Church Urges Defrocking over Sex

By Ben Smee
Newcastle Herald
July 5, 2012

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/church-urges-defrocking-over-sex/2615297.aspx

AN Anglican church professional standards board has recommended a Hunter priest be defrocked for his involvement in a sexual encounter with a 19-year-old and another priest, and for breaching a long-repealed law that banned homosexuality in NSW.

The priest, who cannot be named, did not attend the hearings this week but said through a lawyer that he could not afford to retain legal counsel and denied the allegations.

The three-person board unanimously upheld four allegations relating to an alleged encounter at a church synod in 1984.

They included that the priest committed the offences ‘‘indecent assault’’ and ‘‘outrage on decency’’ in a motel room with the complainant, who was 19 at the time, and another priest.

Those offences, which effectively made homosexuality a crime, were repealed later in 1984.

The board also found that the priest concealed a serious offence by failing to notify authorities of the conduct of the other priest involved.

His ‘‘failure to observe the standards of purity of life and sexual behaviour required by members of the clergy’’, was found to have breached canon law.

The complainant, referred to as Mr M, who openly identifies himself as being gay, told the public board hearing yesterday that as a young man he had sexual relationships with several priests that were ‘‘built on an abuse of power and an abuse of trust’’.

One of those relationships allegedly began when Mr M was 14.

The specific complaint heard yesterday related to a single sexual encounter at a church synod in the Riverina.

Board president Col Elliott said the board could not ‘‘determine that crimes against the state have been committed’’.

‘‘However, if we are satisfied that the incidents as alleged ... occurred, then we are entitled to consider on the balance of probabilities that law has been breached and supports the ... contention of misconduct.’’

Mr Elliott used his summation to respond to accusations the hearings were biased and discriminatory.

‘‘At the outset I want to make it abundantly clear that this board is not concerned with the sexual orientation of any person,’’ Mr Elliott said.

The priest had alleged the board was biased, but failed to file any evidence to substantiate this claim when asked by the board.

‘‘The proposition that there is bias on the board is absolutely rejected,’’ Mr Elliott said.

Board proceedings related to Mr M’s complaints have led to recommendations that four priests be defrocked.

Mr M said during his victim impact statement that he was thankful of the board process.

‘‘I feel very privileged to have been able to have my case heard in the way it’s been heard,’’ he said.

He questioned media coverage that raised questions about the probity of professional standards board process and that told ‘‘the priests’ side of the story, even though they failed to appear’’.