INTENTFOCUS ON YOUR ENERGY, THERE IS AMAZING POWER IN A STRONG INTENTION.

I FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT THIS ISSUE, I HAD TO POST IT.


Chris Goddard: Stop protecting the molesters

June 14, 2004
THE headlines of the past two weeks about the failures of churches to respond appropriately to child sexual abuse have come from one state, South Australia. Two critical reports about two churches, Catholic and Anglican, will not be the last. And the resignation on Friday of Anglican Archbishop Ian George changes nothing. This is a national problem requiring a national response.

The former principal of a Catholic school is reported to have lied to the police about conducting checks on a child molester whom the school employed. Some 36 students were sexually abused at the special school. Soon after this employee fled, over at the Anglican Church's St Peter's College, a chaplain reportedly plied a young boarder with wine and took him to bed with a Balinese man the chaplain had brought back from his holiday.

These events are bad enough. It is the churches' responses – or lack of them – that are particularly devastating. In the case of the Catholic school, according to The Advertiser, those responsible for the safety of the children merely "noted" allegations and "hoped the matter would go away". Eleven years later, the offender was arrested in Queensland. At the Anglican school, according to The Australian, the chaplain "acknowledged the truth" of the allegation and was sacked. It is alleged, however, that he was advised to leave the country or the police would be informed. The chaplain has since been teaching in Bangkok.

These scandals have still not received sufficient scrutiny. The media coverage has arisen from the churches' own inquiries. That churches are allowed to conduct such inquiries into their own failures is an indictment of state and federal governments, and a reflection of how little they understand about child sexual abuse.

Churches and schools provide limitless opportunities for those who wish to assault children. Child molesters require privacy, power and secrecy. In order to re-offend, the perpetrators need to create a culture that reinforces that privacy, power and secrecy, and an organisation that responds to allegations of sexual assault – if it responds at all – with delay and confusion.

The perpetrators' success is visible in the sordid dissembling that follows the rape and assault of children by priests and other church employees. The reports have been produced years after the offences were committed. There is still confusion about what happened. The report into events at the Anglican school – set up by the diocese of Adelaide – opens with a quote about "sexual misconduct". There should be no such confusion allowed. This is child sexual abuse, a serious crime, not mere "misconduct".

The creation of confusion is also used by churches to escape the consequences of their actions and inactions. Our erstwhile governor-general, Peter Hollingworth, appeared to enter this territory when he suggested that a victim may have played a part in her victimisation.

There is the continuing use of the word "pedophile", a word of Greek origin meaning "lover of children". These are child molesters and child rapists. Imagine the outcry if we allowed judges, journalists and the police to describe a man who raped adult women as a "gynophile", a "lover of women".

Then there is the final irony. When churches are shamed into taking action, by media pressure, church leaders portray themselves as victims. Hollingworth attempted this. Primate Peter Carnley is reported to regret that George resigned, rather than "proper processes" being followed. The real victims, the children and their families, have been asking for "proper processes" for many years.

Two immediate initiatives are required to demonstrate that children will in future receive the protection they deserve. First, the full force of the criminal law must be brought to bear upon those in positions of authority who fail to take every reasonable step to protect children. The bishop who transfers a priest, rather than immediately calling the police, has failed in his duty of care to the children of the next parish. There are several charges that could be laid: aiding and abetting, obstructing the administration of justice, being an accessory after the fact, even criminal conspiracy.

Second, the federal Government must acknowledge its duty to protect children and establish a national children's commissioner. One of the immediate responsibilities of such a position would be to establish a standing inquiry into the abuse of children in churches, other institutions and services. Churches must no longer be allowed to "inquire" into their own corruption. The history of child sexual abuse demonstrates that it is adults, not children, who have lied, in spite of claims to the contrary. Churches in Adelaide and elsewhere have repeatedly shown that they protect perpetrators rather than children, even to the extent of covering up crimes. Their refusal to take child abuse and its terrible consequences seriously must not continue. The failure to respond appropriately to child abuse is in itself abusive.

Chris Goddard is interim director of the National Research Centre for the Prevention of Child Abuse at Monash University. He is writing a book on children's experiences of abuse and child protection.