Thread by @fatherleenelson

If you’re tracking the #acnatoo debacle, it’s might seem to there isn’t an alternative to outrage and furor. I disagree.

I encourage you to read the first “survivor” accounts on acnatoo with fresh eyes, trying to understand what is going on. Are there real grievances, of course. But I would ask, what is the role of the church here?

The Mark Rivera case concerns a layman who should rightly be prosecuted. He must stand trial for his crimes.

But, those cases are still pending. In the meantime, the church has some responsibility. First, to encourage other victims (“survivors”) to come forward. Second, to care for those needing pastoral care. This is huge.

And, to the Provincial Response Team, there is a responsibility to find out in what ways diocesan leadership failed, if any. Were mandatory reporting standards followed? Did people get care they needed?

But here’s the main problem, as I see it. Very early on, there were those who advocated for a trauma-informed response. Basically, the idea is that the church should seek to find out what happened to survivors without retraumatizing them.

Lest you think I don’t know what I’m talking about, I am doing trauma therapy in my own life. I care about this.

The problem is that trauma-informed approaches share some very troubling features.

For instance, reporting should be anonymous. It should be asked: how should a church act on anonymous reports? Should clergy or lay leaders be held responsible for something that was reported anonymously?

The basic problem is that “survivors” hold themselves out as having total veto power on every decision. And #acnatoo survivors have said as much.

Anything that might lead to further trauma is excluded in the name of compassion, including any attempt to verify the claims being made.

This veto power is dangerous. Why? Because every decision is made based on its impact on survivors, including what processes are used, what law firms are employed, etc. Objectivity is lost.

The other issue is that those tasked with responding are placed in an awkward position: are they supposed to figure out what happened, or are they supposed to support “survivors”? These two ends might not always be possible at the same time.

Having said all of that, the basic claim made against Bishop Ruch is not that they didn’t take the claims seriously, but that they didn’t follow the right approach, namely, a “trauma-based” approach.

That is where the essential disagreement stands: should the Provincial Response Team follow a trauma-based response such as the advocates of such a response characterize it? Or should they figure out what happened?

Bottom line: it’s clear that monstrous abuses took place. It’s clear that the Church has a responsibility to understand how those things happened and put processes and systems in place to prevent them from happening again.

What is not so clear is how these trauma based approaches get at the truth. Or how they hold leaders accountable.

Or worse, how they avoid the pitfalls of mob “justice.”

As it stands, I think much of the outrage here has to do with the question of how or if these trauma based approaches should be followed, including recent resignations from the PRT.

For my part, I hope that lessons are learned and policies put in place. But to uncritically cling to trauma based approaches would be a serious mistake.