Link to the Alan Corbett interview.
Psychotherapist Alan Corbett has written a book about what he calls ‘the invisible men’, men who have experienced sexual trauma, either in childhood or in adult life.
He talks to Jane about why so few men are able to reveal the awful experiences they’ve endured, the toxic effects of sexual abuse not only on male survivors but on partners and children as well, and the difference long term therapy can make for some men.
Radio 4 link below – click on it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08558s3
This radio 4, Women’s Hour programme, may be of interest to viewers of the blog.
It highlites the relationship difficulties that adults very often have with male partners who were sexually abused as children.
Mark
The National Secular Society reported on Wednesday, 14 Dec 2016, a Charity Commission Investigation into the St Laurence Education Trust
(NSS Report in full):
A statutory inquiry has been opened by the Charity Commission into the St Laurence Education Trust and Ampleforth Abbey, over the Catholic charities’ handling of sexual abuse allegations. The St Laurence Education Trust runs two prestigious independent Roman Catholic schools, the Ampleforth College and St Martin’s Ampleforth. The Ampleforth Abbey religious community shares a site with Ampleforth College, which is at the centre of child sexual abuse allegations.
The Commission said that the St Laurence Education Trust faced an investigation over “the charity trustees’ approach to safeguarding and handling of allegations of sexual abuse” at Ampleforth College:”The investigation follows media reporting regarding individuals with links to Ampleforth College in connection with allegations of sexual abuse. The Commission has been engaging with the trustees on this matter since August 2016. A decision was taken to open the statutory inquiry on 15 November 2016 after considering further information from the trustees and the Commission’s statutory duties.”
The Charity Commission is not investigating the allegations of abuse themselves, but the governance and response of the charity to allegations. The statutory inquiry will examine whether there has been “misconduct or mismanagement” by the charities’ trustees and their “handling of safeguarding matters”. Additionally, the investigation will consider “how the charities dealt with the risks to the charities and their beneficiaries arising from alleged abuse incidents, including the application of their safeguarding policy and procedures.” It will also look at “the administration, governance and management of the charities by the trustees and whether or not the trustees have complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law”.
The Commission stressed that it was not a “safeguarding authority” and that its inquiries into the St Laurence Education Trust and Ampleforth Abbey, a religious community that shares a site with Ampleforth College, would not go into the investigation of “allegations of abuse or actual incidents of abuse, whether historic or recent.” “Anyone with concerns about specific incidents of alleged abuses, whether historic or recent, regarding any charity, should report their concerns to the police and the relevant safeguarding authorities,” the Commission said.
Richard Scorer, a lawyer representing many victims of abuse in the Catholic church, and an NSS council member, said that “there have been serious concerns for many years about the handling of complaints of child abuse at Ampleforth and indeed in the wider English Benedictine Congregation. These concerns have intensified following recent media stories. The decision of the Charities Commission to initiate a formal inquiry into these issues indicates the seriousness of the problem. It is imperative that religious organisations are held to the same standards as secular organisations when it comes to child protection.”
Comments by Brian Mark Hennessy
Brian Hennessy further comments that Readers of the Mirfield Memories Blog (Comboni Missionaries – A Childhood in their Hands) may wish to ask why is it that the Charities Commission rejected, almost without comment, two complaints made to them by Brian Hennessy and Kevin Scullin in regard to the Comboni Missionary Order’s non-compliance with its stated Charity Commission Account mission, its misuse of Mission Funds in the settlement of legal cases, (and in respect to this article) – why the Order totally rejects all safeguarding procedures of the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom – to which they are bound! Was it merely because the Charities Commission was reluctant to become involved because they wanted to avoid a charge from the Comboni Missionary Order that they were “interfering with rights of “freedom of religion” under article 9 of the Human Rights Act ?” If that is the case – then they have opted also not to fulfill two of their primary obligations which are to ensure that funds accrued for charity are not being misused and their donors have not been misled!
It appears now that since the Charities Commission rejected submissions made to them by Brian Hennessy and Kevin Scullin that they have had a change of heart – following pressure from the National Secular Society’s Council Member, Richard Scorer. Brian Hennessy says he will renew pressure on the Charities Commission to include the Comboni Missionary Order in addition to their new investigation into Ampleforth on precisely the same grounds: the governance and response of the Comboni Charity to allegations, whether there has been “misconduct or mismanagement” by the Comboni Charities’ trustees and their “handling of safeguarding matters, how the Comboni Charity dealt with the risks to the charities and their beneficiaries arising from alleged abuse incidents, including the application of the Comboni Charity’s safeguarding policy and procedures, the administration, governance and management of the Comboni Charity by the trustees and whether or not the trustees have complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law”.
A previous article from the National Secular Society, entitled: “Religious Privilege Undermines Abuse Victims’ Access to Justice” by Richard Scorer was published in this Blog in a previous edition. Richard Scorer is a specialist child abuse lawyer at Slater & Gordon. In this article, published in the National Secular Society in August 2016, he draws attention to organisations seeking more lenient treatment over child abuse-connected matters because they are religious and makes the case for no concessions being given. That article begged the question: Which is more important: religious freedom, or safeguarding children from abuse? For those who missed it and who are interested in this topic, that article is repeated below:
“Should churches and religious organisations be exempt from secular standards of child protection? Two recent court cases involving the Jehovah’s Witnesses raise this issue in its starkest form.
Some background. Over the past two decades a significant number of abuse cases have emerged in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Clients of mine who allege they have been abused within the organisation describe a culture which is profoundly collusive with child abuse. It’s hard enough for abused children to speak out in any setting; in the Jehovah’s Witnesses, it’s bordering on the impossible. The organisation is notorious for its “two witness” rule: anyone who accuses an adult of abuse must have a corroborating witness. Since the vast majority of child abuse occurs in secret, the effect of this rule is to silence abuse victims. Moreover, if there is no corroborating witness, the complainant is often treated as having made a false accusation. This leads to the complainant being “disfellowshipped”, or ostracised by other Witnesses. A terrifying prospect if, like most children growing up in the Jehovah’s Witnesses, your entire family life revolves around them. In this way, victims say, the culture of the Jehovah’s Witnesses facilitates and protects abusers.
The two legal cases have opened a window into this culture. The cases involve the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the legal entity through which the Jehovah’s Witnesses operate. One case concerns the Watch Tower Society’s liability to pay damages to a proven victim of abuse. The Society sought to argue that its devolved structure means that it cannot be ‘vicariously liable’ for the actions of its officials who abuse children. The Watch Tower Society’s defence failed at first instance in 2015, and its attempt to take the case to the Court of Appeal was dismissed last month.
This is a variation of the argument advanced by the Catholic Church, which maintained for many years that priests were not employees and therefore the Church could not be liable for their actions. The Catholic Church’s long running battle to evade responsibility on that basis ended in failure in 2012.
Meanwhile, in 2014, in response to emerging allegations of child abuse, the Charity Commission instigated a statutory inquiry into the Watch Tower Society’s approach to safeguarding. Quite reasonably, the Commission wants to understand whether the Society’s trustees have fulfilled their safeguarding responsibilities under charity law. Also, the Commission sought production of relevant documents. Rather than cooperate with the inquiry (as one would expect of an organisation with nothing to hide), the Society applied for a judicial review at the High Court to try to abort the inquiry and resist the production order. The Society argued (amongst other things) that the Charity Commission was “interfering with (the Society’s) rights of freedom of religion under article 9 of the Human Rights Act… by commencing an inquiry with a view to changing Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious practices“.
In other words, if the purpose of the Charity Commission inquiry was to ensure that the Society is complying with secular safeguarding norms, this violates religious freedom.
In March this year the Watch Tower Society lost its application for judicial review. But as often seems to happen in English law when an issue of serious social importance falls to be decided, the matter became bogged down in an obscure technical argument; on this occasion, about whether the Society had pursued the correct legal avenue in seeking to challenge the Commission’s decision. The Court of Appeal decided that it hadn’t. The Society’s subsequent attempt to pursue the matter to the Supreme Court also failed. The underlying question- which comes first, religious freedom or the protection of children from abuse- will have to wait for another day.
Following the Court of Appeal decision, the Charity Commission urged that the Watch Tower Society “engage constructively” with the inquiry. Anyone affected by safeguarding issues in the Jehovah’s Witnesses should contact the Commission’s lead investigator; a number of my clients are providing input to the inquiry. But the Society simply said that it was “looking at the ruling carefully and evaluating where we can go next”. So we can probably expect more attempts to stall the inquiry and resist proper scrutiny. But at least these court cases have had a beneficial side effect: they are raising public awareness both of the issue of child abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the wider issue of religious organisations and churches pleading a religious justification for evading basic norms of child safeguarding.
The Catholic Church in Australia for example, (but not Britain) has successfully evaded being sued for clerical abuse for decades on the ridiculous premise that it is not a legal entity – which has not stood in the way of it operating bank accounts or receiving legacies.
In Australia, hearings in the Royal Commission on child sexual abuse exposed the Witnesses’ culpability in protecting abusers in a devastating fashion; the Royal Commission heard that their safeguarding procedures were “woefully deficient”.
Here (in the UK), the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, now chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, needs to link with the Charity Commission inquiry and undertake a thorough investigation into culture and practices within the organisation.
If the Jehovah’s Witnesses imagine that they can escape scrutiny of their safeguarding failures, I am certain they will be proved wrong. The courts have certainly given them short shrift. But in exposing what has happened, we need to nail the central issue once and for all: child protection is more important than religious expression.
