As part of our commitment to being open and transparent about abuse in the Catholic Church, we will provide here information to help keep the community updated about the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry.
 
Listed below are answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the response of the Catholic Church in Victoria to the Inquiry.

• Why did it take so long for the Church to come to grips with child abuse?
• Does the Catholic Church in Victoria impose confidentiality agreements on child abuse victims that might prevent them speaking to the Inquiry or the police?
• What does the figure of 620 in the Catholic Church of Victoria’s submission to the Inquiry represent?
• How can you say the Church has changed its approach when victims are still coming forward?
• What recommendations does the Church in Victoria make to the Inquiry?
• What reform does the Church recommend to encourage the reporting of child abuse to police?
• Can the Church be sued?
• Is there a conflict between canon and civil law?
• Are victims still seeking help from the Church?
• I am a victim of abuse. How can I make a complaint?
• I am a victim of abuse. How can I access counselling?
• Who is taking responsibility for the problem of sexual abuse in the Church?
• Are the Church processes, the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing, really independent of the Church?
• Are the Church processes too legalistic?
• Why does the Church provide ongoing support for offenders?
• What should I do if I think a child is being abused?
• Does the Church cover-up offending behaviour?
• Is celibacy a cause of abuse?
• What recommendations has the Church in Victoria made to the Inquiry?
• If the Inquiry doesn’t adopt the Church’s five recommendations, will the Church pursue their implementation?
• How is the Catholic Church in Victoria responding to the Royal Commission?
• What support is provided to victims of abuse?
• What has the Church done to prevent future abuse by priests, religious or Church lay people?

Why did it take so long for the Church to come to grips with child abuse?

We did not properly understand or appreciate the extent of the problem and because we lacked insight into the prevelance of child abuse, our early responses were too slow and inadequate.

We underestimated the long-term, often devastating harm and effect on victims. We were slow to place central priority on the protection of children and care for victims.

We were not alert to the deception and cunning of predators. We were slow to accept that anyone could commit such crimes, let alone that a priest or religious could do so. We believed that offenders could be cured, especially when assured of this by professionals and by individual offenders.
Does the Catholic Church in Victoria impose confidentiality agreements on child abuse victims that might prevent them speaking to the Inquiry or the police?

No. The Church respects the rights of all victims to speak to the police or publicly about their abuse.

Anyone who wants to speak to the Inquiry can do so without fear and without restriction. There is no need to contact the Church to seek permission, but anyone who has any concerns is welcome to do so and receive direct clarification.

Where claimants have reached a settlement with the Church that includes provisions that protect the confidentiality of the settlement, those clauses do not prevent those victims from speaking to the Inquiry.

It is wrong to suggest that the reparation or ex gratia compensation paid by the Church through Towards Healing and the Melbourne Response to assist victims in any way restricts child abuse victims from speaking the police. Claims made to this effect are untrue.

What does the figure of 620 in the Catholic Church of Victoria’s submission to the Inquiry represent?

The number of victims that the Church in Victoria has referred to in our submission represents the total number of victims of criminal abuse of children whose claims have been upheld through the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing. Many of those who have made complaints to the Church through the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing have also reported their abuse to Victoria Police.

Victims who have gone to the police but have not brought their complaints to the Church are not included, nor are victims who resolved their claims through court or other alternative dispute resolution processes.

Under the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing, the term "abuse" has a much broader definition than that of the Parliamentary Inquiry or the criminal courts. For instance, it includes orphanage standard of care claims and misconduct by clergy and religious with adults. This reflects the fact that our response is much broader than a legal response.

The Church of course recognises that not all victims have come forward. While our experience is that there have been very few cases of reported abuse involving events since 1990, we expect that more people will come forward and that the complete number is higher than what is currently known under the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing.

How can you say the Church has changed its approach when victims are still coming forward?

The child abuse victims that have come forward largely report events from decades ago. In the past 16 years, the cases of about 620 victims have been upheld within Victoria, most of which relate to incidents from 30 and up to 80 years ago.

We have received very few complaints of abuse that has taken place since 1990.

What recommendations does the Church in Victoria make to the Inquiry?

In its submission to the Inquiry, Facing theTruth, the Catholic Church in Victoria makes recommendations in two main areas, mandatory reporting and reporting to police.
 
