Part one of a two part article

In the contemporary church ministry of healing, redress for clerical and religious sexual abuse in the Catholic Church of Aotearoa New Zealand/Te Hāhi Katorika ki Aotearoa is provided to victims and survivors through the application of a protocol titled Te Houhanga Rongo—A Path To Healing(APTH).[1] The following critically examines the effectiveness and credibility of APTH in light of testimonies from victims and survivors, advocacy groups, experts, lawyers, and the New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions (the Commission). This paper’s overall purpose is to discern whether New Zealand’s Catholic Church (the Church), through its National Office for Professional Standards (NOPS) set up to coordinate responses to complaints under APTH,[2] is an effective and credible operation.

After identifying the essential criteria of APTH, a critical evaluation ascertains how effectively leaders of the Catholic Church in New Zealand have dealt with complaints of sexual abuse and misconduct perpetrated by Catholic clergy and religious. The evaluation is supported by documentation from victims and survivors across New Zealand, including direct survivor testimony and findings reported in the Commission’s interim report on redress, He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu, From Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui (FRPT) published in December 2021. The challenges faced by victims and survivors when seeking redress from Church authorities are highlighted.

A victim and survivor-centric perspective is followed with a focus on testimony primarily from victims and survivors because they are the primary beneficiaries of the redress. How they have fared under APTH must be the standard to judge the scheme’s effectiveness. Conclusions reached will ascertain whether Catholic Church leaders in New Zealand have successfully fulfilled and are fulfilling their basic obligations under their national redress scheme.

The purpose of this critical analysis lies in the claim made by Church leaders about their redress document: “We see it as a public document that establishes public criteria according to which the community may judge the resolve of church leaders to address the issues fairly and compassionately.”[3] It is now time to judge that resolve.

Core APTH Criteria

APTH apprises the local Catholic Church’s redress scheme by establishing the principles and procedures to manage complaints of sexual abuse and wrongdoing against clergy and religious in the Catholic Church of New Zealand. Church leaders in New Zealand have declared APTH to be “credible only to the extent that its provisions are put into effect and are seen to address the issue of sexual abuse in the Church effectively and with real compassion.”[4] Therefore, how the ordinary application of APTH has fared against its own criteria is important to assess.

Since APTH has claimed from the outset to be “a public document that establishes public criteria according to which the community may judge the resolve of church leaders to address the issues fairly and compassionately,”[5] its activities must be subject to public scrutiny. Those activities must be open and transparent to the public. The role of transparency in any well-functioning organisation is obvious. It must normally be possible for the public to know what the organisation’s leaders do when they fulfil their roles.

APTH has undergone two major revisions since its inception. Church leaders claim to have adopted the 2007 version in 1993.[6] However, there is no evidence that Catholic dioceses or religious institutes across New Zealand collectively agreed to any national policy prior to 1998.[7] The longstanding version of APTH under which most complainants to date experienced redress is the 2007 edition, with amendments in 2010. Unless stated otherwise, the references to APTH in this paper cite the 2007 version because it was under that version and its application that most survivors underwent the APTH process. This edition was revised in February 2020. However, the latest version has not changed the effect or impact on victims and survivors regarding the outcomes of their complaints.[8]

APTH claimed to provide “a basic framework to deal with complaints of sexual abuse.”[9] It stated that “all members of the Church should be aware of this document and of the availability of prompt and effective assistance to deal with any complaint of sexual abuse.”[10] Presumably, a central part of any healing process would be the full and unqualified implementation of the principles and procedures set out in the respective redress protocol so that victims and survivors would benefit from that redress.

