Is buying a lost child an ice-cream child abuse?

Have we gone too far in labelling mere actions as child abuse?

Part 2

Did Professor Albus Dumbledore abuse Harry Potter?

By Louise Greentree[1]

In Part 1 I looked at the scenario of someone like you hugging and comforting a lost child in a shopping centre, buying her an ice cream and taking her away from where you found her to the Management Offices so that an announcement can be broadcast to the parents to let them know that their child had been found and is well and safe. I pointed out that those very actions, if intention and consequences are ignored, could in themselves be labelled grooming and child abuse. However your intention (to return the child to its parents) and the consequences (mission accomplished) made all the difference to how we could view actions that in themselves are innocent but which have been performed by paedophiles to lure a child away to be abducted and abused.

I was concerned by this: that a lot of actions were being labelled child abuse when they lacked the intention and consequences of that nature. I said that in the absence of these two things the mere actions in themselves had no special character of child abuse. For ‘grooming’ there needed to be a course of conduct with the intention of leading to cooperation in sexual activity; and for child sex abuse there needed to be some form of sexual activity, whether the consequence of rape or sexual assault on the one hand, or, on the other hand the consequence of a sexual overture that has followed a ‘courtship’ period of grooming, being a sexual activity that would be lawful if it occurred between consenting adults, but which is unlawful because a child or teenager is deemed by criminal law unable to consent before reaching the age of 16, and is a ‘child’ for the purposes of child protection law until the age of 18.

Now read on:

A synopsis for those who have never read the books of J. K. Rowling (or viewed the films of the books) about her extraordinary creation Harry Potter, child wizard and one who defeats evil in the person of Lord Voldemort  (or a reminder to those who have):

When he is aged 11 Harry Potter, undersized and undernourished by 10 years living with his non-magical aunt and uncle after his own parents James and Lily were murdered by Lord Voldemort in Voldemort’s first attempt to seize domination over the whole wizarding community and the non-magical community living parallel with it, finds out two things: that he is a wizard and that he is famous in his parents’ world because when Lord Voldemort had killed his parents and turned his killing curse on Harry, Harry not only survived, but the curse rebounded on Lord Voldemort, not killing him but stripping him of his body and sending him into exile to try to recover. Harry commences his wizarding studies boarding at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, in what is a wonderful parody of a typical boarding school story for young readers, except for the brilliant imagination that creates the story of wizarding school life and subjects taken, such as Potions, Charms, Transfiguration (starting with turning matches into needles and simple things like that) and Defence Against the Dark Arts. By the end of book 1 (of 7) the story of Harry’s fight to destroy Lord Voldemort again has started and carries through until the final showdown that kills Lord Voldemort forever.

              Helping him to gain the skills and refine the courage Harry needs to do this is the Headmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, a wizard of great age and formidable power, the only wizard whom Lord Voldemort fears. The relationship that builds between Harry and Professor Dumbledore as Harry is tested time and again in encounters with Lord Voldemort leading up to the final one, and Professor Dumbledore ekes out to Harry information he needs to carry out this task is a fine account of trust and love between a professor and student (what we Christians call parental love on the one hand and filial love on the other, using the descriptions used by C. S. Lewis in his book ‘The Four Loves’[2]).

However, watching the films of the unfolding of this relationship, I am reminded that if Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry had been an institution of the Anglican Church of Australia, Sydney diocese (stop laughing at the back there!), and Professor Dumbledore both the Principal and a church worker, he would have been brought before the Professional Standards Unit of the diocese (the Sydney PSU) charged with child abuse.

Why? What on earth did he do to Harry?

