This is a semi-automatic translation of the original spanish article
Days later the legionaries published the document "Protect and Heal" (P&H) that includes a glossary of terms. The first entry in the glossary coincides with the comments made in Legioleaks: «Sexual abuse of a minor: contact or interaction between a minor and an adult in which the minor is used for the sexual stimulation of the adult» (see P&H p.17).
Ashley's story is clear. “I remember confessing to him, afterward while embracing me he pressed his body up against me. I could feel his erection touching me through his cassock. ”
"Ashley" tells how she could not understand what was happening, she didn't even have the vocabulary or expressions to narrate what happened.
Among the events narrated by "Ashley" there are two facts that corroborate the intention of the predator: If an adult asked her (referring to the mother of "Ashley") what she was doing, she should say "I was in spiritual direction". And on the other hand, Pollock behavior towars Ashley was so different when there were more people present.
Years later, as an adult, "Ashley" was able to conceptualize what happened thanks to information about "safe environments" provided in her children's preschool. Thinking of his children and seeking to protect other children, "Ashley" contacted the diocese of Dallas. The diocese notified the legionary Superiors.
What did the Legionnaire Superiors do?
They called a risk control agency to assess the situation and submit a report.
According to the legionnaires' press office “the victim was credible in her allegations against Martin Pollock but they could not substantiate the claim of sexual abuse”.
The report of the risk control agency is reserved so it is not possible to know if the conclusion is from the agency or only from the legionary Superiors who read the report.
Something is wrong with legionary press report. A woman accuses the legionary chaplain of abusing her; the legionaries declare that the accusation is credible but a claim cannot be substantiated... non sequitur.
The allegations are credible or not credible, period.
The legionary press office says allegations are credible but ... cannot substantiate a claim of sexual abuse? Because of the fact that they were both dressed? Because of the fact that he only rubbed her against his erect member? Because of the fact that the touching was towards him and not towards her?
All sexual abuse implies a violation of personal, physical, emotional and psychological boundaries. But not every boundary violation constitutes sexual abuse.
From that set of statements: "Yes allegations are credible, but cannot substantiate an accusation" John Connor diluted the abuse until calling it "a sad violation of boundaries." The press office further diluted the expression and spoke of "a bad experience."
In legioleaks after P&H was published, it was noted that John Connor, as territorial director, had been guilty "of failing to report, hindering the investigation or preventing the proper handling of a case of sexual abuse" (P&H no.55). Even more serious is the fact that it was John Connor himself who promulgated the P&H document by decree.
In response to Legioleaks, the legionary press office published a chronology of the events where it shows that after “Ashley” contacted the diocese and the corresponding police report was filled, the child protection agency was notified, etc., the legionaries entrusted the investigation to Praesidium, Inc. With the result of the report the legionaries sent a letter to the victim. The letter was delivered through two legionaries Peter Hopkins and Daniel Ray. For them, it all ended there.
The letter was signed by John Connor, apologizing; because scrubbing an adult's erect penis against a child, it was just "boundary violation." A letter of apology was enough.