The foreword to the 2007 version of APTH states on behalf of the Catholic Bishops and Congregational Leaders that “It is our sincere hope that the processes outlined in Te Houhanga Rongo – A Path to Healing will enable swift and compassionate responses to allegations of sexual abuse.” Part One states, “A compassionate response to the complainant must be the first priority in all cases of abuse.”[11] Similarly, the 2020 version states: “It is our sincere hope that the processes outlined in Te Houhanga Rongo - A Path to Healing will enable compassionate responses to allegations of sexual abuse or sexual misconduct and assist the Church to live out more authentically Jesus’ care for children and all people.”[12] The document’s first principle is the provision of a compassionate response: “PRINCIPLE 1: Looking after people: Our first priority is a compassionate response to a Complainant.”[13]

The first section of the 2007 document outlined the principles that form the basis of the Church’s redress. It asserted that “the Catholic Church’s response to sexual abuse by clergy and religious must be founded on an acknowledgement of the wrong which has been done to those who have suffered from the abuse.”[14] In a similar manner, section 1.1 stated that the Church’s response:

[...] must be informed by an understanding of the hurt which such abuse imposes and of the long-term harm it may cause. It must also be characterised by compassion and a recognition that the Church community must do whatever it can towards healing the hurt and repairing the harm.[15]

This claim was reiterated in the 2020 version: “Our first priority is a compassionate response to a Complainant where sexual abuse or sexual misconduct is alleged. Complaints against clerics and religious will be taken seriously. The Complainant will be heard sympathetically and sensitively.”[16] Section 4.4 repeated that “a compassionate response to the complainant must be the first priority.”[17] Additionally, APTH 2007 stated that “Church authorities will ensure that the victims are given the assistance demanded by justice and compassion.”[18] Again, these sentiments are echoed in the 2020 version.[19]

The second part of APTH 2007 concerned procedures for handling complaints of sexual abuse. It asserted that such procedures were “to be implemented in the context of the previous section on principles.”[20] In the concluding paragraph, APTH stated “the problem of sexual abuse is not a problem which belongs simply to the bishops and congregational leaders. It is a problem which confronts the whole church community, and which must be addressed in a sensitive and effective manner.”[21] APTH further stated that Catholic Bishops and Congregational Leaders

accept that the community expects of us a serious and ongoing role in seeking to ensure that offenders are held accountable for what they have done, come to a true appreciation of the enduring harm they have caused, seek professional help in overcoming their problems, and do whatever is in their power to make amends.[22]

Pertinent questions are, therefore, now open to the public based on victim and survivor testimony which, as church leaders have admitted, must apprise the effectiveness of APTH and confirm if healing is being achieved. As church leaders stated: “If we do not act according to the principles of this document and follow procedures founded on these principles, we shall have failed according to our own criteria.”[23]

A question to ask is whether APTH’s principles and procedures have been followed according to its criteria when complaints were referred. Such a fundamental question can be answered based on testimony submitted by victims and survivors at the Commission’s Faith-based Redress Hearings—Phases 1 and 2.[24]

Conclusions drawn from the Commission’s received data reflect physical, sexual, and emotional abuse perpetrated against children, young people, and vulnerable adults in New Zealand’s Catholic Church.[25] However, APTH deals with sexual abuse only whereas the Commission’s definition of abuse is wider than APTH. Nevertheless, the scope of APTH is included in the Commission’s terms of reference. Further, the majority of abuse cases in the Catholic Church reported to the Commission are from adults who were sexually abused under the age of eighteen at the time of abuse. In other words, they were minors. It is all cases of sexual abuse by clergy and religious of the Catholic Church in New Zealand attested to at the Commission’s redress hearings Phases 1 and 2 that are relevant here.

Based on the evidence and by APTH’s own criteria, the public is now expected to judge whether church leaders have addressed the issues “with fairness and compassion” as they assured to do.[26]

Survivor Redress Testimony

At the Commission’s Faith-based Redress hearing - Phase 2, victims and survivors and their families and supporters watched and listened in dismay as church witnesses and Counsel provided their evidence. The dismay was a result of the fact that such testimony was patently contradicting the testimonies from victims and survivors and the spokespersons of their support networks. Assisting counsel for the Commission challenged church witnesses to prove they were complying with their professional standards. During the Closing Statements, counsel for the Church was interjected by Judge Coral Shaw, Chair of the Commission, who directly challenged the claims Church Counsel was making that “pastoral support is often provided.”[27] Shaw read directly from the Closing Statement of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests(SNAP) in Aotearoa New Zealand to counter what was being said. She said:

I think it’s only fair I raise a couple of issues [survivors] raised to give you an opportunity to comment on behalf of the church. Just talking about pastoral care, the closing statement of the Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests, that’s SNAP, which questions whether the NOPS redress scheme is a healing process.
It’s referred to as a misnomer, our members have described A Path to Healing as an inquisition feeling they were the ones being put on trial. That Ms Noonan spoke confidently about survivors coming with them—that’s the Catholic Church—on their individual healing journeys and the suggestion is that once trust has been lost by abuse and further betrayal it's misguided to assume it can be so easily regained. …
Then finally it said that Ms Noonan claimed that survivors are offered support throughout the NOPS process, none can remember it. “From our expectations the NOPS process was never about us or our healing, it was about protecting the institution.”[28]

According to consistent and unanimous testimony of victims and survivors of abuse, for example, from the survivors networks present and other testimony from experts in the field such as Desmond Cahill and Peter Wilkinson of RMIT University’s School of Global, Urban and Social Studies,[29] amongst others, along with independent survivor testimony presented at Phases 1 and 2 of the Faith-based Redress Hearing, and the Commission’s ’s interim report, the APTH policy promoted by New Zealand’s Catholic Bishops and Congregational Leaders manifested its operation as a sequence of denial, deceit, evasion, secrecy, and cover-up.[30] During the Commission’s Faith-Based Redress Inquiry Hearing March 2021, survivors rejected the claims made by NOPS Director Virginia Noonan that the Catholic Church’s A Path to Healing was a fair and compassionate process: “Our universal experience indicates that NOPS conducts an adversarial investigatory process and that survivors have no say over this process or its outcomes that affect our lives.”[31]

The Witness Statement of SNAP Aotearoa delivered to the Commission during Phase 2 Faith-based Redress Hearing mentioned how victims and survivors had found little or no consolation or justice in pursuing their cases through NOPS.[32] It stated that its members were re-traumatised, re-victimised and isolated by the Church’s redress process. As reported in the survivors’ Opening Statement, survivors noted that they had not only suffered historical abuse but many were still suffering abuse today due to “factors such as secrecy, silencing, delay, denial, defend, along with socially unhealthy doctrinal teachings and practices, institutional preservation and asset protection over and above mission and morality, juridical and hierarchical structures, elitist minimisation, and above all, clericalism and religious privilege.”[33] FRPT also noted that “many survivors” who approached the organisations in which they were abused found the interaction “distressing or traumatising.”[34]

In her doctoral dissertation, “‘The Gremlin of Silence’: Exploring the New Zealand Catholic, Methodist, and Presbyterian Institutional Responses to Interpersonal Violence,” Michelle Egan-Bitran found that the Catholic institutional culture and focus “has not prioritised victims, rather it has often implicitly and explicitly silenced victims and discussions on interpersonal violence.”[35] Citing the Commission’s 2020 and 2021 findings, Egan-Bitran noted how “indifference to victim’s suffering” by church authorities was evident in survivor accounts of abuse.[36] She also noted how this indifference was contrary to the principles of Catholic Social Teaching as outlined by the NZCBC, in particular, the preferential protection for the poor and vulnerable: “Our Catholic tradition instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first. The good of society as a whole requires it. It is especially important we look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.[37]

The Commission’s Interim Report concluded that as a result of no annual audit of NOPS’s work, as was required by its own professional standards in order to ensure consistency of approach and adherence to the principles of APTH, consequently, “there is no information about whether the church’s system that is responsible for the national response of Catholic Church authorities to reports of sexual abuse is working as intended.”[38] Lawyer Sonja Cooper, Principal of Cooper Legal and assisting counsel for several survivors associated with abuse in the New Zealand Catholic Church, explained how victims and survivors suffered further harm on account of having sought church redress.[39] According to Cooper, NOPS investigation practices are questionable. For example, as reported in FRPT, an investigator for NOPS did the following:

Sought a survivor’s criminal records, suggesting a starting point of disbelief;
Inappropriately disclosed information to a survivor’s family members for corroboration purposes;
Risked re-traumatising a survivor because their lines of inquiry went beyond what was reasonable, and also because more investigators have become involved and seek further interviews with the survivor.[40]

