Are women done with men?

[jrhampt]

The problem that makes many church/religious systems particularly prone to abuse is that (as a Southern Baptist and I'm sure there are many other denominations that teach this), I was explicitly taught that women are to submit to men, that men are the authority figures.  Women are often counseled to stay in abusive marriages in part for this reason.  If you are taught that men are the authority figures and that God says so and you are at the bottom of the hierarchy, it seems to me that is a huge contributor to the problem.

[simonsez]

I'm also curious about the religious people in here going "yeah, but abuse happens lots of places!"

As far as I can tell when re-reading the thread @GuitarStv, @shelivesthedream, and myself are the one's who've said some variety of "abuse happens lots of places." I don't know about shelivesthedream's religious views, but I know gituarstv is an atheist. I might be the only religious person that responded when abuse in the church came up. None of us were downplaying that abuse in the church happens, or that it's somehow excused when church leaders abuse.

I suspect that more abuse is likely to happen in churches (for a variety of reasons related to church structure listed in a previous post), but haven't found studies that prove this to be the case.


FWIW - not atheist (although I certainly leaned that way for many years), more pantheistic in my beliefs.

I don't recall where I read it or heard it (apologies if it was this particular forum!) but there was a sociological theory posited that the seemingly systemic abuse coming from the institution of the church was traced back to the Black Death and similar brutal plague outbreaks or at least was a factor in the lowering of the reputation of the clergy.  By occupation, priests in Europe suffered the worst due to their higher than normal contact with the vectors of disease (tending to those suffering, administering last rites, overseeing burials in mass graves, etc.).  After that point, the church had to recruit and perhaps lower their standards to fill in the ranks.  And when you have an institution that is somewhat free from external governance, that lowering of standards in an insular environment with a level of protection (from secular checks and balances) could lead to issues hundreds of years down the road when information (including terrible information) is allowed to flow more freely.

If there's any validity to that theory, it could be plausible that an institution like the church might have more of a specific type of abuse compared to outside of that world.  You still hear stories about priests, bishops, etc. just being moved around to different parishes and churches instead of in the real world, that person would have been fired and in prison.

I think religion can be a huge net positive for a society and certainly don't think it should be dismantled to a point people don't have a choice in how they worship and spend their time associated with religious institutions, but c'mon.  Trim the low-hanging incredibly immoral and illegal fruit that historically has been men in power abusing that power.  Don't hide and cover it up.  I think strides have been made but that damage is long-lasting and sadly perhaps not that surprising when you have passages written by an "inspired" man like in 1 Timothy Chapter 2 effectively silencing those without authority.

As for the convo about how men and women operate under duress, in my experience with psychometrics analyzing just that, there isn't a huge discernible pattern that you can reduce to "men do this and women do that".  One of my favorite tools (of which there are many) is the SDI (also called Core Strengths).  You answer some questions about what strategies you would employ when things are calm or what motivates you and then you also answer some questions about what you would do in a stressful environment or conflict resolution.  You were always choosing between 3 choices and had to allocate all 10 points for each question to the various strategies (some questions you might choose to allocate the points 10-0-0, others 5-3-2, 7-2-1, etc. but everyone would have the same sum).  You could then graph these (x,y,z) points on a triangle with each corner representing 100% of a particular strategy and anywhere in the middle of the triangle representing whatever combination.  Each person answering the sets of questions would then have two points they could graph on the triangle.  The graphed distance between your normal state and your conflict state (denoted by a vector) in addition to the absolute values of your normal and conflict states told not only yourself but also your co-workers/peers how you tended to operate and what approaches might be optimal for communication.  I'm a statistician, not a psychologist but there just weren't any strong gendered associations as a predictor for where someone might end up on the triangle across the hundreds of cases I saw at my agency.  It was all over the place!
https://www.corestrengths.com/sdi-2-0-methodology-and-meaning/
https://www.corestrengths.com/products/assessment/

[shelivesthedream]

I'm also curious about the religious people in here going "yeah, but abuse happens lots of places!"

As far as I can tell when re-reading the thread @GuitarStv, @shelivesthedream, and myself are the one's who've said some variety of "abuse happens lots of places." I don't know about shelivesthedream's religious views, but I know gituarstv is an atheist. I might be the only religious person that responded when abuse in the church came up. None of us were downplaying that abuse in the church happens, or that it's somehow excused when church leaders abuse.

Hands up, I'm Catholic. I am very aware of the massive abuse cover ups in the church, and how many people have left the church because of it. Trust has been fundamentally lost.

But as I posted above, I have never seen data that says that people in the church abuse at a greater rate than people in other organisations. And I think that inaccurate perceptions perpetuate abuse. Granted, those perceptions are usually "So-and-so would never...!" but it goes both ways.

Not every priest* is an abuser just waiting for his chance and I think asking why some priests do and some priests don't and asking whether there is a disproportionate number of abusive priests is a really important part of asking what the church can do to prevent abuse. If there truly were a disproportionate number of abusive priests then I think a serious inquiry into the formation process would absolutely be the first step as clearly the seminaries would be failing to spot vast numbers of potential abusers. And to ask why this colossal population of potential abusers are attracted to the priesthood and how to put them off.

*Other figures in church hierarchies absolutely do abuse, but people seem to be less concerned about that.

As it is, I think that given that the scale of the problem seems to be on a par with other organisations/hierarchies/populations, it's likely to be more effective to concentrate on not giving this average number of abusers access to victims. Which, as I said above, can be a PITA for people with genuinely innocent intentions but when it is actually done across the board is on the whole pretty effective. The problem is that people make exceptions... and that snowballs... and then they end up feeling complicit and scared... so they don't report in case they get in trouble...

