less to severe mental disorder.”

Fourthly, there is some evidence that Catholic clergy and religious who offend do not display the same patterns of sexual deviance as non-clergy offenders. Child molesters frequently engage in forms of sexual deviance other than child abuse. This includes such behaviours as voyeurism and exhibitionism (Abel et al, 1988). These are known as paraphilias. Haywood et al (1996a) found that while 50% of their group of non-incestuous child molesters admitted to other paraphilic acts, clergy child molesters did not admit to any other paraphilic behaviours.

These different patterns of age and gender targeting, as well as differences in psychopathology and paraphilic behaviour require explanation in examining factors in church life which may contribute to abuse in the Catholic Church.

While it would be easy to suggest that the problem is celibacy, since this is an obvious point of difference between Catholic clergy and those in Protestant churches, this explanation is probably too simplistic. The issue was considered in Towards Understanding, a discussion paper prepared for Catholic Church leaders. The authors noted that there is no evidence of a causal link between lack of sexual outlet and sexual abuse. Furthermore, celibacy itself cannot explain choice of partner or form of sexual expression. They raised the issue whether sexual dysfunction might be a reason why people decide to enter into a religious vocation involving celibacy. Finally they observed that an active and satisfying sexual life is not a guarantee against abusive behaviour (Towards Understanding, 1999, 52-53).

All of these are valid arguments. They suggest that mandatory celibacy is not, in itself, the explanation for sexual abuse by priests and religious. It is likely that the explanations are more complex and multi-faceted. Further exploration is required of the link between celibacy and psychosexual development, particularly where the decision to follow the path of priesthood is made in one’s formative years. One explanation of the disproportionate sexual attraction of offending clergy to young teenage boys rather than girls is that this reflects an arrested stage of psychosexual development, or regression to an immature stage of that development when for many boys a period of same-sex attraction occurs (Sipe, 1995).

It is possible that past practices of selection for the priesthood and in religious formation have played a role. Respondents to the survey commissioned by Church leaders on sexual abuse by priests and religious commented on the practices which were current between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s. These included entry to a junior institution attached to a house of religious formation at an age as young as 14, complete isolation from families, isolation from involvement in the wider community and deprivation of normal cross-gender social interaction (Towards Understanding, 1999 p. 22).

There is another role which celibacy may also play in influencing the patterns of abuse by priests, and this is in the way that priests and religious who commit sex offences against adolescents are able to justify their behaviour to themselves and to reconcile it with their vows. A precondition to offending is that the offender overcomes the internal inhibitions to abuse such as the voice of conscience. Many offenders against children demonstrate cognitive distortions about their offending (Blumenthal, Gudjonsson and Burns, 1999). Indeed, it is a characteristic of sex offenders that they have an extraordinary capacity for self-deception. Perpetrators of child sexual abuse rationalise their abuse in a variety of ways (Pollock and Hashmall, 1991). Some have convinced themselves that what they do is not morally wrong. Another common rationalisation is to see the child as the seducer. Other offenders may see sex as an entitlement for the male in the household, a right which is to be demanded if necessary.

Some priest-offenders rationalise their conduct in terms of a legalistic interpretation of the requirements of celibacy. Demsey et al (1992, cited in Towards Understanding, 1999 p.52) suggest the possibility that some priests who are heterosexual in orientation may rationalise their abusive behaviour on the basis that sexual activity with boys is not a breach of their vow of celibacy whereas sexual relations with a woman would be. Different levels of sexual contact falling short of intercourse may also be excused in this way (Ormerod & Ormerod 1995, p. 25). Some support for this thesis emerges from the survey conducted as part of the research for Towards Understanding, the discussion paper on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Respondents noted that offenders within the Church dissociated their abusive behaviour from their commitment to celibacy. Indeed, a high number of respondents described offenders they knew as having a strong commitment to celibacy (Towards Understanding, 1999, p. 44).

The issue of the possible link between celibacy and sex offending against minors is a highly emotive and controversial one. It raises issues not only of science but of faith and Church tradition. Understanding the possible influences which celibacy may have on the propensity to offend or on the patterns of offending is important in determining how the problem of sexual abuse might be reduced. It does not lead inexorably to a theological debate about whether the requirement of celibacy should remain, nor to a challenge to Church teaching on this matter. If the Catholic Church is committed to the tradition of priestly celibacy then the question arises how to address factors which might, in a few priests or religious, contribute to the propensity to sexual abuse of minors. There are options to address this problem other than to abolish the requirement of celibacy.

Other factors in church life may lead to greater opportunities for abuse than in other parts of the community or less likelihood that effective intervention will occur to stop the abuse once it is disclosed. Church communities provide an environment which is not only a source of strength and support for many people, but also a trusting environment which a small minority of people may exploit for the purposes of abusing children.

Most sex offenders who abuse children and young people do so after forming relationships with them through natural points of contact. These relationships then provide the context within which a child or young person may be persuaded or coerced into letting sexual contact occur.