Listen, children, and I will tell you how what is presented in the books and films as a fine and noble relationship between mentor and student would be debased and reduced to a caricature of that which is in fact based on good Christian principles. This would be by the operation of the Sydney diocesan culture: a culture of suspicion where none is valid; a culture of failure to act where suspicion is justified; and a culture that permits – encourages even – the denial of process and the collapse of respect for rule of law and justice.[3]

First: He frequently interviews Harry in his office unsupervised. Not only that, there is no access to his office unless the password of the day is known. The fact that the password is the name of one or other of the many lollies (acid drops, sherbet lemon and the like) that Professor Dumbledore enjoys makes it less vulnerable to guesswork or dedicated elimination of possibilities despite its’ frequent change. This means that they cannot be disturbed and in any event Professor Dumbledore has enough magic at his wand-tip to ensure that they remain undisturbed. He might argue that the fact that the walls of his study are lined with moving, speaking and, quite often, dozing and snoring portraits of past headmasters and headmistresses who would most certainly be roused up by the spectacle of any inappropriate behaviour there with Harry provides witnesses and a powerful disincentive, but this would be rejected: after all, whoever heard of a picture of a dead person moving let alone snoring?

 Second: When Harry is interrogated by no less a personage as the Minister of Magic, Rufus Scrimgeour, as to the subject of his conversations with Professor Dumbledore (or anything else that they may be getting up to there alone), Harry refuses to answer and agrees that he is ‘Dumbledore’s man through and through’ (although at that time he is still only 17, underage in our world but of age in the wizarding world so vividly imagined by J. K. Rowling). This evidence of loyalty and affection and trust between the two is highly suspicious; on Sydney diocesan terms, it could be a sign that Harry has been groomed over all of his 5 years of relationship with Professor Dumbledore.

Third: Professor Dumbledore travels with Harry alone (by side-by-side Apparition) on several occasions. Although Harry reports that the process is incredibly uncomfortable but, fortunately, is over in a matter of seconds, which would militate against any ‘funny business’ while they were alone in this mode of transport, this might be of no account as far as Sydney diocesan interpretation of guidelines for appropriate behaviour with young people.

Fourth: On one occasion Professor Dumbledore asked Harry about his relationship with Hermione Granger. This prurient interest is not excused by Harry’s vehement denial of any romantic relationship – they are just good friends, he tells Professor Dumbledore. Obviously this was lie born out of embarrassment, or so it could be concluded if one went on Sydney diocesan child abuse legislation.

Fifth: Professor Dumbledore frequently touches Harry. There are simple pats on the shoulder; when Harry is about to step forward into the maze that is the third of the tasks of the Triwizard Tournament[4] he is so anxious for Harry’s safety that he grips him firmly by the shoulder, detaining him for a discernible period time; when Harry is briefly prostrated after the fight in the Ministry of Magic between himself and the other members of the Order of the Phoenix, and Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters (as his followers are named), Professor Dumbledore gathers Harry up into his arms, laying him over his bended knees and prevents anyone else from touching him.[5]   He also invites Harry to take his arm when disapparating.[6]

Sixth: Professor Dumbledore visited Harry in his 5 boy dormitory when he was there alone – the other boys having already packed and gone downstairs to leave for the holidays. They are unlikely to be interrupted, but even so a wizard of Professor Dumbledore’s capacity would soon seal the door (the spell is ‘duro‘) and prevent anyone overhearing (the spell is ‘muffliato’) what was being said and done there. It is known that Professor Dumbledore sat on one of the beds to talk to Harry.

Seventh: Professor Dumbledore confesses that he cared about Harry too much[7]. After Harry’s godfather Sirius Black dies in the monumental battle between Lord Voldemort and his supporters, and the members of the Order of the Phoenix led by Harry and his Hogwarts’ friends and Professor Dumbledore, Harry is distraught with grief and angry with Professor Dumbledore for not telling him anything about what was happening, for sending him to private lessons with Professor Snape and thereby for being responsible for Harry’s precipitation of the disaster under the Lord Voldemort-induced belief that his godfather was being tortured and rushing to rescue him. He rants at Professor Dumbledore, who confesses that he has done wrong by Harry, but he cared for him too much over the previous years to tell him the truth about his destiny.

