601. This chapter looks at the factors specific to faith-based institutions that contributed to abuse and neglect. In addition to the factors that caused or contributed to abuse and neglect identified in other chapters, there were factors evident in faith-based settings that were not apparent in any other setting. These factors were:

a. the authority and impunity of religious institutions
b. certain discriminatory attitudes, policies, and practices that contributed to abuse and neglect
c. harmful use of beliefs and practices that created environments that fostered abuse and neglect.

Te mana me te arokore o ngā hinonga ā-whakapono
The authority and impunity of religious institutions

I raro i te mana o ngā kaiarataki i ngā hāhi i āhei ai te tupu o ngā mahi tūkino
The authority of religious leaders created opportunities for abuse (clericalism)

602. The authority of religious institutions and of clergy and church leaders created conditions for abuse and neglect in care to occur in faith-based care settings. [805] Christian teachings emphasised the importance of obedience to authority figures, especially parental or parent-like figures.[806] Perpetrators of abuse in religious institutions held unique positions of respectability and moral authority.[807] This power imbalance between clergy/church leaders versus community members was maintained in all the faiths the Inquiry investigated. In Protestant and Catholic Churches it was known as a culture of ‘clericalism’, which is the result of practices that uphold the power of clergy over others.[808]

603. Clericalism or the authority of church leaders created opportunities for abuse as it allowed for unique access to people in care. People with religious authority, or people associated with the authority of a church such as volunteers and laity, were often closely involved in the lives of families. Some used that opportunity to groom family members in order to sexually abuse their children.[809] Consistent with international findings,[810] many survivors said the trust in and status of clergy and religious leaders meant they were granted unsupervised access to people in care in a way other people might struggle to gain.

604. Survivor Mr HU, who was placed at the Christchurch Methodist Children’s Home when he was aged 11, described how he was abused by a clergy member. He had no role in the day-to-day running of the residence,[811] yet had free access to the home and was once even in the bathroom while Mr HU was having a bath.[812] Similarly, NZ European and Māori survivor Ms NI, one of many survivors who spoke to this Inquiry about abuse suffered by a Presbyterian Minister, explained:

“There was so little supervision of what was happening [at the youth group where abuse occurred] by the Church. Parents trusted [the Minister] to look after us girls too because he was a Minister, but he also had older children, sons, a daughter, and a wife.”[813]

605. Survivors told the Inquiry that clergy or religious leaders could take them away on trips[814] or back to their homes,[815] and it was not seen as inappropriate for children or young people to be in a priest’s bedroom.[816]

606. Clericalism created conditions for abuse to occur in faith-based institutions due to the religious power and authority vested in members of the clergy and religious leaders. The religious status and power afforded to abusers in ministry has acted as an integral part of abuse for many survivors who have engaged with this Inquiry about abuse in a faith-based setting.

607. Clergy were often revered with a “mixture of awe and fear” due to their power and spiritual authority[817] and their unique powers of “moral persuasion”, and this created opportunities for abuse and exploitation.[818] Part 4 of this report describes survivors’ experiences of spiritual abuse, including how religion was used as a means of control and justification for abuse. The ability of perpetrators to leverage religion in such a way stemmed from the power and elite status they held.

608. For many survivors, obedience to religious authority was so ingrained that they complied with the orders of clergy or other religious leaders even when it involved abuse or made them uncomfortable.[819] This religious status and perceived closeness to God meant at times that survivors and their families felt special if a member of the clergy or a religious leader took an interest in them.[820] The Inquiry heard that this religious authority and obedience was particularly prominent among Pacific survivors and their families, making barriers to reporting particularly strong.[821]

609. The hierarchy of religious institutions also increased the risk of abuse in faith-based settings. Research indicates how institutions with hierarchical structures, such as those that exist within faith-based organisations, can be tightly controlled and difficult to challenge.[822] Many survivors told the Inquiry that clergy were viewed as a separate elite class as they had unique access to God.[823] For instance, within the context of the Catholic Church, clericalism can result from Church teachings such as the understanding that priests undergo an ‘ontological change’ at ordination, making them different or set apart from others and permanently a priest.[824] Similarly Archbishop Philip Richardson of the Anglican Church told this Inquiry that the process of ordination is believed to cause a change in the nature or essence of the person being ordained – “your being is changed”.[825]

610. Many survivors told the Inquiry that this hierarchy and the supreme power held by clergy prevented other staff members from intervening to stop or report abuse. Research has demonstrated that people who work in extremely hierarchical organisations may fear speaking up for fear of repercussions, which can allow the abuse to keep happening.[826] The Inquiry heard from a survivor that he believed nuns were among those who must have known about abuse being perpetrated by priests or religious members, and failed to intervene.[827] Survivors recalled that nuns who would at times show glimpses of kindness or compassion were otherwise disempowered by a hierarchical culture that relied on cruelty to control.[828]

Nā te mana matika o ngā hinonga hāhi ka hua āna mahi arokore
The moral authority of religious institutions created a sense of impunity

611. There was a wider sense of trust in faith-based institutions among survivors’ families that led to their placement in care and created a sense of impunity among these institutions, who were well-perceived and therefore could ‘do no wrong’.

612. Some survivors said their parents specifically chose to place them in faith-based institutions because they were assumed to be trustworthy places.[829] This broad trust in faith-based institutions meant that beyond clergy and church leaders, reverence was extended to those employed by or volunteering for the faiths. Because of the institutional standing of the churches, abuse often took place in the context of “unquestioned faith placed in sex offenders by children, parents and staff”.[830]

613. Several survivors told the Inquiry that staff members and volunteers involved in faith-based residential care provision were viewed as good people who were doing charitable work. Māori survivor Reverend Dinah Lambert (Ngā Rauru Kītahi, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Kahungunu) was abused by the man in charge of Abbotsford Home (Anglican) in Waipawa, Te Matau-a-Māui Hawkes Bay, in the 1960s. She explained the “utter helplessness” she felt, that no one was listening to her, or cared, when she was trying to disclose the abuse he perpetrated on her:[831]

“… these were the same people that always looked good. You know that the community thought they were lovely people, looking after you, aren’t they wonderful? And you think ‘yep, right’, you can’t say anything. Or you would tell them, and they would just nod and pretend that you didn’t say it.”

614. Some survivors recounted the experience of later seeing their abuser receive prestigious awards[832] or glorified on television[833] for their services to the community. NZ European survivor Mr UZ, who was abused at Stoddart House (Anglican) in Kawakawa Bay near Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, explained that the house father would be praised as a “wonderful man” for “looking after the unfortunates”. He told the Inquiry “I hate the hypocrisy that he received that praise while he was abusing me, while I received punishment and abuse.”[834]

615. This perception of faith-based institutions and their staff as virtuous and worthy of the utmost respect created the conditions for a failure to identify abuse, allowing abuse to continue.[835] Clericalism can create a culture of impunity, where religious leaders feel they are beyond criticism due to the absolute power they hold among their communities.[836] This sense of impunity can lead survivors to fear the consequences of disclosure, and/or contribute to the failure of the religious institution to respond to reports of abuse appropriately.[837] These barriers to disclosure mean the true extent of abuse in faith-based settings will never be known, as many survivors will never report their abuse.

616. Many survivors told the Inquiry that because of the religious status of their abuser, they did not think what happened to them could be abuse or thought it must have been their own fault. The internalisation of blame is discussed at greater length in Part 4 of this report in relation to spiritual abuse.

