Editor’s Note: This post has been substantially altered due to the decision by Christine Niles to withdraw her republication of the accusation against Dom Reid, which itself was based on that of a third party who withdrew it. I greatly regret that by simply republishing her link, that I have gravely damaged the reputation of this man. At request of Dom Reid, I have removed all reference to the accusation in question, and I assure him of my most profound apologies and prayers.
On the internet, there is an internationally recognized process to remove calumnious and libelous information. Alas, this process is not always followed, and still less known. That grave accusations against persons are found on the internet, does not mean that they are true, or that the parties involved have not legally resolved the matter in the real world. Long afterwards calumny and libel can remain recorded in electronic format, and simply finding it recorded does not mean that it is true or that the claimant has not withdrawn the claim. Many a good priest or religious who has kept his vows and promises to God have their reputations sullied and damaged gravely by the republication of old, false accusations. And even the slight oversight of one internet user to republish them can cause a great number of other users or republishers like myself to fall into committing grave injustice by repeating their publication.
I owe Dom Alcuin and all my readers the most profound apologies for my oversight. I trusted too much in the reputation of one reporter to check the facts. I have neither the means, resources or the personal expertise to check such facts by third parties, and should not have republished any accusation without further investigation by myself into the matter.
I thank the reader or readers who brought this matter to the attention of those who opened the doors to communication so as to end the above said injustice.
Follow-up:
https://twitter.com/ChristineNiles1/status/1528764183533305857
Dear Christine Niles, I have tremendous respect for your work, but only priests and deacons and bishops who receive a mandate have faculties so Dom Reid cannot have lost them, if he was not a deacon.
Dom Alcuin was ordained a deacon in Melbourne. According to him, he asked to be laicized. He was later reinstated in France. All the same questions, however, remain.
Never heard of a Deacon being laicized. But used properly, “laicized” means released from the obligations of celibacy, the recitation of the divine office, incardination and clerical dress. If he went to France afterwards and joined a monastery, then it may only be that he was disincardinated, or was the only option permitted by his bishop to obtain canonical release. He is reading these comments and anything he wishes to reply to he can.