Follow up story on Abbotsford sex abuse case

 

http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/abbynews/news/40875838.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/03/06/bc-abbotsford-molesting-duncalfe.html

What I find interesting is how the Abbotsford church and its leaders handled this.

Quoting from the Abbynews story:

[Duncalfe] confessed the crimes to the members of the Abbotsford Mennonite Church of God in Christ in 1991, and he was excommunicated for a time, but neither he nor members of the church went to police.

... the church did not inform police when they learned of the abuse because Susan was legally an adult and no longer a member of the congregation, [Pastor Bev Toews] said.

On Friday afternoon, [the judge] also condemned the church for not reporting the crime to the proper authorities.

These were not merely sins expiated by [the church], but crimes.

So, the guy confesses a sin AND a crime to the church. The church gives him a two-week excommunication and considers it done and over because Susan was legally an adult and therefore they didn't do anything about it??

What happens if a member were to confess to a murder or some other violent crime? Would they take the same approach? Would they say, "Well, the victim wasn't one of 'our people' so we didn't go to the police"??

What about if the victim was not an adult? What if they had found out about this abuse when she was still a teenager and/or still a member? (Somehow, knowing how things tend to work in the Holdeman church, I don't think they would have done anything differently in that situation).

At the very, very, least, they could have contacted Susan and asked her whether she wanted any help or support. To just give the guy a spiritual slap on the wrist and not seek to help the victim is somewhat less than Christ-like...

We may conclude then that the "law" takes precedence over the "church" in our society. In bygone era's the "church" was also the "law". The judge in this case apparently feels that society is best protected with jail time, but does not feel that there is a chance of reoffending so does not make provision to restrict access to children. Does this mean that the jail time is punishment or rehabilition. If there is no chance of reoffending then why rehabilitation?

Question 2. Why is it a comunity is judged quilty of not reporting this to the law. How many individual persons did not report this while being in possesion of the facts. Sounds more like blame the whoever we can rather then take personal responsibility.

Question 3. Should the Catholic Priest be forced to report every thing he hears in confession? Maybe document all confessions and send them in to the local RCMP for assement when confession was over in case there is a crime that they are interested in.

Question 4. Now this presents a further dilema. Is a councellor responsible to decide if a naughty act is a crime or a sin or? Or should a councellor advise the counceled to seek legal advice if in doubt?

Seems to me that there are no simple solutions other then "don't do it in the first place".

I will also present another angle that I've considered. If a "church" presumes authority of itself to be above the law- I think that Steven suggest this happened here- what should the law do about that.

question 2. Is a collective group ever quilty of crime or is the responsibility always individual. eg. polygamy.

500 years ago churches could execute for "spiritual" offenses. The war crimes of world war 2 would also fit into this type of discussion.

this whole thing causes me some deep thinking. I have to wonder sometimes, what would have happened to my family if some things would have been done different. Not sure what the statute of limitations is in the states, never checked it out. I have to wonder what the cumalitive affect is and will be. Does a person really feel like justice has been done with this? I really wonder. Seems to me like it is very little justice and way too late.
I wonder sometimes How many women are walking around with that pain embedded in their hearts and how many very frustrated husbands that are out there that have never cared enough for their wife to really search out why their wife has the pain she does and reacts the way she does and vice versa. How many children condemn their parents and never understand that they are trying to do the very best they know how with the skills they have been given but never know the deep pain that is inside them that they don't share, but spend a lifetime trying to protect their children from.
Anyone can look on and make a judgement from the outside and say "You should do this and this and this should be the results". It is an entirely different thing when you are the one that is living it. I don't think it is truly possible to put into words the affect that it has in your heart, soul and mind. Nor to describe the long term affects that come yrs later, reactions to various situations that are totally unrelated that bring up memories, reactions that come from deep within that we have no idea why or where they come from and cannot even put into words for years, sometimes.
I commend Susan for her courage.

I say to the men in the H and in this world, it is high time you accept your responsibility as the guardian of those around you and take charge and keep those you love from being hurt again and again, and stop sinning against them or justifying your sin. And to the mothers and women that know things are not right, stand up and be courageous and protect those innocents around you, Stop cowering in fear. Truly the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Love and prayers, Locklady

LL good post.I know of several whom I wish would read this. It is the tree/bark and the golden calf that stands in the way.calledoutPTL

>>it is high time you accept your responsibility as the guardian of those around you and take charge and keep those you love from being hurt again and again, and stop sinning against them or justifying your sin. And to the mothers and women that know things are not right, stand up and be courageous and protect those innocents around you, Stop cowering in fear.< <br>
Very likely the lady in the article is - to her thinking at least- doing just that. As likely the pastor of the church was. And as well as the judge. Everyone trying in their capacity to right the wrong done many years ago. And today no one will feel that they suceeded. What is the solution?

