There is little doubt that Gozo Bishop Mario Grech took the right step in 2006 when he asked a commission headed by Judge Victor Caruana Columbo to investigate allegations of abuse at Lourdes Home, run by Dominican nuns in Għajnsielem.
Since allegations of abuse had resurfaced, and since it seemed that new facts had emerged since the previous inquiry was held, this was both a transparent and professional way of dealing with the issue.
A commission headed by a judge - Judge Caruana Colombo also presides over the Church's Response Team set up in 1999 primarily to conduct internal inquiries into allegations of sexual abuse - means it has years of valuable experience in questioning complainants and alleged aggressors. It can collate information, examine and crossexamine witnesses, and seek corroboration by applying the most rigorous of standards before reaching conclusions and making recommendations.
This can be a painstaking process - for better or worse this one took two long years - but given the severity of the claims which might be made, and the consequences of them being established, it is the only standard today's society, and the Church, should apply.
We learnt earlier this month that the commission found there were instances of abuse. Mgr Grech, again correctly given he heads the diocese, apologised for these and pledged that the recommendations of the report would be implemented to ensure, in so far as possible, that there is no repeat.
Yet he declined to divulge any of the findings or recommendations. His objective - protecting the victims and respecting confidentiality - is highly laudable. But everything that has happened since he issued a statement about the commission's ultimate conclusion have shown it needs to be reconsidered.
Since neither the public, nor the media were made privy to essential details, they sought them out. We do not know if they found them. What we do know is that the alleged victims recounted stories on television and through other mediums. And that they made a series of allegations. Yet, unlike the process applied by the commission, this was a free-for-all with none of the safeguards necessary to establish their veracity.
As a result, people have reached judgments and passed comment without being in possession of the facts. Given the sensitivity of the matter, this is a dangerous state of affairs, and one that certainly does not help the real victims.
Even at this stage, it is essential to know what allegations of abuse were made to the commission; which ones were substantiated; which ones were not; whether the abuse was committed by the nuns or by other residents at the home, or by both.
This could be done while still respecting confidentially, though it is not an irrelevant consideration that some of alleged victims (we do not officially know if they are the same ones who co-operated with the commission) have themselves already forgone this right by speaking to the media.
It is also necessary to establish when the abuse took place, because it is only with this knowledge that we can put it in its proper context. Abuse today is an all-encompassing term. This was not the case several years ago when various modes of conduct - caning in schools for example - was considered the norm.
Nothing we will discover about the abuse will make what happened right. But establishing the truth, the unadulterated truth, will be a vital step towards understanding it and guarding against wrongdoing in future.