About Child Sex Abuse

• The problem of sexual abuse
• The Anglican Church's Inquiry
• Articles

There has been controversy (as illustrated by some sample articles) over several child abuse cases in  institutions established in Queensland by the Anglican church and the way in which these were managed by the Brisbane Diocese Office at the time when Peter Hollingworth, who subsequently became Australia's Governor General, was Archbishop of Brisbane.

Some speculations about this matter are presented below.

In Summary: It will be suggested that, rather than focusing on particular institutions and individuals who have been unable to manage the problem of child abuse, the most important question should be why sexual abuse of children has now emerged as a very widespread problem in the first place.

For example, it may be the case that:

• the biggest problem of sexual abuse arises, not in institutions, but in families - where it is associated with the breakdown of traditional family relationships (ie of those in which children live with their biological father);
• many social dysfunctions (including family breakdown and child sexual abuse) may now be resulting from the extremes that can arise when individuals are encouraged to set their own behavioural norms;
• widespread child sex abuse has to be eliminated - presumably by renewing individual morality and family relationships. It seems unacceptable to simply live with widespread abuse - and impossible to correct it through legal and government machinery;
• for over 1000 years interpersonal relationships have been based on a deeply-ingrained ideal of self-denial / putting-others-first (derived from Christ-ian traditions), and this has provided the foundation on which Australia's system of law and government has evolved. The foundation now needs urgent repairs as individual liberty is a key factor in the strength of societies such as Australia's, but may not remain socially or politically tolerable if moral interpersonal relationships are not ensured by religion independently of the state;
• the information in the public domain about the Anglican Diocese in Brisbane does not allow a balanced assessment of the problems it had in managing child sex abuse cases.

Brisbane's Anglican Archbishop commissioned an inquiry but unfortunately its terms of reference  were too narrow to seriously address the problem of child sex abuse or to take account of the effect of general dysfunctions in the Anglican Church. Moreover the Queensland and Federal governments failed to establish a broader inquiry as the Archbishop had requested.

The inquiry generated a 'witch-hunt' that led to risks to Australia's system of government related to politicizing the Governor General's role - as an ally or opponent of democratically elected government.

• The problem
• A moral deficit?
• Dysfunctional solutions
• Preventative strategies
• Getting at the core of the problem
• The Anglican context

CPDS Comments on the Background to Sexual Abuse

The Problem

There is nothing new about child sex abuse [1]. What appears to be new is that such practices have become widespread as the breakdown of natural families has caused many more children to live with adults who are not their biological parents.

"An estimated 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 7 boys in Australia have been sexually abused before the age of sixteen! Most are abused by family members or others in a position of trust, many of them pillars of the community. Less than 1% of perpetrators are ever convicted of the abuse that is reported. Only 8% of abuse is reported. Perpetrators ensure that victims are too afraid or ashamed to tell, or have no-one they can tell. For most, the abuse continues for years. All are emotionally scarred for life. Unless they are helped to heal many later turn to drugs; some die of overdoses. Many attempt suicide; some succeed." (Australian Child Protection Alliance)

Sex abuse issues in Anglican institutions were described as merely 'tip of an iceberg' [1].

Though there are indications of significant problems in institutions (such as schools and churches) [1] it appears that most child sexual abuse occurs in families [1], and in 97% of the latter cases, it is suggested that those responsible were defactos or step-fathers [1]

The present writer has no way to personally assess the validity of claims that sexual abuse is so widespread. However a contact who is a former police officer heavily involved in investigation of child sexual abuse was asked if he thought those claims were credible. His reply was 'Yes, though they are probably an underestimate'.

What has Gone Wrong with Morality?

In seeking an explanation of family breakdown and sexual abuse it is noted that, for decades, many opinion leaders have increasingly advocated the view that social mores are a matter of individual preference. And there are many political and philosophical reasons that they have taken this approach.

