(NEW ZEALAND)
Trauma in Religion [New South Wales, Australia]
March 22, 2026
In Australia government funded and supported institutions, and their clergy bound by doctrine and oaths of allegiance to a foreign Vatican sovereign daily act with impunity to pervert justice, minimise and cloak rape in eternal secrecy, prioritizing papal loyalty over truth, victims and national law.
This is a massive question for me and not easy to answer in a short space.
Q: “As a survivor, theologian, SNAP Aotearoa leader, and contributor to New Zealand’s Royal Commission into Abuse in Care (and recipient of the King’s Service Order), could you share the key parts of your life story and advocacy journey?”
This is a massive question for me and not easy to answer in a short space.
I am a survivor, a theologian, and an advocate – whose life is shaped by experience, conviction, and a commitment to justice.
My journey begins not in theory, but in lived reality. As a survivor of faith-based abuse, I carry firsthand knowledge of harm, silence, and the road toward to healing. Rather than allowing that experience to define me in limiting ways, I have transformed it into a source of clarity and purpose By realising there’s only dignity in surviving this kind of abuse and courage in speaking up about it therefore key moments in my life story are my refusing to remain silence, and refusing to accept systems that protect institutions over people.
My work in theology reflects this same commitment, and in a sense is informed by this commitment. Theology for me is contextual part of the lived experience that I apply in real life. I have engaged deeply with questions of faith, ethics, wrongdoing and responsibility, insisting that faith must never be separated from justice. My theology which is across religious borders informs that I cannot remain silent, and that there is wrongdoing not just by commission but also by omission. For instance, remaining silent around matters of clergy abuse would be wrong from an ethical theological viewpoint.
Contrary to what some bishops in New Zealand have recently said about survivors, I have always been close to Jesus and my identity as a survivor of abuse, as Jesus also was, has deepened on account of this, despite my having to distance myself from the institutional church.
For me, theology is not abstract – it is lived, tested, and accountable. It must speak truth in the face of harm, especially when that harm is carried out or concealed within faith communities.
As founder and a leader within SNAP Aotearoa, I have helped build spaces where survivors are heard, believed, and supported. My leadership has centred on the survivor voice, peer support, and the importance of speaking openly – often in environments where doing so has been difficult or resisted. I have worked to ensure that survivors are not isolated, but connected, empowered, and able to advocate for themselves and others.
My contribution to New Zealand’s Royal Commission into Abuse in Care was a significant part of my public advocacy. By sharing my insights, experience, scholarship, and analysis, I helped expose systemic failures and push for meaningful reform. This work reflects a broader commitment: ensuring that what happened to survivors is acknowledged, understood, and never repeated.
Being awarded the King’s Service Order was certainly a key moment for me. This honour recognised not only my service, but the impact of my persistence Or what the royal Commission of inquiry into abuse and cares chairperson coral Shaw once publicly said, my tenacity. It acknowledges a part of my life spent challenging silence, advocating for accountability, and working toward a more just and compassionate society.
Across all of this, the most significant themes that define my journey: (1) A refusal to accept silence in the face of harm; (2) A commitment to truth, even when it is uncomfortable; (3) A belief that faith must be aligned with justice; (4) A determination to ensure survivors are heard and supported; (5) A focus on accountability – not just words, but action.
My story is ultimately one of transformation from survivor to advocate, from experience to influence, from silence to voice. Through this journey, I have contributed to a broader movement – one that seeks not only to expose injustice, but to rebuild systems that genuinely protect and honour the dignity of every person, especially survivors of abuse in faith-based care.
Q: “With your deep involvement in national inquiries, what is your current perspective on the world – especially around faith institutions, power, and justice?”
Here is how that landscape looks today. We have moved away from automatic trust of church leaders toward critical accountability. We have moved from deference to scrutiny. This is good. For much of history, religious institutions were given moral authority by default. That has now shifted. There is now greater public willingness to question leadership. Survivors’ voices are taken more seriously. Investigations like the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care have exposed systemic failures. This means respect for authority is no longer assumed. It must be earned and maintained.
Secondly, there is a much clearer understanding that abuse is often about power, not just individual wrongdoing. Religious and spiritual authority can create deep trust and vulnerability, but this is often violated. Church hierarches have discouraged questioning or reporting. They have misused the languages of obedience or forgiveness. This aligns strongly with insights from thinkers like Judith Herman.
Thirdly, today faith-based institutions are increasingly expected to meet the same standards as any other organisation. Reporting abuse to civil authorities, not handling it internally, transparency about allegations and outcomes, accountability for leaders, not just offenders, are now fully expected.
Fourthly, there has been a major shift toward believing and supporting survivors, avoiding re-traumatisation in processes, including survivors in shaping reforms. Advocacy movements led by networks such as SNAP have helped drive this change.
