www.peterellis.co.nz : seeking justice for Peter Ellis : mail to: [email protected]

Accusations of Abuse in Institutions

 

Index: Home Page Peter Ellis
Index: Accusations in Institutions


The Evening Post
May 21, 2002

Catholic Church and the sex abuse virus

Allegations of a coverup in the Roman Catholic Church's dealings over sex abuse in its New Zealand ranks will give no comfort to the Church hierarchy. Or to the faithful who will be wondering how trusted priests behave when mums and dads are not looking. The hidden sex abuse virus, exposed most dramatically in Boston in the United States, is not peculiar to that city's diocese.

All the best will in the world will not disguise the fact that a minority of priests and other clergy - Catholic and Protestant alike - betray the trust of youngsters and adults. Yesterday, disclosures by counsellor Brent Cherry, of Lower Hutt, that he had worked with eight male victims abused by six priests or members of Catholic religious orders was just the kind of news Cardinal Tom Williams would not want to hear. The cardinal's position is unenviable. He is in charge of diocesan priests but does not run religious orders - they appoint their own leaders and keep their own counsel - and they are not duty-bound to expose perverted members to his scrutiny, let alone put them in the public arena.

In an interview last month, the cardinal ventured the opinion that the ratio of priestly abuse would be in the order of 2 percent, not that it gave him any pleasure to run that estimate. There should be none at all if priests were true to their obligations, he observed. The cardinal is absolutely right. The expectation of the faithful is that clergy do not abuse trust, but the truth is that some of them have done so. Mr Cherry said the eight victims he counselled were aged between 11 and 17 when they were abused between 12 and 36 years ago. They were sodomised or raped and then sworn to an insidious penalty - silence. Out-of-court settlements were made on condition of lifelong secrecy. The upshot was that in these cases individuals still carry deep emotional scars. The Church's investigation procedures had the effect of "revictimising" these men, Mr Cherry said - though it is hard to imagine how an inquiry could do anything other than that when the men had to relive their experiences. That they had to seek help outside the Church reflects badly; no wonder the Church is running scared of further exposure.

The Church does take the allegations seriously. Its Path To Healing document details procedures on dealing with abuse and the steps needed to protect everyone concerned until such time as guilt is established.

At the weekend, an influential Vatican-approved journal, Civilta Cattolica, published an opinion that bishops are not necessarily responsible for child abuse by priests. The implication is clear - the Church is desperate to distance its leaders from creeps in dog-collars, even when, in the US case, Cardinal Bernard Law, of Boston, has been shown to have gone to great lengths to protect paedophiles and sex abusers.

In New Zealand, zero tolerance, dismissals and the full force of secular law are the proper avenues when dealing with sex abusers, irrespective of their jobs.