Ten years after Nolan, bishops admit that their response to survivors "has not been adequately developed"

The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales meeting in conference at Hinsey Hall, Leeds have said that "Survivors of abuse who come to the Church for pastoral help rightly expect to be welcomed and listened to, and to be understood and supported.", but they have also admit "As Bishops, we acknowledge this has not been adequately developed as an integral part of our safeguarding work." (see http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=19332).

Their admission comes a full ten years after they declared their commitment to the recommendations of the Nolan Report, at their conference in November 2001.

Once again, they seek to present themselves in a positive light, claiming that they "are very grateful to the NCSC and our agency, the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Servicee, for the continuing discussions which have been taking place with a number of survivor organisations." They fail to mention the fact that both the MACSAS and the Lantern Project withdrew from these discussions in October 2011, when they explained that

"The Catholic Church is still not ready to accept responsibility for the actions of its clergy and members of religious congregations who raped and abused thousands of children in this country over the past 50 years. Victims have been reporting this abuse to Church authorities for decades and have yet to receive any compassionate or appropriate response. This failure to hear, to respond and to accept responsibility is a scandal to the Christianity (see http://caaccew.blogspot.com/2011/10/survivors-groups-end-exploratory-talks.html).

Meanwhile, the bishops continue to refer to the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission (NCSC) as "an independent body", despite the telling fact that all its members, including three bishops, are appointed by them and the Conference of Religious of England and Wales (CoR)!

REPORT BY LORD CARLILE OF BERRIEW Q.C. INTO MATTERS RELATING TO EALING ABBEY AND ST BENEDICT’S SCHOOL, EALING.

To access a copy of Lord Carlisle's report, see

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2011/11_12/2011_11_09_UnitedKingdom_IndependentReport.pdf

Fugitive Catholic priest urged to turn himself in

See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/nov/09/monks-schoool-abuse-st-benedict-ealing?newsfeed=true

A fugitive priest wanted in connection with child sex abuse allegations has been urged to turn himself in by one of the country's top lawyers, who said his absence caused difficulties to a damning review of decades of paedophile activity at a top Catholic school.

Laurence Soper, the former abbot of Ealing abbey – which has been the subject of an inquiry from Lord Carlile QC and an internal Vatican investigation following disclosures of alleged and proven abuse at neighbouring St Benedict's – skipped bail last month and is thought to be living in an Italian monastery.

Carlile, who published his findings on Wednesday, said: "I would encourage Laurence Soper to surrender himself to the police. He may feel he owes a personal and ethical duty to answer whatever questions are put to him. I regret the difficulties Laurence Soper has caused to the [inquiry] process.

"What I hope is that everybody who has, and has had, contact with Laurence Soper should inveigh upon him very strongly to surrender himself to the British authorities."

He added that an international arrest warrant was being issued.

Soper appeared in Carlile's report as one of five clergy tried or wanted for questioning in relation to paedophile activity involving pupils.

The report's key recommendation was that Ealing abbey monks lose control of St Benedict's. It listed 21 abuse cases since 1970 with Carlile saying the form of governance was "wholly outdated and demonstrably unacceptable".

The report said: "In a school where there has been abuse, mostly – but not exclusively – as a result of the activities of the monastic community, any semblance of a conflict of interest, of lack of independent scrutiny, must be removed."

"Primary fault lies with the abusers, in the abject failure of personal responsibility, in breach of their sacred vows … and in breach of all professional standards and of the criminal law.

"Secondary fault can be shared by the monastic community, in its lengthy and culpable failure to deal with what at times must have been evident behaviour placing children at risk; and what at all times was a failure to recognise the sinful temptations that might attract some with monastic vocations."

Historic fault also lay with the trustees and the school for their failure to understand and prepare for the possibility of abuse with training and solid procedures for "unpalatable eventualities".

In his criticism of school governance, Carlile wrote that the existing structure lacked "independence, transparency, accountability and diversity, and is drawn from too narrow a group of people".

He added: "The abbot himself has accepted that it is 'opaque to outsiders'."

The inquiry began last year after a former head, Father David Pearce, was convicted of abusing five boys. He was jailed for eight years in 2009 for the abuse over a period of 36 years. Four of the victims were under 14.

