THE Catholic church has defended a Northern Ireland priest who said the effects of child sex abuse were exaggerated.

The priest’s comments came in a judgment rejecting the request of Roisin Fry, a Belfast woman, for an annulment of her marriage. She blamed the breakdown of the union on damage resulting from her sexual abuse as a child by a priest.

But the priest stated that “there is undoubtedly a tendency to exaggerate” the effects of such abuse. It was later defended by Sean Brady, the archbishop of Armagh, who said the priest did not mean to offend but “was merely carrying out his duty to defend the bond of marriage”.

Fry, 47, a mother of three, was abused for three years from the age of 10 by a priest in Belfast in the early 1970s. The abuse stopped when the priest was moved to another parish.

After a nervous breakdown and the collapse of her marriage in 1998, she was advised by a priest that the abuse might be grounds for an annulment.

She then became involved in a new relationship and married her second husband in a civil ceremony two years ago, but is keen to remarry in the Catholic church.

In 2001, Fry was interviewed by a priest representing the Armagh Regional Marriage Tribunal. He asked whether she would be prepared to undergo psychiatric evaluation and she agreed. The evaluation was never carried out.

Michael O’Hagan, a priest in the diocese of Down and Connor, was appointed by the tribunal in a role resembling devil’s advocate. He said that “while one should not underestimate the effect of sexual abuse . . . nowadays there is undoubtedly a tendency to exaggerate its effect on individuals”.

Four years later, Fry was informed by letter that her annulment was not being granted.

She appealed against the decision and last October was interviewed by a representative of the National Marriage Appeal Tribunal in Dublin. The judgment was that the annulment should be granted and the case now has to be heard by a third tribunal.

A psychiatric evaluation carried out on Fry for the appeal concluded that she had been “very deeply traumatised by her experiences”.

The report states that Fry’s experiences had far-reaching, negative effects on her personality, noting “all that is compounded by her desire for justice from the church”. “I always feel like I’m trying to prove to the church that I’m innocent, that I’m not the guilty one,” Fry said. “My life was robbed because of a priest who was a paedophile.

“I was baptised a Catholic and brought up in the faith. I want to marry my partner in a Catholic church and I’m being denied that right.

“I was told the church would be there to help me. Six years down the line I still don’t feel like I had justice. The priest died in 1977, so I had no way of channelling my anger. I still feel like the criminal.”

She complained to Brady about O’Hagan’s remarks and in a letter two weeks ago the archbishop said the priest’s comments were “never meant to offend”.

But Patrick McCafferty, a priest who has known Fry for 17 years, has described O’Hagan’s remarks as “astoundingly ignorant”. “It’s shocking that someone in a responsible position dealing with the painful issue of child abuse should not understand the devastating effect it has on people’s lives. If anything, the effects of child sexual abuse are underplayed in our society,” he said.

Eileen Calder of the Rape Crisis Centre in Belfast, who has worked with Fry, said the remarks demonstrated a gross insensitivity on the part of the church. “It’s degrading, insulting and humiliating,” she said.

Eugene O’Hagan, the judicial vicar for the case on behalf of the Armagh Regional Marriage Tribunal, said that the remarks had to be seen in the context of the role of the defender of the bond. “He’s playing devil’s advocate. He’s not representing the church’s attitude. He’s not going to please everybody.”

Times Recommends

• Michael Jackson: Not the final chapter
• Indian Army spends10m rupees on golf buggies
• Brüno toned down for 15 rating