Click here to go back to issues list

Echo Issue Outline (... appearing in 1999 print editions 39 - 40

TITLE: Sexual misconduct and the clergy: was the case of George Browning, the Anglican bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, handled appropriately?


Copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney


What they said ...
'We all sin and we all need forgiveness and new beginnings. Someone who committed one sin, once, many years ago should not have his whole life affected by it'
Archbishop Rayner, Anglican Primate of Australia

'The Church regards with utmost seriousness a failure of this kind by one of its clergy'
Archbishop Rayner, Anglican Primate of Australia

On September 27, 1999, it was announced that George Browning, the Anglican bishop of the Canberra and Goulburn diocese had resigned.
The resignation came after the Anglican Church's special tribunal had spent 18 months investigating a complaint of sexual misconduct made against Bishop Browning.
The offence, which Bishop Browning has admitted, occurred 15 years ago, while Bishop Browning was a minister. It involved a female parishioner whose marriage had then recently ended.
The Anglican Church has been accused by some of formalism and insensitivity in its handling of the complaint. Its actions have been defended by others in terms of the seriousness of the complaint and the need to be seen to be offering justice to the complainant.

Background

The debate surrounding the treatment of Bishop Browning has occurred against a general background of revelations of sexual misconduct among clergy in many denominations. Various inquiries have been held, some of them criminal inquiries, over the last decade.
Much of this clerical sexual 'misconduct' has involved the sexual abuse of children. In such instances criminal offences have been committed and there have been frequent accusations that some churches have sought to protect the perpetrators of these crimes.
Also over the last decade a range of support groups have formed to assist the victims of clerical sexual abuse or misconduct.
In response to these developments all major churches have either developed or are developing protocols which define what would constitute sexual misconduct among their clergy and how it should be judged and punished.

There is a large number of Internet sites dealing with aspects of this issue.
A good place to start is with an Anglican Church media statement released on September 24, 1999. This document announces Bishop Browning's resignation and includes comments from the Anglican Primate of Australia, Archbishop Keith Rayner. It is titled The Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, The Right Reverend George Browning, resigns. It can be found at http://members.tripod.com/~angchcbr/media.htm
Also included as part of the media release is the pastoral letter, announcing and explaining his resignation, that Bishop Browning sent to his Canberra and Goulburn diocese. This is printed immediately below Archbishop Rayner's media release and can be found at the same Internet address.

An article from The Canberra Times, dated September 27, 1999, can be found at http://www.pip.com.au/~chenderson/lawsnews/au270999.htm
The article is titled Bishop quits in disgrace and was written by The Canberra Times religious reporter, Graham Downie. It describes in general terms the events preceding the Bishop's resignation.
Underneath this is a reproduction of another article from The Canberra Times titled Diocesan official attacks motives, cost of Browning inquiry. It is dated September 28, 1999, and is also written by Graham Downie.
The article details the objections of Professor Lindsay Curtis, the chancellor or legal adviser of the Canberra and Goulburn Anglican diocese to aspects of the handling of the accusations against Bishop Browning.

The general manner in which the Anglican Church in Australia defines and deals with sexual misconduct by its clergy can be seen from the protocol produced by the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney.
The document is titled Protocol for Dealing with Sexual Misconduct by Church Workers in the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney.
The protocol was issued in June, 1996. It can be found at http://pip.com.au/~chenderson/angsyd.htm

The Catholic Church in Australia is also developing protocols to deal with sexual abuse by its clergy.
The draft Towards Healing document, released in 1996 and currently being reviewed, is part of this process.
The Towards Healing draft was prepared for the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference and the Australian Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes.
A report on the Towards Healing document was printed in the Catholic Voice, a publication of the Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn.
The Catholic Voice is also available on the Internet. Its report on Towards Healing can be found at http://www.kyrie.com/voice/100/100_9.htm

The position of the Uniting Church in Australia on sexual misconduct among its clergy can be found at http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/alpt/alpt0062.htm
The brief document is titled Clergy Sexual Misconduct and is dated September 12, 1997.
It indicates that the term 'sexual misconduct' is now used rather than 'sexual abuse' because the new term is more inclusive. Included in prohibited acts are 'sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual conduct prohibited by law, and sexualisation of a pastoral relationship.'