Mandatory reporting
The Church recommends the extension of mandatory reporting of cases of suspected child abuse in the Catholic Church to ministers of religion and other religious personnel, with an exemption for information received during the rite of confession. All those mandated to report would do so under the same system and to the same authorities.

The Church also supports the recommendation of the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry that mandatory reporting should operate prospectively, so that it covers reasonably suspected instances of physical and sexual abuse of a person who is under the age of 18 at the time the reporter forms the suspicion of such abuse.

Reporting to police
It is the Church’s view that the most appropriate avenue for the investigation of criminal conduct is the police and that, wherever possible, matters that involve alleged criminal offences should be reported to the police. The Melbourne Response and Towards Healing both emphasise that complainants who allege criminal offences should go to the police, and they are offered assistance and encouragement to do so.

The Melbourne Response and Towards Healing fill an important gap when a police investigation is not possible. This occurs in circumstances including:

• Where the victim does not want to go through the process of a public trial;
• Where the victim has already been to the police;
• Where the accused is deceased and therefore there can be no police investigation;
• Where the allegations are very old and the prospects of establishing a crime beyond reasonable doubt are difficult;
• Where the victim is unable to identify the alleged offender by name;
• Where the victim is apprehensive about approaching the police, perhaps because of a prior criminal record; and
• Where the allegations do not involve criminal conduct such as concerns about the standard of care in children’s homes or involving apparently consensual sexual relations between adults where the abuse lies in the exploitation of the pastoral relationship.

What reform does the Church recommend to encourage the reporting of child abuse to police?

The Church recommends a mechanism for reporting child abuse in the Catholic Church to police while protecting the victim’s right to privacy.

The Church recommends that all allegations of serious crimes be reported to the police in a way that does not infringe the confidentiality and privacy of abuse victims who have come forward on that basis, or the sanctity of the confessional.

The Church recommends a system in which details of an allegation (other than those that could identify the complainant) are reported to the police on the basis that the police’s powers of compulsion cannot be used to discover the identity of the complainant from the source of the report.


Can the Church be sued?

The Church takes responsibility for any offences by priests, religious and lay workers. It provides compensation or reparation to victims without the need for them to take legal action, including in those cases – the overwhelming majority – where legal action would fail because no legal liability can be established. This is done through the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing.

The question ‘Can the Church be sued?’ implies the Church is a single legal entity, which it is not. The Church is structured as a collection of autonomous dioceses and religious institutes.

A victim of sexual abuse can always sue the offender as the person primarily responsible for that abuse. 

The offender’s bishop or superior can also be sued if he or she is still alive and was aware, or ought to have been aware, of the offender’s propensity to offend, or has otherwise failed to properly perform their obligations. This is because a bishop or congregation leader has overall responsibility for the selection, training, formation and supervision of persons under his or her authority – priests, religious, lay workers and volunteers.

A victim can also sue a Church corporate entity if that entity had some responsibility in relation to the offender; for example, an incorporated school that employed a teacher who offended.

In some cases there may be insurance cover that applies for a Church entity, depending on the time of the incident and other factors. As a general proposition, there is insurance cover for abuse claims except if there is evidence that the bishop or superior knew the offender was an offender and failed to act.

There is no insurance cover for offenders.
 
In Victoria, the Church has paid compensation and provided other assistance including counselling and treatment to victims, even though the legal liability of the diocese or religious institute might be in doubt. For example, where the offender might be deceased, or there was no corporate body that had any role in supervising or placing the priest, or there was no individual who knew or who ought to have known of the offending.

A victim who comes to the Church and accepts an offer of compensation has chosen this approach as an alternative to civil litigation. As part of accepting the payment of compensation or reparation, the victim chooses to give up any further civil legal claims related to that abuse against the Church. Victims are not bound by any confidentiality obligations arising from the settlement and are not restricted from reporting to the police.

Is there a conflict between canon and civil law?

First, it’s important to point out that this is a hypothetical question, as we do not at present face any conflicts between civil law and canon law.

The one area where there is potential for conflict is if a new law were to require priests to break the seal of confession. But that would not be a conflict between civil law and canon law.

Civil law currently recognises the seal of confession in the Evidence Act.  It does not do that because of respect for canon law, but because both it and canon law have acted independently of one another to recognise that what happens in confession is in fact an act of worship, and should be protected because of the fundamental right to freedom of religion. 