Further, Cooper reported how the Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC) set up to review reports of sexual abuse received by or passed to NOPS was supposed to reach a conclusion on “the balance of probabilities.” However, in reality it applied a criminal standard of proof, namely “beyond reasonable doubt.”[41] Similarly, survivors testified that rather than resolve complaints, NOPS routinely dissolved them in the APTH process using burdens of proof so high that it was not possible to obtain redress. As reported in the SNAP Closing Statement, “SNAP has experienced that this has led to a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ burden of proof being applied to our members [sic] complaints, rather than the correct ‘balance of probabilities’ standard, with consequences of justice being further denied.”[42] At the Commission’s Faith-based Redress Hearing, several examples were given of disillusioned survivors who regretted having taken the APTH avenue to seek redress. One survivor likened APTH to “a fishing net that trawls for complaints before they reach the media and the police.”[43] Another survivor claimed this redress system was only a public-relations exercise to make the public think that Catholic Bishops and Congregational Leaders were addressing the issue of clerical and religious sexual abuse in the Church, and providing justice for their victims and survivors when in effect they were not.[44]

SNAP’s Closing Statement to the Commission during the Phase 2 Faith-based Redress Hearing claimed that APTH had proven to be a pathway to further pain, isolating victims and survivors, cutting them off from their fellow survivors, often with the offer of minimal intervention and inadequate ex-gratia payments.[45] As referenced already, survivors described APTH as “an inquisition, feeling they were the ones being put on trial.”[46] Again, the survivor’s testimony concluded that “to call the NOPS redress a healing process is a misnomer.”[47]

Cooper listed the following as some of the causes: The process was adversarial, highly stressful, and that it took years; survivors felt totally overwhelmed and were therefore unable to properly engage and tell their stories; the people involved, including investigators appointed by NOPS, lacked compassion and seemed to have little or no understanding of trauma; the unique needs of survivors and their emotional support and counselling were absent; so-called “independent” investigators were contracted by the Church and on the Church’s payroll.[48] The additional harm caused by an institution after recourse for redress from the responsible institution as reported here is known as double abuse.[49]

Witness Statement WITN0377001 testified for the New Zealand public that APTH redress processes have caused further harm to survivors and re-traumatised them. “Our members have reported that principles and procedures laid out in protocols such as APTH, created for responding to complaints by victims and survivors of sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy and religious of the Catholic Church in New Zealand, have not been properly observed.”[50] Similarly, an Interim Review from the Network of Survivors of Abuse in Faith-based Care (NSAFC) of the history and incidence of offending by Catholic Church leaders in New Zealand reported, “The Path to Healing has proven to be a Path to Pain, isolating victim survivors and cutting them off from their fellow victim survivors, often with the offer of minimal intervention and pathetic ex-gratia payments. The Network has numerous examples of disillusioned members who regret taking this avenue to seek redress.”[51] NSAFC’s report also mentioned how survivors had met with church leaders for redress. However, those leaders “continued to act in bad faith, to obstruct, prevaricate, mislead and lie in face-to-face contacts and in other interactions.”[52] The report also stated that promises were “routinely broken and ignored in a cynical, premeditated, shameless and callous manner.”[53] Victims and survivors who sought redress through APTH spoke unanimously of the harm they suffered from their treatment by NOPS officials. Survivors reported:

- “Initially they [NOPS officials] acted kind, but then they ignored the promises made to ‘investigate’ my allegations”;

- “I expected Catholic officials to be adamant in their promises to respond fairly and with compassion, though the response [from NOPS] demonstrates another reality”;

- “The [church redress protocol] gives the public appearance of a responsible redress scheme, but its principles and processes are not followed and therefore not applied in concrete cases”;

- “Frequently, officials wanted us to tell all the ‘details’ and in some cases, and then later tried to use those statements as evidence against us”;

- “Sometimes it was suggested that we were bad for even saying such a thing, that somehow it was our fault”;

- “While [APTH] promises an honest and compassionate response, instead [NOPS] was used to cover up abuse complaints through the guise of a well-crafted redress process.”[54]

According to records submitted to the Royal Commission, after undertaking the APTH process, credible survivor complaints have not been upheld on a balance of probabilities.[55] At the end of the APTH process survivors received letters from the relevant Church authorities – the bishop or congregational leader,[56] stating:

“I write to inform you that after carefully considering the report and supporting material, my view of the evidence accords with that of the Committee and I therefore accept the Committee’s recommendation that the complaint is not able to be upheld.”