For a forum generally so obsessed with data and studies, I'm curious about how people feel confident to make unsubstantiated statements about something which ought to be a matter of true or false just based on their perceptions and perhaps prejudices. I'm pretty sure that if I said that atheists abuse at a greater rate because they have no moral compass, people would be absolutely up in arms about it. As it is, all I am saying is that people gonna people and priests are people too, and I've never seen any data that convinces me that priests are either more or less likely to be abusers than your average person.

The other thing that concerns me is this forum's American bias. So often, "church" means "white evangelical Protestant church with very particular views about all sorts of things that are actually not compatible with my religion so please don't lump us in together". That version of "church" is massively a minority in the world, so even if there were stats that all the Southern Baptist ministers were watching child porn every Sunday evening as a way to unwind from a stressful day at their megachurch (note: humour!), I don't think that can be generalised to "all church leaders in all churches everywhere".

And yes, absolutely the Catholic church has had a massive problem with abuse being covered up and not dealt with. I would never say it hasn't happened and wasn't awful. Hopefully this is changing? Time will tell. But I think the days of the invincible, unquestionable parish priest are over for a lot of people - in a good way. And if people would actually do what they are supposed to do when it comes to safeguarding, so much abuse could be prevented. It's not the church's guidelines that are wrong, it's their application in the real world by fallible people. Which, again, is a question of where prevention efforts should be concentrated: rewriting safeguarding guidelines or offering sufficient carrots and sticks to make sure people stick to the ones that exist already?

If you're interested in some homework, the changes to Book VI of canon law a few years ago make for interesting reading. There was a lot of debate about whether this would make it better in practice when it comes to prosecuting abuse cases. If you search this podcast for "canon law", they really delve into it: https://www.pillarcatholic.com/t/the-pillar-podcast

I've not re-listened to it to check, but this is probably The Episode where they explain it all: https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/ep-22-canon-law-super-bowl-1f3?utm_source=publication-search

One of the great things about the Catholic church is that all the official stuff is written down and easily findable online in dozens of languages, so there's no need to guess or speculate about it. You can just look it up.

[LennStar]

The justice system has to try to be as objective as possible. And it is impossible to be objective about something that is 100% subjective.

What do you mean by “something that is 100% subjective”

The (amount of) trauma.

I honestly shouldn’t be surprised that this thread has culminated in a “men are logical arguers, and women are emotional volcanoes” comment. But here we are.

Profoundly disappointing.

That was an observation of this thread that has nothing to with what you are talking about. I merely pointed out that to me it looks like (generally) the women were trying to make their feeling understood while the men where trying to look at e.g. laws.
I was trying to pinpoint where the difference in understanding was.

I never asked you to understand, I asked you to care about fellow humans you speak to regularly when they talk about horrific things that happen to them.

If you don't know how to understand why and how fellow community people have been actively harmed by this thread, perhaps try and be curious instead of judgemental?

I am not judgemental and because I am curious I am digging around.

ETA: also as a therapist, I disagree with your categorization of how people argue as well. Again, like everything in this thread I've tried to discuss, how people argue is more nuanced than one type getting super logical and the other hysterical and emotional. FTR, both responses you described are emotional responses, and becoming detached and dismissive is a highly reactive emotional response.

Yes, of course, it's an emotional protection. I am sorry if my words sounded like the stereotype of "men are logical, and women are emotional", that was not the intention at all. 

---------

One of the great things about the Catholic church is that all the official stuff is written down and easily findable online in dozens of languages, so there's no need to guess or speculate about it. You can just look it up.

In regards to this the German post-war (up to 2014) recorded cases of catholic clerics who did child abuse was 4,4%. The difference to most other institutions would be that more than 60% were boys.

[Metalcat]

The justice system has to try to be as objective as possible. And it is impossible to be objective about something that is 100% subjective.

What do you mean by “something that is 100% subjective”

The (amount of) trauma.

I honestly shouldn’t be surprised that this thread has culminated in a “men are logical arguers, and women are emotional volcanoes” comment. But here we are.

Profoundly disappointing.

That was an observation of this thread that has nothing to with what you are talking about. I merely pointed out that to me it looks like (generally) the women were trying to make their feeling understood while the men where trying to look at e.g. laws.
I was trying to pinpoint where the difference in understanding was.

I never asked you to understand, I asked you to care about fellow humans you speak to regularly when they talk about horrific things that happen to them.

If you don't know how to understand why and how fellow community people have been actively harmed by this thread, perhaps try and be curious instead of judgemental?

I am not judgemental and because I am curious I am digging around.

ETA: also as a therapist, I disagree with your categorization of how people argue as well. Again, like everything in this thread I've tried to discuss, how people argue is more nuanced than one type getting super logical and the other hysterical and emotional. FTR, both responses you described are emotional responses, and becoming detached and dismissive is a highly reactive emotional response.

Yes, of course, it's an emotional protection. I am sorry if my words sounded like the stereotype of "men are logical, and women are emotional", that was not the intention at all. 

---------

One of the great things about the Catholic church is that all the official stuff is written down and easily findable online in dozens of languages, so there's no need to guess or speculate about it. You can just look it up.

In regards to this the German post-war (up to 2014) recorded cases of catholic clerics who did child abuse was 4,4%. The difference to most other institutions would be that more than 60% were boys.

I would recommend getting curious about how what you've said pissed off so many people.

[shelivesthedream]

One of the great things about the Catholic church is that all the official stuff is written down and easily findable online in dozens of languages, so there's no need to guess or speculate about it. You can just look it up.

In regards to this the German post-war (up to 2014) recorded cases of catholic clerics who did child abuse was 4,4%. The difference to most other institutions would be that more than 60% were boys.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "official stuff". I meant safeguarding policies, procedures for reporting and investigating, punishments for those found guilty. What people should be doing.