617. Survivors also described a fear of disbelief as a barrier to disclosure, particularly due to the religious status of abusers.[838] Many survivors told the Inquiry that at the time they felt the people they might have disclosed to, including their own families, would not believe that a person with religious status could commit abuse.[839] In some cases, this fear was realised. NZ European and Māori survivor Ms NI, who was abused by a Presbyterian reverend while attending Presbyterian youth group and youth camps in the 1970s, told the Inquiry her mother did not believe her when she disclosed her experience of abuse.[840]

Ngā waiaro whakatoihara, ngā kaupapa me ngā tikanga kei ngā hinonga whakapono
Discriminatory attitudes, policies and practices in religious institutions

Ngā kawenga tane mai, wāhine mai rānei i ngā turanga whaimana
Gendered roles and sexism in positions of authority

618. Historically churches have reflected the culture of the time in their approach to the status of women within their institutions, but they have also been conservative in their response to changing awareness of these issues.[841]

619. Traditionally, formal religious roles were restricted to men in all Christian denominations.[842] Although early Christianity was notable for its respect for women, there is also a legacy of constraints on female leadership in the churches, despite frequent challenges from within.

620. Although there have been changes over time, in all eight faiths that the Inquiry investigated clergy and religious leaders have been highly gendered, with control historically held by males.

621. There has been active involvement of women in various leadership roles within the Catholic Church. The Director of the National Professional Standards Office, the office that manages the investigation of all reports of sexual abuse against priests and religious, is a woman, and the Complaints Assessment Committee has female members and a female chair. Women have also held leadership roles within Catholic congregations – for example, Suzanne Aubert founded the Catholic order the Daughters of Our Lady of Compassion in 1892.

622. Despite the instances of female leadership, the Catholic hierarchy remained predominantly male-dominated throughout the Inquiry period. Only men were eligible for ordination under canon law and to hold positions of the highest authority within the Catholic governance structure, such as bishops, cardinals and the pope.

623. Women could be ordained in the mainstream Protestant denominations by the end of the 20th century, although in practice gaining full equality was difficult to achieve.[843] In the Anglican Church, the decision in 1976 to allow women to be ordained was controversial, and while there have been and are women who are Bishops in the church, women are still underrepresented in the top roles.[844] In the Presbyterian Church, some women have achieved the highest office in the church, but historically women have struggled to be accepted by some parts of the denomination, especially at the evangelical end.[845] The Methodist Church can be viewed as more progressive, with the first woman ordained in Aotearoa in 1958.[846]

624. Within the Salvation Army many officers are women. However, some have noted that historically the distribution of leadership in practice suggested men held the true power, particularly in Aotearoa New Zealand where, in the past, great caution has been exercised in placing a woman over a man.[847]

625. In the Gloriavale community, those in the leadership roles of Overseeing Shepherd, Shepherds and Servants must be male. Roles are defined along Biblical lines, emphasising men as decision-makers and bread-earners, with women in their places as mothers, running the household areas, and in later years, possibly as teachers in the early childhood centres caring for children. Māori survivor David Ready (Ngāti Porou) told the Inquiry:[848]

“From an early age, women are taught through formal education and observance of social structures, that they are worth less than men in the community.”[849]

626. In Gloriavale, women’s scope of leadership was limited to ‘women’s work’ and ‘women’s issues’, primarily in the domestic sphere.[850]

627. A survivor who was born into the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church told the Inquiry that the leadership “is a hierarchical male structure”, and as a woman “you are continually repressed and … you are expected to be subservient”.[851] NZ European survivor Mr UJ told the Inquiry that women were expected to fulfil their domestic duties as a wife and mother:

“The [Plymouth Brethren Christian Church] are a male-dominated culture and as such the women are expected to carry out a very narrow role. The expectation is that the women marry, bear children and look after the home. The husband has complete authority over the wife in all matters including marital relations”.[852]

628. The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church informed the Inquiry that women can serve as elders and that many do, with responsibilities that include providing advice to members and organising fund-raising initiatives.[853] Despite this, the Inquiry found that women serving as elders were often limited to traditional gender roles, such as selecting a hymn to start each of the assembly meetings and who sets the table for the Lord’s Supper (a meal celebrated each first day of the week by every member of the church).[854]

629. Research has previously highlighted that prescribed gender roles and the absolute authority of males within faith-based institutions contributes to the occurrence of abuse and failed responses.[855] Patriarchal leadership structures result in what Susan Ross describes in relation to the Catholic Church as “unchecked, divinely sanctioned patriarchal power”.[856] These patriarchal hierarchies within faith-based institutions contribute to a culture where disclosing abuse is discouraged and victims are unsupported.[857]

630. The exercise of male power over women and children by men can limit freedom of thinking and response among those who are not in this position of power.[858] This constraint was particularly evident where survivors told the Inquiry that female staff, although not abusers themselves, did not act to intervene or report abuse by male clergy.[859] The power held by male abusers often meant their behaviours went unchecked.

Ngā waiaro tōraro e pā ana ki nga taera tangata
Negative attitudes about sexuality

Wāhine mai, kōtiro ake
Women and girls

631. Beyond the institutional sexism of the exclusion of women from positions of power in some faith-based institutions, the Inquiry has also heard that women were subjected to interpersonal abuse motivated by sexism and negative attitudes about female or diverse sexuality. Much of this abuse stemmed from a belief that women’s sexuality was something to be controlled and/or feared.

632. Christianity has historically encouraged sexual restraint outside of marriage.[860] A ‘proper’ Christian woman has been deemed one who remains a virgin until marriage so she is not “spoiled goods”.[861] In some Pacific communities pregnancy outside of marriage is still associated with shame, although more broadly in Aotearoa New Zealand attitudes towards sex outside of wedlock shifted over the course of the Inquiry period.[862]

633. This deep-rooted stigma associated with female sexuality drove various forms of abuse across all the faith-based settings the Inquiry investigated. As discussed in Part 4 of this report, survivors in a range of settings described being verbally abused using gendered slurs that implied they or their family members were promiscuous and were therefore worthless.[863] Such abuse commonly occurred in unwed mothers’ homes, institutions that were themselves a product of the understanding that an unwed pregnancy was something to be ashamed of.[864] Survivors felt their perceived promiscuity was justification for poor treatment, as they were told they brought poor treatment on themselves by having sex outside of wedlock.

634. Beliefs about virginity also posed barriers to reporting abuse. Survivors of sexual abuse feared the consequences of reporting in case they were ‘tainted’ for what might be considered sex outside of wedlock rather than abuse. NZ European survivor Ms QG told the Inquiry that at 18 when she disclosed sexual abuse to her parish priest, he made her feel worthless and convinced her she needed to marry her abuser.[865] She was told “if I had engaged in sex in any form (whether forced or not) then I had no choice but to get married” and “it was God’s will that I marry him [her abuser]”.[866]

Tāne mai, taitama ake
Men and boys

635. As discussed in the Inquiry’s interim report Stolen Lives, Marked Souls, there was less awareness of the sexual abuse of boys throughout the Inquiry period.[867] It was often perceived as something that did not happen to males, and there was an expectation that boys and men should just ‘harden up’. This contributed to it being difficult for boys and men to talk about sexual abuse. This was particularly so when the perpetrator was a male, because of the negative perception of homosexuality and the additional shame inflicted by some faiths about homosexuality.