Eighth: Professor Dumbledore took Harry away from school (alone) on several occasions.

Ninth: Once on the pretext of taking him to a place where might be found a horcrux[8] Professor Dumbledore exposes Harry to great danger requiring him to try to save Professor Dumbledore’s life and himself almost dying from an attack by Inferi[9].

Tenth:  On another occasion Professor Dumbledore takes Harry alone to visit another wizard, one of greedy and self-indulgent lifestyle preferences, clearly a candidate for investigation for predatory connections.

Eleventh: Professor Dumbledore then invites that wizard to join the teaching staff at Hogwarts after showing Harry off to him as an inducement. Professor Horace Slughorn (the name says everything) agrees and sets up an exclusive club (the Slug Club) for certain selected students, male and female, to meet for parties and dinners by invitation, including meeting some very dubious characters at a Christmas function, including Sanguini, a vampire, and others of undesirable habits, including smoking pipes in an enclosed place in the presence of minors.

Twelfth: Professor Dumbledore requires Harry to undergo private tuition outside the curriculum (in occlumency – the sealing of the mind against penetration from another wizard, such as Lord Voldemort, accomplished in legilimens – the ability to enter into that mind, read it and control it) by the sadistic teacher Professor Snape, who should also be under investigation for physical child abuse (including requiring Harry to spend detention sorting out rotten from fresh flobberworms[10] without wearing protective dragon-skin gloves).

So what are we to make of this indisputable evidence of an inappropriate relationship – one based in the imbalance of power between the Headmaster and his young pupil? It is enough to bring Professor Dolores Umbridge[11] out of retirement (where she has stayed far from contact with any centaurs) in order to give Harry a thousand evenings of detention and to try to take over Hogwarts again.

But of course we don’t make any such thing of this so-called evidence. What we make of it is how truly the relationship is fundamental to the development of Harry as a brave and accomplished young wizard whose destiny is to demonstrate the power of self-sacrificing love to defeat evil, which is the basic theme of all 7 books. Funnily enough, as I am writing this just after Easter 2014, this seems a familiar theme, without taking any comparisons too far.

And perhaps the members of Sydney PSU, the Professional Standards Committee and members of the Diocesan and Disciplinary Tribunals would baulk at reading grooming and child abuse into what is so far from the truth about this fictional relationship. But when you get down to how, apparently, they do interpret church law concerning child abuse (sexual and otherwise) there has to be a lingering doubt[12].

Turning now to non-fiction –

Firstly, a little bit of law:

Code of Conduct for Clergy (Issued by the Archbishop of Sydney January 1998)

Note: at this time there was no Code of Conduct as such for youth ministers (ordained or not) other than a series of guidelines, some of which are no more than motherhood statements, some a matter of pious hope and some in the nature of risk management which are contained in this Code of Conduct for Clergy and which I will explore.

Here are definitions from the Code of Conduct for Clergy January 1998:

3.3 Child sexual Abuse

3.3.2 Child sexual abuse or assault is the involvement of a child in sexual activities with an adult or a person older or bigger. The child or young person is used for the sexual gratification of the older person’s needs or desires and is unable to give consent due to unequal power in the relationship.

In NSW child abuse legislation refers to a child as under 18 years of age.

3.3.3 The types of behaviour that have been found to constitute child sexual abuse or assault include:

• Child sexual behaviour with an animal
• Deliberate/intentional exposure of child to sexual behaviour of others
• Exposure to adult masturbation
• Exposure to prostitution, or child used for prostitution purposes
• Genital exposure
• Oral sexual behaviour
• Sexual fondling
• Suggestions about the possibility of a sexual liaison with the child
• Threat of sexual abuse

Now, these clearly do not apply to the case under discussion. Nor is Professor Dumbledore a member of the ordained clergy. But what if Professor Albus Dumbledore is treated as a Church Worker – lay in his case – Ministering to Children and Youth? Well, the Code of Conduct for Clergy January 1998 contains these which I have selected as possibly relevant:

3.6 Guidelines for Church Workers (Clergy and Lay) Ministering to Children and Youth[13]

3.6.2 If in physical contact with children and youth, church workers should take care to respect the child’s feelings and privacy

3.6.3 Church workers normally should not visit children or youth in their own homes (and especially not in their dormitories – my addition) unless a parent is present and/or the church workers visit in pairs

3.6.4 Wherever possible church workers should not drive children or youth home (or apparate with them – my addition) unaccompanied.

