Now that I have read Pearlie Joubert’s article (”Paedophile priests’ victims slam Napier,” August 11) I understand the reason for her message saying she wanted to give me a chance to defend myself. Her next message — that she was not threatening me in any way — was quite incomprehensible, as I had not seen or heard what she had to say. Why was I to defend myself when I did not even know I was under attack?
The article more than opened my eyes to what it means to be tried by the media.
Why the Thornton and McCauley cases were raised in this article I do not understand because they do not fall under my jurisdiction.
Your reporter obviously already had in her possession all she needed for the prosecution case. Unfortunately the defence was given nothing but a list of questions pertaining only to ”Sam’s” case.
Needless to say there is a veritable library of documents that would throw a completely different light on the case. But for professional reasons and reasons of conscience these cannot and will not be made public.
One thing I can and will say is that it is an absolute and total lie that I offered ”Sam” money to buy her silence. The very opposite is in fact the truth!
In accordance with the protocol for church personnel in regard to the sexual abuse of children (SACBC revised 2004) putting right the damage done to the victim is a priority. That and that alone was the reason for the offer of therapy.
Once again the only reason for the letter reproduced in part in the article was to prevent ”Sam” from reneging again on the agreed treatment regime. We did not want her to break off treatment once again, only to come back later when it suited her. We wanted her and us to have closure of this regrettable incident, which had caused so much grief, not least to her.
Given that the Mail & Guardian has its particular vision and mission, I will not dispute its right to see things differently. What I do dispute is its right to flout the truth.
Wilfrid Cardinal Napier is Archbishop of Durban