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
No comments:
Post a Comment