"Daughter, your faith has healed you."

[Gob]

well, not quite healed...

A leading Australian priest who sexually preyed on a disabled and vulnerable woman on Sydney's north shore for 14 years has been allowed to return to preaching and running community groups at one of the nation's busiest churches.




The recent decision by the Catholic Church to allow Father Tom Knowles to return to full duties at St Francis' in Melbourne's central business district after about 16 months of "administrative leave" has outraged his victim and victims' groups.

Father Knowles's reinstatement comes after the church apologised to Jennifer Herrick, paid her $100,000 in compensation and acknowledged "the harm that can be caused to vulnerable people in such a case".

Ms Herrick's story highlights a rarely exposed facet of church abuse: vulnerable adult parishioners who are targeted by their priest for a sexual relationship.

While the case falls outside the royal commission on child sex abuse because she was 22 when the sexual relationship began, her lawyer, Peter Karp, said: "The adult victims [of clergy abuse] are voiceless victims."

Psychologists say such relationships may be compared with those in which doctors have sex with vulnerable patients, while a professor of theology at the Australian Catholic University, Neil Ormerod, believes there may be hundreds of similar cases yet to emerge.

Ms Herrick was a shy 19-year-old with bilateral congenital hip dysplasia - a condition causing her to walk with a highly abnormal gait - when her family's priest, Father Knowles, cultivated a relationship with her at his church, Our Lady of Dolours, in Chatswood. Ms Herrick's later psychological reports say she was being groomed.

When Ms Herrick turned 22, Father Knowles, who was then 30, unexpectedly initiated intercourse with her, an act she describes as unpleasant and painful but one she felt powerless to stop because of his position. It was the first time Ms Herrick had had sex.

For the next 14 years, Father Knowles maintained a secret sexual relationship with Ms Herrick.

"I now understand that my very severe vulnerability allowed him to exploit me by abusing his priestly powerful position for nearly two decades for his sexual needs,'' she said.

In 2011, after she lodged a formal complaint, a confidential church investigation found his conduct to be highly inappropriate.

Ms Herrick allowed Father Knowles - who as a Catholic priest is meant to be celibate - to have sex with her during a 14-year period and told no one about it. The sex was often hurried, aggressive and sometimes painful.

She withdrew from friends and family and grew increasingly anxious, ultimately having a breakdown and losing her promising career as a high school teacher.

"You feel you can't say anything to anybody because he was a priest. When a young, disabled woman is caught up with a priest, you are trapped,'' she said.

"I was denied an opportunity to develop normally as a young adult. I could never test out other relationships or have a family. It was a personal and pastoral betrayal."

In a report, Ms Herrick's psychologist, Ana Grant, said the priest's conduct had caused Ms Herrick serious post traumatic stress disorder and fell "within the criteria for clergy perpetrated sexual abuse".

In September 2011, Father Knowles's superior, Father Graeme Duro, wrote to Ms Herrick acknowledging that she had "endured a great deal of emotional and psychological pain and suffering and that Fr Knowles's inappropriate conduct was to your detriment".

But last month, a senior NSW church official, Michael Salmon, advised Ms Herrick's lawyer in writing that Father Knowles had "committed to a prolonged, regular and very intensive and personally confronting programme of therapy" and he would "return to full community life, and to public ministry".

Ms Herrick described the decision as "extremely distressing".

Father Knowles was photographed preaching to parishioners last week at St Francis', which hosts 10,000 parishioners a week. In his career with the church, Father Knowles has been appointed as the head of an order and held other senior roles in NSW and Victoria.

Mr Karp has acted for many clergy sexual abuse victims.

"Vulnerable people in Jennifer's position give their trust to a priest on the understanding that this trust will be returned," he said. "In this instance, the victim is so aggrieved, you would think that justice would demand that he be stood down permanently."

Father Duro said last week: ''We express our deep regret at the hurt suffered by the complainant and the harm Fr Knowles's behaviour has caused his fellow religious and the church; we believe everything … to alleviate the complainant's suffering and to address Fr Knowles's responsibility for his actions has been done and it is appropriate for him to return to public ministry.''

