The following is an account of a complex case involving allegations of abuse sent into Catholica by one of our readers. The case is situated in another country, not Australia. Our correspondent has brought it to our attention as it involves complex moral issues. They suggest virtually all of the players in this case have become "losers" and asks "which one was the victim?" By way of introduction our correspondent writes: "This is a case involving an infatuated woman, a naive priest, a misguided crusader and a weak Bishop and how a confluence of circumstances combined into a tragic loss for the diocese and almost a suicide." All the names have been changed, and other details that might make identification of the particular individuals involved or the location difficult. The principal reason we publish the story is that in a way it is an excellent hypothetical. Except perhaps for the children involved, whom one can excuse on the grounds of childhood innocence, all of the other players in the drama have self-evident moral flaws of one description or another. For our own discussion on the Catholica forum of this "hypothetical" we might focus on the question: "what protections do we have, or need, in our communities so that we can get 'to the truth' and prevent these sort of situations developing in the unholy way in which they developed here?"

The background…

The central players in the drama:

Number One – the complainants (A&B): Heaven knows how or why they married. B is a cradle Catholic, one of thirteen and A's a convert to Catholicism from a rabidly extreme Protestant group. A signed up and married but brought his mind-set with him. It would be no joke being married to such a man, but they have two children. When this accusation was made, the younger child (D) was 4 and his sister (C) about 9. The couple had volunteered to help with the presbytery housekeeping.

Number Two – the young parish priest (Fr Joe): He was intelligent, abrasive and probably gay. Equally he was fascinating, a lot of fun and always interesting. He polarised reactions in the parish, but the parish children loved him. Mrs B was infatuated with him and confided to him her lack of satisfaction with her husband. Fr Joe brusquely rebuffed her, and earned her undying venom. She ceased helping in the presbytery and transferred her interest elsewhere. Two years later she informed another priest in the diocese that Fr Joe had picked up and held in his arms her younger child, D, then 2 years old. Was this "all right"? The priest consulted the Diocesan Child Protection Officer, Fr S.

Number Three – The Diocesan Child Protection Officer (Fr S): Fr S had volunteered for the task as DCPO when the Bishop had begun to be aware from reports in US dioceses that there was big trouble brewing. Unfortunately, S is a priest with a great zeal for Justice but not a lot of Judgment. He also has a sad personal history and has an overly filial approach to the aged Bishop.

Number Four — The Bishop: Bishop X is a good man, and tolerant. He doesn't like trouble, if it can be avoided. He can generally avoid it and other people will help him in this effort.

The story in outline:

A&B had complained in their previous parish that their daughter C had been "interfered with" — their words — by a schoolboy when she began school aged 6. The case was investigated and found baseless, which angered A, and he spoke openly about this in our parish.

It was more than two years after the incident above that B mentioned Fr Joe holding little D in his arms before setting him down by her side. A complaint was made to the diocesan authorities. The Bishop and the diocesan child protection officer, Fr S, enlisted the aid of the police and social services to investigate and both these bodies concluded there was no cause for concern.

Fr S however reckoned he knew better, and as the Bishop didn't interfere, Fr Joe was in quick succession put on "administrative leave", banned from the area, cut off from his parish base and from his income and the rumour mill began unchecked. Fr S was in heaven having a case to investigate. Too bad that the parish child support officer, (who incidentally didn't like Fr Joe at all), nonetheless told him that child abuse was not Fr Joe's problem. Irrelevant that a group of parish notables, closely connected with the pp and the parish schoolchildren, individually testified that the allegation was not credible and that the complainants were unreliable. Their positive comments were not even filed.

A&B were delighted at their role in this important matter. A took it upon himself to visit parents of school-age children to urge them to testify of their "suspicions" and "discomfiture" about Fr Joe's behaviour with their children. B was busy chattering poison at the school gate. Despite their efforts to provide supporting evidence, nothing was brought up, so Fr S went trawling around the diocese. That revealed some people who'd formerly encountered the abrasive Fr Joe and observed the way children found him such fun, but no more.

But a complaint had been made and the "paramountcy principle" meant that above all else there must be no possibility of a child being at risk. Fr Joe was sent to a secular therapy centre where he was confined in near slum conditions with convicted and confessing paedophiles. Here he was subjected to therapy for a trait/activity that the therapists themselves in their report frankly admitted he didn't display. Though of course once the suspicion was raised they dared not say they were 100% sure he was in no way implicated. Although his Mass faculties had not been suspended, he was not permitted to offer Mass at the centre as no alcohol was permitted. The local Catholic clergy ignored the place so he had no chance of attending Mass for the 6 months of his "therapy". Although this deprivation of the eucharist was pointed out to the diocesan authorities, they did nothing about it.

