Accuser wants church liable for abuse

Landmark case tests ‘employment’ of ministers after sex allegations

The Anglican Church is facing a landmark case from a parishioner arguing it should be responsible for abusive priests — one of whom allegedly harassed her in counselling sessions after her baby’s death.

It will be the first time a New Zealand church has been tested as an employer under human-rights law.

If the case is successful, it could prompt wholesale changes in the hiring and training of ministers.

Until now, churches accused of abuse had argued clergy were not employees providing a service, but agents of God responding to a “calling”, and therefore church hierarchy could not be held accountable.

However, in the case currently before the Human Rights Review Tribunal, it was argued the priest was an “agent” of his diocese, and that he abused the woman while carrying out his duties — and therefore both the vicar and the bishop were “vicariously liable” under the sexualharassment provisions in the Human Rights Act.

Similar cases overseas have had mixed results — but in the UK and Canada recently, courts found the church liable for its priests.

Court documents released to the Weekend Herald show the woman, whose name is suppressed, accused Blenheim priest Michael van Wijk of touching her inappropriately during one-on-one counselling sessions at the Nativity Anglican Church in Blenheim during the mid-2000s.

The woman’s baby son had died pre-term, causing her extreme grief and to turn to the church and the pastor’s counsel for solace, she said.

She alleged that when she tried to end the counselling services, van Wijk implied she would have to leave the church. During that time, he also continued to pressure her for sex, she said, causing her to suffer humiliation, a loss of dignity and injury to her feelings.

She said she felt despair, shame, guilt, trauma, betrayal and lost her trust in men and the church because of van Wijk’s alleged actions.

The woman is seeking an order for the church to prevent further similar harassment, and that the Nelson diocese undergo harassment training. She also seeks $100,000 in reparations.

In his reply, van Wijk denied any harassment, saying any sexual intimacy was consensual, and in the context of an ongoing relationship.

The two church officers named — the Bishop of Nelson (then Derek Eaton) and the Vicar of Blenheim parish (then Richard Ellena, now the Bishop of Nelson) — said they had no knowledge of the alleged harassment and therefore were not responsible.

While van Wijk was appointed by Eaton and he reported to Ellena, he was not an employee. The spiritual counsel provided was not a formal counselling service, they said.

In any case, the diocese had taken reasonable steps to prevent any harassment with thorough training and ongoing supervision, they said.

In response to how they dealt with van Wijk, Ellena said when he was made aware of the “relationship” between the pair, van Wijk was placed on leave, and then asked to tender his resignation after he continued to contact the woman.

Ellena said he was not made aware of the abuse allegations at that time, and did not learn their alleged full extent until the woman made a complaint to the church in 2016 — leading to van Wijk being formally defrocked last year.

Van Wijk has never been charged by police, although a complaint was made in 2005, and investigated. The handling of the case is now before the Independent Police Conduct Authority. Van Wijk refused to comment for this article.

In a statement, the Diocese of Nelson said that since the events, it had revised its protocols to ensure safety.

“The Diocese reiterates its deep regret for the actions of one called to be an ordained minister of the Church, which [add up] to a significant breach of trust against the complainant.”

The woman at the centre of the case said she could not comment before it concluded. Given delays in the tribunal, that may be next year.

Churches have covered up sexual abuse by their priests for probably just one reason — Christianity is a forgiving creed.

Its offending clerics have broken spiritual as well as temporal laws and the offenders’ opportunity for spiritual reconciliation has been more important to the hierarchy than the demands of public justice.

That is obviously no defence in courts of law. Instead, the churches have been running a far less respectable defence which is about to be tested before the Human Rights Review Tribunal in a case we report today.

The Anglican Church is arguing that a priest accused by a parishioner of sexual harassment was an agent of God not the church and therefore its hierarchy cannot be held accountable for his behaviour.

Lawyers for the complainant insist the priest was an agent of his diocese, and the vicar of his parish (in Blenheim) and the bishop of the diocese (Nelson) are “vicariously liable” under the harassment provisions of the Human Rights Act.

It is a pity to see how far the Christian church sometimes goes to avoid responsibility for the conduct of some of the men they have made priests and put in positions of great trust.

Evidently this “agent of God” defence has had some success overseas though courts in the UK and Canada have recently ruled the church is liable for unlawful actions of its priests.

So it should be. Their church trains them, knows them, and posts them to parishes where needy and vulnerable people will come to them for advice and support. Churches should accept responsibility and pay for the consequences.