Fr Antoine Farrugia

From Policy to Culture: building safer Church communities, Fr Antoine Farrugia

A Salesian, social worker and long-standing collaborator of the Safeguarding Commission, Fr Antoine Farrugia SDB reflects on how safeguarding practice has developed, what credible support looks like today, and how organisations can move from compliance to a living culture of care.

You have collaborated with the Safeguarding Commission over a number of years. How have you seen this work develop?

When I first became involved, the Commission was smaller and members were necessarily very hands-on in considering cases and developing structures and procedures. As safeguarding became more professionalised, assessment and the organisation and interpretation of evidence increasingly moved to dedicated staff with specialised expertise. The Advisory Board’s role developed accordingly towards oversight, reflection and accountability. What stands out most is the shared learning that has taken place. Safeguarding is now understood less as a response to allegations alone and more as a culture of care, accountability and prevention that should shape Church ministry and organisational life.

What safeguarding factors need stand out among children, young people and vulnerable adults today?

Some traditional protective factors, especially strong family and community networks, have weakened. At the same time, children and young people inhabit digital environments that many adults do not fully know. These bring opportunities, but also new risks and pressures. Modern life is also more fluid: young people move between family arrangements, communities, countries, social groups and online spaces. That can enrich life, but may also weaken belonging and leave people navigating important experiences alone. Safeguarding therefore requires attention not only to abuse and harm, but also to isolation, wellbeing, resilience and the quality of the relationships around a person.

What helps an organisation move from having policies on paper to creating a genuinely safer culture?

The shift begins when safeguarding stops being experienced as an external requirement and becomes something personal and close to home. Policies are essential, but a safer culture is created through everyday attitudes and relationships. Formation, reflection, accountability and a willingness to listen are all necessary. People need to feel responsible not only for avoiding wrongdoing themselves, but also for creating environments where dignity, trust, participation and respect can flourish. In the Salesian tradition, safeguarding is not simply about responding when something goes wrong; it is about fostering places where people can grow safely, confidently and with a sense of belonging.

How can people in pastoral, educational or youth settings become more attentive to signs that someone may be struggling or at risk?

We can easily miss what we are not actively looking for. Attentiveness therefore begins with formation and with developing an observant, reflective way of working. Safeguarding is not only about knowing procedures; it is also about noticing changes, patterns and circumstances that may point to concern. Genuine engagement matters. Young people do not always state their difficulties directly, so trust, attentive listening and interest in their lived experience are essential. Those who work with them also need to remain interested in the world they inhabit, including social trends and digital environments. Knowledge broadens our field of vision.

What role does formation play in safeguarding?

Formation is fundamental because safeguarding is not simply a body of information to learn. It shapes how people think, relate and exercise responsibility. Good formation develops awareness of boundaries, power dynamics, vulnerability and the responsibilities that come with positions of trust. It should also be ongoing rather than a one-off event. Over time, it strengthens self-awareness, attentiveness and accountability, and gives people greater confidence to respond appropriately when concerns arise. The better formed an organisation’s leaders, staff, volunteers and collaborators are, the more likely it is that concerns will be recognised early and people will feel safe enough to seek help.

What would you say to Church entities that want to strengthen safeguarding but are unsure where to begin?

Do not be overwhelmed by the size of the task. Begin by becoming familiar with safeguarding policies and guidance, and invest in good formation and training. Then put safeguarding into practice in concrete ways: make responsibilities clear, ensure people know how to raise concerns, discuss safeguarding regularly, review activities through a safeguarding lens, and provide appropriate training. Organisations do not need a perfect system before they begin. Each intentional step communicates that safeguarding matters. Ultimately, safeguarding is visible not only in policies, but in the quality of relationships, the attentiveness of leaders and the confidence people have to speak up.

Fr Kevin Schembri

Reflection: What do we mean by “vulnerability” in safeguarding? Fr Kevin Schembri

Church safeguarding increasingly speaks not only of minors, but also of vulnerable adults. Fr Kevin Schembri, academic, canon lawyer, and member of the Safeguarding Commission Review Board, explores why the term is so important and not as simple as it first appears.