Religious organisations need to obey the law of the land, just like everyone else. When it comes to child abuse, religious exceptionalism needs to stop”.
(Note: Paragraphs in bold type were selected from the original text by Brian Mark Hennessy and do not appear in bold type in the original article).
VATICAN CITY LAUNCHES VATICAN COMMISSION CHILD PROTECTION WEBSITE IN ENGLISH
The Catholic News of the Vatican City reported yesterday, 6th December 2016, that the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors has launched a beta version of its website in English and has included its template for local guidelines on preventing sexual abuse and resources for a day of prayer for the victims and survivors.
IMPORTANTLY – The Website has a mailing address to contact commission members.
The website — http://www.protectionofminors.va/ —will include, eventually, versions in Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and French, the commission said in a statement Dec. 6.
Pope Francis’ international Council of Cardinals identified the protection of children and young adults as one of the church’s priority needs and suggested in December 2013 that he create a commission to advise him and assist dioceses and religious orders around the world in drawing up guidelines, handling accusations and ministering to victims and survivors. Pope Francis named the first members three months later and appointed as president Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston.
Note by Brian Mark Hennessy: Whilst the Commission has made some important recommendations to date, the Congregations of the Vatican Curia have been less than enthusiastic about both embracing those recommendations and providing funds for the administration of the commission. Notably, amongst the recommendations widely said to have been criticized “in house” by the Curia, was the establishment of a Vatican Court to try Bishops and Religious Leaders who had covered up allegations of abuse in the past and mismanaged clerics who were known to have abused children. The prospect of a “resignation” was substituted as an “appropriate” punishment for such Hierarchs. This has been widely criticized by Survivors’ Organisations as “inappropriate” for Hierarchs who, due to both their inaction or their abject mismanagement, had been complicit in the proliferation of subsequent sexual abuse of children by paedophile clerics in their charge.
To date, no Court of the Holy Rota is known to have heard a case against a Bishop or Religious Leader on such charges – albeit, in the case of sexual abuse allegations by a Hierarch himself, one Vatican Holy Rota Court legal process was cancelled due to the sudden death of the accused. Another (as yet unpublicised) legal action is said to have commenced in the case of Archbishop Apuron of Guam who has been accused of historically sexually molesting altar boys.
My view on the reluctance of the Curia to proceed with such a Court Process is that the mismanagement of paedophile clerics has been such an endemic cultural, culpably heinous and worldwide feature of Diocesan Bishops and Religious Hierarchs throughout the Catholic Church – that a Vatican Court would not be able to handle the volume of credible charges. Indeed, that waiting list of accused prelates would be so great – and the depletion of the ranks of diocesan Bishops and Religious Superiors so extensive – that, within a very short timescale, the Catholic Church would become virtually “rudderless” and plunged into deep crisis within its Clerical ranks. The disaffection of its Lay Church communities of the Catholic Church would be catastrophic. The secular world outcry would, most likely, be ferocious.
By way of example of the Church’s blind indifference or deliberate disregard, I provide the following fact – which is the total and absolute silence of Catholics prelates and Religious Leaders within Great Britain and throughout the Bishops Conferences of every continent – in response to their receipt of the Document entitled, “A Text Book on How Not To Manage Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse – And Why The Comboni Missionary Religious Order of Verona, Italy, Denys Allegations of 1000 Sexual Crimes Committed Against Boy Seminarians in their Care at Mirfield, Yorkshire, England”.
The exception was the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, who notified the writer that he intended to hand a copy of the above document personally to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of his visit to Rome in January 2016. He later confirmed that he had done so. He made no comment, however, as to his reasons for so doing. No response has been received from the Curia – not even an acknowledgement of receipt in the time of close on a year that has elapsed. This “silence” is not about denial, but it is the Catholic Church’s cultural reaction to criticism. Their Hierarchs, from the Vatican Curia to almost every Diocesan Bishop and Religious Leader, are paranoid about the dire effects of being introspective, truthful, humble and, in essence, courageous in their “Christianity”. That fear stays their hand. It also seeks to disguise the fact that their “Establishment” and the funds of its multi-billion worldwide conglomerate are of greater import to them than their “Gospel Message”. That is the sign of an obsolete and redundant Church – if there ever was one.
NEWS IN BRIEF
(By Brian Mark Hennessy)
“News.com.au”, an Australian news outlet, carried a short article on 1st December 2016 (by Rebekah Ison of the Australian Associated Press) of a submission by Francis Sullivan, the Chief Executive of the “Truth, Justice and Healing Council” to the “Royal Commission Into Responses to Child Sexual Abuse”. It was nothing less than a tirade against the Catholic Church. A justified tirade, nevertheless, in my opinion. Indeed, it was a broadside so full of censure that I could have written it myself – and probably have done so in similar vein quite often about one of the Church’s Religious Orders, the Comboni Missionary Order of Verona, Italy. Francis Sullivan, however, was addressing the attitude of the prelates and clerics of the diocesan Catholic Church “down under” in Australia.
He lambasted the Church’s “clericalist culture”, characterized by “power, privilege” and “self-promotion”. He said during a hearing into criminal justice issues in Sydney, “It is a culture that has lost sight of its ethos and, in a sense, lost the capacity for self-reflection”. He continued, “That can be any institution, but the Catholic Church’s history here is shameful and confronting”.
Mr Sullivan also made a point that we have raised here in our Blog – and that is that forgiveness for child abuse in confession must, in essence, be conditional on true sorrow – and that the profession of that sorrow and the process of forgiveness must be conditional also on reporting the facts of the abuse to the civil authorities. Absolution does not come free of charge.
This is an interesting, but contentious, point because the Catholic Church has taught the doctrine of “true sorrow” since Saints Paul and Timothy each made declarations on the matter of forgiveness (See: Acts of the Apostles). Indeed, the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 and the Council of Trent in 1515 both addressed the nature of the sacrament of confession – and pronounced that all the faithful should individually confess to their priests. The Council of Trent, however, stated quite specifically that sins should be confessed “in a faithful manner”. It could not be more clear! The Catholic Church needs to insist that such contrite “faithfulness” in confession is conditional also on the reporting of the most grave of sins (when injury is done to another) to both canonical and civil jurisdictions by either the confessor or the priest offering God’s forgiveness – or more appropriately, to ensure compliance, by both individuals.
I can see the clerics of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith throwing up their hands in horror right now – but it is the logic nevertheless. The Vatican “dogma termites” should read back over the “Summa Theologiae” of St Thomas Aquinas – whom they often quote to their advantage – as I do now – for he categorically stated that “due obedience is to be given to the civilian power when there is no moral issue that precludes so doing.” In the case of Child Sexual Abuse there is not only no moral issue that precludes so doing – but there is a clear and absolute moral imperative to report instances of child sexual abuse to the civil authorities so as to prevent the penitent paedophile (whether cleric or civilian) from proliferating such abuse further. It is the solemn duty of all adults to protect innocent children – including priests. Christ said it himself: “suffer not little children to come unto me”. There is an imperative for action there and that is that the innocence of children is an exceptional human state of grace that must never be violated. Those that do violate it must answer to both those endowed with authority to protect children here on earth and to Christ Himself. Confession is not an exception to that rule and crimes against children (call them “sins” insipidly if you wish) should never be reduced to a “rubber stamp” and three “Hail Marys”.
On the same day, the Royal Commission heard submissions regarding an obligation on the reporting of allegations of child sexual abuse. The Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) submitted that the reporting obligation should relate to all citizens – with discretion in the case of Victims who may have taken decades to report the abuse. Controversially, perhaps, one ALA Barrister, Dr Andrew Morrison, said that the obligation of such reporting should extend to all victims, regardless of their wishes: “Whilst it is stressful and traumatic for Victims, the damage done to other potential Victims is far more serious”.
No doubt that “seemingly” logical statement will be hotly debated! However, Dr Andrew Morrison does have a point that needs consideration – if even to be dis-regarded by further enlightenment. From my own experience I can only add that it was not for many years and far into adulthood that I even realized that I had been duped into thinking that a series of medical inspections were, in fact, acts of extreme sexual abuse. (Call me stupid if you wish – for I think that myself at times). Moreover, the only truly motivating factor for me in reporting the abuse at the late stage that I did was due to the fact that I had come to realise that once the abusing clerics had been detected, they were rapidly moved out of the UK legal jurisdiction by the hierarchy of the Comboni Missionary Order. To where exactly you may ask? Why, for the most part to far off “Third World” mission territories where those habitual paedophiles could continue to abuse untold generations of children for years to come without discovery, blame or censure.
The “knowing complicity” of Catholic hierarchies, both Diocesan and Religious, in the proliferation of sexual abuse in the Third World by ridding advanced legal jurisdictions of their “dirty linen” is a hideous story that has depths yet untold. That story is one which must be revealed and the hierarchical clerical perpetrators of that unscrupulous proliferation of assaults on innocents must answer for their crimes of indifference to the physical and mental suffering of children that they have inflicted. “Out of sight – out of mind” was their motto. However, such a motto of convenience has been used in living history both in Europe and beyond by the most evil of regimes the world has ever known in order to set themselves apart from any blame. Discovery followed by justice must eventually reverse that unsustainable and hideous “no blame” game.