3.6.19 A high level of safety should be maintained in all activities. Church workers should be trained in competency in any activity involving risk.

3.6.21 Where one-to-one discipleship is planned consideration should be given to:

• Adequate supervision
• Age and sex of both parties
• Parental consent
• Training and maturity of the discipler (sic)
• Venue.

Applying this to Professor Albus Dumbledore between 1998 (the year the Code of Conduct came into being) and 2004 (October of that year when the Code of Conduct for Clergy 1998 was superseded nationally and in Sydney diocese by a new Code of Conduct ‘Faithfulness in Service’):

On the face of it Professor Dumbledore may have breached some of these particular guidelines.  However, in these as well as others it is difficult to be precise about the nature of a ‘breach’ when the guidelines are expressed more as ‘motherhood statements’ than actual statements of prohibition.

What do we make of this one?

3.6.2 If in physical contact with children and youth, church workers should take care to respect the child’s feelings and privacy.

The only question that can arise from the form of this statement is this: ‘when coming into physical contact with (insert name) did you take care to respect his/her feelings and privacy?’ And the answer: ‘Yes, I did’ satisfies the question, even if it does not explain why in a particular case it would seem that the child’s feelings and privacy were in reality upset and/or violated, because of the emphasis in the guideline is on ‘take care to respect’ which is subjective. When a guideline expresses the desired reality in terms of the church worker’s subjective acts/thoughts it is clearly not intended to be a serious attempt to define behaviour that leads to disciplinary action.

What about this one?

3.6.21 Where one-to-one discipleship is planned consideration should be given to:

• Adequate supervision
• Age and sex of both parties
• Parental consent
• Training and maturity of the discipler (sic)
• Venue.

The first question is this: who is to give the consideration – the ordained clergy to whom the Code of Conduct is directed or the church worker? Because it is expressed in the passive voice there is no person designated on whom the responsibility is placed to give consideration.

Secondly, if consideration has been given to these things then what is one to do about the consideration? The answer to the question ‘Did you consider these things when planning … ?” again only has to be ‘Yes’ to satisfy the guideline, even if the consideration would seem to have had a less than fortunate outcome in the actual execution.

Let’s apply this one to the case of Professor Dumbledore and Harry Potter. As I pointed out earlier, Professor Dumbledore was in the habit, in the later books and films of these, to calling Harry into his study and discussing a number of matters highly pertinent to Harry’s ultimate success in defeating Lord Voldemort. So, in our role as prosecutor for the PSU we say to Professor Dumbledore:

Q: Did you consider adequate supervision?

A: Yes

The question has been answered. That is all that has to be said. The adequacy of supervision if any at all, is not the question. The fact of the consideration (by someone) is all that is required. In fact it is not even clear what is meant by supervision in this context? It is clear that there will be no-one else in the room when the one-on-one discipling takes place[14], so where is the supervision taking place and with or by whom and to what point? If this just means going back and reporting to someone else then there are all sorts of issues: is there a breach of confidentiality? Is the supervisor of any use when he or she cannot know independently of the report of the discipler what has been happening and it is just possible that the discipler lies to the supervisor?

If to the question: ‘Did you give consideration to the age and sex of both parties?’ Professor Dumbledore answers: ‘Yes, I am aged 150 and Harry is aged 16 and we are both males. So what?’ that is that. It really is a case of ‘so what?’ It is also a puzzling issue: is it fine for both to be males, or would it be better if both were females, or that a female discipler disciples a male disciplee and vice versa? No answer is given in the guidelines.