However an unexpected and unwanted result of 'eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil' [apologies to Genesis 2-3] could be that one of the core factors that has allowed Australia's social, legal, governing and economic institutions to be effective has been eroding (namely a deeply ingrained idea that interpersonal relationships ought to be based on individual self-denial and putting-others-first).

Attacking the Core Institutions of Australian Society: It has been suggested that politicizing public institutions, which seriously erodes their effectiveness, amounts to Australia's 'culture attacking itself'. [1]. 

However, whilst that point is worth consideration (see The Decay of Australian Public Administration), the root of Australia’s mainstream culture was not its public institutions but has probably been the creative tension in its social structure inherent in an amalgam of:

• the deeply ingrained ideal of self-denial / putting-God-and-others-first (which emerged from Judeo-Christian ethics - which in the Middle Ages were the defining characteristic of Europe / Christendom relative to the rest of the world);  
• individual liberty (which was traditionally much stronger in Anglo Saxon societies than in continental Europe) which permitted both the use of rationality as a tool for decision making and more effective governance of social / economic systems.

The significance of this amalgam is considered in Competing Civilizations. For reasons suggested these features were very likely to have been key advantages which propelled Britain into an industrial revolution (and world empire) followed by other European nations.

A high level of individual liberty is not tolerated in most societies (eg tribal societies, East Asia). In particular it can be noted a system of law is not in itself the foundation of liberty, as Islamic societies have a strong emphasis on law but not on liberty. 

Unless a self-denial / putting-God-and-others-first ideal had been the deeply-ingrained basis of interpersonal relationships, individual liberty would probably not have been tolerable in Anglo-Saxon traditions either. Liberty is only possible where the source of moral behaviour that is the basis of interpersonal relationships comes from within individuals, rather than being imposed from outside by law (as in Islam) or social superiors (as in East Asian traditions).

In recent decades in Australia, as social mores have been advocated with a prime focus on self-fulfilment (which means whatever one wants it to mean) rather than on self-denial, the result appears to have been seriously dysfunctional

Symptoms: Moral foundations of individual liberty identifies symptoms such as: self-centeredness; breakdown of natural families that result in at least mild 'abuse' of anything up to 50% of children; drug abuse; poor business ethics; and erosion of civil society.

Even the illegal extremes such as paedophilia (where permissiveness has been carried further than the advocates of self-determined morality have intended) may need to be considered to be a consequence of self-determined morality. Why this may be so can be seen from the apparent success of new policing concepts that involve strict attention to misdemeanours, and that appear (in the US) to have been able to reduce the incidence of serious crime.

For example: New York was once justifiably seen as the most dangerous place in America. NY adopted sophisticated computer processes for analyzing crime; gave independence to local precinct commanders, and adopted a 'broken windows' approach - ie that apathy and inaction about minor misdemeanours leads to the view that people can get away with anything. So police started enforcing laws dealing with minor offences as well as major crimes. The result was a dramatic reduction in crime. (Brunton R. 'Broken windows plan shatters crime theory', Courier Mail, 5/1/02)

It has been credibly suggested that male homosexuality tends to result from sexual abuse and that abusive behaviour tends to be self perpetuating because earlier victims later become predators.

Individuals tend to abuse others if they themselves have previously been abused. Damage is least when a child recognizes that the offender is the one with the problem and that they are not guilty. Sex abuse of boys is highly under-reported - because the boys become convinced that they must be gay and that it is their fault. They only realize what has happened much later after their lives have been seriously damaged (by dropping out of studies, poor jobs, drug abuse, inability establish healthy relationship). In church institutions offenders choose children who are the most devoted and religious as targets - and thus those who are least likely to embarrass the institution by complaining (personal communication from Professor Freda Briggs, University of South Australia, a child sex abuse expert with national reputation) .