636. The negative perception of homosexuality created barriers to reporting sexual abuse among some male survivors. A survivor described the hypocrisy of the anti-homosexual sentiment of Catholic teachings compared to his experience of sexual abuse by male clergy.[868] Research has highlighted how boys who are sexually abused by another male can experience shame and stigma associated with homophobia and fear of being viewed as a homosexual.[869]

637. The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church’s belief that homosexuality is inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible, coupled with a belief that a person's sexuality can be managed, led to attempts to ‘correct’ or ‘manage’ the sexuality of survivors through conversion practices.[870]

638. Pākehā survivor Craig Hoyle and NZ European survivor Mr UJ also described the homophobia and transphobia present within the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. Craig explained there was “zero tolerance for diversity of sexuality or gender identity” within the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, and that “homophobic and transphobic slurs were commonplace”.”[871] Like other settings that denigrated the identity of undesired people through harmful labels, Craig explained that “anyone who deviated from cisgender heterosexuality was seen as a pervert, demon-possessed, or mentally unwell.”[872] Mr UJ similarly explained that within the Church, “there is no tolerance for alternative sexual and or gender identification ... conversion therapy is imposed.”[873]

Ngā mahi kaikiri, toihara ki te Māori
Racism and discrimination against Māori

639. Members of the Gloriavale Christian Community, including those of Māori descent, were told that te reo Māori was “Satan’s language” and people in the community were taught that Māori were lazy and thieves.[874] One survivor described how her school education on the colonisation of Aotearoa New Zealand was “factually inaccurate and dangerously incompetent” and Māori were described as “heathens and savages”.[875] Māori survivors at Gloriavale have told the inquiry about racial discrimination[876] and feeling a lot of shame about being Māori.[877]

640. The Gloriavale leadership taught members that “you don't have ethnicity, you're just a child of God”.[878] This erasure of Māori identity was reinforced by the education curriculum at Gloriavale. A document titled Gloriavale Christian School Quality Management System, which was prepared as recently as 2021, rejected Māori culture as “un-Christian”:

“We have our own unique Christian culture based on the teachings of the New Testament. Although we all have European or Māori ancestry or both, we do not think of ourselves as Europeans or Māori, rather we reject both these cultures as un-Christian since both are based on paganism and self-indulgence with a few perverted versions of biblical ideas mixed in. We accept no denominational labels but we are simply Christians. We do not keep non-biblical traditions amongst ourselves, whether of Māori or European origin. For example, we do not keep Christmas or Easter, or use pagan names for the days of the weeks or the months of the year. Nor do we seek to keep the Māori culture alive amongst ourselves. This is not from any racist motivation whatsoever, but as the scripture says, 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’”.[879]

641. Rachel Stedfast, acting Principal of the Gloriavale Christian Community School, accepted in the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing that there has not been a strong focus on Māori culture at all at Gloriavale, and that there are parents who are opposed to it being taught.[880]

642. Some survivors of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church described how the church leadership, and the church culture generally, were racist towards and dismissive of Māori.[881] The membership of the church is generally ethnically Pākehā, and one survivor said he was surprised to learn that there were a “smattering” of Māori members.[882] The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church told the Inquiry they see people as equal, regardless of their ethnicity.

643. The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church told the Inquiry that as a faith-based organisation they do not have any formal obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi and that Māori have the same rights as everyone else.[883] Despite this, a former member said:

“[Plymouth Brethren] are genetically Anglo-European, as a direct consequence of their religious-social exclusion of all others … Māori world view, values, concerns, and histories are roundly dismissed. Māori are denigrated along with the denigration of all ‘worldly’, non-[Plymouth Brethren] cultures. [Plymouth Brethren] children absorb these attitudes as a matter of course.”[884]

Te raweke toihara hunga i ngā pūnaha taurima
Discriminatory exploitation of people in care

644. Members of Gloriavale have been subject to forced work from a young age for no compensation. Children are made to do long hours, including working before and after school and on weekends. In a typical week, the female workforce in the kitchen produced more than 11,000 meals; the female workforce in the laundry washed at least 17,000 items.[885]

645. The Inquiry heard about survivors being subject to forced labour from a young age and that health and safety was considered secondary to profit within the community.[886] NZ European survivor Isaac Pilgrim told the Inquiry that Gloriavale’s founder, Hopeful Christian, would say that “people should work themselves to death for the Kingdom”.[887] Members received no direct monetary compensation for their work and described feeling constantly tired.[888]

646. The leaders of the community believe that “saving up money for later use is forbidden in the New Testament,” and so they do not allow any members to contribute to superannuation or any other savings scheme.[889]

Te tūkino whakamau hē i o whakapono me o tikanga he papa mo ngā mahi tūkino
Harmful use of beliefs and practices fostered abuse

O pūhere ā-tokai he mea e hua ai te mahi taitōkai
Beliefs about sex contributed to sexual abuse

647. Survivors described a culture where discussion of sexual matters was repressed. Norms that prevent discussion of sexual matters were particularly prevalent in faith-based institutions,[890] with evidence that institutional cultures where discussing sex is taboo can elevate the risk of sexual abuse. [891] This elevated risk can be because adults and children may be unable to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate interactions,[892] and it can also pose barriers to reporting sexual abuse.[893]

648. These barriers were compounded by growing up in a cultural setting where discussing sex was particularly taboo. The taboo of sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy is particularly strong among Pacific communities in Aotearoa New Zealand, posing even greater barriers to reporting abuse. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Redress Hearing, Cardinal John Dew, Catholic Archbishop of Wellington, told the Inquiry:[894]

“It’s a very difficult topic I find with Pasifika families, because often sexuality is not mentioned or spoken about, and there's the added complexity of the culture of the church where they don't want to speak about anything to do with sexuality and they want to keep the church, and especially clergy, at a level that’s not real.”

649. The taboo surrounding sex in many faith-based settings meant some survivors did not receive any education relating to sex and sexuality, which impacted on their ability to identify inappropriate sexual behaviour. Research has demonstrated that comprehensive sex education can help prevent child sex abuse by educating children on what is and is not appropriate and teaching them how to disclose abuse.[895]

650. In some cases, this secrecy and taboo meant ‘sex education’ could become an opportunity for abuse. Māori and Samoan survivor Rūpene Amato (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngā Ariki Kaiputahi, Ngāti Māroko (hapū)), who attended St Joseph’s School (Catholic) in Wairoa, told the Inquiry that a priest used one-on-one meetings in his home under the guise of ‘sex education’ to sexually abuse him and many of his classmates.[896]

651. Sexual abuse was often assumed to be avoidable if survivors behaved properly, and survivors were therefore assumed to be willing participants or otherwise responsible. The emphasis in Christian teachings on sexual purity, particularly among women, lends itself to an understanding of the victim of assault as guilty of some sin or somehow at fault.[897]

652. This victim-blaming was particularly evident in Gloriavale, where founder Hopeful Christian promoted the doctrine that girls and women could avoid sexual abuse by “not having a flirty nature, dressing modestly, and avoiding situations where they could be seen to be ‘leading on’ a male who was interested in sex”.[898] Survivors described being made to feel responsible for their own sexual abuse after reporting it. They described how Hopeful would “remind members that men had a higher sex drive than women so it was up to women to prevent sexual assaults.”[899] They were to do this by “controlling their [the woman’s] behaviour, their location and their method of presentation in order to avoid provoking sexual reactions in men and boys”.[900] Current leader Howard Temple accepted that young women in the community may have felt that sexual assault was their fault as a result of these teachings.[901]

653. In some cases of sexual abuse, some faiths in the past have described it as a consensual affair. For example, Retired Anglican minister Patricia Allan gave evidence in respect of the Anglican Church where abuse carried out by Rob McCullough was described as an affair.[902]

654. There is also evidence of some faiths being primarily concerned with repairing the marriage of the alleged abuser, rather than preventing or responding to the abuse. The Anglican Archbishop, on finding out about several women who had been abused by Rob McCullough said:

“…what I believe is needed in this very painful situation is more of the spirit of forgiveness”.[903]

In addition, the Archbishop said that McCullough must be given the opportunity to change and rehabilitate and the church must also consider the needs of his wife.