John Cardinal Dew, Church Authority for Archdiocese of Wellington

“The Committee considered each aspect of your complaint and the relevant evidence in respect of those and concluded that the complaint was not proven.”

John Cardinal Dew, Church Authority for Archdiocese of Wellington.

“On the information available provided by investigation consultants Ltd, the CAC found the complaint not proven on the balance of probabilities and the committee has not recommended upholding your complaint.”

John Cardinal Dew, Church Authority for Archdiocese of Wellington.

“The requisite standard of proof in relation to the alleged abuse while resident at [the home] has not been achieved.”

John Cardinal Dew, Church Authority for Archdiocese of Wellington.

“they found your complaint relating to your time at [the home] and again at [the camp] was not proven on the balance of probabilities and the committee has not recommended upholding your complaint.”

John Cardinal Dew, Church Authority for Archdiocese of Wellington.

“The Complaints Assessment Committee considered your complaint and supporting documentation, and came to the recommendation that, on the balance of probabilities, the complaint could not be upheld.”

Monsignor Brian Walsh, Church Authority for Diocese of Palmerston North.

“After reviewing the complaint material, I accept the Committee’s recommendation. So, your complaint has not been upheld.”

Monsignor Brian Walsh, Church Authority for Diocese of Palmerston North.[57]

However, the letters did not indicate the criteria needed for a balance of probabilities. Nor did they provide proof that the relative evidence was obtained. More alarming may be the fact that the church authorities above arbitrating on complaints to the detriment of survivors are themselves accused of serious sexual violations against children.[58] An Open Letter to Pope Francis dated 7 June 2023 from survivors asked, “How can it be anything but self-evident that the accused may not sit as arbitrators of justice in a process in which they are accused?”[59] Further, the members of the Committee referred to in these letters are unknown to the public.

In the case of John Dew’s letters, in response to being asked at the Commission’s Faith-Based Redress Inquiry Hearing in March 2021 about the processes for ensuring survivors felt that they were being believed, the cardinal stated how he hoped survivors would be believed. When approached by the media for details on the number of complaints received and how many were upheld, the NOPS director Virginia Noonan replied, “Analysis of this information has not been made public previously, however this is a matter which the National Safeguarding & Professional Standards Committee will be considering in the future.”[60]

As a consequence, not only is it not possible for healing to occur in a process that does not acknowledge wrongdoing in concrete cases of abuse, or operates non-transparently, but danger results for all members of the institution when justice is withheld because “when there is no admission of wrongdoing, then there is no justice, and when there is no justice, then no one is safe.”[61] As a consequence, rather than being a mechanism for healing, APTH appears to have been used to conceal and dissolve complaints without acknowledging the harm done.[62]

To substantiate this claim, survivors and their support groups have testified to how those who undertook redress reported feeling worse afterwards, and suffered further emotional and psychological harm.[63] Some survivors reported that the redress process was actually “worse than their initial abuse.”[64] Complaint cases were routinely stalled, or diverted or left unresolved as principles and procedures expected to form the basis of redress were not followed.[65] Some cases appear to have been simply abandoned by NOPS staff as requests for response remain indeterminately disregarded. Requests from complainants to see final investigation reports and to know who sat on committees weighing up evidence have been continuously denied.[66]

Complaints were also devoid of adequate investigative process. Information provided by survivors was ignored. Witnesses nominated by survivors were not contacted and testimonies from persons of interest were never gathered. During NOPS reviews of investigations, material evidence later introduced by complainants has been ignored, as later determined. Other evidence was still not gathered. Nominated witnesses were still not contacted.[67] Some cases under review since February 2019 have since received further evidence from other witnesses. However, the NOPS appointed independent investigators have not acted.

