ACL News, July 1998

 

A recent report in the Diocese of Tasmania has brought to the surface again the issue of child sexual abuse by members of the clergy and other church workers.

Other forms of sexual impropriety also attract public notoriety from time to time. In the Diocese of Sydney new procedures for dealing with allegations have recently been adopted and this year a Code of Conduct for clergy has been published.

In the past, church authorities have been slow to face up to their responsibilities in these areas. Some allegations have been ignored or dealt with in ways which gave little comfort or protection to victims and even allowed predators to continue in their position, and in some cases, to continue to re-offend.

This gave rise to suspicions that there was more concern for the good name of the Church than for acting to seek out people responsible for serious misconduct.

Some church leaders have issued public apologies for their failures. Because of heightened public awareness, it is to be hoped that these matters will no longer be swept under the carpet.

So what should be done with church workers who commit such terrible sins as to abuse children or engage in sexual immorality? It is important to remember God's grace is available to all who repent and throw themselves on the mercy of God. But that is not to say that such people should ever be given the right to return to public ministry. They should not. This may seem to be very hard, especially when one admits that no minister is without sin, but there are some forms of sin which are so grave, and the consequences so serious, that there is no alternative but to treat them this way.

Where the alleged conduct is illegal, the law must be permitted to take its course.

At stake, first of all, is the honour of the Lord Jesus. Second, there is the welfare of actual and potential victims. Third, there is the need to preserve the integrity of the preached word and the security of congregational life.

Genuine Justice

If the penalty of permanent disbarment from public ministry is to be so harsh it is encumbered on church authorities to act to ensure justice for all.

Four categories of people are caught up in these kinds of circumstances -- victims, offenders, innocent people who might be the object of false or vexatious accusations (from time to time there are cases of falsely accused people committing suicide in the face of the shame or the difficulty of proving their innocence), and those who are affected because they are related in some way to those who are directly involved.

If, in the past, authorities were too slow to act in order to protect the name of the Church, they should not be guilty now of being too fast to treat all accusations as proof of guilt in order to protect the name of the Church in another way.

It is a very difficult task church leaders have in striking the correct balance. For example, who should get the benefit of the doubt? Should the standard of proof be the balance of probabilities or the criminal test of beyond reasonable doubt? Who should make the judgments? What safeguards should be set in place to protect the helpless, the innocent, but which also deal appropriately with the guilty? What kind of lapses should be "hanging offences" and what should not?

The procedures being set up all over the country, albeit belatedly, are wrestling with these questions. Our leaders need our prayers and support in their difficult task. It is likely to take some time for the processes to settle down. It is essential for bishops, synods and parishes to keep these matters under constant review. Knee jerk reactions to avoid bad publicity will count for little if they fail to address the true interests of the parties in a fair way.

Unintended Outcomes

One of the unintended outcomes of this whole matter may be the permanent change to the very nature of parish ministry. Because sexual activity is almost always something done in secret, how is anyone else ever to know the truth of a matter if the alleged parties disagree?

Because of this difficulty ministers are faced with the dilemma that they may not be able to permit themselves ever to be alone with anyone other than their spouse. Even being with one's own children has risks. Parish visiting, counselling, even casual conversations may place someone at risk of accusation.

Who is to bear the cost of defending any action arising from an accusation? Who can a church worker turn to if the bishop takes on a quasi investigative and judicial role? How can an innocent person establish the truth?

How should diocesan authorities properly care for an accused, whether guilty or innocent? What responsibility do leaders have to the families of accused persons? How could the church be protected from offenders who move from one diocese to another? Why would anyone want to enter such a calling any more? Where will it all end?

There is a lot more water to run under the bridge before everyone will be confident that the implications of sexual misconduct have been properly addressed so as to protect the helpless, give justice to falsely accused and deal appropriately with the guilty.

-- The Council of the Anglican Church League

---

© ACL News 1998.

Document added 1st July 1998

Anglican Church League, www.acl.asn.au