Let us suppose that Professor Dumbledore is persuaded to amplify:

Q: Did you give consideration to – adequate supervision?

 A. Yes, I considered that Fawkes my phoenix was present as well as past headmasters and headmistresses in their portraits. I also considered that as I was the most skilful wizard of the age there was no one else adequately qualified to supervise me.

Q. – age and sex of both parties?

A. Yes, I considered that I am aged 150 and Harry is 16 and we are both males.

Q. – parental consent?

A. Yes, but as Harry’s parents were murdered by Lord Voldemort when Harry was just over 12 months old the issue was not applicable.

Q. – training and maturity of the discipler (sic)?

A. Yes. I considered that I have been training young students for almost all my adult life. I taught Tom Riddle – the future Lord Voldemort – 50 years ago and I accumulated some knowledge about him. I had researched his history extensively and understand what he has done to try to ensure his immortality. I am the greatest wizard of the age and Lord Voldemort fears me.

Q. – venue?

A. Yes, I considered my office where we could not be overheard and have details leaked to Lord Voldemort by any present pupils, such as Draco Malfoy to his father Lucius Malfoy, a Death Eater in Lord Voldemort’s service.

Overall, these guidelines do not have the same clarity that the examples of child sex abuse have, and a number of them are nothing more than motherhood statements – statements that sound good, state an obvious principle and do not contain any other information about how to carry the principle into effect.

Consider this guideline:

3.6.8 Church workers should seek to foster relationships in which sensitivity and trust enable children and youth to view them as people in whom they can confide, but they must be aware of the risk of inappropriate overdependence on the part of the individual child or youth.

This is NOT law. This is part counselling training and part pious hope.

Also, these guidelines appear in the Code of Conduct for ordained clergy and the guidelines for others ministering in the parish are just that: guidelines that the ordained clergyman responsible for the parish, that is, the Rector[15], is required to draw to the attention of and ensure compliance with by his staff, as far as it is possible to discern what they mean in practice. If his staff have not observed these, and in some instances without also reporting the circumstances to the Rector (and also to Parish Council, as one of the guidelines suggests) then the Rector is the one to deal with it. If he has failed to do so in any way, then the blame lies squarely at his feet. The fact that the guidelines are included in the ‘Code of Conduct for Clergy’ and are not issued separately addressed to other church workers who are engaged in youth ministry makes this conclusion irrefutable.

This conclusion is also consistent with the long-standing culture of Sydney diocese whereby a great deal of autonomy from senior clergy is maintained by the parish Senior Minister who enjoyed then and still does enjoy tenure – that is, the right to remain in a parish for life or until voluntary retirement (in the absence of a power-struggle with his parishioners and/or the diocesan organisation, or proven inability to continue in his duties due to age or infirmity or, just possibly, heresy).[16]

Where these guidelines deal with preferred arrangements and behaviour when working with children or youth – ‘wherever possible’, ‘serious consideration should be given to’, ‘should be sensitive to’ – this places them in the category of ‘risk management’, that is, failure to observe the guidelines could lead to a claim, false or real, of abusive behaviour. Hence, for example, the suggestion that two church workers could visit the child at home in the absence of parents: if a parent is present, that is a restraint on the church worker; if the parent is not present and there is another church worker so each can act as a witness for the other, this is not only a restraint on each other (hopefully, unless both are of the same predatory proclivity) but also a defence against a false claim.

And operating as an ‘umbrella’ over all these various statements of desired outcomes is a qualifying clause:

3.6.10 Age of individuals is recognised as one of the determinants in deciding what acceptable and unacceptable behaviour is.

