The followingis an account of a complex case involving allegations of abuse sent intoCatholica by one of our readers. The caseis situated in another country, not Australia. Our correspondent has broughtit to our attention as it involves complex moral issues. They suggestvirtually all of the players in this case have become "losers"and asks "which one was the victim?" By way of introductionour correspondent writes: "This is a case involvingan infatuated woman, a naive priest, a misguided crusader and a weak Bishopand how a confluence of circumstances combined into a tragic loss forthe diocese and almost a suicide." All the names have beenchanged, and other details that might make identification of the particularindividuals involved or the location difficult. The principal reason wepublish the story is that in a way it is an excellent hypothetical. Exceptperhaps for the children involved, whom one can excuse on the groundsof childhood innocence, all of the other players in the drama have self-evidentmoral flaws of one description or another. For our own discussion on theCatholica forum of this "hypothetical"we might focus on the question: "what protectionsdo 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 whichthey developed here?"

The background…

The central players in the drama:

Number One – the complainants (A&B): Heaven knows howor why they married. B is a cradle Catholic, one of thirteen and A's aconvert to Catholicism from a rabidly extreme Protestant group. A signedup and married but brought his mind-set with him. It would be no jokebeing married to such a man, but they have two children. When this accusationwas made, the younger child (D) was 4 and his sister (C) about 9. Thecouple 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 andalways interesting. He polarised reactions in the parish, but the parishchildren loved him. Mrs B was infatuated with him and confided to himher lack of satisfaction with her husband. Fr Joe brusquely rebuffed her,and earned her undying venom. She ceased helping in the presbytery andtransferred her interest elsewhere. Two years later she informed anotherpriest in the diocese that Fr Joe had picked up and held in his arms heryounger child, D, then 2 years old. Was this "all right"? Thepriest 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 tobe 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 lotof Judgment. He also has a sad personal history and has an overly filialapproach 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 avoidit and other people will help him in this effort.

The story in outline:

A&B had complained in their previous parish that their daughterC had been "interfered with" — their words — by aschoolboy when she began school aged 6. The case was investigated andfound baseless, which angered A, and he spoke openly about this in ourparish.

It was more than two years after the incident above that B mentionedFr 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 diocesanchild protection officer, Fr S, enlisted the aid of the police and socialservices to investigate and both these bodies concluded there was no causefor 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 incomeand the rumour mill began unchecked. Fr S was in heaven having a caseto investigate. Too bad that the parish child support officer, (who incidentallydidn't like Fr Joe at all), nonetheless told him that child abuse wasnot Fr Joe's problem. Irrelevant that a group of parish notables, closelyconnected with the pp and the parish schoolchildren, individually testifiedthat 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 tookit upon himself to visit parents of school-age children to urge them totestify of their "suspicions" and "discomfiture" aboutFr Joe's behaviour with their children. B was busy chattering poison atthe school gate. Despite their efforts to provide supporting evidence,nothing was brought up, so Fr S went trawling around the diocese. Thatrevealed some people who'd formerly encountered the abrasive Fr Joe andobserved 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 beingat risk. Fr Joe was sent to a secular therapy centre where he was confinedin near slum conditions with convicted and confessing paedophiles. Herehe was subjected to therapy for a trait/activity that the therapists themselvesin their report frankly admitted he didn't display. Though of course oncethe suspicion was raised they dared not say they were 100% sure he wasin 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 attendingMass for the 6 months of his "therapy". Although this deprivationof the eucharist was pointed out to the diocesan authorities, they didnothing about it.

When his course of therapy was completed, without condemnation, Fr Joeleft the centre, but the child protection office still refused to allowhim to live in the diocese! After some months it was decided that he shouldundergo further therapy — and it's true that he had some behaviouralproblems. Desirous of resuming his life as a priest and hoping that thiswould be the way forward he agreed. Despite his hopes, it was a very lowmoment, and he was very very near despair.

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

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

Further relevant evidence:

An earlier case in the diocese had resulted in a young priest being orderedout of his presbytery on "same day" notice. He had admittedhaving once behaved inappropriately with another lad when they were both17, before he began his priestly training.

No one can accuse this diocese of ignoring "the problem". Unlessof 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 outsetFr S persuaded the Bishop it was necessary to exclude Fr Joe, withoutspecifying the charge against him or the names of the complainants. Infact Fr Joe was unable to return to his parental home and had nowhereto go, and no alternative means of support. He had no solicitor and noadvisor or advocate was provided by the diocese.

Having removed Fr Joe from the parish, Fr S determined to seek confirmationof the allegation from the parishioners, and he planned a Sunday Massaddress on the topic, inviting "evidence" of Fr Joe's behaviour,or at least of parishioners' "concerns". Since this would bea highly dangerous action on various counts, parishioners who were awareof Fr Joe's situation appealed to the Bishop who prevented Fr S makingthis defamatory appeal. As things turned out, perhaps it would have beenbetter to face the situation in full then. But Fr Joe made his decisionin the hope of resuming the practice of his priestly vocation. Failingto get "evidence" from the parish Fr S trawled round the diocesefor expressions of "concern" and "misgiving."

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

Fr S, so important in his investigation and busy in his parish, did nothasten 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 bythose whom he attended for assessment and therapy, a year after Fr Joe'scase was started, Fr S secured a copy of the report for himself and persuadedthe Bishop not to show it to the accused. However a photocopy did comeinto Fr Joe's hands, which is how he knows the official assessment was"Not Proven". And in fact the therapists were frank in theirbelief that there was no case.

Within the diocese the clergy were without reliable information, therumour mill was grinding on and other clergy were saying, "HeMUST be guilty, it's been so long". When a clerical supporterof Fr Joe began to insist that Fr Joe should be allowed to resume workin the diocese, Fr S persuaded the Bishop to send him to another therapycentre. When this centre recommended that he should be reinstated, FrS and the complainants persuaded the Bishop not to comply, but to recommendthat 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 dealwith the case. Fr S is still diocesan child protection officer, but hasn'tbeen able to blunder on in the same way. A subsequent allegation againsta different priest was dismissed early on in the enquiry. ComplainantA still glowers around the parish, but he now has problems of a differentsort. His wife B has spent years seeking peace and relief from whateveris disturbing her, but she is has significant mental problems and appearsto live a quite disturbed sort of life. The children C & D are nowyears older; the lad D never had any recollection of all that his motheralleged was "grooming". Apart from the fact that he frequentlyserves Mass in our church, he appears to be a normal moody teenager.

There are two surviving members of the parish who were apprised of thefull facts relating to the parish and who did their best to bring thefacts to the Bishop's knowledge. However, as to act on this would involverebuking Fr S and trimming his sails, the Bishop chose to let it passwithout action. The parish in general moulders on, though sometimes anindividual lets slip "Oh, I'd give anything to be able to talk toFr Joe about this." In a very few years nearly all of us will bedead, there'll be no priest available and the parish property will besold. 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 tothe discussion in our forum.

[Index of Occasional and Miscellaneous Commentaries]