Report
Final Report, Volume 16, Religious institutions (Books 1 and 2)
Volume 16 reports what the Commission learned about child sexual abuse in religious institutions across five years of case studies and private sessions. It gives data from 4,029 survivors who described abuse in religious settings and from claims surveys of Catholic, Anglican and Uniting authorities. It describes institutional responses in the Catholic, Anglican, Salvation Army, Jehovah's Witness, Pentecostal and Jewish institutions, then lists contributing factors: clericalism, governance, theology, canon law, celibacy and confession. It closes with 58 recommendations, some to all faiths, some to named bodies, some to the Holy See through the Australian bishops. The report states its data cannot show incidence or prevalence. Book 1 carries the findings and recommendations; Book 2 carries the history and case material.
Who made it
- Established by the Australian Government under Letters Patent dated 11 January 2013 and reported on 15 December 2017 (Volume 16, Preface and Executive Summary).
- The Commission held 30 case studies on religious institutions and heard 6,875 survivors in private sessions to 31 May 2017, of whom 4,029 described abuse in religious institutions (Volume 16, Summary, p. 15).
- Catholic figures come from a survey of 201 Catholic Church authorities, of which 92 reported receiving claims, and from a survey of 75 authorities on member numbers (Volume 16, Summary, pp. 15 and 34-35).
- Its Terms of Reference barred prejudicing criminal or civil proceedings; three case study reports were tabled with redactions and two not tabled until criminal proceedings ended (Volume 16, ch. 'Our work', fns 43-45).
- The Volume 16 Book 1 copy we hold is an archive snapshot of 4 February 2019; the Commission's site lists an unredacted Volume 16 Book 2 tabled 7 May 2020.
Its claims checked against the record
10 claims checked:8 supported · 2 partly supported · 0 contradicted · 0 not in the record
A verdict rests on the documents named in its row.
| The work says | Verdict | What the record shows |
|---|---|---|
| Catholic Church authorities received 4,756 claims from 4,444 claimants between 1980 and 2015, identified 1,880 known alleged perpetrators, and paid $268.0 million on 3,057 claims. | Supported by the record | The Summary states 4,444 claimants in 4,756 reported claims, 1,880 known alleged perpetrators, and 3,057 claims paid, $268.0 million in total ($250.7 million in compensation on 2,845 claims). Data came from authorities' own survey returns, 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2015. |
| Of Catholic priests who ministered in Australia from 1950 to 2010, 7 percent were alleged perpetrators; for the St John of God Brothers the figure was 40.4 percent. | Supported by the record | The Commission surveyed 75 authorities on members and years of ministry and calculated a duration-weighted proportion: '7 per cent were alleged perpetrators' of priests. The figure counts people named in claims, not convictions, and the Volume states its data 'cannot be used to determine the incidence or prevalence' of abuse. |
| Catholic leaders knew of abuse by clergy well before the 1990s and responded by moving priests and religious, sending them for 'treatment', and not using canon law discipline. | Supported by the record | The Volume concludes 'there were catastrophic failures of leadership of Catholic Church authorities over many decades, particularly before the 1990s' and that removal and transfer 'was one of the most common responses'; some transfers gave 'untrue or misleading reasons'; authorities 'did not engage with these canonical processes' before the early 1990s. |
| The Commission found that compulsory celibacy contributed to child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and recommended that voluntary celibacy for diocesan clergy be considered. | Supported by the record | The text reads: 'While not a direct cause of child sexual abuse, we are satisfied that compulsory celibacy (for clergy) and vowed chastity (for members of religious institutes) have contributed to the occurrence of child sexual abuse, especially when combined with other risk factors.' Recommendation 16.18 asks the bishops to request that the Holy See 'consider introducing voluntary celibacy for diocesan clergy'; it is a request to consider, not a demand. |