It's a bit like looking at police officers who commit crimes: what they're supposed to be doing and the laws they're supposed to be following aren't something we need to speculate about. We can ask if they're fit for purpose and debate about how to get people to follow them, but we don't need to guess what they are.

My perception is that the decentralised WASP evangelical churches of America are more independent of each other and less regulated so it's harder to have a discussion about effective ways to stop abuse when you use the words "the church" in that both-broad-and-narrow sense as they all have different rules.

However, your statistic is germane to the discussion as a whole, so thank you. It sounds like it's on a par with other statistics quoted earlier in this thread, IIRC.

[Villanelle]

The justice system has to try to be as objective as possible. And it is impossible to be objective about something that is 100% subjective.

What do you mean by “something that is 100% subjective”

The (amount of) trauma.

I honestly shouldn’t be surprised that this thread has culminated in a “men are logical arguers, and women are emotional volcanoes” comment. But here we are.

Profoundly disappointing.

That was an observation of this thread that has nothing to with what you are talking about. I merely pointed out that to me it looks like (generally) the women were trying to make their feeling understood while the men where trying to look at e.g. laws.
I was trying to pinpoint where the difference in understanding was.

I never asked you to understand, I asked you to care about fellow humans you speak to regularly when they talk about horrific things that happen to them.

If you don't know how to understand why and how fellow community people have been actively harmed by this thread, perhaps try and be curious instead of judgemental?

I am not judgemental and because I am curious I am digging around.

ETA: also as a therapist, I disagree with your categorization of how people argue as well. Again, like everything in this thread I've tried to discuss, how people argue is more nuanced than one type getting super logical and the other hysterical and emotional. FTR, both responses you described are emotional responses, and becoming detached and dismissive is a highly reactive emotional response.

Yes, of course, it's an emotional protection. I am sorry if my words sounded like the stereotype of "men are logical, and women are emotional", that was not the intention at all. 

---------

One of the great things about the Catholic church is that all the official stuff is written down and easily findable online in dozens of languages, so there's no need to guess or speculate about it. You can just look it up.

In regards to this the German post-war (up to 2014) recorded cases of catholic clerics who did child abuse was 4,4%. The difference to most other institutions would be that more than 60% were boys.

I would recommend getting curious about how what you've said pissed off so many people.

Yeah, doubling down was an... interesting, though not unexpected... response. 

Huh.  Remind me again what the title question of this thread is.... Oh, that's right. ***



*** Not all men.  Not all women.  Not all forum posters.  Et al. 

[GuitarStv]

One of the great things about the Catholic church is that all the official stuff is written down and easily findable online in dozens of languages, so there's no need to guess or speculate about it. You can just look it up.

Could you provide a link to these clear Catholic rules regarding sexual abuse committed by priests?  I wasn't able to find a description for the following:
- clear penalties meted out by the church for sexual abusers found among clergy (explusion/defrockment/etc.)
- clear orders that all instances of sexual abuse are required to be reported to police immediately

Those seem like two very obvious and simple things that any church serious about ending sexual abuse would be doing.

[Ron Scott]

One of the great things about the Catholic church is that all the official stuff is written down and easily findable online in dozens of languages, so there's no need to guess or speculate about it. You can just look it up.

Could you provide a link to these clear Catholic rules regarding sexual abuse committed by priests?  I wasn't able to find a description for the following:
- clear penalties meted out by the church for sexual abusers found among clergy (explusion/defrockment/etc.)
- clear orders that all instances of sexual abuse are required to be reported to police immediately

Those seem like two very obvious and simple things that any church serious about ending sexual abuse would be doing.

The Catholic Church is probably the most successful organization in all history, lasting over 2000 years. With a current membership of about 1.3 Billion people it is second only to China in terms of organization size. (China has about 1.4 Billion people.)

The church knows more about managing critics, crisis management, and PR than any other group, and orchestrates its public communications with extraordinary finesse.  It wrote the book on this stuff.

Given its odd, gender-centric hierarchy and elevation of celibacy as a demand the priesthood attracts a biased subset of the population which includes some wackos. This has always been the case and there have always been “issues” and “incidents”. This will continue.

When you peel back the onion on new rules and regulations, there is usually more gray than black or white, and things will likely only change a little and for a relatively small amount of time.

Ultimately, the real threat to the church, as it is with their peers, are the people who simply don’t see a need for organized religion in the modern world. We’ve seen the retrenchment in the EU and US. I’m guessing they won’t find a way to replace that wealthy customer base easily, so the future is hard to predict.

In the meantime, keep your kids away.

[shelivesthedream]

One of the great things about the Catholic church is that all the official stuff is written down and easily findable online in dozens of languages, so there's no need to guess or speculate about it. You can just look it up.

Could you provide a link to these clear Catholic rules regarding sexual abuse committed by priests?  I wasn't able to find a description for the following:
- clear penalties meted out by the church for sexual abusers found among clergy (explusion/defrockment/etc.)
- clear orders that all instances of sexual abuse are required to be reported to police immediately

Those seem like two very obvious and simple things that any church serious about ending sexual abuse would be doing.

I think this is what you mean?

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/06/01/210601b.html

Here is a news report about it: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-05/pope-francis-motu-proprio-sex-abuse-clergy-religious-church.html

And this podcast goes into the changes: https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/ep-22-canon-law-super-bowl-1f3?utm_source=publication-search (I think this is the right episode)

ETA: Or maybe this is what you meant? https://catholicsafeguarding.org.uk/resources/practice-guidance/

My husband has been through safeguarding training at our church and these are the key training resources. I would not expect any significant differences in other UK Catholic churches. I have been through safeguarding training at a school and it was substantially the same, albeit secular. If people actually did it all, it would mostly work. But they don't.