What a person says in confession is part of a liturgical ritual and is directed to God.  The priest hears it only as a witness. So while to an observer it might resemble counselling, it is actually a very different situation. This is reflected in the fact that, once a confession is concluded, a priest cannot discuss or act on what a person has said even with the person themselves.

So if there were to be a civil law requiring a priest to break the seal of confession, the conflict would not be with canon law, but with the  fundamental human right to freedom of religion, which is currently respected by both canon law and civil law.  That would be a very serious matter.


I am a victim of abuse. How can I make a complaint?

The Church encourages all victims of abuse to report their allegations to police. Sexual and physical abuse of a child is a criminal offence and the Church’s preference is for the police to handle investigations of all criminal matters. That is their role, and they have powers the Church does not. Victoria Police have established the SANO Taskforce to investigate historic and new allegations of child sexual abuse.

Contact with the SANO Taskforce can be made on (03) 9247 6666 or at sanotaskforce@police.vic.gov.au or, if urgent, by dialling 000.

However the Church understands that all victims may not want to go to the police.

If you wish to pursue your complaint through the Church, there are two processes for responding to allegations of sexual and other abuse, the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing.

If you were abused by a priest, religious or Church lay person under the control of the Archdiocese of Melbourne, please call the Melbourne Response on (03) 9225 7979.

If you were abused by a priest, religious or Church lay person associated with any other diocese or religious congregation, please call Towards Healing on 1800 816 030.

I am a victim of abuse. How can I access counselling?

Counselling is offered to victims of abuse and their families through both the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing processes.

If you have been abused by clergy, religious or lay Church people under the control of the Archdiocese of Melbourne, you should lodge your complaint with the Melbourne Response Independent Commissioner. You can then access Carelink services by referral from the Independent Commissioner by calling (03) 9225 7979.

If you have been abused by any other clergy, religious or Church lay people, you should lodge your complaint with Towards Healing. Towards Healing will arrange for any counselling you require by calling 1800 816 030.

Who is taking responsibility for the problem of sexual abuse in the Church?

The leadership of the Catholic Church in Victoria has taken responsibility for the terrible abuse that occurred.

In his recent Leadership for Change address to members of the Church community, the Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart, said that he would take responsibility for ensuring there was no re-emergence of child sexual abuse in the Church, that victims were treated fairly, and that offenders were removed from contact with children.

Archbishop Hart also stated that he would ensure that immediate action be taken if the Parliamentary Inquiry revealed any new wrongdoings or covering up, no matter by whom.

Church leaders in Victoria have also joined with Church leaders across Australia in committing their full support to and cooperation with the Royal Commission.

Are the Church processes, the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing, really independent of the Church?

Since the establishment of the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing in 1996, the Church has ensured that independent professionals have been involved in the investigation of complaints of abuse under both processes.

Under the Melbourne Response, Independent Commissioners investigate complaints of abuse made against Church people in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. These Commissioners are senior members of the Victorian Bar, and are regulated by the Victorian Bar’s Rules of Conduct – which require them to act professionally and independently. They must also abide by the terms and conditions of their appointment, which require them to observe the rules of natural justice when enquiring into complaints and reporting to the Archbishop.

Towards Healing is overseen by a Director in each state, who appoints assessors independent of the Church Authority, the victim and the accused, to investigate complaints of abuse and report on their findings. Assessors are persons with skill and training in interviewing and forensic investigation. They have included former police officers, social workers and psychologists.

The Church encourages all victims to go to the police. It is the Church’s preference that the police handle all investigations of a criminal matter – that is their role and they have powers the Church does not.

Further, the Church has proposed to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry the introduction of statutory oversight of Church processes, similar to that undertaken by the New South Wales Ombudsman. This would provide a further assurance of the independence of the Church processes.

Are the Church processes too legalistic?

Neither Towards Healing nor the Melbourne Response are litigious, and neither requires victims to establish that they have a legal claim. Both are centred on the victim and recognise the need for, and provide the victim with, a range of pastoral support options, including counselling and professional support services, regardless of any legal action that might be undertaken.

Both processes were developed so that persons wanting to make a complaint of abuse did not require legal representation. In more recent times, however, more victims are engaging the services of legal representatives to assist them. This can have the effect of reducing the emphasis on the opportunity for pastoral support, and increase the focus on financial redress.

