Campaigners for the better protection of children from abuse by Roman Catholic priests are questioning the accuracy of figures presented in the latest annual report from the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission (NCSC) launched last week (28 July 2011) by the Shadow Attorney General, Baroness Scotland of Asthal (1). Table 6 of the NCSC report for 2010 asserts that ‘laicisation’ (dismissal from the clerical state) has been “completed” in the cases of 23 ‘diocesan’ priests convicted of offences against children, since 2001. However, author of the weblog ‘Concerned About Abuse in the Catholic Church in England and Wales’ (2), Philip Gilligan (3), says that this claim is not consistent with either the figures previously published by the Church nor with what Baroness Scotland had told him as recently as 27 June 2011 (4).
Philip Gilligan said:
“The numbers simply do not add-up and it appears that the authors of this latest report have included several cases where the process of laicisation has not, in fact, been “completed” and a decision is, in fact, still awaited from the Vatican. This is, at best, misleading and especially, in the context of recent news from the Diocese of Cloyne in Ireland, tends only to increase concerns that the Church’s approach to matters involving the abuse of children by its clergy lacks honesty and openness. The general public and the laity within the Church would do well to question whether they can trust the accuracy of what they are now being told by the NCSC.
Last month, Baroness Scotland, chair of the NCSC wrote to me saying ‘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.’ Now she has launched a report which claims that laicisation has been “completed” in the cases of 23 diocesan priests.
More, alarmingly, the five annual reports from the now defunct Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults (COPCA)(5) recorded a total of only 5 laicisations between 2003 and 2007 (two in 2003, two in 2004, none in 2005, none in 2006 and one in 2007). The equivalent annual reports for 2008 and 2009 from the NCSC (6) gave no information about the number of laicisations, but the director of the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service (CSAS), Adrian Child, told me by e-mail in July 2010 that one further relevant priest had been laicised in 2008 (7). Thus, the total number of relevant laicisations previously reported by COPCA / NCSC / CSAS amounted to only 6, while the latest NCSC report says that 2 laicisations of diocesan priests were “completed” in 2010. If my arithmetic is correct, this brings the apparent total to only 8. Hence, I am left asking: Who are the other 15 priests included in the most recent report from the NCSC? When were their laicisations ‘completed’? Are these, in fact, cases where ‘the process of dismissal has commenced’, but has not, in fact, been ‘completed’?”
“For those of us continuing to monitor implementation of what the Church has promised to do in relation to the abuse of children by Catholic priests, two straightforward questions need answering, as soon as possible by Baroness Scotland: How many Catholic priests in England and Wales have been convicted of offences against children, since the Bishops adopted the recommendations of the Nolan committee report in November 2001? How many of these convicted priests had been dismissed from the clerical state by the Vatican under canon 290, by the end of 2010?”
Notes:
(1) See http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Catholic-Church/Media-Centre/Press-Releases/Press-Releases-2011/Safeguarding-Annual-Report-2010-11
(2) See http://caaccew.blogspot.com/
(3) Philip Gilligan is a senior
lecturer in the Division of Social Work at the University of Bradford.
He is joint author of the book Religion, Belief and Social Work
published by Policy Press, Bristol in 2010.
(4) A copy of the letter
is available at http://caaccew.blogspot.com/2011/07/letter-received-from-chair-of-national.html
(5) Copies available via http://www.csas.uk.net/
(6) Copy available at http://www.catholicsafeguarding.org.uk/documents.htm
(7) Copy of e-mail and statistics referred to are available to blog readers on request from philipgilligan@lineone.net.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Vatican's response entirely unhelpful says latest report from commission led by Judge Yvonne Maguire,
To access the latest report the Commission of Investigation into Catholic Diocese of Cloyne please see http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Cloyne_Rpt
The conclusions include
The conclusions include
- The fact that the commission found that the Vatican's response to the church guidelines was entirely unhelpful and gave comfort and support to those who dissented from the guidelines.
- The fact that the Papal Nuncio in Ireland had replied to a request from the commisssion for information relevant to its investigation by saying he was "unable to assist you in his matter". (The Nunciature said it did not determine the handling of cases of sexual abuse in Ireland and would not be in a position to assist.)
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Letter to Baroness Scotland, Chair of National Catholic Safeguarding Commisssion - dated 30 June 2011
Dear Baroness Scotland,
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 letter dated 27 June 2011
Many thanks for your response to my letter of 19 March 2011.