[GuitarStv]

One of the great things about the Catholic church is that all the official stuff is written down and easily findable online in dozens of languages, so there's no need to guess or speculate about it. You can just look it up.

Could you provide a link to these clear Catholic rules regarding sexual abuse committed by priests?  I wasn't able to find a description for the following:
- clear penalties meted out by the church for sexual abusers found among clergy (explusion/defrockment/etc.)
- clear orders that all instances of sexual abuse are required to be reported to police immediately

Those seem like two very obvious and simple things that any church serious about ending sexual abuse would be doing.

I think this is what you mean?

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/06/01/210601b.html

Yes, that's what I was looking for:

TITLE V
OFFENCES AGAINST SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS
...
Can. 1395 — § 1. A cleric living in concubinage, other than in the case mentioned in can. 1394, and a cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.

§ 2. A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the offence was committed in public, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.

§ 3. A cleric who by force, threats or abuse of his authority commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue or forces someone to perform or submit to sexual acts is to be punished with the same penalty as in § 2.


TITLE VI
OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE, DIGNITY AND LIBERTY

Can. 1398 — § 1. A cleric is to be punished with deprivation of office and with other just penalties, not excluding, where the case calls for it, dismissal from the clerical state, if he:

1° commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with a minor or with a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason or with one to whom the law recognises equal protection;

2° grooms or induces a minor or a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason or one to whom the law recognises equal protection to expose himself or herself pornographically or to take part in pornographic exhibitions, whether real or simulated;

3° immorally acquires, retains, exhibits or distributes, in whatever manner and by whatever technology, pornographic images of minors or of persons who habitually have an imperfect use of reason.

So, at first glance these seem like good responses.  But reading a little closer you realize that they're full of weasel words and are completely wishy-washy when actually describing the punishment that will take place.  Seems like it's totally up to the discretion of whoever is overseeing the matter for the church.  Contrast that with consequences for things that the church views to be a real problem:

§ 2. A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

The church has opened the possibility of being dismissed from the priesthood for sexually abusing minors, but by no means is that guaranteed.  No specific punishment is actually outlined, other than 'just penalties'.  This could either be a great change that will really help the problem, or a giant nothingburger.  It's better than the previous policy of lying/hiding the pedophiles and never taking responsibility, but still pretty disappointing.  I'd much rather read:

A person who sexually abuses a minor incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

I also didn't see any clear order to obey local laws and cooperate with police regarding sexual abuse in the link you provided (they are required to report abuse to other church people though).  I think this may cover external reporting?  (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2019/12/17/191217b.html)

On the Confidentiality of Legal Proceedings

...

4. Office confidentiality shall not prevent the fulfilment of the obligations laid down in all places by civil laws, including any reporting obligations, and the execution of enforceable requests of civil judicial authorities.

5. The person who files the report, the person who alleges to have been harmed and the witnesses shall not be bound by any obligation of silence with regard to matters involving the case.

Which still doesn't actually require priests to report sexual abuse to authorities . . . but does remove the old rule that they have to keep silent about it.  Again, this is an improvement but seems like a bit of a half measure.

ETA: Or maybe this is what you meant? https://catholicsafeguarding.org.uk/resources/practice-guidance/

My husband has been through safeguarding training at our church and these are the key training resources. I would not expect any significant differences in other UK Catholic churches. I have been through safeguarding training at a school and it was substantially the same, albeit secular. If people actually did it all, it would mostly work. But they don't.

Honestly, this practice guidance is the best thing I've seen from the church on abuse.  It's pretty clearly written, it's straightforward and sensible in it's approach.  But it also looks kind of like polished HR stuff . . . and when HR stuff isn't closely backed by the organization at every step of the way it tends to not be followed by people.


I appreciate your dialogue on this matter.  While I'm not overwhelmed by the Catholic response to abuse, they do (as of 2019 at least) seem to have taken a few steps in the right direction which is definitely a good thing.  I'm disappointed that neither of the two obvious and simple steps that I mentioned are actually being done though.

[Ron Scott]

One of the great things about the Catholic church is that all the official stuff is written down and easily findable online in dozens of languages, so there's no need to guess or speculate about it. You can just look it up.

Could you provide a link to these clear Catholic rules regarding sexual abuse committed by priests?  I wasn't able to find a description for the following:
- clear penalties meted out by the church for sexual abusers found among clergy (explusion/defrockment/etc.)
- clear orders that all instances of sexual abuse are required to be reported to police immediately

Those seem like two very obvious and simple things that any church serious about ending sexual abuse would be doing.

I think this is what you mean?

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/06/01/210601b.html

Yes, that's what I was looking for:

TITLE V
OFFENCES AGAINST SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS
...
Can. 1395 — § 1. A cleric living in concubinage, other than in the case mentioned in can. 1394, and a cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.

§ 2. A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the offence was committed in public, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.

§ 3. A cleric who by force, threats or abuse of his authority commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue or forces someone to perform or submit to sexual acts is to be punished with the same penalty as in § 2.


TITLE VI
OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE, DIGNITY AND LIBERTY

Can. 1398 — § 1. A cleric is to be punished with deprivation of office and with other just penalties, not excluding, where the case calls for it, dismissal from the clerical state, if he:

1° commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with a minor or with a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason or with one to whom the law recognises equal protection;

2° grooms or induces a minor or a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason or one to whom the law recognises equal protection to expose himself or herself pornographically or to take part in pornographic exhibitions, whether real or simulated;

3° immorally acquires, retains, exhibits or distributes, in whatever manner and by whatever technology, pornographic images of minors or of persons who habitually have an imperfect use of reason.