Under both processes, victims are able to seek compensation without resorting to legal process. This reflects the fact that the vast majority of allegations are historic, relating to abuse which occurred in the decades of the 1960s to 1980s and even earlier.

Of course, neither process prevents legal recourse if that is the victim’s preference.


Why does the Church provide ongoing support for offenders?

Priests and religious usually have few assets and rely on the Church for their accommodation, food and other necessities of life. Some receive no remuneration.

Therefore, the Church has an obligation to support them, even for those found guilty of abuse. For example, if the Church doesn’t support an offender once he or she is released from jail, usually the only option is for them to be supported by the community, through social services. We believe it would be wrong for the Church to wash its hands of its responsibilities and shift the burden to the community.

By supplying basic support, the Church is also able to provide some monitoring of the offender.

Those found responsible for abusing a child will not, however, be given back the power that they have abused.

What should I do if I think a child is being abused?

If you believe a child is being abused you should immediately report your concerns to police.

Child abuse is a criminal offence and the police should handle investigations of all criminal matters. That is their role, and they have powers the Church does not.


Does the Church cover-up offending behaviour?

While in earlier years some offending clergy and Religious Institute members may have covered up fellow offenders, it is clear that the vast majority of clergy and religious simply could not believe that a colleague could do such appalling things.

We were slow to believe victims – we tended to believe our colleagues rather than those coming forward.

Some bishops and leaders thought that providing counselling and then moving an offender who had promised to cease offending would stop the abuse and that there would be no re-offending.

These were terrible failures.

Since 1996 the Melbourne Response and Towards Healing have very greatly reduced the possibility of anyone covering up abuse. Offenders are now publicly identified both within and outside the Church.


Is celibacy a cause of abuse?

There are an enormous number of clergy and Religious Institute members who live very full, contented and healthy celibate lives and who make a valuable contribution to the community. We know of no research that suggests the rate of abuse among Catholic celibate clergy is any different from the rest of the population.

The most comprehensive research into clerical sexual abuse, by the John Jay College in the U.S., concludes that celibacy did not contribute to the increase in abuse during the 1960s and 70s.

It is important to remember, however, that one case of child abuse is always one case too many.

For more information please see the article titled ‘Overview of research by John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York'.

What recommendations has the Church in Victoria made to the Inquiry?

The Catholic Church in Victoria has made five recommendations to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry. Two of those recommendations appeared in the Church’s original submission, Facing the Truth. A further three were made in a supplementary submission to the Inquiry.

The five recommendations are:

1. Extending mandatory reporting laws to ministers of religion
2. Introducing a new way of reporting offenders to police that protects the privacy of victims
3. Strengthening the Working with Children Check
4. Clarifying an extended limitation period for legal claims against the Church
5. Introducing statutory oversight of Church processes.

For more information, please see the reform overview leaflet and the five reform fact sheets in ‘The Church’s reform agenda’ section of this pack.

The Church hopes that the Committee acknowledges the importance of these proposed reforms.

The Church will of course consider in detail all of the Committee’s recommendations.



If the Inquiry doesn’t adopt the Church’s five recommendations, will the Church pursue their implementation?

The Church believes the five reforms it has proposed to the Inquiry are valuable initiatives to assist the healing of those who have been abused and to enhance preventative measures already in place.

If they are not adopted, the Church will consider the potential to pursue these reforms in the context of the recommendations handed down by the Parliamentary Inquiry in their Final Report in November, and in the context of the Royal Commission’s ongoing processes.



How is the Catholic Church in Victoria responding to the Royal Commission?

The Catholic Church in Victoria is waiting for the Committee’s recommendations to be handed down in November in its Final Report.

The Catholic Church is also cooperating fully with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse through the Truth Justice and Healing Council.

The Truth Justice and Healing Council is coordinating the Catholic Church’s response to the Royal Commission with a commitment to cooperation, openness and justice for victims and survivors. The Council has been established in recognition of the importance of the Royal Commission and the need for the Church to address the past openly and honestly.

For more information on the Truth Justice and Healing Council go to: www.tjhcouncil.org.au.

For more information on the Royal Commission go to: www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au.
Last updated: 21 November 2013