Mr Peter Skelton QC, a “Lead Counsel” to IICSA (Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse), is addressing a series of informal seminars in Fleet Street, London, (which are open to the public) for legal and insurance professionals on a range of matters relating to the processes of bringing a case of child abuse to Court or to a Settlement. The purpose is for the Inquiry to learn from the experiences of those professionals whose work specialises in the various aspects of child sexual abuse cases. The first sessions were dedicated to compensation levels in child abuse cases, the costs to the legal teams preparing such cases, the levels of public funding that are available and other issues relating to the nature of the adversarial system, limitation, consent and vicarious liability. Further seminars are scheduled for discussions on compensation, accountability, reparations and reforms to the existing system.
Whilst much, if not all, of the context is legal, the discussions of the difficulties that legal advocates face when judging whether or not to take a case on and go to Court or try to reach a settlement are of significant interest to Victims of abuse – who may not necessarily understand why legal teams representing them appear to suddenly change direction. Moreover, Victims themselves may, very often, not pursue cases, because of the financial jeopardy involved. Often, the balance of “whether or not” there will be a successful outcome for the Victim, based on the evidence at hand, is crucial to the further conduct of a case. Such a judgement and the financial constraints of proceedings can become too onerous for both the legal team, which is a business, and the Victim, who each out of necessity, must, in the long term, remain solvent.
The Inquiry wants to highlight such issues publicly so that measures to reform the legal system, which depends on adequate funding of the costs involved, does not militate against a case being taken to a successful conclusion. All too often under current legislation and practice, funding availability, onerous court costs, high specialists’ fees, time delays in obtaining (sometimes multiple) Police Jurisdiction District records and Local Authority social worker reports – may combine to lessen the likelihood of a case ever getting the legal outcome that Victims deserve.
The Transcripts of the Seminar Sessions are available on the IICSA Official Website (reference: iicsa291116) and are of interest to both professionals working in the field of child abuse and Victims of child abuse alike. I advise non-legal minded readers that they need to be doggedly tenacious, if not stubbornly mulish to get through it (and there is not much difference between the two) – but the transcript yields up new perspectives on how the legal and insurance professionals themselves are often at the mercy of factors outside of their immediate control.
In a recent post on this blog I mentioned that the now ex-Archbishop Apurna of Guam, accused of historic sexual abuse of five altar boys, was awaiting either a Canonical Trial or Dismissal by a Papal Decree for his alleged crimes. His replacement, the Co-Adjutor Archbishop Michael Burns (a previous Auxilary Bishop of Detroit) stated recently (as was reported by Joshua McElwee of the National Catholic Reporter) that the Trial has been initiated, the arguments have been exchanged and a period of examination and investigation has commenced.
This will be the first (known) trial of a prelate accused of abuse to get fully underway. A similar Trial was set up in 2015 to try allegations of abuse by a Polish Archbishop, but the prelate died in “prison” in the Vatican before the trial commenced. Archbishop Wesolowski, 67, the former Vatican nuncio to the Dominican Republic, was confined to a “Vatican property” while awaiting trial. His body was found at about 5 a.m. by a priest who lived in the same building, which houses the Franciscans who hear confessions in St. Peter’s Basilica, as well as offices of the Vatican police force. Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski, who was awaiting trial in the Vatican on charges of child sexual abuse and possession of child pornography, died late on August 27th 2015 of a “cardiac incident,” the Vatican said.
Despite the assurances of Bishop Burns that a trial has commenced and is proceeding in the case of Apuron, Vatican watchers are holding their breath. Since the death of Wesolowski, a number of senior prelates throughout the world have been accused of sexual abuse crimes of children. In each case the Vatican has adopted the less rigorously legal route of departure from office by resignation. Whether or not in those instances the resignation was offered to the Pope or ordered by him is unsure. What makes the case of Archbishop Apuron different from that of his contemporaries is neither known and nor has been explained. Civil organisations that follow every word the Vatican utters on its confusing child abuse strategy await the outcome with much interest.
Cardinal Pell, who is under investigation for child sexual abuse cases in Australia was the subject of a previous article on this blog which wondered why the Pope had stripped him of some of his very recently acquired new duties as Chief Executive of the Vatican Bank. (He is not called that – but you understand what I mean). The latest news is that in addition to the loss of those duties, he has been sidelined once more by being dropped from the star line-up of another Vatican Office that manages the Catholic Churches Liturgical practices within the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
The Vatican has posted the new membership of the sixteen Congregation Members and the representatives from Church’s throughout the Catholic World. It seems that the Pope’s has deselected a number of very senior prelates from positions of authority – and who knows – he may be preparing the ground for their retirement from all of their distinguished top jobs.
Apart from George Pell, another of the Cardinals who has lost his job is Cardinal Raymond Burke of the United States, a rigid dogmatist who has opposed the Pope publicly over the encyclical “Amoris Laetitia” – the “Joy of Love”. Some Vatican Watchers suggest that Cardinal Burke is about to have his Cardinal’s Cap rescinded by Pope Francis. (That would upset Cardinal Burke no end! For those interested in Vatican “Fashion”, you may wish to search the web for photographs of Cardinal Burke – the only Catholic Cardinal Prelate in the contemporary Church to wear extravagant and costly mediaeval “princely regalia” and to have a cloak that would compete in the length of it’s train with the wedding dress of Princess Diana).
The third is Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Canada who is considered to be a “traditionalist” who has opposed dialogue with other faiths and religions. He is reported to consider that Vatican II, upon which Pope Francis has built his platform for inter-collegial dialogue amongst the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pressing contemporary moral issues of the age, was far too liberal.
Advent is upon us. It is Autumn – and it seems that Pope Francis is pruning the Vatican tree of its dead and dying wood before the frosts of Winter arrive – so that the Tree bears fresh and vigorous shoots in the Spring. Of course, Pope Francis will not put it quite like that. He is both more generous in spirit and benevolent in deed than am I – and fortunately more “merciful” in his understanding of the little people who have to contend with the battle of survival from day to day rather than with the intricasies of Vatican dogma. Long may he rein.
The Catholic News Agency, “CRUX”, once associated with the Boston Globe, has recorded today, 2nd December 2016, that Cardinal Wuerl has apologized for initially voicing doubts about a seminarian’s claims in 1988 that as a young boy he had been sexually abused by a priest named Anthony Cipolla. The Victim, Tim Bendig, was gracious and responded, “I am humbled that Cardinal Wuerl went above and beyond not only to speak out for the many victims, but specifically apologizing to me.”
In his 1988 lawsuit, Bendig named the Reverend Anthony Cipolla as his abuser. Despite Wuerl’s initial skepticism, Cipolla was removed from the ministry – “defrocked” by the Vatican in clerical parlance. However, Cardinal Wuerl went to the extraordinary length of successfully fighting against that Vatican court order in order to have Cipolla re-instated. Now Wuerl has stated that Bendig “had told the truth about a priest who was a terrible danger to children”. I just wonder when he had first realized that – for Cardinal Wuerl has not so far said. Crux has reported that Cipolla was never charged with a crime and denied wrongdoing. He died this year,
In apologizing, Wuerl said he was among those who were not immediately persuaded by Bendig’s claims, but now says, “I have since learned to be less hesitant in taking at face value such allegations. Innocent people who gain public attention for coming forward should not be slandered because they did the right thing by seeking action against an abuser.”
“Telling that truth helped all of us to become a better church,” Wuerl said in an interview on November 23 in the church newspaper in Washington, the Catholic Standard. Actually, in my view, the reverse is true, for not telling the Truth for decades has made the Church a very much worse place – and Wuerl’s scrambling to deflect the further damage that is in store for him and his fellow bishops has all the hallmarks of being nothing other than a crude gesture to salvage what they can from the shipwreck of an impending storm of justified criticism.
It is no coincidence, in the view of many observers, that Cardinal Wuerl’s apology has been served up as state prosecutors are investigating how the Pittsburgh Diocese and others across Pennsylvania have handled abuse claims going back for decades. Wuerl, amongst others may well be in the frame for criticism. I stand with David Clohessy, director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, who has said in a statement Wednesday that the group is glad Bendig is pleased with the apology. However, David Clohessy has further remarked that, “SNAP believes Wuerl is using Bendig to do ‘damage control’ ahead of the grand jury disclosures on how Pennsylvania dioceses dealt with abuse claims, including when Wuerl was bishop from 1988 to 2006”.
I note that Cardinal Wuerl is a native of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he was Bishop for a full 18 years until his appointment to Washington. He was made a Cardinal Priest and received his Cardinal’s cap in 2010. His titular church in Rome is “San Pietro in Vincoli”. That is a surprisingly apt titular seat for Cardinal Wuerl – for it translates as “Saint Peter in Chains”. I suggest that it is now an opportune moment for serious reflection and meditation by Cardinal Wuerl upon how Mr Bendig, the Victim of clerical abuse that he dismissed, but whom he now seeks to vindicate to save his own neck, has spent a quarter of a century in the metaphorical chains of being branded by him as a liar.
This photograph was sent to me. It was suggested that it was put on the blog. I hope there are no objections – if there are, email the blog, and it will be taken down.
It was before my time at Mirfileld …. any names.
Professor Alexis Jay OBE – Chair
Independent Inquiry into Child sexual Abuse
Milbank Tower
London
Our ref: DE/IICSA 25 November 2016
Dear Professor Jay
Open letter
We, (the Forde Park Survivor Group, the Stanhope Castle Survivor Group and the Comboni Survivor Group, Survivors of Organised and Institutional Abuse, F13, F25 and F35) wish to raise with you our shared concerns regarding this Inquiry, its apparent lack of direction, lack of discernible progress and its failure to allow and support Survivors in participating in this Inquiry. Together we represent over 20% of Survivor core participants in the IICSA. Our voices matter and we will be heard.
