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 Press
June 20, 2002

Scandal in the Church

The extent of the contagion of sexual abuse that is sweeping the Catholic Church is shown by Press reports today and yesterday. The first involved a Christchurch man abused in one of the city's clerical schools and has prompted the revelation that more such cases have occurred here. This emphasises the reality that the scandal is far from occurring commonly only in the American and Australian churches, and that it is being poorly handled.

Its wide international spread is a main reason for the growing concern that the Vatican is showing. Had the abuse been confined to one country, the perception would have been that the problem was only within the ecclesiastical hierarchy of that country. But no such comforting explanation is available. The pattern of abuse and the inadequate way it is dealt with seems endemic in several western nations.

Neither is there any assurance that the extent of the scandal is now known, here or overseas. The Christchurch case, for instance, came to light only because the victim felt compelled to tell his story to The Press
, having failed to heal his mental suffering with psychotherapy. And the revelation that more such incidents had taken place here came only as a result of this paper's probing.

The sense that the succession of revelations is far from over is strengthened by the inability of the Church to make a full confession of the history of sexual abuse within the clergy. It appears that this is partly due to the long-existing secrecy with which the Church has dealt with these cases -- secrecy which may have partly been a well- intentioned attempt to protect the victims, but which evidently was also an effort to protect the Church from scandal.

It is that aspect that is fuelling the present controversy. Such secrecy is out of step with the confessional times now prevailing and presents an image of a powerful organisation less concerned with those who suffered than with its own reputation. Worse, it adds to the charge that the Church misunderstood the harm that some of its priests and brothers were inflicting on children within their pastoral care.

The Christchurch cases still await a full explanation from the St John of God Order. For months the order has been embroiled in scandalous revelations in Australia, characterised by inept handling. But it evidently did not think that its mea culpa should extend to New Zealand, a fault that opens it to the charge of arrogance or wilful negligence.

The order still has questions to answer about the Christchurch cases. What is the full extent of the abuse that went on here? Why did it insist on secrecy in its settlements with the victims when it had signed a protocol to deal openly and honestly with abuse? Who are the abusers and how were they dealt with? Were they permanently removed from pastoral work? Were they required to understand the nature of their abnormality and to undergo treatment for it? What were their histories as abusers? If there were other victims, were they identified, contacted, and offered an apology and compensation?

The Church, including the order of St John of God, is far from wholly remiss in the way that it is dealing with sexual abuse. It has, for instance, urged victims to come forward and identify their tormentors. But it has been slow to grasp the extent of the scandal within its ranks and to convince victims and the public that it is open and effective in dealing with it.