Fifthly, there is now a significant tension between personal faith and institutional behaviour. Many people now distinguish between faith itself (belief, spirituality) and institutions (structures, leadership, governance), especially young people. Criticism today is often directed at the latter, not necessarily the former. This means it is possible to value faith while demanding institutional reform.
Also today there are more global and local accountability movements. Across countries – including Australia and New Zealand – there is increased legal scrutiny, public inquiries and reports, media investigations, and grassroots survivor advocacy. This amounts to a global reckoning.
However, despite progress, there are still problems. Some institutions like the Catholic Church remain defensive or slow to change. Their leaders are saying the right things today but still acting badly behind closed doors. Concerns about reputation still override transparency, and survivors still report ongoing barriers to justice.
Today, leaders of faith-based institutions are more focused on their institutions rather than their missions, thereby, they have perverted their mission. We are no longer living in a time where there can remain a separation between church and state. Today churches must be subjected to external authorities in a way that does not infringe upon freedom of religion but overseas practitioners of religion within the scope of basic moral principles do good and avoid wrongdoing. In other words, practitioners of religion need to be held to account by external authorities above them; they need to be subject to civil authorities in my views. The Holy See should also be dismantled as a recognised international corporate entity in diplomatic relations with real states.
This means the required shift is incomplete. The deeper question today is not just about reform, but identity. Can faith institutions align their moral teachings with their actual practices? Can they move from protecting themselves to protecting people?
Q: “Who in the survivor world do you admire most and why?”
Barbara Blaine, because she broke silence when it was dangerous to do so, founding the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) in 1988 – at a time when speaking publicly about clergy sexual abuse was rare and often met with disbelief or hostility. She didn’t just tell her story – she helped thousands of others find the strength to tell theirs, despite stigma and fear.
Judith Herman, because she fundamentally changed how the world understands trauma – especially trauma caused by abuse, violence, and coercive control.
Thomas Doyle, because he was one of the earliest insiders in the Catholic Church to confront clergy sexual abuse openly – and he did so at significant personal and professional cost.
Richard Sipes, because of his groundbreaking work combining insider knowledge, rigorous research, and moral courage to expose uncomfortable truths about clergy sexual abuse and institutional secrecy.
Q: “What kind of world do you believe we are creating for children in New Zealand and globally?”
In my view, right now, we’re creating a mixed and deeply unequal world for children, both in New Zealand and globally. On one hand, there’s real progress. Children today have better access to education, greater awareness of mental health, and stronger legal protections than in previous generations. In countries like New Zealand, there is increasing recognition of children’s rights, influenced by frameworks like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Conversations about abuse, wellbeing, and accountability – once hidden – are now more visible. But that’s only half the picture.
We are also creating a world where many children face growing pressure, insecurity, and exposure to harm. There is rising inequality which means some children thrive while others experience poverty, unstable housing, or limited access to healthcare – even within wealthy countries. Digital exposure brings connection and learning, but also bullying, exploitation, and unrealistic social pressures at younger ages. Institutional trust is fragile. When systems (including churches, schools, or state agencies) fail to protect children or respond justly to harm, it leaves long-term damage – not just to victims, but to society’s moral fabric. Also, the mental health challenges are increasing, with anxiety, loneliness, and identity pressures affecting children earlier than ever.
Q: “From the evidence you’ve given and the changes you’ve fought for, what are the most effective ways to protect children in care and faith settings?”
The most effective ways to protect children in care and faith settings are to create a culture where abuse is hard to commit and impossible to hide. The most effective approaches must be consistent across both secular care systems and religious institutions.
There must be independent oversight (not internal handling). Institutions must never be the sole investigators of their own complaints. In New Zealand, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care highlighted why independence matters. All allegations must be referred to police or independent safeguarding authorities immediately – not filtered internally. This is because abuse thrives where organisations “mark their own homework.”
There must be mandatory reporting laws and a clear duty to act. Everyone working with children must be legally required to report suspected abuse. New Zealand has partial obligations, but SNAP Aotearoa is fighting for stronger, clearer mandatory reporting frameworks aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
There must be survivor-centred response systems. When a child or survivor speaks up, the response must prioritise them – not the institution. What this prioritisation looks like is to believe first, investigate properly, provide trauma-informed support (counselling, advocacy, legal help), and avoid adversarial or defensive reactions.
There must also be clear behavioural boundaries for adults (“codes of conduct”). Every adult must know exactly what is and isn’t acceptable. No one-on-one unsupervised access without safeguards. No private messaging or secret relationships. Physical contact guidelines must be clearly defined
There must also be child empowerment and education. Children themselves must understand their rights and how to speak up. There must be age-appropriate education on consent, boundaries, and safety, as well as clear, accessible reporting pathways (not just “tell an adult”). There must be multiple trusted people they can go to
There must also be – transparent complaints processes. Systems must be easy to use, visible, and accountable. There must be anonymous reporting options.