Churches offer particular opportunities to those who have a propensity to abuse children. Whereas in schools, most activities are very structured and involve large numbers of children and young people in classrooms or sporting events, church work provides more opportunities for adults to be alone with children without others being present. In local churches, such opportunities may arise from activities such as taking children or young people home after an activity or youth group, giving individual attention to a child who has an interest in the Bible, conducting individual sessions to prepare a young person for confirmation or believer’s baptism, and being alone with children and young people in residential summer camps. Volunteer children’s and youth workers also have other points of contact with children and young people outside of structured activities. The Church is not only a place to which people go, and through which activities are organised. It is a trusting and caring community of people whose shared religious commitment leads to personal friendships and other kinds of social interaction. These social interactions may also offer opportunities to be alone with children or young people without other adults being suspicious or concerned.

The power and influence that clergy have can be used for great good or can be gravely misused. Since in religious communities, priests or ministers are influential in defining the boundaries of what is right and wrong, they have the power to define abusive behaviour as normal. This is one means by which the natural resistance of a victim may be overcome. One victim of sexual abuse by a priest in a Queensland children’s home, told of how shocked he was when the priest first abused him by engaging him in an act of masturbation. The boy had been taught from an early age to be ashamed of anything to do with genitals and nudity. The priest replied that since he was a priest, it was not wrong. Later on, as sexual abuse became a frequent experience, the boy tried to use the confessional as a means of challenging the priest’s behaviour. One one occasion when he went to confession with this priest, he began by saying, “Father, I have committed a sin of impurity”. The priest replied, “what a priest does to a child is not a sin; but if you tell anyone, that would be a mortal sin and if you die you will go to hell.” (Parkinson, 1997, 141-2).

When spiritual authority is misused in this way it adds another dimension to the trauma of sexual abuse. The betrayal of trust involved is enormous, and for some victims of abuse it is difficult to trust people in authority again.

There are also certain factors in churches which may affect the way in which cases of child sexual abuse are dealt with when abuse is disclosed. An important issue is Christian teaching on forgiveness and how beliefs about forgiveness can influence attitudes towards perpetrators of abuse.

Forgiveness is something which Jesus emphasised strongly in his teachings. In his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus linked the forgiveness of others to God’s forgiveness:

“For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Matthew 6:14-15).

It can be difficult to understand how to apply this teaching when a crime is disclosed. Too often in the past, victims have been told that they need to forgive the offender, and they have been discouraged from going to the police. This is illustrated by the case of one minister in a protestant church who had sexually abused his daughter over a considerable period of time. He demanded that she forgive him. When his daughter first disclosed the abuse, he had contacted the church hierarchy and sought forgiveness from them. Now, if his daughter forgave him, the case should be closed, and family life should be able to return to normal. Yet even after he demanded forgiveness from her, the abuse continued (Parkinson, 1997, 160-161).

Forgiveness is a continually recurring theme with Christian offenders. Too often, however, it is a means of avoiding responsibility whereas true repentance means taking responsibility. Forgiveness, in the eyes of the offender, may mean that the victim who has forgiven should not press charges, or that the church which has forgiven should not take disciplinary action. Forgiveness becomes a spiritual argument for avoiding the consequences of the crime, and for negating the need to deal with his offending behaviour.

Such an understanding of forgiveness is of course, a misrepresentation of Christian teaching. Forgiveness is not the opposite of accountability and punishment. It is the opposite of resentment and revenge. Bean (1981, p9) explained it in these terms:

“The opposite of punishment is not forgiveness, for the opposite of forgiveness is resentment and ill-will. To forgive is to refuse to nurse resentment, or to try to refuse to nurse resentment: it means that one no longer says to the person ‘you have done me an injury which I shall always remember and hold it against you.’…Forgiveness is a moral sentiment where ill-will is no longer retained. It may occur before or after punishment, but does not affect it.”

A misunderstanding of forgiveness in the past has led in some cases to perpetrators being allowed to continue their pattern of abuse as they were not brought to account for their crimes nor required to address the causes of the offending behaviour.

What does the Lord require of us in responding to victims of abuse? Christ’s teaching is likely to tell us nothing much about appropriate protocols or structures, just as the New Testament tells us nothing about whether organs are more appropriate than guitars in worship, or whether churches should have altars and pulpits. The timelessness of Christ’s teaching is in the way it speaks to our values, motives and attitudes more than the detail of our structures. It is in reflection on the motives and attitudes of our hearts that we may best gain insight about what it means to be a Christian lawyer dealing with cases of abuse. Indeed, how we respond to cases of abuse may in some situations be a testing ground of the values which dominate our thinking as Christian lawyers who are often asked to advise Churches.

Addressing issues of people’s motives and values can be confronting. When Jesus needed to confront people he often did so through parables. Parables have the advantage that they can deal with difficult issues without accusation and without blame, because it is up to the listener whether he or she identifies with any of the characters. He or she may be like the prodigal son, or the brother or even the father. It is up to us, aided by the Holy Spirit, to take from parables whatever lessons we may learn, and it is up to us whether we identify with any characters in the story.

