Contrasting Narratives on Responses to Victims and Survivors of Clerical Abuse in England and Wales: Challenges to Catholic Church Discourse

NoAccounts of the Catholic Church's response to those disclosing sexual abuse by clergy to diocesan safeguarding commissions (formerly child protection commissions) in England and Wales are analysed and compared. The accounts given and the conclusions reached by the Church and those it employs or has commissioned are considered alongside the experiences reported by survivors. The contrasts between these narratives are discussed using techniques underpinned by critical discourse analysis and highlighting service user perspectives. Reports for the period to 2010 and published in 2011 by the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission and Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors are discussed in detail, with the resulting analysis of the narratives emerging arguably reflecting a broader discourse. It is suggested that, despite attempts to present the situation differently, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales continues to be hampered in its efforts to respond sensitively to the needs of those who have been abused, because, as an institution, it also continues to serve conflicting legitimacy communities, and that, as a result, it risks further alienating those victims and survivors who have been led to expect that their needs will be prioritised over the financial interests and reputation of the institution

Considering religion and beliefs in child protection and safeguarding work: is any consensus emerging?

NoDiverse, but significant, phenomena have combined to raise both the profile of issues related to religion and child abuse and the need for professionals to understand and respond appropriately to them. The nature of some of these issues is explored and attempts made to clarify them. Data collected by the author primarily from questionnaires completed by professionals involved in child protection and safeguarding work are analysed and discussed. Some patterns are identified and explored. Finally, it is suggested that, despite the apparent emergence of a more general recognition and acknowledgement of these issues amongst many professionals, relevant day-to-day practice remains largely dependent on individual views and attitudes. Moreover, practitioners are able to continue with ‘religion-blind’ and ‘belief-blind’ approaches without these being significantly challenged by agency policies or by professional cultures