So, at first glance these seem like good responses.  But reading a little closer you realize that they're full of weasel words and are completely wishy-washy when actually describing the punishment that will take place.  Seems like it's totally up to the discretion of whoever is overseeing the matter for the church.  Contrast that with consequences for things that the church views to be a real problem:

§ 2. A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

The church has opened the possibility of being dismissed from the priesthood for sexually abusing minors, but by no means is that guaranteed.  No specific punishment is actually outlined, other than 'just penalties'.  This could either be a great change that will really help the problem, or a giant nothingburger.  It's better than the previous policy of lying/hiding the pedophiles and never taking responsibility, but still pretty disappointing.  I'd much rather read:

A person who sexually abuses a minor incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

I also didn't see any clear order to obey local laws and cooperate with police regarding sexual abuse in the link you provided (they are required to report abuse to other church people though).  I think this may cover external reporting?  (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2019/12/17/191217b.html)

On the Confidentiality of Legal Proceedings

...

4. Office confidentiality shall not prevent the fulfilment of the obligations laid down in all places by civil laws, including any reporting obligations, and the execution of enforceable requests of civil judicial authorities.

5. The person who files the report, the person who alleges to have been harmed and the witnesses shall not be bound by any obligation of silence with regard to matters involving the case.

Which still doesn't actually require priests to report sexual abuse to authorities . . . but does remove the old rule that they have to keep silent about it.  Again, this is an improvement but seems like a bit of a half measure.

ETA: Or maybe this is what you meant? https://catholicsafeguarding.org.uk/resources/practice-guidance/

My husband has been through safeguarding training at our church and these are the key training resources. I would not expect any significant differences in other UK Catholic churches. I have been through safeguarding training at a school and it was substantially the same, albeit secular. If people actually did it all, it would mostly work. But they don't.

Honestly, this practice guidance is the best thing I've seen from the church on abuse.  It's pretty clearly written, it's straightforward and sensible in it's approach.  But it also looks kind of like polished HR stuff . . . and when HR stuff isn't closely backed by the organization at every step of the way it tends to not be followed by people.


I appreciate your dialogue on this matter.  While I'm not overwhelmed by the Catholic response to abuse, they do (as of 2019 at least) seem to have taken a few steps in the right direction which is definitely a good thing.  I'm disappointed that neither of the two obvious and simple steps that I mentioned are actually being done though.

All this is PR for the EU and the Americans, who are already becoming of less importance to the church. If the pressure is high the church will condemn the dead. If pressure is reaching the unbearable point, some of the living will have to take a hit but it will be tempered.We will likely be treated to delays, obfuscation, and the traditional switcharoo of moving offending priests from place to place.

If these offences were committed by another organization the authorities would be all over it. The religious are given special treatment usually reserved for the well-connected and rich. And there is the heart of the problem.

If there were true separation of church and state, the state would not second guess their police force in taking steps to investigate and charge child molesters regardless of what organizations the molester belonged to. So I don’t blame the church so much as the state. We KNOW what the church is, but the state should be protecting us from the horrors the church can reign.

[shelivesthedream]

when HR stuff isn't closely backed by the organization at every step of the way it tends to not be followed by people.

I 100% agree with this, and I think this is the real problem in the church. Actual human people are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. It's a huge problem - but a different problem from "the church says it's fine" or "there are no rules". And I think identifying where the actual problem is really is the first step to solving it. So if the problem is "the rules are fine but people aren't following them" then the question is "how can we carrot-and-stick them to follow the existing rules?" rather than "let's write new ones!" Likewise, if the problem is not that vastly more priests are abusers than in the general population then the problem probably isn't with recruitment, it's with in-parish safeguarding. But if priests are abusing out of all proportion then the problem probably is with why the church is attracting and ordaining all these abusers - and that's a different solution.

The vengeful part of me wishes that people who don't follow the safeguarding rules would be given the same sentence as the abuser. I recognise that's slightly out of proportion, but I think harsher enforcement for people who disregard practices that would (imo) in general limit the possibility for abuse would get people to take it seriously. When I worked with children, I found all this stuff a colossal pain in the neck but I did it anyway.

I appreciate your dialogue on this matter.

As BT used to say, it's good to talk :) As I said above, the Catholic church is certainly not perfect but at least if you know what the official stuff says you can have a constructive dialogue about the specifics. Likewise with statistics to compare - if you know what the facts are, you can talk about it and move forward instead of arguing based on speculation and possibly mistaken perception.

[Michael in ABQ]

All this is PR for the EU and the Americans, who are already becoming of less importance to the church. If the pressure is high the church will condemn the dead. If pressure is reaching the unbearable point, some of the living will have to take a hit but it will be tempered.We will likely be treated to delays, obfuscation, and the traditional switcharoo of moving offending priests from place to place.

If these offences were committed by another organization the authorities would be all over it. The religious are given special treatment usually reserved for the well-connected and rich. And there is the heart of the problem.

If there were true separation of church and state, the state would not second guess their police force in taking steps to investigate and charge child molesters regardless of what organizations the molester belonged to. So I don’t blame the church so much as the state. We KNOW what the church is, but the state should be protecting us from the horrors the church can reign.

Almost all of the abuses that have come out in public in the US since 2002 were committed decades earlier in the 50s through the 80s. A lot of the accused are already dead, or the statute of limitations has long since passed. Many states have launched investigations, but because the abuses happened decades ago there is little or nothing they can do criminally. Even if they could prosecute, it would be an almost impossible burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court decades after the fact.

[shelivesthedream]

Can I ask something, actually, which has only really just occurred to me? Is safeguarding a "thing" outside the UK?