It is in that spirit that I offer the story of the compassionate church leader, based rather loosely on the story of the Good Samaritan.

“There was a woman who was on a journey to Jericho when she fell among clergy. They robbed her, and they left her wounded in a ditch beside the road. They did not rob her of her money; they robbed her of her innocence. They did not only violate her body, they violated her trust. And they did not leave her covered in blood; they left her covered in shame.

Along came a church leader, and saw the woman in the ditch. Standing on the roadside, he called down to her and said, “Who did this to you?” She replied, “Sir, one of them wore your emblem. I trusted him because he represented you.” The church leader listened carefully to her story. He did his best to respond with compassion, but as a church leader he also had to be objective. These were only alleged wrongs. He promised her that he would take the matter further. He would establish a Tribunal, and she would be able to testify and be cross-examined on her story. If the Tribunal believed her, then the man would be punished. He might be reprimanded, or suspended for a year or required to undergo counselling. He might even lose the right to wear my emblem. And then the church leader walked away and left her in the ditch.

Along came another church leader, and saw the woman in the ditch. Standing on the roadside, he called down to her and said, “Who did this to you?” She said, “Sir, one of them wore your emblem. I trusted him because he represented you”. The church leader listened attentively. He did his best to respond with compassion and then said: “We have procedures for dealing with this in our Church. Make a complaint in writing and we will appoint a mediator between you and this minister. You can tell your story and he will tell his, and if he acknowledges his wrongdoing, then you will be able to say what you think is the appropriate penalty. If he does not accept your account, then we will refer the matter to the disciplinary committee of the Church. As a consequence of your complaint, he might be reprimanded, or suspended for a year or required to undergo counselling. He may even lose the right to wear my emblem.” And after he said this, he walked away and left her in the ditch.

A third church leader came along and saw the woman in the ditch, and went over to help her. “Who did this to you?” he said. “Sir, one of them was wearing your emblem. I trusted him because he represented you.” The church leader knelt down in the ditch with her and listened to her story. He told her that he deeply regretted the suffering that she had experienced. He explained to her that in order to address her complaint properly on behalf of the church, he would need to ask some people to investigate the matter and to give the clergyman concerned an opportunity to give his account. In the meantime, he organised an ambulance for her and asked her whether he could help her with counselling to deal with her trauma. He said that if she wanted this, he would ask a woman to help her in making her complaint to the Church and to walk with her through the process. After doing this, he helped her out of the ditch, gave her his coat to keep warm, and stayed with her until medical help arrived. The next day he phoned to see how she was, and to ask whether there was any other way he could help her.”

Which one of these showed the love of Christ to this woman? The answer is complicated by the fact that all three church leaders responded to her in a way which treated her complaint seriously. The first two church leaders did not walk by on the other side of the road. It is only a few years ago that walking along the other side of the road was a common response of church leaders, not because they lacked compassion for victims, but because various factors combined to make it difficult to see the victims.

One reason why church leaders have in the past walked by on the other side of the road is because there has been a reluctance to accept the possibility that abuse could happen in church communities. One girl as a young teenager tried to tell her Anglican minister that she was being abused by her father. He was a churchwarden of the church and had been the Superintendent of the Sunday School. The minister replied that “things like that don’t happen in families like yours.” (Parkinson, 1997, p.13). Another girl told her mother about her abuse by her father, who was a minister in a small evangelical denomination. The mother said, “how dare you say that about a minister!” and punished the girl severely (Parkinson, 1997, p.39).

In the churches, as in other areas of society, the fate of so many children who disclosed sexual abuse is that they simply were not believed. In churches, there has been a theological dimension to this denial, an assumption, or perhaps even a belief, that such things could not happen in the Church. Either Christians do not have the propensity to commit this kind of crime, or in some way God would not allow it.

Acceptance that child sexual abuse is much of a problem for churches has only come very recently. When awareness first emerged of the problem of child sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s, there was very little discussion of the issue as one affecting churches. It was understood as a problem “out there”. Christians might have been victims of sexual abuse in the past – most pastors were aware of such women (and occasionally men) in their congregations - but there was little awareness that Christians might also be offenders. In the 1980s, writers in the United States began to focus attention on the problem of ministers exploiting their spiritual authority and abusing their position of trust by engaging adult women in sexual relations. Marie Fortune’s book, Is Nothing Sacred (1989) was particularly influential. However, awareness of the sexual abuse of children took longer to be acknowledged, and it was only in the 1990s that a number of books and studies were published which addressed the issue specifically (Rossetti, 1990, Berry, 1992, Anderson, 1992, Goodwin, 1992, Imbens and Jonker, 1992, Heggen, 1993, Cashman, 1993, Burkett and Bruni, 1993, Jenkins, 1996, Parkinson, 1997).

