Some falsely accused priests such as Father Joseph Jiang are now fighting back through the civil justice system. Father Kevin Reynolds is another priest who was falsely accused by the RTE news (Ireland's local news media) of sexually abusing a teenage girl and fathering a child by her. Father Reynolds took a paternity test, which proved that he was not the father of the child. Nevertheless, the media labeled Father Reynolds guilty of sexual molestation and fathering a child before the results of the paternity test came out. Consequently, the priest filed a libel and defamation lawsuit against RTE. He also won the lawsuit. According to news report:
An action for defamation taken by a Co Galway priest against RTÉ over a Prime Time Investigates programme has been settled at the High Court. Fr Kevin Reynolds, 65, the parish priest of Ahascragh in Co Galway, sued RTÉ in relation to the programme broadcast in May.
The programme falsely alleged that he had sexually abused a teenage girl in Kenya in 1982, fathered a child by her and abandoned the child. The false allegations were also broadcast on RTÉ's Morning Ireland the following morning.
A paternity test showed Fr Reynolds was not the father of the child. RTÉ has apologised fully and unreservedly to Fr Reynolds and has said the programmes should never have been broadcast.
As part of the settlement a lengthy statement was read to the court, a correction order has been made by the High Court and substantial compensatory and aggravated damages are to be paid to Fr Reynolds as well as his legal costs.
The amount of damages being paid to Fr Reynolds is confidential as part of the agreement.
The defamation action was due to begin this morning, but just after 2pm, Mr Justice Eamon De Valera was told the matter had been settled.
Statements
The lengthy statement outlining the terms of the settlement was read to the court by lawyers for Fr Reynolds.
The statement said RTÉ had been afforded every opportunity to review its position and remove any reference to Fr Reynolds before the programme was broadcast.
A Prime Time Investigates team first approached Fr Reynolds on 7 May 2011 without any notice and put the allegations to him.
He denied the allegations and his solicitors then wrote to RTÉ on a number of occasions repeating the denials.
He offered to undergo a paternity test before the programmes were broadcast, but RTÉ refused this offer.
The statement said RTÉ and reporter Aoife Kavanagh had choices: choices prior to the broadcast, choices in the manner in which the case was approached and the paternity test addressed after the broadcast.
The choices made by RTÉ were utterly misjudged and wrong, the court was told, and had an utterly devastating impact on Fr Reynolds.
He was removed from public ministry following the programme but returned to his parish last month.
The statement says Fr Reynolds suffered irreparable damage to his reputation.
His life was utterly altered and he was removed from his home and his community.
Upset and stress were caused to his family, friends, parishioners, fellow priests, members of his missionary society and members of the Catholic Church in Ireland and abroad.
Despite his vindication through the results of the tests and the retraction of the allegations by RTÉ, he still feels very upset by the damage to his good name, reputation and network of relationships in Ireland and in Africa.
The court was told that despite his reinstatement as parish priest he feels personally damaged and the scars remain.
His 40th Jubilee year as a priest has been marred by "the enormity of the abhorrent crime of which he was publicly and globally accused".
The statement read in court said RTÉ now stated that the programmes ought never to have been broadcast.
It said all the allegations against Fr Reynolds were baseless, without any foundations whatsoever and untrue and the allegations should never have been put to Fr Reynolds without prior notice.
It said the programmes should not have been broadcast following on the denials from Fr Reynolds himself and the denials in his solicitors' letter of 11 May.
RTÉ said the programmes should not have been broadcast in light of the fact that Fr Reynolds offered to undergo a paternity test before the programmes were broadcast, and RTÉ refused this offer.
RTÉ also said the programmes ought not to have been broadcast in light of the correspondence that had passed between RTÉ and Fr Reynolds' former bishop in Kenya, Bishop Sulumeti, stating the allegations were untrue.
RTÉ also stated Fr Reynolds was and always had been a priest of utmost integrity and had an unblemished 40 years in the priesthood and had made a valuable contribution to society in Kenya and in Ireland both in education and in ministry.
Fr Reynolds did not comment after the case but Fr Sean McDonagh of the Association of Catholic Priests said they were delighted that Fr Reynolds had been totally and absolutely vindicated.
He said they were happy that the correction order made by the court would allow the public record to be corrected and was very important.
He said he hoped Fr Reynolds could now get on with the rest of his life.
Fr McDonagh said he hoped this would be a wake-up call. He said he would not prejudge the results of the review being carried out by Press Ombudsman John Horgan.
Mr Justice De Valera said it was clearly important that appropriate lessons from this affair were learned and acted upon.
So if brother tony is so innocent and falsely accused as you neos proclaim, then why doesn't brother tony take it to court? Why try to get his case thrown out on a technicality of the law? Why not let the truth speak for itself if he's so innocent? From an outside point of view, it seems as if brother tony just wants to avoid going to court and letting the truth come out.
Can Archbishop Apuron leave Rome during his canonical trail? Wouldn't it be best if he came back to Guam and faced his accusers? Staying away for over a year gave a lot of people doubts about his character. He has the NCW to watch out for his safety and the RMS to use for a temporary residence. What do you think dear Diana.
The canonical trial is actually much more important. Why? Because it is the only trial that can find him guilty, not guilty, or not enough evidence.
