On priests preying on kids in their flock, I accuse the Church
Cases of sexual abuse by priests have been reported locally and globally.
What you need to know:
- Justice Anne Ong’injo upheld the conviction of Father Dominic Muli Nzioka for sexual misconduct, substituting the seven-year sentence with a directive that he preaches about the Sexual Offences Act at least once every month.
- This elicited outrage in some quarters including the End Femicide KE Movement.
- The sentence also puts the mother church in the limelight.
On March 7, 2024 Justice Anne Ong’injo of the Mombasa High Court upheld the conviction of Father Dominic Muli Nzioka for sexual misconduct with a minor. She, however, substituted the seven-year sentence with a directive that he preaches about the Sexual Offences Act at least once every month, for three years. This elicited outrage in some quarters.
The End Femicide KE Movement, for instance, termed the judgement as "morally repugnant and unjust” and a deviation from the Sexual Offences Act, which prescribes minimum sentences, different from the type imposed.
This column has previously observed that many judicial officers dislike minimum sentences for denying them discretion hence, have ignored the prescribed sentences. This is a case in point.
Mother church
The maverick judgement was probably informed by a belief that having the priest preach about the law would simultaneously make him internalise it and educate the public. This places the priest in an awkward and embarrassing position of owning up to his offence every month. It would be interesting to see the reaction of his congregation on these occasions.
The sentence also puts the mother church in the limelight. Basically, the church must not relieve the priest of his duties until the sentence is served. It can be argued that this curtails the church’s ability to discipline the priest. However, it also places a responsibility on the church to surveil him thus, forestalling any cover-up such as by merely removing him from the public limelight to protect the image of the church, while not disciplining him.
The girl’s testimony that the priest gave her alcohol points to an attempt to manipulate her through inebriation, itself an offence. His persistent interactions with her after the mother’s complaints and reports to the Bishop reek of impunity consistent with the definition of sexual harassment.
There is no indication that the Bishop took any action on the case. In gender discourse, entities in a position to prevent and respond to gender-based violence but abstain, are guilty of perpetrating harm by omission. In this case, the church stands accused.
This saga also demonstrates various power dimensions. First is the power of age. Ordinarily, a child is expected to obey an older person as a sign of respect. Second, is gender power relations. The priest is a man, traditionally a symbol of authority that should be obeyed. In this case, he even bears the title ‘father’, symbolic of his duty of care towards the flock. Disobeying him would be tantamount to rebellion against social and sectarian norms of deference to such figureheads.
Third is abuse of position. The priest misused his authority to summon any member of his flock and expect compliance. In this case, he did it for nefarious intentions discordant with what is expected of a father, biological or symbolic. By so doing, he actually betrayed public trust and neglected his duty of care. This behavior shows that he would not be trusted to handle similar cases reported to him with the diligence and moral probity required.
Cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests have been reported locally and globally. In 2011, a television documentary highlighted three priests who serially abused boys at a parish in Kenya. They exploited the vulnerability of needy children seeking education, imposed their physical and institutional power, and handed over their victims to colleagues, including the Bishop, for further abuse. The motif in the documentary is that there was systematic cover up of the cases.
Gross misconduct
An article in February 2019, shows the ambivalence with which the subject is treated by the church. Some of the priests interviewed acknowledged that this vice was common, but only two accepted that cover up was very strong. One cited that as a result, he had decamped to start his own church.
The current case brings to mind the code of conduct developed by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee following cases of sexual abuse of refugees in West Africa in 2001. Although meant for humanitarian aid workers, the code is equally applicable to other actors. First, sexual acts with a child constitute gross misconduct and are grounds for termination of employment.
Second, such activity is reprehensible regardless of the perpetrator’s belief about the age of the child. Third, such an act exploits vulnerability of the lesser person and undermines the credibility and integrity of the perpetrator’s institution.
Fourth, actors in positions of responsibility are expected to create and maintain an environment devoid of sexual exploitation and abuse. In the current case, it would be useful to know whether the Catholic Church has a code of conduct on this subject. If so, is it enforced? And if not, is that not negligent?
The writer is a lecturer in Gender and Development Studies at South Eastern Kenya ([email protected])