The procedures followed by the Episcopal (Anglican) Church of Virginia after sexual misconduct of a minister has been established can be found at http://www.us.net/edov/cpsm/healing.htm
The document is titled Clergy Sexual Misconduct: Guiding Principles for Healing in the Congregation.
This includes the statement, 'There is a need to balance the privacy of the complainant(s) against the importance of openness with the congregation.' Once the validity of a complaint is established the privacy of the cleric does not appear to be a factor.
The general policy of the Episcopal (Anglican) Church of Virginia on sexual misconduct by its clergy can be found at http://www.us.net/edov/cpsm/polstmt.htm

Also of interest is the Presbyterian Church (USA) Clergy Sexual Misconduct Policy.
This is a four page document defining sexual abuse by clergy within the United States Presbyterian Church.
The document also outlines how complaints of sexual misconduct are to be treated.
Of particular interest is the judgement that 'Sexual relationships [between clergy and laity] even when consensual are not acceptable ... The inherent imbalance of power between the minister and the lay person undermines the validity of such consent.'
There are numerous points of similarity between this policy statement and the position of the Anglican Church in Australia.
The document can be found at http://www.radix.net/~ncpby/sexmisc.html

An article reproduced from the American Psychological Association Monitor gives an interesting overview of a number of international studies looking at the nature, extent and predisposing factors for sexual abuse among clergy.
The article is titled Psychologists' data offer profile of abusing clergy and is written by Tori DeAngelis
It can be found at http://www.apa.org/monitor/aug96/clergyb.html

A very interesting site looking at sexual misconduct by clergy from the victim's perspective is Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia.
The site is intended to offer support to the victims of sexual abuse by clergy and has been compiled by someone who claims to have undergone such an ordeal.
The site includes the sexual misconduct protocols of a number of Australian churches; a survivor's bill of rights and a description of the conditions under which it is appropriate to suggest a victim forgive his/her abuser.
The site also includes a substantial collection of newspaper articles dealing with instances of sexual abuse by clergy or other aspects of this issue.
The site can be found at http://pip.com.au/~chenderson/index.html