The report says two trusts should be set up to remove "all power from the abbey" while maintaining the Benedictine connection for the parents and the new governing body must create a clear accountability between management, governors and trustees.

The St Benedict's headmaster, Christopher Cluegh, attended a press conference for the report launch.

He said: "I would like to begin by expressing my severe regret for the trauma and suffering that so many people have experienced. All I can do is apologise. If we can help them in any way to find closure we will help them to do so."

There were no representatives from Ealing abbey at the press conference.

High court rules Catholic Church liable over priests

From Irish Examiner.com (Tuesday, November 08, 2011 - 01:48 PM)

The UK's High Court ruled today that the Catholic Church can be held liable for the wrongdoings of its priests.

A judge in London announced his decision in a case which has been described as being “an issue of wide general importance in respect of claims against the Catholic Church”.

Although the point to be decided arose in a damages action over alleged sex abuse by a priest, it is understood that the decision will affect other types of claims made against the Church.

Mr Justice MacDuff gave a decision in favour of a 47-year-old woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, who claims she was sexually assaulted as a child by the late Father Wilfred Baldwin, a priest of the Portsmouth Diocese, at a children’s home in Hampshire run by an order of nuns.

Giving his decision on a preliminary issue in her damages action the judge held that, in law, the Church “may be vicariously liable” for Father Baldwin’s alleged wrongdoings.

The trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust – the defendant “standing in the shoes of the bishop” – were given leave to appeal.

Lord Faulks QC, for the defendants, said today that the Catholic Church ``takes sexual abuse extremely seriously and it is entirely concerned to eradicate it''.

The preliminary issue was on a point of law, he said, and emphasised that the Church was not seeking to abandon responsibility for sexual abuse.

During the hearing of the issue in July, the judge was told by Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC, representing the woman at the centre of the sex abuse claim, that the issue to be determined was whether the Church “can ever be vicariously liable in any situation for any tort at all”.

It was, she said, “a very wide issue indeed”.

Lawyers for the alleged victim said it was the first time a court has been asked to rule on whether the “relationship between a Catholic priest and his bishop is akin to an employment relationship”.

Ms Gumbel told the judge the preliminary issue was “essentially whether Father Baldwin should be treated as having been in the position of an employee” of the trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust.

She said: “The preliminary issue is intended to determine an issue of wide general importance in respect of claims against the Catholic Church.

“That is whether any priest carrying out his work as a Roman Catholic priest is in a position akin to an employee for the purposes of imposing vicarious liability on the relevant diocesan trustees or bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese.”

If the answer was “yes” then the next issue would be whether the priest was carrying out the actions complained of in circumstances which were “closely connected” with his role and/or work as a priest.

If the answer was “no” there would be “no circumstances where the Roman Catholic Church is liable for the actions of one of its priests whether deliberate or careless and however closely connected those actions were to the role of priest”.

Ms Gumbel told the judge that this would “place the Catholic Church in a unique position as far as avoiding responsibility for the acts or omissions of any priest working within the church organisation in whatever role”.

In his written ruling, Mr Justice MacDuff made clear that it had been agreed for the purposes of the litigation that the trustees of the Portmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust ``stood in the place of the Bishop of Portsmouth at the material time''.

He said: “The issue is whether the diocesan bishop should be held vicariously liable for the torts of the priest of his diocese.”

The claimant, who is seeking damages for personal injury, alleges she was sexually abused and raped by Father Baldwin, who died in 2006, when she was resident at the Firs Children’s Home in Waterlooville, Hampshire, between May 1970 and May 1972.

Mr Justice MacDuff said the issue “turns upon the relationship between Father Baldwin and the defendant”.

He said: “The defendant contends that Father Baldwin was not its employee, nor was the relationship ’akin to employment’ and that vicarious liability cannot attach to the relationship which exists between them.”.

He explained that vicarious liability “is a doctrine which makes an employer responsible for the tortious acts of an employee, acting within the scope, or course, of his employment”.

In the preliminary issue he only had to decide “whether the nature of the relationship (between Father Baldwin and the defendants) is one to which vicarious liablity may – I emphasise may – attach”.