Concerns about NOPS controlling the scope of investigations and not allowing investigators to follow the evidence have been raised.[68] External reviews of cases not upheld by the relevant Church authorities have identified “other areas” in NOPS’s investigative processes that were not investigated.[69] Those reviews have recommended that complaint documentation from initial investigations be referred to other investigators for further clarification.[70] For example, the review report of Barrister Michael Lennard, dated 2 October 2020, regarding NOPS file 11/2017 concerning child sexual abuse perpetrated by a Marist Brother, stated:

The procedures in APTH have not been carried out adequately or at all in respect of the second and third complaints in that:

1. They have not been properly (or at all) investigated:

a. No interview of the Complainant at least in relation to the third complaint. NOPS was aware that the Complainant had made a further statement to the Police, this was not followed up by requesting that statement or asking the Complainant to repeat that statement to the investigator. The second complaint does not seem to have been put to [the accused] and his response elicited, the third complaint certainly was not. Neither the second nor third complaints were put before CAC.[71]

Therefore, it has been discovered that fair review of process promised in APTH has been denied in practice.[72] As at the time of writing this paper, nearly three years after Lennard’s report was written, this case remains unresolved.

Another example is a review report dated 8 February 2021 completed by Christchurch law firm Cavell Leitch in reference to NOPS files 12/2017 and 25/2018 concerning sexual molestation by a priest of the Catholic Diocese of Palmerston North, and the cover up of that abuse by the then Bishop of Palmerston North. The report stated:

46. At this stage we recommend that complaint documentation and this letter be referred to the investigator for further clarification, or to a further investigator to carry out and report on the remaining areas identified. After this we suggest that the updated report should be referred to the Complaints Assessment Committee for consideration.

47. Whilst many of these matters may be capable of being addressed fairly quickly, until these uncertainties are resolved we cannot conclusively recommend that no further action is required. Instead, further investigation appears warranted.[73]

Over two and a half years later, both of these cases remain unresolved.

Further, it has been reported that NOPS failed to advise and provide copies of letters to complainants. It was also reported how the NOPS director was misleading in the information she was sharing with survivors, provided to her by her staff.[74] At the Faith-based Redress Hearing, Ms Noonan was not able to describe APTH as either a listening or counselling service.[75] Also reported, that processes were secretive, and survivors had no input or control over those processes.[76] Repeated requests made to NOPS and to the National Safeguarding & Professional Standards Committee that oversees NOPS to uphold the criterion of APTH have been ignored.[77] More concerning may be the fact that NOPS has withheld its findings on sex abuse claims[78] and on the number of complaints it has upheld.[79]

In the Commission’s interim report on redress, several deficiencies in the Catholic Church’s national redress process were noted, namely, the failure to properly investigate,[80] failure to honour commitments to Māori,[81] and failure to make investigative reports available to survivors.[82] The Commission also reported that, “There has been no systemic process to engage survivors in the design or reform of the response process. There has not been any systematic attempt to seek feedback from those people who report sexual abuse about what is working, or not, from their perspective or involve them in the design or reform of the response process.”[83] The same Interim Report concluded that “there is no information about whether the church’s system that is responsible for the national response of Catholic Church authorities to reports of sexual abuse is working as intended.”[84]

While the Counsel representing the Church at the Commission’s Phase 2 Faith-based Redress hearing claimed some complainants found the Church’s response helpful, no evidence was provided.[85] Even after a request was made to NOPS for redacted copies of alleged letters or acknowledgements of gratitude from survivors who had undertaken the redress process to verify the Counsel’s statements, the request was denied “due to the sensitivity of all of our correspondence with survivors.”[86] Instead, NOPS director Virginia Noonan told the correspondent to cite other unverified comments made by herself. As noted, one of the most conspicuous revelations at the hearing was how much survivor testimonies were contradicted by unsubstantiated statements from Ms Noonan’s testimony. Therefore, the survivors’ closing statement on redress concluded that NOPS and the APTH redress processes were “not fit for purpose.”[87] According to survivors, NOPS personnel have been responsible for multiple failures to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse. The healing of sexually abused church members is, therefore, not being achieved.