We start by saying clearly that we want the IICSA to continue, to work effectively and to succeed. But that support is not offered blindly or unconditionally. Thus far, we feel that the IICSA has seriously and repeatedly failed to live up to its promise to put Survivors at the heart of this Inquiry.
This Inquiry was set up by the former Home Secretary Theresa May, now Prime Minister, who described the Inquiry as a “once in a generation opportunity” to expose what went wrong in institutions and public bodies and to prevent it from happening again. In opening the Inquiry it was said that Survivors of child sexual abuse should be “at the centre of this Inquiry” and that “their views would inform the Inquiry throughout”. Survivors need to be allowed to take their place at the “centre of the Inquiry.”
Our wish, which we believe is shared by all Survivors, is that this statutory Inquiry achieves its aims of discovering the true extent of child sexual abuse that was permitted to take place in the past and ensuring that children are properly protected in the future. To do this, the Inquiry has to thoroughly investigate what happened in the past, as it is only by recognising and acknowledging 2
the past that we as a society can move forward and implement the lessons learned from the past so that children can be protected from organised and institutional abuse in the future.
However, despite the Inquiry having been established over two years ago, we have not seen or felt any progress. The Inquiry seems to be under constant threat and constant criticism. Rarely does a day go by without resignations of lawyers and comments in the press stating that the Inquiry is not fit for purpose or suggesting that it is falling apart at the seams.
Let us be clear, the members of our groups, and those who look to our groups to represent their experiences, are ready and willing to participate. Our lawyers have not resigned despite working without funding for up to a year. Our groups are not falling apart at the seams, despite the heavy stresses that this Inquiry has placed upon our members.
Survivors have been waiting for years, if not decades, for an inquiry such as this to take place; and once established, for that inquiry to start tackling the issues of enduring concern; to determinedly seek out the lessons from the past and begin to put into place the measures that will protect children from abuse in the future.
We have been told that you, the Chair, are conducting a review of the Inquiry and have promised that the views of Survivors will be taken into account before any changes are made to the investigations.
We wish to confirm that, as regards any proposed changes to the Inquiry, whilst Survivors will listen and consider any review of the Inquiry, we will not agree in advance without full and proper consultation to any modification or reduction in scope of the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference or Scope of investigations.
The Inquiry has been besieged by criticism and beset by resignations from many lawyers working within the Inquiry. To all intents and purposes the Inquiry appears to have stagnated. The press and the media coverage all point to problems with management, systems and engagement.
Neither Survivors nor their lawyers are being kept up to date as to any progress or about the possible future shape of the Inquiry. For many of us, this repeats the way that the police and the civil and criminal justice systems treated us after being abused. For many of us, the on-going problems with the Inquiry bring back the memories of the way we were abused and the way that we were treated after reporting that abuse.
All of us have been abused and then ignored or side-lined. The apparent mess being created by this Inquiry and the constant suggestions that the Inquiry is too broad or too unwieldy, with a stream of Chair appointments and resignations as well as lawyer appointments and resignations, is adding to our pain and the pain of other Survivors. ‘Here we go again’ we say and with good reason. 3
The press appear to be fascinated with the drama from within the Inquiry and the House of Commons seems to be treating the Inquiry as a political football. Indeed, on 21 November 2016 in the House of Commons, Sarah Newton, a junior Home Office minster, was forced to reiterate that she was “confident, as is the prime minister, as is the home secretary, in the ability of Professor Jay to lead this inquiry,” and that “She [you] has a distinguished career in social work and a longstanding dedication to child protection” after urgent questions were raised by other MPs regarding the current state of the Inquiry. The Home Affairs Select Committee continued its criticisms of the Inquiry yesterday.
Occasionally there is a statement from the Inquiry stating that Survivors are integral to the Inquiry process when in fact we are being left in the dark about what is happening and what will happen in the future. So we say, with good reason, that we are being ignored and side-lined once again.
Assertions that the Inquiry is taking on board, and will take on board, the opinion of Survivors have so far been nothing more than words. We ask you to make that sentiment and intention real and not just a platitude.
What we require is a firm and clear statement from you, and the Inquiry team, setting out what has gone wrong and laying down a clear path for the future progress of this Inquiry.
Conclusion
Professor Jay, we know that you have only been in the post for a short time, and that the task before you is a very large one. We want you to succeed, we are willing you to succeed, we want nothing more than to support you, but you must urgently give us reasons to have faith and for that support to continue.
What is required is a full hearing where the Chair of the Inquiry can properly address the criticisms that have been made and set out the scope and future dates of the Inquiry’s work. Such a meeting would allow Survivors and their representatives a chance to publicly state our concerns, in the clearest terms, and to have those concerns heard and addressed.
We are not happy, we are not satisfied, and we want to say so publicly.
However, we also want to say publicly that we want to support you. We want to give you the chance to show us that you understand why we are unhappy and to demonstrate to us that you have a clear road map and are determined to get to the destination of uncovering the truth and previous failings to start the process of healing and to protect children in the future. 4
We ask you to urgently schedule a hearing at which all of us can attempt to lance the boil of dissatisfaction and thereafter to recommit ourselves to the shared goals of truth, recovery and future child protection.
Signed on behalf of
Forde Park Survivors Stanhope Castle Survivors Comboni Survivors
Survivors
ABUSE ROUND-UP FROM THE RECENT PRESS
“SNAP WRITES A LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF YAKIMA: ‘WITHDRAW!’”
(From an original Report by Dan Morris-Young is NCR – Paraphrase and additions by Brian Mark Hennessy)
The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) have asked, in a letter to Yakima Bishop Joseph Tyson, to remove himself from “his race for chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on the Protection of Children and Young People.” (The SNAP letter to Tyson is signed by David Clohessy of St. Louis, director of SNAP, and by Robert Fontana of Seattle, founder of the central Washington chapter of “Voice of the Faithful”).
SNAP charged that Tyson had “done virtually nothing to undo the damage” done by past clerical sex abusers in the Yakima diocese and those who shielded them. A diocesan official on November 11th responded that “almost without exception, our people express gratitude for the increased awareness they have gained – information that most are not receiving anywhere else” on sex abuse. In an email to NCR, Msgr. Robert Siler, Yakima chancellor and moderator of the curia, wrote: “We have beefed up our training program this past year, introducing live ‘Virtus’ abuse prevention training sessions in English and Spanish that take 2.5 to 3 hours. We have trained more than 1,000 employees and volunteers. I have personally conducted 80 percent of those training sessions.”
To some, such comments are nothing less than a smoke screen to divert attention from the matter of Bishop Tyson’s suitability for the post he seeks to gain. In a news release, SNAP says that when Tyson “publicly expressed hopes that he would ‘take immediate steps to warn Mexican families and officials about the Deacon, named Ramirez, and tell the full truth about allegations against Fr. Darrel Mitchell.” SNAP claims Tyson, in fact, did neither.
In a 2003 public letter, Tyson’s predecessor Bishop Carlos Sevilla, wrote, “Deacon Aaron Ramirez avoided prosecution by fleeing to Mexico in August 1999 and was, in July 2000, subsequently laicized (which means that, by a decree of the Pope, Aaron Ramirez is no longer in any way to be identified or function as an ordained minister of the Church).” Ramirez was accused of abuse of a 17-year-old boy in 1999. It has been reported that Ramirez became an Episcopal priest and that he was released from Episcopal ministry in 2006.
Mitchell was accused of having nude pictures of boys on his computer in 2003. In 2014, SNAP criticized Tyson “for quietly putting Mitchell, who had been suspended twice, back into parish work,”. However, according to Siler, Mitchell “was returned to ministry by Bishop Carlos Sevilla, S.J., prior to Bishop Tyson coming to the Diocese, after a recommendation to do so by the Diocesan Lay Advisory Board. Fr. Mitchell voluntarily requested an assignment outside of parish ministry, and has done stellar work as director of Calvary Cemetery in Yakima. He has been given permission to do weekend sacramental ministry by both Bishop Sevilla and Bishop Tyson, following review and approval by the Lay Advisory Board. He has served the Church well in that capacity.”
In a statement forwarded to the National Catholic Reporter, Tyson said: “I was asked by the USCCB leadership if I would be willing to be nominated for the chairmanship of the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People, along with Bishop (Timothy) Doherty. I agreed. I do not view Bishop Doherty (bishop of Lafayette) as an ‘opponent,’ as SNAP characterizes it, but as a fellow bishop who is deeply committed to the protection of children and youth, as am I, and I am honored to be nominated.”
In other words, Bishop Tyson did not see that his previous inaction on the issues surrounding Ramirez and Mitchell as being “wanting” in a more robust response. This is somewhat out of kilter with the ‘Key Mission Responsibilities’ of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on the Protection of Children and Young People, which states that the role to which Bishop Tyson aspires includes: “Advising the bishops on all matters related to child and youth protection and the restoring of “trust” between the bishops and the Church including a sensitivity to the impact on culturally diverse communities”.
In the event, the election did not favour Tyson and a press briefing was issued stating: “Bishop Timothy L. Doherty of Lafayette, Indiana, chairman-elect of the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People in a 128-86 vote over Bishop Joseph J. Tyson of Yakima, Washington”.
Well done SNAP!
