Anglican Church continues to be damned re sexual abuse

And - from the Adelaide Advertiser:

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,9703836%255E1702,00.html


Archbishop "ashamed" over abuse

31may04
ADELAIDE'S Anglican archbishop today apologised for his church's substandard handling of child sexual abuse allegations.

The Most Reverend Ian George said he was sorry for the church's response to hundreds of claims of sexual abuse over the past 50 years.

An independent report into the church's handling of the claims was detailed in parliament today, after two clergymen raised allegations of a paedophile network operating within the church in past decades.

The report found "the church's attitude was uncaring towards victims and, at times, had the result of undermining the character of victims and their families".

The report criticised the Adelaide diocese with being "more concerned with legal and insurance responsibilities than the healing of those who had been abused".









Archbishop George said the church acknowledged that had been the case in some instances.

"The church is devastated that people in its care have been so profoundly affected by people in trust, by direct abuse or poor process," he said.

"We are ashamed."

Is there not a nook or cranny on the planet where children are safe from the advances of the priests?

It seems to me that the way things are going, a church is not a safe place for children. Unfortunately, the abuse is not an anomaly of a few deviant clergy. Apparently, it seems to be a pattern. One can speculate as to "why", interminably, but the bottom line is that the clergy are in a position of power and trust, that too many of them are using that trust for nefarious purposes.

If I were religious, went to church, and had a child, I would avoid any situation where my child would be alone with a priest or minister.

Hmmm - you would still hafta prove to me that they ar emuch worse than any group similarly made powerful over, and with lots of access to, kids.

Such as?

dlowan- I understand what you are saying. Teachers, coaches, etc. have similar access to kids.

I do think though that there is a difference between say, a teacher and a priest, when it comes to the credibility and respect that is given a person, because of his profession. I would bet that the parents of kids who were abused by priests were terribly shocked and taken aback. A priest abusing a kid has involved himself in a betrayal that goes far beyond the actual abuse. An abusing teacher or coach may be dismissed as a deviant, but an abusing priest cuts at the heart of what many people consider the core of their being............their faith.

Most schools and teams will take steps to have an abuser punished. The churches have a history of covering up the transgressions of their staff.

Anyhow, I think that wise parents need to have a talk with their kids about abuse, and let the children know that ANYBODY can be an abuser.

Are you saying that I didn't understand what she was saying, Phoenix?

Ohhhhh..... that hurt.

Gus- Aw, com'ere sweetie. I wouldn't hurt you for the world!

I can't hear you! I'm on the other side of the room, lying on the couch, my head covered by a pillow to stifle my sobs.

<Whispering> Gus..............Is anyone pressing on that pillow????

The whole world, Phoenix. The whole damn world.

Adding pressure

I think that a lot of abuse in non-church related institurions is gonna come up.

Like - scouts, life-savers (already happening) - lots of orphanages and such - I think the keys are opportunity and trust, and privacy.

Don't let a priest find you in that position......

deb

Nor do I think there is anything particularly unique about theological insititutions other than specifics of opportunity. We might regard abuse from that quarter with more disgust, but that seems a function of the sad irony of it.

Here, much of the abuse which has come to light over the last decade or so has involved native Indians under the care of various agencies or groups. As the Anglican church was commonly involved in such care, the abuse charges have often pointed in that direction.

Yes - here, too, all churches were involved in abuse of Aboriginal children...

I thought that would likely be the case.

And more:


DECADES OF
NEGLECT
By NIGEL HUNT and GREG KELTON
01jun04
THE Anglican Church had an uncaring attitude towards victims of sexual abuse and was more concerned with the effects such allegations had on itself and its clergy, an independent report has found.

The damning Board of Inquiry report into how the church handled allegations of sex abuse also says victims were often viewed as mischievous, were threatened with defamation and, in many cases, their complaints were simply dismissed.

Anglican Archbishop Dr Ian George last night said the church was ashamed and apologised for its systemic failure to assist abuse victims.

However, Dr George refused to resign following the release of the 94-page report, despite calls for him to go.

"Clearly, at times, our response was sub-standard," he said.

"As Archbishop, I accept my own part in our systemic failure and I apologise."

The highly critical report says the Diocese has been more concerned with legal and insurance responsibilities than the care of those who were sexually assaulted.

"While we have never lost sight of the pain and suffering of those who have been abused, we acknowledge that at times this has been the case," Dr George said.

"The church is devastated that people in its care have been so profoundly affected by people in trust by direct abuse or poor process. As people committed to the love and care proclaimed by Jesus, we acknowledge our failure. We are ashamed. We aim to do better. We will do better."

The Board of Inquiry, which comprised retired Supreme Court Judge Trevor Olsson and senior lecturer from the School of Social Work and Social Policy at the University of South Australia, Dr Donna Chung, was ordered by the Anglican Church last May.

It followed widespread allegations of sexual abuse and pedophile networks in the church, revealed by Anglican priests Reverend Dr Don Owers and Reverend Andrew King.

Archbishop George, who will retire in August, said he had not considered stepping down after the damning findings.

"No, I am not going to resign and nor has it been suggested to me by anybody that I should," he said.

However, Professor Freda Briggs, who co-authored a report into the Queensland diocese child abuse which buried former governor-general Archbishop Peter Hollingworth in controversy, described Dr George's response as "pathetic". She said it would appear that there was more criticism of Dr George than there had been of Dr Hollingworth.

"It would be helpful for the healing process of victims if Archbishop George resigned," she said.

"I think it would be helpful for victims if he went as quickly as possible."

Professor Briggs, a child development expert, said the archbishop's response suggested he "still seems to be dismissing the seriousness of the complaints within the report".

"He is still minimising what has happened and the effects of child sexual abuse and his own part," she said.

The key findings of the Board of Inquiry say that:

TACTICS used by child sex perpetrators to gain the victim's trust and the trust of the victim's family to help maintain the victim's silence were not recognised, enabling abuse to continue.

OFTEN, the church's first priority seemed to be one of protecting itself at all costs, even to the extent, on some occasions, of warning complainants that they could be sued for defamation if their complaints could not be proved.

THERE appeared to be an attitude that a member of the clergy simply would not sexually abuse another person and that any person, particularly a younger person, who made such a claim was at best being mischievous.

CHURCH worker Robert Brandenberg had probably abused about 80 boys over many years.

A MAJOR focus of church management had tended to be on handling claims and dealing with the insurance and budgetary implications of those claims, rather than towards the needs of victims.

Tabling the report in Parliament yesterday, Premier Mike Rann said the Anglican Church had "failed those who most deserved support and care".

"There was a breach of trust and a betrayal of the church's obligations to pastoral care," he said.

"It is clear that there was a failure over decades on the part of the church as an institution, and by some individuals within the church, to put the interests of the victims ahead of the perceived interests of the Anglican Church."

Mr Rann had been asked by the church to table the report "in the public interest" and to ensure it was subjected to "full and rigorous public debate".

Mr Rann said the report made for disturbing reading and he had referred it to both the Police Commissioner and the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation and consideration.

"The church failed some of its children," he said.



Hmm - this is after Australia's Governor general, Archbishop Peter Hollingworth, was forced to resign a couple of years ago - subsequent to his mishandling of similar allegations in Queensland.


Here is an interesting stat - 85% of the South Australian complainants were male.

Some waited more than 40 years to disclose.

This supports my firm belief that only the tip of the iceberg re sexual abuse of boys has been discovered so far.

deb

Same patterns as here, with both Anglican and Catholic churches, who have commonly sought to protect church individuals, reputations, and property while obstructing abuse victims' pursuit of care, restitution, or even acknowledgement.