Breakaway archbishop John Hepworth says he was r-ped more than 40 years ago by Ian Dempsey. Dempsey, now the parish priest at Brighton, denies the accusation. Both men cannot be right.
Sex, lies and now the Catholic Church has released the findings of a protracted investigation that has found in favour of Dempsey, to the extent that no evidence was found to support Hepworth’s version. Nothing proved, but neither has the matter been resolved.
The allegations by Hepworth, an archbishop of the breakaway Traditional Anglican Communion, were revealed in the Senate in September when Senator Nick Xenophon named Dempsey as the alleged rapist.
Xenophon has now dismissed the church inquiry result as ”bizarre”, saying Hepworth was not interviewed. The lack of transparency ”confirms my fears about the appalling way the South Australian Catholic Church has treated John Hepworth”, he says.
The inquiry by Michael Abbott QC included interviews with 29 witnesses, many of whom were present at the time the alleged events, and the examination a large number of documents.
Adelaide’s Catholic Archbishop Phillip Wilson says he intends “to accept the findings in full” but won’t be releasing them because they contain ”significant personal and sensitive information”. The rape was alleged to have occurred more than 40 years ago when Hepworth and Dempsey were young Catholic priests.
The fact that Hepworth was not interviewed by Abbott is clearly a sticking point. Abbott has told The Advertiser that many requests were made for Hepworth to be interviewed, all of which were declined.
Hepworth has told The Australian he did not co-operate because he would have to bear the costs of bringing witnesses before the inquiry, “which I could not afford and I was also told that no witnesses would be indemnified”.
Xenophon says the church hierarchy “should hang their head in shame”. “How can this be credible when no evidence was heard from the person that made the allegations?” he asks.
The point needs to be made again that Hepworth never took his allegations to the police. No charges were ever laid and, given the time that has elapsed, the chance of sustaining a charge is next to zero.
Hepworth always said he preferred the Church to handle the matter internally. To then decline to co-operate with the inquiry, apparently because he objected to Abbott’s involvement, is up to him.
But to criticise then the findings on the basis of his non-involvement is a bit rich. He had his chance and did nothing.
For good measure Abbott has given Xenophon a backhander for the naming and shaming of Dempsey in the Senate.
“I also note that Senator Xenophon conducted no inquiry, interviewed no witnesses and had access to no documents (except Archbishop Hepworth’s accounts) before taking the course he did in the Senate,” Abbott says. “In view of the conclusions that I have come to in my report, it is regrettable that Senator Xenophon took the course he did before an investigation had been concluded.”
Quite.
The one undisputed fact is that everyone has to live with their consciences.
*This article first appeared on InDaily
It is Nick Xenophon who has behaved appallingly in this matter and all the respect I had for him previously went out the window when he used Coward’s Castle to denigrate a man-without a scintilla or proof except for the 40 year old claims of a man who would not even submit to questioning.
Given that the person making these claims-so easy to do and so difficult to refute refused to involve the police, how in the hell did he expect the church to handle the matter apart from using a well respected QC ?.
We have a Press Council that seems unable to rein in the media when it goes haywire-what about politicians who spread unfounded rumour ?
I don’t know who is telling the truth or whether the “memories” are reliable but these bits should be made bold:
“The point needs to be made again that Hepworth never took his allegations to the police. No charges were ever laid and, given the time that has elapsed, the chance of sustaining a charge is next to zero.”
and
“Senator Xenophon conducted no inquiry, interviewed no witnesses and had access to no documents (except Archbishop Hepworth’s accounts) before taking the course he did “
It should be appreciated that Xenophon is now a nobody in the Senate, a spare part, a person of no influence, almost a waste of space. Since the Greens have taken over the mantle of influence, Xenophon must now rely on stunts, he is very accomplished at those. The sad part of this episode is the Senator has no proof, but went about naming Mr Dempsey, under the protection of Parliamentary privilege, something similar to diplomatic immunity.
This is a disaster for Xenophon, he would do well to apologise publicly, Ian Dempsey deserves nothing less. Should he not apologise, this tawdry episode will haunt him for many a day.
As I understand it Nick Xenophon waited several years for the Church to respond to Hepworth’s claims and conduct an enquiry into the allegations against Dempsey before he named him in the Senate. It is clearly ugly to use parliamentary privilege in a case as inflammatory as this but what recourse do victims have when the Catholic Church continues endlessly its policy of stone-walling questions and protecting alleged offenders.
Whatever Xenephon did or didnt do, this latest investigation borders on farce – As does this article . Talk about drawing conclusions based on very little evidence.