In 2010, it was suggested further by Professor Briggs that " the most common reason for boys perceiving themselves as homosexual: [is that] they were sexually abused by males and were told that (because their bodies responded), they obviously wanted it (which made them gay) .. and they were therefore to blame for their own abuse . This is a most effective silencer. It is not taken into account by predominantly feminist / lesbian driven sexual health programs. The sex education curriculum introduced to our schools a few years ago - via la Trobe University - assured children that homosexuality and anal sex are normal... creating even greater confusion for abuse victims."

 and that "it is a matter that is ignored and it concerns me. When I was professional witness for the boy victims at ......  I found quite consistently that their abuser had promoted gay sex and created confusion about their sexuality. When they reached adolescence, they experimented, putting themselves back in the victim role.. leading to further psychological harm. And when they realised they were not homosexual but had been fooled, there was even more harm."

[Comment: abusive behaviour is thus likely to be perpetuated in church institutions because the favoured victims are also more likely to pursue a career linked to such an institution].

If this is the case the shift towards regarding morality as merely a matter of opinion is critically important because the public acceptance of homosexuality ensures that it is hard for individuals to 'nip in the bud' their own potential for abusive behaviour at the stage that they see it as only a misdemeanour - and their inability to do so before their problem passes the bounds of legality eventually creates a dangerous environment for many others.

Perhaps when a level of 'mischief' is ignored it will always be reflected in practice by a normal distribution, which will include extremes that go beyond any desired boundary. The closer the permitted behaviour comes to the desired boundary, the more the extremes will spill over it - and feedbacks may cause the problem to amplify over time.

How might this apply to child sex abuse: If most child sexual abuse occurs in families rather than in institutions, and the adults involved tend to be defactos or step-fathers rather than biological fathers, then perhaps the chain of causation is something like:

• an emphasis on self-fulfilment rather than self-denial leads to poor relationships in marriages - and families increasingly break down;
• new family relationships are formed in which children live with adults who are not their biological parents;
• growing numbers of children have trouble with relationships because: they were 'rejected' by a parent; boys often lack a biological father model; and in a few cases children are sexually abused by non-biological 'fathers';
• official sanctioning of homosexuality significantly raises the risk that boys subject to abuse  in institutions or non-biological families will be unable to see themselves as victims - and begin to accept that they must be gay and that adult-child sexual relationships are OK;
• a second generation forms family relationships; many of those relationships also break down after the birth of children; new non-biological family relationships are formed; children live with adults who are not their biological parents and a significant number of the latter are pre-conditioned to sexually abuse children;
• and so on ........

External Control of Interpersonal Relationships is a Dysfunctional Solution

If the core of the problem is a community view that morality is merely a matter of personal opinion (eg related to acceptance of family breakdown and homosexuality) and if the problem is widespread in families, then it would be unjust to treat problems arising from sexual abuses by staff in various institutions as something that the management of those institutions should be held liable for controlling. 

Furthermore, it is undesirable  to respond to the problem by imposing external controls of interpersonal relationships through the legal system, government or organizational management because:

• a pre-disposition towards child sexual abuse may well often be an affliction related to the abuser's own bad childhood experiences. This possibility has been plausibly suggested [1] in relation to homosexuality (ie that it may often be an emotional / addictive disorder as a reaction to childhood abuse and neglect which is not just a harmless alternative lifestyle option). If tendencies towards unconventional sexual behaviours have such causes, they cannot satisfactorily be dealt with merely by making the behaviour either legal or illegal.  
• individual morality based on a 'put-others-first' ethical ideal was the essential precondition to the individual liberty on which Australia's legal and governmental systems have been built (see above).
• such attempts are likely to be ineffective [1]

In particular if the courts or the state become involved in attempts to control interpersonal relationships then the individual freedom that conferred huge political and economic advantages on Western societies would be lost.

