This speech was originally written for a low-key gig in a pub in Sydney. The intention (and what happened) was to speak for approximately 15-20 mins then open to questions from the floor. So the point of the speech was to give an overview of the topic as a way of inviting further discussion.


I was a victim of clergy sexual abuse. And what I'd like to do tonight is trace for you how that happened; what sort of a person I was and what my world was like. But more importantly, what sort of a person I became as a result of it, and how much I see my experience as relevant to us all - not just females, not just children, not just parents and not just churchgoers. Because I can hear you saying "of course the church has bastards in it, but I keep away from that, so this isn't relevant to me". But what I want to make clear is that although faith communities have some extra power issues, there are power dynamics everywhere - in politics, in schools, in doctors' surgeries, in sporting clubs. And abuse is possible whenever we omit to teach our children that rank doesn't necessarily merit respect. I don't have any respect for rank, per se; I expect someone who holds rank to prove themselves worthy of it each and every time I meet them. Though of course reserving judgement on respect doesn't negate the need for manners - but I'll say more about that later.


I grew up in the 70s, with flower power and hopes for world peace (how far are we from that?!). And I had one rather rebellious older sister, who even then managed to strive towards being avant garde. But we had conservative parents, we lived in a conservative suburb, and we went to a conservative church. And I was pretty conservative by nature, so that suited me fine. I was quite happy to obey my teachers, believe that people were, in the main, honest and kind, and that you could tell the baddies by the fact they looked unattractive. Wandering alone in the bush could be dangerous; going to church was not. Hanging out with a group of idle teens around the shops after dark would lead to trouble; staying within the boundaries would make you grow up right. And up to that point, nothing in my world had challenged that.


So a lot of the 70s experimentation just passed me by, and the early 1980s found me well-entrenched in a church youth group, believing that the world was black and white and that sex was for marriage. I was ripe to get confirmed - which is when you confirm the promise to live a godly life that was made on your behalf by your godparents at your baptism. So I approached the minister about it. This guy had arrived in the parish only a year or two before, and I didn't much like him at first because he was a bit patronising. But then he started paying me compliments: "you're my favourite kid in the confirmation class". Wow. This dominating, charismatic, powerful person liked me.


And let me digress a little here: I've told you about my world, but not about myself. I said I was conservative, but I haven't yet told you that I felt very alone inside. My parents had quite high standards - of honesty and achievement - and I knew I failed them. Neither of them seemed to understand that I was different, or why. Dad, in particular, always laced his compliments with a sting: "you're so intelligent; it's a pity you don't work harder", or "you're so musical, you could achieve anything if only you practised more." So I was ripe for the kind of morale-boosting compliments the minister handed me. And that, of course, is one of the key factors an abuser homes in on.


While there are some abusers who will abuse anything in sight, most recognise that a degree of subtlety will extend their abusive career significantly. So they begin with a process called grooming. Single out a vulnerable person. Flatter them and make them feel good. For an adult, make them believe they're special to the abuser like no-one before them. For a child, that they're seen as mature by an adult. Begin with a borderline physical move. One that may make the victim feel uncomfortable, but that can be laughed away if any objection is raised. If the victim acquiesces, make gradually more intrusive physical moves. Each one such a small step that the victim is prepared to ignore their discomfort rather than risk offending the person who has made them feel good about themselves. Until at last the physical moves are way beyond the bounds of acceptable, but there has been no point along the way when the victim felt it was a big enough step over the line to justify objecting. And offer just enough gratification for the victim, either physically or emotionally, that they continue to acquiesce, believing it to be a relationship of desire or that they are so enticing that the abuser was overwhelmed by his feelings.


And perhaps this is the point where you as listeners can most clearly imagine just why abuse is an exercise of power rather than sexual desire. Can you step inside the mind of that grooming process for a brief instant and see the kick the abuser gets from playing each step and receiving the predictable response? Apply the right stimulus and you get the corresponding reaction. Abusers play so much a universal game the world over that victims getting together to discuss their abuse often end up saying "what, is there some place they go to do a course called Abuse 101?"


