I write this article today because as a concerned Catholic I feel perturbed by the report in the local newspapers whereby the Gozo Bishop has not taken any disciplinary steps against a Gozitan priest who, in my humble opinion, failed in his priestly duties. The Gozo Bishop states that he is in receipt of two reports that appear to absolve the priest concerned from any responsibility though it is not clear what type of responsibility this is, that is, whether it is criminal or moral, or both.

As these two reports have not been published, it is not possible for me to comment thereupon. However, the reactions in the media against the Bishop's pronouncements are negative, in the sense, that the Bishop did not take any form of action against the priest concerned even though:

(i) the Bishop admits in his statement that the priest concerned influenced the minor's parents to withdraw a rape report they made to the Police (was this a case of duress?), a case that involved their minor child who was allegedly raped by four youngsters, and

(ii) even signed an agreement concluded between the alleged rapists, of whom three are relatives, on the one hand, and the minor victim's parents, on the other, so that hush money to the amount of 120,000 euro is paid to the parents and no criminal prosecution is continued against the four alleged rapists.

I am seriously concerned that justice has not been dispensed by the Gozo Bishop to the minor raped victim, and that the Bishop has minimised the harm the Gozo Church has done through this priest, if not covered up the moral responsibility of the priest concerned. From the facts released in the media, it appears that:

(i) the priest is related to alleged rapists to the extent that he could not have exercised an objective judgment due to direct conflict of interest in the matter and, therefore, was not the appropriate person to advise the parents of the minor concerned to withdraw criminal proceedings and accept hush money when the victim's parents had placed their trust in him as their pastoral and spiritual director. Prudence would have dictated that in this case, he would have referred the matter to another priest;

(ii) the priest advised the victim's parents concerned to withdraw criminal action; and

(iii) the priest signed an agreement between the parents and the alleged rapists that was to the exclusive benefit of the alleged rapists and not to the minor victim whose dignity and integrity were sold by her parents for cash. The priest did not protect the interests of the vulnerable innocent minor victim but the alleged rapists.

At face value, these facts seem to be extremely serious. But, as I stated, I am not privy to the two reports upon which the Bishop based his decision thereupon and, unfortunately, there is no transparency in the matter. The Bishop has been reported by The Times, in a statement he gave, that he will not release these reports.

The first report was penned by the Gozo Safeguarding Commission. My understanding - subject to correction as the report is not public - is that this report is not about the rape case but whether the priest concerned can perform his priestly ministry with children. At least this is what I understood from the Bishop's statement. The second report was authored by three Maltese (not Gozitan) citizens presided by a retired Judge, though it is not clear what were its terms of reference and findings, although the conclusion was that the priest was not responsible.

But they might have limited themselves to legal - as opposed to moral - responsibility. This is not clear at all from the reported facts in the media. Of course, from a Catholic point of view, the question that had to be investigated was not whether the priest was criminally or civilly liable; that is a pure matter for the State to determine, not a Kingdom of God matter. Having said this, would Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church itself, in the given circumstances, acted in the way the priest did and, also, in the way the Gozo Bishop did?

In his statement, and this is the worrying part, the Bishop admits that the priest had exercised his influence upon the parents of the minor raped victim who placed their trust in him as their pastoral director so that the criminal complaint they had submitted to the Police be withdrawn, thereby leading to the evasion of justice of the alleged rapists, betraying the parents trust in him (more so if there were acting under duress and later regretted it), and leaving the violated child without a legal remedy whatsoever.

Not only so, but the priest also signed an agreement where an amount of hush money was promised to be paid. Nobody seemed to have been interested in defending the interests of the minor raped victim: all four rapists ran scot free and avoided criminal prosecution and jail, and the minor's parents made a profit from their own child's abusive physical violation to remain silent rather than to safeguard their own innocent child's interests at law. And all this with the Gozo Bishop's blessing; he did not even utter one single word of public condemnation in the statement in relation to the rape of the child. Protecting the priest was more important to the Bishop than protecting the child.

When one listens to the public statement delivered in Maltese by the Gozo Bishop, one gets the impression that the Bishop is minimising, if not exculpating entirely, the priest's unchristian role in this episode. The impression is that we have to leave bygones be bygones, that the violence on the child's physical person has now been normalised through the passage of time, and that whatever was done did not give rise to any criminal or civil action against the priest concerned.