Undoubtedly this could have been better expressed because it does not say what is the effect of age and of what age. It is equally possible to mean that the younger the child the less likely the behaviour referred to in the guidelines will be unacceptable. But of course we the reader, and the clergyman charged with trying to introduce these guidelines to his staff would most likely interpret it as meaning the opposite: the older the individual the less likely the behaviour is to be determined to be unacceptable because the older the youth the more able to express his or her own wishes and remove him- or herself from the situation. He or she is also more capable of complaining to a parent or guardian or to the rector.

So, if Professor Dumbledore interviewed Harry aged 16 alone in his study, this is less unacceptable (or even more acceptable) than interviewing the 11-year-old Colin Creevey alone in his study. Or is it?

              So that was the position from 1998 to 2004. After long, serious and no doubt tedious but well-meaning committee discussions and deliberations the National Anglican Church of Australia produced a new Code of Conduct called ‘Faithfulness in Service’ which was adopted by the national church in October 2004. This was recommended to each diocese, because the national church has no power in relation to the individual State and Territory dioceses.[17]

What is the applicable church law in the case of Professor Albus Dumbledore and Harry Potter?

It has long been an accepted principle of the English legal system (and that of Australia and other countries which inherited the English legal system) that a person cannot be charged with and convicted as result of an action that was not a crime at the time it was committed. The criminal law already made child sex abuse in its’ various unmistakeable manifestations a crime, but clearly that does not apply in this case as there is nothing that contains anything of a sexual nature.

So when did these allegedly abusive actions take place?

The seven Harry Potter books chronicling Harry Potter’s life from the age of 11 to the age of 17 were first published between 1998 and 2007. They are written in the past tense and the last book includes as the final section the story brought ‘up-to-date’ some 19 years later when Harry has married and he is seeing his second son off to start at Hogwarts where his first son is already a pupil. But ignoring this as writer’s prerogative, let’s just suppose that the events described in the seven books take place in the period 1998 and ends 2005. Spoiler alert! As the relationship between Harry Potter and Professor Albus Dumbledore ends the year before that this means that the applicable church law covers 1998 to 2004.

As we have seen the Code of Conduct for Clergy was issued in January 1998.

The law lesson continues in order to take us up the end of 2004

In October 2004 the Synod of Sydney diocese adopted its own, largely identical, version of the National Church Code of Conduct ‘Faithfulness in Service’. Note that the words ’for Clergy’  have been omitted from the title, even more evidence, if any were needed, that the 1998 Code of Conduct for Clergy was precisely that and no more. It was ‘for clergy,’ and the guidelines for others (ordained or not) working with children and youth were presumed to be the responsibility of and under the control of the Rector. In 2004, clearly, the flaw in this had been recognised and the new Code of Conduct represented the result of an intention to make every church worker, ordained or not, personally responsible for their words and actions in relation to their ministry to children and adults in the eyes of church law[18].

Now we have an attempt at some different definitions and examples:

 Grooming is the manipulative cultivation of a relationship in order to initiate or hide sexual abuse of an adult or a child. In the case of child sexual abuse, an offender may groom not only the child, but also the child’s parents or guardians, and clergy and church workers.

Sexual abuse of a child means the use of a child by another person for his or her own sexual stimulation or gratification or for that of others. It includes: – and there follows a long list of stomach-churning things that adults can do to children of a sexual nature.

When these definitions are read one or other of the words ‘intercourse’, ‘sex’, sexual’ and ‘sexually’, ‘indecently’ and ‘masturbate’ are contained in each definition and example. These are words of purpose. Therefore in the absence of any descriptor of an activity that contains that purpose, that activity could be innocent. Inadvertently, or even without concern, exposing oneself while showering at public showers is not abuse. Indecently doing so means doing so with the intention of arousing sexual interest and/or going onto engage in some other sexual activity such as masturbation or oral sex (or worse), and this is abuse. Kissing, touching, holding or fondling are actions described in the Code: of which parts of the recipient’s anatomy is not specified and could be holding a hand or cuddling or kissing the top of the head or massaging sore legs: these are not of themselves anything other than innocent except where these activities are for a sexual purpose with a child.