“CONFUSING VATICAN ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF GUAM”
(By Joshua J. McElwee National Catholic Reporter – Paraphrase and additions by Brian Mark Hennessy)
Archbishop Apuron of the Pacific Island of Guam, has been accused of having inappropriate physical contact with at least five young altar boys in the 1960s and ’70s. The allegations emerged in May when one of the boys, now 52, came forward, prompting others to do the same. The Archbishop has denied the allegations and Guam civil authorities have not charged him with any crimes. Guam’s Catholics, however, were led to expect that Apuron would undergo a canonical trial. This had been expressed to them in a letter in September that was sent to each of the island’s 26 churches. However, a new “universal law” was signed by Pope Francis last June in which it was specified that a bishop’s negligence in response to clergy sexual abuse could lead to his “removal from office” – and all mention of a canonical trial appeared to have been dropped by the Vatican. That move is now the subject of criticism from some survivors’ advocates, who said that the change did not live up to an earlier promise to create a new Vatican tribunal to judge bishops who do not act appropriately when told of allegations of abuse.
Public reaction in Guam to the Vatican’s new approach, however, suggests that the Pope will need to deliver prompt and credible enforcement from Rome if the church is to regain the laity’s confidence. Mitchell Garabedian, the Boston lawyer who played a key role in uncovering the scandal that was featured in the film “Spotlight,” told the National Catholic Reporter that “History has shown us that the Catholic Church is incapable of objectively investigating itself in clergy sexual abuse cases.”
The fact is, as most Vatican watchers will know, that the Vatican has long had the power to remove an offending diocesan prelate, but has rarely used it. A papal spokesman says that Francis’ new order is designed to broaden that power by making it easier to fire a bishop, particularly “when there is negligence in cases of sexual abuse.” The order stresses that any accused bishop will be entitled to defend himself, but that the Pope will exercise the ultimate judgment in investigations. Some say that it is encouraging that Pope Francis is using his authority to push the Vatican machinery to act. Nevertheless, the church faithful will be watching to see whether diocesan leaders will ever be made answerable for their part in sexual abuse itself or in allowing the sexual abuse of children to continue when much of it could have been stopped.
The parishioners of the Dioceses of Guam, meanwhile, have been watching and waiting anxiously and the Guam civil authorities have taken the precaution to revoke the statute of limitations on hearing such allegations. The latest news at the beginning of November is somewhat of a surprise to many for it now appears that Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai, whom Pope Francis appointed in June to step-in over Archbishop Anthony Apuron, has informed reporters that all the conditions for a “trial” have now been put in place. “I’m going to receive some news, some updates later,” said Hon, who has been serving as the archdiocese’s apostolic administrator while also remaining the second-in-command of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. The Archbishop also reported that the “Holy Father has expressly granted His Excellency Msgr. Byrnes all the faculties, rights and obligations of the Archbishop of Agana, civilly and ecclesiastically without any exception. In other words, as coadjutor archbishop, Msgr. Byrnes has the complete right of responsibility over everything concerning the archdiocese,” said Hon.
One way or another, it seems that Archbishop Apuron is on his way out – but will it be in the form of a “dishonorable discharge” or by sentence of a Canonical Court ratified by the Commander in Chief, Pope Francis? We wait with baited breath! Nevertheless, the fate of Apuron may not end the controversy in the Island of Guam, for other members of the Guam clergy have also been publicly accused of molesting altar boys and boy scouts, including the Rev. Louis Brouillard and the late Rev. Antonio Cruz. The alleged abuses happened in the 1950s and 1970s and are yet to be resolved by the Vatican. When you turn over a stone, you never know what lies beneath!
One thing that is certain to survive in the memory of onlookers if Apuron is found guilty of sexually abusing boys, however he is sidelined in the future, will be his abject hypocrisy. This was demonstrated by his stark and controversial comment: “Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice”.
Quite what the World’s LGBT communities will make of that from out of the mouth of one credibly accused of seriously abusing young boys I cannot imagine!
“EXACTLY WHAT IS CARDINAL PELL ACCUSED OF?”
(Credits are due to the “National Catholic Reporter”, “Crux”, “Australian Broadcasting Corporation” and the “L’Osservatore Romano” as paraphrased by Brian Mark Hennessy)
Cardinal George Pell, the de facto treasurer of the Vatican and Australia’s most senior Catholic cleric, is being investigated, as most readers will know, in connection with multiple allegations of child sexual assault that date back four decades. A top Australian police official, Graham Ashton, chief police commissioner of the Australian state of Victoria, has confirmed a report by the government-run Australian Broadcasting Corporation which stated that detectives were investigating and had submitted an account of the allegations against Cardinal Pell to Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions. “We investigated and are still investigating,” Mr. Ashton said in an interview with the radio station 3AW in Melbourne, when asked about the inquiry. Earlier, the police had refused to indicate whether the Cardinal was the subject of the investigation, which the ABC had reported. However, in an email, the police said, “Detectives are investigating allegations of historical sexual assaults committed in Ballarat East between 1976 and 1980 and East Melbourne between 1996 and 2001.” The email added: “A brief of evidence has been prepared and presented to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice. Once the advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions is received it will be reviewed. However, as with any investigation, it remains a decision for the Victoria police as to whether charges will be laid.”
Cardinal Pell, now aged 75, was elevated to his current rank of Cardinal in 2003 by Pope John Paul II. Following his summons to the Vatican, he became the Catholic Church’s Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy. His financial acumen on behalf of the Australian Catholic Church was spotted by Pope Francis following his accession and Cardinal Pell was later entrusted by Pope Francis with improving the Holy See’s financial planning, auditing and reporting. In the process, financial functions, previously conducted by other arms of the Holy See, were ceded to Cardinal Pell.
In 2013, Australia established a Royal Commission to conduct an investigation into matters of “great national importance” ie: sexual abuse of children within institutions. As archbishop of Melbourne in 1996, Cardinal Pell co-ordinated the response by the church in the city to allegations of child sexual abuse. Later in 2012, he complained that the news media had begun a campaign against the Catholic Church and since then he has had to answer questions continually about abuse allegations before both the Royal Commission and a Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry. In 2014, he apologized to a former altar boy who was abused by a priest, and he has also said that victims of abuse have the right to sue the church. When questioned in Rome recently in a live television interview regarding his actions in relation to his management of Child Sexual Abuse as a bishop and archbishop he appeared to demonstrate historical, naïve unconcern and disregard of matters relating to child abuse. The result was that the international press poured scorn upon his faltering submissions and responses to the Inquiry.
It is of note that having been appointed as the “Vatican’s Banker”, Cardinal Pell took over many responsibilities for financial affairs from other Departments of the Vatican – notably from the Vatican Secretary of State. Following accusations against Cardinal Pell of a failure to deal adequately with reports of child abuse, that situation has been reversed by Pope Francis who has issued a legal edict, delineating new divisions of responsibility between the Vatican’s Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (under the control of the Vatican Secretary of State) and the Secretariat of the Economy run by Cardinal Pell. According to John L Allen Jnr, a “Vatican Watcher” writing for “Crux”, “There are many ways of analyzing the fault lines in the Vatican, but perhaps the most time-honored is the tension between an Italian old guard and pretty much everybody else. By conventional political logic, the Pope’s new legal edict saw the Italians notch a fairly big win over the New World Cardinal Pell”.
No meaningful explanation, however, has been given by the Vatican for this reversal in the portfolio of Cardinal Pell, but the timing of it shortly after Cardinal Pell was publicly questioned by the Australian Inquiry into allegations of child abuse in the Catholic Church is curious. If the Vatican wanted to be protective of Cardinal Pell they would surely have left things at the level of the “status quo” until the Inquiry had concluded its investigations. Pulling the rug out from under the feet of Cardinal Pell at such a sensitive moment in the proceedings does nothing to suggest that they have confidence in any positive outcome for Cardinal Pell in the Commission’s eventual findings. We will have to wait and see before we can judge, but we cannot help wondering if the Vatican has seen already what is written in the writings on the proverbial wall.
So, what is it that Cardinal Pell himself has actually been accused of – apart from the mismanagement of allegation of child sexual abuse by subordinate clergy in Australia? Well, Cardinal Pell was born and grew up in Ballarat, a Victorian country town. After being ordained as a priest, he began work in his hometown area, best known as a center for gold mining in the 1850s. The “ABC” network reported that two men have said that Cardinal Pell sexually abused them at a swimming pool in Ballarat in the 1970s. “Ballarat”, if you recall from the text above, is where the current investigations by the Australian Police are concentrated. Moreover, one of the accusers Lyndon Monument, has mention Cardinal Pell by name. He told the ABC broadcaster. “I didn’t like it, but because it was the church (and) he was George Pell, we just weren’t game ever to say anything.”
In a statement to the ABC, the cardinal’s office denied the allegations. “Claims he has sexually abused anyone, in any place, at any time in his life are totally untrue and completely wrong,” the statement said. The details of the evidence have not been fully published, but one thing is certain in the world of today that was less than certain historically – is that evidence put forward by Victims alleging historical child sexual abuse is more likely to be given the most serious and grave of considerations today – and believed – than it was in the past. Gone are the days when a white collar around a cleric’s neck would be considered to be the emblem of sacrosanct and impeccable Godly righteousness that it once was. If Cardinal Pell does have anything to hide, he needs to start concocting his letter of resignation now. It may be, of course, that the Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – or indeed the Vatican Secretary of State, on behalf of Pope Francis, has already sent him, just in case he needs it, a draft for consideration!
