Bishop Terence Brain - 4 Unanswered Letters 1 Oct 2008 to 15 Jan 2009

18 Dean Head,
Littleborough
OL15 9LZ

1 October 2008

Open letter to the Right Reverend Terence Brain, Bishop of Salford

Dear Bishop Brain,

Laicisation of Salford Diocesan priests convicted of criminal offences against children and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.

At the outset, I wish to emphasise that I would have preferred to have been able to raise the questions below in less public correspondence with you. However, I have, already, written several letters to you about related matters, since September 2007. You have replied to none of these, and I have, therefore, decided to make this letter available to others who may share my concerns about these matters.

o Will you be initiating the process of laicisation in the case of Father William Green, sentenced 1 October 2008?

o Have you initiated the process of laicisation in the case of Father Thomas Doherty, sentenced February 1998?

As a parent and a parishioner in the Diocese of Salford, I have been shocked to read reports, since January 2008 regarding sexual offences against children committed by Father William Green, who was until his arrest on 17 December 2007, the parish priest of the Holy Family Roman Catholic Church, Wigan. At the same time, I have been very heartened by the courage of victims and survivors in exposing Father Green’s crimes.

Father Green’s many offences of indecent assault and indecency with children are reported to have been committed between 1968 and 1987, whilst he was working at St Bedes College, Manchester (See http://www.wigantoday.net/wigannews/Priest-on-sex-abuse-charges.3996468.jp ; http://www.wigantoday.net/wigannews/Priest-on-38-boy-sex.4224679.jp and http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1063189_priest_admits_abuse ). These dates, appear to span a period starting five years prior to his ordination as a priest in April 1973 and continuing for at least 14 years after this.

In reference to these alarming events, I note the following:

1. In November 2001, you and all the other Roman Catholic Bishops in England and Wales committed all Dioceses to full implementation of the recommendations made by Lord Nolan’s report A programme for action. Final report of the independent review on child protection in the Catholic Church in England and Wales, (available at http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/NolanReport.pdf);
2. Lord Nolan’s recommendations included Recommendation 78,

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. Initiation of the process of laicisation may also be appropriate in other circumstances. (Nolan, 2001, 3.5.32, p44).

3. In her report of July 2007, Safeguarding with Confidence, (available at http://www.cathcom.org/mysharedaccounts/cumberlege/report/Chapter2.asp?Section=2&FontSize=13 ) reviewing implementation of Lord Nolan’s recommendations, Baroness Cumberlege says that “there can be no going back to a pre Nolan mindset” and recommends that Bishops “… should publicly declare and renew their affirmation of the One Church approach to safeguarding children, young people and vulnerable adults through the promotion of a sustained and sustainable culture of constant vigilance.(P18);

4. Pope Benedict XVI told you and others in Australia, on 18 July 2008,

I would like to pause to acknowledge the shame which we have all felt as a result of the sexual abuse of minors by some clergy … I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured and I assure them that, as their pastor, I too share in their suffering. These misdeeds, which constitute so grave a betrayal of trust, deserve unequivocal condemnation.

(See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/20/catholicism.australia?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews ),

having previously said on the plane to Sydney, “It must be clear, it was always clear from the first centuries that priesthood, to be a priest, is incompatible with this behaviour…” (See http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=8303 ).

5. There is a very significant difference between a priest’s laicisation and his being prevented from giving public ministry by a Bishop. (As you know, the latter does not change a priest’s Canonical status or standing within the Roman Catholic Church.)

Father Green was convicted at Manchester Crown Court in August 2008 of 27 criminal offences against children and sentenced this morning

(1 October 2008) to serve a term of imprisonment of 6 years. (See http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1069987_pervert_priest_jailed).

I might, therefore, have assumed that as Bishop of Salford, you will soon be initiating the process of laicisation in Father Green’s case. However,

as far as I know, the people of the Diocese have never been informed whether or not Father Thomas Doherty, former parish priest of St Joseph’s

in Todmorden has ever been laicized. You will recall that Father Doherty was, also, sentenced to 6 years imprisonment in 1998 for five offences

of indecency against a boy under 16 (For transcripts of contemporary newspaper reports, please see http://caads.blogspot.com/ ).

Consequently, I cannot, in conscience, leave the following questions unasked,

· Will you be initiating the process of laicisation in the case of Father Green?

· What is Father Doherty’s current Canonical status?

I look forward to reading your reply.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Gilligan

18 Dean Head

Littleborough

OL15 9LZ

1 January 2009

Dear Bishop Brain,

I refer to my letter of 1 October 2008 (copy attached), and note that after three months you have, again, failed to respond to my enquiries in any way.

As a parishioner in the Diocese of Salford who makes financial contributions to it as a registered charity, I would have expected some response by now.

I need to know

1. Whether and how the policies which you have publicly announced that you will follow in relation to the protection and safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults have been and are, in fact, being followed in the Diocese of Salford?

2. Whether you have acted on your commitment, made in November 2001, to fully implement the recommendations of Lord Nolan’s 2001 report, A programme for action. Final report of the independent review on child protection in the Catholic Church in England and Wales?

3. Whether you have acted and/or will act in accordance with Recommendation 78 of A programme for action, in relation to Father Thomas Doherty and Father William Green?

4. Whether any of the financial contributions which I have made to the Diocese of Salford have been and / or are being used directly or indirectly to support Father Thomas Doherty?