Legal and governmental 'solutions' would also be inadequate for practical reasons:

• such institutional solutions (eg child protection services) would be both very fabulously) costly and very complex (eg see Buffini op cit). This is because they would be trying to intervene in typically-hidden interpersonal relationships. In some respects this would be a little like trying to 'police' marital fidelity - and require supervision of all homes;
• if the absence of an ingrained self-denial / put-others-first ideal is the real cause of the escalation of many forms of socially-dysfunctional behaviour (and thus of its illegal extremes such as child sex abuse), then attention to any one of these will still leave dozens of others. It makes much more sense to deal with all such failures at the same time;
• the creation of Australia's Family Court was unable to prevent an escalation of family breakdown - and this seems to be a significant factor in the child abuse issue;
• the creation of a specialized court to operate at a child's level would seem to create huge risks of injustice to those accused mischievously;
• abuse tends to be covered over to protect institutions when authorities act in terms of legal advice - rather than doing what is morally right [1]
• a legal and governmental institutional solution leaves scope for abuses to be legalized - noting that the political process enables minority groups to gain influence (eg according to one report that the author has not personally validated, Western Australia appears currently to be legitimizing some sexual relationships with children as young as 12 - providing they are homosexual relationships);
• legal and governmental institutions that deal with children appear to attract pedophiliac networks - see comments below about Queensland's institutions.

Thus there is little value in suggested alternatives such as:

• enhancing the legal and governmental institutions to care for the victims of child abuse, and to discourage or treat offenders [1];
• equipping courts to handle child sex abuse cases - or establishing special courts [1];
• early (state) intervention in families deemed to be at risk, the appointment of a Children's Commissioner, or the establishment of a Royal Commission [1, 2, 3, 4].

Preventative Strategies

Educational alternatives have also been suggested such as: TV ads to encourage men who are sexually attracted to children to seek help - as tried in NSW in the 1980s; or schools could have total-safety child protection programs in the health curriculum - as in NZ.  

However, such efforts only address child sex abuse - when there seem to be many other symptoms of the loss of the ethical foundation of community morality and family breakdowns.

Moreover it is apparently hard to get parents to sessions in schools because (a) they are complacent and do not think it will happen to their children  (b) its not nice  or (c) they live in unsafe households and do not think it can be stopped [personal communication].

The importance of preventative strategies has also been suggested (eg by inhibiting the development of abusing tendencies or the emergence of situations in which abuse could occur) [1]. This appeared to imply that preventing the breakdown in family relationships could be the best way of reducing the incidence of child sexual abuse.

Another observer argued that the most important requirement was a change in attitude - but then strangely stated that, even though noting that most cases occur in families, it was in church institutions that a change of attitude was most needed [1]

Attacking the Core of the Problem

Any inquiry into child sexual abuse in Australian society and its institutions needs its main focus to be on changes in ingrained attitudes on matters of individual behaviour - and this is a matter needs to be addressed by leaders in non-state entities such as churches (though not through their 'institutions').

The way in which public attention has been focused on cases of sex abuse in church institutions seems often to be inappropriate and counterproductive because:

• it is most damaging to hold authorities (eg organizational management) responsible for policing subordinates' morality. The whole framework of Australia's legal and governance arrangements is built on the assumption that this is not appropriate (see Moral foundations of individual liberty);
• it has pressured churches to deal with internal abuse cases with legalistic management controls over staff rather than by leading spiritual renewal - though the latter is arguably the best option for dealing with the problem in the whole community;

If problems in this area are not resolved without state intervention then the very foundations of Australia's society and institutions could be at risk (see Australia's Governance Crisis).

It may be, in fact, that the tide of public opinion is already on the point of turning against permissive extremes. For example a media report concerning the (so called) 'Millennial' generation suggests that those under 18 (who can be seen as the 'victims' of dysfunctional social arrangements in the baby boomer generation) appear to be intent on 'rebelling' by rebuilding society [1]. 

Factors Affecting Anglican Institutions in Queensland

Finally, in relation to the situation in Anglican institutions in Queensland, the public debate and hints from contacts who seemed informed about the internal situation, suggest that many other factors have contributed to the difficulties Dr Hollingworth faced.