655. The Christian emphasis on sexual purity as a virtue[904] also sometimes led to an internalisation of blame among survivors of sexual abuse, creating barriers to disclosure.

656. In some faiths, teachings related to sex are particularly strict. Restriction of sexual practices is a particular feature of the Catholic Church, where unlike in Protestant religions, clergy must be unmarried and abstain from sex. The link between celibacy and clerical sex abuse is often contested, but several independent researchers suggest there can be heightened risk associated with celibacy.[905] For instance, Robinson concludes that celibacy can contribute to unhealthy ideas (e.g., homophobia or sexism) and an unhealthy psychological state (e.g., depression).[906] This can manifest as hostility towards children and others they have power over.[907]

657. Research suggests that the requirement to agree to celibacy for Catholic priests, nuns, sisters and brothers may deprive them of romantic and physical intimacy, which when combined with unchecked power over children in care can lead to abuse.[908] Internationally, some men have admitted they entered the priesthood to curb pre-existing sexual problems, such as child sex offending, in the ‘sex-free’ zone of clerical life.[909]

658. The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse, when considering factors that may have contributed to the occurrence of child sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, stated that “for many clergy and religious, celibacy is an unattainable ideal that leads to clergy and religious living double lives and contributes to a culture of secrecy and hypocrisy.”[910]

659. The Inquiry also heard evidence at its Contextual Hearing from Professor Cahill and Dr Wilkinson that abusive priests were sometimes “psychosexually immature maldeveloped and deeply frustrated”.[911] Dr Thomas Doyle, former priest, canon lawyer, and addictions therapist, told the Inquiry that “mandatory celibacy has had a definite influence on the development of dysfunctional sexuality within the context of the closed clerical world.”[912]

660. Some Catholic entities have sought to protect their reputation by maintaining the appearance of a celibate clergy, pushing priests’ sex lives and sexualities further underground and creating a culture of secrecy. Before his ordination, Ian Werder told the Inquiry Bishop Dunn asked him what he would say if someone asked if he was gay. Ian’s response was, “I would not necessarily advertise it, but I would not deny it.”[913] Bishop Dunn later did not ordain Ian.[914] The Inquiry notes that it has not investigated the reason that the Bishop did not progress Ian’s ordination or explored the variety of considerations that would have informed this decision.

661. Research provided to the Australian inquiry into Institutional Responses to Sexual Abuse showed that institutions that code all sexualised behaviours as inappropriate and taboo can create the conditions for sexual abuse to occur. Conversely, research has also highlighted how people who are embedded in ‘sexualised’ institutional cultures can develop sexually harmful behaviour over time.[915]

662. Expressions of sexuality were not universally repressed in all eight faith settings this Inquiry examined. A few survivors of Gloriavale described how children were exposed to graphic sexual content, creating unsafe cultures around sex.[916] Another survivor of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church described how sins had to be aired in front of other members, and as a result children of all ages were inappropriately exposed to intimate sexual details.[917] The Inquiry notes that the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church does not accept this survivor’s evidence or that this practice of airing sins in front of other members occurred.

Ngā hiringa whakapono ā-hara, murunga hara, me te mahi huna he take i hua ai te mahi taitōkai
Religious concepts of sin, forgiveness and secrecy were applied to sexual abuse

663. In many faith-based settings, the interpretation of abuse through a religious lens led to inappropriate responses to reports and a failure to safeguard against ongoing abuse. Forgiveness is a key teaching in Christianity, where people are encouraged to let go of anger and blame and embrace those who have sinned against them.[918] Interpreted through this religious lens, faith-based institutions have sometimes responded to reports of sexual abuse as requiring forgiveness and reconciliation (including confession), rather than necessitating the involvement of secular authorities or a focus on prevention and safeguarding.[919]

664. The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse notes that the sacrament of confession practiced by the Catholic Church also often enabled abusers to resolve their sense of guilt without fear of being reported.[920]

665. Retired Anglican minister Patricia Allan told the Inquiry that in her opinion:

“[t]he theology of the Church is if you sin, repent and say you’re terribly sorry and that you won’t do it again, then you’re forgiven and get a clean slate.”[921]

666. In 1990 Anglican Archbishop Brian Davis wrote “forgiveness is a costly business but the Gospel both demands this and makes it possible”.[922] The Anglican Church has said that while its Title D Canon sets out the theology of discipline for serious misconduct it does not mandate exoneration following an apology by those who commit serious misconduct.

667. Gloriavale’s approach to handling sexual abuse allegations during the Inquiry period used to be to “lead transgressors to a place of repentance, and victims to a place of forgiveness”.[923] Until 2012, the community “little to no dealings with police”,[924] instead dealing with any sin amongst its own community due to the rule in its doctrinal text “What We Believe”, which said the church “must deal with any sin amongst its members”.[925] Survivors explained that this approach resulted in a prioritisation of the interests of perpetrators of abuse and prevented them from making meaningful contact with agencies outside of Gloriavale.[926]

668. A similar emphasis on ‘forgiveness’ as a response to sexual abuse rather than using disciplinary processes has driven failed responses within the Catholic Church. European survivor Vincent Reidy, who survived sexual abuse from his parish priest and when in the seminary, described how the onus has been placed on the survivor to ‘forgive’:

“… sexual abuse is seen as a sin, not a crime. Forgiveness is important in the Catholic Church. If a person refuses to forgive then they become a sinner.”[927]

669. Representatives of the Catholic Church have identified this prioritisation of forgiveness over safeguarding as a driver of abuse. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, Cardinal John Dew said:

“I think the question that you've just put to us that forgiveness was seen to be more important than safeguarding was probably a thing in the past.”[928]

670. This emphasis on absolving sin encouraged survivors to understand themselves as somehow responsible for their abuse. NZ European and Australian Survivor Leonie Jackson, who was sexually abused as a nine-year-old by two Marist Brothers, told the Inquiry:

“I have told so many priests about the abuse I have suffered in confession and have only received penance in return. Not one ever told me it was a crime or gave me advice, so I believed it was my sin to carry.” [929]

671. NZ European survivor Ms VZ, who experienced sexual abuse by her mother’s partners, was subjected to an exorcism by men unknown to her at an Anglican church following disclosure of this abuse. She was told they were “casting out Jezebel”, explaining:

“It was terrifying to have these men hold me down and pray for the spirits of lust and evil to leave me. … It was terrifying to think that there were unseen evil forces making these men who abused me target me in a way. In my mind it made me just as bad as the men who had abused me, as it was like I had invited them in some way. I felt like they were blaming me for what happened.”[930]

672. The treatment of sexual abuse as a ‘sin’ can mean it is treated as a mutual act, rather than occurring in the context of significant power imbalance between perpetrator and victim.[931]

673. This view of abuse as requiring religious reconciliation can also mean little non-religious input, such as reporting to NZ Police, is sought for dealing with perpetrators of sex abuse within a faith-based context This s creates further secrecy from the secular world.

