Heartbreaker (25 page)

VIII

There were five of us present.

Nicholas, out of uniform and wearing the casual clothes he favoured at weekends, was sitting at the head of the table. I sat on his right, and on my right Lewis was busy enjoying one of his favourite pastimes: consuming Alice’s cooking. Unlike Nicholas, Lewis almost always wore his clerical stock and collar, even on weekends, and today he was wearing them with a tweed jacket and a pair of grey flannel trousers which looked as if they had been bought in the 1950s.

Across the table from me sat Val Fredericks, the doctor who was Nicholas’s partner under the Acorn Apostolate, the scheme that enabled a doctor and a priest to work together to heal the sick. Val belonged to a National Health practice based just outside the City, and she was in charge of the branch which operated at the Healing Centre. In a bold salute to weekend leisurewear she was sporting pink denim dungarees, a fluffy blue sweater and large round earrings, each of which supported a complicated pendant of silver and turquoise.

Next to her and opposite Lewis sat Robin, the Healing Centre’s psychologist who specialised in counselling. Older than Val though younger than Nicholas, he was in his mid-forties, married with four children. He had an eccentric taste in clothes, and today he was wearing a violet shirt beneath a lime-green sweater while his trousers were pale blue, matching his eyes which were mild yet alert behind his glasses.

Nicholas now embarked on his briefing, and later, after making coffee, he said the introductory prayer which began by stressing that we should listen to one another patiently and respect one another’s views. He then asked for God’s guidance. At that point we all said a firm “amen” and looked as if we were reluctant to gauge the temperature of the water by dipping our toes in it, but within seconds Val was exclaiming: “What a case!” and there was laughter, breaking the tension.

“Where do we begin?” said Robin as the cheeseboard and fruit bowl began to circulate, and Nicholas answered: “Let me first state the basic principle, which is this: we can’t condone prostitution. We can’t condone a lifestyle in which the body is split off from the mind and soul and systematically treated without respect—we can’t condone, in other words, a way of life which is so contrary to the integration of body, mind and spirit as exemplified by Our Lord Jesus Christ. But, on the other hand, we shouldn’t overlook the famous saying which urges us to find a way of going along with the sinner without going along with the sin—we mustn’t be so ready to reject the prostitution that the prostitute gets lost in the shuffle.”

“And the discernment issue?” said Lewis as sighs were heaved at the challenge we were being set.

“In my opinion that particular problem’s unsolvable at this stage because we don’t have sufficient information; we can argue that Gavin represents a booby trap designed by the Devil to blow St. Benet’s sky-high, and we can argue that this is God moving in his famous Mysterious Way, but we’ve no way of knowing which argument is right. So let’s leave the discernment issue for the moment and focus instead on the three gifts we’ve already received—this is the first specific issue we have to discuss. Carta, in your opinion is there any way we can return these donations?”

“Not unless we breach Gavin’s confidence, send the donors into an embarrassed rage and break all the fundraising rules about not asking donors about their motives.”

“People give for a wide variety of reasons under the guise of altruism,” commented Robin helpfully, “and plenty of those reasons would look dubious if they were held up for close inspection.”

“But a line has to be drawn somewhere between what we can and can’t accept,” objected Val. “For instance, we couldn’t take money from the Mafia.”

Lewis exclaimed: “Exactly! We can’t accept tainted money, and if ever a batch of money was tainted, this batch from Gavin’s clients is! How can we be sure it’s not only the fruits of immorality but the fruits of illegality as well?”

“Homosexual acts between two consenting adults in private aren’t against the law,” I said at once. “If more than two adults are present an offence is committed but Gavin told me he never did parties.”

Lewis asked: “But surely the Austin Friars set-up’s illegal?”

“Not necessarily. He may well be in breach of the lease but the trouble would be proving it. The flat wouldn’t be a brothel within the meaning of the Act. There’s no pimp on the premises. As far as I can gather business is done by credit card over the phone by using a number unconnected with the flat, so there’d be no big sums of money lying around to indicate prostitution. For tax purposes Gavin probably claims to be a masseur, and if he receives clients (who make no complaints) for activities which aren’t illegal, nobody in authority’s going to get excited.”

“The clients are hardly going to complain, are they?” pointed out Val at once. “He could blackmail them.”

Nicholas turned to me. “How do we know Gavin’s not a blackmailer, Carta?”

“Because we know he’s a big success,” I said promptly, “and he couldn’t possibly have achieved that success if his clients believed he wasn’t to be trusted.”

“Very well,” said Lewis, “but even if there’s been no blackmail in the sense of extorting money, how do we know there hasn’t been blackmail in the sense of exerting psychological pressure to make these donations?”

Nicholas said swiftly: “Exerting psychological pressure to achieve a certain end can well be legal. It’s called advertising—or even fundraising. Let’s keep the focus on behaviour we know to be illegal as we try to figure out how tainted this money is.”

