By Isabella H. de Carvalho
The importance of reparations that go beyond financial compensations, the need to dialogue and listen to victims, the necessity for data to address the issue of abuse within the Church, and the varying progress that has been made in local Churches across geographical regions.
These are some of the important aspects that emerge out of the Second Annual Report on Church Policies and Procedures for Safeguarding, released on Thursday by the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, as highlighted by Dr Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, a jurist in charge of the working group that produced the document.
In the following interview with Vatican News, Dr Buquicchio, who has had extensive experience in child protection in international organizations, highlighted how this second report’s focus on reparations aims to help local Churches across the world to continue to engage and listen to victims.
Q: What are the main elements that emerged out of this second Annual Report?
This is a very important step forward in terms of the evaluation and the progress made by the Churches globally. We have decided this year to focus on one particular dimension of the concept of transitional justice – which we call conversional justice in an ecclesial context – and that is reparations. What we have tried to do is engage in a dialogue with our various stakeholders, in accordance with our normal practice, and we have developed a very pragmatical and practical tool, a vademecum, for the local Churches on how they can address the issue of reparations.
I don’t want to sum up all our recommendations, but I think it’s important to point out that we clearly indicate that financial compensation is not the only way to address reparation and what the victims need. We have listened to the victims and their voices very carefully and that’s another dimension of our methodology for the report. What they say is, basically, ‘what we want is to be listened to’. Sometimes it’s more important that they’re feeling welcomed and supported, than receiving financial compensation, so this is a very important dimension of our second annual report.
In this edition we also very much expressed the concern about the lack of data. Data is so important because no data, no problem. We are trying to seek additional data from all possible sources, to go beyond the internal data we have received through the Churches themselves or through the dicasteries.
Q: What has been the impact of the first Annual Report, and what have been the developments and changes that can be seen in the second Annual Report?
We are addressing very important issues; we cannot expect that changes are happening overnight. What is necessary is that we continue this dialogue and we follow up also on our recommendations. That must happen not only in discussions here in Rome, but of course, with the local Churches. We are assisting them by, as I said, continuing this dialogue.
We have seen that there’s first of all more awareness and understanding of the need to engage with victims, so we see some progress there. Not enough, but we definitely believe that the impact of our first report can be felt at that level. Of course, each situation of a victim-survivor is different, each situation needs a different answer, and that’s for the local church to assess, as circumstances are very different. There is also the question of the need to refer to civil authorities, which also varies very much in each country. Sometimes it’s compulsory, sometimes it’s left to the discretion of he or she who knows. This is still something which we have to make sure that is happening. However, on the whole, I think, slowly, slowly, step by step, we are making progress.
The second annual report was already planned when we published our first annual report, in which we explained that the conversional justice concept has several pillars. Our approach is to address each pillar separately, so this year it was reparations. Next year it’s going to be about justice and access to justice, which is also an obviously a very important report. Then, finally, there is the question of institutional reform and truth, because isn’t truth the foundation of everything that we are arguing here?
Q: The report focuses on safeguarding policies and procedures in the Church in various countries and dioceses. Where have you seen improvements and developments, and in what regions do you think there’s still work to be done?
In this respect we have three categories of Churches. When I talk about Churches, I also cover the religious. Rather than regions, we can say that there are Churches who are quite ahead: they have published guidelines, they have appropriate procedures and protocols for hearing victims, etc. They, to a large extent, are really quite ahead on the path to conversion.
Then there are other Churches who are beginning to address this issue because it’s a new concept. Before it was based more on sanctions and disciplinary proceedings, with an emphasis on offenders, leaving victims completely out of focus. And then there are, unfortunately, also Churches are even more at the beginning than that. It’s, of course, very important that we engage together with the dicastery here in Rome to move them on that path.
So, there are these three categories of Churches but I cannot localize them. The obvious thought is that the Global South is further behind, but there are exceptions to that. There are very interesting local practices, which we have identified also in the report. For example, in Tonga, where there is a very strong emphasis on community-based support to victims, which is very interesting. At the same time, in the Global North, in Europe, some Churches are doing very well, while other Churches less. It’s a very varied landscape. – Vatican News
