Is the word “safeguarding” really necessary? Is it just another term for something already known? Are the tried and tested concepts “prevention” and “protection of children and vulnerable persons” not enough? The answer to the first question is “Yes.” The word “safeguarding” is necessary because it encompasses more than the other terms, which have become established especially in relation to the issue of child and youth sexual abuse. But the concept has evolved. Awareness of what needs to be considered in relation to abuse and the various dangers to people in the context of living with others has expanded considerably. This also has had an impact on the Church’s engagement in this area. What exactly this may mean is considered in more detail in this article.
Signs of the Times
Some changes and developments can prove beneficial. They may lead to greater diversification. They can be an opportunity to learn and broaden your intellectual horizons, to have experiences that open up new perspectives and increase personal experience, to make free decisions about your life and make it more consistent with your needs, without having to resort to a one-size-fits-all model.
That said, however, one thing should not be overlooked: not all changes and developments are necessarily positive in themselves. Taken as a whole, some can be excessive and turn out to have negative outcomes. Today it seems that people are gradually realizing the damaging impact of changes and developments compared to what was the case just a few years ago. Old certainties are crumbling; established models are losing ground; economic uncertainties are increasing; armed conflicts are intensifying; migration is impacting numerous countries; new scientific and technological opportunities, especially in the field of artificial intelligence, are bringing new challenges for humanity; the global political situation, with its hitherto relatively stable power blocs, is faltering; social structures that until recently were considered reliable, such as political parties or the Church itself, are being challenged and in some cases their alarming fragility is being exposed.
Many people have had enough of change and development. The times seem to be getting more and more complex, stressful, confusing and unstable, so that there is a growing desire for calm, stability and continuity. It is not easy to fulfill this aspiration adequately. If the whole world is changing, how can the individual respond? Faced with such a challenge, some people allow themselves to become despondent and depressed, while others seek refuge in extremism or conspiracy theories, in vain attempts to simplify a complicated world, which end up aggravating existing problems through denial, marginalization and aggressive polarization.
Prophecy
How will the situation evolve and where will it lead us? The film industry offers “prophets” with clairvoyant gifts and certainties about future events, able to reassure fearful souls who wish to adopt effective strategies for any future. These “prophets” sooner or later turn out to be charlatans who exploit people’s suffering for their own gain. Instead, there have always existed, and still exist, people who have great awareness of the world in which they live. They evaluate it on the basis of their faith and beliefs, and draw conclusions about what is possible and necessary when it comes to action. They possess sufficient intellectual capacity, imagination, empathy, experience and lucidity to recognize the direction that certain developments are taking and how they may be affected under certain circumstances.
These people are the biblical prophets who interpret and promote God’s word in and for their times, when there is a danger of losing sight of the way forward. They are the ones who remind their contemporaries what the divine will is, what they can hope for regarding God’s interaction with his people, what goals to move toward in order to keep the Lord’s commandments and find personal joy and peace. By appealing to God’s Word and will, the biblical prophets show their contemporaries the way forward to overcome the uncertain times in which they live. They offer guidance and provide insights on what actions to take to lead a happy life.
If we consider that every Christian is anointed priest, king and prophet at the moment of baptism, then it becomes clear that “being a prophet” is a challenging task both for the individual believer and for the Church community as a whole. In our world of ever-increasing uncertainties, doubts and perplexities, prophetic activities are focused where reference is made, in and with God’s word, to what is often considered “safe” in public and academic debate. Here are some examples: in 2 Sam 22:2-3, God is described as rock, fortress, savior, refuge and shield. In Psalm 3:4-6, God is the one who makes people wake up safe and sound because he watches carefully. According to Psalm 27:5, God protects people in his tent. According to Proverbs 18:10, God’s name is a fortified tower that instills security. According to Isaiah 25:4, God is the protector of the weak. According to 2 Thess 3:3, God protects from the Evil One. These and other passages of Scripture refer to the theme of encouragement as a central theme and model for interpreting existential reality.
These texts assure us that uncertainties and doubts not only conceal threats but can also be harbingers of favorable prospects. Moreover, it is the task of those who believe in God, who infuses them with security and courage, to do all they can to ensure that those in need of protection and safety can in turn benefit from it. Those who believe in a benevolent God who offers protection constantly refer to this task for themselves and others, always keeping it in mind and directing their actions accordingly. The Church has also adopted this approach. The Second Vatican Council’s pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes (GS) makes this clear from the outset: “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the people of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts” (GS 1). In Lumen Gentium (LG), the dogmatic constitution on the Church, the Church is understood as a sign and an instrument. In the terms being discussed here, this means that on the one hand, the Church itself is a safe space, offering protection, showing the world what it means to live together in safety (sign); on the other hand, the Church works so that people can feel safe always and everywhere (instrument).
