This section is reprinted from The Irish Times, March 14, 2006. Author is Nuala O’Loan. View original link at http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2006/0314/1908151162OP14NUALA.html

The Catholic Church's rules for dealing with sex abuse allegations against priests can cause injustice, and greatly harm those who are wrongly accused, writes Nuala O'Loan.

The reception of, and response to, allegations of child abuse requires huge sensitivity and absolute integrity. We have all seen and heard the terrible litany of the pain of those abused by a small number of members of the Catholic Church, some of them ordained to priesthood.

The abuse of trust of those who perpetrated these terrible actions against defenceless little children was total and abhorrent. The response of the church in Ireland was inadequate, and in some cases criminal - we saw the collusion which resulted in the movement of a few priests, known to be paedophiles, from parish to parish. It was wrong, terribly wrong.

More recently we have seen a completely different approach. The institutional church has acknowledged its wrongdoing and has apologised repeatedly for it. New rules were published at the end of last year stating how the church will respond in the event of an allegation of child abuse. They are clear and concise, and they state the necessity to protect children.

However, inherent in the operation of those new rules is further injustice, which has the capacity to cause great harm to those priests who are wrongly or falsely accused.

For, whilst articulating the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty, the church does not always reflect this understanding in the way in which it deals with those accused, especially those accused of offences which are less serious in nature and which allegedly occurred 20 and 30 years ago. Inevitably, these are much harder to investigate.

It is absolutely essential that the first thing which happens, in all cases in which an allegation is made, is that the matter must be reported to the police for consideration and investigation where appropriate.

However, current processes also seem to require that priests who are accused will immediately have to step aside from ministry, leave their homes, and go away into what is effectively a limbo. In cases where there is a clear and precise allegation, what Colm O'Gorman referred to recently as "a significant allegation", then such action may well be necessary.

In cases where there is a vague allegation, of a less serious nature which is very old, particularly where that allegation changes rapidly on the first few occasions on which it is recounted, the church should be more cautious. Having reported the matter to the police, it should consider carefully the question of any action which it might take against the priest in a particular case. The priest may well concur with the church's current position that he should step aside "in the common good".

However, what seems to happen next is that the bishop appears in the church in which the priest serves, and makes a formal announcement, often before any investigation has commenced. An accusation against a nurse, a teacher, a social worker or a police officer would not be the subject of an immediate disclosure of the facts to all those with whom, and for whom, they work.

If an arrest becomes necessary, that public disclosure may well happen, but in the early moments of investigation it is normal to conduct the investigation having regard to the rights both of the accuser and of the accused, and not to make any public statement.

Priests' homes are very often also their offices. Most of them do not work an eight-hour day; they are very often available to the people at all hours of the day and night. A priest, in this situation, is often asked to leave his home. This does not happen to teachers or social workers or nurses or doctors or police officers. They continue to live in their homes for the duration of the investigation, which, if there is a criminal allegation, may well continue for up to two years. They retain some semblance of normality in a life which is otherwise turned upside down by what has happened.

Most teachers, nurses, social workers and police officers belong to a union or federation which will provide legal assistance in the event of an allegation of this kind. Priests have no such protection, no union to speak for them. Very often they are not provided with civil lawyers but must pay for their own.

Sometimes the diocese even stops paying them the small stipend which most of them receive. So effectively they can and do lose their homes, their reputation and their income. This does not happen to other members of the public.

I have investigated such allegations against police officers. The police investigate similar allegations against civilians. If those allegations are proved to be false, or if they are unproven, the accused go back into their professional life.

The determination will be either that they should stand trial, as a consequence of which they will be either acquitted or convicted, or that there is no evidence on which to found a prosecution, in which case they will return to normal life. At the end of an investigation, those against whom there is no evidence will be able to get on with their lives.

In many cases in the church here in Ireland, this does not happen. Men against whom the evidence is simply not to be found will nevertheless not be permitted to return to work, but will spend the rest of their days waiting. For what? I know of such men living apart in monasteries and seminaries, for whom life is on hold indefinitely because the church does not have the structures which will enable proper handling of the issue. This is wrong.

These situations are few but they are important. The church should not, by its actions, create a situation in which priests are treated less fairly than others such as teachers, nurses, social workers and police officers.

Nuala O'Loan is Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

© The Irish Times