Governance bodies must prioritise safeguarding over reputation. There must be criminal or civil accountability for cover-ups, and regular safeguarding training at leadership level. Safeguarding is not a one-time workshop. There must be ongoing training in recognising grooming and abuse patterns, and speaking up and challenging inappropriate behaviour must be normalised.
There must also be – a separation of pastoral/spiritual authority from unchecked power. This is especially critical in faith-based institutions and settings. No individual should have absolute or unquestioned authority. Confession or spiritual guidance must never override safety obligations. Safeguarding must apply equally to clergy and lay people.
In sum, the most effective protection systems would share these traits: (1) Independence (external oversight); (2) Transparency (nothing hidden); (3) Accountability (real consequences). When any of these are missing, children are at risk – no matter how well-intentioned the institution claims to be.
Q: “How can we empower and enable child survivors to heal, be heard, and rebuild their lives?”
I believe we empower and enable child survivors to heal, be heard, and rebuild their lives by helping them restore voice, dignity, and control which were taken away. The most effective approaches are those that put survivors – not institutions – at the centre of every decision. A survivor lid approach not a survivor centred approach is best; one that has the necessary supports around the survivor leading their own road forward. As Judith Herman said, – no intervention that takes power away from the survivor can possibly foster her[his] recovery. Because trauma causes profound disempowerment, recovery necessitates empowering the survivor.
Here is what else truly helps child survivors heal, be heard, and rebuild:
1. Believe and validate. Listen without interruption or judgment with a disclosure takes place. Avoid minimising, questioning motives, or shifting blame. Clearly affirm: “What happened is not your fault.”
2. Provide trauma-informed, long-term support. Healing is not quick or linear. Access to specialised counselling (e.g. for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), with cultural and community-sensitive care (especially important in Aotearoa New Zealand).
3. Give control. Abuse removes power; recovery must restore it. Let the survivor decide how, when, and to whom they tell their story. Offer choices in therapy, legal processes, and support people. Respect the survivor ‘pace’ never force disclosure or confrontation.
4. Safe, independent reporting pathways. Survivors need ways to speak up that feel safe. Multiple reporting options (support groups, trusted adults, helplines, independent advocates); systems NOT controlled by the institution where harm occurred; confidentiality with clear limits explained. In New Zealand, SNAP Aotearoa has pushed for safer and independent pathways.
5. Family support and trusted networks. Survivors rarely heal alone. Help family members and friends to respond appropriately and supportively. Provide education so families understand trauma responses. Where family is unsafe, ensure stable alternative support systems
6. Create spaces for survivor voice and leadership. Being heard is part of healing. Include survivor in advisory groups. Give them opportunities to contribute to policy reform, safe storytelling platforms .
7. Address practical life impacts. Abuse affects more than mental health. Healing is holistic – practical stability supports emotional recovery. Educational support (missed schooling, concentration difficulties). Financial assistance where needed. Help with housing stability and long-term wellbeing
8. Build a culture that removes stigma. Shame belongs to the abuser – not the survivor. Public education campaigns. Open conversations about abuse and consent. Challenging myths and victim-blaming attitudes. This cultural shift is essential.
In sum, survivors heal best when they experience safety (physical and emotional), they are believed (they are heard and taken seriously), they regain control (their voice shapes what happens next), they receive justice (real accountability for harm), and hope is adopted (a happy future)
Q: “What key recommendations from the Royal Commission (or your own work) do you most want to see fully implemented?”
The third recommendation which called for the establishment of a comprehensive, survivor-centred redress system. This is foundational to justice and healing. To me it is the most important because it would reshape the whole system, not just parts of it, providing a complete shift to survivor-centred redress. The Commission called for a new, independent redress system for survivors, run outside the institutions where abuse occurred, faster, fairer, and trauma-informed, with financial compensation, apologies, and support services. This is critical because many survivors were previously re-traumatised by slow, defensive, and institution-controlled processes.
The other recommendation of key importance for me is – independent oversight and monitoring; stronger, truly independent safeguarding oversight across all care settings; regular audits and public reporting; power to investigate and enforce change; monitoring of both state and faith-based institutions. This is critical because abuse was able to continue for the reason that institutions were left to regulate themselves.more about misdiagnoses in the medical system and your right to your medical records . . .
There are Stories that Can be Told in a Single Sentence, and Stories that Cannot
* On the surface, someone might say: he ended up labelled with paranoid schizophrenia
The Day the Records Started Talking Back
* For many years the problem felt almost impossible to approach – The moment where technology helped expose how the label propagated.
The Eleven Pages
* When the results were examined more closely, the list resolved into a smaller group of documents that contained the most relevant references. Eleven pages.
The System That Repeats Itself
* But the same mechanism that preserves information can also preserve errors.
The Absence of a Diagnosis
* But the same mechanism that preserves information can also preserve errors.
The Blue•Print
* Survivor‑led research & design, trauma‑informed systems. We unify medical imaging, records, and legal evidence into clear, navigable knowledge — with sovereignty at the core.