In this case, the Gozo Church as represented by the priest and the Bishop, has not taken the minor victim's side. Jesus, who preached that 'Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness' (Mt. 5:6), has been betrayed by both of his representatives in the Church of Gozo. In this case, the Church (as represented by the Gozo Bishop) is committing a double injustice - not acknowledging the seriousness of the priest's moral misconduct, failing to condemn the victim's pain and suffering, and absolving the priest entirely from all moral responsibility. But irrespective of the law - statal (the Criminal Code of Malta) or ecclesiastical (the Code of Canon Law), one has to go beyond the law and look at the morality of the priest's action concerned, bearing in mind that the priest is the vicar of Jesus Christ.

My question is: would Jesus Christ have acted in the same manner as both the priest and the Gozo Bishop did, when for Him children are the typification of innocence, the least of the greatest? (Matt 18:3-4; Matt 19:14; Luke 9:46; Rom 12:2). Would Jesus Christ have condoned, minimised, or exculpated such priestly behaviour? This is the crux of the matter, and not using the law to minimise, condone, or exculpate moral responsibility.

The emphasis should be placed more on the morality than on the legality of how the priest and Bishop acted. The Pharisees were very good in hiding behind the law and that is the impression I got when hearing the Gozo Bishop's statement: that he was using the law to exculpate the priest, in the sense that as no criminal or civil proceedings were instituted against the priest, he did nothing legally wrong. Does this not remind us of Jesus Christ's criticism of the rigid observance of the Sabbath, where the law and traditions of the Jews prevailed over the law of God? Who is to prevail? God or the Law? For Jesus, His Kingdom of God was superior to any written law of the Pharisees, Sadducees, or the Romans.

The Gozo Church has not taken the vulnerable child's side. Surprisingly, not even a simple warning was administered by the Bishop to the priest concerned not to repeat ever such action - a slight reprimand that could and should have at least be given bearing in mind the seriousness of the case. Or, if not a reprimand by the Bishop to the priest, at least an admission by the Bishop of the priest's lack of moral sensitiveness and an apology to the wronged girl. This is the least that could have been done.

I am sure Jesus Christ would have been satisfied by such assumption of moral responsibility and attendant apology. But none of this happened. The innocent girl was first let down completely by the priest. Now she has had her own calvary, having been crucified a second time by the Bishop. She has been morally violated twice by the Gozo Church - first by the priest's advice to the parents to sell off her daughter's rights for justice, then by the Bishop's pronouncement that blessed the priest's doings, finding nothing to censure once the priest did nothing illegally. But should not the Gozo Church also care about morality and, more importantly, the teachings of the Son of God? It seems not in this case where there has been no act of contrition, no atonement, no penance, no purgation, no reconciliation with the victim. Only a blessing for the priest.

Bearing in mind that this case took place 18 years ago and that publicly no other accusations have been levelled against the priest concerned for misconduct, one understands that any form of punishment against the priest should be light. But, for the record, some form of punishment howsoever light must be administered in the instant case if justice is to be dispensed fairly and equitably, because the passage of time in itself and by itself does not erase the injustice committed by the Gozo Church to the girl in question.

Unfortunately, and I write this with great displeasure, the Church in the past has been responsible for many serious instances of child molestation and abuse. Pope Francis was very receptive to the plight of these victims, taking all possible measures within his control to ensure that the Church of Jesus Christ is not tainted by such criminal acts. Pope Francis - correctly - assumed moral responsibility for institutional failure and followed in Jesus' footsteps. There have been - and continue to be - accusations at Bishops who take the side of priests who were in the wrong and cover up for their abuse. This Gozitan episode seems to be another case in point.

The Church has made several mistakes in the past to defend the institution, putting the institution before Jesus Christ and not Jesus Christ before the institution. At times, the Church

adopts a legalistic approach to avoid reparations but, in doing so, it is betraying Jesus Christ for here the institution is being put before the teachings of the Master. In Pope Leo XIV's Encyclical Letter Magnifica Humanitas he courageously acknowledged the Church's past misdeeds in the case of slavery and as a true Christian correctly prayed for forgiveness. This is the truly morally correct Christian way of doing things, because Jesus represents the Truth and Pope Leo XIV also spoke the Truth. He did not hide the misdeeds of the Church, he was honest, and followed the footsteps of Jesus.

But in the instant case, the Bishop has chosen to defend the institution, not the Truth, not Jesus Christ. As Christians, we can only cry when we evidence such things happening, not only in State institutions, where one would expect such non-Christian behaviour but, worse still, in the Church as Jesus Christ abhors such conduct in His own house.

The Church has to lead by example and not follow any corrupt practices of the State in hiding the truth, absolving moral irresponsibility, and acting unjustly to a vulnerable minor child that has been subjected to such traumatic experience. The Gozo Bishop is still in time to make amends. To say sorry to the minor victim is never late. Pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance and He will tell you what to do.

Kevin Aquilina is Professor Law at the Faculty of Laws, University of Malta