The term “vulnerability” has become increasingly familiar in the Church’s norms and laws on safeguarding. Today, we speak not only of protecting “minors” or “persons who habitually have an imperfect use of reason”, but also of safeguarding “vulnerable persons” or “vulnerable adults”. Yet what exactly do we mean when we use these terms?

In recent years, the language of vulnerability has appeared in various Church documents on safeguarding. For instance, Pope Francis used the term “vulnerable adults” in his 2014 chirograph establishing the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors and in his 2016 apostolic letter As a Loving Mother, on the possibility of removal from ecclesiastical office for grave reasons.

However, a legal definition of the term was introduced only in 2019. In Law no. CCXCVII of Vatican City State, entitled On the Protection of Minors and Vulnerable Persons, and in the first version of Vos Estis Lux Mundi, Pope Francis opted for the term “vulnerable persons” and defined such persons as those “in a state of infirmity, physical or mental deficiency, or deprivation of personal liberty which, in fact, even occasionally, limits their ability to understand or to want or otherwise resist the offence.”

Despite this important development, when the section of the Code of Canon Law concerning canonical crimes and penal sanctions was revised in 2021, the new version avoided any reference to “vulnerable” subjects. The Dicastery for Legislative Texts later explained that the expression had been avoided because it referred to a notion “not yet well-defined or doctrinally shared in the broad ambit in which canon law is in force.”

By contrast, the revised Vos Estis Lux Mundi of 2023 used the term again. This time, however, Francis reverted to the use of “vulnerable adult” rather than “vulnerable person” and distinguished the category of the “vulnerable adult” from that of “a person who habitually has imperfect use of reason”. The revised law, however, retained the same definition introduced in 2019.

I mention these recent developments to highlight both the evolving nature and the complexity of the terminology. At the same time, they also reflect a growing awareness in the Church that attention cannot be directed solely towards the conduct of the person accused of abuse, but must also take into account the conditions and circumstances of the person who may be harmed. Moreover, when considering the person who may be harmed, safeguarding cannot focus only on minors or persons who habitually have an imperfect use of reason, but must also extend to other vulnerable adults.

Vulnerability should not be equated solely with an intrinsic or permanent characteristic of a particular person or group, but also depends on a person’s practical circumstances, especially those that may limit their ability to understand, exercise their freedom, or resist an offence. This becomes especially important in contexts of dependency, authority, and imbalances of power, even though the existence of such contexts does not, in itself, necessarily make a person legally vulnerable.

Beyond determining who falls within a particular legal category, the Church is called always to show particular concern for weak and defenceless persons, whose freedom and dignity must be respected and protected by all.

For a recent exploration of this topic, see John Paul Kimes, “The Concept of ‘Vulnerable Person’ in the Current Law of the Church: Current Challenges and Future Proposals,” The Jurist 82 (2026): 1-60.

image

Safeguarding: A Decade in Youth Ministry, by Benjamin Flores Martin

After a decade in youth ministry, I have witnessed the incredible “self-giving” sacrifice of hundreds of youth leaders across our island. These volunteers accompany young people through the most delicate stages of human development, adolescence and youth. However, true accompaniment requires more than just a willing heart, or creative programs it also requires a commitment to create safe environments (physically and relationally) as a priority.

Young people are not monoliths. Every young person carries their unique story, and every youth group has its own rhythm, style and focus. Because of this complexity, our focus must remain focus on the holistic formation and growth of every young person rather than the success of the organization itself.

In my experience, the best youth leaders are those who view safeguarding not as a checklist of “red tape,” but as the creation of a space of sacred encounter. The late Pope Francis often has referred to the heart of young people as sacred ground in which we must take off our shoes to draw nearer to them. When we create clear boundaries and have protocols in place, we are telling young people: “You are precious to us, and your wellbeing matters more than our organisation itself.” This is an essential foundation for discipleship which is genuine and has a holistic approach.

At a young age, weekend events like live-ins and retreats, become the building blocks of community life within the group, but they are also where the highest level of vigilance is required. These are often the first times a young person sleeps away from home or feels the freedom to voice deep vulnerabilities.

Being trained in safeguarding empowers a leader to:

  1. Anticipate Risks: Proactively managing the environment so accidents or misconduct are prevented.
  2. Listen Attentively: Recognizing “red flags” in conversations that a young person might be disclosing.
  3. Respond Correctly: Knowing exactly who to call so that the leader is never carrying a disclosure alone.