I was pleased to learn that the NCSC spent some of its meeting in June 2011 discussing the extent to which bishops in England and Wales have followed the recommendations of the Nolan Report regarding the laicisation of clergy convicted of a criminal offence against children and that it is committed to monitoring the Church’s compliance with the policies announced to the public. I am, also, delighted to hear that you have requested a paper to clarify matters and look forward reading this, in due course.
However, as yet, I am far from being reassured. I remain extremely concerned about several important issues and concerns which the contents of your letter either do not address or appear to attempt to address by offering what is, arguably, irrelevant or partial information.
In response, I offer the following observations and ask that you, please, respond, as soon as possible, to the requests for further information contained within them. I am aware that this is a long letter, but, as I suspect you are beginning to realise, these appear to be matters that have lacked sufficient oversight of compliance for several years.
Re. Your reference to paragraph 3.5.29 of the Nolan Report (2001)
• I note that your letter cites an extract from this paragraph of Nolan (2001) apparently without taking note of the very clear conclusions to be found in the following 3 paragraphs. In fact, following acknowledgement in 3.5.29 that “... it can be argued that clergy can be much better supervised if they remain as clergy ...”, Nolan (2001) state their own conclusion very clearly in paragraphs 3.5.30, 3.5.31 and 3.5.32.
3.5.30 Our view is that laicisation is an extreme step which is not always appropriate. Our report covers the whole range of child abuse, not only sexual abuse, and laicisation will not be a proportionate response in every case. We believe that the principle to be applied is that laicisation should be considered appropriate where (in the words of a comparable decided case) ‘all right thinking members of the public, knowing all the facts, would feel that justice has not been done by any other course’. We suggest, therefore, that if a priest or deacon is convicted of a criminal offence against children and is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (note that this is a slight modification of the recommendation in our First Report- see para 2.10.21 above), then it would normally be right to initiate the process of laicisation. The period of 12 months is the minimum period adopted by statute for the compulsory disqualification of adult offenders from working with children (The Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000, section 28(4)). We say ‘initiate’ because we are aware that laicisation (except by consent) is the decision of a tribunal at the end of a legal process. We also appreciate that in cases where the events took place some years ago the normal canon law process would not be available because of the statute of limitations. However, we understand that even such cases can be taken forward by reference to the Holy See.
3.5.31 We do not mean to imply by this, however, that laicisation is never appropriate for a lesser sentence. For example, an abuser may have a number of shorter sentences or cautions and laicisation may be appropriate in such cases. The judgement about initiating laicisation must turn on the facts of particular cases.
3.5.32 We should add that laicisation does not mean that the Church has no further part to play in relation to the abuser. As with lay worker abusers who are no longer employed by the Church, the Church may nonetheless be able to assist with the rehabilitation and pastoral needs of the individual.
• I would, also, highlight that the Nolan Report (2001) is very clear in stating in paragraph 2.10.19 that
... there is a level of seriousness, as demonstrated by the criminal courts, at which we would expect the process of laicisation always to be begun.
Re. Data on the numbers and proportion of clergy who have been convicted of a criminal offence against children and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more who have subsequently been laicised (or not) and alleged “inaccuracies” said to be contained in data included in my letter of 19 March 2011
• You assert that Antony Barnett’s report for Channel 4 News on 15 September 2010 contains “a number of inaccuracies” and that I repeat some of these in my letter of 19 March 2011. However, the information that you, then, supply does not specify the nature of any of these alleged “inaccuracies” nor demonstrate that they exist. Instead, you supply very limited information about a different set of cases that is organised in a way which makes it impossible to calculate how many (or what proportion) of the relevantly convicted individuals have been laicised (dismissed from the clerical state according to Canon 290). This makes any meaningful comparison with Antony Barnett’s information impossible.
• Antony Barnett listed a total of 39 priests, who had been convicted of offences against children or been the subject of relevant court rulings, between 1993 and 2010, while, in my letter of 19 March 2011, I highlight the fact that Antony’s list included 22 diocesan priests who had been convicted of a criminal offence against children, sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and who had served all or part of their prison sentence after November 2001. I, also, noted that 14 of these 22 had not been laicised by September 2010.
o Are you claiming that some of these 14 priests had, in fact, been laicised (dismissed from the clerical state under canon 290) by September 2010?