| The Australian bishops' response said the Commission 'made no finding of a causal connection between celibacy and child sexual abuse'. | Partly supported | The Commission found celibacy 'not a direct cause' and made no finding of sole or direct causation. It did find that compulsory celibacy 'contributed to the occurrence' of abuse and that there is 'an elevated risk' where compulsorily celibate men have privileged access to children; the quoted response omits both findings. |
| The Commission recommended that clergy not be exempt from mandatory reporting of abuse disclosed in confession. | Partly supported | Volume 16 repeats that there 'should be no exemption' for knowledge 'formed on the basis of information received in or in connection with a religious confession' but cites it as Recommendation 7.4 (Volume 7) and Recommendation 35 (Criminal Justice report). Its own Recommendation 16.26 asks only that the bishops ask the Holy See whether the seal covers a child's disclosure and whether absolution can be withheld until a perpetrator self-reports. |
| The Catholic Church accepted the Commission's recommendations except the removal of the confessional exemption, and the Holy See upheld the inviolability of the seal. | Supported by the record | Daly's summary: the ACBC 'accepted all of them, except one concerning the seal of confession'; the Holy See's reply, quoting the Apostolic Penitentiary's note of 29 June 2019, says 'The confessor is never allowed, for any reason whatsoever, to betray in any way a penitent', while a confessor 'may, and indeed in certain cases should, encourage a victim to seek help outside the confessional'. The ACBC and Holy See texts themselves were read only through these two secondary reproductions. |
| The Holy See answered the canon law recommendations: it removed the pontifical secret from abuse cases, and qualified the recommendation to keep records at least 45 years. | Supported by the record | Per Daly's reproduction, the Instruction of 6 December 2019 'removed from the ambit of the Pontifical Secret accusations, canonical processes and decisions in cases concerning the sexual abuse of minors'. On 16.17 the Holy See said the approach 'might not be practicable in all cases' because civil archive and privacy rules diverge, and noted canon 489 §2 keeps 'a brief summary' when documents are destroyed. |
| Jehovah's Witnesses elders did not report to police any of the 1,006 alleged perpetrators recorded in Watchtower Australia's case files, and the Commission recommended ending the two-witness rule in abuse cases. | Supported by the record | Case Study 29 finds 'no evidence before the Royal Commission of the Jehovah's Witness organisation having reported to police or other secular authority a single one' of the 1,006. Volume 16 adds that a recently published child safeguarding policy requires reporting where a child may still be at risk, which it welcomes. |
| Failures of response were not confined to the Catholic Church: the Commission found them in Anglican, Salvation Army, Jehovah's Witness and Jewish institutions, and found fewer than five survivors each for Orthodox, Islamic, Baha'i and Hindu institutions. | Supported by the record | Catholic institutions were named by 2,489 of 4,029 survivors (61.8 percent), Anglican 594 (14.7), Salvation Army 294 (7.3), Jehovah's Witness 70, Pentecostal 37, Jewish 25. The Volume found Anglican allegations went unreported 'in a timely manner, if at all', that Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne lacked adequate policies until at least 2007, and says religions raised by fewer than five survivors included Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Islamic, Baha'i and Hindu. Counts reflect who attended private sessions, not abuse rates by faith. |
What the record shows that it leaves out
- Recommendation 7.4 (no confession exemption from mandatory reporting) and Recommendation 35 (failure-to-report offence applies to confession-derived knowledge) sit in Volume 7 and the Criminal Justice report; Volume 16 Book 1 restates them but numbers none of them among its 58 (Volume 16, pp. 48-49 and 66-67; Volumes 7 and Criminal Justice, not held).
- Redacted material: Case Study reports 28 (Ballarat), 35 (Melbourne) and 42 (Anglican Diocese of Newcastle) were tabled with redactions, and Case Studies 43 (Maitland-Newcastle) and 44 (Armidale and Parramatta) were not tabled, because of criminal proceedings; Volume 16 applies the same redactions (Volume 16, fns 44-45, p. 102). The Commission's site lists the unredacted Case Studies 28 and 35 and Volume 16 Book 2 as tabled 7 May 2020 (https://www.bishop-accountability.org/2020/05/previously-redacted-reports/, citing https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/previously-redacted-reports).
