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