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.