Father Patrick Wilkinson and Father Rinaldo Ronzani — does anybody know which missions they are working in.
Are they still Comboni Missionaries.
Mark Murray
THE TRUE SCALE OF THE GLOBAL BETRAYAL OF INNOCENCE
(By Brian Mark Hennessy)
It is very difficult at times to understand fully the extent of the grave and widespread proliferation of child abuse throughout the world. As a parent, as so many readers maybe, it is also impossible to imagine how utterly shattered you would be if you were to discover that a child of your own had been abused in any way. Yet somewhere in this world, daily, perhaps hourly, many parents do come to learn that the innocence of the childhood of a son or a daughter has been ravaged by a sexual predator of children. In most cases that information will come as an incomprehensible and bewildering shock that promotes inordinate anger. I remember my mother’s reaction when I told her how I had been abused by a priest of the Comboni Missionary Order when I was a seminarian at the Mirfield St Peter Claver’s Seminary of the Comboni Missionary Order in the 1960s. I told my mother during a “heart to heart” when she was in her eighties and I was, by then, in my sixties. There was a look of horror on her face. It was incomprehensible to her. She was struck by a sense of great grief that she did not know at the time – and guilt for never having been able to protect me from the sexual onslaught I suffered over a two-week period at the hands of a Catholic priest when locked into the infirmary that he controlled. Her deep distress had made me wish that I had never opened my mouth. At that moment I would have gladly kicked myself for not remaining silent.
My father had already passed away by then. He was Irish to the very core and an un-swerving, un-compromising, totally committed Catholic. My mother blessed the fact that he had never known of the abuse – because she knew that it would have destroyed utterly both his life and his faith. In some ways it did. I had been his first-born son. He had coaxed me from the touch-line at every football match that I had played. He had bought me my first cricket bat and taught me how to keep it “springy” with linseed oil. He had made me a fishing rod out of a bamboo cane so that together we could catch ravenous crabs in the seaside pools. We were intimately connected. We were almost as one being. He was so proud on the day that I went to the seminary and would have thanked God for that blessing. Following the abuse, however, I rejected him. I conflated the abuse of a priest with my father’s strict Catholicism – and I hardly ever visited my father again – until he was on his death-bed. My years since have been spent in deep remorse for my act of callousness – if that is what it was.
In the sixties when my abuse had been perpetrated against me, the world was a different place. Communications were slower. I remember writing letters to old school friends – and then watching the postman go from door to door for weeks, if not months, in anticipation of receiving a letter in reply. Once received it would be read over and over again – and shared with all. How different it is today. We finger a message to someone the other side of the world on our hand-held devices and often receive a response in minutes – if not seconds. We can even conduct a digital chat in real time. The technological world has shrunk the delivery time of all communications and broadened our knowledge of world events. Whether or not that is a good thing, or what we wish for, we now have the brutality of the world at our finger-tips. We can no longer be ignorant of distant wars, geological or tempestuous catastrophes and human suffering of all kinds. We need to ask ourselves sometimes whether this is making us more and more immune to suffering or if it increases our concern. If the former indifference is the mainstream reaction, then the future of the world will become dispassionate and heartless. We must not allow this to happen.
I will tell you why that is an imperative – by way of an example. At the time that I was abused by a priest in the 1960s, child sexual abuse did not repeatedly hit the headlines – and other forms of physical and psychological child cruelty and torture were not a regular feature of the pages of the daily press as they sometimes are today. The heartless use of children as child soldiers was virtually unheard of – and ritual killings of African albino youths would have been beyond our imaginations.
That was then, but to this mix today, we must add the enormous scale of the sale of children into slavery, child prostitution and the use of children to provide pornographic literature and film to satisfy depraved adult appetites. In the 1960s when I was abused by a priest, the population of England was about forty million. The population of children today in the Philippines in which I temporarily reside, is the same as the total population of England in 1960 – about forty million.
It is difficult to imagine an England in the 1960s comprised totally of children – but think on it for a moment. Think that everybody you would or could possibly meet or see was a child. Now imagine if the scope of child sexual abuse in that fictitious England was the same as it is estimated to be today in the Philippines – almost 25% of all children – in other words 10 million children. In my 1960’s example of a fictitious England of 40 million children, one in every four children you would see or meet would have been abused. I ask the reader to stop for a minute and ask yourself, “How does that make you feel?” Are you horrified – or are you immune to the force of this shocking statistic?
That figure of 10 million is almost incomprehensible, but that is the estimate of Bernadette Madrid, head of the University of the Philippines-Manila child protection unit. Madrid stated, during the Third Forensic Science Symposium organized by UP Diliman-Natural Sciences Research Institute that overall, “24.4 percent of Filipino children have experienced sexual abuse. If you divide that by gender, 28.7% of the victims of sexual abuse were boys, while 20.1 % were girls. What it means is that at least one in four children in the Philippines has experienced sexual abuse. If you have a hundred million population (as the Philippines does today) of which 40 million are children, then one fourth of that would be at least 10 million. That’s 10 million children in one country (the Philippines) that have experienced sexual abuse.”
Moving on, I accept that it is not possible to extrapolate the numbers of children sexually abused in the Philippines to a global figure around the whole of the world – for there is no direct evidence for such a calculation. Yet we do know that significant numbers, mostly estimates made by researchers, of abused children have been revealed in many countries. In the United States, for example, which has a population more than three times that of the Philippines, the “Peaceful Hearts Foundation” has asserted that their informed estimate of the number of child abuse “Survivors” in the United States is about 42 million out of a total population today of well over 300 million. In percentage terms that is lower than in the Philippines. Nevertheless, their research indicates that, “Most children are abused by someone they know and trust. Of these, an estimated 60% of perpetrators of sexual abuse are known to the child, but are not close family members; they are friends, babysitters, childcare providers, neighbors etc. About 30% of the perpetrators are family members, e.g., fathers, mothers, brothers, uncles, aunts, cousins. Just 10% of perpetrators are strangers to the child. In most cases, the perpetrator is male regardless of whether the victim is a boy or girl.
Above, I have only provided figures from two countries of the estimated extent of child sexual abuse. Those two countries have a joint population of about 450 million and an estimated combined incidence of 52 million children who have been sexually abused. The population of the world in August 2016 was 7.5 billion. Whilst it would be statistically wrong to attempt it, if a simple extrapolation of the global number of child sexual abuse victims from that number could even be reasonably contemplated – it would exceed 800 million children. God forbid that it is anything like that, but we simply do not know – and never will. One reason for this is that many abused children will never reveal the extent of the abuse committed against them and will possibly never understand and nor be able to define how their future lives will be affected by the psychological trauma.
Abused children have no powers to defend themselves. They are helpless to fend off predators. They rely, often in vain, on the adults of this world to protect them. Many child Victims may have self-perceptions of shame and guilt. Some accept, for the most part that what has happened has happened. Others are so frequently abused that they may even believe it is the norm. Thus, Victims themselves are often very slow to come forward with information. My own experience, was that over many years I needed to rationalize the fact of my innocence and expel any sense of shame and complicity out of the original abuse scenario before I could even begin to categorise it as “abuse”.
Such rationalization can take a very long time. William J. Cromie of the Harvard News Office wrote about such phenomena following investigations at Harvard University. He stated: “When questioned closely by psychologists from Harvard University about their feelings, victims of childhood sexual abuse revealed some surprising impressions. First, the abuse apparently was not seen as traumatic, terrifying, life threatening, or violent at the time. “It hurt,” said one man who was raped as a boy, and after a while I knew it was wrong, but not at the beginning.”
Only two out of the 27 interviewed at Harvard recalled feeling traumatized at the time, report the psychologists Susan Clancy and Richard McNally. Some psychologists believe that forgetting childhood sexual abuse is a deep-seated unconscious blocking out of the event, an involuntary mechanism that automatically keeps painful memories out of consciousness. However, Clancy and McNally’s work leads them to conclude that it’s just ordinary forgetting. Clancy asserts, “Memories of childhood sexual assault can slip from awareness in the same way that ordinary memories can.”
However, that “everyday forgetting” does not necessarily exclude voluntary suppression, insufficient reminders, or memory avoidance. McNally adds: “A failure to think about something is not the same as being unable to remember it”. The research also showed that later when the violations were recalled, all 27 of those assaulted reported multiple negative effects from the abuse, such as loss of trust in people, difficulties with relationships, sexual problems, loss of self- esteem, mental health problems, or alienation”.
It can be deduced from that statement of McNally that it may be that the adult “recovered” memories of the assaults are often seen as traumatic, rather than the childhood event itself being seen that way, and thus the recall of the event is what is responsible for the adverse impacts later in the Victim’s life. I can relate to that experience, because my adult sudden awareness that I was abused when I was a minor caused nothing less than a “panic attack” – during which I swayed back and forth with my head in my hands and crying repeatedly out loud, “Oh my God, he abused me! Oh my God, he abused me!”
There is another reason, however, why many children throughout the world have not yet even begun to fully unravel themselves from the shifting obscurities of the recesses of their minds. Of course, many may never do so. Nevertheless, every Survivor of abuse is aware of the power of those, whom necessarily, they would need to accuse if they were to “go public”. They know it as “power’ because that is the nature of the physical and moral pressure that was exerted upon them at the time of abuse by the abuser. Survivors of child abuse were “Victims” in every sense of the word at the time of the abuse for they had no ability to fully understand, in a mature sense, what was happening to them, let alone the physical strength to repel the adult abuser – who had gone to some lengths, in most cases, to befriend the guileless child in the first instance.