For example:

• the Anglican church, like many major institutions at present, has internal difficulties (eg theological disunity, some senior roles taken by permissive extremists, falling attendances, and a consequent lack of resources to adequately manage its operations). In particular, one source alleged that the Anglican Diocesan Office in Brisbane was disabled by factional politicking and negligible resources, and thus that it would have required superhuman abilities to have coped with the child abuse situation which arose [see also 1]; 
• Dr Hollinworth made many enemies because of his opposition to permissive extremes in the Anglican Church. For example, one Melbourne source [whose veracity can not be checked] argued privately that Dr Hollingworth had failed to gain the position of Archbishop of Melbourne because he would not support the homosexual and pedophilic orientations of influential groups in Melbourne's Anglican establishment; and 
• the issue eventually become entangled with the Republican debate, with some persons joining the fray because of the apparent opportunity to prove that a new head-of-state system is needed (or to achieve a republican system by evolutionary change to the way in which Governor General's are appointed [1]).  

April 2002 - and subsequently modified

• Unfortunate mission
• And unfortunate outcomes
• Other defects

An unfortunate mission

The O'Calligan / Briggs inquiry [1] commissioned by the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane has obscured, rather than shedding light on, the problem of child sex abuse. 

This appears to have arisen because its terms of reference were limited to the way in which the Diocesan office had previously dealt with a few cases in Church institutions [1, 2 , 3].

This has virtually nothing to do with the real problem as, according to publicly available sources, sex abuse affects a very significant minority of children and is primarily perpetrated in within family groups by 'father figures' (ie step fathers and defactos  [1] rather than biological fathers).

In other words, child sex abuse seems to be largely a product of a widespread failure of individual morality, and of the breakdown over the past few decades of stable family relationships in particular.

Thus, to be serious about investigating / eliminating child sexual abuse, an inquiry would need to address the breakdown of morality and of stable family relationships that are the likely cause of the problem.

This might require a re-examination of the spiritual foundations of community morality - as it seems neither practical nor desirable to expect governments, courts or organizational managements to have to solve problems of individual morality (see above).

For example:

• in spite of public allegations that child sex abuse is a widespread problem, governments refused to establish a broader inquiry  [1, 2, 3, 4] as Brisbane's Anglican Archbishop had requested [1].  

Why: It may be that state and federal political leaders were prepared to turn a blind eye to child sexual abuse because looking at the problem could well expose:

• the fact that there is a structural problem in society (related to a breakdown in family relationships and individual morality) not just a few 'bad eggs' [1];
• a significant segment of their electorates as moral criminals;
• problems that governments could not do much about (see above);
• child sexual abuse (and its concealment) in institutions for which they were responsible. An inquiry has, for example, found that sexual abuse of children in state institutions has been widespread in South Australia [1]

The Queensland Government may have been particularly reluctant to be the one to have to commission such an inquiry because of:

• the apparent failure of an earlier state administration to respond responsibly to plausible allegations of child sex abuse in a state institution (in the case of the Cabinet-authorized destruction of the Heiner documents) - and the current Government's repeated rejection of calls to re-open the matter [Comment: it is understood that those who believe this matter needs further exposure do not regard the case as a once-off grand conspiracy, but rather as indicative of a culture in which cover-ups of child sexual abuse were routine];
• the claimed failure to follow up on the Forde Inquiry into child abuse in state institutions - which made some see this as a 'con job [1];
• the inadequate resources which the Families Department reportedly has to deal with all of the cases of child abuse that they encounter [1], which requires that officials sometimes ignore sexual abuse because other cases are life threatening [1]. The fostering system to care for children at risk is itself apparently touched by child sexual abuse [1, 2]
;
• that Department's failure to respond to reports of child sexual abuse [1];
• the alleged difficulty that Department had in analysing the problem of paedophilia [1];
• an apparent reluctance by that Department to acknowledge the problems that it has in dealing with child abuse [1, 2];
• an alleged lack of response to warnings that an ALP MP was a pedophile [1];
• the possibility that legal and governmental institutions that deal with children may have attracted paedophiliac networks - because of the opportunities this provides for gaining access to vulnerable children (if fairly-frequent allegations about Queensland's institutions, and some historical events, are a meaningful guide). Moreover persons in such networks, who have both legal power and susceptibility to blackmail, were rumoured in the past to have attracted corrupt police to divisions dealing with paedophiles.