674. Dr Thomas Doyle told the Inquiry that:

“[the] Catholic Church, traditionally, is dependent on secrecy. It prevents … the vast majority of Catholics and others, from knowing what goes on the inside ... especially covering the bad things.”[932]

I whakamahia ngā hiringa whakapono hei whakamana tūkinotanga
Religious beliefs were used to justify abuse

675. The Inquiry heard in the accounts of many survivors how adults in positions of power justified abuse using Christian beliefs and authority. For instance, survivors described being told they had to learn to suffer and fear God while being subjected to physical abuse.[933] The association of suffering with salvation is found in aspects of Christian theology.[934] Suffering is thought to teach humility, and martyrdom – an extreme form of suffering – holds special status within the Christian tradition.[935]

676. Researchers have argued the removal of vulnerable groups from society under the guise of treatment or reform can be used to justify abusive treatment or inhumane practices.[936]

677. As well as being evident in the accounts of survivors of faith-based schools and children’s homes, the use of moral ‘reformation’ as a justification for abuse was evident in the accounts of survivors of women’s homes. The Anglican Church provided evidence to the Inquiry that women’s homes were established in the nineteenth century because of a perceived need to support unmarried mothers.[937] The Inquiry also saw literature to suggest that some women’s homes were established to impress Christian moral and spiritual values on unwed mothers.[938] Survivors described being subjected to hard labour and physically assaulted in women’s homes, during pregnancy and childbirth, as a punishment for their actionsand to bring about moral reform.[939]

678. These hierarchical and violent environments, where religious teachings were leveraged as justifications for abuse, were able to emerge because of the isolation and insularity of many faith-based care settings and the societal attitudes of the time. This insularity meant they were not subject to external scrutiny, removing checks and balances that may have moderated behaviour. Abusive behaviour was therefore able to be justified as a ‘necessary’ or ‘normal’ part of life without necessarily being challenged.[940]

679. Often abusers used the biblical concepts of shame and humiliation, and the wider fear of religious punishment or repercussion, to abuse and control children and young people. Examples of this are detailed in the Inquiry’s interim report Stolen Lives, Marked Souls. The misuse of religious teaching and scripture allowed abuse to occur, but it also prevented disclosures of abuse for fear of retribution by God himself.[941]

I te ngaro te Tiriti o Waitangi i te nuinga o ngā hinonga whakapono
Te Tiriti o Waitangi largely absent in faith-based institutions

680. As set out in Part 1 of this report, although faith-based institutions are not te Tiriti o Waitangi partners themselves:

a. legislation may require them to act consistently with te Tiriti o Waitangi.[942]
b. te Tiriti o Waitangi is relevant to interpreting legislation (or can be read into legislation) even where the legislation is silent on te Tiriti o Waitangi.[943] Therefore, te Tiriti o Waitangi may impact faith-based institutions when they care for tamariki, rangatahi and pakeke Māori, as te Tiriti o Waitangi is relevant to the care of tamariki and rangatahi Māori and it colours all legislation dealing with the status, future and control of tamariki.[944]
c. if faith-based institutions made their own commitments to te Tiriti o Waitangi (for example, in governing documents of public statements) they may be accountable to meet those commitments.[945]

681. How te Tiriti o Waitangi applies in a given context depends on the particular circumstances.[946] In the absence of clear legislative direction, the faiths have taken varied approaches to consideration and implementation of the rights guaranteed in te Tiriti o Waitangi. Most faiths the Inquiry investigated started to make their own commitments to te Tiriti o Waitangi towards the end of the Inquiry period. For example, in 1989 at the Catholic Bishops Conference, te Tiriti o Waitangi was described as a sacred covenant, and in 1995 they went further acknowledging the particular rights of Māori as the indigenous people.

682. The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia has been constitutionally divided into three Tikanga: Tikanga Māori, Tikanga Pasifika and Tikanga Pākehā. Three Archbishops, one from each, form the ‘Primacy’ of the Anglican Church, or in other words, lead the church.[947] Although the three branches appear to be equal in terms of formal political authority, Tikanga Pākehā controls the bulk of resources. For every $1 of assets held by Tikanga Māori, Tikanga Pākehā holds $28 worth of assets.[948] Reverend Dinah Lambert, Chaplain of Te Aute College in Te Matau-a-Māui Hawkes Bay, told the Inquiry that, in describing the sharing of resources with the Tikanga Māori arm of the church, Archbishop Brown Turei had said to her:

“sometimes, Dinah, it’s like you’re given a kete but it’s empty.”[949]

683. At the other end of the spectrum, Gloriavale and Plymouth Brethren Christian Church did not make any commitments to te Tiriti o Waitangi during the Inquiry period. Plymouth Brethren told the Inquiry that as a faith-based organisation they do not have any formal obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi and that Māori have the same rights as everyone else.[950]

Ngā mōtika tangata me ngā hinonga ā-whakapono
Human rights and the faith-based institutions

684. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act came into force on 25 September 1990. During the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, the Crown stated that:

“Anyone can have obligations in relation to human rights as a result of s3(b) of the [New Zealand Bill of Rights Act], but only if they are performing a public function, power or duty. This is likely to be the case where the State has empowered private citizens and other actors to provide care for vulnerable children.”[951]

685. Despite this, faiths investigated by the Inquiry have taken inconsistent and often limited or no consideration of any positive human rights obligations they may have had towards the end of the Inquiry period. For example, when Gloriavale Christian Community was asked how it had incorporated any international human rights norms and principles into its systems, procedures and policies in respect of caring for children, young people and adults in care, it told the Inquiry:

“We are a small farming community on the West Coast so we generally do not spend any time reading international human rights treaties and principles. Having said that we are conscious of the need to follow all domestic laws.”[952]

I te ngoikore te aroturukitia o ngā hinonga whakapono
Oversight and monitoring of religious institutions was lacking

686. There was little oversight and monitoring of faith-based institutions by the State or any independent monitor during the Inquiry period. Similarly, there was little internal oversight and monitoring of the institutions by the faiths themselves. Unsafe practices were able to develop and continue in faith-based institutions partly due to a lack of their own internal and also external State monitoring.

687. In practice, most faith-based institutions operated independently, without a centralised governance structure providing a final level of monitoring and oversight. This meant care settings operated in siloes, with no awareness of issues facing the other care settings affiliated to their faith.