And the more vulnerable the victim is, the easier it is for the abuser, because the victim is already prone to question their own judgement and accept that of the abuser. So even when the victim is unable to reconcile what is happening with the good person they believe the abuser to be, they relinquish their own judgement and accept the abuser's definition of reality. The discovery that a clergyperson can breach their own moral code and perpetrate atrocity on one of their flock is so frightening in its implications that the victim disowns such knowledge and accepts the clergyperson's rationale ("I'm just showing you God's love" or "you're extra special to me"), thereby setting the stage for also accepting the church's ascription of guilt to the victim. After all, if some gut instinct senses that what happens is wrong, and the victim is entrenched in an attitude of servitude and spiritual submission to her male pastor, then she will inevitably reach the conclusion that the sinner is her, not him. When the church endorses this, either from the same perspective or out of a need to preserve the group by scapegoating the expendable member, the victim is abased and silenced. While this is particularly likely in a religious setting, where the abuser's moral stance is part of his power, it applies in any situation where one person is respected by another.


So, getting back to my story. after a period of what might be called softening up, one night when the abuser wasn't leading the service, I went to see him afterwards. We talked, and again I felt special and important. Here was a grown up seeming interested in what I said. And when I moved to hug him goodbye (as all the girls did) he kissed me. And I don't mean a polite peck, I mean a French kiss. And he squeezed my breast for good measure. Now put yourself in my shoes - I was not quite 15yo, never been kissed, never had a boyfriend. And here it was, offered to me on a plate. So I responded - out of intrigue, interest, excitement and a sense of destiny. This is what I'd been waiting for. A boyfriend to love me. During the week following, I wondered if it was just a one-off, or if it would happen again. Perhaps he'd just acted on the spur of the moment and wasn't really interested in a relationship? So I created a list of questions about the bible to ask him the following Sunday in order to have an excuse to stay back till everyone else had gone, and it happened again. So he did want me. And from then on, I made myself available to him, and he took advantage of my willingness. Week by week he taught me to fondle him, and then to give him oral sex. I didn't like that, but I thought if I refused he'd stop loving me, so I did it. And I had no doubt that he would leave his wife and marry me. Because he wouldn't do all that with me if he didn't love me, would he?


But sometimes, over the next months, I couldn't help but wonder how he reconciled this adulterous relationship with what he taught. I didn't understand, so I simply followed his lead. The first time there was communion after it began, I didn't know if I was sinning or not, so I watched him. He took communion, so I did. He preached on "thou shalt not commit adultery" and an hour or more later was committing adultery with me. It went against what my parents had taught, but this was the minister - surely he knew more about what was morally right than my parents.


It took two and a half years before I began to want a relationship I could talk about, and realised that this wasn't going to happen with him. And though I tried to stop it then, it took another 6 months before I was able to stop running to him for love, along with all that he demanded in return.


So what do I wish had been different for me? What do I think would have enabled me to avoid the abuse? Because the reality is that we can't totally protect our children from abusers. What we need to do is enable them to protect themselves, and I believe that means a major shift in what we teach all children. First and foremost, we need to love them unconditionally, because it's only unconditional love that makes a child feel secure in themselves. Secondly, we need to make sure that their rights, and even wants, are respected and heard. Parents need to factor their children's wants into their plans as much as they factor their own. Thirdly, we need to allow our children choice from as early an age as possible - within a safe framework, of course. Making choices in little things empowers them to make bigger choices when they need to. Next, children's gut instinct needs to be heard and respected. How many children say to their parents "I don't want to kiss Uncle Stephen", and simply get told "you have to be polite"? If children are taught that politeness comes ahead of listening to their own feelings of discomfort, then that's exactly what they'll do when an abuser makes a move - be polite. We need to teach that things that go wrong aren't necessarily their fault - otherwise when they feel the wrongness of abuse, they'll automatically assume they caused it. And lastly - and perhaps the most difficult for us - we need to teach them it's ok to correct adults when they're wrong. Politely, of course. It's quite possible, for instance, to teach a child to say "excuse me, Mrs Teacher, I don't think you're right" rather than "you're wrong; ha ha". But a child's sense of right and wrong needs to be encouraged, not ignored. Because only then will children feel empowered to speak out when they think an adult is doing the wrong thing to them. All these things lead to building a sense of self-worth in children, and that's their most powerful defence against any abuser.


At the beginning of this talk I said "I was a victim of clergy sexual abuse". The difference between a victim and a survivor is that a victim is still overcome by what happened. A survivor, on the other hand, has overcome it. So, although the abuse never goes away, and the effects are always with me, because I've learnt to live with it (most of the time J ) I think I can call myself a survivor.




Clare Pascoe


http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org