Institutional Betrayal, Psychoanalytic Insights on the Anglican Church’s Response to Abuse

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article aims to use psychoanalytic concepts to 1) explain the responses of church leaders to those who have been sexually abused by church ministers and 2) depict the sense of betrayal persons felt by those responses. The introduction is confusing. The third paragraph tells the reader where the author is getting his qualitative data, which is followed by puzzling paragraph about the “next” section. What is the first section? The lack of a clear introduction indicates that the remaining essay is confusing as well. The next section of the paper begin with a section of the report which the author indicates is an example of deception, which is followed by a convoluted paragraph of varied psychoanalytic concepts. I am not sure if the author presumes that readers are familiar with psychanalytic theory and concepts (I am psychoanalytically trained and have published in a number of analytic journals, and I still could not make sense of what this author was trying to do.), but even if so, there was no clear presentation and use of these concepts in illuminating deception or dynamics. And one presumes the Bishop was being deceitful, but how is one to know, except to take the word of the author. Then the author moves from the individual to the institution, as if they are one in the same. The notion of dependency muddies the water even more. In this section, the author also uses the notion of “incohesion.” I am not sure what that means analytically and its relation to dependency. The next section addresses how the church hierarchy defends against anxieties. The author makes a comparison with the psychosocial defenses of abusers and those leaders who have covered for them. The there is a list of “collective hierarchical defense.” These come across as a series of categorical facts. I am not sure where the author gets these, but they are questionable. Take the first one. Why must one disown one’s vulnerabilities if one is part of the hierarchy? And what exactly does vulnerability refer to—existential? After providing an illustration of a bishop’s comments, the author writes, “This self-inflation (Bishop’s) is strengthened by the delusion of omnipotence. There is a shamelessness in maintaining his authority, and a denial of any wrong-doing. There may also be an underlying theme of implicit denigration of women and children, and anxieties about homosexuality.” First, while I am sympathetic to this interpretation, it is questionable whether the bishop actually has a delusion of omnipotence. There may indeed be denigration and anxieties about homosexuality, but where is the proof or evidence of these large claims? The author needs to do the work to make the case. The following section shifts to institutional betrayal, which is followed by a section that serves as a conclusion and an attempt to comment about redemption. The author is trying to do too much in this paper and as a result it lacks clarity and persuasiveness. It may be helpful to flesh out the psychological dynamics associated with particular church leaders who resisted taking action. I am not familiar with all the research on this topic of the last 2 decades, but I can imagine it is considerable. Then the author would have to indicate why their psychoanalytic view is preferable or adds to the literature. The other possible avenue is to do an entire paper on institutional betrayal, juxtaposing trauma literature with literature regarding the failures of church leaders to listen to victims and address this crisis. By the way, church institutions have responded. The question is whether these responses are or were sufficient and if not why not?

Author Response

Your comments certainly led to further reflection. I found your thoughts on the introduction were helpful. Thank you for taking the time to consider the paper, and I'm sorry that you found some of the ideas difficult to understand.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper deals with the relatively sensitive topic of sexual abuse of children by clergy. The authors analyze the causes, but also the reactions of the clergy themselves to the given undesirable phenomenon. The approach of the authors is also carried in the intentions of psychoanalysis. The study focused on the Catholic Church as well as the Anglican Church. The study also deals with the question to what extent the reaction of senior clergy in the Church of England is appropriate. He argues with the question of the inadequacy of reactions to the given adverse events. The study also discusses the principle of subordination, hierarchy and authority within churches. He reflects on the role of the laity on the one hand and the clergy on the other. The authors point to the fact that there were tens of thousands of child victims of such crimes around the world. The method of solution was either secrecy or a solution through relatively mild church law, which provided room for relapse. This is how the authors evaluate the solution of the events. The authors criticize the willful blindness as well as the influence of abusers in the mentioned denominations. The study also deals with the victimization of the victims, primarily in the sense of secondary victimization. The authors showed a very critical attitude towards the representatives of the clergy.

Part of the study is also an interview with bishop dr. Peter Forster. It was an opinion on the adequacy of the punishment for a certain sex offender from among the clergy. The questions are also aimed at evaluating acts of child abuse, as well as child pornography. The bishop answered the mentioned questions. The authors evaluate part of the conversation as an effort by the bishop to defend his colleague in priestly service. The authors perceive the organization's reaction as negligence. For various reasons, even the victims and witnesses themselves can withdraw from the conviction. The authors draw attention to the lack of verification at the time of publication. According to the authors, the representative of the clergy experiences shame, this shame is often the trigger of reactions that try to silence witnesses, obscure the investigation of the act itself. The mentioned secondary victimization also plays its role. The authors describe some of the specifics of the clergy's sexual offense intentions, responses, and investigations that did not lead to convictions. The authors also mention excesses of formalism in the sense that, for example, the bishop and archbishop act from a position of strength.

We consider the conclusion to correspond with the contribution. The authors say that it is difficult to break cycles of abuse.

The authors used quite a few references. The conclusion and structure of the post is fine.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments on the paper. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Psychoanalytic theory is used to explore not only the Anglican Church's failures to respond adequately to victims of clergy sexual abuse but its role in revictimization through institutional betrayal. The paper's analysis offers a helpful and effective lens for understanding the impact of institutional betrayal in the Anglican Church. The only area that could use slightly more development is what organizational redemption entails - it was unclear what method for redemption the author sees given that it is one concluding paragraph. 

While the abstract refers to multiple religious denominations, it is only the Anglican Church that is focused on and that could be made clearer in the abstract or by adding Anglican to the title. Otherwise, the language of the institutional church also implies the Roman Catholic Church.

The attached pdf identifies some minor issues for revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments on the paper and the suggested minor revisions. I have taken on your suggestion about expanding the final section. 

Reviewer 4 Report

I might suggest drawing out one key psychoanalytic idea, represented by a single text/essay, and then applying the theoretical insights to a central portion of the data/evidence.  

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments on the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is much improved. It is clear and well-organized.