It was the false rumors that Tim Rohr spread that gave doubts to his character. Unfortunately, people listened to those rumors without thinking. It was obvious that Rohr's main goal was to defame and smear the Archbishop's character. As I said, if he can smear Father Edivaldo by using his family photo, how much more Archbishop Apuron?
For example, you stated: "He has the NCW to watch out for his safety and the RMS to use for a temporary residence."
Please think.....when the Archbishop was found in Fairfield, California, was that an RM seminary he was living in????? If what Rohr says is true, then why was the Archbishop residing in the home of his best friend in California and not in RMS??? Did anyone questioned Rohr about this?
Tim also put out a false rumor on his blog saying that the Archbishop was hiding in the RM seminary in Guam. As a result, some of the elderly women from LFM came banging at the doors of RMS, but Apuron was not there. In fact, he was in Fairfield California.
With that said, are you going to question Rohr about why he changed his story? Are you not even the least bit curious or suspicious that Rohr changed his story again?
I was discussing about Archbishop Apuron coming to Guam to clear his name. I don't really follow Mr. Rohr. All I am saying is that AB Apuron still has supporters here on Guam who can watch out for his health and welfare. If I was wrongly accused of something, I will confront my accusers. By him leaving, gave a lot of people doubts of his situation. Again, I am not saying he is guilty of what he is accused of. I am a strong believer in innocent until proven guilty.
He already confronted his accusers when he told them that he was innocent. Their response was to sue him for 2 million dollars for defamation. The archbishop was already labeled guilty by the media and the Junglewatch nation. He probably felt that he would get a fair trial through the canonical process. If found not guilty, he then can pursue a civil trial and file a defamation lawsuit against all his accusers.
And no, you did not say he has supporters here to watch out for his health and welfare. Do not change your story. You specifically mentioned the NCW and RMS by name.
Think about it Diana. Who do you think will support AB Apuron here on Guam? As for me changing my story, I just used words that maybe you an better understand.
His family, friends, the NCW, and many others. If what Archbishop Apuron said about a conspiracy to topple him is true, there will be more people supporting him.
So what are you trying to imply? If Apuron is not guilty why did he run in to hiding? I'm just wondering.
ReplyDeleteSo if brother tony is so innocent and falsely accused as you neos proclaim, then why doesn't brother tony take it to court? Why try to get his case thrown out on a technicality of the law? Why not let the truth speak for itself if he's so innocent? From an outside point of view, it seems as if brother tony just wants to avoid going to court and letting the truth come out.
ReplyDeleteDear Vince D. and Anonymous at 12:08 pm,
ReplyDeleteMy response is in the following weblink:
https://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2017/08/archbishop-apuron-did-not-run-nor-hide.html
Can Archbishop Apuron leave Rome during his canonical trail? Wouldn't it be best if he came back to Guam and faced his accusers? Staying away for over a year gave a lot of people doubts about his character. He has the NCW to watch out for his safety and the RMS to use for a temporary residence. What do you think dear Diana.
ReplyDeleteDear 5EE445,
DeleteThe canonical trial is actually much more important. Why? Because it is the only trial that can find him guilty, not guilty, or not enough evidence.
It was the false rumors that Tim Rohr spread that gave doubts to his character. Unfortunately, people listened to those rumors without thinking. It was obvious that Rohr's main goal was to defame and smear the Archbishop's character. As I said, if he can smear Father Edivaldo by using his family photo, how much more Archbishop Apuron?
For example, you stated: "He has the NCW to watch out for his safety and the RMS to use for a temporary residence."
Please think.....when the Archbishop was found in Fairfield, California, was that an RM seminary he was living in????? If what Rohr says is true, then why was the Archbishop residing in the home of his best friend in California and not in RMS??? Did anyone questioned Rohr about this?
Tim also put out a false rumor on his blog saying that the Archbishop was hiding in the RM seminary in Guam. As a result, some of the elderly women from LFM came banging at the doors of RMS, but Apuron was not there. In fact, he was in Fairfield California.
With that said, are you going to question Rohr about why he changed his story? Are you not even the least bit curious or suspicious that Rohr changed his story again?
I was discussing about Archbishop Apuron coming to Guam to clear his name. I don't really follow Mr. Rohr. All I am saying is that AB Apuron still has supporters here on Guam who can watch out for his health and welfare. If I was wrongly accused of something, I will confront my accusers. By him leaving, gave a lot of people doubts of his situation. Again, I am not saying he is guilty of what he is accused of. I am a strong believer in innocent until proven guilty.
DeleteDear 5EE445,
DeleteHe already confronted his accusers when he told them that he was innocent. Their response was to sue him for 2 million dollars for defamation. The archbishop was already labeled guilty by the media and the Junglewatch nation. He probably felt that he would get a fair trial through the canonical process. If found not guilty, he then can pursue a civil trial and file a defamation lawsuit against all his accusers.
And no, you did not say he has supporters here to watch out for his health and welfare. Do not change your story. You specifically mentioned the NCW and RMS by name.
Think about it Diana. Who do you think will support AB Apuron here on Guam? As for me changing my story, I just used words that maybe you an better understand.
ReplyDeleteDear 5EE445,
DeleteHis family, friends, the NCW, and many others. If what Archbishop Apuron said about a conspiracy to topple him is true, there will be more people supporting him.