• Your letter of 27 June 2011 refers to “34 priests convicted of offences since 2001, which resulted in prison sentences”. I accept that there is likely to be some overlap between the 22 cases that I highlight and the 34 that you refer to, but there are also obvious and significant differences in the criteria used to determine which cases to include in the two different samples and in the timescales used. These differences make any direct comparison meaningless. (At the same time, I am aware that in the Diocese of Salford, for example, at least one offending priest sentenced to a prison sentence of less than 12 months has been laicised, since 2001, while none of those sentenced to more than 12 months have yet been laicised.)
o How many of the 34 priests in your sample have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment of 12 months or more?
• Within the figures that you have given, the number of those “dismissed from the clerical state” and the number for whom “the process of dismissal has commenced” have been merged. Hence, it remains impossible to determine how many have actually been laicised (dismissed from the clerical state under canon 290). It is also impossible to see what the time delay is between sentencing and dismissal from the clerical state.
o How many of these 23 priests had actually been dismissed from the clerical state by 31 May 2011?
o What is the time delay between sentencing and the commencement of the process of dismissal? (In the case of William Green in the Diocese of Salford, I am aware that there was a delay of more than 3 months between Green being sentenced to 6 years imprisonment on 1 October 2008 and a request for his laicisation being sent to the Vatican in January 2009.)
o How long is it taking for the process to be completed? (In the case of William Green in the Diocese of Salford, I am aware that he had still not been laicised by December 2010 and, in June 2011, I have no reason to think that he has yet been laicised.)
o What was the minimum that needed to have happened for a case to be included within those for whom you say that “the process of dismissal has commenced”? (In the case of Thomas Doherty, in the Diocese of Salford, Doherty had supplied Bishop Terence Brain with a letter [never sent] authorising the bishop to request his laicisation. Would such a case be included amongst those for whom “the process of dismissal has commenced”?)
• You report that in 4 of your 34 cases, the offending priest has died.
o Would it be correct to assume that the process of dismissal from the clerical state was never commenced in these cases?
o If so, were these exceptions “justified publicly (for example, by means of a letter to be read out in churches at Mass)”, as recommended by Nolan (2001)?
• You report that in 7 of your 34 cases, the process of dismissal from the clerical state has not been commenced.
o Have these exceptions been “justified publicly (for example, by means of a letter to be read out in churches at Mass)” as recommended by Nolan (2001)?
I trust that you would agree that it is essential that we avoid needless misunderstanding and confusion about the relevant data. These matters are far too important for the relevant facts to be lost amongst any obfuscation or presentational spin. I suggest that we all need accurate and clear information, to provide the basis for what I trust will ultimately be a useful ongoing discussion.
o Hence, I request that you arrange for publication of and/or supply me with relevant and appropriately disaggregated figures for a clearly defined period of time. For example, the figures for say the past 15 years (1 July 1996 to 30 June 2011) could be presented as follows:
2 Total number of Roman Catholic clergy in England and Wales convicted of a criminal offence against children and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more
3 Number of [2] who had been laicised (dismissed from the clerical state under Canon 290) by 30 June 2011
4 Number of [2] for whom laicisation has been sought from the Vatican but had not been granted by 30 June 2011
5 Number of [4] who died without laicisation having been granted by the Vatican
6 Number of [2] for whom a decision has been made not to seek laicisation from the Vatican
7 Number of [6] who had died by 30 June 2011
8 Number of [6] who have been the subject of a public justification by the relevant bishop or religious superior of the decision not to seek laicisation from the Vatican
9 Number of [2] who were sentenced, before 31 March 2011, about whom a decision about whether or not to seek laicisation from the Vatican had not been made by 30 June 2011.
10 Number of [2] who have been sentenced, since 1 April 2011, about whom a decision about whether or not to seek laicisation from the Vatican had not been made by 30 June 2011.
• At the same time, the assertion that Anthony Barnett’s report and my letter of 19 March 2011 contain “inaccuracies”, would, obviously, merit much greater credence, if the “inaccuracies” alleged were to be specified, rather than being asserted in a vague and imprecise manner.
o You have my letter of 19 March 2011, while Antony Barnett’s list of cases is readily available at http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/09_10/2010_09_14_Channel4News_CatholicAbuse.htm. I, therefore, request that you provide to me with details of any specific “inaccuracies” that you believe are contained within them, preferably on a case-by-case basis. What specific ‘inaccuracies’ (if any) are being alleged by your advisors?
I look forward to your further comments on these very important matters.
Best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Philip Gilligan
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 letter dated 27 June 2011
Many thanks for your response to my letter of 19 March 2011.