Arguments supporting the Anglican Church's handling of the complaint of sexual misconduct against Bishop Browning
There have been four major arguments offered in defence of the actions of the Anglican Church in its handling of the complaint made against Bishop Browning.
The first point that is made is that the Anglican Church did not choose to pursue a special tribunal hearing into Bishop Browning's case, rather this was sought by the complainant.
Archbishop Rayner, the Anglican Primate of Australia, has stated, 'The complainant, through her solicitor, asked that the matter be referred to the Special Tribunal'.
Archbishop Rayner has further noted, 'I was conscious that the Special Tribunal procedure was not the ideal way of dealing with a matter of this kind. I therefore checked with the complainant's legal adviser that she really did want to proceed by this route. She answered that she did.'
This point is apparently made to defend the Church against accusations that it adopted an unnecessarily legalistic procedure in dealing with the complaint against the bishop.
Archbishop Rayner has outlined the steps which resulted in the special tribunal being set up.
The complaint was originally raised through the sexual grievance procedures of the diocese where the offence occurred. An attempt was made to resolve the matter through mediation but this was unacceptable to the complainant.
The woman raising the complaint made a statutory declaration indicating that an offence had been committed under church law. Archbishop Rayner has indicated that this statutory declaration left the church no choice but to place a formal charge.
It has further been noted that the special tribunal had to be employed as it is the body established by the General Synod to hear charges against diocesan bishops. Though Bishop Browning was not a bishop at the time the offence occurred, he was a bishop at the time the complaint was made. This was in part a consequence of the long period of time between the complaint and the offence.
Archbishop Rayner has also indicated that the Anglican Church was not responsible for the large time lag between when the offence occurred and when the complaint was made. The timing of the complaint was determined by the woman who made it.
Archbishop Rayner has noted, 'The complaint only came to light many years after the event. Why so long? I am not privy to the answer in this particular case. I only know from other cases that it is not uncommon for complaints of this kind to emerge years later.'
With regard to the legalistic nature of the special tribunal, Archbishop Rayner has indicated that this is necessary as the tribunal exists 'to see that justice is done to all parties'.
Archbishop Rayner has also noted, 'The tribunal gave permission for both ...[the complainant and the defendant] to have someone with them for personal support.'
The second argument supporting the Church's handling of the complaint relates to the length of time it took for the hearing to be conducted.
Archbishop Rayner has acknowledged, 'The process had been long and drawn out.' However, the archbishop has suggested that though regrettable, this was unavoidable.
Referring to the length of time the proceedings took, Archbishop Rayner has claimed, 'This was no one's fault. The members of the tribunal and the assessors were scattered over Australia and all were people with busy pre-arranged schedules.'
Thirdly, Archbishop Rayner has indicated that the special tribunal's judgement in this case was not unnecessarily punitive.
It has been noted that the tribunal made the most lenient recommendation possible, that is, that Bishop Browning be admonished or reprimanded.
It has been observed that the tribunal could have recommended that Bishop Browning be suspended from office, expelled from office or removed from holy orders.
On the question of whether the reprimand should have been made public, Archbishop Rayner has indicated that the tribunal judged that a private reprimand would have been 'too slight a penalty.'
Archbishop Rayner has said, 'In effect it would have been no more than a slap on the wrist for what had been, at the time, a serious breach of priestly responsibility.'
With regard to the significance of the offence, Archbishop Rayner has noted, 'The Church regards with utmost seriousness a failure of this kind by one of its clergy.'
Archbishop Rayner has noted that the offence was one of particular seriousness not primarily because it involved an act of adultery. Rather, the Archbishop has noted, what made the offence particularly significant was that 'the act had occurred within the context of a pastoral relationship.'
According to this line of argument, a pastoral relationship carries with it particular responsibilities and an inevitable power imbalance between the pastor and the lay person.
From this point of view the pastor must always act in the parishioner's best interests and never take advantage of the privileged relationship he has with that person.
This point has been elaborated by Jean Leeman, coordinator, Bethel Pastoral Centre, Uniting Church in Australia.
Jean Leeman has stated, 'The sexualisation of any professional relationship ... is misconduct and is treated as such by the professional bodies concerned ... The impact is devastating for the survivor, often "soul destroying".'
Jean Leeman has also noted, 'there can be no such thing as authentic consent in a pastoral relationship. The power differential is too great. The power lies in the officer of the minister.'
Archbishop Rayner also noted that a private reprimand would have left the church open to accusations 'of covering up matters like this.'
Further, it is claimed, the tribunal had been concerned that had an exaggerated account of the complaint been leaked this would have caused greater damage both to Bishop Browning and the Church.
Archbishop Rayner has asked, 'Was it not better to reveal the matter openly, so that it could be faced up to and put to rest once and for all?'
Fourthly, defenders of the actions of the Anglican Church have claimed that the tribunal did not act without compassion or forgiveness.
Achbishop Rayner has stated, 'We all sin and we all need forgiveness and new beginnings. Someone who committed one sin, once, many years ago should not have his whole life affected by it.'
It has further been claimed that the tribunal, in making its recommendation, had considered the bishop's repentance, that there had been only one encounter, that Browning had been a much loved and respected bishop for 15 years and that he had apologised to the woman and had paid compensation.
Archbishop Rayner has indicated that the tribunal had not sought Bishop Browning's resignation. Though the special tribunal had required that the bishop's offence be made known to the Canberra and Goulburn Diocesan Council, Archbishop Rayner has claimed that had the Diocesan Council, 'knowing what had occurred, expressed confidence in ... [Bishop Browning] he could [have continued] in office knowing he had their support.'
Finally, Archbishop Rayner has claimed that Bishop Browning's resignation was accepted unwillingly.

