How SA Church deals with abuse

By Fr Chris Townsend

Whenever the Church responds to media reports on the abuse crisis, it is often seen immediately as defensive of institution and assets, as if reputation matters more than truth and justice — and way more than victims.

The truth is that we must accept the body blows due to us for the Church’s colossal failure of victims and failure of management or oversight.

My deepest concern is that in all this noise, the survivors of abuse — any abuse, be it by clergy or anyone else — will be silenced. Those who have the courage to enter the fray of anger might be heard, but I think that the majority of victims will be cowed into more stifling silence.

If there is one thing we, as the Southern African Catholic Church, have learned in this recent outbreak of horror and condemnation, it is the fact that our process of dealing with victims might well be too juridical, too legal.

Establishing fact, veracity, plausibility is one thing. That is very necessary, especially given the experience of the Church in countries such as the United States, where establishing legal liability is part of a litigious culture. However, abuse survivors might be victimised by legalistic probing and prompting in what is a very sensitive and often very painful experience or memory.

The Protocol process that we have in Southern Africa is by no means perfect. It is deliberately under constant review so that best practice for all involved is included. The Protocol is in its third revision in 15 years. As new facts and processes become accessible, we try to include them. Where we can, the annual meetings of the English-speaking churches dealing with abuse provide us with insight into international practice.

Taking victims or complainants seriously is the first aim of the Protocol. On reception of a complaint, a contact person is immediately informed and appointed. Ideally, the contact person should see the complainant within 24 hours of registering the complaint. However, in our process, the initial approach involves secrecy to protect so many interests and quickly moves into checking facts, times, names.

It is at this point that it becomes less victim-centred. A more victim-centred process may need a re-examination in our next protocol revision.  We must examine ourselves: maybe we’re too scared about financial liability to see hurt and anger. Maybe we are not hearing the voices that are often just calling for a listening ear, an open hearing, and an institutional response that is human.

A victim-centred process must also take into account that the issue is not about who will pay for the treatment of an abuse survivor, but that it is about an integral approach to healing of persons — and persons healed and healing the Church.

A notable feature of the Southern African process is that so few of our historical cases have come to court. This might be an indicator that people often don’t want any further damage to the Church, no further trauma to themselves — or that they are too intimidated by the process. I think it is because those who approach the Church do so to see and hear and experience compassion and honesty.

Don’t get me wrong, I think we’re doing it. I think that the proactive response of the Southern African Church over the last 15 years has been ground-breaking. Until two years ago, the SACBC was the only English-speaking region in Africa to have such a clearly defined process. The response of our schools, our religious communities and many parishes has been wonderful. I think we’re in a safer space now than we were 15 years ago, thanks to courageous voices and action.

We still have much to do when it comes to ensuring safety. We need particular attention to dealing with children, teenagers and other vulnerable groups.

What about the commitment not to see children alone? Several precautions are elementary. The sacrament of reconciliation for children should never be celebrated outside of public times and should be done discreetly but publicly (for example in church pews). If not, it should be in a safe room. Pastors should have open doors — glass-fronted, preferably — with children. No touching below the shoulders. Private areas in presbyteries must be clearly separate from public areas. Never take groups out without other adult supervision. Be suspicious of any unsolicited offers to assist with youth, especially if the person is single. Presbyteries, particularly in townships, often teem with young people.

In short, caution must be the hallmark of priests’ engagement with young people.

Our students for the priesthood are psychologically screened before and during their training. This is no guarantee of never having problems — people grow, change and are notoriously good at hiding things, even from themselves. Seminarians have extensive exposure to the norms of behaviour expected of clergy, particularly as many of them come from areas where they wouldn’t see a priest daily. Most of them will not have experience as a curate or assistant to help them integrate the role expectations and their own lives

The abuse scandal will not go away. It shouldn’t. We need to be constantly reminded of our duty to the whole person, long before the duty to the protection of the Church. The Church will survive, but victims are always in peril and often in deep pain.

As long as there is one victim, the whole Church is victim.

Fr Townsend is the information officer of the SACBC and media liaison for the Professional Conduct Committee.