I was pleased to learn that the NCSC spent some of its meeting in June 2011 discussing the extent to which bishops in England and Wales have followed the recommendations of the Nolan Report regarding the laicisation of clergy convicted of a criminal offence against children and that it is committed to monitoring the Church’s compliance with the policies announced to the public. I am, also, delighted to hear that you have requested a paper to clarify matters and look forward reading this, in due course.
However, as yet, I am far from being reassured. I remain extremely concerned about several important issues and concerns which the contents of your letter either do not address or appear to attempt to address by offering what is, arguably, irrelevant or partial information.
In response, I offer the following observations and ask that you, please, respond, as soon as possible, to the requests for further information contained within them. I am aware that this is a long letter, but, as I suspect you are beginning to realise, these appear to be matters that have lacked sufficient oversight of compliance for several years.
Re. Your reference to paragraph 3.5.29 of the Nolan Report (2001)
• I note that your letter cites an extract from this paragraph of Nolan (2001) apparently without taking note of the very clear conclusions to be found in the following 3 paragraphs. In fact, following acknowledgement in 3.5.29 that “... it can be argued that clergy can be much better supervised if they remain as clergy ...”, Nolan (2001) state their own conclusion very clearly in paragraphs 3.5.30, 3.5.31 and 3.5.32.
3.5.30 Our view is that laicisation is an extreme step which is not always appropriate. Our report covers the whole range of child abuse, not only sexual abuse, and laicisation will not be a proportionate response in every case. We believe that the principle to be applied is that laicisation should be considered appropriate where (in the words of a comparable decided case) ‘all right thinking members of the public, knowing all the facts, would feel that justice has not been done by any other course’. We suggest, therefore, that if a priest or deacon is convicted of a criminal offence against children and is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (note that this is a slight modification of the recommendation in our First Report- see para 2.10.21 above), then it would normally be right to initiate the process of laicisation. The period of 12 months is the minimum period adopted by statute for the compulsory disqualification of adult offenders from working with children (The Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000, section 28(4)). We say ‘initiate’ because we are aware that laicisation (except by consent) is the decision of a tribunal at the end of a legal process. We also appreciate that in cases where the events took place some years ago the normal canon law process would not be available because of the statute of limitations. However, we understand that even such cases can be taken forward by reference to the Holy See.
3.5.31 We do not mean to imply by this, however, that laicisation is never appropriate for a lesser sentence. For example, an abuser may have a number of shorter sentences or cautions and laicisation may be appropriate in such cases. The judgement about initiating laicisation must turn on the facts of particular cases.
3.5.32 We should add that laicisation does not mean that the Church has no further part to play in relation to the abuser. As with lay worker abusers who are no longer employed by the Church, the Church may nonetheless be able to assist with the rehabilitation and pastoral needs of the individual.
• I would, also, highlight that the Nolan Report (2001) is very clear in stating in paragraph 2.10.19 that
... there is a level of seriousness, as demonstrated by the criminal courts, at which we would expect the process of laicisation always to be begun.
Re. Data on the numbers and proportion of clergy who have been convicted of a criminal offence against children and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more who have subsequently been laicised (or not) and alleged “inaccuracies” said to be contained in data included in my letter of 19 March 2011
• You assert that Antony Barnett’s report for Channel 4 News on 15 September 2010 contains “a number of inaccuracies” and that I repeat some of these in my letter of 19 March 2011. However, the information that you, then, supply does not specify the nature of any of these alleged “inaccuracies” nor demonstrate that they exist. Instead, you supply very limited information about a different set of cases that is organised in a way which makes it impossible to calculate how many (or what proportion) of the relevantly convicted individuals have been laicised (dismissed from the clerical state according to Canon 290). This makes any meaningful comparison with Antony Barnett’s information impossible.
• Antony Barnett listed a total of 39 priests, who had been convicted of offences against children or been the subject of relevant court rulings, between 1993 and 2010, while, in my letter of 19 March 2011, I highlight the fact that Antony’s list included 22 diocesan priests who had been convicted of a criminal offence against children, sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and who had served all or part of their prison sentence after November 2001. I, also, noted that 14 of these 22 had not been laicised by September 2010.
o Are you claiming that some of these 14 priests had, in fact, been laicised (dismissed from the clerical state under canon 290) by September 2010?