Arguments opposing the Anglican Church's handling of the complaint of sexual misconduct against Bishop Browning
There are four main criticisms made of the Anglican Church's handling of the complaint of sexual misconduct made against Bishop Browning.
The first criticism is that the complaint was treated in an excessively legalistic manner and that the hearings involved proceeded for too long.
This position has been put by Dr Muriel Porter, a senior lecturer in journalism at RMIT University and the author of Sex, Marriage and the Church.
Dr Porter has claimed, 'It is time ... that the churches looked ... more carefully at their tribunal processes. In a litigious age, the case brought against Browning sets a horrific precedent.'
The same point has been made by The Australian in its editorial of September 29, 1999.
The editorial is critical of the formal structure of the Anglican Church's special tribunal.
The tribunal is composed of the Anglican primate and two other bishops, the complainant, the defendant and their legal advisers. Another bishop acts in the role of prosecutor and he also receives legal advice.
In this instance the advice received by the bishop acting as prosecutor cost the Anglican Church $80,000 for three days.
The editorial concluded, 'A church less devoted to structure and legalisms would not play at being a court.'
It has also been asked why the case took 18 months to resolve when Bishop Browning admitted his guilt at the outset.
This position has been put by Dr Muriel Porter, who has claimed, 'People are saying "the man put his hand up for this. He said 'yes, I did it' and then he goes through 18 months of a tribunal hearing.'
Those who claim that the judicial procedure was excessive note that the Bishop-in-Council of the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn apologised 'on behalf of the Anglican Church to ... [Bishop Browning] and to Margaret [his wife] for the demeaning and destructive process they have been put through.'
Further there are those who have argued that the case should not have been heard by the special tribunal, a body which hears complaints against bishops, as George Browning was not a bishop when the incident occurred.
This point has also been made by Dr Muriel Porter who has asked, 'Should the matter have come to the tribunal at all, given [George Browning] was not a bishop at the time of the "offence"?'
The second criticism made of the Anglican Church's handling of the matter is that the formal punishment for Bishop Browning's offence was excessive.
According to this line of argument, once the tribunal had decided to admonish or reprimand the bishop for his conduct it was not then required to make the case public. The fact that it chose to so has been seen by some to have forced the bishop's resignation.
Andrew Bolt, a commentator for The Herald Sun has implied that the tribunal, in making the bishop's offence public, has not treated him with justice.
Andrew Bolt has claimed, 'The thought of publicity devastated the bishop.'
Andrew Bolt has also echoed, without approval, the view of the Anglican Primate of Australia, Archbishop Dr Keith Rayner, when he stated, 'We put the severest possible penalty for someone in the bishop's position, to have this brought before the world.'
Those who argue that the penalty was too severe do so for four reasons.
Firstly critics claim that the offence did not warrant the severity of the punishment.
Those who hold this view argue that the sexual encounter occurred only once; that it was a consensual act (that is, the woman participated freely); that the Bishop has expressed deep regret; that he has apologised to the woman and paid her compensation at his own expense.
Secondly, critics argue, the punishment places excessive responsibility on the shoulders of the cleric.
According to this line of argument, though the then minister breached the trust inherent in his pastoral relationship with the woman, she should not be treated as though she were simply the victim in the case.
From this point of view parishioners also have a responsibility toward their clerics and the ethical lapse was a shared one.
This point has been made by Dr Muriel Porter. Dr Porter has claimed, 'Lay people are ... equal partners with the clergy in the work of the Christian Church. They are in the pastoral care of the clergy, certainly, but so are the clergy in the pastoral care of their congregations. Sadly the responsibility of congregations for the well-being of their ministers is too often ignored.'
Thirdly, it has been claimed the Bishop Browning's merits as a minister and his years of distinguished service as a bishop have not been properly acknowledged.
This point has been made by Stephen Pickard, of the School of Theology, Charles Sturt University, Barton.
Stephen Pickard has claimed, '[Bishop Browning's] episcopate stands out as a bright and shining light, an example for others to follow, not to crucify.'
James Murray, The Australian's religious writer, has commented similarly.
James Murray has written, 'Browning has been something of a visionary, proposing a Centre for Christianity and Culture on the shores of lake Burley Griffin ...
His preaching has always been direct and accessible. He ... has always stood up for the rights of Aborigines. He was prominent in the Wik debate.
Browning's clergy have always found him a loyal supporter, especially in times of crisis ...'
Fourthly, it has been claimed, the Anglican Church has not demonstrated compassion and forgiveness in its treatment of Bishop Browning.
This point has also been made by James Murray, who has claimed, '... the Christian teaching of repentance and forgiveness should have more power than it seems to have. It is tragic that the church apparently cannot forgive a bishop one instance of human frailty ...'
The same point has been made in an editorial published in The Australian on September 29, 1999.
The editorial stated, 'This ... sorry incident ... holds the church up to ridicule for its failure to forgive. Christ's words to a woman caught in adultery seem appropriate: "He who is without sin among you, cast the first stone."'

