Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog provides information about the actions and inaction of the Diocese of Salford in cases where their priests have been convicted of criminal offences involving the abuse of children. It highlights cases such as that of William Green, former parish priest of Holy Family, Wigan who was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for 27 offences against children aged between eight and 16 years, in 2008, but who had not been laicised (dismissed from the clerical state)two years later.
“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).
Search This Blog
See Paul Malpas' blog for info about Duggan & the struggle to get acknowledgement for victims
Meeting at St Chad's Manchester - 10 September 2010 (NB. Be sure to click on 'Download' asap)
Paedophile priests remain in Catholic church - Channel 4 News - 15 September 2010
Concerned About Abuse in the Catholic Church in England and Wales
Transcript of reports re. Thomas Doherty
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(19)
-
▼
March
(7)
- Covered up for too long - Rochdale Observer 30 Mar...
- Apology for Manchester abuse long overdue - letter...
- Duggan Case Reported on BBC Radio 4 'Sunday' Progr...
- Making the Church face up to the truth of abuse
- Why did it take until 2011 when they had "heard s...
- Bishop of Salford forced to apologise
- Mike Harding takes on the Catholic church
-
▼
March
(7)
9 comments:
This letter needs to be in all the National Newspapers and online too.
It a long hill we are climbing, BUT we will get there!
Am i to understand that Bill Green is still getting paid?
There is probably no way of knowing whether Green is currently receiving any payment from the diocese. However, under canon 384, a bishop is obliged with regard to diocesan priests continuing to hold the canonical status of priest “to ensure that they are provided with adequate means of livelihood and social welfare, in accordance with the law”, while, in relation to Doherty, Fr Barry O'Sullivan was quoted by the Todmorden News in September 2010 as saying "We would normally laicise someone who had been jailed for 12 months or more, as is our policy, but Mr Doherty was suspended from being a priest for life and was monitored by the church. We took the brunt of that and the church paid towards it". Interestingly, the same Fr Barry O'Sullivan was reported by the home affairs editor of the Tablet in January 2009 as telling her that Doherty was "renting a house from the diocese", but that "he doesn't receive diocesan money.”, so it is asomewhat obscure exactly what the church paid for. However, they clearly paid for something!
Laicisation is undertaken by Rome and out of the hands of the individual diocese.
As I am sure Mr Gilligan is aware, it is far better when an abuser is released from prison that where he is is known at all times and his behaviour able to be monitored.
It has been considered sensible that a suspended/laicised priest be placed under the oversight of a diocesan or religious authority so that he be more easily and appropriately managed and monitored by the Offender Service. Surely this is more important as it helps prevent further abuse. It is better to be sure the authorities know where these men are, which is true as those released under diocesan/religious authorities are in partnership with the police and probation authorities. If this means their bills have to be paid then that seems a price worth paying.
‘Gerard’ offers a series of assertions that need to be set in context and considered alongside relevant facts.
1. He claims that “Laicisation is undertaken by Rome and out of the hands of the individual diocese.” However, as I am sure ‘Gerard’ is aware, bishops are expected to initiate the process of laicisation and when, as in the case of Father Thomas Doherty, former parish priest of St Joseph’s, Todmorden, the bishop (in Doherty’s case, Bishop Terence Brain of Salford) decides not to do so, laicisation is very unlikely to take place. (For more information about Bishop Brain not pursuing Doherty’s laicisation, please listen to what was volunteered about this case by Mr Michael Devlin, the Chair of the Salford Safeguarding Commission, and Father Barry O’Sullivan, the Salford Diocese Safeguarding Coordinator at the meeting held at St Chad’s, Manchester on 10 September 2010. An audio-recording of this meeting is available online at http://www.mediafire.com/?se3udyzz3jql7gr. The section concerning Doherty’s case is approx. four minutes long and starts approx. 33 minutes into the recording).
2. ‘Gerard’ says that “, it is far better when an abuser is released from prison that where he is is known at all times and his behaviour able to be monitored.” I agree and am pleased that the Probation Service has professionally trained and qualified staff who (alongside the police) monitor all such abusers, regardless of their canonical status. As for such a task being left to a diocese, I think we would all do very well to remember the Church’s track record in relation to monitoring priests it knows to be a danger to children. I am thinking, for example, of the case of Father Michael Hill. I am also pleased to know that when known offenders are attending Mass or other events within a parish, they are likely to be subjects of a Covenant of Care; something that is, of course available for use, regardless of a perpetrators’ canonical status.
Meanwhile, I would expect the Church to play its part in monitoring a laicised priest. As the Nolan Report says “…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.”
3. ‘Gerard’ implies that the only disadvantage of not carrying out the policy to which the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales committed themselves very publicly in November 2001, i.e. 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.” and that “Failure to do so would need to be justified.” is that abusers will have their bills paid for them by the Church. In fact, he says, “If this means their bills have to be paid then that seems a price worth paying.” However, he does not explain why the Church does not extend this service to other abusers without the canonical status of priests – and, more importantly, he ignores the impact on victims, survivors and others, not only of seeing the Church fail to do what it has repeatedly promised to do, since November 2001, but also of seeing abusers allowed to retain a canonical status conferred by “The sacrament of Holy Orders” which the Church teaches in its Catechism “communicates a ‘sacred power’ which is none other than that of Christ”. Being told by the Church that men proven to have abused their positions of power and trust to abuse children and who have, in the cases of both Doherty and Green, received prison sentences of six years, etc continue to hold “a ‘sacred power’ which is none other than that of Christ” is not a price that should be asked of anybody.
Actually, I implied none of these things - the moderator inferred them and I would not associate myself with the things you claim I have said. I clearly did say that everything has to be done in partnership with the police and probation authorities.
I was making a very narrow point and I stand by it. I don't need to be lectured on the effects of sexual abuse, I personally and professionally am only too aware of them.
‘Gerard’. Thank you for your further comment. Unfortunately, this has left me more confused than before about what “very narrow point” you wished to make.
Was your “very narrow point” one about the limited but often crucial role to be played by diocesan bishops in the process of laicisation under canon 290?
Was it about the need for the Church to cooperate with the probation service and the police regardless of the canonical status of an abuser?
Was it encapsulated in your statement regarding abusers that “If this means their bills have to be paid then that seems a price worth paying.”?
Perhaps, you could clarify this. Meanwhile, I would, also, be very interested to learn what your awareness of the effects of sexual abuse has taught you about the impact on victims and survivors of their discovering that
1. those in authority have failed to implement the policies that they have publicly committed themselves to,
2. a diocese is using its financial resources to pay the bills of one particular group of convicted abusers because of their ongoing canonical status as priests.
I suggest you re-read the second point in my original comment - that is my narrow point. Everything else you write is about your assumptions of my opinions, which are incorrect.
As it happens, I agree with most of what you say so please ease off on the attacks. I was actually trying to be constructive.
I will not comment again.
'Gerard'. Thank you for your clarification. I am sorry, if I have misunderstood the meaning of any of what you wrote in your original comment.
It is, of course, good to hear that you agree with most of what I say and I trust that my robust response will not deter you from making further comments, if you have relevant things to say.
These are extremely important issues and discussion about them needs to happen and needs to happen in an open and straightforward way that is free from the obfuscation and failure to answer questions that has too often characterised the response - or rather lack of response - from the diocese of Salford when questions have been asked. (I am, for example, still awaiting a response from Bishop Brain to all of the many letters I wrote to him between September 2007 and March 2009 (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 ); a silence that has fuelled my determination to maintain this blog.
Post a Comment