And Victoria's premier (allegedly) called for the Governor General's resignation for failing to deal with child sexual abuse, at the same time that his government was failing in doing so [1]

• courts have also turned a blind eye to the problem - perhaps because it is too hard to deal with [1, 2]

The O'Calligan / Briggs inquiry could not contribute to identifying or removing the moral failures at the root of the (apparently) widespread incidence of child sex abuse, because its terms of reference were confined to narrow administrative questions.  It could never be more than a 'whitewash' of the cover-up of this scandalous problem by secular and church authorities as well as by the media.

Even the Anglican church would have difficulty in undertaking any inquiry into the real problem of child sexual abuse as this would be likely to expose a dispute that could split the church - between evangelicals who endorse scriptural views of morality, and the hierarchically dominant liberals who take a post-modern view that morality is a matter of opinion.

A dispute: The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney (Peter Jensen) has taken it upon himself to challenge the authority of the controversially liberal Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) in relation to the latter's support for womens' ordination and homosexuality. Jensen argues that the church has begun to commit to unscriptural practices and doctrine - and advocates an evangelical orientation. Williams holds radical views. Evangelicals dominate in many regions in the world - because of their missionary zeal. The permissive sexual ethics of the West horrify churches elsewhere.  Jensen can demonstrate church growth in Sydney - and evangelicals leave other Anglican traditions for dead. Liberals with loose interpretations of the Bible are seen as the enemy. Jensen opposes the Archbishop of Canterbury because he is seen to tolerate unscriptural teaching - and is in turn seen by Australia's Anglican primate as an extreme fundamentalist.  (Murray J 'The turbulent priest', A,  1-2/2/03)

This futile dispute illustrates why the the foundations of Western societies have been eroding for a century or more, involving matters such as:

• the effect which narrow interpretations of the Bible (and narrow approach to the evolution debate in particular) have had on eroding the intellectual credibility of the Christ-ian meta-physical roots of Western societies [The literalists were so busy dissecting the words and sentences, that they failed to study anything else - and so could not  point out that the reversible deterministic laws of 'modern' 19th century science were inconsistent with fact that things changed - as evolution (and Genesis) implied];
• the damage that has been done to social institutions by the post-modern assumptions that knowledge and experience have no objective value [The liberal post-modernists have been like 'Sergeant Schultz', saying 'I know nn..oo..ttthing'. So I'll tell just tell people that its OK to do whatever they think is good for themselves. There will never be consequences they don't anticipate]; and
• the emergence of self-centered individualism (which puts self first and devalues others) in the vacuum of values that has resulted - a trend which is presumably the major cause of the breakdown of morality and families that has made child sexual abuse a major problem.

None-the-less these disputes are intense as illustrated in discussion of the problem in selecting a new Anglican Primate [1, 2]

In relation to child sexual abuse these factions would perhaps favour different solutions eg the liberals might favour social action, while the evangelicals might seek individual spiritual renewal.

And unfortunate outcomes

In practice the outcome of the inquiry was that:

• the problem of child sex abuse itself was virtually ignored. There was no mention of the cause of the phenomenon or how it might be prevented, or of family situations where most cases arise;
• the investigation focused on an individual who no one even suggested had any personal involvement in child sex abuse, and this resulted in;
• a media 'beat-up' and political attacks on the Governor General [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] in a process which some see denied natural justice to Dr Hollingworth [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9].

Media Bias: A great deal of the media coverage of allegations against Dr Hollingworth seemed to have assumed that he had to be found 'guilty' of something - though (as noted below):

• the information available in the public domain about dysfunctions in Brisbane institutions established by the Anglican church does not seem adequate to allow firm conclusions to be drawn; and
• the Anglican church inquiry seemed anything but independent.