Lack of awareness of the problem of abuse, and a tendency to believe that it couldn’t happen in the Church, have certainly led to failures in child protection in the past. Even today, the problem of lack of awareness remains. This is particularly the case in certain evangelical and charismatic churches which have not had many well-publicised cases of child sexual abuse. There is a tendency in such churches to believe that being born again or experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit, will be effective to transform people’s lives and remove from them the propensity to sin against children. Theologically, there is little justification for such a view even within the framework of evangelical or charismatic belief. Christians continue to experience struggles with sinful tendencies and there is no reason to believe that Christians are capable of committing any sin, except for this one.

In recent years, most churches have developed policies and procedures to deal with the issue of sexual abuse. However there are marked differences between the policies and practices of different denominations. Almost all church protocols address not just complaints of child sexual abuse but also complaints of sexual abuse by adults. Abuse is typically defined to include the sexual exploitation of adult parishioners who may in law have given a valid consent to that sexual activity. The reason for this is that often the minister takes advantage of the dependency and vulnerability of the parishioner in a way which diminishes her capacity to make a proper judgment about the propriety of the sexual liaison. Such cases are quite common in churches. While some boundary violations by ministers may be dealt with by apology and censure, there are some cases in which, when the behaviour comes to light, it emerges that the minister has been engaging for a long time in predatory behaviour towards women in the congregation, having a succession of ‘affairs’. Such cases are very serious breaches of pastoral ethics even if the relationships were ‘consensual’ in the legal sense of that term (Fortune, 1989, Ormerod and Ormerod, 1995).

Some complaints of abuse are dealt with by the police and the criminal courts. But many complaints come to churches. There may be a reluctance to go through the criminal processes, or a discretion may have been exercised by the DPP not to prosecute, or the abuse did not constitute a criminal offence. Furthermore, the complainant may be seeking something more than the discipline of the offender. There are essentially three main models for dealing with complaints of abuse.

In the parable, the first church leader treated the victim as a witness for the prosecution. The complaint was taken seriously, but her desperate needs as a human being were not. He could not get in the ditch with her, for to show her compassion might be in some way to compromise his neutrality. And so he retreated to the language and attitudes of the law. These were allegations, and they would be tested in the time-honoured way by treating the matter as if it were a criminal trial in which the truth would emerge through an adversarial process.

Some church procedures are not very different from this. The response to complaints of abuse is to have a formal inquiry into the allegations which largely follows the traditions and practices of adversarial hearings even if the rules of evidence do not formally apply. Of course, there must be formal disciplinary procedures in the Church to remove a person from the ministry if necessary. However, in some long-established churches, disciplinary procedures appear to mimic the form of a criminal trial. There is a prosecutor, a defence lawyer and an adversarial process in which the evidence of witnesses may be tested through cross-examination. Depending on how the hearing is conducted, such procedures may be as intimidating for witnesses as a criminal process. Such procedures are especially problematic if there are children involved. At least in criminal trials, child witnesses have the benefit of technology, such as the ability to use closed circuit television or to give their evidence-in-chief through videotaped testimony. Typically, Church disciplinary procedures have not been designed to take account of the possibility that the main evidence of wrongdoing might come from a child who could be further traumatised by inappropriate and insensitive procedures.

Even in disciplinary processes which are more enlightened, there are problems, and some Churches provide little else by way of response to victims.

A number of Churches have devised special procedures for addressing complaints of abuse which do not suffer from these defects. However, some of these do not have any formal standing in the laws of the Church and therefore may not be efficacious if the accused does not co-operate. An example is the Anglican Church procedure in the Archdiocese of Brisbane. Under this protocol, investigators are appointed to interview the complainant and respondent. They may recommend to the Committee for Complaints of Sexual Abuse that a case be dealt with by mediation. If mediation is not recommended as a way of dealing with the complaint, then the Committee will hear the matter. However, proceeding in this way requires the written consent of both the complainant and respondent, and both must agree to be bound by the determination. The protocol states that some of the possible outcomes of the mediation or hearing process include the offering of apologies, a requirement that the respondent receive counselling or the respondent’s resignation from licensed ministry.

If the parties do not agree to the process established by this protocol, then the Committee may make recommendations to the Archbishop about the process to follow. The Archbishop’s options include possible proceedings under the Tribunal Canon, the Benefices Avoidance Canon, and the Parishes Regulation Canon.

The Anglican protocol is explicit in stating that the process requires the co-operation of the respondent. Other protocols are not so explicit, but in practice they do require such co-operation because the procedures set up to deal with complaints of sexual abuse are not effective within Church law to confer disciplinary power upon the relevant Committee or investigatory body, and thus their determinations are not binding.

