Victim’s plea to stop Peter Hollingworth leading Anglican services

An Anglican-created committee has been asked by a survivor to appeal the decision clearing Peter Hollingworth to officiate and assist in services despite being found guilty of misconduct.

Peter Hollingworth. Picture: Valeriu Campan

An Anglican-created committee has been formally asked by an abuse survivor to appeal the decision that cleared former governor-general Peter Hollingworth to continue to officiate and assist in services despite being found guilty of misconduct charges.

Beth Heinrich, whose abuser Donald Shearman was allowed by Dr Hollingworth to continue to officiate in the 1990s, has written to the professional standards committee arguing Dr Hollingworth is unfit to be a priest.

Ms Heinrich has drawn the attention of the committee to a 1995 protocol in which the former governor-general detailed his knowledge of the effects on victims of sex abuse.

The protocol, revealed in The Australian this week, showed Dr Hollingworth had known while archbishop of Brisbane that victims of abuse suffered at the hands of paedophiles.

But the diocese’s internal tribunal – which was aware of the protocol – allowed Dr Hollingworth to continue to officiate in Melbourne in his home parish and at the cathedral and for special events including funerals.

This was because it found he had erred as archbishop in the 1980s and 90s because of the alleged failure to understand the “profound and lifelong effects sexual abuse can have on a child” rather than from any moral failure.

Ms Heinrich, now in her 80s, was a teenager when abused by Shearman. Dr Hollingworth allowed him to continue to officiate despite knowing of the offending. She has emailed the committee, saying there has been a “huge mistake” in allowing Dr Hollingworth to perform some of his priestly duties. “It is not that he is a risk to the community,” she writes, “the sad fact is that Peter Hollingworth is NOT FIT to be a priest.”

Bill Doogue, a lawyer for Dr Hollingworth, said the church legislation defined how the tribunal could respond and that the former governor-general did not go unpunished.

“The board makes a lengthy explanation of how and why it came to its decision not to recommend removal of Dr Hollingworth’s permission to officiate in retirement,’’ he said.

“The legislation governing the complaints process states that the principal issue is ‘unfitness’ to officiate.

“Unfitness is defined as a person being, on balance of probabilities, an unacceptable risk of harm to anyone. The prosecutors – the professional standards committee – did not argue that Dr Hollingworth was a risk of harming anyone.“

The committee is considering whether to appeal the findings of the inquiry into Dr Hollingworth.

Under the Anglican Church process, a review can be held into decisions if an appeal is lodged within 30 days.