NOTG: "Question 4. Now this presents a further dilema. Is a councellor responsible to decide if a naughty act is a crime or a sin or? Or should a councellor advise the counceled to seek legal advice if in doubt?"

I'll speak on behalf of counsellors in the school system (of which I am familiar). Any disclosure made to a school counsellor--be it directly or indirectly(i.e. "My father hits me" versus observing bruising and asking what caused it and getting a reply "my father")--is required by law (in Canada) to be reported directly to Child and Family Services, who then begins an investigation into the situation.

If a disclosure is made that a Canadian Law has been broken (or that the counsellor thinks a law has been broken), the counsellor (or teacher or principal or educational assistant, for that matter) is required by law to inform the local authorities (be they police or RCMP).

It is not the job of a counsellor to decide if the act is "naughty", a crime, or a sin. They pass the information on to the appropriate government agency or authority who will then initiate an investigation and decide. That is the purpose of those agencies--it takes the decision making out of the hands of the counsellors.

That, I believe, is a good thing. It offers consistency because there is an agency with policies and regulations to follow. It doesn't rely on gut reactions or surmises.



In the case of counsellors and adults, it is quite similar (in Canada). If a counsellor has had something disclosed to him/her by an adult and it is later found out to be a crime--yet the counsellor did not report it--the counsellor can be charged with aiding and abetting (in some cases, depending on level of involvement/lack of passing on information) or charged with hindering the justice system. Most intelligent adult counsellors out there choose to pass the information on to the appropriate authority/agency and let them decide, just as school-level counsellors do.


I see no dilemma here.


In fact, the counsellor does not have to inform the client that they are passing the information on to the appropriate authority/agency. They are not lawyers and do not hold client-lawyer privileges. If they choose to tell the client to seek legal advice they can, but they certainly need not reveal whether they are passing on information to agencies/authorities.




nope, no dilemma.

Tanis,
I agree with your concept in so far, but with this exception. Take the case presented by this thread. According to the articles the lady was 25 or so years old when the man's pastor found out about the offense. If the pastor had brought this to the law's attention, would the lady have appreciated the attention? The law would not act without her witness AND his admission of guilt. According to the article again, the lady was no longer a member of the pastor's church. Now in the case of knowing someone is actively abusing a child, I agree whole heartedly.

The legal system does release people it considers to be potential offenders into society, so just because I might think a person is a risk isn't going to get them investigated.

I do not know the law in B.C. but I do know that if a school teacher here in Alberta is aware of abuse and does not report it to the authorities she can be charged under the criminal code. I think Priests, Ministers and professional counsellors may have some freedom from this but a whole church or congregation with knowledge and it was not reported sort of surprises me.

"If the pastor had brought this to the law's attention, would the lady have appreciated the attention? The law would not act without her witness AND his admission of guilt."

I agree--both are needed for the law-enforcers/makers/yers to act. HOWEVER, this should not make ANYONE in a position of power (pastor, counsellor, teacher, parent, relative, friend) with this lady decide not to proceed. We as human beings who may witness (or hear of) such acts MUST bring the information we know forward rather than remaining quiet and risking re-offence or risking others who were previously offended by the same person to remain silent. Silence is all-too-powerful.


"The legal system does release people it considers to be potential offenders into society, so just because I might think a person is a risk isn't going to get them investigated."

I agree again. BUT I still believe that on a fundamental level, as a decent human being...and even MORE so as a Christian...that it is our moral and our Christian duty to bring these sorts of things out into the open...in this case to the proper authorities.


God forbid that any of us become part of the silent (sadly) majority.

I THINK I am for a legal system that would prosecute on the motivation of a victim rather then on the motivation of an informant and prosecuter. Therefore I would consider it to be OK that a case such as this one would take this long to be prosecuted. The victim of this crime feels able to deal with it. There is a lot of harm done for little benefit when the state deals with some of these cases. It takes an adult mind to move past the hurts. If however, abuse is currently happening there has to be a way to stop it.

I would be interested in knowing how this church came to the decision that the sin/crime was repented of when the man had not faced the law with what was a crime. Or did they not consider what he had done to be a crime.