The lack of consistency between the complaints procedure and the law of the Church has also been a problem in the Catholic Church protocol, Towards Healing. This protocol, adopted by the National Conference of Bishops and the Leaders of Religious Institutes in 1996 (with the exception of the Archdiocese of Melbourne and the Jesuits) seeks to provide a means of compensating victims and also dealing with the offenders. One difficulty which has emerged is that the procedures are not fully consistent with Canon Law. Consequently, the decisions of church authorities concerning the discipline of offenders may in some cases be challenged by appeal to Rome under the provisions of Canon Law.

Towards Healing has recently been revised. The National Committee for Professional Standards invited me to assist in the review. The revised version was approved at the end of 2000 and will be released in March 2001. One of the objectives has been to ensure that the protocol is consistent with Canon Law and other relevant laws which may govern the employment status of an accused person. While this may, in some situations, make it much more difficult to remove a perpetrator of abuse from the priesthood entirely, ultimately, no complaints procedure can be effective unless it is consistent with the laws which govern the life and work of an institution.

In some Churches, disciplinary action may not be brought after a given period of time has elapsed since the commission of the alleged offence. Under the Code of Canon Law in the Catholic Church, the penal procedure for sexual abuse of a child must be invoked within five years. Canon Law applies universally, although the American bishops have been given special permission by the Vatican to extend the limitation period a little in relation to cases of child sexual abuse. Where the five year period applies, and the priest or religious insists on his or her Canon Law rights, it may not be possible within church law to achieve the compulsory removal of an offender from the ranks of the priesthood on the ground of sexual abuse. There are, however, other provisions of Canon Law which might be invoked.[2]

In Anglican dioceses as well, limitation periods have proved to be a stumbling block in the way of bringing cases of abuse against ministers. The provisions vary from one diocese to another.

Disciplinary procedures in churches must usually be based upon specific prescribed charges. Because these laws and ordinances were not drafted with the problem of child sexual abuse in mind, the charges may not adequately reflect the issues with which the church ought to deal in cases of child sexual abuse. For example, the relevant ground for discipline covering the matter might be that the defendant has engaged in “grave conduct unworthy of a minister” or “unchastity”. This requires proof of behaviour which is so serious that it would justify disciplinary sanctions such as the withdrawal of the licence of the Minister. The focus on “grave conduct” may make it difficult for the tribunal to take account of a series of incidents of improper behaviour which cumulatively would suggest that the defendant is quite unsuitable to be a shepherd of God’s people, or to work with children. Often the risk of sexual abuse of children can only be seen when one examines the cumulative picture of the behaviour of the priest or minister. Incidents which taken in isolation, might not individually amount to clear evidence of sexual misconduct warranting dismissal, may together lead an observer to conclude that there is an unacceptable risk of abuse if the person were to continue in ministry (Parkinson, 1997, ch. 11).

The second church leader also responded in a way which took the complaint seriously. He responded compassionately and told her how she could make her complaint through the procedures of his Church. We can assume that the lawyers and others who devised these procedures in this Church understood the principles of good mediation. Yes, the mediator would be sensitive to issues of the imbalance of power and no, the victim would not have to meet in the same room as the person who had violated her. Yet there is something missing from this Church leader’s response, and that is identification. Mediation makes it her problem. She has a grievance against a clergyman in his Church, and he provides a process by which that complaint can be addressed, but it is not otherwise the church leader’s problem.

The first protocols to be developed in the mainstream churches tended to adopt a mediation model. The purpose of these protocols was to provide a means for the resolution of complaints, the offering of apologies for inappropriate behaviour and the discipline of the offender. Such protocols have been established as adjuncts to the formal disciplinary procedure of the Church body. Because these complaints procedures originated in concerns about sexual harassment and exploitation, they often assume an adult complainant and rely on conflict resolution techniques (Horsfield, 1998).

The usual process is that the complainant is encouraged to file a written complaint, and the matter is handled by a sexual abuse complaints committee, which hears the complaint and the minister’s response in a confidential process. If the behaviour is admitted, the committee seeks to broker an agreed resolution between the complainant and the respondent. If no agreement can be reached, then there remains the option of invoking the formal disciplinary procedures of the Church. There is a range of options which could be agreed upon, for example, warnings to the respondent, written explanations to the complainant (and congregation, if appropriate), apologies to the complainant and congregation, requirements of counselling, resignation from the ministerial position or resignation from ordained ministry. The Uniting Church in Australia was the first mainstream denomination to develop procedures to deal with complaints of sexual abuse and its original procedures provide a good example of the mediation model (Uniting Church in Australia, 1994). They have since been revised and amended significantly.

There are three major problems with this model. The first is that it relies for its efficacy on the co-operation of the accused. This is most likely to be the case when the complaint concerns less serious forms of sexual misconduct involving adults, and where it is unlikely that the minister will be removed from the ministry as a consequence. However, often co-operation is not forthcoming. The effectiveness of a complaints procedure against priests, ministers or other church workers for sexual abuse may be tested by examining what will happen if the accused refuses to co-operate with the process, issues a general denial, responds only through lawyers, and insists that the allegations can only be dealt with by invoking the formal disciplinary procedures of the Church. In practice, a mediation model requires there to be a disciplinary process in the background to deal with cases where the allegations are disputed. There may also be little room for negotiation if the Church itself needs to insist upon resignation from ordained ministry.