He had to determine whether vicarious liability may attach “notwithstanding that it was a relationship which differed in significant respects from a relationship of employer and employee”.

“This is not an issue which has previously beeen decided by the courts of England and Wales.”

The differences from a contract of employment were that there was “no real element of control or supervision, no wages, no formal contract and so on”.

He added: “But are those differences such that the defendants should not be made responsible for the tortious acts of the priest acting within the course of his ministry?

“There are, it seems to me, crucial features which should be recognised.

“Father Baldwin was appointed by and on behalf of the defendants.

“He was so appointed in order to do their work; to undertake the ministry on behalf of the defendants for the benefit of the church.

“He was given the full authority of the defendants to fulfil that role. He was provided with the premises, the pulpit and the clerical robes.

“He was directed into the community with that full authority and was given free rein to act as representative of the church.

“He had been trained and ordained for that purpose. He had immense power handed to him by the defendants.

“It was they who appointed him to the position of trust which (if the allegations be proved) he so abused.”

Anne Lawrence, of the group Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors (Macsas), said she was “relieved” by the ruling, but she added that they were concerned about the decision to appeal.

“We hope that it opens the way for the settlement of many hundreds of cases currently pending in courts up and down this country arising out of abuse by clergy or religious within the Catholic Church,” she said.

“However, we are saddened to hear that they are appealing this case. There will be no settlement for the victims until the courts make a final determination on this issue.

“The Catholic Church is showing no willingness... despite the rhetoric coming from the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission, there is absolutely no sign that the Catholic Church hierarchy in England and Wales is serious about settling cases and resolving matters with victims of abuse perpetrated within the Church.”

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/uk-court-rules-catholic-church-liable-over-priests-527556.html#ixzz1d8OtFWzM

Catholic Church leaders in England and Wales are reeling after a series of abuse revelations

See http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1101/1224306845169.html

By MARK HENNESSY

FOR YEARS, the Catholic Church in England and Wales has prided itself that it has handled matters better than the Catholic Church in Ireland.

It has done so despite being faced with repeated court cases involving clerics and stonewalling in the face of questions. Now, however, it is facing trouble at every turn, beginning with the affair of a missing monk, Laurence Soper (80), who has incredibly been on the run for seven months since failing to turn up for police questioning.

Meanwhile, an examination of its child-safety guidelines in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset is under way following the jailing last week of one of the church’s own child-protection officers for having pornographic images of children.

Ealing Abbey features prominently in the church’s difficulties.

Described as London’s leading independent Catholic co-educational school, it has a proud academic record, with three-quarters of its pupils last year winning top A-Level grades.

In 2009, however, Fr David Pearce was jailed for eight years for abusing five students while a teacher. Another teacher, John Maestri, was imprisoned in 2003 after admitting three counts of indecently assaulting young boys between 1980 and 1984.

Now, Soper – once Ealing’s abbot – is a fugitive from justice after he left a monastery in Rome in March to travel to London to meet detectives who wanted to question him about allegations of misconduct at the school. He disappeared.

He had served in Ealing, first as a teacher from 1972 and later as its head until he moved to Rome a decade ago. There he served as treasurer of the International Benedictine Federation’s treasurer.

Nearly nine months on, a European arrest warrant is likely to be issued.

Condemning his predecessor’s flight “without reservation”, Abbot Martin Shipperlee said the monks had “heard nothing from him since and all efforts to contact him have been without success”.

A report into conduct at Ealing from top QC Lord Alex Carlile is to be shared with the monks and published next week, while a Vatican-ordered apostolic visitation has already reported to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome after visiting last month.

The inspection was to ensure that guidelines put in place in England and Wales in 2002, which were revised in 2007, had been “followed to the letter”, the Bishops Conference of England and Wales said last month.

“The Catholic Church in England and Wales is determined to ensure its robust safety procedures are followed and this visitation is consistent with that aim.

“Any person with an allegation of abuse is urged to report it to the statutory authorities,” the bishops said.

In 2008 Bishop Vincent Nichols, who is now the Archbishop of Westminster but was then chairman of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults, said the church could be “proud” of the progress made in the previous six years.