“I’m sure Gavin’s not engaged in illegal activity,” I said in my firmest voice. “He’s okay on the buggery and the gross indecency—”

“Dear God!” muttered Lewis.

“—and he’s okay on the prostitution so long as he doesn’t combine it with an illegal activity such as soliciting on the street.”

“The trouble is,” mused Robin to the others, “that although Carta’s probably right in saying there’s nothing illegal going on here, we can’t know that for sure. Prostitution’s so often linked to organised crime.”

Nicholas said evenly: “Carta, it’s not as if Gavin’s a lone operator. He’s apparently part of a well-organised set-up, and this manager of his, Elizabeth, may well have links with criminals.”

“But the fact remains,” I said, trying hard to be patient, “that Gavin’s not breaking the law by providing sex for these donors.”

“There might be a drugs angle,” said Val suddenly. “How do we know he’s not pushing cocaine to these City high flyers?”

“City high flyers don’t need to go to a prostitute in order to get cocaine,” I answered shortly, and Nicholas remarked: “I don’t think Gavin’s into the drugs scene at all. I saw no sign of it when I met him, and according to Carta he prides himself on worshipping regularly at his health club.”

“Well, if illegal activity isn’t tainting this money,” said Robin, “do we now debate the moral issue?”

“Not just yet—we’ll leave the general debate about morality, ethics and everything but the kitchen sink until we’ve finished taking a look at the specific issues of the case,” Nicholas said, steering us along with a firm hand. “We’re still dealing with the first issue—the money we’ve already received. Further comments, anyone?”

“I’d just like to hammer home two points to underline my opinion that we shouldn’t return the money,” I said. “One: when we accepted these gifts we had no idea Gavin was involved so we can always say we acted in good faith. And two: we accepted the gifts from men who wouldn’t want their connection with Gavin to be known and would probably be deeply upset if they knew we knew about it. Do we really want to go around upsetting vulnerable people?”

“Let’s run with that for a moment,” said Nicholas before anyone else could speak. “If we can’t return this money without causing difficulty to others, does that let us off the hook and justify a decision to do nothing?”

Everyone immediately began to talk at once.

Of course we all had different views.

IX

“Okay, let me sum up,” said Nicholas after all the opinions had been bat-ted around. “Carta thinks the potential damage to others if we try to return the money lets us off the hook of being obliged to return it, Val thinks we’re not quite off the hook and the possibility of a return should still be explored, Robin thinks we should stop worrying about the hook and concentrate on the prospect of spurned donors bad-mouthing us with dire results for the Appeal, and Lewis thinks—”

“Lewis thinks,” said Lewis, “that we should concentrate on doing what’s right, not on what’s going to make everyone feel most comfortable. The truth is that morally this money is quite unacceptable and the donations must be returned.”

Nicholas held up his hand to quell my wail of protest. “Lewis, if we do return the money, what’s Carta going to say in the letter which accompanies the cheque?”

“Crikey!” said Robin, drawing on some ancient well of schoolboy slang. “Yes, that question alone is enough to stop a moralist dead in his tracks.”

“It doesn’t stop me,” said Lewis. “Let me ask you a question of my own: why is no one facing the fact that the tabloids could crucify us if we take this money?”

“But of course we’re facing it!” said Val irritated. “The reason why we’re all here in the middle of a precious weekend is to face the possibility of meltdown!”

“Then why aren’t we discussing whether the press’s inevitable response to this moral issue would be justified?”

“Can I just say something?” I intervened as the acrimony threatened to expand. “There may be no moral issue here at all. Gavin may simply have said to his clients: ‘Hey, if you’re looking for a top City project to support, I can give you a useful tip,’ and the donors, following up this suggestion, may have decided to give to the Appeal purely on its merits as a charitable cause which fits their requirements. And if that’s the way it happened, how can we say their donations are immoral? People often hear about charity projects by word of mouth. Are we to start distinguishing between respectable mouths and non-respectable mouths? Or enquiring whether the tip was given in the bedroom or the boardroom?”

But Lewis refused to back down. “Isn’t it much more likely that Gavin picked three clients who were infatuated with him and then promised them free time in bed if they contributed to the Appeal?”

Val said tartly: “Lewis, if you’re really so keen on returning the money, I suggest you answer the question Nick’s just posed: what’s Carta going to say in the covering letter?”

“The covering letter shouldn’t come from Carta,” said Lewis promptly. “Nicholas should write it and say: ‘Dear Mr. X: For reasons which, because of the confidentiality of the confessional, I am unable to disclose, I very much regret to inform you that I cannot accept your extremely kind and generous donation, which I return herewith. I sincerely apologise if my gesture should seem to you both ungracious and unwarranted, but I feel sure you will understand that a priest must at all times obey his conscience, even if this results in a decision which is not to his material advantage. Yours in Christ, etcetera, etcetera—”

“But the donors will assume Gavin’s talked!” I cried. “You’d be putting him right up excrement creek!”