The second problem is that the results of such an approach may not adequately protect the vulnerable. The problem with the mediation model is that it fulfils the respective interests of the complainant and respondent, but it may or may not fulfil the interests of the Church in ensuring that congregations are protected from ministers who will abuse their position. Where the complaint is of child sexual abuse then the church has a duty not only to the victim who has been brave enough to come forward and to speak out about the abuse. It also has a duty to protect other children from abuse. The church authorities cannot just focus on the individual complaint. Doing justice by resolving the complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant, and with the acquiescence of the defendant, may be an important part of the process, but the church cannot merely be the mediator. It is the third party in the procedure and its vital role must be to determine the suitability of that person to continue to work with children, or indeed to continue in the ordained ministry. It is not enough for the Church to establish a grievance resolution process. The man in our story wore the Church’s emblem, and the issue the Church must resolve to its own satisfaction is his fitness to continue to do so.

The third problem with the mediation model is that it may not satisfy the complainant’s interest in having her pain recognised formally by the Church. This depends, of course, on how the process is structured. If the Church is merely a mediator, using its good offices to bring about a resolution of the complaint, then there may be no formal acknowledgment by the Church itself that the abuse has occurred. This is especially the case where the resolution of the complaint is done in strict confidence. There is a place for the Church to adjudicate formally on the validity of the complaint.

Towards Healing, the Catholic Church protocol, differs from almost all others in its focus on the needs of the victim rather than just the discipline of the offender. Towards Healing took as its starting point the need for a compassionate and just response to victims of sexual abuse, many of whom had been abused many years ago. The process is aimed at responding to the needs of victims and could be understood as an alternative to litigation, as well as a pastoral response. The procedure follows a pathway from the receipt of the complaint, through an assessment process, to a process of facilitation in which the victim can meet with a Bishop or Leader of an Order, or that person’s representative. The facilitated meeting is to discuss the victim’s needs arising out of the experience of abuse. The document also covers the discipline of offenders and policies to prevent abuse.

The Archdiocese of Melbourne has its own procedures. Complaints are investigated by a Commissioner, and if he accepts the truth of the complainant’s account, the matter is referred to a compensation panel for assessment up to a pre-determined limit. The costs of approved counselling are also met by the Church. The Jesuits also have their own procedures.

Under the new revised procedures of Towards Healing, a complaint may be made about either physical, sexual or emotional abuse. Sexual abuse refers to any sexual misconduct in the course of a pastoral relationship. Physical and emotional abuse are defined by reference to the standards existing at the time. Complaints under Towards Healing may be made against any church personnel, including non-ordained staff and volunteers. If a person has a complaint, they would first approach a contact person. The contact person's job is to listen compassionately to the person's story and to liaise between the complainant and the church.

The first role of the Director of Professional Standards is to ascertain whether the complaint falls within Towards Healing. If it concerns other forms of alleged wrongdoing then the Director would suggest other ways in which the complaint could be dealt with. The Director may also suggest that complaints of a minor nature be dealt with in an informal way, for example by mediation or by apology.

If the complaint concerns serious abuse, then the Director will refer the matter to the Bishop or church leader. The next stage of the process is that the allegations will be put to be alleged wrongdoer. If the complaint is denied, then a formal process of assessment will take place. The complaint will be treated as denied if there is a significant disparity between the account of the complainant and the version of the accused. It is the experience of many people working in this field, that offenders seek to minimise what they have done.

If there is a significant dispute as to the facts, then the matter will be investigated. The normal process of investigation will be by means of the appointment of assessors, but in some cases involving priests or religious, the Church authority may decide to proceed under Canon Law. The assessors will interview the complainant and the accused and anybody else who may have relevant information. Of course, the accused might not co-operate with the Church assessment process. Indeed the accused may not be alive, or if he or she is alive, he or she may not be under the continuing jurisdiction of the Church. This is not an impediment to an assessment, for the purpose of the assessment is not just disciplinary. The purpose of the assessment is to investigate the truth of the matter as best it may be discerned as a step in seeking reconciliation between the Church and the victim and in promoting healing. The Church can reach a conclusion on the validity of the complaint even if the accused is not avilable, or otherwise does not co-operate.

If the truth of the complaint is accepted, then discussions will then occur about how the victims’ needs can be met. This might be a formal process of negotiation between lawyers, or through a facilitated meeting with the Bishop or other church leader. The issues at stake are much broader than issues of money. The recognition of what has happened by the Church authority, together with the provision of an apology, may be important elements of a resolution which helps the victim along the path of putting what has happened behind them.

Issues concerning the discipline of the offender are dealt with in accordance with the applicable provisions of civil law and Canon Law relevant to the person’s position.

