Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?

Even in the year 1139* they had problems with their priests.

“If perchance among those who preside some case concerning (God forbid) graver sins arises …” then refer it up for adjudication, says Gratian, the 12th century jurist who consolidated the first collection of Canon law for study and forensic use. Distinction 18 of Gratian’s Decretum, as the collection is known, speaks directly to the question of handling complaints about troublesome priests, even in respect of, God forbid, graver sins.

Headlines over the last half century have underscored the problem. The churches, self-proclaimed bastions of morality and good conduct, have failed their congregants. They didn’t listen to complaints of grave misconduct, but hid them, turning deaf ears to cries for justice. They failed to implement the directions of canon law that have been in place since the time of Gratian and before.

Have the churches learned anything?

Royal Commissions, inquires and court cases have forced the churches to confront what they always knew: where humanity is present, there is both good and bad conduct. Priests are not immune.

This is not a problem just for the Roman Catholic or Episcopalian churches, but for all. Evangelicals and pentecostal denominations have likewise witnessed their own scandals.

A peculiar licence

There is an oddity about misconduct in a religious setting. It can be daunting to challenge a church leader who exhorts others to good conduct with the backing of divine authority. It is so easy for that leader to twist the complaint to a one of questioning religious authority, or God forbid, God herself. This is a particularly critical issue for independent churches who have no wider hierarchy of authority to moderate and adjudicate conduct. They become laws unto themselves, the leader effectively speaking with a claimed divine authority, answerable only to their God.

Safe Church program

In response to the issue of misconduct in the church in Australia and the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, the National Council of Churches here set up the Safe Church program. This is a direct effort to support congregations with reporting misconduct across all denominations, with a particular emphasis on child safety and vulnerable persons.

Churches however, like corporations, may need to think more broadly than the measures recommended under the Safe Church program. Building an effective system for the reporting of misconduct, its investigation and remediation, needs to counter the tendency of organisations and persons to discount, defer, ignore or overrule inconvenient reports. Such countermeasures depend on high levels of internal transparency, accountability and at times, individual courage.

Additionally, the opportunity for misconduct in a religious setting is surprisingly wide, in part because office bearers are seen as upstanding and good, and as such may attract less critical review, and congregants may not wish to be seen as nit-picking Jeremiahs.

Wriggle-proofing your misconduct reporting system

A misconduct reporting system that terminates in a single authority is subject to a single point of breakdown. If that authority choses not to take a report further, the report stops there. If that authority is a single individual, then the risk of the report not being taken further is greater.

A system in which reports can be closed and deleted without an independent review or an auditable history of review permits the dismissal of reports that are inconvenient.

A system that does not maintain the confidentiality of the reporter and the subject within applicable bounds may facilitate retaliation or tampering, thereby impeding an investigation, questioning the integrity of and bringing the reporting system into disrepute.

Failing to hold persons accountable for misconduct through the implementation of applicable sanction renders the system impotent and discourages reporting of misconduct.

There are many more principles beside these four that need to be built into a reporting system if it is to be credible and effective. In a religious setting, where peculiar licence already exists, it is doubly important to ensure the integrity of the process and system in itself. That is to say, structural and procedural measures are crucial to an effective reporting system and its integrity. It’s not just about training and good people.

A last word from Gratian

“Let ordinance and reason vanquish bad practice” (D. 11 c. 1.)

Let rules, principles and process in an authorised structure be deployed to bring misconduct into the light of day and remediation effected.

“Then all priests, deacons, and those those who consider themselves wronged may come, and the cases examined at the council may be brought to just judgement. And if any bishops, priests or deacons have been found in offence, let them be fittingly excommunicated until judgement has been passed on them by common consent.” (D. 18 c. 15.)

Misconduct amongst the clergy will occur, even grave sins! So, there needs to be a misconduct reporting system; there needs to be investigation and judgement; and, there needs to be consequences for misconduct.

Perhaps the 12th century isn’t quite so long ago if you look at it through Gratian’s eyes.

What do you think?

* The year 1139 is a best estimate for the writing of the first recension of Gratiani Decretum (see Anders Winroth, The Making of Gratian's Decretum). The expression, "who will rid me of this troublesome priest" relates to the Becket controversy (1163-1170) and used in this article for effect. The controversy does not relate to the writing or use of Gratiani Decretum.