Notg, you wrote:

>>I would be interested in knowing how this church came to the decision that the sin/crime was repented of when the man had not faced the law with what was a crime. Or did they not consider what he had done to be a crime.< <br>

I believe that it is something like this: Put bluntly, at least up until recently, (and anecdotally, I have heard that this may be beginning to change - thank God!), sexual abuse has not been recognised by most Holdemans as having serious repercussions and impact on the victims. As the minister involved in dealing with a sexual abuse case stated: "If the adults would stop talking about it [the abuse], the children [victims] would just forget about it." The matter was seen as a moral sin on the part of the perpetrator and (the comments by Ken Duncalfe being a prime example) the victim was seen, at least in some cases to have 'asked for it' and was sometimes excommunicated when s/he came forward to reveal the abuse.

There is a second, even more disturbing aspect to the matter, that being the fact that the Holdeman church sees itself as the highest spiritual authority in the world, which results in a blurring of the lines between spiritual and secular, i.e. if God's One True Church considers the matter closed, there is no need for the law to be exercised in the temporal sphere - if the perpetrator has confessed the matter and been excommunicated (for two days or two weeks, or whatever), the legal authorities have no business probing into the matter.

A third factor also comes into play. I have heard from the relative of victims that a certain minister made a comment regarding a sexual abuse case which he had been involved in investigating, that while the abuse had taken place, it was more important that the church's image not be tarnished and hence the authorities should not be contacted.

I'm going to include what I posted on the other (Vancouver)thread. Until I read the interview with Ms Duncalfe, it was possible that everyone involved was "doing the best they knew". It appears however that the Abbotsford pastor attempted to convince Ms Duncalfe against going to the authorities. He reneged on an agreement she thought she reached with him which resulted in her pressing charges anyway. However you parse it, his activities appear to be bordering on illegal, at minimum dishonest, unethical behavior.





OK here's what really bothering me.

"The letter resulted in a visit to her home by Pastor Bev Toews of the Abbotsford Mennonite Church of God in Christ.

He came to Nelson and wanted to see reconciliation between myself and my dad, and didnt think laying charges against him was the way to go. He told me he was going to get Dad the help he needed and so I left it at that, she said.

However, she would later discover that Toews was the one doing the counselling, not an outside professional.

That wasnt good enough. I went to the police. It was the hardest thing Ive ever done in my life.

What this 'Pastor' did by trying to get this witness not to press charges should (in a just world) result in his indictment and incarceration. Sounds like witness tampering to me.

This is the first I've heard of this case - so I am not relating this specifically to the post in the opening post - but to the conversation/direction this thread has taken.

In America (I do not know Canadian law at all - or how this is there) - it used to take a party - man or woman - ASKING the police to arrest their spouse for it to count as 'spousal abuse'. A woman with broken bones - bleeding - obvious bruising - could say to the police that 'yes - my husband hit me' - but if she was not willing to press charges - no charges were pressed and the man would be left on site to perhaps finish the job off

Thankfully - we've become a little less barbaric. Today - if a woman(or man) is obviously battered and bruised - the police can act with arrest (removal from the site and protection of the obvious victim) even if the victim doesn't wish it to happen. Now obviously it is tougher to get conviction for a crime if the victim is not cooperative. And again - obviously - evident physical damage is easier to see than some of the similar horrendous crimes of abuse that take place ranging from emotional/psychological to sexual. But arresting and investigating is not conviction. And none of the above should be taken on by a layperson, in my opinion. If that is the case - then why have police? Why call them when your property is stolen - or if your wife is killed by a stranger - or your daughter raped by a stranger? You can't live wanting the law's protection and live outside of the law as well. And to live with the law of our country (and I'm betting it's not hugely different north of our border) - means that to not report abuse of any sort is playing along with the perpetrator. This is precisely the point that led me away from pacifism as a theological point. But that's another subject. But I DO posit that 'kill' involves an awful lot more than just an act that physically takes another human being's life. And none of those are pacifist in nature. I don't personally believe that a full pacifist can exist in human nature post-Eden.

I respect Susan's heroism. Speaking from the experience of one who has experienced sexual abuse from both a stranger and from a known entity - but not a family member - I know how hard it would be to press charges against either the stranger or the 'friend/boyfriend'. I can only imagine the schism this creates in a person to have to report incest. God Bless her...as I'm sure He has.

Tanis - enjoyed your logical thought process.

