As a Catholic theologian and leader of a national support group for victims and survivors of faith-based abuse well overrepresented by Catholic survivors, I take issue with assertions made by Palmerston North Catholic Bishop John Adams reported by Stuff in ‘Zero appetite’ for culture of abuse in Catholic church,” 30 July 2024.

Bishop Adams “wanted to put a face to the Church’s response.” But the Abuse In Care Inquiry’s Final Report put a face to the Church’s response just last week. Therefore, the bishop’s attempt to undermine the Commission’s findings merits reproof in my view.

For instance, it is disingenuous to claim that there has been a culture change going through the church immediately after the Inquiry’s report became public. Surely that report would have mentioned such change. But it did not!

However, the report did state that “Catholic Church leaders have not been accountable or transparent to their congregations and the broader community about the nature and extent of abuse and neglect by their members.” (199) This finding is consistent with current survivor experience because it was informed by that experience.

Further, the Inquiry’s Scope included what was experienced up until today. This means the report was not talking about only the behaviour of past Catholic Church leaders. Hence, for Adams to assert the opposite of the inquiry's findings— while understandable on one hand since he wants to protect the reputation of the institution, it is certainly irresponsible. It makes him guilty of the very charges he criticised his predecessors of having perpetrated. “Some people in the past had been motivated to protect the church,” Adams stated.

I myself, as a complainant in Bishop Adams' redress process TE HOUHANGA RONGO/A Path To Healing, coordinated by his National Office for Professional Standards (NOPS), have direct experience of Adams not allowing church investigations into complaints against his clergy to proceed.

Sadly, therefore, based on my experience, his assertions amount to further coverup and misleading the New Zealand people.

Bishop Adams also asserted that the church’s culture had been changing since the early 2000s. When the Boston Globe uncovered widespread sexual abuse of children by scores of Catholic priests, the New Zealand Catholic bishops published their Pastoral Letter on abuse in June 2002, stating, “we give you an assurance of our commitment to confront this problem with openness and transparency.” But the Abuse Inquiry found that such a commitment was empty. “Catholic Church leaders have not been open and transparent with their members or the New Zealand public," it reported. (199)

Indeed, abuse is being spoken about more widely today, as Adamd stated. However, this is not the result of anything Church leaders have done. A volume of the Commission's final report, “Survivors’ experiences of abuse and neglect in faith-based care,” Summary and Key Messages, made that clear.

Further, Bishop Adams’ statement that “If an accusation was made against a member of the church they were stood down” is simply policy repeating. In practice, Bishop Adams knows he has at least two priests in ministry who have not been stood down while under investigation, while it is unknown if any risk assessments were made.

Further, survivors have repeatedly lamented the fact that church investigations into their complaints have not been properly carried out. But NOPS was supposed to provide “a fair response.” This injustice has been reported on extensively over the past years.

Further, on 12 March 2024, I myself received a shocking letter from a church lawyer instructed by NOPS threatening to discontinue the investigations into my complaints if I didn't be quiet. Bishop Adams, as the relevant church authority for those complaints, refused to require NOPS to proceed with the investigations.

How then is this a “zero appetite” for abuse?

Further, how can a “turning back to the dignity of each human person” be real as Adams claimed, when all New Zealand Catholic bishops are actively preventing the abused from seeking independent support by purposefully disregarding their own safeguarding standard which requires information to be displayed in their churches about where the abused can get independent support?

But Adams boasted that “every Catholic parish in New Zealand had material about safeguarding.” This is betrayed by the fact that only one Catholic parish in his diocese has a sign displaying information where the abused can receive independent support.

Future, where is the dignity in the leader of New Zealand’s Catholic Church, Archbishop Paul Martin of Wellington, removing the survivor support network SNAP’s ad from his newspaper after the survivors questioned him about his implementation of risk assessments when senior clergy of this Archdiocese were accused last year of heinous sex crimes against children?

Future, where is the dignity in clergy of Hamilton Catholic Diocese repeatedly cutting down a survivor’s ribbons and ignoring his respectful requests for support?

Where is the dignity in Bishop Stephen Lowe of Auckland, head of the Catholic Church in New Zealand’s Mixed Commission responsible for national safeguarding guidelines, constantly ignoring survivors who reach out to him after his NOPS fails to uphold its principles and follow its redress procedures?

Further, Adams’ assertion that the NOPS complaints process was an “independent process” is simply false. That claim was discredited by extensive survivor testimony given at the Commission’s faith-based redress hearings in 2020, and reported in the Commission’s Interim Report Tāwharautia: Pūrongo o te Wā.

Indeed, survivors “are less interested in words” as Adams declared. But his own words betray him. I tremble at the thought of the endangerment he leaves not only our children in, but all members of his church and society by attempting to undermine the Commission's findings and portray an image that does not reflect reality.

Dr Christopher Longhurst (he/him)
National Leader
SNAP - Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests

© Scoop Media