Feedback on Suggested Policy for Responding to Abuse Disclosed in SA Meetings
[The following are all responses received by the Central Office to the article “SA and Sexual Abuse” on page 20 of the October 1990 issue of Essay. We hope no response was omitted; the CO was in transition due to Nan’s leaving.—Ed.]
What concerns me most about the policy is the seeming disregard for anonymity.… When I joined the [SA] group a little over two years ago, had it not been for the promise of anonymity and non-police involvement, the help I so desperately needed would not have been forthcoming, because I would not have joined without these assurances.
I am now 56 years old and it was only a little over two years ago that I learned I am a sex addict. It is not that I was not aware I had a problem—I had been praying for over 40 years for deliverance of the problem—but it was only then that God answered me and showed me there was a solution. The solution of course for me is SA.
I have been blessed by God with physical sobriety since two days after I entered the program, including being celibate and living with my wife the entire time. I do not say this to brag or to project the wrong image of myself. I only state it to let you know that by the grace of God I am sober today and cannot guarantee tomorrow.
A part of my addiction has been child abuse and incest. If your policy is adopted, these are some of the things that may happen to me: I will no longer be able to speak openly at meetings about my past. I will not be able to speak openly when I am tempted to act out again with a child. I will leave SA in fear that someone will interpret what I say or do as a reason to report me to the police. If I leave SA, all hope of recovery for me will be gone…
It is unfortunate that our society looks at this abuse in terms of victim and perpetrator. For in this disease both are victims, there are no winners. It is also bad that our system demands retribution rather than help for those involved. Unless and until society removes the stigma of jail, we must be prepared to offer a safe haven to those involved where they can recover without fear of retribution.
Anonymous
Erie, PA: We, as a group, unanimously oppose this policy. We believe this policy moves SA beyond its present purpose, Steps and Traditions.
We do not condone sexual abuse in any form.… We believe that if this policy were endorsed by SA, we would have to make similar policies for every other sexual behavior that involves breaking the law.…
We believe this policy undermines one of the key elements of SA: Trust. In our Big Book it states, “Experience has shown us that the public aspect of surrender is crucial. It seems surrender is never complete until it is brought out into the open, into the company of others.…” A trust begins to develop as we see that nothing is being held against us and that others are just like we are or worse off, etc. “This is the breakthrough entrance into the program that will open the way into the healing power of the Steps.” We believe the tradition of anonymity would be totally undermined.…
This policy led to much discussion. Our discussion was about “program” and not about emotional feelings or personal opinions. We looked at the overall picture of SA and seeing how this very painful and emotional issue could be taken by itself and out of the context of our purpose.
T.S.
Edmonton, Canada: Our concern is that in making the suggested policy we would be violating the Traditions of our program. On our SA brochure, it states, “Anyone who turns to SA can be assured that his or her anonymity will be protected.” Because our group finds this protection in the 12 Traditions of SA, we are not in favor of the suggested policy for sex offenders.
Memphis, TN: I believe, like AA policy, that SA should “take no stand on outside issues,” which this most certainly is. SA is not here to police individuals. What would happen otherwise to the idea of “What you hear here, who you see here, stays here!”? The basic foundation of what the real 12 Step program is about begins to crumble. Some time ago it seemed right to many people that AA should take a stand on Prohibition. Thank God they didn’t. I understand we in SA are not here to “coddle perpetrators,” neither should SA become a “victims” group. I have been both (as many have) victim and perpetrator. Few people, if any, who claim to be sex addicts, are just one of these.
The special nature of the 12-Step program calls for a law higher than man’s.… It is my belief, whether it ever becomes SA policy or not, that what goes on in the room, stays in the room.
L.H.
Suggested Policy for Responding to Abuse Disclosed in SA Meetings
[The following is a reprint of the key portion of Suggested Guidelines for Developing Policy in Response to Abuse Disclosed in SA Meetings from the October 1990 issue of Essay. Copies of the complete article are also available from the Central Office.—Ed.]
(1) Develop a climate and ongoing tradition of personal accountability and responsibility in meetings based on true recovery and closeness of fellowship. Current models would seem to include SA groups effectively using the concept of “group sponsorship.”
(2) When a person in SA tells of having currently victimized someone sexually or such information is disclosed, two or more SA members will get with the person, make sure of the facts, and support that member into assuming responsibility for and amending their actions. In appropriate cases, this will mean the person turns himself or herself in. The intervening members and the group will continue supporting the person all the way through to victory, healing, and recovery. SA members have been known to be this responsible. It is the honorable Program way.
(3) The erring member and their SA group will also take appropriate steps to try to amend any trauma or damage done to the victim.
(4) If the member will not turn themselves in, the concerned members will, by group conscience, try again, as a group, to get them to turn themselves in. If they fail in this, they can seek an appropriate way to proceed. This might be done by asking an appropriate non-SA third party to intervene. In one case in SA, a priest agreed to take the necessary actions.
(5) In the case where a member tells us they are about to victimize someone, or there is a good chance of that happening, the group of concerned members will intervene in some appropriate way to help prevent it and help the member come through to victory and healing. They advise the member that if he or she does the wrong, they will be turned in.
(6) In cases where the member is intransigent, refusing and thwarting all intervention of the group or others, the member should be asked to leave SA until he or she has a change of attitude. Individual SA members would then be free to act as their conscience directed to prevent further victimization. Other SA groups the person might join can be advised of the problem.
[Roy K. notes that his October 1990 article did not differentiate enough between newcomers to SA and established SA members who were currently molesting.—Ed.]