It's a massive deal over here for everyone who works with children and vulnerable adults. (I have also worked with homeless adults and had to follow all the same safeguarding rules like getting a DBS (criminal record) check and not being alone with them - but it was a little bit different because I was also obliged to report certain behaviour on their part in case they were being inappropriate with me.)

But are you guys all understanding what I'm saying when I talk about safeguarding training/practices/protocols? I would think everyone in the UK even if they had never worked with children or vulnerable adults would know the basics but I have no idea if that's the same in other countries.

[Morning Glory]

Thought this one fit here. Makes the US gov't not look any better than the religious institutions.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/08/trump-brett-kavanaugh-investigation-fbi

" findings are significant because at least eight senators cited the FBI’s findings – that “no corroborating evidence” had been found to back up the allegations against Kavanaugh – when they voted to confirm the justice."

[Michael in ABQ]

Can I ask something, actually, which has only really just occurred to me? Is safeguarding a "thing" outside the UK?

It's a massive deal over here for everyone who works with children and vulnerable adults. (I have also worked with homeless adults and had to follow all the same safeguarding rules like getting a DBS (criminal record) check and not being alone with them - but it was a little bit different because I was also obliged to report certain behaviour on their part in case they were being inappropriate with me.)

But are you guys all understanding what I'm saying when I talk about safeguarding training/practices/protocols? I would think everyone in the UK even if they had never worked with children or vulnerable adults would know the basics but I have no idea if that's the same in other countries.

Yes, here in the US we have to complete a program called VIRTUS before we're allowed to interact with kids in any official way. For instance, I had to complete it to volunteer as a chaperone/driver during a school outing or if I wanted to volunteer to teach religious education. I don't recall if there is a criminal background check as part of it. During religious education classes our children are attending there is a period of instruction at the beginning of the year called Circle of Grace. "Circle of Grace is a program that teaches children and young people to recognize and maintain appropriate boundaries in body, mind, heart, soul and sexuality." When our elementary school kids were in a Catholic school that program was also used.

The first time I took the VIRTUS class about 10 years ago. It was held in person and the instructor was someone who had worked with kids and adults who had been abused so she didn't pull any punches. More recently it's an online class with a certificate that has to be on file with the parish/school.

[PoutineLover]

The term "safeguarding" isn't something I've heard here (Canada) but it's understood from context and we have similar procedures I think.

I had to pass a background check to be on the board of my child's daycare and that role doesn't even involve contact with children beyond the usual parent role. I work in academia and every year we are reminded to take a sexual harassment training. It's for staff who work with university students (so almost all adults or just about) but there can be power dynamics to be aware of.

[merula]

Can I ask something, actually, which has only really just occurred to me? Is safeguarding a "thing" outside the UK?

It is a thing, but it's not specifically called safeguarding. It sounds like from your use, in the UK the word safeguarding has come to mean keeping children and vulnerable adult safe from those who would take advantage of them, rather than its general meaning of protecting. That specific meaning isn't common in the US; if you ask "do you have safeguarding procedures?", you're going to get a blank look.

However, as @Michael in ABQ pointed out, we do have functionally the same thing. VIRTUS is one, but it's not the only one, and there are state and local regulations that apply as well. Every organization that has adults in contact with children and vulnerable adults should have background checks, safety training, and specific policies, but in a lot of places that's more heavily enforced by the insurance companies who are underwriting those organizations than by any specific law/regulation. (And actually, just from the commercial insurance side, I've seen some pretty laissez-faire approaches from the UK that would never fly in the US, but I'm also often irked by the UK group at my work anyways, so it may be that they're just bad at their jobs.)

[GuitarStv]

Can I ask something, actually, which has only really just occurred to me? Is safeguarding a "thing" outside the UK?

It is a thing, but it's not specifically called safeguarding. It sounds like from your use, in the UK the word safeguarding has come to mean keeping children and vulnerable adult safe from those who would take advantage of them, rather than its general meaning of protecting. That specific meaning isn't common in the US; if you ask "do you have safeguarding procedures?", you're going to get a blank look.

However, as @Michael in ABQ pointed out, we do have functionally the same thing. VIRTUS is one, but it's not the only one, and there are state and local regulations that apply as well. Every organization that has adults in contact with children and vulnerable adults should have background checks, safety training, and specific policies, but in a lot of places that's more heavily enforced by the insurance companies who are underwriting those organizations than by any specific law/regulation. (And actually, just from the commercial insurance side, I've seen some pretty laissez-faire approaches from the UK that would never fly in the US, but I'm also often irked by the UK group at my work anyways, so it may be that they're just bad at their jobs.)

Yeah, same here in Canada.  There are plenty of safety procedures for children (relatively few for the elderly though, which has certainly led to problems in old age homes . . . but we as a society don't seem to care much about the elderly), but I've never heard the term 'safeguarding' used to describe them before.

[RetiredAt63]

Can I ask something, actually, which has only really just occurred to me? Is safeguarding a "thing" outside the UK?

It is a thing, but it's not specifically called safeguarding. It sounds like from your use, in the UK the word safeguarding has come to mean keeping children and vulnerable adult safe from those who would take advantage of them, rather than its general meaning of protecting. That specific meaning isn't common in the US; if you ask "do you have safeguarding procedures?", you're going to get a blank look.

However, as @Michael in ABQ pointed out, we do have functionally the same thing. VIRTUS is one, but it's not the only one, and there are state and local regulations that apply as well. Every organization that has adults in contact with children and vulnerable adults should have background checks, safety training, and specific policies, but in a lot of places that's more heavily enforced by the insurance companies who are underwriting those organizations than by any specific law/regulation. (And actually, just from the commercial insurance side, I've seen some pretty laissez-faire approaches from the UK that would never fly in the US, but I'm also often irked by the UK group at my work anyways, so it may be that they're just bad at their jobs.)