Professor Ormerod, who has supported Ms Herrick, said that in reinstating Father Knowles the church sent a "signal to the victim that her situation wasn't serious" when in fact the abuse of trust by the priest had been extensive.

Professor Ormerod said he suspected the number of adults abused or in inappropriate relationships with their priests might be greater than the child abuse scandal.

A victims' advocate, Chris McIsaac of Broken Rights, said: ''A psychiatrist who targeted a patient sexually could face deregistration, so why not a clergyman?''



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/predator ... z2IT49uiLQ

[Crackpot]

You have to wonder where the Catholic Churches head is. They didn't even do thier stock "move him to another church" ploy.

[rubato]

You have to wonder where the Catholic Churches head is. They didn't even do thier stock "move him to another church" ploy.

Which head do you mean? The BIG head or the Little head?

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

So again, let's look at the facts here.

The priest initiated and carried on an inappropriate sexual relationship with AN ADULT WOMAN, who was his parishioner. It was inappropriate because it was a violation of his vow of celibacy, but it was not illegal and indeed, if there was any credible claim that she was of diminished capacity to give consent to sexual intercourse, then Father Knowles should have been charged with statutory rape. But he wasn't, was he?

In fact, with him 30 years old and the woman initially being 19, sexual relationship between them was not entirely outside the realm of a normal adult sexual relationship. Or are gimps inelligible?

She may have been emotionally vulnerable because of his position and because of her physical disability, however there is no indication that she was incompetent, mentally deficient, or otherwise unable to give legal consent to sexual intercourse. The fact that the relationship went on for many years while she was in her 20's (for Christ sake), rather hints, at the very least, that it was not as unpleasant or involuntary as she now claims. There were some instances where the sex was hurried or unpleasant? So what?

She now claims, quite retroactively, that the whole thing was involuntary and painful.

She couldn't stop seeing him? Go to another Church? Stop going to Church altogether? Is strains credibility.

One of the things that the Catholic Church teaches - quite openly in fact - is that SIN CAN BE FORGIVEN. Father Knowles was engaged in a long-term sinful relationship. He stopped. He confessed. He was appropriately contrite. His sins were forgiven, and to the extent possible, reparations were made. Father Knowles was from all indications an otherwise exemplary priest and minister.

So what is the Church supposed to do with him? Send him to Fucker's Prison? Banish him for having sinned? See above.

"Professor Ormerod said he suspected the number of adults abused or in inappropriate relationships with their priests might be greater than the child abuse scandal."

Why was this sentence included in this article? It is nothing but an unsubstantiated slander.

[Big RR]

Psychiatrists and other counsellors can lose their licenses for such behavior; shouldn't the church do the same with a priest? If not, what's the difference?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Psychiatrists and other counsellors can lose their licenses for such behavior; shouldn't the church do the same with a priest? If not, what's the difference?

The priest does not hold a professional license. Does not need ot be cerified by the state. Much like your neighbor coming over and having tea (or me ) and unloading her/his problems. What changes need to be made, can be discussed.

[Big RR]

They are not licensed because of the separation of church and state, but many hold themselves out as counsellors and offer counselling services to their congregants. If the state does nto regulate them, shouldn't the oversight body of their church do so? I don't think that's too much to ask.

[Guinevere]

They are not licensed because of the separation of church and state, but many hold themselves out as counsellors and offer counselling services to their congregants. If the state does nto regulate them, shouldn't the oversight body of their church do so? I don't think that's too much to ask.

Agreed. Plus many courts treat the conversations between priest and a penitent as privileged, as they do with other types of counselors (therapists, physicians, attorneys).

[dales]

Where I attend church..........."pastoral counseling" is donce by state-licensed psychotherapists and interns.

[Econoline]

Send him to Fucker's Prison?

Thanks for that laugh-out-loud moment, Dave!

[Sean]

So again, let's look at the facts here.

The priest initiated and carried on an inappropriate sexual relationship with AN ADULT WOMAN, who was his parishioner. It was inappropriate because it was a violation of his vow of celibacy, but it was not illegal and indeed, if there was any credible claim that she was of diminished capacity to give consent to sexual intercourse, then Father Knowles should have been charged with statutory rape. But he wasn't, was he?