688. For example, the three Methodist Children’s Homes (in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, Whakaoriori Masterton, and Ōtautahi Christchurch) operated completely independently, and had their own management committees which were responsible to and reported annually to the Methodist Conference. The Synod and Conference appointed the Board of each home. From the 1960s the Methodist Social Services Association oversaw the homes and took over management reporting to conference annually.[953] The Methodist Church accepted that the Methodist Conference failed to provide sufficient monitoring, oversight and safeguarding of the three Methodist Children’s Homes and that these failures enabled abuse and neglect to occur.[954]

689. There was a lack of monitoring and oversight of many Catholic institutions by local bishops and religious leaders, with evidence of infrequent and surface-level visits by a local bishop or a board member. The Inquiry has heard that in some Catholic care settings, such as Our Lady’s Home of Compassion in Island Bay, Te Whanganui-ā-Tara Wellington, and Sunnybank Boys’ Home near Whakatū Nelson, the mother superior would have absolute control of the running of the orphanage. In relation to the Home of Compassion, a survivor said the woman in charge “had absolute total control” and some oversight by the Catholic Church would have helped.[955]

690. Similarly, during the earlier years of its existence, the Hebron Trust was informal, largely unregulated, and unmonitored by the Bishop of Christchurch or the leadership of the Order of St John of God. In the Inquiry’s interim report Stolen Lives, Marked Souls, the Inquiry found that there was “a lack of monitoring and oversight by the State, the Order [of St John of God] and the [Catholic] Church from the date of application to establish Marylands and the development of Hebron Trust, until [prolific abuser] Brother McGrath’s departure.”[956]

691. A lack of oversight and monitoring in faith-based institutions can also be seen in Berhampore Home (Presbyterian) in Te Whanganui-ā-Tara Wellington, which was open from 1909 to 1985. Chief Executive of Presbyterian Support Central, Naseem “Joe” Asghar acknowledged at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing that there were some managerial issues. For example, from the records, there were no reporting systems in place for the board or management to monitor the care of children and young people, despite abuse and neglect occurring.[957] This lack of reporting systems was one reason why abuse and neglect were able to continue, unchecked and often without consequences.

692. The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church told the Inquiry that its assemblies are “autonomous and self-regulating” and that “every local assembly is part of the [broader] assembly in a universal sense”.[958] Plymouth Brethren neither has or enforces any national policies or procedures on any matters of individual assemblies.[959] This results in a lack of coordinated oversight and limited external accountability, which may increase the risk of abuse and neglect:

“The assemblies themselves do not have formal, written policies. Situations are addressed as they arise under the guidance of the elders in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible and the ministries of current and former senior leaders.”[960]

Kīhai te nuinga o ngā hinonga whakapono i meinga kia utu mo āna mahi hē
Most faith-based institutions were not held to account

693. Most faith-based institutions failed to take accountability for abuse and neglect of children, young people and adults in their care. Most of the faiths that were investigated acknowledged this failure to the Inquiry. These acknowledgements are set out below.

Hāhi Kātorika
Catholic Church

694. Catholic Church leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand have previously issued public statements addressing the abuse and neglect within the Church but have failed to adequately acknowledge the nature and extent of abuse and neglect within the church or accept responsibility for the harm done.

695. In a statement to the Inquiry, John Dew, Cardinal and Archbishop of Wellington, when acknowledging and apologising for the harm, said:

“As I have previously noted, I have been shocked and horrified at the way people have been treated and how their trust has been betrayed by clergy and religious, to our great shame. I simply cannot understand how this could have occurred.”[961]

696. Information released by the Catholic Church revealed that out of the 1,296 abuse reports, there were 592 alleged perpetrators, including diocesan priests, religious orders and lay people. The Catholic Church provided the Inquiry with the names of 27 perpetrators with criminal convictions related to abuse of those in the care of the Catholic Church.[962]

697. Despite the scale of abuse and neglect within the Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand, the Inquiry is unaware of any consideration by the church of the systemic causes of this. Very few senior leaders have been held to account for the systems and environment that allowed members of the Catholic Church to perpetuate pervasive abuse and neglect.

698. Catholic Church leaders have not been accountable or transparent to their congregations and the broader community about the nature and extent of abuse and neglect by their members. This has impacted the church’s capacity to provide a proper system to prevent further harm and provide meaningful and adequate responses to survivors. It has also increased barriers to disclosure for survivors because information about the abuse of others is an important factor in supporting survivors’ disclosure of abuse.

799. The church’s comprehension of the nature and extent of abuse of people in its care mostly comes from protocols and advisory committees set up to handle individual reports of abuse. The church leadership has made minimal and inadequate attempts to understand the fundamental and broader systemic factors that have influenced abuse. This has meant the church’s prevention of further harm has been limited at best.

700. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Redress Hearing, counsel for the Catholic Bishops and Congregational Leaders of Aotearoa New Zealand acknowledged:

“The Church recognises collectively [that] there has been a failure. Certain individuals have obviously been failed, and how and why those failures have occurred will need to be examined and remedied.”[963]

701. During the Inquiry’s Tō muri te pō roa, tērā a Pokopoko Whiti-te-rā (Māori Experiences) Hearing, the Catholic Church acknowledged the harm caused to Māori in its care:

“It is to the Church's great shame and sorrow that Māori are among those subject to harm and abuse while in the care of the Church. Many Māori share the Catholic faith and there is a great sadness felt that the Church has failed Māori in its care, leading to loss of faith and identity”. [964]

702. The Catholic Church also acknowledged the harm caused to those who were in the care of Marylands School and Hebron Trust in Ōtautahi Christchurch. Many of the boys placed at Marylands School were disabled or had learning or behavioural needs, and those in the care of Hebron Trust were often ‘street kids’. Many were tamariki and rangatahi Māori in need of safety, shelter and support.[965] At the Inquiry’s Marylands School (St John of God) Hearing, the Catholic Church recognised that this group of survivors “were and are still the most vulnerable”, and continued:

“If you needed to be cared for, then you should have been safe in the care of the church. The fact that you were not safe and you were harmed is indefensible and a shame on all the church. For this, and when we didn’t respond as we should have to your disclosures and reports of abuse, the bishops and congregational leaders are deeply sorry.” [966]

703. The Catholic Church has acknowledged that harm has taken place at some Catholic educational institutions, including in relation to St Patrick’s College Silverstream in Te Awa Kairangi ki Uta Upper Hutt, which had 26 reports of alleged abuse relating to nine Society of Mary members at the college between 1951 and 1985.[967]

704. The Catholic Church leadership in Aotearoa New Zealand, including leadership of St Patrick’s College Silverstream, has repeatedly acknowledged that mistakes were made and more should have been done to prevent the harm, pain and suffering of children and young people in the care at St Patrick’s College Silverstream[968] and other Catholic boarding schools.

705. Sister Sue France, who provided evidence on behalf of Ngā Whaea Atawhai o Aotearoa, Sisters of Mercy New Zealand, told the Inquiry that the majority of reports made to the Sisters of Mercy related to physical or psychological abuse by religious sisters and took place in children’s homes or orphanages.[969] Sister Sue France conceded that:

“It’s clear that because of mistakes made by the Church and by our Congregation, that children were harmed when tragically this could have and should have been avoided.