‘Safe,’ ‘Safety,’ ‘Safeguarding’
From the way we are outlining the mission to ensure that people can and should feel safe (safeguarding), this task may seem easier than it actually is. Much depends on what is meant by “being safe.” This raises a problem because not everything that can be considered safe is also beneficial to human life in the broadest sense. For example, there is no doubt that a maximum-security prison is, in some ways, one of the safest places in society. At the same time, however, it is a place where civil liberties are greatly curtailed, significant choices are practically nonexistent, and the potential for personal growth is theoretically possible but in practice achievable only to a very limited extent.
In addition to the example just cited, other evidence also shows how necessary it is to clarify what is meant by “safety” or “being safe.” The Church has significant experience in its areas of responsibility regarding the proper handling of abuse cases. If measures that are undoubtedly necessary for the protection of children and adolescents are understood and designed in such a way that they have a detrimental effect on those who are to be protected, the question arises as to what is not achieving its purpose and why. Therefore we cannot help but wonder what exactly we mean by “safety.” In this context, a relevant example is that of the catechist or priest who dares not lift from the ground a child who has fallen, or help that child to get up, because of the rules on distancing, for fear of being falsely accused of wanting to touch the child with disguised and improper intentions. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the fallen child is adequately controlled, protected and safeguarded in the face of such fear-motivated reactions. Once again it is clearly understood that there should be no doubt, especially in the Church context, about the meaning of “being safe.” All members of the Church need this transparency; otherwise they risk becoming false prophets, promoters of totalizing surveillance, isolation, crippling protectionism and immobility in the exercise of their prophetic task of safeguarding, ensuring safety and what “being safe means.”
In the Church context, there is discussion about the definition of safety, though partly in other respects, such as the question of the Church’s public reputation, political pressure, the attitude of the press toward the Church, the Church’s authority in matters of pastoral care, and so on. In some cases, this discussion may lead some to reject the new sensitivities, concluding from the one-sidedness and excesses related to safety that it is basically impossible to take sensible measures in this regard.
It is important to make a distinction. As far as the prophetic action of the Church is concerned, this means first of all focusing on the Word of God. In this sense, the kingdom of God is manifested as the vision and ideal of safe space, safe relationships, safe processes, that is, a safe environment and context of life. This is particularly evident in Isaiah 11:8-9: “The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp and the weaned child shall put its hand in the adder’s den. They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain.” In Romans 14:17, the kingdom of God is equated with righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, and at the same time it is stated in 2 Cor 3:17 that where the Spirit of the Lord works there is freedom. By relating these statements to those quoted above, in which it is claimed that the Lord is shield, protection and fortress, two essential and complementary aspects of safety and the concept of “being safe” emerge. On the one hand, we find the rather defensive and protective aspect of the word “fortress”: it is protection from something, thus a negative approach to security. On the other hand, there is the more enabling aspect, which is about safety for something, as described by the principle of freedom, which gives safety a positive connotation.
The defensive concept of safety aims to shield people from possible dangers that could harm them physically or mentally to such an extent that they lose future potential. Protection from external manipulation and control tends toward the same goal, as does protection from shame and humiliation, which end up isolating and alienating people in and from their social context. Also not to be forgotten is protection from insurmountable problems related to a lack of safety and stability, for example, in relationships with others, in different occupations, or inadequate ability to handle the tasks and challenges one may face.
An enabling aspect of safety are growth processes in which, for example, mistakes and errors are allowed in the course of experimentation and learning, without causing permanent damage to oneself and others or precluding future opportunities. Safety, whose scope allows diversity and variety, protects the individual from being encompassed by a collectivity of any kind, and the collectivity itself from disintegration. Individuals are valued, recognized and empowered through participation in community activities and the experience of achievement and solidarity.
Safeguarding in Action
On closer inspection, the following examples can effectively illustrate the main features of what can be understood as safety and the related safeguarding (i.e., the attempt to achieve what is understood as safe).
First: Safety and Safeguarding as a Dialectical Exercise
If safety encompasses two aspects or poles, the more defensive and the more enabling, the same must be true of safeguarding. Until now, the negative, defensive and protective aspect has been instrumental in protecting the integrity and dignity of people, in not reifying them and not allowing them to become simply objects, things in relation to the aspirations and intentions of other people. Such one-sided prioritization is problematic, because in certain circumstances it can relegate the protected individuals to a passive role in relation to the protectors, and thus also to dependence on the protectors. This problem can only be remedied by simultaneously considering the enabling aspect of safety and, in parallel, safeguarding. In this case, safeguarding is not understood as defense, but as protection from the perspective of an empowered self and a promotion of resilience that strengthens individuals and groups, such as parish communities.
