Church 'Healing' Is Strangling Victims

By Judy Courtin
The Age
October 5, 2013

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/church-healing-is-strangling-victims-20131004-2uzqz.html#ixzz2gohCXBv2

The Catholic Church's Truth, Justice and Healing Council has submitted a 200-page submission to the Royal Commission on Institutional Responses to Child Abuse. At first glance, it reads well: compassionate, understanding and victim-focused. It acknowledges criticisms and proposes changes to the church's Towards Healing process.

But, when dissected, much damaging rhetoric emerges.

Towards Healing was established in 1996 by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference to manage complaints of Catholic clergy sexual abuse and assaults. A protocol was penned, claiming the process to be pastoral, non-adversarial, compassionate, victim-focused and fair. Recently, the ''success'' of Towards Healing was declared as evidence that the church had changed its ways and was delivering justice to victims.

But not only have victims not received what was promised, Towards Healing has dished out a whole new round of shameful abuse. According to my research, victims have been traumatised and coerced into signing agreements so Towards Healing could ''close the case''. Victims became more depressed. They were disempowered and felt hurt, frustrated, beaten down, attacked. One interviewee said: ''It's not Towards Healing, it actually takes you towards madness.''

Advertisement

Although the church's submission did acknowledge some problems with its process, they were minimal. The failings of Towards Healing that were acknowledged included a perceived lack of independence and transparency, inconsistent outcomes and an overly legalistic approach.

But with each acknowledgement comes a counter-argument. First, the church accepts Towards Healing has become more legalistic, but its argument is that more victims are choosing legal representation. My research finds, though, that because the church's lawyers and insurers were woven into its original design, Towards Healing has always been legalistic and adversarial.

Second, the church agrees that the outcomes have been inconsistent, but claims this is because no two victims' needs and crimes are the same. More to the point, outcomes are inconsistent because each bishop has complete discretion and power with regard to the provision of an apology, funding for counselling and the provision of compensation.

The other acknowledgement in the church's submission relates to the problems victims face in trying to sue the church. It almost gloats in its outline of the intricacies of its legal defences.

By endorsing this status quo and not recommending its reform, which would open up options for victims by giving them equal access to justice in the courts, the church simply accepts and gives sanction to its legal stranglehold over victims. Just over one page of the 230-page submission is devoted to options for reform of Towards Healing.

This reflects the self-serving nature and paucity of the church's recommendations.

Because any national compensation scheme the royal commission might recommend would be ''many years away'', the church is in the meantime considering strengthening the governance and standards of Towards Healing, and appointing an ''independent'' commissioner and national board to oversee Towards Healing.

But any prompt change seems unlikely, because there must be agreement between the 130-odd church authorities before any change can be made to the Towards Healing protocol.

Of greater concern, though, is the use of the word ''independent'' in the church's submission. The word ''independent'' is peppered throughout the Towards Healing protocol. But there is nothing independent about it. It is designed, administered and controlled by the church. Its personnel are appointed by the church. That an independent Towards Healing facilitator in Victoria also works for the Christian Brothers makes this issue risible.

With this in mind, the recommendation for an ''independent'' national board to oversee Towards Healing only provokes cynicism about the candour of the church.

Justice for victims is what any reform should produce, but the recommended Towards Healing reforms echo the same bombast as all previous church documents.

The lengthy arguments in the submission about the law and the continuing need for Towards Healing, only serve to camouflage what my research has found to be the paramount issue for delivering justice for victims, accountability of the church.

If the church was sincere about putting victims first and being compassionate, it would initiate and promote the requisite law reform to give victims equal access to justice in the courts. Further, those clergy guilty of concealing sex crimes and protecting the offenders would come forward and face justice. They would confess and say sorry.

If the church was sincere about doing the ''Christian'' thing, it would dismantle the miserly and unjust barricades erected around its assets and give back to the victims from whom it has taken everything.

The Towards Healing process must go. But the church must pay.