Dear readers
I have given you four articles examining the proposal that Synod members in Sydney diocese will be asked to vote into ‘law’ the creation of a new ‘offence’ that is called ‘inappropriate pastoral conduct with a child’ with the explanation that the test of whether the pastoral conduct is inappropriate will be the standards and guidelines contained in Faithfulness in Service. The explanatory notes say that this ‘offence’ is necessary in the case where there is insufficient evidence that a course of conduct was intentionally to initiate or cloak child sex abuse.
I have examined these standards and guidelines in FIS and the problems and injustice that introducing such an ‘offence’ will bring down on the hapless innocent person.
In Part 4 I summarise my conclusions. I recommend to those who are reading this before going into Synod that you reject this proposal as it is too riddled with injustice for a church organisation to be associated with. After all, the Lord God is a God of justice and truth and the church must demonstrate this in all its’ dealings.
I have linked this proposal with Drew’s case which is heading for a hearing before the disciplinary tribunal. As you will read in other articles and posts by me and by Drew and Pippa in this case the director PSU at first falsely accused Drew of child sex abuse and grooming where there was NO complaint or evidence of sexual intent or sexual activity. This drove Drew to the brink of suicide because the main complainant was a man now aged in his late 20’s who Drew had mentored and nurtured into Christian ministry, a man who Drew believed was a friend. It was only the vigilance and devotion of Drew’s wife Pippa that prevented this catastrophic result.
This complaint was made 4 years after the man had left the parish and 3 years after Drew and Pippa went to his wedding and prayed over the couple for God’ blessings on their married life.
The charges do not make any reference to child sex abuse or grooming: what the PSU will have to prove is that the conduct complained of was ‘disgraceful’ if performed by a youth minister AND which caused, or if the facts were known, would cause, a scandal and evil report. And here they have struck a snag: not only has the complainant admitted to a third person that he never did ever suspect Drew of a sexual intent in his conduct and nor was there a sexual element to it, but what Drew is ‘accused’ of doing was known and did not cause a scandal or evil report. So it is all a train-wreck, for which the director PSU has to take a large portion of responsibility. But the consequences to Drew and Pippa and their family of four children has been diabolical.
Even if Drew is cleared at the hearing, he will have suffered deprivation of employment that had been offered and accepted and then withdrawn. He will have amassed a huge bill for legal costs. He certainly has grounds to take advice about defamation proceedings. Your money (those of you who are Sydney Anglicans) will again be thrown away instead of supporting the true mission of the church.
So it is not sheer paranoia to think that this new ‘offence’, if it passes Synod will be added to an amended set of charges; that it will be applied retrospectively and that a lot of work done to date to meet the charges as they stand will be thrown away by the amendment to the charges. The diocese can be ordered to pay these, but they only pay at an insignificant rate which would leave Drew still deeply out of pocket.
And the charges couched in terms of the new ‘offence’ should still be thrown out by the tribunal, with the accumulation of even more debt for legal costs for Drew and the Diocese. After all, what has been complained about is conduct that is totally lawful, not sinful and not harmful: it was at the time (2002 – 2004) under the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Clergy 1998, as much as under the provisions of FIS if they are properly interpreted as guidelines only and not proscriptive, and the director PSU is not given carte blanche to make it up as he goes along.
This family have suffered out of all proportion. Drew’s work in ministry mentoring and nurturing young Christians through the stormy years of adolescence to bring them into full adulthood both in life and in Christ has been besmirched by this complaint without there being a sound basis for the complaint.
This should not be allowed to go on to further persecution of this family as the PSU casts around wildly for some way, any way, to try to make something stick, to justify the catastrophic way in which it has handled things so far.
May God bless you
Louise