However, the church’s confidence has been further eroded by the trial of Chris Jarvis, who ran the diocese of Plymouth’s child-abuse investigations for nine years until he was arrested for having more than 4,000 images of children being sexually abused on his computer.

Jarvis interviewed alleged victims, had full access to all confidential files on known cases and handled criminal records checks on those needing clearance to work with children throughout the Plymouth diocese.

So far, Bishop of Plymouth Christopher Budd says that a review shows that Jarvis handled all of cases in the last three years properly, but he has brought in the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to investigate further.

One of the cases that came before Jarvis was that of another Benedictine house, Buckfast Abbey, where two monks have been jailed – one for 10 years – for abuse committed against pupils in its now-closed preparatory school.

Sentencing him last week, Judge Paul Darlow said: “The people who confided in you of their own misery and abuse may well be horrified that the person they were speaking to was, in his personal life, downloading images of children being abused in the same way.”

MACSAS calls for the a national inquiry into child sexual abuse within all Dioceses and Religious Congregations

MACSAS PRESS RELEASE 29^th OCTOBER 2011

MACSAS welcomes inquiries into Child Abuse within the Catholic Church in England & Wales

MACSAS welcomes the inquiry into child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church in the South West of England ordered by Bishop Budd of Plymouth, and to be carried out by the NSPCC. The scale of the abuse of children over decades at Buckfast Abbey now being uncovered as victims report cases of abuse to church and police authorities, reinforces the concerns long expressed by MACSAS and other survivor groups that the abuse of children by clergy and members of religious communities in this country was widespread and pervasive for decades, and that Church authorities continue to this day to cover up the scale of the abuse that took place (see the MACSAS Survey report “The Stones Cry Out” May 2011 at www.macsas.org.uk)

MACSAS calls for the inquiry to be extended both in terms of remit and scope and in terms of geographic area. The inquiry should cover the whole of England and Wales and should look into the institutional dynamics with allowed child sex offenders to continue in ministry, and to continue to abuse children, for decades after they were first reported to Authorities. The inquiry should also investigate the role of senior church officials within the Catholic church, in moving priests and religious around the country and, as in the case of Mowat (Northampton), Clonan and Robinson (Birmingham) paying them whilst they were on the run overseas for years and decades, even though arrest warrants were outstanding against them in this country.

MACSAS also welcomes the inquiry ordered by the Vatican into child sexual abuse at Ealing Abbey following the conviction of David Pearce in 2009 and another monk recently fled whilst on bail. However with a Bishop and the head of the Benedictine Order in England leading up the inquiry it is hard to see how this will lead to an open and transparent investigation that reveals the truth of what happened.

MACSAS calls for the a national inquiry into child sexual abuse within all Dioceses and Religious Congregations, to include all Schools and other children’s Institutions run by the Catholic Church and its religious congregations.

MACSAS calls again for the Catholic Church to provide funding and resources to support the victims of abuse who are coming forward across the country (see www.macsas.org.uk). The lack of any response from Bishops and leaders of religious congregations to the needs of those so grievously harmed by abuse perpetrated by clergy and members of religious communities, is truly scandalous when they know of the harm caused to victims and the re-traumatising impact of reporting cases to police and church authorities.

For further enquiries or comments please contact

Anne Lawrence; Chair MACSAS on 07939574368

Dr Margaret Kennedy; Founder MACSAS on 07740945385

www.macsas.org.uk email macsas1@hotmail.com

Vatican sexual abuse inquiry into Ealing Abbey given short shrift

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/25/ealing-abbey-sexual-abuse-vatican?newsfeed=true

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome has ordered an "apostolic visitation" to uncover the scale of abuse at Ealing abbey, where monks and lay teachers have been accused of mistreating children at a neighbouring school, St Benedict's, over decades.

It is the first inquiry of its kind into sexual abuse in Britain. Father David Pearce, a priest at Ealing abbey, was jailed in 2009.

Groups supporting ... victims have questioned the effectiveness and integrity of an internal inquiry, especially given that its findings will remain secret.

The abuse is alleged to have dated from the 1960s to 2009.

Pete Saunders, of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said it was a public relations exercise and akin to "putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank".