Further implications
The immediate consequence of Bishop Browning's resignation appears to be significant public criticism of the Anglican Church's handling of the matter.
Archbishop Rayner has claimed, with apparent justification, that the Church has been condemned for
'heartlessness and unforgivenees'. Archbishop Rayner has also noted that had Bishop Browning's punishment not be made public the Anglican Church would have been equally condemned for protecting its own.
This case appears to represent something of a shift in public attitude toward sexual misconduct among clergy. However, this more lenient public attitude toward clerical sexual misconduct may be because of the special circumstances of this case - the respect in which Bishop Browning is widely held and the fact that the misconduct involved two adults.
The professional misconduct aspect of the case does not appear to have made much of an impact on the public debate. However, professional misconduct is clearly a significant aspect of the issue for the Anglican Church.
It is to be hoped that with time the debate surrounding clerical sexual misconduct will shift from questions of 'sin', 'hypocrisy' and the appropriateness of 'forgiveness', to a consideration of the nature of privileged, professional relationships and the harm done to 'clients' when such relationships are abused.
It is also to be hoped that the debate will be conducted with greater justice so that the churches do not have reason to suspect that they will be condemned when they punish misconduct and when they do not.
In terms of reducing the instances of such sexual misconduct or sexual abuse it is further to be hoped that the various churches give consideration not simply to how to deal with those who abuse their office in this way, but also to those factors which may predispose them to do so.

Sources
The Age
27/9/99 page 3 news item by Penny Fannin, 'Bishop quits over affair'
29/9/99 page 15 comment by Muriel Porter, 'A victim of the church'
30/9/99 page 16 letter from Nicholas R Cole, 'Time to forgive, not condemn'
1/10/99 page 16 letter from Jean Leeman, coordinator, Bethel Pastoral Centre, Uniting Church in Australia, 'Why clerics must be held accountable'
1/10/99 page 16 letter from Father Mark Sumner, 'A priest's plea for compassion'
2/10/99 page 5 (News Extra) comment by Keith Rayner, Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne and the Primate of the Australian Church, 'Why the bishop went'
3/10/99 page 8 analysis by Martin Daly, 'Crushed for sin of the father'

The Australian
23/9/99 page 14 analysis by Richard Yallop, 'Prey for priests'
27/9/99 page 1 news item by Katherine Towers & Sid Marris, 'Bishop quits after admitting adulterous affair'
27/9/99 page 2 news item by James Murray, 'Christian forgiveness not for the bishop's succour'
28/9/99 page 14 letter from Father M Shadbolt, 'Sexual abuse: Catholic priests are being used as scapegoats'
29/9/99 page 16 editorial, 'Church devoted to throwing stones'
30/9/99 page 12 letter from Stephen Pickard, 'Disgrace belongs to the Church'

The Herald Sun
27/9/99 page 9 news item by Fiona Hudson & Michael Harvey, 'Bishop quits over tryst 15 years ago'
30/9/99 page 18 comment by Andrew Bolt, 'The bishop is mistaken in punishing himself