The Press
May 19 2004
Sexual predator
Editorial
Disgraced
paedophile priest Alan Woodcock began his betrayals of trust a quarter of a
century ago and his abuse of young males continued for at least a decade. It is
sadly not surprising that a man like Woodcock sought to indulge his
predilection with no regard for the devastating consequences on his victims.
What is horrifying is that the Catholic Church knew what manner of man it was
harbouring but instead of ensuring that students in its care were safe, it
placed a sexual predator amongst them. Then, when complaints of abuse did
emerge, the church's priority was not the welfare of the student victims, but
protecting Woodcock and itself.
Woodcock has pleaded guilty to 21 charges relating to the abuse of 11 boys
between 1978 and 1987 and another 13 charges were dropped. Thankfully, the
guilty pleas should spare the victims the full horror of having to relive the
anguish for which Woodcock is responsible. The church, however, must not be
spared full accountability and blame for its trail of evasion.
The church knew that Woodcock, then a chaplain at the
Concealing the misconduct of fallen priests, including shifting them from job
to job or overseas, was typical of the denial of sex abuse which then prevailed
in
Secrecy could not be justified by the need to help the offending clerics, as
the best way to do this would be through the legal and health systems. With
respect to priests, there should be an added onus to report abusers, as it was
the church that placed them in the position of trust which they exploited.
Failure to take action can only add to the pain of the victims and expose other
new victims to risk. Nor is it credible to argue that too little was known
about sexual abuse a generation ago. If enough was known for Woodcock to be
convicted in court of sexual assault in 1979, enough was also known for his
other abuse to have been reported by church authorities.
Clearly, much of this concealment had less to do with defending individual
priests than with protecting the reputation of the church itself. At what
point, therefore, does an institution that knowingly and repeatedly allows a
paedophile to be in a position of power and responsibility over students,
itself become an accomplice in his predations?
Eventually, action has been taken in many sexual abuse cases involving priests.
Church leaders have made apologies, including to Woodcock's 1979 victim;
compensation packages have been negotiated across a range of complaints and the
head of Woodcock's order has said that abuse allegations will now be reported
to the police. All this is a welcome change from the denial that once reigned.
But the reluctance with which this has developed means that words and money
alone cannot guarantee that the church's moral authority will be fully restored.