Anne Lawrence of Ministry and Clerical Sexual Abuse Survivors, said although the Ealing inquiry showed the Catholic hierarchy was beginning to understand the concept of institutional responsibility, there were other schools and other places that warranted investigation. There were, she alleged, "more than 20 schools where there was systematic abuse and we would like to see inquiries into all of them".

Relations between the church and survivor groups are already under strain. Earlier this month the Guardian revealed that victim support groups had pulled out of discussions led by the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission (NCSC) and the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service (CSAS).

They described them as shambolic, toothless and unlikely to achieve anything by May 2012, when the pope's deadline for a progress report expires.

The talks were intended to come up with a care package for survivors of clerical sexual abuse.

Graham Wilmer, who heads the Lantern Project and says he was abused by a Catholic priest as a teenager, said: "We were prepared to talk to [the institution] that had harmed us, even though it was uncomfortable … [But] we can't trust them. What has effectively has happened is nothing."

Two civil cases show the church continuing to engage in a war of attrition with victims who were abused as children.

It has denied responsibility for the alleged sexual abuse of a Portsmouth woman by one of its priests, saying the cleric was not an employee. Should the church win, it will avoid having to pay compensation to victims in the future.

In another case, involving more than 150 former pupils suing for an estimated £8m for sexual and physical abuse they claim to have suffered at St William's boys home in Market Weighton, Yorkshire, the diocese of Middlesbrough is contesting a court ruling that it is jointly liable with the De La Salle Brotherhood, a Catholic order of lay teachers, for the alleged abuse. St William's was owned by the diocese but many of the staff were members of the Brotherhood.

Claims were first launched in 2004 when the home's former principal, Brother James Carragher, was jailed for 14 years for abusing boys. The appeal will be heard next July in the supreme court.

Survivors' groups end 'exploratory' talks with Catholic Church

MACSAS has ended 'exploratory talks' with the Catholic church convened last July to discuss how the Church could respond to the victims of abuse perpetrated by clergy and others in pastoral roles within the Catholic Church.

In a press release issued on 11 October 2011 MACSAS set out the reasons for ending the talks after more than a year of endeavouring to have the voices and needs of thousands of victims of rape, torture and other abuses, perpetrated within the Catholic church, heard and acknowledged. The Catholic Church is still not ready to accept responsibility for the actions of its clergy and members of religious congregations who raped and abused thousands of children in this country over the past 50 years. Victims have been reporting this abuse to Church authorities for decades and have yet to receive any compassionate or appropriate response.
This failure to hear, to respond and to accept responsibility is a scandal to the Christianity.

No Bishop attended the 'exploratory talks' and the Archbishop of Westminster refused to have any discussions with any survivor organisations even when it became obvious that the people appointed by the Church to engage in these talks, lacked the skills and authority necessary to engage in any meaningful discussion with those who represented victims of appalling crimes committed within the Catholic Church.

The Lantern Project, who works with survivors of abuse, including those abused by clergy, has also left the talks because the actions of Bishops in England and Wales are incompatible with any public apologies made by the conference of Bishops for the abuse perpetrated against children in this country by clergy. In fact, as can be seen in their press release, Bishops have continued to argue in the courts that the Church has no responsibility for the actions of its clergy or members of religious orders (most recently the Portsmouth and the St Williams cases both of which are awaiting decisions from the courts).

MACSAS has stated throughout that we are open to any processes aimed at providing justice and redress for victims and reconciliation between the Church and those so terribly harmed, where appropriate. The Church in England and Wales does not yet understand the need for these processes and yet over 300 cases are in the civil courts and dozens of cases are currently in the Criminal courts.

Letter to Baroness Scotland, Chair of NCSC - faxed 9 October 2011

FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal
House of Lords

Sunday 9 October 2011

Philip Gilligan
18 Dean Head
Littleborough
OL15 9LZ

philipgilligan@lineone.net

Dear Lady Scotland of Asthal,

Re. Compliance by the Roman Catholic Bishops and others in England and Wales with Recommendations 77 and 78 of the Nolan Report (2001)
Response to your letters dated 8 August and 7 October 2011

Many thanks for your two letters, both of which I received for the first time today.

