I wonder if it helps when supervisors are, in fact, outside the power structures of the institution? For example, my own supervisor is a lay person (she does happen to be Anglican, but that's not why I see her). Others would see supervisors from other denominations, or with no particular faith affiliation.
I may sound pessimistic, but I think it will make only a small difference. I have seen laypersons commit the same administrative crimes that priests and bishops have committed, and this is because they are also committed to the institution in such a way that they are willing to commit crimes and sins on its behalf, even though they are outside of the "power structures".
If a supervisor is outside the institution altogether then a hierarchical relationship has been established, where the institution is subordinated (by being accountable to) a separate organization. I take it that this often happens in the Anglican church with respect to the government. This would only work if a corrupt institution is subordinated to a morally superior institution.
This is part of the point I was trying to make about clinical supervision and operational oversight being two separate functions; your clinical supervisor is not (usually) your "boss."
As long as you are professionally accountable to someone, all that I have said holds. I take it that a supervisor is generally understood to be someone to whom you are professionally accountable to.
Granted, the article seems to shift back and forth between talking about supervisors and talking about counselors, where the former have authority and the latter do not; or the former have deliberative authority and the latter have only consultative authority. Counselor-relationships do not run into the problems I have pointed out, but they also lack the necessary authority-accountability that the Royal Commission would seem to require.
In my opinion the entire culture is problematic, and this is why we see the same symptoms in churches that we see in politics and businesses. If that is right, then the only real way forward is to change the culture, and to begin with oneself. Rather than supervision
qua supervision, we need
good supervisors, and more than good supervisors, we need good Christians--lay and clerical alike. It seems to me to be a question of goodness and sinfulness, not so much a question of structural organization. So yes - organic counseling, virtuous friendships, strong communities, and healthy social lives would all contribute to a better culture. It's just that there is no silver bullet. It's not as though we simply had the puzzle arranged poorly, and a rearrangement will solve the problems.
I spoke about law in a very pragmatic sense, for law provides the means by which an individual can be held accountable for their actions, even by the
demos. If there is an absence of commonsensical laws, then there will be an absence of accountability in even the most fundamental sense. An example would be the case I gave, where professional therapists in an ongoing counseling situation can be held accountable for taking advantage of their clients, but priests who are in an effectively identical situation cannot be held accountable. That is an example of the absence of a commonsensical law in the U.S., but I'm sure there are other examples. If we are looking for a silver bullet, then fixing some of the legal gaps seems like a good place to start. The new assumption here is that the Church is no longer to be considered morally superior; e.g. the priest cannot be considered morally superior to the therapist, as though those seeking the aid of a therapist require legal protections but those seeking the aid of a priest do not.