Thursday, March 12, 2026

I Wasn’t Allowed to Grieve - August 2021

“And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.”
1 Corinthians 13:13

In my previous post, “Dignity Requires Response: Psychosocial risk, institutional silence, and the emails that were never answered,” I wrote about the period in 2021 when I was sending email after email to a pastoral colleague asking simply for a human response.

Those emails did not appear out of nowhere.


They came from somewhere deeper.


They came from years of accumulated silence, stigma, and grief that had never been allowed to breathe.


To understand why those emails mattered so much, you have to understand what came before.


There are moments in a person’s life that divide everything into before and after.


For me, that moment was 2 February 2010.


Three days after I returned from Spain — from flamenco classes in Granada and Seville, from laughter and holiday festivals — my father took his own life.


Nothing prepares you for that report.

Nothing prepares you for the silence of an ambulance without a siren.

Nothing prepares you for the sentence:


“He has passed away.”


And nothing prepares you for what comes next.


The Night of Swords


Within an hour of my father’s death being confirmed, our home filled with people.


Not all of them came with compassion.


A priest relative arrived and, instead of offering comfort, delivered accusation. In Greek — so the police officers standing there thought he was ministering — he told us we had “locked my father up,” that we should “rejoice in what we had done.”


We had just lost our dad, my mum, her husband of 40 years.


We were in shock.


But somehow, even then, we were expected to defend ourselves.


The funeral arrangements were interfered with.

Decisions were made without our consent.

Gossip spread before we had even buried him.


And the stigma began.


“Forget Your Grief”


Three months later, a priest visited.


I thought he had come to offer condolences.


Instead, he told us to forget about my father.

To forget about our grief.

That our pain was “nothing compared to others.”


There is something deeply violent about telling a grieving family that their suffering is insignificant.


Listening costs nothing.

Compassion costs nothing.

Silence, sometimes, is holy.


But what I encountered was neither compassion nor silence.


It was dismissal.


The Facebook Post That Broke the Silence


Seven years later, in 2017, I finally broke my silence.


I shared a post challenging the stigma around suicide — challenging the language that frames it as a “crime,” the belief that those who die this way are simply exercising “free will,” and the notion that prayer and compassion somehow stop at death.


The response?


Defensiveness.

Accusations that I was “turning people away from the Church.”

Suggestions that I was angry at Christ.


I wasn’t angry at Christ.


I was angry at cruelty masquerading as piety.

At apathy disguised as doctrine.

At people who could debate theology but would not sit with a grieving daughter.


One priest eventually responded with compassion. His words were simple, humane, grounded. They reminded me that faith, when lived authentically, looks like love.


But the damage of stigma and insensitivity had already carved deep wounds.


Heritage, Identity, and Loss


I come from a long line of strong, resilient people.


My ancestors in the Peloponnese fought for freedom in the Greek War of Independence. They preserved language, faith, culture through occupation and war. My grandparents carried dignity through poverty. My parents sacrificed everything to build a life in Australia.


My father was a kind and gentle soul.


Depression is not a moral failure.

It is not a sin.

It is not a lack of faith.


It is suffering.


And suffering requires compassion — not judgement.


Years later, on All Souls Day, I was denied Holy Communion by the campus chaplain. For a baptised and sacramentally aligned Orthodox Christian — someone seeking simply to take up her cross and follow Christ — compassionate pastoral discretion would have been possible.


Instead, I remained seated alone in the pew while others approached the altar.


In that moment, I felt what I had felt since my father’s death:


Like an outcast.


But here is what I know now:


Christ was rejected too.


And rejection by people does not equal rejection by God.


The Workplace Aftermath


Grief did not unfold gently.


The morning after my father died, my manager arrived at our home and interrogated my mother about when I could return to work.


“It’s a busy time,” she said. Semester was starting.


I was not allowed to simply grieve.


Over time, unmanaged trauma compounded. Workplace bullying, ostracism, psychosocial hazards — all words I would later learn in the language of work health and safety — were layered over grief.


When you lose a parent to suicide and later face silence, isolation, and intimidation at work, your nervous system does not get a break.


It lives in survival mode.


Years later, when I was writing those emails described in “Dignity Requires Response,” I was not just reacting to a university’s WHS violations.


I was carrying grief that had never been allowed to heal.


Because when I needed a support network, I was abandoned instead. 


I now understand what trauma does to the body.


The blood pressure spikes.

The shaking.

The exhaustion.

The hypervigilance.


This is not weakness.


It is physiology.


The Cost of Silence


What hurt most was the abandonment.


Colleagues who once said “everyone needs you” fell silent (or were coerced) when I needed support.


Institutions that speak of dignity and mission deferred to a misaligned and unethical “process.”


Regulators passed responsibility elsewhere.


Priests debated doctrine while families like mine carried unbearable weight.


Ostracism is a form of bullying.


Silence can be violence.


And yet, I kept speaking, because silence nearly killed me once already.