In a Formal Presentation to the Commission,Cahill and Wilkinson criticised APTH as failing to centre on the most vulnerable, on children: “It reads as more focused on adult victims though the later National Safeguarding Guidelines are more child centred. The overall policy is very diocesan-centred and follows an inhouse process.”[88] From a survivor’s view, the protection of the institution and not the healing of victims has been the overriding goal.

Part two of the article will be found here: https://hail.to/app/laidlaw-college/article/view/j9Bq7cX

[1] Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Houhanga Rongo: A PATH TO HEALING (APTH). Edition 2007 with amendments as of 2010, and edition 2020.

[2] National Office for Professional Standards (NOPS), Safeguarding Diagram, 2018, https://safeguarding.catholic.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Standards-diagram-Oct-2018.pdf.

[3] APTH, intro.

[4] APTH, intro.

[5] APTH, intro.

[6] APTH, intro.

[7] Interim Report of the New Zealand Royal Commission on Redress, He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu, From Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui (FRPT), 2021, vol. 1.

[8] Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), Opening Statement, 2020, Closing Statement, 2020, and RC, Faith-based redress hearing—Phase 1, November/December 2020.

[9] APTH, 2007, II.11.2.

[10] APTH, 2007, II.11.2.

[11] APTH, I.2.

[12] APTH, 2020, 1.

[13] APTH, 2020, 2

[14] APTH, I.

[15] APTH, I.1.

[16] APTH, 2020, 2.

[17] APTH, II.4.4.

[18] APTH, I.4.

[19] APTH, 2020, 1 & 2 at principle 1 [b] & [c].

[20] APTH, II.1.1.

[21] APTH, II.11.1.

[22] APTH, I.3.

[23] APTH, intro.

[24] New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions (RC), Faith-based redress hearing – Phase 1, November/December 2020; RC, Faith-based redress hearing—Phase 2, March 2021; and SNAP, Opening Statement, 2020 & Closing Statement, 2020.

[25] The RC communicates its Terms of Reference on its website. See RC, Terms of Reference, 2018, https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/library/v/3/terms-of-reference.

[26] APTH, intro.

[27] RC, Faith-Based Redress Inquiry Hearing, Transcript of Closing Statements, 930:19–20.

[28] RC, Faith-Based Redress Inquiry Hearing, Transcript of Closing Statements, 930:32–24 and 931:1–11.

[29] Cahill, D. and Wilkinson, P., “Formal Presentation to New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions.” Melbourne: RMIT University School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, 2019, https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Public-Hearings/Contextual/28.-Peter-Wilkinson-and-Des-Cahill.pdf.

[30] RC, Faith-based redress hearing—Phase 1, November/December 2020, and Phase 2, March 2021; SNAP, Opening Statement 2020, and Closing Statement, 2020.

[31] RC, Faith-Based Redress Inquiry Hearing, Transcript of Closing Statements, 29 March 2021, 952:21–24.

[32] SNAP, Witness Statement of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests in Aotearoa New Zealand for the Faith-based Redress Hearing WITN0377001, 2021.

[33] SNAP, Opening Statement, 2020.

[34] FRPT, 2021, 276.

[35] Michelle Egan-Bitran, “‘The Gremlin of Silence’: Exploring the New Zealand Catholic, Methodist, and Presbyterian Institutional Responses to Interpersonal Violence” (PhD in Social Work, The University of Auckland, New Zealand, 2022), ch.5.

[36] Egan-Bitran, “The Gremlin of Silence,” 111.

[37] New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference, 2021. Principles, https://www.catholic.org.nz/socialaction/principles/#section_117. See also Egan-Bitran, “The Gremlin of Silence,” ch.5.

[38] FRPT, 2021, https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/our-progress/reports/from-redress-to-puretumu/from-redress-to-puretumu-4/1-1-introduction-9/1-1-introduction-2/

[39] FRPT, 2021, 175 and SNAP, Opening Statement, 2020, 16.

