Sexual abuse is grim; sexual abuse in the church is even grimmer, because the church sets high moral standards for its adherents and especially its clergy.
This makes reporting stories about sexual misconduct inherently grim and challenging.
All this is compounded when a child is involved and multiplied again when it involves a parent. What to do then when a story emerges about a minister disciplined over his daughter’s complaint that he sexually abused her over a 14-year period beginning when she was two?
What to do when there is no trial, but only the results and recommendation of the initial investigation? When the accused submits to the ordinary jurisdiction of presbytery, with no trial and no direct evidence called or challenged?
Such is the background of the sad news story in this issue concerning Rev. Bruce Cossar and his daughter, Anne Vautour.
Twenty years ago, Ms. Vautour began recalling instances of childhood abuse by her father. These recollections have been shown to be accurate in circumstantial detail and Ms. Vautour is said to exhibit traits consistent with abused women in the therapy she has undergone.
Her father says he has no recollection of any such events.
Of course none of this proves or disproves anything.
Until the 1980s, allegations of abuse in the church were practically unheard of. Around that time, however, stories of abuse by a number of Roman Catholic clergy in Newfoundland began to emerge. They were followed by the tales of horrific abuse at the Mount Cashel orphanage that gripped the country.
Shortly after Mount Cashel, in the early 1990s, Canadian churches began to develop protocols for
dealing with allegations of abuse. The Presbyterian Church’s policy dates from 1993.
The case outlined in this issue has clearly tested the church’s system for dealing with such allegations. With no corroborating evidence, the investigating committee spent about 18 months interviewing both the principal parties involved, their family and friends.
Their report also indicates that they spent a great deal of time reading about the subject.
Quite reasonably, decisions of this kind are based on the preponderance of evidence, also known as the balance of probabilities. Reasonably, because an employer or a professional certification association needs to be able to set and enforce a standard for employment or professional standing.
The civil burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, was famously described by the English judge Lord Denning in 1947 as “more probable than not.” That does not mean that it is a simple test of odds, however.
In an important case in 2008, Justice Rothstein, writing a decision for the Supreme Court of Canada, said: “… [E]vidence must always be sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to satisfy the balance of probabilities test.”
And that is where reporting this particular story runs into another difficulty. Presbytery was only presented with indirect evidence (the confidential report of the investigating commission) and the court was held in camera. (The Record has a copy of the report.) As the only media covering this case, we find ourselves in a difficult position.
On the one hand, part of our job is to help the administration and courts of the church to be as transparent as possible to the wider church. This is one of the fundamental responsibilities of journalism in our society and why a free press is constitutionally protected; transparency assists in accountability.
On the other hand, whichever side one believes is true in this situation, the story exposes a minister and his family to the court of public opinion based on a decision which might well fail the test of natural justice were it reviewed by an appeal to a civil court.
It appears that will not happen. Mr. Cossar told the Record’s reporter that he thought it pointless to go the church trial route. His daughter said much the same thing in her letter to presbytery two years ago explaining why she hadn’t pursued criminal charges against her father, saying she lacked faith in the system and the necessary emotional strength.
All of which makes a grim story even more tragic.
Re: the editorial and article on the process and decision of The Presbytery of Kingston regarding the complaint of Anne Vautour
The question of the “balance of probabilities” is secondary to the issue of what information is appropriate to be published in a national Church journal. When last I checked a “closed” or “in camera” meeting of a court still means “zip it” and a search for a synonym for the word “transparency” in my Thesaurus did not offer the word “vindictive”. (Your source however seems to be both.) Congratulations in one edition you’ve managed to destroy the trust of the members of the PCC who now question what “in camera” really means, discredit the integrity of our court system, shame extended family members including innocent children and stoop to the level of the National Enquirer. You must be very proud.
[Reply]
Editor Reply:
April 12th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
I think there may be a few misunderstandings. Meetings held in camera can still be reported on. The in camera doesn’t necessarily apply after the meeting. Secondly, both the complainant and defendant as well as some members of presbytery openly spoke to us on the record after the meeting. Thirdly, the word vindictive implies revenge. The Record merely reported a decision made by a presbytery. Nothing more.