The first two leaders in the story did not lack integrity, but only the third leader actually helped the victim. The first two leaders left the victim in the ditch, and nothing in the response of the Church in any way assisted her to recover from her terrible wounds. Of course, it may be argued that the Church had no legal responsibility to her. The law does not generally impose a duty of rescue nor of aid. It does not require us to love our neighbours. It requires us only to avoid harming them. But what of our moral responsibility? Has not the Church got a moral responsibility towards those who have been wounded by the priests or ministers who wear its emblem? Does it matter that this responsibility may not be a legal one? What does the Lord require of us?

One obstacle to a compassionate approach to victims is a belief that this would compromise the Church leader’s neutrality. The first Church leader did not lack compassion. He just thought that it was inconsistent with his role to show it.

Wasn’t the first church leader correct? These were merely “allegations” and the accused clergyman was entitled to due process. The woman’s account might have been fictitious and the apparent wounds self-inflicted. Even if she had been victimised, she might have got the identification wrong.

All of this is may be true. The way of Christ does not require the Church to abandon due process towards the alleged offender. There may be two sides to a story and those accounts need to be heard. But does this mean that church leaders should respond to complainants with a studied remoteness? The Catholic protocol, Towards Healing, argues otherwise. It states:

“A compassionate response to the complainant must be the first priority in all cases of abuse. This attitude must be present even at a time when it is not yet certain that the allegations are accurate. At the first interview complainants should be assured that, if the facts are truly as stated, abuse must be named for what it is and victims assisted to move the blame from themselves to the offender. They should be asked what needs to be done to ensure that they feel safe from further abuse. They should be offered whatever assistance is appropriate. These responses do not pass judgement on or prejudice the rights of the person accused, but they are part of the Christian response to the very possibility that the person present is a victim of abuse.”

Neutrality is achieved not by avoiding empathy but by ensuring an objective assessment at arm’s length from the church leader. It is not possible to be neutral as between the complainant and alleged offender without setting up processes for independent evaluation of the complaint.

The failure of the Church leaders in our story is that they left the woman lying in the ditch. Most church protocols are oriented towards the discipline of the offender (assuming there is no prosecution for the alleged wrongdoing) rather than the needs of the victims. Furthermore, it is common for claims of monetary reparation to be strenuously resisted. This may be inevitable if the Church really believes the claims are false, but what if the Church has been given reason enough to believe they are true? What then does the Lord require of us?

Compensation of some kind may, for some people, be important as a step on the road towards recovery. In my experience, compensation is rarely top of the agenda for victims. I have talked and prayed with victims of clergy abuse who have kept the faith and have genuinely been seeking the Lord’s will about what is the right thing to do. More often than anything else, they have sought for the Church to acknowledge the truth of what happened and to take measures to prevent its recurrence. In some cases, an apology from a Church leader on behalf of the Church can make an enormous difference to the victim.

Nonetheless, payment of financial reparation is a means of offering support for the victim and helping to meet his or her needs, and may be appropriate in many cases. Abuse has economic consequences. The confusion and pain victims experience may well impair their capacity for gainful employment, or contribute to the development of serious problems such as drug or alcohol addiction. The provision of various kinds of financial assistance (which might be by the provision of material support) may be appropriate in many cases as an act of compassion and an expression of empathy with the victim.

In most cases where there is abuse, churches are not legally liable to the victim. There are many possible defences: there is no vicarious liability for church leaders when ministers engage in sexual abuse. The statute of limitations will often provide a defence. And even if the Church was negligent, because church leaders knew about the offender’s propensity for abuse and failed to remove him from positions of pastoral responsibility, it will often be very difficult for victims to prove this in court. To add to the difficulties for complainants, it may be very difficult to find an institution to sue. Some churches are not corporate entities. One must sue the Archbishop who was responsible at the time the abuse occurred, if he is still alive.

So lawyers acting for churches will have an easy time defending the Church in most of these cases if to act Christianly towards victims is a matter of adherence to secular legal values and entitlements. This is where the teaching of Christ again must cause us to pause. For what did He say about relying on one’s legal rights when sued? (Matthew 5:40). Jesus’ attitude to issues of money may challenge our approach to victims of abuse profoundly. Perhaps it is not, after all, the ultimate goal of church leaders to defend the assets of the Church. Rather, Christ would call us to respond to the victims of wrongdoing by church personnel with compassion and generosity.

To try to see victims of abuse with the compassion of Christ even when they are angry, disappointed and litigious may be a great challenge for Church leaders and their legal advisers, but it is a challenge which tests our values, and reveals what ultimately is most important to us and to the Churches which we serve.

Abel, G, Becker, J, Cunningham-Rathner, J, Mittelman, M and Rouleau, J, (1988). "Multiple Paraphilic Diagnoses among Sex Offenders" Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 16, 153-168.

Anderson, B., When Child Abuse Comes to Church (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1992).

Berry, J (1992), Lead Us Not into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children. New York: Doubleday.