If the abuse took place in an institutional context, the “image” of the powerful abuser may be extended to other members of the same institution and even to the institution itself. In this context, an extension of antipathetical wariness may have been enhanced by the Victim’s sense of embedded “Institutional Denial”. When that is indeed evident, the “Denial” can be formidable in both its character and execution. The Catholic Church, for example, have shown themselves, globally, to be willing to expend billions in US dollar terms, to protect themselves. In comparison, a large number of Victims have no such resources to risk on a legal suit of unknown outcomes. When Victims seek to reveal their abuse, they know, intrinsically, that they will be taking on not just the abuser, but the whole institute which has deep pockets – and they know that institutes are in the mode of “denial” – even when they are fully aware that the abuse took place.
A Victim’s realisation that they will face such institutional denial and the institution’s almost limitless resources at every juncture may not just be daunting, but overwhelming. That is why so many Victims are not prepared to seek justice – and remain forever silent. Of course, there is a psychological impact to such silence – because “not telling the story” perpetuates many of the adverse impacts related to the abuse. I know myself that there are a number of Victims, who were abused at the Comboni Missionaries’ Mirfield seminary who, so far, have been reluctant for a variety of reasons to take a leap into the unknown and seek justice. Many have simply not yet come to terms with the psychological impacts of the abuse.
My personal experience of such “institutional denial” is that the Institution, the Comboni Missionary Order of Verona Italy, will go to the extremes in their outright denial of the endemic abuse at their Mirfield seminary establishment – even in the face of previous statements made by themselves to the effect that they were aware of the abuse. The other tactic they use is “silence” and they believe that that makes them unaccountable in some way. Knowing the truth of the abuse that I personally experienced, however, I do not buy their guise of innocence – in whatever cloak of mendacity they dress up their denials. They have shown themselves, in extremis, to be mendaciously callous – as has been demonstrated by their recent, unsuccessful attempt to destroy one victim with false criminal charges in the Italian Criminal Tribunal of Verona.
Globally, the Catholic Church, behind whose facade the Comboni Missionary Order hides, has made many attempts to prevent cases of abuse getting into a court-room. Recently, in New York, the Diocese of the economically-astute, long-term strategist, Cardinal Dolan, expended some $2-million alone simply to obstruct a proposed time limit extension on getting abuse cases to court. They use “Denial” and “Obstruction” – in every which sense it may be facilitated – to choke off the evidence of their ageless complicity in the crimes of child sexual abuse. Their reputations for so doing are not so much just “tarnished” as “obliterated”.
My purpose here, however, is not to beat my drum once again about the gross failures of the Comboni Missionary Order of Verona, Italy, to admit, finally, the sexual abuse committed by members of their Order that has been known to them for some five long decades already. Nor is it to revisit, specifically, the vacuous chuntering of the Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of New York about the “merciful” nature of his legal protectionism. I want the readers of this blog today to remember that scandalous, indeed horrifying, potential figure of the world-wide scale of depraved adult sexual and other forms of cruel, physical and psychological abuse of gullible, innocent children. That potential, but impossible figure to verify, is 800 million and greater than the combined populations of the United States, Brazil, Russia and the Philippines. It is an incomprehensible figure of child victims of abuse. Even if you halve it to 400 million – or divide it again to 200 million – it remains incomprehensible and shocking beyond belief. Whatever the true figure is, we shall never know, but I have faith that most readers, who for the first time are confronted with the potential, global scale of child abuse, will be both distressed and horrified at such an adult “ betrayal of innocence”.
I give the last word to the UN Special Rapporteur Report (2014) on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Najat Maalla M’jid: “Changes in the nature and extent of the sale and sexual exploitation of children reveal preoccupying trends. Even though this issue has gained increased visibility over the past years, thanks to the joint efforts of numerous stakeholders, millions of children worldwide are still victims of sexual exploitation today and have their childhood stolen. The phenomenon has developed and become increasingly complex. Risk factors are growing and multiplying. The social tolerance for these crimes, impunity, corruption and precarious socio-economic situations remain among the most challenging obstacles to overcome in combating this scourge”.
It is quite clear that statistically, just because you do not hear of sexual abuse of children in your own neighborhood – you should not believe for a moment that it is not there. If you do hear of it, or even suspect the possibility of it, my plea is that you have the courage to report it. I know it is a challenge to do so – as on two occasions in my life I felt compelled to do so – and did so. It is not easy, especially if the person you are reporting is a neighbour or is otherwise known to you. Whatever the circumstances, it is your adult duty to protect the helpless child. We have provided details of whom you may contact on this blog before, but we repeat it again below. In addition, if you yourself have been abused as a child and you are still affected by the impacts of that abuse, then do seek help. To that end we include helplines in our list.
WORLDWIDE LIST OF FIRST RESPONDER TELEPHONE NUMBERS FOR REPORTING SUSPICIONS OF INSTANCES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AND HELPLINES FOR THOSE SUFFERING THE EFFECTS OF CHILD ABUSE
United Kingdom
Reporting Abuse as a first Responder in the United Kingdom – always call the Police on the 999 emergency Police number or the 101 non-emergency Police number.
Alcoholics Anonymous (GB) : help@alcoholics-anonymous,org.uk or Tel 0800 9177 650
UK National Drugs Helpline: 0800 77 66 00
Drug Wise: Twitter @DrugWise UK, or Tel 077121 52 99 36, or harry@drugwisw.org.uk
Drug Rehabilitation: info@openmindsrehab.com or Tel 01978 312 120 (daytime) or 07736 248 851 (nights)
Narcotics Anonymous UK helpline: 0300 999 1212
Lifeline heloline: 0161 839 2054
NSPCC – Action for Children: Help@nspcc.org.uk
NSPCC – Adult Callers: 0808 800 5000, Childline 0800 1111
National Helpline: help@stopitnow.org.uk or Tel 0808 1000 900
NAPAC Supporting Recovery from Childhood Abuse: info@napac.org.uk
Survivors Trust : 0808 801 0818
National Suicide Prevention Samaritans UK & ROI Hotline: +44 (0) 8457 90 90 90 (UK – local rate) Hotline: +44 (0) 8457 90 91 92 (UK minicom) Hotline: 1850 60 90 90 (ROI – local rate) Hotline: 1850 60 90 91 (ROI minicom) Website: samaritans.org E-mail Helpline: jo@samaritans.org Survivors UK, Unit 1, Queen Anne Terrace, Sovereign Court, The Highway, London E1W 3HH: info@survivorsuk.org
Rape Crisis England and Wales: rcewinfo@rapecrisis.org.uk
Mind – the Mental Health Charity for those who have suffered Sexual Abuse:
Adult Helpline 0844 847 7879, Parent and child helpline 1800 155 1800
Bishops’ Conference of Scotland Catholic Safeguarding Organisation: tcampbell@scottishcatholicsafeguarding.org.uk
National Office for Safeguarding children in the Catholic Church in Ireland, St Patrick’s College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare: ann.doyle@safeguarding.ie and teresa.devlin@safeguarding.ie
Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland: sbnisupport@hscni.net
Tusla – Child and Family Agency, Brunel Building, Heuston South Quarter, Dublin, Republic of Ireland: info@tusla.ie
The Church’s Child Protection Advisory Service: info@ccpas.co.uk
Terence McKiernan, Bishop Accountability Organisation: terry@bishop-accountability.org and ann@bishop-accountability.org
United Kingdom Childrens’ Helplines There-4-Me Childline UK – 0800 1111 Muslim Youth Helpline – 0808 808 2008 Childline Scotland – 0800 44 1111 NSPCC: English – 0808 800 5000 Welsh – 0808 100 2524 Bengali – 0800 096 7714 Gujurati – 0800 096 7715 Hindi – 0800 096 7716 Punjabi – 0800 096 7717 Urdu – 0800 096 7718 Breathing Space – 0800 838587 Connexions – 080 800 13 2 19 Birmingham Space – 0800 072 5070 Samaritans – 08457 90 90 90 Runaway Helpline – 0808 800 70 70 Careline – 0181 514 1177 Youth 2 Youth – 020 8896 3675 Girls Space – 0800 072 5070 Get Connected – 0800 808 4994 Support Line – 020 8554 9004 Muslim Youth Helpline – 0808 808 2008
United States of America
Survivors of sexual abuse living in the United States of America and Canada are advised, (without any liability of this site), to consider making contact with the following help organisations and professionals who are able to assist…..
Alcoholism: Alcoholics Anonymous meetings exist throughout the world and the doors are always open to newcomers. Start here to find a meeting in your area: www.aa.org/pages/en_US/find-local-aa. Once you get comfortable, look for a sponsor who honors your trauma background. If you are the loved one of an alcoholic, start here to find local Al-Anon or Alateen meetings: al-anon.org/find-a-meeting.
Other substance abuse: Narcotics Anonymous meetings also are held in many places. Start here to find a meeting: www.na.org/meetingsearch.
Childhelp: A resource about child abuse and neglect for kids, parents and teachers is at www.childhelp.org.
International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation: a resource for professionals and the public. Its website includes a “find a therapist” link here: www.isst-d.org/default.asp?contentID=18.
International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies: Though primarily a resource for professionals, it does offer a “Find a Clinician” link at www.istss.org/find-a-clinician.aspx.
