The Gozo Diocese has got this badly wrong.

Bishop Anton Teuma may say that people should not judge without knowing all the facts. But there is one fact that cannot be brushed aside: a priest intervened in a case involving an alleged sexual abuse, influenced the family to accept money, and contributed to the withdrawal of the allegations.

The Bishop himself has acknowledged that this happened. His decision, however, is that no canonical action should be taken against the priest.

That is the part that is difficult to understand.

There is a much wider moral and institutional responsibility when a person in a position of trust is confronted with an allegation of sexual abuse involving a child.

In this case, the priest did not encourage the family to allow the proper procedures to take their course. His intervention contributed to the case being dropped. The parents themselves later regretted accepting the money.

And there is another detail that makes the situation even more disturbing: the priest was a relative of some of the men accused.

That fact should surely have demanded an even greater degree of caution.

Instead, the Diocese has effectively decided that there should be no consequence.

The argument that the priest would act differently today does not resolve the matter. Indeed, it amounts to an admission that the course of action taken then was not the right one. It is certainly not an adequate response to the harm that may have resulted from that intervention.

The Church should understand that its responsibility does not end where criminal liability ends.

This is precisely the point made by the Lisa Marie Foundation, which has rightly expressed shock at the Bishop's decision. It has stressed that safeguarding is not merely about determining whether somebody committed abuse or broke the law. It is also about the ethical responsibility of people in positions of trust when allegations of child abuse are brought to their attention.

And what message does this decision send to victims?

Labour MP Ramona Attard's response is perhaps the most damning consequence of all. She has advised victims of sexual abuse not to report such cases to the Church, but instead to turn to the police or other professionals.

A Church should never find itself in a position where a public figure has to give such advice.

Victims should be able to approach the Church without fearing that their allegations will be minimised, diverted, or privately settled. They should be met with compassion, but also with an unequivocal insistence that allegations of child abuse be referred to the proper authorities.

There is some consolation in the fact that the law has changed since this case occurred. At the time, the continuation of proceedings depended on the complaint being maintained. Today, the legal framework is different, meaning that the police do not depend in the same way on a victim's consent to pursue such allegations.

That is progress. But laws alone cannot create a culture of safeguarding. Institutions have to demonstrate through their actions that protecting children comes before protecting reputations.

The Bishop says the Church continues to invest in safeguarding and prevention. That commitment will ring hollow unless difficult cases are dealt with in a way that gives victims confidence that the Church understands the gravity of what happened.

There is one question that needs to be asked: was the priest's intervention appropriate when a child was alleged to have been sexually abused?

By the Bishop's own account, it was not. The priest himself now accepts that he should have acted differently.

Yet there will be no canonical consequence.

That is why this is not simply an old case. It is a test of what the Church believes safeguarding actually means.

And on this occasion, the Gozo Diocese has sent the wrong message.