Reporting child abuse

Since 1999 the Response Team set up by the Church in Malta to investigate cases of sex abuse found that there were four such cases involving minors.

In two cases the perpetrator was a priest and one of these cases happened on Church property. Two cases were committed by lay persons working for the Church and both were committed on Church property. The Curia PRO supplied this information.

The Response Team, which is headed by Judge Victor Caruana Colombo, received ten reports in 1999, three in 2000 and two in 2001. Up till a few weeks ago no reports were made this year. There are three pending cases; seven cases where no proof was forthcoming and one case was dismissed.

It was in 1999 that the Church in our islands published its policy and procedures in cases of sexual abuse in pastoral activity. This document covers both sexual abuses between adults and child abuse. It covers bishops, clergy, religious (male and female), lay employees and volunteers engaged in all sorts of activities within Church institutions. Thousands of people are covered by this policy.

The Church should be proud for being the first large institution to freely publish such a policy and not as a result of some public outcry. (It is a pity that this policy is not given to every new employee or volunteer in the Church. Many have never seen it.)

Some of the arguments generally brought forward by those against reporting cases to the police are: the number of cases is very small; the Church is not bound to do the work of the police; reporting child abuse is not mandatory in Malta and that those who report (or most of them) insist that the investigations are only confined to Church circles.

In the light of these arguments the original position of the Church was that in no way does the Church prevent or dissuade the victim, or members of the victim`s family, or anyone from making a report to the police, and does not in any way suggest that such report not be made.

However, it is not the Church`s policy to take the initiative to report the alleged offender to the police. (Letter dated August 14, 2001 to The Malta Independent from the PRO of the Archdiocese.)

The Curia PRO also informed me that the policy has been amended in the sense that now the head of the Response Team informs the person making the complaint both of the internal procedures adopted by the Church and of the possibility that as a citizen, the complainant can report the case to the civil authorities.

The arguments against reporting have a certain validity but so do the counter-arguments. It is true that reporting child abuse is not mandatory. This has tactical and not intrinsic value. This argument will not hold if Government changes the law and makes reporting mandatory.

I think that there is a very good case for Government to do so. Two comments. Such a measure should be accompanied by a set-up of investigative, legal and social help, which will really support the victims.

From such a mandatory system one should exclude only those cases when the information is given during Confession, all sorts of counselling, or psychiatric or psychological treatment. I propose these exceptions as those who abuse still have the right to receive help without risking being reported to the police.

The argument that the Church is not obliged to do the work of the police is a valid argument, especially from the legalistic point of view. On the other hand I think that the Church should not go out of its way to find reasons for not reporting, but should adopt the opposite position.

The validity of purely legalistic arguments is limited. Let us learn from the experience of others who in similar cases resorted to legalistic arguments.

In October 1995, Marie Collins said that in 1960 Fr Paul McGennis had abused her. She said she had been told that a letter of discipline had been placed in the priest`s personnel file.

The diocesan chancellor, Mgr Alex Stenson, judged admissions made by Fr McGennis as confidential to an internal Church inquiry and refused to make the file available to police.

Meanwhile in a statement made two weeks ago, Irish Cardinal Desmond Connell said: "I now consider that Mrs Collins and the common good in this case would have been better served if an acknowledgement had been given of this information to the police".

He also said the Chancellor`s position - that he was bound by the confidentiality of canon law - "gave the impression that the Church was trying to protect a priest who had abused children."

The Primate of All Ireland, Archbishop Sean Brady of Armagh, Northern Ireland, said that the bishops would "fully co-operate with any inquiry set up by the state," adding "the safety of children, the welfare of victims and the common good are our supreme concerns and shall be the sole determining factors."

The other two arguments - the number of reported cases of abuse is minimal and victims prefer not to report to the police - are connected.

As noted above, the number of reports received by the Response Team in Malta is almost negligible: five reports in the last 27 months.

Is this a realistic number? Thousands of people are covered by Church policy for such cases and one can opine that experience in other countries suggests that the number of actual cases of abuse may be higher than that reported; unless we believe that the Maltese are a different breed of humans. Isn`t it more probable that the small numbers are partially the result of the code of silence and that secrecy surrounds such cases?

There is no doubt that the Church should respect the wishes of those who voluntarily report a case. But is the Church really helping them by acting in this way?

The short-term effects point to a positive reply - the victim`s reluctance to have his or her experience made public is safeguarded and as a result of their report internal action is taken and cases are solved. But isn`t it also possible that the medium and long-term effects are not so positive? The code of silence and secrecy surrounding child abuse also surrounds rape and domestic violence.

Unfortunately, guilt and shame are felt by those who have neither. If we really want to help victims we have to actively campaign to break this conspiracy of silence.

Since the Church believes that it should not report to the police let her do so; but let it actively try to persuade victims that the embarrassment and hurt that accompanies reporting to the police can help others to come forward and create the critical mass necessary for society to really try to stamp out this abuse.

The Church should accompany its present policy by a consistent campaign to break the code of silence. Instead of finding illusionary comfort in small numbers let the Church in Malta continuously and repeatedly say that reporting abuse is a service not only to the victim but also to the Church.

I propose that our Church leaders emulate Cardinal Connell`s position of April 14 when he said: "It is in the interests of all of us that anyone abused by a priest or religious should speak up.

"Only when we have full knowledge about what we are dealing with can we be sure that we have put in place all the necessary structures and procedures to respond as best as we can now and prevent recurrence in the future."

I do not want any witch-hunt, but let`s take action to break the omertà which surrounds such cases and enslaves so many. I propose that the Church discusses anew its policy of not reporting to the police cases of abuse known as a result of administrative measures.