In fact, with him 30 years old and the woman initially being 19, sexual relationship between them was not entirely outside the realm of a normal adult sexual relationship. Or are gimps inelligible?

She may have been emotionally vulnerable because of his position and because of her physical disability, however there is no indication that she was incompetent, mentally deficient, or otherwise unable to give legal consent to sexual intercourse. The fact that the relationship went on for many years while she was in her 20's (for Christ sake), rather hints, at the very least, that it was not as unpleasant or involuntary as she now claims. There were some instances where the sex was hurried or unpleasant? So what?

She now claims, quite retroactively, that the whole thing was involuntary and painful.

She couldn't stop seeing him? Go to another Church? Stop going to Church altogether? Is strains credibility.

One of the things that the Catholic Church teaches - quite openly in fact - is that SIN CAN BE FORGIVEN. Father Knowles was engaged in a long-term sinful relationship. He stopped. He confessed. He was appropriately contrite. His sins were forgiven, and to the extent possible, reparations were made. Father Knowles was from all indications an otherwise exemplary priest and minister.

So what is the Church supposed to do with him? Send him to Fucker's Prison? Banish him for having sinned? See above.

"Professor Ormerod said he suspected the number of adults abused or in inappropriate relationships with their priests might be greater than the child abuse scandal."

Why was this sentence included in this article? It is nothing but an unsubstantiated slander.

The RCC is extremely good at convincing it's followers that the clergy's words and deeds should not be questioned. Both the story in the OP and the above quoted post are good examples of this brainwashing.

[Big RR]

Where I attend church..........."pastoral counseling" is donce by state-licensed psychotherapists and interns.

In that case, I'd bet a licensed theraapist ding the same thing would be taken to task, and possibly have his or her license revoked. I would bet, however, that many, if not most, churches do not use such licensed therapists but allow their clergy to counsel congregants based on their religious training and what couses in counselling (if any) they may have taken in seminary. In such case, I think it is incumbent on the organization putting forth these counsellors (i.e. the church) to prevent such abuses of position. And even with licensed therapists, just as a hospital or a clinic has responsibility to monitor the activities of licensed theraists using their facilities (or intoroduced to pateints through them), so should a church be held responsible.

[dales]

Huh?

[dgs49]

Sean, I'm not denying that what he did was wrong. It was wrong on several different levels, and inexcusable.

But it is unreasonable to expect the Church to banish the person for life because he SINNED? Everyone does. You look at the entire situation, look at the people involved, look at how they behaved at the time and afterward. If memory serves, there is only one unforgivable sin, and it ain't fornication.

[Big RR]

Dales--I'll try again; what I said is that licensed therpists (such as those who provide the pastoral counselling in your church) could have their licenses revoked for taking advantage of a patient. But even that does not absolve a church from acting to end abuse--just as a hospital or a clinic has a responsibilkity to oversee those who see patients in their facilities or get patients referred to them, a church must also act to protect those who are abused at the hands of those who set themselves out as counsellors in the religion.

dgs--banish? No. But perhaps put him ionto a position where the same conditions and temptations would not exist. To reinstate him as a parish priest who may well counsel congregants, therapy or not, deserves to be questioned.

[dgs49]

No contact with humans. Got it.

[Sean]

Sean, I'm not denying that what he did was wrong. It was wrong on several different levels, and inexcusable.

But it is unreasonable to expect the Church to banish the person for life because he SINNED? Everyone does. You look at the entire situation, look at the people involved, look at how they behaved at the time and afterward. If memory serves, there is only one unforgivable sin, and it ain't fornication.

So are you saying that the only people ever excommunicated from the RCC were murderers?

[rubato]

"... If memory serves, there is only one unforgivable sin, and it ain't fornication.

Let's see:

Being Jewish
Being a Protestant
Being a Muslim
Being a Cathar
Teaching that the earth is NOT the center of the solar system

That's 5 right there without even trying. I bet there's hundreds of things they've killed for.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

[Guinevere]

Pot. Kettle. Black.