• Your letter of 27 June 2011 refers to “34 priests convicted of offences since 2001, which resulted in prison sentences”. I accept that there is likely to be some overlap between the 22 cases that I highlight and the 34 that you refer to, but there are also obvious and significant differences in the criteria used to determine which cases to include in the two different samples and in the timescales used. These differences make any direct comparison meaningless. (At the same time, I am aware that in the Diocese of Salford, for example, at least one offending priest sentenced to a prison sentence of less than 12 months has been laicised, since 2001, while none of those sentenced to more than 12 months have yet been laicised.)
o How many of the 34 priests in your sample have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment of 12 months or more?
• Within the figures that you have given, the number of those “dismissed from the clerical state” and the number for whom “the process of dismissal has commenced” have been merged. Hence, it remains impossible to determine how many have actually been laicised (dismissed from the clerical state under canon 290). It is also impossible to see what the time delay is between sentencing and dismissal from the clerical state.
o How many of these 23 priests had actually been dismissed from the clerical state by 31 May 2011?
o What is the time delay between sentencing and the commencement of the process of dismissal? (In the case of William Green in the Diocese of Salford, I am aware that there was a delay of more than 3 months between Green being sentenced to 6 years imprisonment on 1 October 2008 and a request for his laicisation being sent to the Vatican in January 2009.)
o How long is it taking for the process to be completed? (In the case of William Green in the Diocese of Salford, I am aware that he had still not been laicised by December 2010 and, in June 2011, I have no reason to think that he has yet been laicised.)
o What was the minimum that needed to have happened for a case to be included within those for whom you say that “the process of dismissal has commenced”? (In the case of Thomas Doherty, in the Diocese of Salford, Doherty had supplied Bishop Terence Brain with a letter [never sent] authorising the bishop to request his laicisation. Would such a case be included amongst those for whom “the process of dismissal has commenced”?)
• You report that in 4 of your 34 cases, the offending priest has died.
o Would it be correct to assume that the process of dismissal from the clerical state was never commenced in these cases?
o If so, were these exceptions “justified publicly (for example, by means of a letter to be read out in churches at Mass)”, as recommended by Nolan (2001)?
• You report that in 7 of your 34 cases, the process of dismissal from the clerical state has not been commenced.
o Have these exceptions been “justified publicly (for example, by means of a letter to be read out in churches at Mass)” as recommended by Nolan (2001)?
I trust that you would agree that it is essential that we avoid needless misunderstanding and confusion about the relevant data. These matters are far too important for the relevant facts to be lost amongst any obfuscation or presentational spin. I suggest that we all need accurate and clear information, to provide the basis for what I trust will ultimately be a useful ongoing discussion.
o Hence, I request that you arrange for publication of and/or supply me with relevant and appropriately disaggregated figures for a clearly defined period of time. For example, the figures for say the past 15 years (1 July 1996 to 30 June 2011) could be presented as follows:
1 July 1996 to 30 June 2011
1 Total number of Roman Catholic clergy in England and Wales convicted of a criminal offence against children and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment. 2 Total number of Roman Catholic clergy in England and Wales convicted of a criminal offence against children and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more
3 Number of [2] who had been laicised (dismissed from the clerical state under Canon 290) by 30 June 2011
4 Number of [2] for whom laicisation has been sought from the Vatican but had not been granted by 30 June 2011
5 Number of [4] who died without laicisation having been granted by the Vatican
6 Number of [2] for whom a decision has been made not to seek laicisation from the Vatican
7 Number of [6] who had died by 30 June 2011
8 Number of [6] who have been the subject of a public justification by the relevant bishop or religious superior of the decision not to seek laicisation from the Vatican
9 Number of [2] who were sentenced, before 31 March 2011, about whom a decision about whether or not to seek laicisation from the Vatican had not been made by 30 June 2011.
10 Number of [2] who have been sentenced, since 1 April 2011, about whom a decision about whether or not to seek laicisation from the Vatican had not been made by 30 June 2011.
• At the same time, the assertion that Anthony Barnett’s report and my letter of 19 March 2011 contain “inaccuracies”, would, obviously, merit much greater credence, if the “inaccuracies” alleged were to be specified, rather than being asserted in a vague and imprecise manner.
o You have my letter of 19 March 2011, while Antony Barnett’s list of cases is readily available at http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/09_10/2010_09_14_Channel4News_CatholicAbuse.htm. I, therefore, request that you provide to me with details of any specific “inaccuracies” that you believe are contained within them, preferably on a case-by-case basis. What specific ‘inaccuracies’ (if any) are being alleged by your advisors?
I look forward to your further comments on these very important matters.
Best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Philip Gilligan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)