[Reply]
Having just read the article entitled A Probabilities Test I am completely flabbergasted. And I thank Sabrina Ingram for her comment with which I totally agree. The Presbyterian Record Editor admits that “The Record has a copy of the report” right after stating that “Presbytery was only presented with indirect evidence (the CONFIDENTIAL report of the investigating commission) and the court was held IN CAMERA.” Isn’t there a logical contradiction here? This is, after all, the Presbyterian Record, a publication of the Presbyterian Church, and it seems obvious that it should follow the rules of the Church, even if its source obviously does not.
The Editor goes on to say “As the only media covering this case, we find ourselves in a difficult position.” Indeed! He should have added: but have no choice other than not to report on an in camera event. Mr. Harris is not a Presbyterian and has obviously failed the ethical test. He should resign forthwith. I used to donate to the Presbyterian Record Fund. I won’t anymore.
[Reply]
Another clarification: the Presbyterian Record is not funded or governed by the Presbyterian Church, so church polity doesn’t really apply.
Also — and this is just an observation — it seems that you are valuing secrecy above all else. We respectfully take a different view.
[Reply]
PD Johnston Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Anyone who has been trained as a Reverend should have received enough counselling training to be able to distinguish between “keeping secrets” and “maintaining confidences.” There are times when the gospel of grace requires us to maintain a confidence. This is not an ethic one learns in the “publish or perish” world of journalism school. But it is an ethic we learn from Jesus Christ, who calls us to place the good of others ahead of our own.
On the other hand, the Record leadership seems to be valuing independence above all else. The attitude seems to be “we will publish what we want about whomever we want however we want and we are not accountable to anyone for our decisions so no one can tell us otherwise.” Is that the model we want to set before the world for how Christians treat one another?
What good purpose was the Record hoping to achieve by publishing this material? How did this publication advance the gospel of Jesus Christ? How did it promote reconciliation in a troubled situation? From what I have read in the editorial comments in defense of the decision to publish, the decision to publish was self-evidently and obviously good in itself and needed no justification. Andrew Faiz hinted, though, there was some discussion about whether to publish the news report. What pluses and minuses did you consider in the choice? How did you weigh the likely harms and the possible benefits before deciding the decision to publish was the best one?
[Reply]
Andrew Faiz Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 10:54 am
Really? Our attitude is “we will publish what we want about whomever we want however we want and we are not accountable to anyone?” Really? You gauge this from this editorial? From the article the editorial addresses? From the online comments about this editorial? Or perhaps from the other 51 pages in the magazine? Or from the other issues this year and last year and the year before?
We published the results of a presbytery’s discerning, the process of that discernment and comments from a variety of people involved in the process. It is a discomfiting story. But we didn’t sideswipe anybody. All involved were aware and participated.
And we did have many discussions around this story. We asked the very questions you have asked: how does this advance the gospel, the kingdom, promote reconciliation? We discussed these ideas and many others, and through the discussions we strove to better understand our jobs as church journalists.
It is a complicated story. A recovered memory accusation of events that took place before a person entered ministry. Accusations not tested in criminal or civic courts. Still a court of our church took the accusations seriously and considered them seriously.
Presbytery is an open court. Even in-camera decisions are public; though not necessarily the discussion.
By not publishing certain stories we set ourselves as censors. In much the same way that officers of the court have to deal with the issues brought to the court, we do as well. It is our job to share the significant events of the church. And we do our best to bring those stories to light. For most times this is a pleasant task. Great initiatives, great sacrifices, great workers tending the garden. Sometimes we have to tell uncomfortable, even disturbing, stories. Have to; don’t want to, have to, because they are part of the story of the church. We cannot cherry-pick the stories of the church.
And, so over 52 pages you get a rich snapshot of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. And in amongst the great stories — the cover story is magnificent — we have a particularly dark one.
And from this one story are many policies, directions, ideas that we can take away. There is a family in great pain. Is there room in our church to embrace that pain and help in healing? Is there room in our polity for reconciliation and healing? Or is our polity only about process and judgement?
And so, if I could shift from managing editor to member of the church: This story can, if we want it to, help us as a church of Christ, heal ourselves, understand our own responsibilities.