What other church law applied during this period?

Apart from Codes of Conduct there were two Sydney diocese Ordinances (just another name for an Act – as of Parliament) that were successively applicable during the period 1996 to 2006. Both are named the Church Discipline Ordinance, the first passed in 1996 and the second in 2002, which repealed the 1996 version and which was itself repealed by the Discipline Ordinance 2006.

Do these two versions of the Church Discipline Ordinance having anything to say in their definitions to illuminate the issue? Well, yes and no. Neither of the Ordinances have any definition of ‘grooming’. The 1996 version contains this definition of ‘unacceptable behaviour’ which is expressed in relation to both ordained clergy and lay people holding a Position[19] (the capital letter is in the Ordinance) as being that behaviour –

–          which would be regarded by right thinking members of the Church as disgraceful and inconsistent with the standards to be observed by a Christian minister (or ’by a Christian lay person holding such a Position’ in the case of a lay church worker;

The 2002 Ordinance has definitions of ‘child abuse’ and ‘sexual misconduct’ that refer to conduct –

–          which would be regarded by right thinking members of the Church in this Diocese as abuse of a Child (or ‘as disgraceful and inconsistent with the standards to be observed by a Christian’ in the case of sexual misconduct).

 “Unacceptable Behaviour” means sexual misconduct or child abuse.

Each definition uses the words ‘Sexual (mis)conduct’. Where actions do not have a sexual element to them, they are innocent. And tying the definition to what ‘right-thinking members of the church’ would think about the behaviour is the Anglican church version of the ‘reasonable man’ test often applied in the law of the land.  That test is a useful yardstick of community standards. As an example, in an area where these have changed with some rapidity is in the area of offensive language. These days bad and rude language (which I will not attempt to reproduce here) is less likely to be the subject of a successful prosecution for offensive language provided that there is no racial abuse element to it. When a highly popular film[20] opens with both characters uttering not once but several times the word usually written ‘f…k’ it is clear that that word has lost its’ capacity to shock and offend in the mainstream community.

Within the church, holding certain behaviour up against the test of Biblical precepts for behaviour (which is what the right-thinking member of the church should be doing) would clearly strike down all sexual behaviour, whether with adult or child, that does not take place within the confines of marriage. Children are protected from marriage at an early age by Federal laws of Australia which are echoed in other countries that have a Christian heritage. So all sexual activity with a child to whom one is not married is repugnant to the right-thinking member of the church as are all activities to bring about such sexual activity, elsewhere called grooming.

So did Professor Albus Dumbledore abuse Harry Potter?

Well, if the definitions in the Ordinances and Code of Conduct, and the motherhood statements in the guidelines are wrongly applied then Professor Dumbledore, that shining example of entirely appropriate behaviour and appropriate love for Harry Potter stands justly accused.

But if the definitions and examples are correctly applied within both the stated purpose and implied purpose, he has done nothing other than to be a great and good mentor and teacher for a young man to enable him to reach full maturity (admittedly at a very young age) with all that is needed for him to take on the task for which he had been marked out since his mother died to protect him and for which he has been trained since the age of 11 – the defeat of evil (for the time being at least).

In Part 3 I will explore this further.

I pose some questions which, in the light of the revelations from the evidence to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, includes: “are those responsible for child protection now focusing on the over-zealous prosecution of false claims to divert public attention from dereliction of duty by some apparently ‘right-thinking members of the church’ (including bishops and archbishops) resulting in real abuse of real victims, firstly, by Anglican church workers and secondly, by the church’s refusal to deal appropriately with them?”

In the light of the abandonment of proper ethical and legal process in past cases as well as a current case in the Sydney professional standards system, I pose another question: “is any innocent person safe from false claims?”

 

For other cases of similar injustice see my articles about ‘The Figtree Affair’ and ‘John’s story’ on www.churchdispute.com. And these are not the only examples.

 

 

 

Post filed under Anglican Church, Drew & Pippa.