Regarding your letter dated 8 August 2011, I am pleased to say that my surgery went well and that I am continuing to make a good recovery. I, also, welcome your confirmation that it is the NCSC’s view “that in the circumstances outlined in Lord Nolan’s report, the expectation that it would normally be right for the process of laicisation to be initiated” and that “Not to do so would need to be justified”.

However, I am concerned to note:

• Your assertion that the Nolan Committee did not make explicit what form such justifications should take. In this context, I would remind you that Recommendation 77 is, in fact, extremely clear in stating that

The bishop or religious superior should justify any exceptions to this approach publicly (for example, by means of a letter to be read out in churches at Mass).

I would suggest that, if this action is required of a bishop in the context of their decision to make an exception in the case of a priest who has been cautioned for an offence against a child, then it is the minimum action that the people of a diocese could reasonably expect from their bishop when that bishop decides to make an exception in the case of a priest “convicted of a criminal offence against children” and “sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”. At the same time, the ‘form’ of such justifications seems to be set out very explicitly; the bishop is required to write a letter justifying “publicly” the exception he has decided to make and this letter should “be read out in churches at Mass”.

• Your admission that the information that I requested in my letter of 30 June 2011 “is not currently available”. It is difficult to understand how the NCSC or its predecessors could adequately monitor the bishops’ compliance with Recommendations 77 and 78, if such information has not been available.

• The absence of any response to my requests for details of any specific “inaccuracies” that you believe were contained within Anthony Barnett’s report of 15 September 2010 (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/09_10/2010_09_14_Channel4News_CatholicAbuse.htm ) and my letter of 19 March 2011. In the absence of any relevant response, I am, assuming either that your advisers cannot, in fact, identify any inaccuracies or that any inaccuracies are so insignificant that they have no relevance to the matters we are discussing. (If this is not your view, I would again welcome any information that you have about the ‘inaccuracies’ you allege.)

Regarding your letter of 7 October 2011, I appear to have caused some confusion about the date of one of my letters, for which I am sorry. (In the wake of my recent surgery, there was some delay between writing the letter and posting it on http://caaccew.blogspot.com/ and, subsequently, I quoted the second date, in error.

More importantly I did, however, send you another letter on 2 August 2011 and have attached a further copy of this for your attention. You will see that it contains three questions requesting data that I hope is currently available. The data requested would, I trust, resolve the apparent inconsistency between information provided in your letter of 27 June 2011 and information contained in Table 6 of NCSC’s Annual Report 2010-2011 regarding the number of laicisations that were "completed" between 2001 and 2010 in the cases of diocesan priests convicted of criminal offences against children.

In your letter dated 27 June 2011, you told me that

We have recently looked at the cases of 34 priests convicted of offences since 2001 which resulted in prison sentences. ...23 have either been dismissed from the clerical state or the process of dismissal has commenced. (emphasis added)

whereas the NCSC report asserts that, “in 2010”, 23 laicisations of diocesan priests had been “completed”, “since 2001”. (If some of the 23 cases you referred to in June 2011 were in “the process of dismissal”, it seems unlikely that their dismissals from the clerical state could have been “completed” “in 2010”, while I assume that several of the priests laicised “since 2001” were, in fact, convicted of offences prior to 2001.)

I look forward to your further observations on these important matters.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Gilligan

18 Dean Head Littleborough OL15 9LZ
Email: philipgilligan@lineone.net

2 August 2011

Dear Lady Scotland of Asthal,

Re. Inconsistent information from the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission regarding the number of laicisations of diocesan priests convicted of offences against children that were "completed" between 2001 and 2010

In your letter of 27 June 2011, you advised me that

‘We have recently looked at the cases of 34 priests convicted of offences since 2001 which resulted in prison sentences. ...23 have either been dismissed from the clerical state or the process of dismissal has commenced.’ (emphasis added)

I was, therefore, very confused to read in the NCSC’s Annual Report 2010-2011, which you presented to the media on 28 July 2011, the assertion that , “in 2010” 23 laicisations of diocesan priests had been “completed”, “since 2001”.