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Gilligan

Copy to:

Paul Fry, Caseworker, Charity Commission, Harmsworth House13-15 Bouverie Street
London, EC4Y 8DP

18 Dean Head,

Littleborough

OL15 9LZ

8 January 2009

Dear Bishop Brain,

Thomas Doherty and William Green – Laicisation, etc.

Further to my unanswered letters to you of 1 October 2008 and 1 January 2009 (see copies below), I have been advised by Isabel de Bertodano, Home News Editor of The Tablet that she spoke to Fr O’Sullivan about these matters on 6 January 2009. She reports

I spoke to Barry O'Sullivan at the child protection commission and he says that Doherty has effectively been laicised - he's banned from ministry and from using his clerical title or dress. He's renting a house from the diocese but is apparently using his pension and sick benefit (he has cancer) to do that - he doesn't receive diocesan money. Green has been asked by the vicar general to apply for laicisation and has agreed to do so. Fr O'Sullivan also told me that the Charity Commission had been to visit the diocese and had raised the matter of your complaint and had gone away satisfied that all was in order.

In light of this, I wish to make the following observations and to pose several questions to you.

1. I very much welcome the news that "Green has been asked by the vicar general to apply for laicisation and has agreed to do so." At the same time, I find it remarkable that as a parishioner in the diocese who has asked you for information about this matter, I have obtained it only thanks to the intervention of a journalist. Have you also given this important information to Green’s victims and former parishioners?

2. I note that Doherty has not, in fact, been laicised and, therefore, retains his canonical status as a priest. Have his former parishioners been made aware of this? Since Doherty’s conviction in 1998, has the vicar general or anyone else ever asked him to apply for laicisation?

3. I note that in Doherty’s case, at least, the diocese appears not to have followed recommendation 78 of A programme for action. Final report of the independent review on child protection in the Catholic Church in England and Wales, despite the announcements made in 2001 and since. Are you, in fact, committed to implementing the recommendations of A programme for action?

4. I note that Doherty is reported by Fr O’Sullivan to be “renting a house from the diocese”. In light of this, as a parishioner making financial contributions to the Diocese of Salford, I need to ask, whether Doherty is paying a ‘market’ rent set according to the value of this property or a ‘nominal’ rent with the result that his housing costs are being effectively subsidised by the diocese and by the voluntary contributions made to it by parishioners such as myself?

5. On 7 January 2009, I was advised by Iain Hewitt, Head of Special Investigations at the Charity Commission that he will endeavour to provide me with a response as soon as possible in relation to the matters I have raised with them. From this, I assume that their investigations are, in fact, not yet completed.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Gilligan

18 Dean Head,

Littleborough

OL15 9LZ

15 January 2009

Dear Bishop Brain or representative,

Unanswered questions about Thomas Doherty, former parish priest of St Joseph’s, Todmorden, sentenced in 1998 to 6 years imprisonment for five offences of indecency against a boy under 16 (For transcripts of contemporary newspaper reports, please see http://caads.blogspot.com/ ).

Subsequent to my letters and e-mails of 1 October 2008 and 1 and 8 January 2009, I have, now, received some helpful information from Fr Paul Hayward, Editor of Canon Law Abstracts.

I wrote to Fr Hayward seeking clarification of the content of what Isabel de Bertodano, Home News Editor of The Tablet reported Fr Barry O’Sullivan as telling her on 6 January 2009, i.e. “that Doherty has effectively been laicised - he's banned from ministry and from using his clerical title or dress.”

Yesterday (14 January 2009), Fr Hayward advised me, in writing, as follows,

“Perhaps the first point to make is that there is no such thing in canon law as “laicisation”. The laity have their own status, vocation and mission in the Church, with the rights and duties set out in canons 224-231 of the Code of Canon Law, and it is inappropriate (and demeaning to the laity) to think that the lay status could in any way be regarded as a “penalty” for a priest who has failed in his own duties.

Canon 290 makes it clear that sacred ordination validly received never becomes invalid: once a priest, always a priest. A priest can however be penalised with dismissal from the “clerical state”, which according to canon 292 means that he loses the rights proper to that state and is no longer bound by its obligations (although he is still bound to celibacy); he is also prohibited from exercising the power of order, so that he can’t carry out any priestly functions (save in the exceptional situation of a person in danger of death needing to receive absolution).

So the term “effectively laicised” doesn’t really have any meaning. It would be better to use more accurate terminology, and it is understandable that it has caused you confusion.”

From this and from the fact that Fr O’Sullivan used a term which Fr Hayward views as not really having any meaning, I am left to conclude,

1. That Doherty has not, in fact, been dismissed from the “clerical state”, according to canon 292
2. That Doherty has never been ‘laicised’ as would have been expected if you had acted on your declared commitment of November 2001 to implement the recommendations of the Nolan Report / A programme for action, in full.
3. That Doherty’s former parishioners and others in the diocese urgently need to be disabused (preferably by you or your representatives in a clear and open manner) of their mistaken belief that Doherty is no longer a priest.

I hope that Fr O’Sullivan was not intending to obscure the situation regarding Doherty’s clerical state when he spoke to Isabel de Bertodano, last week, and that you or your representative will, now, wish to clarify whether Doherty has or has not been dismissed from the clerical state. (I do not understand what Fr O’Sullivan meant when he said of Doherty, “he's banned from ministry”? Does this mean ‘public’ ministry or all ministry? Is he, for example, allowed to celebrate mass, in private?)

As always, I look forward to reading your comments on this matter and hope that on this occasion you will answer my queries.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Gilligan