Safeguarding Commission refuses to say whether perpetrator has been laicised

William Green the former parish priest of Holy Family Roman Catholic Church, Wigan was arrested on 27 December 2007. In August 2008 he was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of 26 offences of indecent assault. 

On 1 October 2008, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment (Case No: T20080502).  

In 2008, the Manchester Evening News reported, “Father William Green 67, had pleaded guilty to 27 assaults on six - boys aged between 11 and 15 at St Bede's School in Alexandra Park while head of religious education, and a deputy prefect there, and assault on an eight year old at a different school at which he had previously taught. 

Passing sentence, Judge Clement Goldstone told Green "You systematically and sexually abused these boys, who were vulnerable and impressionable, and they were groomed by you for the purposes of your own sexual gratification." You abused them in school, on school trips and on church-related activities, and you procured the trust and respect of families of several of your victims. You breached their trust and friendship remorsefully and repeatedly.” (see http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1069987_pervert_priest_jailed)

Subsequently, in September 2010 “church chiefs vowed that (Green) would never minister to the public again” and a spokesperson for the Diocese of Salford said “William Green is in the process of being laicised.” A former parishioner said “It is an absolute disgrace that this man should still be part of the Roman Catholic clergy.” (see http://www.wigantoday.net/news/sex_beast_still_a_priest_1_1545444 )

Then in December 2010, a spokesperson for the Diocese said that the laicisation was on-going and was out of their hands. (see http://www.wigantoday.net/news/paedo_priest_anger_1_2866892)

However, nothing has been said since December 2010 about Green’s laicisation. Therefore on 2 May 2012, I wrote to the Diocese of Salford Safeguarding Commission and asked,

·         Has Green yet been dismissed from the clerical state under Canon 290?

·         Has Green yet lost his right to be a potential beneficiary of a potential beneficiary of a bishop’s obligations under Canon 384 “to ensure that” he is “provided with adequate means of livelihood and social welfare, in accordance with the law”?

Yesterday (9 May 2012), I received a reply from Michael Devlin, the Chair of the Diocese of Salford Safeguarding Commission. He wrote,

“You will be aware it is not our policy to comment on individual cases, and we shall not be responding to your correspondence accordingly, nor will Ms Lundergan when she is in post.

I have responded today (10 May 2012) saying,

“Dear Mr Devlin,

 Thank you for you e-mail of 9 May 2012.

I note your refusal to tell me whether Father William Green, the former parish 

priest of Holy Family, Wigan has been laicised, as would be expected given 

recommendation 78 of the Nolan Committee's report and the fact that Father 

Green was convicted in August 2008 of 26 offences of indecent assault 

against children and sentenced in October 2008 to 6 years imprisonment.

In light of your refusal to tell me whether Green has been laicised, I would 

ask you, as Chair of the Diocese of Salford Safeguarding Commission, to 

please respond to the following  queries,   

1. Could you please tell me where I can access a copy of the Diocese of 

Salford Safeguarding Commission's policy regarding commenting on cases 

of diocesan priests who have been convicted of offences against children?

2. Could you please explain to me how  your refusal to give information 

about whether Father William Green has been laicised is consistent with 

the previous willingness of the Diocese to tell the press, in September 2010, 

that "William Green is in the process of being laicised" 

(see   http://www.wigantoday.net/news/local-news/sex-beast-still-a-priest-1-1545444 ) 

and, in December 2010, to tell them that  "the laicisation was on-going and 

was out of their hands. Green was asked by the Diocese of Salford in January 

2009 to apply for laicisation, which he did. The application went to the Bishop, 

who then sent it to Rome to be considered by the Congregation for the Defence 

of the Faith (CDF)" (http://www.wigantoday.net/news/paedo_priest_anger_1_2866892 ).

3. Could you please, also, explain to me how your refusal to give information 

about whether Father William Green has been laicised is consistent with your 

willingness during the meeting which you had with Mike Harding and Paul 

Malpas on 10 September 2010 (see http://www.mediafire.com/?se3udyzz3jql7gr 

for an audio recording) to volunteer several pieces of detailed information 

about Green's case apparently entirely at your own volition?

4. Could you please tell me when Ms Lundergan is taking up her role as 

the new safeguarding coordinator?

I look forward to your reply.

 Yours sincerely,

 Philip Gilligan”

Presentation at BAPSCAN Congress, Belfast 18 April 2012

see http://www.baspcan.org.uk/files/Gilligan%20Philip%20W43%20Wed%209.00.pdf

THE STONES CRY OUT: REPORT ON THE MACSAS SURVEY 2010

To read the MACSAS report, please see

http://www.macsas.org.uk/PDFs/News/macsas_survey2010/MACSAS_SurveyReportMay2011.pdf

There is specific reference to Salford on page P86

Amongst a wealth of information and very thorough and careful analysis, the MACSAS report concludes generally that

"... there has yet to be any radical change to the denial and minimisation of child sexual abuse seen within the Catholic Church over the past two decades." (P 79, paragraph 2.1.2.74)

To 'Anonymous' commenting on 'Getting a life?'

I have read your comments with great interest but noted the request not to publish them on the blog. If you wish to contact me directlyto discuss what could be published and/or you wish to identify yourself to me, in confidence, you can do so by e-mailing me at philipgilligan@lineone.net (I suspect that you have hit the nail on the head!)

Thanks
Philip

Getting a life?