If in fact the pastor put pressure on the lady not to report the incident as was suggested by the Sun then it sure adds a dimension to the equation the logic of which I have a hard time comprehending.

Notg: If it didn't happen in this case, I am aware of at least one other instance where there was significant pressure put on the parents of the victims by members of the church, to not allow police to interview the children...

When abuse situations happen, in the nation over there are always people that are willing and ready to express strong feelings and offer opinions on what should be done etc. No one any where really knows what is the best approach to bring the maximum healing in the shortest amount of time. The way government goes about it is through a system of counceling for both sides that often leaves a sense of "not quite right" all the way around.

I cannot see a system and a one size fits all approach ever working. The power of coercion destroys - yet it is the most common way used to affect change.

Steven, I am not sure if I would want police to interview my children either and expose them to the "system" that is supposed to be caring for these type of situations. I do not have an alternative to offer. what do you think?

A short time ago I discussed a very close friend's abuse at the hands of a family member with the ministers. This happened years ago while growing up. Counselling among other things was discussed, the ministers request was that we let God (meaning the Church) take care of it. This person has now been in real counselling for a few months and is doing well. The situation with Susan is of great interest.

I am thinking of a person very close to me that went through some abuse as a child. When in the late 20's or early 30's the awareness that this stuff needed reconciling motivated my friend to get counciling. It made a tremendous difference. It seemed that the time was right. I'm not sure that this can be forced.

>You can't live wanting the law's protection and live outside of the law as well. And to live with the law of our country (and I'm betting it's not hugely different north of our border) - means that to not report abuse of any sort is playing along with the perpetrator. This is precisely the point that led me away from pacifism as a theological point.< <br>
Why would someone that has abandoned being a pacifist promote turning the responsibility of "harm repair" to the government. It's kind of a socialistic view where accountability is needed so we blame government rather then respond and nothing satisfactory gets done.

Now understand. I believe in council and such things, but I don't believe in twiddling thumbs waiting to have someone else care for what needs caring for, nor do I believe that "tar and feathers" will cure what happens in these sad cases.

Notg: Why would having the police interview your kids re: sexual abuse be a negative thing? It's not like they're going to take the kids down to the local precinct and book 'em with the detritus of society.

What was going to happen in this case was a female child psychologist, working for the RCMP, was to come and visit the kids in their own home - and the parents were brow-beaten by their fellow churchmembers to not allow it.

I have had a child who have had to see a Child psychologist. I have had to do a little councilling after death and I fail to see anything but positive coming from advice and counselling. I think it could be nothing but ignorance that holds people back from such.
Healthie

The abuse is a negative of course and rehashing the negative will not make it into a positive. I do think that when the intellect is ready then counciling will be affective. There are councilors that are professional enough to understand such and are capable of working through such things with children. There are others that are in this because they are vindictive toward maybe their own past experiences and therefore cannot help but taint what they touch.

Because the councilor carries a stamped certificate by his/her association doesn't qualify them to wade in the mind of my or anyone's child. The same for a pastor or school teacher.

I agree with the assertion that this is not an easy situation ever - and that one solution may not fit all cases. What I do stand behind absolutely and irrevocably, though, is that those who will hurt children - whether their own or others - should have that information known by those who will protect other children from them. If a church body thinks they can sufficiently take it on - then they should be held responsible for the safety of the other children in that congregation. Would Min. Toews be ready to stand in court and be prosecuted should other children have been hurt by this same man? Those who do not protect children in this world are scum, in my opinion. This is never about 'just' the victim or accused - it is about potential victims as well.

Notg - you brought a smile to my face. First - I could never say that I have abandoned being a pacifist. I never bought into the Mennonite doctrine of pacifism as it is taught. And I'm not refering to H doctrine here as I was not raised H (well - until I was 8 - but not at an age of 'reckoning'). I still believe that peace first is ALWAYS the best option. But what made me smile was that my liberal friends all think of me as uber-conservative and I have NEVER been compared to - or seen as having a socialistic view - so that hit my funny bone. Also - please note that I am not saying that I think the government should take on 'harm repair'. Far from it. I DO think that we have tasked - as a society - our government (law) with protecting from more harm - or protection from harm in the first place. Repair - no. I wouldn't trust that to a government entity for an instant. Nor do I believe that rehabilitation is possible in our legal system for pedophiles. At BEST - it protects children from them. At best. But repair the harm? Heck no. Personally - I think that is best suited with God-based counseling. I agree that we can't twiddle thumbs nor tar and feather. I'm guessing neither of us are socialists or socialistic - and my only assertation regarding pacifism is that I do not believe that a human being post-Eden can truly be 100% pacifist. I just don't believe that is a human ability.

