BishopAccountability.org
	Accusations of Sexual Abuse Bound to Have Wide Ramifications By Christopher Pearson The Australian September 24, 2011 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/accusations-of-sexual-abuse-bound-to-have-wide-ramifications/story-e6frg6zo-1226144273746 IN 2008, Archbishop John Hepworth, the global primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, presented the Catholic archdiocese of Adelaide with a ticking time bomb. He made allegations to its Archbishop, Philip Wilson, and his vicar general, David Cappo, that Ian Dempsey, the former vicar general, had raped him. Dealing with former vicars general is often difficult for incoming archbishops. They're usually closely identified with the policies and churchmanship of the previous reign. They tend to have old boys' networks to do their bidding and can easily become competing sources of local authority. They're also apt to know where the bodies are buried. It's well known that there is no love lost between the ultra-liberal Dempsey and Wilson. However, it may well have seemed prudent at the time to Wilson and his advisers that time should be taken to investigate the matter thoroughly. Nor was it thought necessary to stand Dempsey aside. George Pell, as archbishop of Sydney, had voluntarily stood aside some years ago while an implausible charge against him involving a minor was investigated and dismissed. But when Dempsey was accused of rape by an archbishop, neither Wilson nor Dempsey thought it appropriate to take action. Dempsey said on Tuesday: "With my integrity and background as a Catholic priest over many years, I feel I was honest enough not to stand down." Fast forward to a fortnight ago, when the accusations, the delays and the details of Hepworth's abuse at the hands of other predatory clerics become public knowledge. On Tuesday, Nick Xenophon threatened the Adelaide archdiocese that he'd name Dempsey under privilege the next evening if he was not stood aside forthwith. The archdiocese wrung its hands, pleaded publicly with Xenophon not to do so and sent him a four-page solicitor's letter. But neither in the letter nor any other communication did it tell Xenophon that Dempsey was going on scheduled leave for a month on the Thursday. As the senator told reporters this week: "I wouldn't have named him if I'd known that." Xenophon is fond of stunts in parliament and he and I have had a few run-ins over the years. Even so, given the opprobrium MPs usually face when they name someone under privilege, I believe him. Had he known, there would have been no pressing need to resort to megaphone diplomacy and plenty of time for behind-the-scenes negotiation over what action Wilson would take four weeks later. The archdiocese's failure to mount its most obvious and compelling argument for not naming Dempsey raises a number of questions. Was the leave only scheduled at the last minute? Were Wilson, the chancery and their advisers bunkering down and not capable of seeing the wood for the trees? What construction did Dempsey and his allies put on that silence when they learned that Xenophon had said he would have backed down had he been told of the impending leave? Last Saturday, an eminent lawyer who'd read my column contacted me to point out something I had missed. The head-to-head confrontation that Cappo had proposed to chair, where Hepworth was to confront Dempsey in the presence of lawyers, was dangerous on several counts. Not only was it pastorally inappropriate, but also the presence of other witnesses might have had the effect of depriving him of any limited privilege he enjoyed as a complainant in a church process and leave him vulnerable to a defamation action in the civil courts. Other lawyers have since confirmed this to me. Cases involving accusations of rape from more than 40 years ago, where there is no physical evidence and it comes down to claim and counter-claim, are seldom resolved in a clear-cut way. The police or the crown often make preliminary investigations and decide that the matter not proceed to a trial because it's deemed unlikely to lead to a conviction. This can't necessarily be construed as either a vindication of the accused or evidence that the accuser isn't credible. However, if there had been no conviction or no trial, Dempsey could have sued for damages. Bear in mind Hepworth's urgent need to regularise his relationship with the Adelaide archdiocese, for which he'd originally been ordained a Catholic priest. As the current global primate of the Traditional Anglicans, his negotiations for reunion with Rome and his standing vis-a-vis the Catholic archdiocese of Adelaide were inextricably entwined. The last thing he wanted was to be involved in an expensive criminal trial or defamation proceedings, either of which could well have dragged on for years, and delayed the process of reunion. David Cappo is a social worker, not a lawyer. It seems improbable to me that his ad hoc suggestion of a staged confrontation as part of a tailor-made formal process was designed as any kind of set-up. At the time, as both Hepworth and his lay canon adviser, Cheryl Woodman, tell me, Cappo said of Hepworth's accusation: "John, I believe you." Another development emerged this week. ABC1's Four Corners program contacted Hepworth to tell him that it has been working for months on an investigation of Wilson and Cappo's handling of sexual abuse cases. It will screen just before Wilson is scheduled to report to Rome.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.