Yeah, same here in Canada.  There are plenty of safety procedures for children (relatively few for the elderly though, which has certainly led to problems in old age homes . . . but we as a society don't seem to care much about the elderly), but I've never heard the term 'safeguarding' used to describe them before.

There are some.  I had to do a police check when my dog and I became a therapy dog team.  Retirement homes were the biggest user of our group's services.
It was the same check as when I was a leader for Scouts Canada,

[economista]

There is another program called SafeSport that is associated with Team USA and Olympic sports. Any adult who interacts with children through organized sports has to do it and then there is additional training annually. There is the base course and then 3 refresher trainings. You cycle through the 4 classes over 4 years and then start the cycle over. Mine expired yesterday so this morning I did the next refresher course in the cycle. (I'm on my 2nd time through).

[Captain FIRE]

Cub scouts (and Boy Scouts I presume) requires Youth Protection Training and a CORI check. Also, adults need to ensure at least 2 appropriate adults for all contact including emails (2 leaders, a leader and a cub scout master, a leader and the parent). And you need a female leader present when you have a female scout.

[Sandi_k]

There is another program called SafeSport that is associated with Team USA and Olympic sports.

I find this deeply ironic, after all of the issues with the Olympics and Larry Nassar. Appearance over substance, for sure.

[economista]

I actually think it was in response to that. I’ve been a national coach for 11 years and they just started this 5-ish years ago. The first few years it wasn’t a requirement.

[Sandi_k]

I actually think it was in response to that. I’ve been a national coach for 11 years and they just started this 5-ish years ago. The first few years it wasn’t a requirement.

Good to know - it sounded from the OP that this was a longstanding policy. I'm glad to hear that something has changed in that regard.

[iris lily]

Can I ask something, actually, which has only really just occurred to me? Is safeguarding a "thing" outside the UK?

It is a thing, but it's not specifically called safeguarding. It sounds like from your use, in the UK the word safeguarding has come to mean keeping children and vulnerable adult safe from those who would take advantage of them, rather than its general meaning of protecting. That specific meaning isn't common in the US; if you ask "do you have safeguarding procedures?", you're going to get a blank look.

However, as @Michael in ABQ pointed out, we do have functionally the same thing. VIRTUS is one, but it's not the only one, and there are state and local regulations that apply as well. Every organization that has adults in contact with children and vulnerable adults should have background checks, safety training, and specific policies, but in a lot of places that's more heavily enforced by the insurance companies who are underwriting those organizations than by any specific law/regulation. (And actually, just from the commercial insurance side, I've seen some pretty laissez-faire approaches from the UK that would never fly in the US, but I'm also often irked by the UK group at my work anyways, so it may be that they're just bad at their jobs.)

Yeah, same here in Canada.  There are plenty of safety procedures for children (relatively few for the elderly though, which has certainly led to problems in old age homes . . . but we as a society don't seem to care much about the elderly), but I've never heard the term 'safeguarding' used to describe them before.

There are some.  I had to do a police check when my dog and I became a therapy dog team.  Retirement homes were the biggest user of our group's services.
It was the same check as when I was a leader for Scouts Canada,

My experience with nursing homes is they watch out for this sort of thing. When my mother with fairly advanced dementia was found sitting on the lap of a man in the nursing home, they called us, her family, just to report it. we were not concerned since that is pretty much who she is, regardless of brain function .

About the same time, she was openly flirting with my brother. Her son. She couldn’t remember who he was, but she liked the way he looked.

Oy.

[RetiredAt63]

Can I ask something, actually, which has only really just occurred to me? Is safeguarding a "thing" outside the UK?

It is a thing, but it's not specifically called safeguarding. It sounds like from your use, in the UK the word safeguarding has come to mean keeping children and vulnerable adult safe from those who would take advantage of them, rather than its general meaning of protecting. That specific meaning isn't common in the US; if you ask "do you have safeguarding procedures?", you're going to get a blank look.

However, as @Michael in ABQ pointed out, we do have functionally the same thing. VIRTUS is one, but it's not the only one, and there are state and local regulations that apply as well. Every organization that has adults in contact with children and vulnerable adults should have background checks, safety training, and specific policies, but in a lot of places that's more heavily enforced by the insurance companies who are underwriting those organizations than by any specific law/regulation. (And actually, just from the commercial insurance side, I've seen some pretty laissez-faire approaches from the UK that would never fly in the US, but I'm also often irked by the UK group at my work anyways, so it may be that they're just bad at their jobs.)

Yeah, same here in Canada.  There are plenty of safety procedures for children (relatively few for the elderly though, which has certainly led to problems in old age homes . . . but we as a society don't seem to care much about the elderly), but I've never heard the term 'safeguarding' used to describe them before.

There are some.  I had to do a police check when my dog and I became a therapy dog team.  Retirement homes were the biggest user of our group's services.
It was the same check as when I was a leader for Scouts Canada,

My experience with nursing homes is they watch out for this sort of thing. When my mother with fairly advanced dementia was found sitting on the lap of a man in the nursing home, they called us, her family, just to report it. we were not concerned since that is pretty much who she is, regardless of brain function .

About the same time, she was openly flirting with my brother. Her son. She couldn’t remember who he was, but she liked the way he looked.

Oy.

They can't see everything as it happens.   A lot of the visits my dog and I did to a Seniors Residence were to people in their rooms, so it was just the two of us and the dog.  One woman I visited kept trying to give me money because she thought I was there fund raising.  When I told the office staff they just nodded and sighed.  Someone could so easily have taken financial advantage of her.

Our school visits were in groups, so much less chance for things to go badly.