MaleSurvivor.org: This is, in my opinion, the best resource available for male sexual abuse survivors. It is directed by clinicians, survivors, academics, researchers and advocates who serve for limited terms. MaleSurvivor.org offers recovery weekends, a great reading list, resources for finding a therapist, safe chat rooms for survivors, and more.
Mental Health America: an advocacy and support agency with local affiliates all over the country (www.mentalhealthamerica.net). It offers a wealth of information about mental health issues and can help you find local affiliates and other mental health resources. They also have online mental health screenings that help individuals and loved ones get a sense of what mental health issue they may be confronting.
National Center on Elder Abuse: As more people are living longer, elder abuse is becoming a greater national problem. This group (www.ncea.aoa.gov) has online resources about elder abuse. Their elder care locator will help you find the local agency to whom to report elder abuse: eldercare.gov/Eldercare.NET/Public/Index.aspx or 800-677-1116.
National Domestic Violence Hotline: Resources for survivors and individuals in current domestic violence situations, including abusers: 800-799-SAFE, or www.thehotline.org.
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: A 24/7 resource for anyone thinking about suicide and for friends and relatives concerned about a loved one: 800-273-TALK, or www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org.
RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network): RAINN is a good resource for those who have been sexually assaulted as adults or as young people: rainn.org/get-information.
Sidran Traumatic Stress Institute: Sidran’s website offers a host of information for survivors and for loved ones (www.sidran.org/resources/for-survivors-and-loved-ones), an extensive reading list (www.sidran.org/resources/essential-readings-in-trauma) and links to many other resources (www.sidran.org/resources/links).
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests: SNAP (www.snapnetwork.org) is an effective social justice advocacy organization that works to prevent child sexual abuse, especially by clergy.
SNAP Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, PO Box 6416, Chicago, IL 60680-6416: davidgclohessy@gmail.com
SNAP USA: snap.dorris@gmail.com and bdorris@SNAPnetwork.org
Terence McKiernan, Bishop Accountability Organisation: terry@bishop-accountability.org and ann@bishop-accountability.org
Voice of the Faithful, Boston USA: office@votf.org
United States of America Childrens’ Helplines: National Runaway Switchboard– 1-800-621-4000, Childhelp USA – 1800 422 4453, Covenant House – 1800 999 9999
List of International Helplines to assist our Worldwide Readers in Reporting Child Abuse
Europe
Albania Child Helpline- +355 4 2308 20
CISMAI Italian Network of Agencies against Child Abuse: segreteria@cismai.org
Save the Children Italy: info@savethechildrenitaly and info@crin.org
Save the Children –Brussels, Geneva & Addis Ababa advocacy offices: info@savethechildren.be, geneva.info@savethechildren.org and fwandabwa@savechildren.org
CBM Christian Child Protection: contact@cbm.org and press-international@cbm.org
GESPCAN German Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect: library@nationalcac.org
ISPCAN The International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect: ispcan@ispcan.org
Austria Telefonhilfe fur Kinder und Jugendliche – 147
Belgium Kinder- en Jongerentelefoon Vlaanderen VZW – 0800 15 111 ChildFocus – 110, Ecoute Enfants – 103 Bosnia and Herzegovina Udruzenje roditelja tesko bolesne djece u BiH CLL line – 00387 65 341 298
Bulgaria National Hotline for Children – +359 2 981 93 00
Croatia Hrabri telefon (Brave Phone)– 0800 0800
Cyprus Hotline for missing children – 116 000
Czech Republic The Safety Line – 800 155 555
Denmark BørneTelefonen (Children phone) – 35 55 55 55
Estonia Patient groups – 126., AIDS helpline – 645 5555, NGO Lifeline – CONFIDENCE WHEN LIFE TÜDINUILE – 655 8088 or 1707, “Psychology Crisis intervention” NGO Lifeline (Prof. Psychologists) – 631 4300, YOUNG LINE CHAT – 646 1111, Tallinn Family Centre -6556 088 Finland, Child and Youth Phone – 0800 120400
France, Allo Enfance Maltraitee – 119
Germany, Kinder- und Jugendtelefon Nummer ggen Kummer e.V. – 0800 111 0333 Greece, Hamogelo – 1056
Hungary, Kek Vonal – 06 80 505 000
Iceland, RedCross– 1717
Ireland, Child Line – 1800 666 666 Italy, SOS il Telefono Azzurro-19696
Latvia, Child Helpline – 800 9000 or 116111
Lithuania, Childline – 8 800 11111
Luxembourg, 12345 Kanner- Jugendtelefon – 12345
Macedonia, SOS Helpline for Children and Youth – +389 2246 6588
Malta, Supportline – 179
Netherlands, Landelijk Overleg Kindertelefoon – 0800 0432
Norway, Røde Kors telefonen for barn og ungdom (Red Cross Helpline) – 0800 33 321
Poland, Helpline.org.pl – 800 100 100
Portugal, SOS Criança– 27 793 16 17 / 800 20 26 51
Spain, Fundación ANAR – 900 20 20 10 Sweden, BRIS – 0200 230 230 Switzerland, 147 Telephonhilfe fur Kinder und Jugendliche – 147
Serbia, NAcionalna DEcija Linija- NADEL Srbija – 0800123456
Slovakia Linka detskej istoty: 1116 111, www.ldi.sk (child helpline) Hľadané deti: 116 000 (missing and sexually abused children)
Slovenia, Tom National Telephone Network – 080 1234 Turkey, ALO – 183 Ukraine, The Odessa Samaritans Peer Line – 482 221 744
Asian Continent
Armenia Child Protection Hotline – +3741240150 or 240160
Azerbaijan ETIMAD Sumgayit – 23131
Belarus Smorgon Information Centre on children rights education/SICCRE – +375 1592 33 129
National helpline for domestic violence victims – 8-801-100-8-801
Brunei Helpline Kebajikan – 141 or+673 238 0664;+673 238 0667;+673 238 0668
Hong Kong, Against Child Abuse Hotline – +852-27551122
Iran, The Helping voice – +98-21-850 1414 or +98-21-850 1415
Kazakhstan, Child Helpline – 150
Korea, South, Hot Line 1391 / Rescue Line for Children – 1577 or 1391, Youth Hotline – 1388
Mongolia, Friends 1979 – 1979
Nepal, Child Workers in Nepal – 427 1000 Pakistan, Madadgaar Children and Women Help Line – 111 911 922
Russia, Hotline for Children, Teenagers and Parents (Magadan) – +7 41322 20878, Moscow Childline – +7 095 735 8484, Teenage social-psychological support (Tomsk) – +7 83822 244442
SE Asia & Asia Pacific Region
National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Australia: contact@napcan.org.au., SNAP Australia: snapspaner@gmail.com, Australia Kids Help Line – +61 7 1800 55 1800
New Zealand Safeguarding Organisation: admin@safeguardingchildren.org.nz
New Zealand, The Kids Help Foundation Trust – 0800 942 8787, Youthline Charitable Trust – 0800 376 633, Kidsline – 0800 543 754 India, Childline India Foundation -1098
Indonesia, TESA – 129
Japan Childline Support Center Japan (NPO) – 0120-99-7777
Philippines, Bantay Bata 163 – 163
Philippines Save the Children: Address: Supporter Care team Midland Building, 1040 EDSA, Magallanes Village, Makati City 1232 Call us: Please call (02) 851-3702 or (02) 853-2142, Fax us: Send us a fax on (02) 853-0215
For volunteer and internship:Volunteer.PH@savethechildren.org
Singapore, Tinkle Friend – 1800 2744 788
T’ai-wan, 113 woman and children protection helpline– 113
Thailand, Saidek – 1387
Vietnam, Childline – 1800 1567
Near East and Africa
SASPCAN South African Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect: admin@childlinesa.org.za
ANPPCAN African Network for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (Uganda & Ethiopia) regional@anppcan.org
Enfants Solidaires d’Afrique et du Monde: info@esamsolidarity.org
Botswana, Childline Botswana- 0800 3900 900
Egypt Hotline for Children – 16000
Gambia 199 Helpline – 199
Israel, L.O./Combat violence against women – 09952 8927 Jordan, 110 for Families and Children – 110
Kenya, Chidline- 116
Namibia, Lifeline/Childline Namibia – 926461226894
Nigeria, Human Development Initiatives – 0806 353 1872
Palestine, Sawa Child Protection Helpline – 121
South Africa, Childline South Africa – 08000 55555 Senegal, Centre GINDDI – 800 88 88
Uganda, 0800 111 222
Zimbabwe, Childline – 961
Yemen, YMHA – 236622
Caribbean, Central and South America
Antigua & Barbuda Friends Hotline Antigua and Barbuda – 800 4357
Argentina 102 Childhelpline – 102
Brasil TECA – +55 21 2589 5656, 123Alô! – +55 21 2197-1500
Chile Fono Infancia – 800 200 818
Colombia Telefono Amigo – 106
Costa Rica LÃnea Cuenta Conmigo- +506 800 2244-911 Dominican Republic Linea Telefonica para Auxilio – 538-6151
Jamaica, Friends Hotline – +1-888-991-4505 or 977 5754 Mexico, Acercatel – 01800 110 10 10
Panama, Tu Linea – 147
Paraguay, FONO Ayuda – 559 200 or 147 Peru, Fundación ANAR – +51 0800 22210 Trinidad & Tobago, Childline – 800 4321 ot 131
Uruguay, Linea Azul Servicio Telefónico – 800 50 50
Comboni Missionaries 