In the spirit of openness and transparency, I trust that you will be happy to clarify the position for me and others, by answering the following three questions:

1. In the period 2001 to 31 December 2010, how many ‘diocesan’ priests in England and Wales were convicted of offences (against children) which resulted in prison sentences?

2. How many of those priests (i.e. those convicted of offences against children which resulted in prison sentences, since 2001) had been dismissed from the clerical state by the Vatican, under canon 290, by 31 December 2010?

3. In how many cases of those priests (i.e. those convicted of offences against children which resulted in prison sentences, since 2001) had the process of laicisation commenced, but not been completed by 31 December 2010?

I look forward to your speedy reply.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,


Philip Gilligan

Letter from Baroness Scotland, Chair of NCSC (Dated 8 August 2011. Received 8 October 2011))

Please click on image to display and then again to enlarge.

THE STONES CRY OUT: REPORT ON THE MACSAS SURVEY 2010

To read the MACSAS report, please see

http://www.macsas.org.uk/PDFs/News/macsas_survey2010/MACSAS_SurveyReportMay2011.pdf

Amongst a wealth of information and very thorough and careful analysis, the MACSAS report concludes that

"... there has yet to be any radical change to the denial and minimisation of child sexual abuse seen within the Catholic Church over the past two decades." (P 79, paragraph 2.1.2.74)

Should we be surprised that survivors are calling for Scotland's resignation?

The only ‘evidence’ Baroness Scotland cites for her headlined view comes from the John Jay Institute for Faith, Society and Law in the United States. This is a famously conservative institute founded in 2005 (see http://www.johnjayinstitute.org/about-us/core-principles/ and http://www.gazette.com/articles/-29593--.html#ixzz1UKgr2JJF). Its report into the clerical abuse of children in the USA between 1950 and 2002 has been criticised on a number of grounds.

In particular, critics have noted that the researchers concentrated their attention on a very narrow definition of “paedophile" as someone who only has sex with children under 10; thus, excluding the overwhelming majority (19 out of 20) of cases where priests had abused children and young people.

The data provided by the JJI report has also been cited by many Church organisations in recent years as ‘evidence’ that there has been a steady decline in the incidence of reported abuse of children by Catholic priests from about 1980 onwards and that the clerical abuse crisis is gradually drawing to a close. Unfortunately, for these apologists, the report that Baroness Scotland was launching on 28 July 2011 demonstrates that this is far from being the case. As the Universe reports “The latest figures showed the number of alleged abusers rising to 92 last year from 43 in 2009, with the number of allegations of abuse increasing to 83 from 41 over the same period.”, while, in England and Wales, “Eighteen people alleged they were abused in 2010, the same number who had alleged abuse occurring in 2009”.

As the person who heads the body supposedly responsible for monitoring the Church’s compliance with its declared policies on child protection, Baroness Scotland would perhaps be well-advised to widen her reading about issues relevant to the sexual abuse of children and young people.

Firstly, before deciding that the minority of Catholic priests who abuse would be prevented from doing so, if only the laity would share a glass of wine with them, she might, for example, have read Anne-Marie Mcalinden’s 2006 article on grooming (‘Setting ’Em Up’: Personal, Familial and Institutional Grooming in the Sexual Abuse of Children, Social and Legal Studies, 15: 339-362). Mcalinden highlights the facts that the majority of children are abused by someone well known to them and that offenders may groom not only the child but also their family and even the local community who may act as the gatekeepers of access, while sex offenders may groom criminal justice and other institutions into believing that they present no risk to children. She notes that a key variable in the grooming process is the creation and subsequent abuse of trust.

Secondly, before deciding that the minority of Catholic priests who abuse would be prevented from doing so, if only the laity would go with them to a football match, she might, for example, have read Kevin Williams’ 2010 article (‘Vicarious liability of the Roman Catholic Church for sexual abuse by a priest’, Journal of professional negligence, 26: 113-117) where he describes the case of a priest (C) who abused the appellant (M) when he was 12 or 13 years old. Williams (2010: 113) reports that the priest (C) “focused mainly on working with local children and youths regardless of any religious beliefs they might or might not have, running activities such as a social club, discos, and football teams.” (emphasis added).