Blumenthal, S, Gudjonsson G, and Burns, J, 1999. “Cognitive distortions and blame attribution in sex offenders against adults and children.” Child Abuse and Neglect 23, 129-143.

Briggs F, 1995, From Victim to Offender: How Child Sexual Abuse Victims Become Offenders (Allen & Unwin, Sydney).

Calvin College Social Research Center, 1992, A Survey of Abuse in the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Calvin College).

Finkelhor, D., 1984, Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, (Free Press, New York) ch. 5.

Garland R and Dougher, M., 1990, "The Abused/Abuser Hypothesis of Child Sexual Abuse: A Critical Review of Theory and Research" in J Feirman (ed) Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions (Springer-Verlag, New York) 488-509.

Goodwin, D., 1992, Child Abuse in the Church (Camp David Ministries, Hastings, NZ).

Haywood, T, Kravitz, H, Grossman, L, Wasyliw O, and Hardy, D, 1996, “Psychological Aspects of Sexual Functioning Among Cleric and Non-Cleric Alleged Sex Offenders” Child Abuse and Neglect 20, 527-536.

Haywood, T, Kravitz, H, Wasyliw O, Goldberg J and Cavanaugh J, 1996, “Cycle of Abuse and Psychopathology in Cleric and Non-Cleric Molesters of Children and Adolescents” Child Abuse and Neglect 20, 1233-1243.

Heggen, C. 1993, Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches, (Herald Press, Scottsdale, US).

Horsfield, P, 1998, “Alternative frameworks for understanding and responding to professional sexual abuse by clergy” in Violating Trust: Professional Sexual Abuse, (eds C Boeckenhauer, L Michael, N Ormerod and A Wansborough) (CAHPACA, Sydney) pp 179-188. Papers from the 1st Australian and NZ Conference on Sexual Exploitation by Health Professionals, Psychotherapists and Clergy, 1996.

Imbens A., and Jonker, I., 1992, Christianity and Incest (Burns and Oates, Tunbridge Wells).

Jenkins, P. 1996, Pedophiles and Priests – Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis, Oxford University Press, New York.

Loftus J and Carmargo R. 1993, “Treating the Clergy”. Annals of Sex Research 6, 287-303.

Marshall W, Laws D and Barbaree H, 1990, “An integrated theory of the etiology of sex offending” in Marshall W, Laws D and Barbaree H (eds) Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories and Treatment of the Offender 257-275, Plenum Press, New York.

Ormerod, N. & Ormerod, T. 1995, When Ministers sin – sexual abuse in the churches, Millenium Books, Sydney.

Parkinson, P. 1997, Child Sexual Abuse and the Churches, Hodder and Stoughton, London.

Pollock N., and Hashmall, J., “The Excuses of Child Molesters” (1991) Behavioural Sciences and the Law 9, 53-59.

Rossetti S, (ed), 1990, Slayer of the Soul (Twenty-Third Publications, Mystic, Conn.).

Rossetti, S, 1995, "The Impact of Child Sexual Abuse on Attitudes Toward God and the Catholic Church" Child Abuse and Neglect 19, 1469-1481.

Rossetti S and Lothstein, L 1990, "Myths of the Child Molester" in S Rossetti (ed), Slayer of the Soul (Twenty-Third Publications, Mystic, Conn.).

Smith D and Saunders, B, 1995, “Personality Characteristics of Father/Perpetrators and Non-Offending Mothers in Incest Families: Individual and Dyadic Analyses” Child Abuse and Neglect 19, 607.

Towards Understanding, 1999, Towards Understanding: A study of factors specific to the Catholic Church which might lead to sexual abuse by priests and religious (National Committee for Professional Standards, Sydney).

Uniting Church in Australia, Procedures for Use When Complaints of Sexual Abuse are Made Against Ministers (1994).

Williams L and Finkelhor, D 1990, “The Characteristics of Incestuous Fathers” in W Marshall, D Laws and H Barbaree (eds) Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories and Treatment of the Offender 231.

* Patrick Parkinson, Professor of Law, University of Sydney. Paper for the Australasian Christian Legal Convention, Melbourne, February 2001. The first part of this paper is derived from material commissioned and published by the Queensland Crime Commission as part of its Project Axis on child sexual abuse. See Parkinson P, “The Problem of Child Sexual Abuse in Church Communities” in Child Sexual Abuse in Queensland: Selected Research Papers (Queensland Crime Commission, Brisbane, 2000) 59-72.

[2] Canon law provides a number of principles and procedures which may be relevant to determining the future of a priest or religious in cases of alleged abuse. In addition to an administrative or judicial procedure as laid down in canons 1720-1728, there is the procedure for the removal of a parish priest under canons 1740-1747. Reliance may also be placed upon Canons 1041 and 1044 if it is considered that the priest or religious is incapable of fulfilling ministry due to psychological infirmity.

WHAT DOES THE LORD REQUIRE OF US?

8. What does the Lord require of us?

the meaning of neutrality