Adapting to current safeguarding standards included in our policy can feel like a hurdle with the limited time volunteers have on their hands but it is nonetheless an essential one. Our desire to help young people explore their dreams and talents must be matched by our commitment to protect them.

Let us continue to strive for a ministry where every young person knows that when they enter our doors, or join our retreats, they are entering a space where they are truly safe to grow.

Mr Benjamin Flores Martin began his youth ministry as a volunteer in a local youth group, and he has pursued advanced studies in spiritual accompaniment, theology, religious education, and youth ministry. He formerly served as Delegate for Youth at the Archdiocese of Malta.

L-Arċisqof jiftaħ il-konferenza tas-Safeguarding fiċ-Ċentru Animazzjoni u Komunikazzjoni (ĊAK) f’Birkirkara. Mistieden bħala kelliem ewlieni l-Isqof Ali Herrera, is-Segretarju tal-Kummissjoni Pontifiċja għall-Ħarsien tal-Minuri - 13/11/25

Integrating Safeguarding into Professional Life – Andrew Fiorini Lowell

Safeguarding is often associated with policies, reporting pathways, and designated roles. Yet safeguarding becomes truly effective not when a document is written, but when it shapes how professionals think, plan, and act every day. It is less a procedure to activate in crisis and more a professional mindset that influences routine decisions, relationships, and organisational culture.

The Safeguarding Commission of the Church in Malta highlights prevention, safe environments, and ongoing formation as central pillars of safeguarding. This reflects an important principle: safeguarding works best before things go wrong. It is embedded in the way environments are structured, how responsibilities are clarified, and how power and vulnerability are understood within organisations.

In practice, safeguarding begins long before any concern is raised. It is present when leaders ensure appropriate supervision ratios, when communication channels are clearly defined, and when expectations around conduct are explicitly discussed rather than assumed. These measures may appear procedural, yet they reduce ambiguity, and ambiguity is often where risk quietly develops. Predictable systems and transparent processes create safety not only through control, but through clarity.

Safeguarding also becomes visible in everyday professional habits. It is reflected in how promptly a low-level concern is documented, how seriously uncertainty is taken, and whether professionals pause when something feels slightly “out of place.” The Church’s Safeguarding Policy (2024) reinforces standards of conduct, appropriate boundaries, and accountability, while Maltese law through the Protection of Minors (Registration) Act (POMA) underlines the importance of safe recruitment and vetting. Together, these frameworks provide structure but it is daily behaviour that gives them life.

Clear professional boundaries do not distance adults from those in their care; rather, they create the conditions for safe trust. Using agreed communication channels, ensuring interactions are observable and accountable, and maintaining transparency in decision-making are not bureaucratic exercises. They are protective practices that model integrity and shared responsibility.

Supervision and consultation further demonstrate safeguarding as lived competence. Where teams are encouraged to reflect openly, raise questions early, and discuss uncertainty without fear of blame, reporting becomes normalised rather than exceptional. A healthy reporting culture does not signal crisis; it signals awareness. It ensures that concerns are surfaced early, proportionately assessed, and appropriately addressed.

Safeguarding, therefore, cannot rest solely with a designated officer. While Safeguarding Officers coordinate processes, safeguarding culture belongs to the whole organisation. Leadership sets the tone through consistency, visibility, and adherence to procedure. When policies are applied reliably not selectively, safeguarding becomes part of institutional reflexes rather than an external obligation.

In Malta’s close-knit professional and voluntary environments, where relationships often intersect across sectors, this consistency is particularly important. Clear structures and shared expectations provide stability beyond individual personalities.

Safeguarding is not an additional task layered onto professional life. It is a way of working attentive, reflective, and accountable. When safeguarding informs daily practice, supervision, and leadership behaviour, it moves from being reactive to being preventative, actively strengthening the safety and trust of our communities.


References

  • Safeguarding Commission of the Church in Malta
  • Safeguarding Commission & the Archdiocese of Malta (2024). Safeguarding Policy
  • Protection of Minors (Registration) Act (POMA), Laws of Malta