Second: Safety and Safeguarding as a Universal Anthropological Theme
The concept of safety is based on basic data that describe people as social beings in conflict with their individuality. Human beings turn out to be capable and in need of growth, which is why they are exposed to so many dangers that jeopardize their safety. There is always a possible risk of failure, of experiencing impediments and limitations, and thus uncertainty. Given these general assumptions about human beings, there is no doubt that the issue of safety and safeguarding concerns all individuals, although certain groups of people appear to be more at risk on the level of safety due to particular situations (such as children due to psychological needs related to growing up, or migrants due to their socio-political conditions) and they are therefore classified as “vulnerable.” Although there are still many open questions about such categorizations, it is somewhat understandable that the subject of safeguarding has initially focused largely on the protection and safety of children and adolescents in light of the cases of abuse and individuals under guardianship that have emerged within the Church’s area of responsibility. However, since safety is an issue for everyone, the concept of safeguarding needs to be applied much more broadly. It is a universal anthropological need.
Third: Safety and Safeguarding from the Perspective of Diversity
Human beings express themselves in the tension between individuality and community. This is also reflected in an accurate meaning of safety and safeguarding. Whether a situation is perceived as safe, whether safety is perceived as intrinsic to that circumstance, depends both on personal perception and on different cultural orientations and patterns. For example, while in some cultures the idea of safety is closely linked to the proper observance of rules, in others it is not necessarily so. While some people may not feel safe at all under certain conditions, others may perceive the same situation quite differently, that is, as safe or at least less alarming. Taking diversity in safety and safeguarding seriously, one can only reach one conclusion: it is difficult or even impossible to identify a single concept of safety and safeguarding that applies to everyone and everywhere. In any case, there is a need for cross-cultural understanding about what is meant by safety and safeguarding and how both can be achieved.
Fourth: Safety and Safeguarding as a Challenge of Networking
Issues surrounding safety and, by extension, the use of safeguarding are as diverse as life itself. Circumscribing the issues of safety and safeguarding to the topic of sexuality or sexual violence would be as wrong as believing that these aspects are less important than other areas of life. The person is a unity of spirit, soul and body, and considering all facets of the human being, risks can take different forms and ambiguities cannot be ruled out, including economic exploitation, physical violence, the threat of war and cultural marginalization. It is not for nothing that one of the most recent Vatican documents, Dignitas Infinita, emphasized the many threats to human dignity.[1] In light of all these considerations about the degradation and devaluation of the human being, there are no safeguards. Safeguarding cannot afford to selectively pick and choose areas of social and interpersonal risk, otherwise it would turn into a merely token approach that wants the public to believe it “cares,” but in reality this is not the case.
Church-run safeguarding should be configured in the following way: on the one hand, all Church services that care about a decent and livable human existence as a pastoral and charitable commitment of the Church should establish networks. This applies to care for the poor, services for immigrants, psychological counseling and spiritual guidance. On the other hand, the newly established safeguarding units in the Church should not only see themselves as active in the fight against abuse, but in a broader sense as custodians of the values involved when it comes to issues of safety and safeguarding as a prophetic mission, promoting further professional upgrading and bringing together the various Church agencies as just described.
Fifth: Safety and Safeguarding as a Process
The abuses that have occurred around the world in the Church’s sphere of responsibility demonstrate irrefutably that, regardless of the reasons, safety and safeguarding have not always enjoyed the same priority. Even today, despite numerous efforts to address the tragic events that have occurred, we should be under no illusions. As important as an issue may be, it cannot maintain the same degree of attention in the long run. Other issues may emerge and take center stage due to social and political pressures and developments, overlap and become routines that end up diverting attention. This does not mean that one necessarily has to be in favor of these changes and transformations, but one must be aware of them and deal with them consciously and with foresight.
There is a need to clarify the stages during which a particularly important topic has been neglected or ignored, analyze the consequences of such undesirable outcomes and consider what preventive measures need to be taken to ensure that issues that need to be addressed urgently, such as safety and safeguarding, are not again neglected. One should note that the three-step procedure of clarification, review and prevention focuses not only on whether safeguarding finds application over time, but also on how it actually works. If there are any violations of that safeguarding which is appropriate to human dignity and integrity, their reasons must be ascertained, their consequences managed, and the risk of recurrence averted.
