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)!
Friday, November 18, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
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
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
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.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
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.”
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.”
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)