- Records destroyed or unreachable: the Volume cites Cahill and Wilkinson that 'loss or destruction of material held in diocesan secret archives' limits any history of Catholic abuse, and Recommendation 16.17 asks that canon 489's destruction rule be removed with a 45-year minimum retention (Volume 16 Book 2 s. 3.1.2; Recommendation 16.17, p. 75).
- Canon law: the Commission records that in the 1990s and early 2000s the Holy See 'considered that bishops were not free to report' to civil authorities and that this changed in 2010, while making no finding on the proper interpretation of canon law (Volume 16, pp. 45-46).
- Responses after the report: federal and state governments' responses and the state laws removing the confessional exemption are not in the Volume; Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the ACT legislated in 2018-2019 per press reports (dates not verified; see notes).
- Holy See response on Recommendation 16.18: it 'accepts the good will of the Royal Commission' but 'wishes to emphasize the great value of celibacy' and says 'no direct cause and effect exists' between celibacy and abuse (Daly, s. 2.4.2); the Commission's own finding was also that celibacy was not a direct cause.
Documented efforts and withheld records
Each item is a documented act, with its source: an act against the work, its author or its sources, or the withholding of records on its subject. The list states what was done and does not state why.
- December 2017. The Commission recommended that its report on Case Study 28 (Catholic Church authorities in Ballarat), Case Study 35 (Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne) and Case Study 42 (Anglican Diocese of Newcastle) be tabled with redactions, and Volume 16 applied the same redactions; the Commission stated the ground as its Terms of Reference duty not to prejudice criminal proceedings. Royal Commission, Final Report Volume 16 Book 1, 'Our work', p. 102 and fn 44
- December 2017. The Commission recommended that its reports on Case Study 43 (Maitland-Newcastle) and Case Study 44 (Armidale and Parramatta) not be tabled or published until criminal proceedings ended. Royal Commission, Final Report Volume 16 Book 1, fn 45
- 7 May 2020. The Commission tabled unredacted Case Studies 28 and 35 and an unredacted Volume 16 Book 2 after the criminal proceedings concluded. Abuse Tracker (bishop-accountability.org) listing the Commission's 'previously redacted reports' page
- 31 August 2018. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and Catholic Religious Australia declined to accept Recommendation 7.4, the removal of the confession exemption from mandatory reporting. Vatican News report of the ACBC/CRA response
- 26 February 2020 (published September 2020). The Holy See, answering the recommendations forwarded by the bishops, stated that the seal is inviolable and that celibacy has no direct cause-and-effect link to abuse, and said a requirement to retain secret-archive records for 45 years 'might not be practicable in all cases'. Daly, Studia Canonica 55 (2021), quoting the Holy See response; Vatican News, 4 September 2020
Published responses
- Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and Catholic Religious Australia: Joint response of 31 August 2018 accepted, accepted in principle or supported nearly all recommendations addressed to the Church and declined Recommendation 7.4, saying it is 'contrary to our faith and inimical to religious liberty'; it said the Commission 'made no finding of a causal connection between celibacy and child sexual abuse' and forwarded 13 recommendations to the Holy See.
- The Holy See: Replied on 26 February 2020 to the 12 recommendations forwarded, published September 2020: affirmed the inviolability of the seal, lifted the pontifical secret for abuse cases from 6 December 2019, rejected the practicability of 16.17 in all jurisdictions, and declined to treat celibacy as a cause.
- Truth Justice and Healing Council: Media release of 15 December 2017 welcoming the Final Report.
- Australian Government: On 13 June 2018 accepted in principle 104 of the 122 recommendations directed to it and rejected none.
Where it connects
- What Was Known: Compares Catholic, Anglican, Salvation Army, Jehovah's Witness, Pentecostal and Jewish responses and records the redactions, destroyed archives and Holy See answers on the seal, secret and celibacy.
- Untaxed and Unaudited: Recommendations 16.58 (national registers) and 16.31-16.34 (child safe standards) show governance and oversight gaps; use only if the chapter covers disclosure of internal records.