In addition, some issues, such as safeguarding as a whole, develop and evolve over time. The solutions identified may be no longer viable or insufficiently articulated and need to be corrected and supplemented. With this in mind, it is not reasonable to think that once developed, concepts, guidelines and the like can remain unchanged over time. There is a need for quality-conscious management that responds to the dynamic nature of the evolutions emerging in this context and seeks to shape them to ensure effective safeguarding. This is something that must be done with conviction and cannot simply be imposed. Like safeguarding as a whole, it is based on a personal attitude marked by sensitivity to the needs of others, a willingness to stand up for these people and the almost inevitable conflicts that ensue, prioritizing those at risk over one’s own personal advantage, openness to change, improvement, and consciously dealing with one’s own mistakes and weaknesses.
Sixth: Safety and Safeguarding as a Two-way Exchange
Safety and human dignity are closely related goals of safeguarding. Without safeguarding, people’s dignity is soon jeopardized; without dignity, people’s safety is immediately threatened. The latter is especially the case when safeguarding measures are planned and implemented without adequate involvement of those to be protected. The people to be protected may become mere objects or even an opportunity for visibility and self-promotion. Ultimately, the people to be protected end up depending on the safeguarders and/or the measures taken by the safeguarders do not meet their real needs. Therefore, any safeguarding initiative should be ruled out without the involvement of those whose safety it is intended to enable and guarantee. In a sense, this involvement would also constitute safeguarding of the safeguarders themselves. In this way, they do not risk posing problems for those they intend to safeguard.
Seventh: Safety and Safeguarding as a Contingent Project
Absolute safety does not exist anywhere or at any time. There are several reasons for this. The general risks associated with life, such as the possibility of dying, becoming seriously ill, or experiencing pain in relationships, are just as indicative as human efforts to find safety, which are themselves subject to a number of uncertainties. Those involved in safeguarding need to realize that although it is possible to make every effort to achieve safety, it can never be absolutely guaranteed. It is important to be aware of this to avoid disappointment, discouragement and loss of motivation. However, recognizing the limits of one’s work in safeguarding has an additional implication: it helps to draw the line between a desirable unconditional commitment to those in need of protection and a fanaticism that must be rejected because it does not distinguish between safety and coercion, safeguarding and totalitarianism, justice and fundamentalism, dedication and arrogance.
Perspectives
From these reflections on safeguarding a fundamental concept emerges: safeguarding as a prophetic work of the Church is a complex task. It can succeed only if it is understood as a common task of all those who live and work together in different social structures. This is best achieved by informing and communicating with others about it (transparency), coordinating with commitment (compliance), and being able to be mutually accountable for what one does (accountability). If all safeguarding interventions are oriented by these three principles, then safeguarding itself will most effectively convey the concepts of transparency, compliance and accountability.
Transparency, compliance and accountability are the cornerstones of the fight against abuses of power of all kinds. Transparency, compliance and accountability curb power without crippling it, not by leaving it at the mercy of the fallibility inherent in every human being, but by relating it to the community of those over whom this power is exercised. Many cases of abuse that have occurred in the Church’s area of responsibility and related cover-ups could have been avoided if these three principles had been applied more firmly. However, an impetus from outside the Church was often needed – and still is – so that its prophetic ministry in the area of safeguarding could return to its proper operation.
In this context, it is not too presumptuous to say that prophets also need to be corrected and motivated to act. This does not diminish the role of the Church’s prophetic ministry in the world. After all, the issue does not involve pandering to ecclesiastical privilege, but in positive commitment to follow in Christ’s footsteps. Such a commitment does not exclude exchange and cooperation with those who engage in safeguarding outside the Church; indeed, it has been established with this in mind. One thinks of Jesus’ words in Luke 9:50, “Whoever is not against you is for you”; or directly referring to safeguarding, “He who is not against safeguarding, upholds it together with you.” These examples of collaboration, in the most diverse forms, not only generate synergies, but also help us not to forget too easily an essential component of our task: to stand as prophets and take effective action for the safety of people, for their dignity and integrity inside and outside the Church.
So far, in its declarations, the Synod of Bishops 2021-24 on the theme of a Synodal Church has given great impetus to the Church’s prophetic service in the world regarding safeguarding. Indeed, in addition to addressing the issue of safety and the closely related issue of safeguarding, it considers safeguarding as particularly essential to the mission of the Church. It remains to be hoped that the indications given here will be further explored in subsequent deliberations of the Synod.
Reproduced with permission from La Civiltà Cattolica.
[1]. Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration “Dignitas Infinita” about Human Dignity, March 25, 2024, in www.vatican.va