“That’s probably just where he deserves to be,” said Lewis crisply. “Aren’t we at risk here of establishing co-dependency—of not only condoning Gavin’s way of life but actually making it desirable for him to go on?”

“Carta,” said Nicholas before I could speak, “take a couple of deep breaths. You may not agree with Lewis, but we have to discuss all the angles here in order to reach the correct decision about how we should proceed.”

“Right.” With extreme reluctance I remembered his prayer that we should respect one another’s views.

“Let me just summarise where we’ve got to,” said Nicholas, swiftly moving on. “We’ve established, thanks to Lewis, that it would be possible to return the money if I were to write a letter along the lines he suggests, but thanks to Carta we’ve also established that no immoral pressure need have been exercised by Gavin in order to produce the donations. Comments, anyone?”

“The tabloids will join with me in never believing Gavin didn’t exert pressure of some kind,” said Lewis acidly. “Think, everyone,
think
! We’re talking about a man who’s been receiving money from these donors for sexual services. Do we really believe these hot tips about St. Benet’s were given by Gavin over anything so innocent as a cup of tea?”

“I must say, Lewis,” remarked Robin mildly, “I don’t know why you’re quite so sceptical about the role of a cup of tea here. I’d say the fundraising approach almost had to be post-coital.”

Everyone began to argue about possible post-coital activity in sex-for-money transactions.

“Stop!” ordered our maestro, eventually seizing control. “Cut the prurient speculation—leave that to the
News of the World
!” And as we all fell silent he added: “Lewis was right to remind us of the context in which these donations were generated, but unless we hear more about the fundraising from Gavin himself we’re still essentially in the dark.”

“So where do we go next?” demanded Val.

“Let’s move on to the second specific issue of this case—having considered the past let’s take a look at the future. Do we or do we not accept any further donations generated by Gavin? Remember that this time we won’t be able to claim later that we accepted them in good faith.”

The discussion lurched on, like a troubled ship, into still deeper uncharted waters.

X

“I think we should accept no more money whatsoever from Gavin’s clients,” said Lewis predictably.

“I agree,” said Val, trying not to look surprised at finding herself at one with Lewis. As if to distinguish her views from his she added: “It would be as if we’re knowingly profiting from Gavin’s exploitation of gays.”

“You just say that because Gavin’s straight,” I commented, trying unsuccessfully not to sound irritated. “Would you be so quick off the mark if he was gay?”

“Hold it,” said Nicholas, intervening incisively again. “Let’s get one thing quite clear. The issue here’s prostitution, not homosexuality, so we can save the gay debate for another day. Robin, let’s hear from you, please, on the subject of accepting future donations.”

Robin said he felt it did make a difference that we now knew where the donations were coming from. “But I think we should talk to Gavin,” he added, “and find out much more about what the donation-generating context really is. For instance, I’d like to know why he’s doing this and what it all means to him.”

“I agree more information’s essential,” said Nicholas. “Certainly the discernment issue’s unsolvable without it—and while we’re on the knotty subject of whether or not this situation’s from God, let me just issue a word of warning: we must all take great care not to be prejudiced against Gavin because of the way he earns his living. Don’t forget that God can act through a prostitute—God can act through anyone anywhere, and that’s why we can’t ignore the possibility, fantastic though it may seem, that Gavin’s fundraising’s the work of the Holy Spirit. So if you feel your legs twitching in a knee-jerk reaction to Gavin’s less attractive behaviour, take a moment to remember that he’s a human being made in the image of God, just as we all are, and as such is entitled to be treated with respect. In fact let’s take a moment to think about that.”

We thought about it. Or to be accurate, I thought: how horribly hard it is to be a Christian! As I tried not to think of Gavin trashing Moira, I struggled to concentrate on his astonishing achievements as a fundraiser.

“And having reminded ourselves that we need to be fair to Gavin,” said Nicholas, “let’s also remind ourselves not to be sentimental. We’re told to love our neighbour, but that doesn’t mean being soppy about him while wearing rose-tinted spectacles—love should be a great deal tougher and more realistic than that, and I suspect Gavin will require us to be very tough and realistic indeed. This man’s big trouble. Not only does he break hearts as easily as a chef breaks eggs but he’s capable of doing an enormous amount of damage to St. Benet’s if we get this wrong and he buckets beyond our control. So the big question we have to ask ourselves, as Robin implied a moment ago, is what makes Gavin tick? If we can understand that, we not only have a better chance of surviving him but a better insight into whether these donations should be seen as the work of the Spirit . . . Robin, let’s hear your views as a therapist.”

“Strictly speaking I can’t have a view,” said Robin, “as I’ve never met this man, but if you want some theorising mingled with one or two imaginative guesses . . .”

We settled down to listen to his opinion.