PROMINENT Catholic priest Father John Fleming has denied “defamatory” allegations he had a three-way sexual encounter with two 13-year-old girls.

A Supreme Court defamation trial today heard a woman, known as “Jane”, claims Fr Fleming had group sex with her and another girl at Meningie, in the early 1970s.

She claims that at the time, Fr Fleming was a newly ordained 26-year-old Anglican priest.

In cross-examination, Fr Fleming — who is suing the Sunday Mail — vehemently denied the claims, saying he would “never in a fit” have sex with multiple partners.

Fr Fleming said Jane’s assertions were the first time he had ever been accused of such behaviour.

Barrister Andrew Harris, QC, for the Sunday Mail, suggested to Fr Fleming that was untrue.

He said Monsignor David Cappo had reported discussing allegations of Fr Fleming being involved “in a ménage-a-trois” in a report to Archbishop Leonard Faulkner in 1995.

Fr Fleming said he had “no idea” why Monsignor Cappo would have written that in his report.

“I did not say that to him, never,” he said.

“He’s absolutely wrong, absolutely ... I’m just amazed.”

Fr Fleming, 71, has ministered for the Anglican and Catholic churches, co-authored two books, was a media mainstay in the 1970s and 1980s and is a prominent right-to-life advocate.

His defamation lawsuit focuses on a series of articles published by the Sunday Mail in 2008 and 2009. The Sunday Mail is published by News Corporation Australia, which also published The Advertiser.

They reported allegations that he was sexually involved with two women, “Jane” and “Jenny”, and a man known as “Richard” while he was an Anglican priest.

He asserts the false allegations contained in the articles were a “material cause” in the termination of his position with Catholic liberal arts institute Campion College.

Yesterday, Fr Fleming agreed under cross-examination that it was not a sin for a Catholic to lie in order to protect another person from harm or for another “proper purpose”.

He said he was familiar with that Catholic doctrine, known as wide and strict mental reservation.

Asked whether he had created such a mental reservation for himself when swearing, on The Bible, to tell the truth in court, he replied: “I can’t answer that question.”

Asked whether that answer itself was a form of mental reservation, he replied: “Not as I understand it as part of my duties.”

Fr Fleming said he had dubbed homosexuality a “perversion” in one of his books, based on the then-current belief it was a mental illness.

However, he had supported the decriminalisation of acts between consenting adults.

“I wanted homosexual people to be able to be themselves without fear of breaking the law,” he said.

“I have to say my personal moral view on this was somewhat underdeveloped ... by and large I accepted that acts were wrong, not people.”

Mr Harris asked whether holding such views would make Fr Fleming “a hypocrite”, in the event the allegations in the newspaper reports were true.

“Very likely, many people would conclude that, also that this is a weak person who has behaved at odds with his professed or stated views,” Fr Fleming said.

“He would be acting completely inconsistently with his professed views (and) in contravention to his office as a priest.”

He said any priest who took advantage of his role to engage in sexual behaviour with a parishioner “would be betraying his responsibilities”.

Fr Fleming said “Richard” was “a friend” and a member of one of his congregations in the 1970s, and they had discussed homosexuality on one occasion.

“I advised him that I was not qualified to deal with such a matter and ... he should seek assistance, see his doctor and be referred appropriately to a psychiatrist,” he said.

However, he said Richard admitted to “being sexually attracted” to another man — an Anglican priest — during a subsequent conversation some time later.

Mr Harris asked Fr Fleming if he had repeated his earlier advice to Richard.

“I cannot answer that question,” he said.

Asked why, he replied: “I cannot answer that question, either.”

Fr Fleming explained that the Anglican concept of confession was “identical” to that of the Catholic Church.

He said he could divulge neither from whom he had taken confession in his career, nor the content of any such confession.

He said he mentioned the conversation about the man and the Anglican priest because it was part of the court case’s documents and therefore “on the public record”.

Mr Harris asked why, if Fr Fleming was able to say that much, the document’s presence in the case did not free him to say more.

“If I was to answer that question I would be in breach of my obligation,” Fr Fleming said.

“I’m not saying, one way or another, if I have heard anyone’s confession, and I’m not prepared to answer certain questions, I can’t be clearer than that.

“I’m sorry, I’m not going to divulge information about whether or not I’ve heard a confession ... you’ll have to draw your own conclusion.”

Mr Harris said he had already done so.

“The first conclusion is that it’s terribly convenient for you, really convenient, (as it) gives you a bolthole any time you need it,” Mr Harris said.

Fr Fleming firmly disagreed, saying that was “a regrettable statement”.

“I’m simply doing what is well-known as a priest,” he said.

Fr Fleming characterised “Jenny” as a troublesome young person who had sought to occupy much of his time, and who ignored his advice to return to her home, parents and school.

He said he felt so uncomfortable around her that he asked another parishioner to sit outside the door when he met with Jenny “in case” he needed her to intervene.

“Stupidly, and I say that of myself at the time, I did not perceive (her) infatuation ... I’m annoyed with myself about that,” he said.

Fr Fleming said Jane’s claims were first raised with him by SA Police after the Sunday Mail story had been published.

“It was put to me that we got together on a bed, that Jane was I think masturbating me while (the other girl) was kissing me passionately or words like that,” he said.

Fr Fleming said he told police and a subsequent church inquiry that “none of those allegations she made were anywhere near true”.

He said his contact with Jane had been minimal and that, in the 1970s, two 13-year-old girls visiting a priest at his home “would have been seen as quite innocent, as indeed it was”.

Mr Harris said that, because of his media roles, children and teenagers would have viewed Fr Fleming as “a high-profile, young, swinging type of priest” in the 1970s and 1980s.

“You were like a rock star to these kids,” he said.

Fr Fleming disagreed.

“Suggestions like that can always be made but I did not see it that way,” he said.

The trial, before Special Auxiliary Justice Malcolm Gray, continues.