Over the last few months, reports of sexual abuse by church authorities, particularly from Kerala, have been hogging headlines. One case that drew nation-wide attention was the alleged rape of a nun at a convent near Kottayam in Kerala by Bishop Franco Mulakkal of Missionaries of Jesus, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Jalandhar Roman Catholic church.

Ever since reports of the Bishop having sexually abused the nun surfaced, the church’s role has come under scrutiny. Unfortunately, it has not covered itself with glory, and earlier this week the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council slammed the arrest of Bishop Mulakkal. It termed allegations against him as a conspiracy against the church and denounced protests by a group of nuns demanding his arrest.

Though sexual abuse of nuns or church goers has come out in the open only recently in India, there is no denying the fact that this has been occurring for ages. Only now the abuses are being reported. Here are three incidents that happened in Tamil Nadu and Kerala well before the advent of this century.

At a Roman Catholic school for boys in north Madras, a priest, who was also the principal, sexually abused students in mid-1970s. During a friendly discussion between classmates when the topic of this priest came up, one victim burst out: “He pinched my chest and asked if I have seen my mother’s or sister’s. He asked me if I had seen my dad and mom sleep together...” A couple of former students said the priest had touched their genitals. Students in higher classes put up on the school’s noticeboard “Famous Questions of Father …”, but a peon brought it down within minutes. Certainly, students would have told their parents about this and it could have been reported to the higher-ups. But complaints on the abuses never saw the light of the day.

In the late 1980s, a youth from Kerala had aspired to become a priest. But having witnessed unpalatable things at a seminary in Orissa (now Odisha), he decided not to wear the cassock. The higher officials at the seminary lured him saying he could “enjoy life” despite being a priest, but he put his foot down. Today, that youth is a senior journalist in an international wire agency.

During the 2001-2006 government of Jayalalithaa, a senior police official who was looking after her security was summoned by her secretaries. The official was asked to accompany a nun and priest from Nagercoil so that she could abort the child she got in her clandestine relation with the latter.

It should surprise no one that incidents such as these have been swept under the carpet for years, decades, and, maybe, centuries. Late last month, Roman Catholic Pope Francis was accused of covering up sexual abuses of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, former archbishop of Washington, DC. Carlo Maria Vigano, who held an ambassador-like post as papal nuncio earlier, alleged in an 11-page letter that the current Pope and his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI have covered up the sexual abuses of McCarrick. He even demanded that Pope Francis step down.

What is more shameful about these acts is how the church had stepped up in defence of these abuses, forcing the victims to carry the traumatic experiences of their childhood or youth forever. Some of these children grew up as adults with psychological problems.

A review of the fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury interim report, released in the United States (US) on 28 July this year, is a fair enough indication of how the church has been dealing with sexual abuse cases and protecting its priests. The report said the church had understood that the problem (of sexual abuse) was prevalent but chose to open up only after its authorities were summoned, resulting in half a million pages of documents being prepared. “The abuse was occurring not only by its own people, but on its own property. Children were raped in places of worship, in schools, and in diocesan owned vehicles, and were groomed through diocesan programs and retreats,” the interim report said.

‘Circle Of Secrecy’

Bishops and other church officials were actively involved in the cover-up of these atrocities that Bishop Wuerl of Pittsburgh in the United States called “Circle of Secrecy”. “The bishops weren't just aware of what was going on; they were immersed in it. And they went to great lengths to keep it secret. The secrecy helped spread the disease,” said the interim report.

What was this circle of secrecy? It was a script that involved seven steps on how the diocese should respond to sexual abuse complaints. The seven steps were: use of euphemisms, deficient or biased investigations, treatment provider bias, lack of public disclosure, financial support, transfer rather than removal (of the perpetrator), and insufficient reports to law enforcement agencies.

Use of euphemisms involved terming violent criminal sexual acts or assaults or rape as “inappropriate” contact or “boundary issues”. If a priest was suspended, it was termed “sick leave”, and a permanent removal of services was “leave”.

Deficient or biased investigations were carried out by untrained clergy, and they were given authority to make credibility determinations on those with whom they work or live. These investigators would make determinations asking inadequate questions to help the accused.

Treatment provider bias was done by sending priests for “evaluation” at church-run psychiatric treatment centre. The experts were asked to “diagnose” whether the priest was a violator, based largely on the priest’s “self-reports” and regardless of whether the priest had actually engaged in sexual contact with the victim.

Lack of public disclosure meant that when a priest had to be removed, parishioners would be told that that he is on "sick leave" or suffering from "nervous exhaustion." Sometimes, nothing would be said.

These priests, even if they had raped children, were continuously provided housing and living expenses. The priest could be using these resources for dealing in abuse.

In case the accused’s conduct becomes public, the priest would be transferred to a new location, where no one will know facts about him.

The church ensured that cases and reports of sexual abuse never reached the doors of the local police. The church authorities had to handle these cases as an “in house” issue. The interim report came up with a list of 300 priests who sexually abused children, but the grand jury said there could be more such predators.

“The church's response not only depressed the number of ‘confirmed’ complaints, but discouraged additional victims from reporting, knowing they might be rebuffed or ridiculed,” the report said. True, it pointed out how a victim reported on being sexually abused by one Father Francis “Frank” Fromholzer suffered after she reported the matter to her school principal at Allentown Central Catholic High School under the Roman Catholic Diocese of Allentown. The principal said their discussion had ended, called her father since her mother had separated, and told him that the girl was making up a story. The father, a drunkard, didn’t trust his daughter and began slapping her. The school also took it out on the victim, failing her in her favourite subjects. The victim continued to suffer in her life, marrying twice and divorcing both times.

Confidential reports of such abuses were kept from the authorities and parishioners for long before they were summoned and asked to depose before the grand jury. On its part, the law enforcement agencies gave in to the deference of church authorities. “Whatever the motives for that deference, it left children without their rightful civic watchdogs,” the report said. Thanks to a series of exposés carried by Boston Globe, the world is now fully aware of sexual abuses by Christian priests and authorities.

Unfortunately in India, the predators are being protected while the victims are attacked or ridiculed. Otherwise, why would Kerala independent legislator P C George cast aspersions on the nun in the Mulakkal case? Before that a woman from the Syrian Marthoma Church in Kerala reported how she was sexually abused for nearly a decade by five priests. Such cases are to be handled by state governments, but victims are helpless when the parties in power look at the vote bank rather than justice.

There have been instances when the courts, including the apex court, have taken up cases suo motu. The number of sexual abuse cases that has come to light is far fewer than what is being swept under the carpet. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court should attach more importance to the safety of women and ensure that violence against them is stopped. This needs priority, more than taking up the entry of women into a place of worship.