Report of Case Study No. 14...

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
December 18, 2014

http://childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/e1f91ddb-2ba2-4eb4-b487-c43a0c8989e4/Report-of-Case-Study-no-14

[full text]

REPORT OF CASE STUDY NO. 14: The response of the Catholic Diocese of Wollongong to allegations of child sexual abuse, and related criminal proceedings, against John Gerard Nestor, a priest of the Diocese.

Executive summary

This case study explored the ways that canon law procedures are used to prevent priests from exercising their priestly ministry and ultimately have them dismissed from the priesthood. It highlighted the complexity of those procedures.

It also illustrated significant changes in the response of the Holy See in Rome to child sexual abuse claims. During the period covered by the facts of this case study – 1996 to 2009 – there was confusion in both the Holy See and the wider Catholic Church about who has jurisdiction over allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy in the Curia of the Holy See.

In the early 1990s rumours started to spread and complaints were made about Nestor’s conduct with boys. We heard evidence that in 1993 Bishop William Murray (deceased) asked Father Brian Lucas to interview Nestor. Father Lucas conducted this interview in his capacity as a member of the Catholic Church’s NSW Special Issues Resource Group. Father Lucas told us that, in keeping with his usual practice, he did not take notes during or after this interview.

? Finding 1: When Father Brian Lucas interviewed a cleric or religious about allegations of child sexual abuse before a formal Church process had commenced against that person, Father Lucas should have made a contemporaneous record of the details of what was said in the interview.

? Finding 2: Failing to make and keep such a record had the consequence that:

1. the interviewer and the cleric or religious may be unable to recall what was said in the interview and what conclusions were arrived at if they were subsequently called upon to do so

2. written records that might otherwise have been available for use in a subsequent investigation, prosecution or other penal process are not available.