I was fascinated by M. Hoyle’s letter suggesting that he or she knows all that needs to be known about Bishop Terence Brain’s failure to ensure that Father Thomas Doherty was laicised (removed from the clerical state) following his conviction in 1998 for five offences of indecency against a boy under 16 years (‘Time to get a life’, 1 June 2011).

Unfortunately, M. Hoyle presents a rather selective and somewhat misinformed account of the relevant facts and would be well advised to revisit the contemporary news reports and other information that is readily available about these matters at http://caads.blogspot.com/ and elsewhere.

M. Hoyle writes that “the priest at Todmorden was removed from the parish as soon as Bishop Brain was made aware of the allegations against him.” However, M. Hoyle does not mention other pertinent facts. For example, the Todmorden News reported on 27 February 1998 that “Priests saw Father Doherty's obscene photographs of a young boy months before telling the police.” and that “Three months passed before police were informed after the alarm was raised …” The Todmorden News noted “a strong feeling amongst the Catholic community that many questions remain unanswered” and reported that Father Hickford who had found the original evidence “immediately went to his superior, Dean Leo Heakin of St John the Baptist Church, Burnley, … But Dean Heakin did nothing.” (see http://caads.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=2 ).

M. Hoyle claims that “the priest died before Bishop Brain could finish the job and laicise him.” M. Hoyle does not comment on the admission by the Chair of the Salford Safeguarding Commission, Michael Devlin, at a meeting in September 2010 that Bishop Brain had not pursued Doherty’s laicisation, despite Doherty giving him authority to do so (see http://www.mediafire.com/?se3udyzz3jql7gr for an audio-recording of the meeting. The section concerning Doherty’s case is approx. four minutes long and starts approx. 33 minutes into the recording). Nor does M. Hoyle explain why during the nine years following his promise, in November 2001, to implement the recommendations of the Nolan Report, Bishop Brain did not send the relevant request to the Vatican or justify his decision not to do so.

M. Hoyle says “we all know”, but does not explain how we are supposed know the things he or she asserts. When has Bishop Brain or those he commissions ever provided full and accurate information to the people of the Diocese of Salford about Father Doherty? When, until the facts leaked out in September 2010 (see http://www.todmordennews.co.uk/news/convicted_priest_was_never_laicised_1_1997754 ) had Bishop Brain or those he commissions ever said anything to correct the widespread and mistaken impression that Doherty had been laicised?

Perhaps, Bishop Brain responds when M. Hoyle asks him questions. However, Bishop Brain has never responded to any of the questions I have asked him, in good faith and as a concerned parishioner and parent. I wrote to Bishop Brain, in October 2008, as soon as I became doubtful about whether Doherty had been laicised or whether he had, in fact, remained - according to the Church - ‘alter Christus’ (another Christ). Several letters later and, despite advice from the papal nuncio and Archbishop (now Cardinal) Vincent Nicholls that this was a matter for my diocesan bishop, I have yet to receive any acknowledgement of my letters, let alone any answers, from Bishop Brain.

M. Hoyle concludes by saying “We all know what happened.” I can only respond by saying ‘Yes, we do all know what happened and continues to happen. In November 2001, Bishop Brain, along with all the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, told us all that “If a bishop, 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, then it would normally be right to initiate the process of laicisation. Failure to do so would need to be justified.” (see http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/NolanReport.pdf 3.5.32, p44). However, this did not happen in the case of Doherty and has continued not to happen in other cases of Salford diocesan priests, such as William Green (see http://www.wigantoday.net/news/paedo_priest_anger_1_2866892 ), convicted of abusing children.’ I will continue to ask 'why?' I suggest that M. Hoyle should do the same.

Philip Gilligan

Something to see here?

Thankfully, I enjoy a rather busy life, and, as a result, I had been blissfully unaware of David Hawkins' letter ('Nothing to see here', 21 May 2011), until a friend kindly alerted me to it.

I have now found time to read David's letter and did so with increasing bewilderment. David suggests that I should consider apologising to the parishioners of St Joseph's in Todmorden, but gives no explanation as to why he thinks I should do so. David refers to my own earlier letter ('Appeal for defrocking', 18 May 2011), but, as can be seen by anyone who cares to access the copy available at http://caads.blogspot.com/, this letter contained no reference whatsoever to the parishioners of St Joseph's and, certainly no criticism of them. Indeed, I am very happy to say that I have always had respect for the people of my neighbouring parish and most especially for those who were active in persuading the Diocese of Salford to eventually act on parishioners' concerns about Father Thomas Doherty in 1997.

My letter did, however, criticise Bishop Terence Brain of Salford for his failure, for more than a decade, to initiate the process of laicisation in Doherty's case, despite his promise to follow the recommendations of the Nolan Report (2001) and despite Doherty having been sentenced to six years imprisonment for offences against a child. My letter also referred to the fact that Bishop Brain's failure to take the necessary action had only come to light in September 2010.

If any apology is required, it surely needs to come from Bishop Brain; firstly for failing to act on his and his fellow bishops' well publicised claim that they would normally initiate the process of laicisation in the case of priests convicted of a criminal offence against children and sentenced to 12 months or more imprisonment and, secondly, for allowing parishioners throughout the Diocese of Salford to think that Doherty had been laicised, when, in fact, the Church had allowed him to retain his canonical status as a priest and, therefore, to remain, according to its teachings, 'alter Christus' (another Christ).

Philip Gilligan

'Appeal for defrocking' - Rochdale Observer 18 May 2011