That said - if we are going to look to the law to protect - we need to be willing to be subject to the same law. Do you agree?

"The abuse is a negative of course and rehashing the negative will not make it into a positive. I do think that when the intellect is ready then counciling will be affective. There are councilors that are professional enough to understand such and are capable of working through such things with children."

Counsellors who are truly doing their job are not merely rehashing the negative. The point of counselling is not to relive past experiences, but to learn from them and to empower the individual to overcome those negative experiences.



"There are others that are in this because they are vindictive toward maybe their own past experiences and therefore cannot help but taint what they touch."

There will always be people in any profession that are there for all the wrong reasons, including (according to the Abbotsford article) pastors and parents.



"Because the councilor carries a stamped certificate by his/her association doesn't qualify them to wade in the mind of my or anyone's child. The same for a pastor or school teacher."

Perhaps your own past experiences are tainting (I use your word choice) your concept of counsellors? Teachers are NOT counsellors--that is not part of their job description. They ARE supposed to pick up on what are called "red flags" (which include outright disclosures of abuse to them) and pass that information on to counsellors.

"I could never say that I have abandoned being a pacifist. I never bought into the Mennonite doctrine of pacifism as it is taught. And I'm not refering to H doctrine here as I was not raised H....I'm guessing neither of us are socialists or socialistic - and my only assertation regarding pacifism is that I do not believe that a human being post-Eden can truly be 100% pacifist. I just don't believe that is a human ability."

Hopefully not derailing this thread, but I'm curious--what pacifist doctrine do you buy into? I agree with you that post-Eden humanity will never truly be pacifist.

I'm also curious about your thoughts regarding pacifism versus peace-making. Maybe I should start a different thread?

>Perhaps your own past experiences are tainting (I use your word choice) your concept of counsellors? Teachers are NOT counsellors--that is not part of their job description. They ARE supposed to pick up on what are called "red flags" (which include outright disclosures of abuse to them) and pass that information on to counsellors.< <br>


Maybe so. And unless the observations of the results would change impressions will stay the same. You seem to see better results? Or are you just fond of the concept. How do you find the results as you observe your fellow teachers. Are they reporting as they should and when they do is the net result in a happy home and healed lives? The abusers have become loving parents and the cycle of abuse is broken for the next generation?

The proof is in the pudding!

Let's go one further. What percentages of successful reformation are there in those that are exposed to the program vs those that are not. To get accurate results that reflect my argument you will need to ignore the results of those folks that went through the program because they chose to get help.

>That said - if we are going to look to the law to protect - we need to be willing to be subject to the same law. Do you agree?< <br>



Idealy the law would reflect what the avg. citizen considered advantages to society. Laws change as society changes. Therefore the anchor of society must be the moral personal beliefs of each individual. As we let the "law" do the job for us personally we become amoral and indifferent. The result of that is the need of more laws and the result of that is greater indifference in society.

When a tragedy happens in our society the first thing alot of folks desire is a law to prevent it from happening again. Blame is fixed and the rest of society is absolved and life can continue.

To answer more specifically, the law is the outside boundary of acceptable behavior. Beyond the border you must accept the consequences. Therefore we must accept law. However, if our morals are similar to the ones that have made the law then we will be stopped inside the boundary by inner motivation.

I say that if my only "stop" is the law I have nothing.

Where are morals made? If you say the church community, then you may have to conclude that the judge was wrong in condemning the church of Mr. Duncalfe.

I say that they are made in the inner being of man as he tries to reconcile with his God.

The Skeptic relies on the law to do this and is lost as the law floats in the change of society.

notg - we're in agreement on your last post.

To expand on one point - I would say that a church definitely does NOT exist as the place where morals are created. If that were the case, good morals would not exist outside of the church - and in fact anybody who purposefully left any church community would then be left without any morals - and I don't see that to be true at all. I WOULD say that our morals are shaped and influenced by the environments (there's never just one - even if we 'think' we have control!) that we are raised in - and then by the environments we choose to be a part of.

Being a Coloradoan - the word 'Columbine' immediately brings to mind a situation where law was not enough - and never would have been enough to prevent tragedy. Not saying I have the answer to 'why' in that case - it's easier to identify what 'didn't' cause in many cases than it is to identify what 'did'. But I certainly can't cite lack of law being the reason.