What I Believe Now


I believe:

  • Listening is an act of dignity.
  • Depression is not a moral failure.
  • Institutions must live the values they publish.
  • Post-vention support after suicide is not optional — it is essential.
  • Compassion is not theological weakness; it is strength.

I have met extraordinary people — friends who stayed, who listened, who stood beside me quietly. I have met police officers who remembered my story years later. I have encountered priests who embodied humility and love.


They are proof that goodness exists.


But goodness requires courage.


If You Are Reading This


If you have lost someone to suicide:


You are not alone in how you feel.

Your grief is not a competition.

Your loved one’s life mattered.

And no one has the authority to weaponise doctrine against your pain.


If you are part of a church, a workplace, an institution:


Ask yourself whether your response to suffering is defensive or compassionate.


When someone says, “I am hurting,” do you correct them — or do you listen?


My story is not about tearing down faith.


It is about calling it back to its heart.


Faith, hope, and love.


And the greatest of these is love.


Monday, March 9, 2026

Dignity Requires Response - August 2021

Psychosocial risk, institutional silence, and the emails that were never answered.

Due diligence requires response.

In July and August 2021, I sent multiple emails to a pastoral colleague within my university.


They were not casual reflections.

They were written in conditions of prolonged workplace isolation, financial distress, and escalating psychological injury.


They were written because I was trying to stabilise myself in the absence of institutional response.


Eventually, they were met with silence.


This post is not about one inbox.


It is about statutory duties — and what happens when they are not operationalised in practice.


The experiences described here illustrate how psychosocial hazards can emerge and escalate when repeated communications raising concerns about safety, wellbeing, and support are met with silence rather than response.


The Legal Framework That Applied


From July 2019 onward, psychosocial risks in my workplace had been raised.


Under the WHS Act 2011 (NSW), section 19 imposes a primary duty of care on a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers.


Health includes psychological health.


The Code of Practice: Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work provides practical guidance on how organisations must identify, assess and control psychosocial risks in the workplace.


The Code can be accessed here:

https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/resource-library/list-of-all-codes-of-practice/codes-of-practice/managing-psychosocial-hazards-at-work


The Code recognises that workplace behaviours such as bullying, social isolation, and lack of support are psychosocial hazards capable of causing psychological injury.


It requires organisations to:


  • Identify psychosocial hazards
  • Assess risks
  • Implement control measures
  • Consult with workers
  • Monitor and review effectiveness

Psychosocial hazards include:


  • Workplace bullying
  • Repeated unreasonable behaviour
  • Social isolation and exclusion
  • Poor organisational justice
  • Inadequate support
  • Poorly managed conflict

These are recognised safety risks.


They are not interpersonal misunderstandings.

They are regulatory matters.


From May 2020, when workers compensation and injury management processes were formally engaged, additional statutory obligations arose.


Due diligence should have been visible. Instead, what unfolded was silence.


The Emails That Were Never Answered


Those emails were not written casually.


They were written to a pastoral colleague inside a university that publicly proclaims commitment to dignity of the human person in its mission.


I was writing because I was being ostracised.


Because I was being isolated.


Because I was being mobbed.


Because I was being financially destabilised while being told to trust “process.”


From July 2019 onward, due diligence under work health and safety law should have been activated.


From May 2020 onward, injury management and compensation obligations should have been honoured transparently and promptly.


Instead:


Silence from colleagues.

Silence from leadership.

Silence from a directorate explicitly tasked with Identity and Mission.


In August 2021, I sent email after email.


Not because I enjoy repetition.

Not because I lack restraint.


But because I was in acute distress.


I had $299 to last more than a week.

My parents’ sacrifices and belief in my education for a better life, career and financial security — it was all at risk.


I wrote:


“Due diligence to duty of care should’ve happened from 2 July 2019… The only process is WHS and duty of care as per law… I need the transfer to pay my bills and focus on my health. I’m losing my mind… nobody has listened for two years.”


I wrote:


“I need you to call me. I’m a human person too. I need to feel dignity too… I need kindness and support.”


I wrote:


“Ostracism is a form of bullying… I need a support network.”


There was no response.

Just silence.


When a person in acute financial distress, reporting psychosocial risk and referencing statutory obligations, is met with coordinated non-response, silence in that context functions as pressure.


Silence communicates:


You are alone.


Ostracism as a Psychosocial Hazard


The Code of Practice recognises social isolation, exclusion, and lack of support as psychosocial hazards.


Organisational psychology literature similarly recognises social exclusion as destabilising and potentially coercive. It can:


  • Undermine identity
  • Increase anxiety
  • Exacerbate trauma
  • Induce compliance

When deployed — intentionally or systemically — against someone already reporting harm, it can compound injury.


A police officer, sensing my exhaustion during one explanation of the circular regulatory loop, said:

“It’s been two years.”


Yes. It had.


And the person at the centre of the conflict remained employed.


Meanwhile, I was spiralling financially and psychologically.


Under section 19, the duty is proactive.


