To the Editor:

I appreciate Ben Hull’s desire to care for victims of Child Sex Abuse (CSA), expressed in his letter of August 30, 2022. The primary argument it seems he’s making is that a child needs a space where they can share “in absolute confidence” with an adult who will not reveal what they have shared unless the child says it’s ok, seemingly assuming a child knows what’s best for themselves “even if it’s not rational.” However, I am concerned about this argument and other aspects of the letter.

Two thoughts on the argument first.

First, I believe this position treats a child as if they were an adult. This is a situation where a child needs a responsible and objective adult who knows better to step in and work for not only their spiritual well being (as in the cases of clergy), but their emotional and mental well-being (by referring out to properly trained medical practitioners and therapists as needed), as well as their physical well being by reporting to the police. A child may be afraid that they’ll be separated from their parent (for example) but if the parent is the abuser, why would we leave a child in that situation? Children do not often know what is in their best interest.

Second, it is good for a child to have a person they can talk to with some degree of confidentiality. But even our state licensed therapists privy to the most private details of a patient’s life, much like the cleric, recognize there are limits to the “confidence” between a therapist and their underage patient. If a therapist becomes aware of CSA or a child’s intent to harm themselves they are obligated to break the confidence. This is for the health and welfare of not only the child but other potential victims.

My general concern with his letter is that permitting clergy to stay silent allows one victim to become many. We’ve seen how the lack of transparency around CSA in our churches around the world (The Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention, to name two) has led to repeated abuse and increasing numbers of victims, to more pain, and not healing. Clergy silence means parents could unknowingly leave children alone with an abuser. Clergy silence also denies other victims an opportunity to say “me too.”

When Mr. Hull says “we all have a role to play” including “teachers, therapists, physicians, and clergy,” indicating that there is a “broad network of vigilant advocates … watching out for our kids” he seems to imply that eventually someone who is required to act will notice and therefore the cleric is inconsequential. But the mandatory reporting network is not all encompassing and even mandatory reporters can miss a sign. The cleric may be the best person capable of bringing abuse to light, especially if a child is in an environment where they are not exposed on a regular basis to teachers, therapists, and medical personnel who are mandated reporters. In the instance of CSA, it isn’t always evident that abuse has taken place on the exposed body parts of a child. Sometimes their words to a trusted adult in their life is the only chance they have to cry for help.

And finally, while Mr. Hull acknowledges “governmental authorities tasked to investigate potential abuse,” his framework to protect the most vulnerable left out the role New York State has in punishing those who commit crimes. Where is the pursuit of justice for the victims in his framework? Where is the pursuit of legal consequences for perpetrators of abuse? For the Christian, including the Christian cleric, this is a biblical mandate. Forgiveness and Justice are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they must come together in order for true and whole restoration to take place.

Nate Wilbert
Potsdam