As a Congregation we’ve changed over time, and this Inquiry has highlighted more changes that were needed”.[970]

Hāhi Mihinare
Anglican Church

706. The Anglican Church acknowledges that children and young people were abused in its care. The Most Reverend Donald Tamihere told the Inquiry at its Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing:

“On behalf of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia we apologise to those who have suffered abuse while in the care of the church. It is horrific, shameful and completely unacceptable that people in our care have suffered abuse. We recognise and acknowledge that abuse has occurred within our church and we apologise unequivocally.”[971]

707. The Most Reverend Donald Tamihere also told the Inquiry that the Anglican Church “remain horrified and ashamed that children and vulnerable people in the care of the church were subjected to abuse.”[972] He acknowledged the many forms of abuse and stated that it had been “sexual, physical, verbal and emotional”[973] and that “such behaviour is indefensible and completely antithetical to the gospel that we believe in and the values that we uphold.”[974]

708. The Anglican Church also acknowledged the additional harm caused by attempting to hide or cover up the abuse:

“We are particularly ashamed by the evidence before the Royal Commission that members of our church covered up instances of abuse. We reiterate the sentiment in our past statement: to have ignored or covered up abuse is deplorable. There has been a failure by the church to protect those in its care and hold offenders to account. For that, we are deeply ashamed.”[975]

709. The Anglican Church extended its apologies to those survivors that were abused at Dilworth School in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland. The Right Reverend Ross Bay, Bishop of Auckland, stated:

“Especially today I wish to acknowledge and apologise to those who are the survivors of abuse at Dilworth School. This is a school that was meant to offer hope and stability for boys coming from vulnerable situations. Instead, advantage was taken of that vulnerability by various members of the staff. Among those who abused students were two Anglican chaplains. The church recognises its responsibility for these people who were the church’s direct representatives on the staff”.[976]

710. In addition to the harm caused to those within the care of the Anglican Church, Bishop Ross Bay acknowledged the Anglican Church’s lack of responsiveness to those who tried to report abuse:

“You did not receive the genuine care to which you were entitled. This failure has been compounded by our lack of responsiveness over the years to people who came forward to report abuse and to seek redress”.[977]

Hāhi Weteriana
Methodist Church

“The Church carries the primary responsibility for ensuring the protection and wellbeing of those in its care. We failed in this sacred duty and are determined to make amends”.[978]

711. The Methodist Church acknowledges that children and young people were subjected to sexual, physical and psychological abuse and neglect in Childrens’ Homes, in connected foster placements and at Wesley College in Pukekohe. The Church has taken full responsibility for every person who was abused and neglected while in the care of the church and its related institutions and that it carried the primary responsibility for ensuring their protection and well-being.[979]

712. The Methodist Church told the Inquiry that as it listened to survivors’ stories it has become apparent that some abuse and neglect would likely have been avoided if survivors had been believed when they spoke out. Reverend Tara Tautari (General Secretary of the Methodist Church) told the Inquiry that:

“Regretfully, the Church has not always accepted and acted on reports of abuse and has not taken appropriate disciplinary action. The Church acknowledges and apologises to the survivors who tried to report their abuse but were not listened to and those for whom the Church’s response inflicted further harm”.[980]

713. The Methodist Church accepted its failings in addressing complaints of abuse and neglect and in providing redress. It acknowledged that it is likely there has been abuse and neglect in its care settings that remains unreported.[981] The church stated that “it is likely that this is not the only case of genuine concerns being minimised or denied”.[982]

714. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, the Wesley College Trust Board acknowledged that the abuse and neglect suffered by children and young people has had significant consequences on those survivors, their whānau, and communities.[983] The Methodist Church took full responsibility for the harm caused by abuse and neglect in the care of all Methodist institutions, including Wesley College.[984] Reverend Tara Tautari (General Secretary of the Methodist Church) accepted that the church failed in its “sacred duty” to ensure the protection and wellbeing of those in its care[985] and apologised to survivors, their whānau, and loved ones.[986]

Hāhi Hāpori Karaitiana o Gloriavale
Gloriavale Christian Community

715. Hopeful Christian (Neville Cooper) (deceased), former Overseeing Shepherd and founder of Gloriavale Christian Community was convicted and jailed in 1995 for sexual offending, including against young people aged between 12 and 17, within the Gloriavale Community.[987] Current Overseeing Shepherd Howard Temple is defending charges of indecently assaulting 10 girls, offending that began in 1998.[988]

716. NZ European survivor Rosanna Overcomer, who is a representative of the Gloriavale Leaver’s Trust, told the Inquiry that:

“What was not dealt with appropriately went on to become the culture I was raised in. When people in positions of power have no accountability, they create a path of hurt and destruction. Systems left unchecked don’t improve, they deteriorate. This is what has happened at Gloriavale.”[989]

Te Hāhi Perehipitiriana me ōna ope whirinaki
Presbyterian Church and affiliated organisations

717. Reverend Wayne Matheson told the Inquiry that the Presbyterian Church has a policy of zero tolerance of abuse and neglect of people in their care and acknowledged this policy has not been consistently and thoroughly applied, and for that the Presbyterian Church was deeply sorry. Reverend Matheson said further that the Presbyterian Church is “extremely troubled that trust placed in the church has been broken by the abuse of people in our care.”[990]

718. The Inquiry notes that there is a distinct legal separation between the Presbyterian Church and the support services organisations that ran care settings during the Inquiry period. The Presbyterian Church conceded at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing that, despite the separate legal structures, survivors do not see a distinction between the church and its support services organisations, often referring to the two collectively as “the Church”.[991]

719. Most board members for homes that were run by support services were made up of members from the Presbyterian Church. Until the 1980s, governance boards for the support services organisations were comprised largely of Presbyterian Ministers. For example, until the early 1980s, Presbyterian Ministers made up most board members on the Board of Governance for Berhampore Home in Te Whanganui-ā-Tara Wellington. Berhampore Home was run by Presbyterian Support Central. Children and young people living there were alleged to have been abused by Berhampore Home’s Director and Manager Walter Lake.

720. Presbyterian Support Central told the Inquiry that it has seen no evidence to show that the church ever investigated complaints at Berhampore Home.[992] When there was a complaint made to the church, it was referred to Presbyterian Support Central to deal with.[993] Presbyterian Support Central told the Inquiry that it was not aware of any monitoring of Berhampore Home by the church at the time. Any focus on the home appeared to be on its financial viability.[994]

721. The Inquiry is aware of a complaint made in 1991 by a deaconess to the moderator of the Presbyterian Church, advising that Walter Lake was a sexual predator. There are no records to suggest that the moderator took any steps to respond. The Presbyterian Church accepts that if the moderator was advised, the church should have done more.[995]

722. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, the Presbyterian Church accepted that there was a moral responsibility for Presbyterian members sitting on boards of its support services organisations to report back to the church when they became aware of reports of abuse or neglect. Reverend Wayne Matheson told the Inquiry:

“I would think if I was sitting on a board and heard matters that were deeply distressing … and the board was … either unwilling or unable to take what I considered appropriate action, I would want to vote against any motion, etc, would also want my vote to be recorded and probably offer my reasons for dissent, so that they were on record in terms of that.”[996]

723. The Presbyterian Church accepted responsibility for the Presbyterian Ministers who sat on the board overseeing Berhampore Home not taking further steps when complaints about Walter Lake were raised.[997]

Te Pokapū Tautoko o te Hāhi Perehipitiriana
Presbyterian Support Central

724. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, Mr Asghar acknowledged the immediate and long-term harm that was suffered by survivors and their whānau from abuse and neglect at Berhampore Home:

“I’ve really been quite horrified and shocked at the way some children were treated in the home. Their mistreatment is to our absolute and great shame as an organisation. On behalf of Presbyterian Support Central, I offer a deep, profound and unreserved apology to survivors and their whānau for both the harm that they suffered as an individual and as children while in their care … and the harm that many actually are continuing to suffer as a direct result of their experiences in our care.”[998]

Te Perehipitiriana o Otākau
Presbyterian Support Otago

725. Presbyterian Support Otago ran two children’s homes, Glendinning Home in Ōtepoti Dunedin and Mārama Home in Lawrence, Ōtākou Otago, between 1950 and 1991.[999]

726. Survivor Ms PN, who was placed in Glendinning Home when she was 5 years old in 1950 or 1951, said she was severely sexually, physically and psychologically abused, including by parishoners of the local Presbyterian Church.[1000]

727. The Inquiry’s investigation into abuse and neglect in the care of Presbyterian Support Otago during the Inquiry period was made particularly difficult because in late 2017 or early 2018, Presbyterian Support Otago destroyed its records, apart from registers of names and dates.

