The Emails I Never Thought I’d Have to Send
In November 2021, I sent a series of emails to colleagues—people in ministry, leadership, and professional roles within a Catholic university.
They were written in distress.
They were a human being asking for help.
I wrote:
“I need all of you to support my recovery… I need to return to my work… Who is going to come through for me first?”
And again:
“I need support from my colleagues. I’m a human being, for God’s sake.”
These were written in the context of psychological injury, isolation, and a system that had already begun to fail.
⸻
A System That Heard—but Did Not Respond
These emails were sent to colleagues connected through ministry and professional networks—people who understood, at least in principle, the language of dignity, care, and moral responsibility.
But what followed was not support.
It was silence.
Or worse—escalation.
A private message sent in vulnerability was reported.
Personal communications were taken out of context.
Instead of intervention grounded in care, the response pathway moved toward control, containment, and institutional protection.
The result was not recovery.
It was further harm.
⸻
Catholic Social Teaching—and the Reality I Experienced
Catholic institutions speak often—and rightly—about:
• human dignity
• the dignity of work
• solidarity
• care for the vulnerable
They are foundational values.
Yet when I needed those principles to be lived—not preached—the gap between mission and practice became impossible to ignore.
I was not treated as a person in need of support.
⸻
When Psychological Injury Meets Institutional Power
At the time these emails were written:
• I was under psychological distress linked to workplace conduct
• I was attempting to navigate a workers’ compensation system
• I was seeking support, communication, and a pathway back to work
Instead:
• communication channels broke down
• support systems failed to activate
• obligations that should have been routine became contested or ignored
The very people and systems that were meant to ensure safety and recovery did not function as they should.
⸻
The Human Context Behind the Words
These emails cannot be read in isolation.
They were written at a time when:
• my family and I were suffering
• I had experienced profound personal loss
• I was attempting to hold together both professional responsibility and personal survival
In one message, I wrote:
“When my life’s in danger I do what any person does instinctively… I make noise to attract attention for someone to save me.”
That is what these emails were.
Noise.
A signal.
A call for help.
⸻
What Happened Instead
Rather than that signal being met with care:
• it was scrutinised
• reframed
• escalated in ways that increased my vulnerability
The effect was cumulative.
Isolation deepened. Recovery became harder, not easier.
⸻
The Question That Still Remains
In one of those emails, I asked:
“If Campus Ministry is not there in times a colleague is suffering, what’s the reason it exists?”
That question goes to the heart of institutional identity, because values are not measured in mission statements.
They are measured in moments like this.
⸻
A Failure Larger Than One Person
This raises broader questions:
• What happens when systems designed to protect instead fail to act?
• What accountability exists when duty of care is not exercised?
• How do institutions reconcile stated values with lived outcomes?
And most importantly:
What happens to the person at the centre of that failure?
⸻
A Call to Conscience
I am sharing this now not because it is easy—but because it is necessary.
These emails show something simple and undeniable:
A person asked for help.
The system did not respond in the way it should have.
For an institution grounded in moral and ethical teaching, that is a profound issue.
⸻
Final Reflection
I did not write those emails as a strategy.
I wrote them because I believed someone would listen.
Because I believed the values I worked under meant something.
Because I believed that in a Catholic institution, when a person says:
“I need help”
—someone would respond.
Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 221.
⸻
Legal Context: Statutory Obligations vs What Occurred
What happened to me was not just a personal or cultural failure.
It must also be understood in the context of legal obligations that exist within the NSW workers’ compensation and workplace safety framework.
These obligations are enforceable duties designed to protect workers—particularly those who are injured and vulnerable.
1. Injury Management and Return to Work
Under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW):
• Employers and insurers are required to cooperate in the development and implementation of an Injury Management Plan
• There must be active coordination with the worker’s Nominated Treating Doctor
• A timely and supportive return-to-work pathway must be facilitated
In my case, an Injury Management Plan was issued.
However, the practical implementation of that plan did not occur at all.
Without implementation, a plan exists only on paper.
⸻
2. Weekly Payments and Entitlements
Under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW):
• Workers with accepted claims are entitled to weekly income support payments
• Insurers are required to assess and determine claims in a timely manner
• Payments cannot be withheld without lawful basis and proper process
The absence or interruption of income support in circumstances of ongoing injury raises serious questions about whether these statutory requirements were met.
⸻
3. Duty of Care and Psychological Safety
Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW):
• Employers have a primary duty of care to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers
• This includes psychological health, not just physical safety
• Known risks must be identified, managed, and controlled
Where a worker has already sustained psychological injury, the obligation to prevent further harm becomes even more critical.
Failure to mitigate ongoing risk has consequences.
⸻
4. Privacy and Handling of Personal Information
Under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and related principles:
• Personal information must be handled lawfully and fairly
• Sensitive information must not be misused or taken out of context in a way that causes harm
The use or escalation of private communications—particularly those made in distress—raises legitimate concerns about whether these standards were upheld.
⸻
5. What This Gap Represents
The issue is not whether policies existed.
The issue is whether legal obligations were operationalised in practice.
Because the gap between:
• what the law requires, and
• what actually occurs
is where harm is either prevented—or compounded.
⸻
Why This Matters
Workers’ compensation is a statutory scheme built on protection, not discretion.
It exists to ensure that when a worker is injured:
• they are supported
• their recovery is prioritised
• and their dignity is preserved
When those mechanisms fail, the consequences are lived.
⸻
Closing Link Back to the Narrative
The emails I sent in November 2021 were not just emotional expressions.
They were signals—emerging from a system where:
• support mechanisms had stalled
• legal obligations appeared unfulfilled
• and the pathway to recovery had become unclear
Understanding that context matters, because without it, those emails risk being misinterpreted.
Within context, they can be seen for what they were:
A call for help—made within a framework that was meant to respond.