Examples of bias: A blatant example of bias involved a banner headline (Sunday Mail,  25/5/03) "Revealed: The letter that seals Hollingworth's fate - DAMNED BY HIS OWN HAND" which refers to a letter from Dr Hollingworth to Archishop Aspinall of 16/5/03 which stated 'It is now being said that .... came to see me on 9 February about their .... who started a relationship with .... when at .... some years ago'. The article then went on to imply that Dr Hollingworth was claiming that the child was responsible for starting the affair - rather than advising when the affair had started. The evidence the article quoted did not justify its DAMNING headline.

An identical obvious misconstruction of the same document appeared in Milne G 'Spin doctor bad medicine', A,  26/5/03

Statements made by Dr Hollingworth on his resignation were construed to imply his acceptance of serious misdeeds [1] - though it this was obviously not their intent (see Presumption of Guilt).

The Courier Mail sought confirmation of the 'rightness' of Peter Holligworth's decision to resign by interviews with staff in the Anglican Diocese office [1], though it is clear that this office was an alternative suspect to Dr Hollingworth in relation to the mismanagement of child sex abuse cases.

Allegations of covering child sex abusers against political leaders were presumed to be merely a smear campaign [1]

The existence of allegations against Peter Hollingworth related to handling of child sex abuse cases were taken as proof that he was inept in the role of G-G [1]

Plausible motivations for media bias could lie in a political desire to attack the Prime Minister for a 'flawed' vice-regal appointment, or to pursue a republican agenda by politicizing the role of the G-G or by showing that the system is 'broke' and thus needs to be 'fixed' [1]. The risk of legal action for libel may well have motivated later all-out media efforts to 'win'. It was also suggested that journalists were not generally informed about organized religion - and were thus not well equipped to comment on what happened within it [1].

One observer suggested that the situation reflects the worst instance of 'trial by media' since the case of Lindy Chamberlain.

By May 2004, observers appeared to have concluded that Hollingworth had been pressured to resign because he had not been well informed about child sex abuse [1].

Community Bias: A child support organization, Bravehearts, took a leading role in calling for Dr Hollingworth's removal from the role of G-G. This pressure was applied after court evidence was presented by a psychologist in 2001 that she had telephoned Hollingworth in 1991 asking for support for the distressed parents of a girl who had been sexually abused and was told that 'He was very tired and needed a holiday, and that there was nothing that he could do'. (Scott L., 'Big scalp in small court', WA, 31/5/03). 

Based on the author's understanding of:

• the conditions of insurance policies which covered such institutions which required that such cases be decided by the courts and invalidated the insurance cover in the event that liability was admitted or implied. Moreover Archbishop Aspinall who commissioned the church inquiry into Archbishop Hollingworth had himself reportedly been caught in such an impasse [1]; and
• the dysfunctions in the Brisbane Anglican Diocese, Dr Hollingworth's response could well have been a reasonable statement - and the attacks on him that resulted from it may well have been quite unjust.

Managerial Naivety: it is quite inappropriate to judge any person's performance as bad because they make a bad decision. The essence of running any organization is to make decisions under uncertainty - and management theorists often suggest any good manager will make a lot of mistakes - because it means that are making decisions and making many more good decisions than bad ones.

Presumption of Guilt: the media and many political leaders generally denied Dr Hollingworth the 'presumption of innocence' which is normally accorded people who are accused of a crime before they are tried.

For example:

• Hollingworth maintained (in relation to allegations that he had made a serious error of judgment) that such allegations were untrue [1, 2], yet was repeated referred to in terms which left no doubt that of others' view that he was actually guilty and merely not prepared to face this reality [1, 2, 3 and many more].
• he was criticized for his inability to recognize and apologize for errors [1, 2].
• Dr Hollingworth was also said to have apologized for his mistakes [1, 2] - where all he actually did was refer to one error of judgment, express regret about the way the matter had been handled and apologize to those harmed as a consequence  [1], while simultaneously raising the possibility of a legal appeal in relation to findings of the Anglican church inquiry [1].
• Dr Hollingworth's letter of resignation made it very clear that he believed himself innocent and to be resigning to protect the office [1].