Good comes from sharing stories. No good comes from censoring stories–Christ certainly did not choose the prettier corners of the world. He kept dicey company, went to dark places, met with people in trauma. He healed, he helped, he didn’t just judge.
[Reply]
I am certainly discomfited to see my illusions about the Presbyterian Record shattered… However, since its editor feels that he has “to be as transparent as possible to the wider church” notwithstanding the “in camera” annoyance, he should have the honesty to report the whole truth. Like what I learned from a person who is not a member of any court of the Presbyterian Church in Canada: that before the Kingston Presbytery decision was reached, the vote was taken on the motion to find Rev. Cossar guilty and the result was evenly divided between for and against. This certainly is not divine justice!
[Reply]
Andrew Faiz Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Philippe, That information is in the article. The vote regarding Rev. Cossar was passed by a narrow majority of one.
I am a Presbyterian and an elder of this church. I can assure you that any article that appears in the magazine is discussed by the staff. This particular one was as well. We reported a decision made by a presbytery. We spoke to those who were involved—the accuser, the accused and members of presbytery. We gave voice to those involved in a very very difficult process. We gave a sense of the timeline, how hard a presbytery worked, what process they went through.
We are not funded by the Church but we are fully dependent on its members and its advertising. And this is our role: To tell the story of what happens in the church. We tell good news stories. We tell bad news stories. And sometimes we have to tell ugly, disturbing stories. But this is our job—to bring transparency to church process. We feel this is a very important job. And, as in this case, it is not an easy one, nor is it always enjoyable. In the April issue you will read many many different perspectives on the Presbyterian Church in Canada. You will read stories of stalwart servants working for the betterment of the church; you will read theological perspectives; the cover story about a church in Calgary is one of incredible acts of faith and redemption. Sadly, the Cossar story is also a part of our church; of how an awful accusation was brought forward and how a presbytery dealt with it.
It is not only for these reasons that I am deeply hurt to read attacks against my colleague David Harris, that because he is not a member of our special tribe he is somehow vindictive and incompetent. I can assure you that as a priest and a journalist Mr. Harris is motivated by his Christian mission to act and speak with honesty.
As human beings we often fail our mission—there may be other horrendous stories in our church which we have not shared in the magazine because we were unaware of them. But once these stories cross our path and they have been made public through the process of our courts, we are compelled to share them with our readers. That is our Christian mission as Christian journalists—not to varnish an institution, a bureaucracy or a culture. (And for which we are often mocked.) But to present it honestly in its glory and in its failings. If we can perform this duty honestly then we hope to create the space to have honest conversations.
[Reply]
If The Record is not accountable to the Presbyterian Church in Canada and does not value the laws of the denomination regretably the word “Presbyterian” should be removed from the title and the every home plan be stopped.
I do not value secrecy above all else. Rev. Cossar’s name has been circulated to presbyteries which is appropriate in light of the decision (whether correct or not) of The Presbytery of Kingston. I value our polity which is there for a reason. Clearly your editorial board does not.
Let me clarify that I am not accusing The Record or Mr. Harris of being vindictive; I can think of no reason why either should be. I believe the article was written in good faith (although poor judgment). However after a minister has been disciplined and that name publically circulated to all presbyteries, and the extended family has been put through hell, I cannot think of another reason your source for the information would want to expose them to further exposure and humiliation.
Apart from being in contempt of our Church law this article does nothing to edify the body of Christ or bring about further justice. A discussion on the balance of probabilities could have been started without naming names.
All in all, a very public apology from The Record to the Denomination, The Presbytery of Kingston and the extended family is required. Sadly for Mr. Harris the buck stops with him.
[Reply]
Andrew Faiz Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Sabrina,
I think you raise some very important questions and issues. I don’t agree with your perspective on a single one of them but I do believe they need to be discussed openly in our denomination.
Conversation within the PCC is of great import. For a small denomination we are divisive. For one example: Even if we showed poor judgement as you argue, you’d like the magazine shut down by having its subscription base erased. That is akin to saying that there is no conversational space left.
Conversation is not arm twisting, convincing, threatening, badgering. Conversation is listening with compassion.
