“Within the mediation procedure there was a possibility to have a conversation together with my children, but the children rejected that possibility and so did my family. But it was possible so that was very nice. And would I still want it now, I think it is still possible but maybe I would have to pay for it I don’t know, but I won’t open the cesspit with the children now; it is the way it is. It’s getting too close. Some also said: “I already have enough on my plate, I don’t need that {your story} added to it.“
| relational redress | The role of redress procedures in social relationships | after disclosing the abuse to family – silence surrounding it not completely broken |
↳ Silence surrounding abuse not completely broken
Actor: Sandra
Item type: Quote from interview
Date: […]
DoJ Researcher: Naomi Ormskerk
DoJ Research project: [Sexual] abuse – The church (PhD)
Language: English
Context
In 2010, the disclosure of several cases of sexual abuse in institutions operated by the Dutch Catholic Church, ignited a national political debate and led to public outrage. With the disclosure of the abuse, victim- survivors demanded justice from Church authorities and the state. Nevertheless, the available justice measures are invariably solely aimed at primary victims. Whilst relatives are often concurrently named with survivors in redress schemes, it is not evident if and how multi-level narratives are established in justice measures. How do primary and secondary victims – such as family members, partners, and children of victim-survivors – experience justice measures allotted by the Church and the state? And what are ‘lessons learned’ when comparing two seemingly different cases of clergy abuse, namely (sexual) abuse in Church institutions and forced labour of former pupils of the Congregation of the Good Shepherd?