• 'legalism' has now reportedly been reinforced in Anglican institutions though this was almost certainly the reason that those institutions had difficulty dealing with child sex abuse allegations - noting that child advocates seem to believe that legal advice always protects the institution at the expense of the victim [1]. Moreover increased legalism seems incompatible with the spiritual renewal required for solutions to the moral problems which widespread child sex abuse and other social dysfunctions reveal (see Moral foundations of individual liberty).

The controversy over Peter Hollingworth is driving change in in the Anglican Church towards increased transparency and legal systems, and away from traditional patterns of autonomous Episcopal decision making. Lawyers already prominent in the church's governing councils are set to enhance their roles as Anglican power brokers. The fate of Hollingworth has split the church. Dr Hollingworth had been popular in Melbourne - but lost support over his attitude to ordination of women. The Anglican Primate says the church must adapt to the world or become irrelevant (Callick R., 'Anglicans split on the issue', FR, 27/5/03)

The new sex-abuse criteria adopted by the Anglican Church have been criticized for a focus on the requirements of the institution and discouraging abuse victims to come forward [1]

Other defects

The inquiry appears to have other unfortunate aspects.

First, there were significant limitations on achieving even the inquiry's narrow goals of investigating how the Brisbane Diocesan office had previously dealt with sex abuse cases in Church institutions.

The Anglican Church inquiry was labeled a whitewash by victims who went not called upon to give evidence. Legal protections against defamation were inadequate. Key people who could shed light on how child sex abuse cases were handled were not consulted. Bravehearts accused the church of being more concerned about its legal position than investigating sexual abuse. Dr Hollingworth's administration dealt with sexual abuse cases in appallingly slow way (Wilson A. and Walker V. 'Church sex report branded a whitewash', A, 23/4/03)

Second, there appeared to be theological and political disputes within the Anglican church which made it unsafe to rely on an internal inquiry into the handling of child sex abuse cases. 

Furthermore there was a remarkable lack of independence in establishing the terms of reference for the Anglican Church inquiry. The inquiry was devised in the same office as had been accused of mismanaging child sex abuse cases - the only obvious difference being that a new Archbishop was involved. And those terms of reference seemed to focus on the role of the former Archbishop and ignore the (reportedly quite significant) role of the office itself in providing advice and support to both.  

Moreover the inquiry did not appear to consider the dysfunctions in institutions created by the Anglican Church that were the context to the administrative failures it was considering. Under the circumstances, it is perhaps a minor miracle that the inquiry could identify only a few instances of poor judgment and memory lapses. An inquiry which considered those dysfunctions might well have reached different conclusions about Dr Hollingworth's individual performance. 

Third, the individual targeted as a scapegoat for those problems became Australia's Governor General. Thus the inquiry had constitutional implications by exposing the holder of that office to political attack.

Creating a constitutional crisis: The heavy political pressure on the Governor General that resulted from this inquiry challenged the apolitical character of that Office - a situation which has unpredictable outcomes that might include:

• politicisation of the position - which would lead to instability until the Australian constitution is rewritten and the system of governance fundamentally restructured; or alternately
• fatal damage to the republican goal of making the position of Governor General into one that requires popular support

These possibilities are discussed further in Australia's Constitutional Crisis

Fourth, the release of internal Church documents by the Queensland Parliament compromised the separation of church and state [1].

Finally,  legal defects with the inquiry reportedly included the fact that evidence was relied upon from witnesses who could not be subjected to cross-examination. Furthermore one of the authors of the report soon joined the public calls for Hollingworth's resignation [1]

May 2003