[40] FRPT, 2021, vol. 1, 175.

[41] FRPT, 2021, vol. 1, 175.

[42] SNAP, Closing Statement, 2020.

[43] M. Hall, “Victims’ advocate loses faith in an ‘incapable’ Church body,” RNZ, 26 October 2018, https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/369544/victims-advocate-loses-faith-in-an-incapable-church-body.

[44] Hall, 2018.

[45] SNAP, Closing Statement, 2020, 23.

[46] RC, Faith-Based Redress Inquiry Hearing, Transcript of Closing Statements, 29 March 2021, 953: 27–28.

[47] RC, Faith-Based Redress Inquiry Hearing, Transcript of Closing Statements, 29 March 2021, 953: 26.

[48] SNAP, Opening Statement, 2020, 16, and FRPT, vol. 1, 175.

[49] MEND Project. The Systemic Layers of Institutional Abuse, https://themendproject.com/institutional-abuse/.

[50] SNAP, Witness Statement WITN0377001, 2021, 33.

[51] NSAFC, 2018.

[52] NSAFC, 2018.

[53] NSAFC, 2018.

[54] SNAP, Witness Statement WITN0377001, 2021, 36.

[55] See A, McRae, “Complaints not upheld, redress process kept secret, says church-based abuse advocate.” RNZ, 25 March 2023, https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/486704/complaints-not-upheld-redress-process-kept-secret-says-church-based-abuse-advocate.

[56] See NOPS, Safeguarding Diagram, 2018.

[57] RC Witness Statement WITN0237001 exhibits WITN0237011 and WITN0237012, and private records of SNAP.

[58] See RC Witness Statement WITN1598001 and NOPS report 5 May 2023. See also New Zealand Police File 230315/4927.

[59] SNAP, Second Open Letter to Pope Francis, 7 June 2023, https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK2306/S00145/2nd-open-letter-to-pope-francis-from-survivors-of-clergy-religious-child-sexual-abuse-in-the-nz-catholic-church.htm.

[60] McRae, 2023.

[61] Longhurst, “Safeguarding People before Institutions.”

[62] M. Epsom, “Covering up the coverups,” The Gisborne Herald, 2 October 2021.

[63] RC, Faith-based redress hearing – Phase 1, November/December 2020.

[64] SNAP, Opening Statement, 2020, 35.

[65] SNAP, RC Witness Statement WITN0377001, 2021.

[66] See RC Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, evidence given on 17 October 2022, https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/our-inquiries/faith-based-institutions-response-hearing/

[67] RC Witness Statement WITN0377001.

[68] This detail was reported to the author by a Royal Commission investigator into the Catholic Church and is expected to be documented in the Commission’s Final Report due out by March 28, 2024.

[69] Private files of the author. Copy available upon request.

[70] See exhibit WITN0237021of RC Witness Statement WITN0237001.

[71] Exhibit WITN0237021 of RC Witness Statement WITN0237001.

[72] WITN0377001.

[73] Private files of the author. Copy available upon request.

[74] WITN0377001.

[75] RC, Faith-based redress hearing—Phase 2, March 2021.

[76] WITN0377001.

[77] SNAP, Closing Statement, 2020; RC Witness Statement WITN0377001; RC, Faith-based redress hearing – Phase 1, November/December 2020.

[78] P. Pennington, “NZ Catholic Church withholds findings on sex abuse claims, RNZ, 2 October 2018, https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/367733/nz-catholic-church-withholds-findings-on-sex-abuse-claims.

[79] McRae, 2023.

[80] FRPT, 130.

[81] FRPT, 173.

[82] FRPT, 175.

[83] FRPT, 177.

[84] FRPT, 177.

[85] S. McKechnie, Closing Statement of Church Counsel, New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions, 2021, 931:21–27, https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Transcript-of-closing-statements-from-Faith-based-Redress-Hearing-29-March.pdf.

[86] V. Noonan, Email, 2021.

[87] SNAP, Closing Statement, 2020, 28.

[88] Cahill and Wilkinson, Formal Presentation, 2019.