When his course of therapy was completed, without condemnation, Fr Joe left the centre, but the child protection office still refused to allow him to live in the diocese! After some months it was decided that he should undergo further therapy — and it's true that he had some behavioural problems. Desirous of resuming his life as a priest and hoping that this would be the way forward he agreed. Despite his hopes, it was a very low moment, and he was very very near despair.

But he came through, the new course was beneficial and he was ready for the future that the Bishop was promising him. But after four years, the Bishop found that the diocesan child protection team were still adamant that the principle of paramountcy required that Fr Joe could have no position in the diocese. Not then and not ever.

I'm happy to say that Joe has made a very good life for himself; he is still a priest, though he earns his living in a different sphere. He has matured, and has faced up to sundry personal problems. He is free - thank God.

Further relevant evidence:

An earlier case in the diocese had resulted in a young priest being ordered out of his presbytery on "same day" notice. He had admitted having once behaved inappropriately with another lad when they were both 17, before he began his priestly training.

No one can accuse this diocese of ignoring "the problem". Unless of course the problem is the diocesan child protection officer, Fr S. He decided to ignore the official reports of the police and social services, which had been conducted with full professional discretion. At the outset Fr S persuaded the Bishop it was necessary to exclude Fr Joe, without specifying the charge against him or the names of the complainants. In fact Fr Joe was unable to return to his parental home and had nowhere to go, and no alternative means of support. He had no solicitor and no advisor or advocate was provided by the diocese.

Having removed Fr Joe from the parish, Fr S determined to seek confirmation of the allegation from the parishioners, and he planned a Sunday Mass address on the topic, inviting "evidence" of Fr Joe's behaviour, or at least of parishioners' "concerns". Since this would be a highly dangerous action on various counts, parishioners who were aware of Fr Joe's situation appealed to the Bishop who prevented Fr S making this defamatory appeal. As things turned out, perhaps it would have been better to face the situation in full then. But Fr Joe made his decision in the hope of resuming the practice of his priestly vocation. Failing to get "evidence" from the parish Fr S trawled round the diocese for expressions of "concern" and "misgiving."

Meanwhile some nine or ten parishioners wrote individually to the diocesan child protection officer to testify to Fr Joe's character and conduct while serving as their parish priest; we know that these documents were ignored because one lady, the mother of an altar server, submitted her opinion, but was later approached by Fr S, suggesting that Fr Joe must have groomed her son! In fact this lady had seen the incident which had been the basis of complaint by Mrs B. It was Easter Sunday, and Fr Joe had given each of the servers, and the children of his housekeepers an Easter egg. Child D, delighted, flung himself at Fr Joe, who perforce had to catch the toddler. This in the presence of the child's mother and of the servers.

Fr S, so important in his investigation and busy in his parish, did not hasten his report. Although he could find no evidence beyond B's allegation, he insisted on Fr Joe being subjected to the therapy for convicted criminals, and personally supervised his progress. When the report was issued by those whom he attended for assessment and therapy, a year after Fr Joe's case was started, Fr S secured a copy of the report for himself and persuaded the Bishop not to show it to the accused. However a photocopy did come into Fr Joe's hands, which is how he knows the official assessment was "Not Proven". And in fact the therapists were frank in their belief that there was no case.

Within the diocese the clergy were without reliable information, the rumour mill was grinding on and other clergy were saying, "He MUST be guilty, it's been so long". When a clerical supporter of Fr Joe began to insist that Fr Joe should be allowed to resume work in the diocese, Fr S persuaded the Bishop to send him to another therapy centre. When this centre recommended that he should be reinstated, Fr S and the complainants persuaded the Bishop not to comply, but to recommend that Fr Joe get a job for himself. Well, he has and he's doing brilliantly.

The Bishop has retired and the new bishop is happy not to have to deal with the case. Fr S is still diocesan child protection officer, but hasn't been able to blunder on in the same way. A subsequent allegation against a different priest was dismissed early on in the enquiry. Complainant A still glowers around the parish, but he now has problems of a different sort. His wife B has spent years seeking peace and relief from whatever is disturbing her, but she is has significant mental problems and appears to live a quite disturbed sort of life. The children C & D are now years older; the lad D never had any recollection of all that his mother alleged was "grooming". Apart from the fact that he frequently serves Mass in our church, he appears to be a normal moody teenager.

There are two surviving members of the parish who were apprised of the full facts relating to the parish and who did their best to bring the facts to the Bishop's knowledge. However, as to act on this would involve rebuking Fr S and trimming his sails, the Bishop chose to let it pass without action. The parish in general moulders on, though sometimes an individual lets slip "Oh, I'd give anything to be able to talk to Fr Joe about this." In a very few years nearly all of us will be dead, there'll be no priest available and the parish property will be sold. It should contribute to a nice pension for the Bishop and Fr S. So it goes.

Everyone involved is a loser. Which one was the victim?

What are your thoughts on this commentary? You can contribute to the discussion in our forum.

[Archive of Occasional Commentaries]