728. The decision to destroy the records was made by the Chief Executive Officer at the time, Gillian Bremner, who instructed a staff member to destroy the records, with the exception of registers of names and dates. When asked by Joanne O’Neill, current Chief Executive Officer, Gillian Bremner confirmed that she obtained informal advice from lawyer and ex-Presbyterian Support Otago Board Chair Frazer Barton when deciding whether the records should be destroyed.[1001] Ms Bremner had contacted Mr Barton about whether Presbyterian Support Otago had to provide a survivor’s records to their legal representative. Mr Barton confirmed that Presbyterian Support Otago was legally obliged to provide the records. Ms Bremner then asked whether Presbyterian Support Otago could destroy the rest of the records for all children and young people who had been in its care and keep only minimal information. Ms Bremner suggested she would do so once the staff member responsible for looking after the files retired, which was likely to happen within the next five years. Mr Barton replied that he thought Presbyterian Support Otago could destroy the documents, “but at an appropriate milestone or anniversary.”

729. Although Presbyterian Support Otago had no internal document retention policy in 2017-2018, by the time the documents were destroyed they had already been held for at least 27 years since the homes had been closed.[1002] Joanne O’Neill told the Inquiry that she believes “there was an individual who was misguided in their decision-making.” She said that she recognised the significance of the documents and that destroying them is not a decision she would have made.[1003]

730. While it is unclear whether the documents were destroyed in late 2017 or early 2018, Joanne O’Neill acknowledged that at the time the decision was made to destroy the documents, Presbyterian Support Otago was aware of reports of abuse and neglect in its care[1004] and “that there was a plan for a Royal Commission to be put in place.”[1005] By 21 February 2018, Presbyterian Support Otago Board Minutes record reference to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.[1006]

731. The documents had already been destroyed by the time the Inquiry made a preservation of documents order on 28 March 2019, which prohibited State and faith-based institutions from destroying potentially relevant information.[1007]

732. Joanne O’Neill told the Inquiry that:

“first and foremost I want to apologise to all of those who have been harmed while they were in the care of Presbyterian Support Otago. This harm is the complete opposite of what should have resulted from the care provided by Presbyterian Support Otago and I am very sorry that that happened.”[1008]

733. Presbyterian Support Otago has accepted that one of the factors that enabled abuse and neglect to occur in its care homes included that people who were married, part of the church or involved in community objectives were believed to be upstanding and suitable to be involved in the care of children. It accepted that other factors that contributed to abuse and neglect were there was no external State agency review or audit of care standards of any of Presbyterian Support Otago’s homes (the focus was on maintaining financial viability), and the culture did not encourage children and others to raise concerns.[1009]

Te Ope Whakaora
The Salvation Army

734. The Salvation Army estimated that “thousands” of children and young people were cared for in their children’s homes during the Inquiry period.[1010]

735. The abuse and neglect suffered by those in the care of the Salvation Army’s children’s homes and homes for unwed mothers was wide-ranging and included sexual, physical and psychological abuse and neglect, including inadequate nutrition, hygiene and healthcare.[1011] The Salvation Army operated Bethany Homes where some women told the Inquiry they were made to feel shamed for being unwed mothers and felt pressured to adopt children, while being denied relevant information, medical and emotional help and support.[1012]

736. Murray Houston confirmed that, at 1 August 2020, the Salvation Army had received 238 claims regarding historical abuse and/or neglect.[1013] The Salvation Army has accepted that abuse and neglect in its care was wide-ranging and involved different types of perpetrators, including Salvation Army officers and other staff members, other residents, visitors to the homes and foster parents, among others.[1014]

Plymouth Brethren Christian Church

737. The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church has acknowledged five allegations of abuse,[1015] but does not necessarily accept that these incidents occurred within its care. The number of allegations of abuse acknowledged by the church is significantly lower than the 32 survivors who told the Inquiry about being abused and/or neglected while within the care of the church.

Ngā akonga i kitea he mea panoni i hua i ngā hinonga ā-whakapono
Lessons identified and changes made by faith-based institutions

738. During the Inquiry period, some lessons were learned by faith-based institutions who provided care to children, young people and adults in care, and they made changes as a result.

739. The large de-institutionalisation of faith-based care for children and women from the late 1970s has meant the closure of orphanages, children’s homes and unwed mother’s homes.

740. There were changes during the Inquiry period to allow women to hold positions of authority in most of the faiths the Inquiry investigated, however by the end of the Inquiry period (and still today) women were still underrepresented in leadership positions in most of the faiths the Inquiry investigated. To the Inquiry's knowledge, no faith-based institution kept on or proactively recruited Deaf or disabled people to positions of authority during the Inquiry period. From the late 1980s some faith-based institutions started to implement safeguarding guidelines and develop processes relating to responding to reports of abuse and neglect in their care. For example, in 1987, the New Zealand Catholic Bishops’ Conference released a pastoral letter to priests about sexual misconduct and in 1993, it published guidelines on sexual misconduct by clerics, religious and church employees sometimes referred to as the “provisional protocol”.

741. Towards the end of the Inquiry period, the Salvation Army and the Anglican, Catholic, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches made commitments to te Tiriti o Waitangi to create a bicultural relationship within their governance structures. These commitments are relatively recent, with most publicly acknowledging their commitments to te Tiriti o Waitangi in the 1990s.

742. At the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, Reverend Tara Tautari, the first Māori General Secretary of the Methodist Church, explained that it took a long time – from the Methodist Church’s beginnings in Aotearoa New Zealand in 1822 to its commitment to become a bicultural church in 1983 – because:

“The Church did not understand what it meant to be partners, to share power, to share power in very real and tangible ways; for example, resource sharing, decision-making. These in former times were held by a small group of leadership that was largely patriarchal.”[1016]

Ngā kōrero mutunga e pā ana ki te kawenga pūnaha taurima ā-whakapono
Conclusion on the faiths responsible for care

743. It was found that, in many faith-based institutions that provided care for children, young people and adults during the Inquiry period, that unique factors contributed to abuse and neglect, and created barriers to disclosure. These factors included:

a. the misuse of religious power
b. the moral authority and status of faith leaders and the access this power, authority and status gave them
c. sexism and negative perceptions of women
d. negative attitudes about sex and repression of sexuality
e. racism and ableism based on religious concepts
f. the interpretation of sexual abuse through the lens of sin and forgiveness.

744. Revererend Tara Tautari, on behalf of the Methodist Church of New Zealand at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing, said:

“The Church carries the primary responsibility for ensuring the protection and wellbeing of those in its care. We failed in this sacred duty and are determined to make amends”[1017]

745. Oversight and monitoring of faith-based institutions providing care was lacking, both in terms of external oversight by the State and internal oversight by the faiths themselves. Most faith-based institutions were not held to account and few lessons were learned during the Inquiry period.