I’ve already stated my case—our mission as Christian journalists requires that sometimes, and fortunately rarely, we go into ugly corners. We don’t like going there, we don’t want to go there, but it is a part of the story of the church.
If we start picking and choosing out of our discomfort, then we are corrupting the story of the church. The church, our church, is a human institution filled with many many high points, which we share eagerly, many challenges, which we open to discussion regularly, and a few ugly lows. We HAVE to embrace the peaks and the valleys.
This all begs the question: What is Church? I would present that Church is you and me talking to each other; opening and closing in prayer; with our confession and our faith. Church is secondly (or thirdly, or fourthly) polity, bureaucracy, building, or culture. Church is you and I disagreeing on a thousand points and agreeing on the only one point that matters, that Christ reigns in us and with us.
Whether the news story and the editorial edify the body of Christ? Well, that’s a theological discussion we need to have in the open. And often.
[Reply]
I have read this page and its responses several times over the past few days and I must say that I am saddened by the entire issue. I think the Presbyterian Record did its due diligence in posting the “Minister Suspended” story on April 1, 2011. I am not sure what this particular reflection was intended to do other than make sure no one missed the story. Simply stated, it was an uncomfortable situation for everyone involved. Victims of sexual abuse are life-long victims and each one has to deal with the healing process in the manner which enables them to live life. I feel guilty adding to the continuation of discussion but I feel that there could have been deeper understanding in the logic or responsibility in feeling the necessity to post this story.
[Reply]
While Mr. Harris lies outside the discipline of the PCC it is my hope that Mr. Faiz (a self-confessed Presbyterian elder)whose primary loyalty is due to the Church of which Christ is Head (and not to a worldly journalistic ethic) will write to the Clerk of the Presbytery of Kingston submitting a complaint against the individual(s) who disclosed the “confidential report” and who disclosed the vote of an “in camera meeting”. If it was appropriate to read and report on these “confidential matters” would it not be equally appropriate to include the “confidential report” on the website? If you even have to contemplate that answer your editorial board is in a deep moral quagmire.
However, my primary concern in all of this lies outside the scope of the current debate. The Apostle Paul should have been kicked out of the Apostolic Circle for his complicity in the death of Stephen(a time before he was a Christian preacher). Certainly St. Augustine should have been excluded from all pastoral duties and from the bishop’s club for his sexual romps before he was ordained a priest. Margaret of Cortona was the mistress of a nobleman before she was sainted. Charles Coulson could never have been involved in prison ministry. Martin Luther King a felon could not have been a great Christian leader. Nicky Cruz, a former New York Mau Mau gang warlord, could not have become a great Christian Evangelist.
Ministers are held to a higher standard but it is a standard that applies while they are ministers of Word and Sacrament. If there were evidence that Mr. Cossar engaged in pedophilia during his ministy the court’s decision would have been understandable and warranted.
The Court’s decision means that all sin before ordination to the pastoral ministry is subject to later Church discipline and the possibility of censure and suspension.
[Reply]
What everyone seems to forget is that our Lord came to save sinners, unequivocally. Hell fire is for those who cannot forgive. If we don’t we will be lighting candles for innocent vitims for ever. There is nothing in the church’s policy about redemption, reconciliation or forgiveness. It is assumed that protection of the child is served by the public humiliation and dismissal of the clergyman and his family. The issue is guilty or not guilty and if guilty the Gospel does not apply. The issue here is the protection of children for sure, but the bigger one is faithfulness to the Gospel. Sinners aren’t going to be encouraged to honestly repent by our treatment of our own. Our message is perfectionism, and in my experience a very dishonest one, both in the pretense of virtue and in the desire to avoid lawsuits.
[Reply]
Guilty or innocent, our Lord came into the world to save sinners. How refreshing it would be to read: “Minister saved, father and daughter reconciled.” First nation healing circles are far more redemptive than this sterile interchange. And we had the nerve to imagine we were saving them. The medical profession’s “first do no harm” is also applicable. This sounds like chat at a cocktail party for second-rate lawyers.
[Reply]
Andrew Faiz Reply:
May 2nd, 2011 at 10:57 am
John, I think you’re on to something. You use some key words — redemption and sterility — upon which we need to build a conversation.
[Reply]