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

Thursday, June 9, 2011

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

No comments: