Though it comes as no surprise, the statement from the Holy See this weekend is indeed a technical legalistic carefully crafted document which seeks to absolve the Cardinals and Bishops of the Vatican of any responsibility for the cover up of the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests. That cover up of course didn’t just occur in Cloyne. Or Dublin. That culture of cover up, despite its horrendous consequences, is typical of a culture of cover up that existed throughout the Catholic Church in Ireland for decades. And not just in Ireland of course.
A grand jury investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia reported in 2005 that the strategies employed by Catholic hierarchy there to cover up the sexual abuse of children were so similar in nature to tactics reported from other dioceses around the United States that it amounted to the Catholic Church having employed well-orchestrated strategies for decades and in all parts of the United States to keep abusing priests in ministry while minimising the risk of scandal or legal liability.
There have been similar reports too from many European countries over the last few years, including from Germany where Pope Benedict, as Archbishop of Munich, covered up for a priest in 1980. Sadly, as is often the case when abusers are protected, that priest went on to sexually abuse again and was eventually convicted.
In addition to the commonality of practice Cardinals and Bishops engaged in to cover up known child sexual abuse and protect the abusers, there are the 1962 and 2001 Vatican documents instructing Bishops around the world to conduct investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse in secret.
In addition, in respect of Ireland, there is the 1997 letter from the Congregation of the Clergy in the Vatican to the Irish Catholic Bishops which makes it very clear that reporting of any suspected sexual abuse of children to civil authorities gives rise to serious reservations of a canonical nature and that the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must instead be meticulously followed. The Holy See’s insistence in its statement this weekend that that letter did not serve to deter any bishops from reporting of allegations to civil authorities is simply not true. And no amount of dishonest spin changes that fact.
Though it was clearly wrong for the Vatican to attempt to deter members of the Irish Catholic hierarchy from reporting to civil authorities they really needn’t have bothered because what was newly revealed in the Holy See statement was the fact that Irish Catholic Bishops didn’t take the child protection guidelines any more seriously than the Vatican did in the first place. We are told that Cardinals Daly and Connell clearly understood the difference between a document of the Irish Bishops’ Conference and a document of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Committee on Child Sexual Abuse by Priests and Religious: they can ignore the latter.
Disingenuous of them not to have made that clear to the rest of us in 1996 when they deliberately gave the impression that from then on, in all cases where it was known or suspected that the sexual abuse of a child had taken place, they would report it to the civil authorities.
And now, instead of a Catholic hierarchy here and in the Vatican explaining to us why anyone should ever believe a word they say ever again, or ever trust them on the issue of child protection, they seem to think the duly elected leader of our country now owes them an explanation for some of the comments he made during his speech in the Dail following publication of the Cloyne Report.
In his speech Taoiseach Enda Kenny spoke of an attempt by the Holy See to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago. I think the Taoiseach was right to articulate the anger so many people in Ireland felt on hearing not only about Vatican and Papal Nuncio non-cooperation with the Dublin and Cloyne inquiries but also our anger at attempts made by the Vatican to get the Irish Government to instruct the Murphy Inquiry on how it should approach the Vatican during the course of that Inquiry. Non-cooperation with an Inquiry is an act of frustration of that Inquiry.
It should also be remembered that the Cloyne Report tells that there was no attempt to implement child protection guidelines in that Diocese until 2008, despite there being a requirement within the State’s child protection guidelines to do so. That too was an unacceptable frustration of attempts in this country, to advance child protection.
Catholic bishops are owed nothing. They should consider themselves lucky that the only reason many of them are not behind bars is because the disgusting and unforgiveable acts they engaged in to conceal known child sexual abuse and protect abusers were not a criminal offence at the time.
Andrew Madden
END 05/09/11
Monday, September 5, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Holy See Response September 2011
The gimlet eye of the canon lawyer has been busy in the Vatican as publication of the Holy See’s response to the Irish Government regarding the Report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne reveals every effort to continue to find ways for the Holy See to absolve itself of any responsibility for the cover up of the sexual abuse of children by priests for decades from one side of the world to the other.
It has been widely reported in recent months that Irish Catholic Bishops were frustrated in their attempts to implement their own child protection guidelines (1996 Framework Document) because the Congregation of the Clergy in the Vatican only considered those guidelines to be a study document. It is interesting to note from today’s Holy See response that members of the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland also shared the view that those guidelines were not binding on them at all, the only people who seemed to think that Catholic Bishops were implementing child protection guidelines were the Irish Government and the Irish people, and it was disingenuous of Bishops to give that false impression in 1996 and allow it to continue and develop over the following years.
The Holy See continues to insist that the 1997 letter from the Congregation of the Clergy in the Vatican to the Irish Catholic Bishops did not forbid reporting of allegations to civil authorities. This continues to be completely untrue. The 1997 letter makes it very clear that such reporting gives rise to serious reservations of a canonical nature and that the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed. Such procedures make no mention of reporting the sexual abuse of children by priests to civil authorities.
The response from the Holy See refers to the absence of mandatory reporting in Irish law. Such absence does not excuse the lengths Catholic Bishops went to conceal known child sexual abuse and to protect and reassign abusers. Nor does it excuse the way Catholic Bishops misled people into thinking they were implementing child protection guidelines when clearly they were not.
It is worthy of note too that while the Holy See has taken note of the Irish Government’s intention to introduce legislation making it a ‘criminal offence to withhold information about a serious offence against a child’, it states that the prescriptions of civil law should always be followed, but it includes the qualification ‘without prejudice to the sacramental internal forum’.
Regardless of the Holy See’s reservations or observations what is important now is the child protection legislation being prepared by both the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence. The wording of such legislation will be very important and every effort must be made to ensure that no undue, unnecessary or unworthy exceptions are facilitated.
END 03/09/2011
It has been widely reported in recent months that Irish Catholic Bishops were frustrated in their attempts to implement their own child protection guidelines (1996 Framework Document) because the Congregation of the Clergy in the Vatican only considered those guidelines to be a study document. It is interesting to note from today’s Holy See response that members of the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland also shared the view that those guidelines were not binding on them at all, the only people who seemed to think that Catholic Bishops were implementing child protection guidelines were the Irish Government and the Irish people, and it was disingenuous of Bishops to give that false impression in 1996 and allow it to continue and develop over the following years.
The Holy See continues to insist that the 1997 letter from the Congregation of the Clergy in the Vatican to the Irish Catholic Bishops did not forbid reporting of allegations to civil authorities. This continues to be completely untrue. The 1997 letter makes it very clear that such reporting gives rise to serious reservations of a canonical nature and that the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed. Such procedures make no mention of reporting the sexual abuse of children by priests to civil authorities.
The response from the Holy See refers to the absence of mandatory reporting in Irish law. Such absence does not excuse the lengths Catholic Bishops went to conceal known child sexual abuse and to protect and reassign abusers. Nor does it excuse the way Catholic Bishops misled people into thinking they were implementing child protection guidelines when clearly they were not.
It is worthy of note too that while the Holy See has taken note of the Irish Government’s intention to introduce legislation making it a ‘criminal offence to withhold information about a serious offence against a child’, it states that the prescriptions of civil law should always be followed, but it includes the qualification ‘without prejudice to the sacramental internal forum’.
Regardless of the Holy See’s reservations or observations what is important now is the child protection legislation being prepared by both the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence. The wording of such legislation will be very important and every effort must be made to ensure that no undue, unnecessary or unworthy exceptions are facilitated.
END 03/09/2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Bishop John Magee
Bishop John Magee
I have just read the statement by Bishop John Magee in respect of the Cloyne Report.
The statement contains repeated apologies for the sexual abuse of children by priests in the Cloyne Diocese and for ‘the failure of the Diocese to effectively manage allegations of child sexual abuse’. It is hard to imagine such empty words being of any comfort or assistance to anyone. The fact that Bishop Magee failed to account in any way for what was revealed in the Cloyne Report does not come as any surprise. Catholic Bishops, in this country and elsewhere, have a track record of not wanting in any way to be held accountable for their actions and inactions as revealed in the various Reports.
These are some of the questions I would like Bishop Magee to have answered:
1. Why did he take little or no active interest in the management of child sexual abuse allegations from 1996 – 2008?
2. Why did he delegate so much responsibility for implementation of child protection guidelines to Monsignor O’Callaghan who did not approve of the requirement to report to civil authorities as contained therein?
3. Why did he respond to a HSE questionnaire in 2007 to the effect that the diocese reported allegations of child sexual abuse to the HSE and/or Garda Siochana in keeping with Children First when this was untrue?
4. Why did he tell the then Minister for Children Barry Andrews that the Framework Document guidelines were fully in place and were being complied with when this was untrue?
5. Why was Dr McCoy not provided with all relevant files when he was conducting a review, on behalf of the Bishops’ Conference, into the Cloyne Diocese in 2003?
6. Why did he tell the Commission of Investigation that he had not seen a copy of that (unfavourable) review until February 2009 when in fact he had been given a copy in 2004? And if he was aware of its contents, why did he ignore them?
7. How does Bishop Magee suppose that anyone have any confidence in Catholic Bishops’ claims to be implementing child protection guidelines today, when all the time that he was assuring people that he was doing so..... he was, in fact, not?
END – 22/08/2011
I have just read the statement by Bishop John Magee in respect of the Cloyne Report.
The statement contains repeated apologies for the sexual abuse of children by priests in the Cloyne Diocese and for ‘the failure of the Diocese to effectively manage allegations of child sexual abuse’. It is hard to imagine such empty words being of any comfort or assistance to anyone. The fact that Bishop Magee failed to account in any way for what was revealed in the Cloyne Report does not come as any surprise. Catholic Bishops, in this country and elsewhere, have a track record of not wanting in any way to be held accountable for their actions and inactions as revealed in the various Reports.
These are some of the questions I would like Bishop Magee to have answered:
1. Why did he take little or no active interest in the management of child sexual abuse allegations from 1996 – 2008?
2. Why did he delegate so much responsibility for implementation of child protection guidelines to Monsignor O’Callaghan who did not approve of the requirement to report to civil authorities as contained therein?
3. Why did he respond to a HSE questionnaire in 2007 to the effect that the diocese reported allegations of child sexual abuse to the HSE and/or Garda Siochana in keeping with Children First when this was untrue?
4. Why did he tell the then Minister for Children Barry Andrews that the Framework Document guidelines were fully in place and were being complied with when this was untrue?
5. Why was Dr McCoy not provided with all relevant files when he was conducting a review, on behalf of the Bishops’ Conference, into the Cloyne Diocese in 2003?
6. Why did he tell the Commission of Investigation that he had not seen a copy of that (unfavourable) review until February 2009 when in fact he had been given a copy in 2004? And if he was aware of its contents, why did he ignore them?
7. How does Bishop Magee suppose that anyone have any confidence in Catholic Bishops’ claims to be implementing child protection guidelines today, when all the time that he was assuring people that he was doing so..... he was, in fact, not?
END – 22/08/2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
Senator David Norris
In 1997 Senator David Norris wrote a letter to the Israeli High Court in an appeal for clemency for his former partner, Mr Ezra Nawi Yizhak, who was before the courts having pleaded guilty to the statutory rape of a 15 year old boy. Bishops and others in the Catholic Church, in this country and elsewhere, have protected child molesters and rapists from the criminal justice system and, even worse, left such people in positions where they had access to more children, and all too often, those who the bishops had protected went on to molest and rape more children. The usual apologists for the Catholic Church who try to equate what Senator Norris did with what the Catholic hierarchy did don’t fool me. No opportunity by such people to minimise the Catholic Church’s role in causing the sexual abuse of so many children is lost and no opportunity to give vent to their homophobia is missed.
No gutter too deep either.
Does that mean that there is no problem with Senator Norris’s letter? No it does not.
I haven’t spoken to Senator David Norris since this weekend’s revelations but before I came away on holiday yesterday, I listened to people speaking on radio who have.
I gather that Senator Norris acknowledges that his writing of that letter, in 1997, to the Israeli High Court in an appeal for clemency for his former partner, Ezra Nawi Yizhak, was wrong.
I’m glad to hear it, because it certainly was wrong.
I’m sure I’m right in saying that at least two Government ministers in recent years have had to resign from office in circumstances where they sought to intervene, in some way or other, on behalf of people who were the subject of the criminal justice system, or who were seeking to help others who were the subject of the criminal justice system.
If the same standard is to be applied to Senator Norris then it is not possible to support the view that he could hold the highest office in the land having intervened the way he did. Neither could anyone else who made similar interventions.
But my concerns about the letter go further, because Senator Norris went a lot further than just pleading for clemency. Most of Senator Norris’s pleading is on technical grounds some of which I would have to take issue with. In fact it’s more than that. What Senator Norris sought to do, whether he realised it or not, was to minimise what Mr Yizhak had done. His motivation seems to have been to try and secure a non-custodial sentence for Mr Yizhak. Unfortunately that doesn’t make it okay.
Serious offences, including statutory rape, require a custodial sentence. I don’t support calling for a non-custodial sentence in a case of this nature on the basis that the perpetrator pleaded guilty and I am surprised to read the claim in Senator Norris’s letter that in this jurisdiction such a mitigating fact would very likely result in a non-custodial sentence.
I have long been on the record as saying that possession of images of child sexual abuse should automatically attract a custodial sentence, so I can’t support a non-custodial sentence for statutory rape.
I am also perturbed to read Senator Norris refer to Mr Yizhak's guilty plea as unwise; if Mr Yizhak committed the offence then it is only right and proper that he should admit his guilt at the earliest opportunity to save the young boy, who was the victim in this case, any further distress that may be caused by further court proceedings including a trial.
Senator Norris also raised the issue of consent in mitigation by referencing studies which apparently argue that in some cases where the victim can be considered the instigator or at least a willing participant, a sentence towards the lower end of the range would be appropriate. I cannot in all conscience support the use of such an argument in mitigation by Senator Norris.
Senator David Norris was wrong to write that letter and I think in these circumstances he should withdraw from the nomination process to become President of Ireland.
END
01/08/2011
No gutter too deep either.
Does that mean that there is no problem with Senator Norris’s letter? No it does not.
I haven’t spoken to Senator David Norris since this weekend’s revelations but before I came away on holiday yesterday, I listened to people speaking on radio who have.
I gather that Senator Norris acknowledges that his writing of that letter, in 1997, to the Israeli High Court in an appeal for clemency for his former partner, Ezra Nawi Yizhak, was wrong.
I’m glad to hear it, because it certainly was wrong.
I’m sure I’m right in saying that at least two Government ministers in recent years have had to resign from office in circumstances where they sought to intervene, in some way or other, on behalf of people who were the subject of the criminal justice system, or who were seeking to help others who were the subject of the criminal justice system.
If the same standard is to be applied to Senator Norris then it is not possible to support the view that he could hold the highest office in the land having intervened the way he did. Neither could anyone else who made similar interventions.
But my concerns about the letter go further, because Senator Norris went a lot further than just pleading for clemency. Most of Senator Norris’s pleading is on technical grounds some of which I would have to take issue with. In fact it’s more than that. What Senator Norris sought to do, whether he realised it or not, was to minimise what Mr Yizhak had done. His motivation seems to have been to try and secure a non-custodial sentence for Mr Yizhak. Unfortunately that doesn’t make it okay.
Serious offences, including statutory rape, require a custodial sentence. I don’t support calling for a non-custodial sentence in a case of this nature on the basis that the perpetrator pleaded guilty and I am surprised to read the claim in Senator Norris’s letter that in this jurisdiction such a mitigating fact would very likely result in a non-custodial sentence.
I have long been on the record as saying that possession of images of child sexual abuse should automatically attract a custodial sentence, so I can’t support a non-custodial sentence for statutory rape.
I am also perturbed to read Senator Norris refer to Mr Yizhak's guilty plea as unwise; if Mr Yizhak committed the offence then it is only right and proper that he should admit his guilt at the earliest opportunity to save the young boy, who was the victim in this case, any further distress that may be caused by further court proceedings including a trial.
Senator Norris also raised the issue of consent in mitigation by referencing studies which apparently argue that in some cases where the victim can be considered the instigator or at least a willing participant, a sentence towards the lower end of the range would be appropriate. I cannot in all conscience support the use of such an argument in mitigation by Senator Norris.
Senator David Norris was wrong to write that letter and I think in these circumstances he should withdraw from the nomination process to become President of Ireland.
END
01/08/2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme (Sarah’s Law)
Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme (Sarah’s Law)
The management of sex offenders in the community post-conviction/release is an important dimension to child protection and I believe that one measure that would enhance such management is the introduction of a Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, otherwise known as Sarah’s Law.
The Gardai and the Probation Service have some responsibility for monitoring known sex offenders who are living in the community but there is a limit to how much they can do to keep children safe and every effort must be made to deal with any risk that offenders pose. Approximately half of the sex offenders released this year, in Ireland, or due for release in the coming few years are or will be subject to Post Release Supervision Orders.
Electronic tagging of some offenders is another tool that the Gardai and the Probation Service should have at their disposal to enhance their management of known sex offenders. Restrictions on an offender’s right to consume alcohol is another, some offenders only act out on their desires having consumed alcohol. Random unannounced visits to an offender’s home would also be a useful way to monitor a known offender’s activities. Currently none of these options is available to Gardai or the Probation Service.
However in addition to giving statutory bodies more powers to help keep children safe I think the case can be made for giving parents, guardians and others access to another facility to assist in helping to keep children safe, and that is the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, otherwise known as Sarah’s Law.
The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme was piloted to great effect in the Britain. The pilot scheme was started in 2008 and involved four police forces in Warwickshire, Cambridgeshire, Cleveland and Hampshire. The British Home Office said the pilot test was very successful because it had protected 60 children. Nearly 600 inquiries made to the four police forces involved led to 315 applications for information and 21 disclosures about registered child sex offenders. A further 43 cases led to other actions, including referrals to children's social care and 11 general disclosures were made regarding protection issues linked to violent offending.
As a result of this the Scheme is now being rolled out in all police forces in England and Wales.
So how does it work in?
The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme means anyone can ask for a police check on someone they are worried about by simply calling or visiting their local police. To actually make an application, they will need to visit the local police station in person where they are asked to show produce some ID, tell the police what their relationship to the child is and explain why they want to have a particular person checked.
The scheme is for anyone who wants to find out if someone in contact with a child has a record of child sexual offences. They could be a family member, friend, neighbour or anyone that’s worried about a child.
The majority of child sexual offenders are known to their victims. They are often a friend of the victim’s family, a friend of the victim, or a member of the victim’s family.
If the check shows a record for child sexual offences, or other offences that might put the child at risk, the police may share this information. However, this information will only be shared with the people best placed to protect the child. This will usually be the child’s parent, carer or guardian. The information might not be shared with the person who made the enquiry.
I think the introduction of a Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme in Ireland would be a serve as another very useful measure to help protect children.
The management of sex offenders in the community post-conviction/release is an important dimension to child protection and I believe that one measure that would enhance such management is the introduction of a Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, otherwise known as Sarah’s Law.
The Gardai and the Probation Service have some responsibility for monitoring known sex offenders who are living in the community but there is a limit to how much they can do to keep children safe and every effort must be made to deal with any risk that offenders pose. Approximately half of the sex offenders released this year, in Ireland, or due for release in the coming few years are or will be subject to Post Release Supervision Orders.
Electronic tagging of some offenders is another tool that the Gardai and the Probation Service should have at their disposal to enhance their management of known sex offenders. Restrictions on an offender’s right to consume alcohol is another, some offenders only act out on their desires having consumed alcohol. Random unannounced visits to an offender’s home would also be a useful way to monitor a known offender’s activities. Currently none of these options is available to Gardai or the Probation Service.
However in addition to giving statutory bodies more powers to help keep children safe I think the case can be made for giving parents, guardians and others access to another facility to assist in helping to keep children safe, and that is the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, otherwise known as Sarah’s Law.
The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme was piloted to great effect in the Britain. The pilot scheme was started in 2008 and involved four police forces in Warwickshire, Cambridgeshire, Cleveland and Hampshire. The British Home Office said the pilot test was very successful because it had protected 60 children. Nearly 600 inquiries made to the four police forces involved led to 315 applications for information and 21 disclosures about registered child sex offenders. A further 43 cases led to other actions, including referrals to children's social care and 11 general disclosures were made regarding protection issues linked to violent offending.
As a result of this the Scheme is now being rolled out in all police forces in England and Wales.
So how does it work in?
The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme means anyone can ask for a police check on someone they are worried about by simply calling or visiting their local police. To actually make an application, they will need to visit the local police station in person where they are asked to show produce some ID, tell the police what their relationship to the child is and explain why they want to have a particular person checked.
The scheme is for anyone who wants to find out if someone in contact with a child has a record of child sexual offences. They could be a family member, friend, neighbour or anyone that’s worried about a child.
The majority of child sexual offenders are known to their victims. They are often a friend of the victim’s family, a friend of the victim, or a member of the victim’s family.
If the check shows a record for child sexual offences, or other offences that might put the child at risk, the police may share this information. However, this information will only be shared with the people best placed to protect the child. This will usually be the child’s parent, carer or guardian. The information might not be shared with the person who made the enquiry.
I think the introduction of a Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme in Ireland would be a serve as another very useful measure to help protect children.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Cloyne Report
In 1996 the Catholic Church in Ireland published its new guidelines Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response (the 1996 Guidelines). It was widely reported at that time that all allegations of child sexual abuse against Catholic priests that were brought to the attention of any Diocese in the country would be reported to the civil authorities from that point on. I did my best to point out at that time that what the 1996 Guidelines actually said was that where it was known or suspected that a priest or religious had sexually abused a child the matter should be reported to civil authorities. I was concerned at the time that the qualification of knowing or suspecting that abuse of a child had actually taken place was a loophole that would be taken advantage of. On reading the Murphy Report some 14 years later I could see that my concerns were well founded.
In addition, more recently it was learned that only 1 year after the Guidelines were published, the Vatican let it be known to the bishops that if the Guidelines were applied the consequences could be highly embarrassing for them. That same correspondence also stated that the 1996 Guidelines were only a study document and that the procedures followed must instead be those in accordance with canon law.
At no time did Irish Catholic bishops move this information into the public domain, quite the opposite. Even after publication of the Murphy Report bishops continued to claim that their covering up of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests ceased in 1996 on publication of the new Guidelines, even though the Murphy Report itself contained many examples of this being completely untrue.
Now we have publication of the Cloyne Report: a representative sample of allegations of child sexual abuse made against 19 Catholic priests in the Diocese of Cloyne over the 13 year period 1996 - 2009. The Report found allegations against 33 priests.
So how did the Catholic Church in Cloyne handle these allegations? Were all allegations reported to civil authorities as people were led to believe in 1996?
No they were not. We learn in this Report that the response of the Diocese of Cloyne to complaints and allegations of clerical child sexual abuse in the period 1996 to 2008 was inadequate and inappropriate. The principal feature of this Report can be simply expressed. The Diocese of Cloyne accepted the Framework Document and promised to implement it. It did not do so. On the contrary, Bishop Magee appears to have taken little real interest in its implementation for 12 years. He allowed the authority of the diocese in this regard to be exercised for that period by others, in particular Monsignor O’Callaghan. Monsignor O’Callaghan acted in what he perceived to be the best interests of the Church. Bishop Magee told the Minister for Children that the Framework Document guidelines were fully in place and were being fully complied with. This was false. The same must be said of his assurances to the HSE given in 2007.
It is clear to the Commission that the Diocese of Cloyne, while ostensibly supportive of the procedures outlined in the Framework Document, was never genuinely committed to their implementation. The main person involved, Monsignor O’Callaghan, clearly was not fully supportive of the procedures. It is, therefore, not surprising that the procedures were never properly implemented. Bishop Magee must take primary responsibility for the failure to implement the procedures.
During all of this time, Catholic bishops were hiding behind the 1996 Guidelines or their subsequent replacements. This has implications for child protection and safety today in the context of the Catholic Church. The Church’s current procedures Safeguarding Children are derived from and compliant with the State’s child protection guidelines Children First. But as today’s Report clearly shows, publishing guidelines is no proof that they are being implemented at local, diocesan or national level. Catholic bishops did set up the National Board for Safeguarding Children: a primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were appropriate. However we learned in May of this year from the National Board’s Annual Report that this process was stopped, after a review of only 3 Dioceses had taken place, because the bishops would not co-operate, citing data protection concerns. The Data Protection Commissioner however has confirmed that there is no data protection concern that hinders the bishops’ from co-operating with the National Board’s review.
It came as no surprise to me to read in the National Board’s Annual Report that as part of the agreement, which only now has apparently secured the bishops’ co-operation, the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only with the consent of the bishops. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops. Imagine HIQA being similarly constrained by the HSE. A genuine data protection concern would have been resolved with a genuine data protection solution, not one where bishops get to control a National Board while at the same time trying to pass it off as independent.
I don’t mean to give the impression that I have huge confidence in any review process set up by the Catholic Church. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia was investigated by a Grand Jury Investigation and its Report, published in 2003, made very similar reading to the Murphy Report, with the same tactics employed there to conceal known child sexual abuse by catholic priests. Yet despite those revelations and the fact that the Catholic Church in the United States set up national and local review boards to appraise their child protection and reporting practices, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia still went on to leave a further 37 priests in ministry despite credible allegations of child sexual abuse having been made against them, and the review boards were completely unaware of this because this information had been successfully hidden from them.
Here in Ireland, with the publication of the Cloyne Report, it is proven yet again that the Catholic Church is not an organisation that can be trusted with the safety, welfare and protection of children. I have no doubt that at a local level there are people working hard to make sure that child protection practices are to a high standard within their parishes, but we don’t know how widespread good or bad practice is at parish level.
A second Grand Jury in Philadelphia, this year, made several recommendations but I want to draw your attention to their final recommendation:
Report sexual abuse allegations directly to law enforcement authorities. The horrors inflicted … by sexual predators not only wound bodies, rob innocence, and betray faith. They also violate laws. As crime victims, those injured by sexually compulsive priests should do what victims of criminals in any other profession should do – contact law enforcement authorities.
In some circumstances, introducing law enforcement into the equation might also help change the calculations both of sexual predators and those who would grant them revered positions with access to children.
With occasional exceptions, Catholic Bishops cannot be trusted with allegations of child sexual abuse.
Andrew Madden
Author Altar Boy, A Story of Life After Abuse
twitter.com/andrewmmadden
facebook.com/andrewmarkmadden
In addition, more recently it was learned that only 1 year after the Guidelines were published, the Vatican let it be known to the bishops that if the Guidelines were applied the consequences could be highly embarrassing for them. That same correspondence also stated that the 1996 Guidelines were only a study document and that the procedures followed must instead be those in accordance with canon law.
At no time did Irish Catholic bishops move this information into the public domain, quite the opposite. Even after publication of the Murphy Report bishops continued to claim that their covering up of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests ceased in 1996 on publication of the new Guidelines, even though the Murphy Report itself contained many examples of this being completely untrue.
Now we have publication of the Cloyne Report: a representative sample of allegations of child sexual abuse made against 19 Catholic priests in the Diocese of Cloyne over the 13 year period 1996 - 2009. The Report found allegations against 33 priests.
So how did the Catholic Church in Cloyne handle these allegations? Were all allegations reported to civil authorities as people were led to believe in 1996?
No they were not. We learn in this Report that the response of the Diocese of Cloyne to complaints and allegations of clerical child sexual abuse in the period 1996 to 2008 was inadequate and inappropriate. The principal feature of this Report can be simply expressed. The Diocese of Cloyne accepted the Framework Document and promised to implement it. It did not do so. On the contrary, Bishop Magee appears to have taken little real interest in its implementation for 12 years. He allowed the authority of the diocese in this regard to be exercised for that period by others, in particular Monsignor O’Callaghan. Monsignor O’Callaghan acted in what he perceived to be the best interests of the Church. Bishop Magee told the Minister for Children that the Framework Document guidelines were fully in place and were being fully complied with. This was false. The same must be said of his assurances to the HSE given in 2007.
It is clear to the Commission that the Diocese of Cloyne, while ostensibly supportive of the procedures outlined in the Framework Document, was never genuinely committed to their implementation. The main person involved, Monsignor O’Callaghan, clearly was not fully supportive of the procedures. It is, therefore, not surprising that the procedures were never properly implemented. Bishop Magee must take primary responsibility for the failure to implement the procedures.
During all of this time, Catholic bishops were hiding behind the 1996 Guidelines or their subsequent replacements. This has implications for child protection and safety today in the context of the Catholic Church. The Church’s current procedures Safeguarding Children are derived from and compliant with the State’s child protection guidelines Children First. But as today’s Report clearly shows, publishing guidelines is no proof that they are being implemented at local, diocesan or national level. Catholic bishops did set up the National Board for Safeguarding Children: a primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were appropriate. However we learned in May of this year from the National Board’s Annual Report that this process was stopped, after a review of only 3 Dioceses had taken place, because the bishops would not co-operate, citing data protection concerns. The Data Protection Commissioner however has confirmed that there is no data protection concern that hinders the bishops’ from co-operating with the National Board’s review.
It came as no surprise to me to read in the National Board’s Annual Report that as part of the agreement, which only now has apparently secured the bishops’ co-operation, the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only with the consent of the bishops. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops. Imagine HIQA being similarly constrained by the HSE. A genuine data protection concern would have been resolved with a genuine data protection solution, not one where bishops get to control a National Board while at the same time trying to pass it off as independent.
I don’t mean to give the impression that I have huge confidence in any review process set up by the Catholic Church. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia was investigated by a Grand Jury Investigation and its Report, published in 2003, made very similar reading to the Murphy Report, with the same tactics employed there to conceal known child sexual abuse by catholic priests. Yet despite those revelations and the fact that the Catholic Church in the United States set up national and local review boards to appraise their child protection and reporting practices, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia still went on to leave a further 37 priests in ministry despite credible allegations of child sexual abuse having been made against them, and the review boards were completely unaware of this because this information had been successfully hidden from them.
Here in Ireland, with the publication of the Cloyne Report, it is proven yet again that the Catholic Church is not an organisation that can be trusted with the safety, welfare and protection of children. I have no doubt that at a local level there are people working hard to make sure that child protection practices are to a high standard within their parishes, but we don’t know how widespread good or bad practice is at parish level.
A second Grand Jury in Philadelphia, this year, made several recommendations but I want to draw your attention to their final recommendation:
Report sexual abuse allegations directly to law enforcement authorities. The horrors inflicted … by sexual predators not only wound bodies, rob innocence, and betray faith. They also violate laws. As crime victims, those injured by sexually compulsive priests should do what victims of criminals in any other profession should do – contact law enforcement authorities.
In some circumstances, introducing law enforcement into the equation might also help change the calculations both of sexual predators and those who would grant them revered positions with access to children.
With occasional exceptions, Catholic Bishops cannot be trusted with allegations of child sexual abuse.
Andrew Madden
Author Altar Boy, A Story of Life After Abuse
twitter.com/andrewmmadden
facebook.com/andrewmarkmadden
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
NBSC Annual Report 2010
The National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church today published its Annual Report for 2010.
A primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were properly handled. It is with considerable concern that I read in today’s Report that this process was stopped after a review of only 3 Dioceses because the Bishops’ Conference, the Conference of Religious of Ireland and the Irish Missionary Union (the Sponsoring Bodies) apparently received legal advice to the effect that they should not co-operate with this review, despite the fact that those same organisations were responsible for setting it up in the first place. This non-cooperation has impaired the work of the Board in respect of this review for almost a year and has only now been resolved.
It is shocking to read in today’s Report that as part of the agreement which secured the Sponsoring Bodies co-operation the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese or other Church authority: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only the consent of the head of the Diocese or authority. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops.
It is also of great concern to read that the National Board’s ability to track the national picture of safeguarding in the Catholic Church was adversely affected throughout the year by reporting deficits by the Dioceses and other Church authorities.
In response to today’s revelations I urge the Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald to introduce legislation to put the Children First Guidelines on a statutory basis as a matter of absolute urgency. This should be speedily followed by the introduction of a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First.
End 11/05/2011
A primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were properly handled. It is with considerable concern that I read in today’s Report that this process was stopped after a review of only 3 Dioceses because the Bishops’ Conference, the Conference of Religious of Ireland and the Irish Missionary Union (the Sponsoring Bodies) apparently received legal advice to the effect that they should not co-operate with this review, despite the fact that those same organisations were responsible for setting it up in the first place. This non-cooperation has impaired the work of the Board in respect of this review for almost a year and has only now been resolved.
It is shocking to read in today’s Report that as part of the agreement which secured the Sponsoring Bodies co-operation the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese or other Church authority: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only the consent of the head of the Diocese or authority. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops.
It is also of great concern to read that the National Board’s ability to track the national picture of safeguarding in the Catholic Church was adversely affected throughout the year by reporting deficits by the Dioceses and other Church authorities.
In response to today’s revelations I urge the Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald to introduce legislation to put the Children First Guidelines on a statutory basis as a matter of absolute urgency. This should be speedily followed by the introduction of a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First.
End 11/05/2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)