For Scouting, not only did we have police checks, there were protocols to protect both the youth and the leaders.  My daughter joined Beavers the first year girls were allowed in Scouts Canada, and I checked that protocols were in place.  I don't know how many women were leaders before that, but we had women as leaders from the time I joined.  I'm sure it happened though, because it happened everywhere.  And I can say, as a child of the 50s, that we were taught to be afraid of strangers, but not really why we should be afraid - I think murder and torture were what we came up with, we had no clue about sexual abuse*.  And we had no training to be afraid or wary of people we knew.

I don't know what is happening these days because the few instances of abuse I know of all happened between about 1960 and 2010.



* Totally different time - no TV, then a little TV, carefully controlled.  In movies and TV shows married couples slept in twin beds.  No obvious sex anywhere.  And I was in Quebec, where there had been a disastrous fire during a children's movie matinee, so we could not even go to the movies until 16.  And the Roman Catholic church was the arbiter of public morals.  Sometimes when I look back I feel like a time traveller.

[shelivesthedream]

FWIW, in my parenting circles there's been a big backlash against "stranger danger" - precisely because it's so nebulous, often so extreme (KIDNAPPING! MURDER!) and because the real threat is not complete randomers throwing you into the back of a white van. It's now more around bodily autonomy and "tricky people".

It's hard, though. I've not had a proper "talk" with my eldest yet and I really feel I ought to, but it's so hard to walk the line. He's very sensitive and I want him to feel smart, not scared. He doesn't go anywhere alone except to Beavers (where he's with all the other Beavers) and occasionally I might drop him off with his sisters at the house of a trusted friend. (We homeschool.)

There's also a movement away from having One Big Talk And Being Done With It about these issues (and others, like puberty, drinking, sex, etc) and weaving them into everyday life, which I definitely look for opportunities to do. But I do feel like I ought to at some point have an explicit talk.

[nereo]

FWIW, in my parenting circles there's been a big backlash against "stranger danger" - precisely because it's so nebulous, often so extreme (KIDNAPPING! MURDER!) and because the real threat is not complete randomers throwing you into the back of a white van. It's now more around bodily autonomy and "tricky people".

It's hard, though. I've not had a proper "talk" with my eldest yet and I really feel I ought to, but it's so hard to walk the line. He's very sensitive and I want him to feel smart, not scared. He doesn't go anywhere alone except to Beavers (where he's with all the other Beavers) and occasionally I might drop him off with his sisters at the house of a trusted friend. (We homeschool.)

There's also a movement away from having One Big Talk And Being Done With It about these issues (and others, like puberty, drinking, sex, etc) and weaving them into everyday life, which I definitely look for opportunities to do. But I do feel like I ought to at some point have an explicit talk.

Our experiences in this corner of the world:  there’s a big focus on consent and on bodily autonomy, beginning with pre-k/pre-school. More focus on dangers from people you know than complete strangers, and like the sports guidelines a focus on there always being multiple people for communications and interactions.

I’m not sure there was ever the “One Big Talk and Done” in my lifetime, but there is definitely a focus on incorporating these themes in age appropriate ways each month of their lives. Explicit acknowledgment of same sec parents than I ever heard when I was a child in the 90s.

[jeninco]

FWIW, in my parenting circles there's been a big backlash against "stranger danger" - precisely because it's so nebulous, often so extreme (KIDNAPPING! MURDER!) and because the real threat is not complete randomers throwing you into the back of a white van. It's now more around bodily autonomy and "tricky people".

It's hard, though. I've not had a proper "talk" with my eldest yet and I really feel I ought to, but it's so hard to walk the line. He's very sensitive and I want him to feel smart, not scared. He doesn't go anywhere alone except to Beavers (where he's with all the other Beavers) and occasionally I might drop him off with his sisters at the house of a trusted friend. (We homeschool.)

There's also a movement away from having One Big Talk And Being Done With It about these issues (and others, like puberty, drinking, sex, etc) and weaving them into everyday life, which I definitely look for opportunities to do. But I do feel like I ought to at some point have an explicit talk.

Our experiences in this corner of the world:  there’s a big focus on consent and on bodily autonomy, beginning with pre-k/pre-school. More focus on dangers from people you know than complete strangers, and like the sports guidelines a focus on there always being multiple people for communications and interactions.

I’m not sure there was ever the “One Big Talk and Done” in my lifetime, but there is definitely a focus on incorporating these themes in age appropriate ways each month of their lives. Explicit acknowledgment of same sec parents than I ever heard when I was a child in the 90s.

Here it starts with bodily autonomy and reassurances that you don't have to, for instance, hug anyone you don't want to hug. Or kiss anyone you don't want to kiss. Or sit in anyone's lap...  Our kids are now young adults, and I recall the conversations (both with us and in school health classes) progressing in a way that was basically appropriate for their ages and stages of development. (Note that many school classes will try to get to menstruation before the girls do which can seem like it's mighty young to parents of elementary-school-aged kids. But, honestly, they're trying to give the girls -- and boys -- the info they need before the situation arises.)

As a parent, you'll also find opportunities to have little bits of these chats as you go along. These could range from "wow, Peter looked pretty uncomfortable when he was made to shake Jim's hand: can you think of a way that they could've resolved their differences that they both might feel more comfortable about?" to "Yo, my dude, I wanted to re-iterate that anytime you're doing something with someone else you each need to enthusiastically and explicitly be on-board with whatever the action is."

(Or, as I've mentioned before, "Miles, I don't think John approved of you pinching his butt -- if he consented to that it's basically fine by me, but in our house we are careful about getting consent before you touch someone else's body." <-- two teenaged boys that were over for lunch, but any opportunity will do!)

I think my parents tried to have a "one and done" talk with me, and I vaguely remember it being extremely awkward, ill-timed (they had no idea who I was when I was 13) and generally horrible.