It does not wait for collapse.


Identity and Mission — In Theory and Practice


The institution publicly committed to:


  • The dignity of the human person
  • The common good
  • Justice
  • Stewardship
  • Pastoral care

In practice, when I asked for support, I was told to defer to “process.”


When I asked to see that process in writing, I requested:


  • Complaints handling procedures
  • Discrimination and harassment policies
  • Workplace bullying frameworks
  • WHS psychosocial hazard management procedures
  • Injury management plans
  • Workers compensation frameworks

What I received was not clarity.


It was containment.


There is a difference.


Process without transparency does not mitigate risk.

It obscures it.


Fair and Dignified Working Conditions


The Sydney Archdiocese Justice and Peace Office emphasises that fair and dignified working conditions are a core principle of Catholic Social Teaching.


Work is not simply an economic transaction.

It is understood as an expression of human dignity.


Catholic social teaching affirms that workers are entitled to:


  • Safe working conditions
  • Respect for their dignity as persons
  • Fair treatment and justice in employment
  • Protection from exploitation and harm

These principles recognise that workplaces must not expose people to conditions that damage their health, undermine their dignity, or isolate them from support.


The expectation of safe and dignified work aligns closely with contemporary work health and safety frameworks, including obligations to prevent psychosocial harm.


Where institutions publicly commit to both Catholic social teaching and statutory WHS obligations, those commitments reinforce one another.


A workplace cannot credibly affirm human dignity while tolerating environments where workers experience sustained psychological harm, isolation, or exclusion.


Dignity requires more than statements of mission.


It requires action.


Section 27 — Officer Due Diligence


Under section 27 of the WHS Act, officers have a personal due diligence obligation.


They must take reasonable steps to:


  • Acquire up-to-date knowledge of WHS matters
  • Understand operational hazards and risks
  • Ensure appropriate resources and processes exist
  • Ensure processes are in place for receiving and responding to information about hazards
  • Verify that those processes are implemented

Repeated written communications referencing psychosocial risk, financial instability connected to injury management, and deteriorating mental health constitute information regarding hazards.


Due diligence requires that such information be:


Received.

Considered.

Acted upon.

Verified.


Policy existence is not sufficient.


Silence does not demonstrate verification.


Non-response does not evidence oversight.


This is not about personalising blame.


It is about governance alignment.


Why I Wrote So Much


People sometimes ask why the emails were long.


Because I was documenting in real time.


Because I understood what gaslighting feels like.

Because institutional erasure begins quietly.

Because if I stopped writing, I risked doubting my own reality.


Writing was not aggression.


Writing was survival.


The Psychological Reality of Silence


When someone in distress repeatedly asks for contact and receives none, the nervous system interprets that as threat.


Not disagreement.


Threat.


Human beings regulate through connection.


Silence in that context is not calm.


It is destabilising.


When an institution speaks of dignity yet withdraws contact from a worker asking for help, something fractures internally.


And yet I kept asking.


Not for special treatment.


For a phone call.

For acknowledgment.

For human presence.


This Is Bigger Than One Inbox


This is not about one pastoral colleague.


It is about systemic avoidance.


It is about preferring silence over discomfort.


It is about invoking “process” while statutory duties remain unverified.


It is about the psychological consequences of ostracism being minimised because they leave no visible bruise.


But ostracism leaves bruises.


They are just internal.


Under the WHS framework:


  • Psychological safety is not optional.
  • Officer oversight is not symbolic.
  • Due diligence requires response.

And emails left unanswered can become part of the evidentiary record of what was — and was not — done.


Law and Mission Should Not Diverge


Work health and safety law and Catholic social teaching ultimately express the same principle:

human dignity requires protection in the workplace.


The WHS Act imposes enforceable duties to prevent harm — including psychological harm — through proactive risk management, consultation, and oversight.


Catholic social teaching articulates the moral dimension of that same responsibility: that work must be carried out under conditions that respect the dignity, safety, and wellbeing of the human person.


The Sydney Archdiocese Justice and Peace Office explains this clearly in its guidance on fair and dignified working conditions, emphasising that workers are entitled to safe environments, just treatment, and respect for their inherent dignity as persons.


https://justiceandpeace.org.au/fair-and-dignified-working-conditions/ 


Where institutions publicly affirm both frameworks — statutory obligations and social teaching — the expectation is not contradiction, but alignment.


Legal duties and moral commitments should reinforce one another.


Because ultimately, both point to the same conclusion:


Workplaces must protect people.


And dignity cannot be upheld in principle while harm is left unaddressed in practice.


Source: contemporaneous records of events - Document 182. 



Further Reading


SafeWork NSW – Code of Practice: Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work

https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/resource-library/list-of-all-codes-of-practice/codes-of-practice/managing-psychosocial-hazards-at-work


Sydney Archdiocese Justice and Peace Office – Fair and Dignified Working Conditions

https://justiceandpeace.org.au/fair-and-dignified-working-conditions/