Cormac Murphy-O'Ñonnor, by John Scholes, Trusty Servant, April 15, 2009

Cormac Murphy-O'Ñonnor

By John Scholes
Trusty Servant
April 15, 2009

http://trustyservant.com/archives/681

It is now six-and-a-half years since the last significant discussion of Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's response to paedophile priests during his time as Bishop of Arundel and Brighton.

Born 24 August 1932, he was consecrated as bishop on 21 December 1977 and stayed at Arundel for more than 22 years until he became Archbishop of Westminster in March 2000. He was made a cardinal in 2001. (He remains a cardinal, but will lose his voting rights on his 80th birthday in 2012). He recently retired as Archbishop of Westminster, being replaced by Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Birmingham (since March 2000).

The case which attracted wide attention was Fr Michael Hill, a parish priest in the diocese. Born 1934, ordained 1960. Allegations emerged in the early 1980s. Murphy-O'Connor did not inform the police. Instead he sent Hill for treatment at a rehabilitation unit run by an American religious order, Servants of the Paraclete, near Stroud in Gloucestershire. He then appointed him chaplain at Gatwick Airport in 1985, where he abused a male teenager with learning difficulties who went to the airport chapel after missing a flight.

Hill was convicted in 1997 and sentenced to five years for sexual abuse of nine children. He served three and a half-years, but was then sentenced in November 2002 to a further five years for abuse of three more boys (prior to 1997).

At the time of the second conviction there was considerable media pressure on Murphy-O'Connor to resign as Archbishop of Westminster. He refused. He put his defence in a letter to the Times:

… accusations … notably that I turned a blind eye to the problem of paedophilia, and that victims have been paid "hush" money. I reject both allegations.

… my decision to appoint Michael Hill to the chaplaincy at Gatwick airport, after receiving conflicting psychiatric reports regarding his condition, was a mistake …

To the best of my knowledge every other allegation made against a priest in my time at Arundel and Brighton was reported to, or investigated by, either the social services, or the police, or both … Since the introduction of the very strict guidelines adopted by the Roman Catholic Church in 2001, in cases where no prosecution results, but allegations are regarded as well founded, action would now be taken to remove a priest from active ministry. This was not the case in the 1980s when, despite your assertions to the contrary, appropriate measures for dealing with paedophilia had not been in any way adequately developed, either in civil society or the Church. Inevitably mistakes have been made in the past; but not for want of trying to take the right and best course of action.

The two critical points are in the last paragraph:

(A) every other case was reported to the civil authorities, rather than hushed up;

(B) paedophilia was not well-understood, so his mistake in the Hill case was venial.

There were plenty of rumours at the time that the Hill case was not the only one to be hushed up. Both the Times and the BBC were said to have investigative teams chasing down other cases. But nothing ever came of them. So I think we have to accept Murphy-O'Connor's denial on that.

(B) is rather different. If true, the allegations were clearly civil crimes. They were also wrong under Canon Law. The problem there was that until the 1983 revision Canon Law placed considerable emphasis on avoiding scandal. No doubt Murphy-O'Connor (and many others) thought it more important to protect the Church's good name than to have a police investigation. They were no doubt strengthened in that belief because at that time the conventional wisdom rated sexual abuse as less damaging to children than it does now. There was probably also a greater reluctance to decide in favour of the child when presented with conflicting evidence from priest and child than there would be today.

I am much less sympathetic about that. Anyone in a senior position ought to be capable of independent thought and not be unduly swayed by the conventional wisdom. Clearly children lie. But when one is presented with several apparently unconnected children telling similar stories, one has to take what they say seriously. Equally, it is a basic moral principle that the end does not justify the means. One should not do wrong so that good may come of it. Allowing a priest to escape censure, and worse to continue harming children, in order that the Church's good name may not be sullied is clearly wrong.

I suppose Murphy O'Connor would say that he had no reason not to believe Hill's assurances that the would not abuse again. At that time there was no body of work showing that abusers found it extraordinarily difficult to kick the habit.

That is true. The academic work has come relatively recently. But any priest used to hearing confessions must know that all sinful habits are hard to kick. It is a commonplace that someone will confess the same sin for many, many weeks or months before managing to overcome it. Did he not have any concerns that Hill, however honest and well-meaning might have similar difficulties?

His second line of defence is that he thought he would have no exposure to (or at any rate to unchaperoned children) at Gatwick. Hmmm. That requires a certain naivety. But what about the fact that is position gave him the implicit endorsement of the Church and would hence facilitate meeting children in other contexts?

I suppose I am left feeling Murphy-O'Connor displayed weak-mindedness rather than malice. In other words, these excuses make me worry about his suitability as a bishop, rather than about deliberate wrong-doing.

I am more unhappy about his next point:

Hush money is a deliberate misnomer. Victims of abuse, whether or not their case is pursued by the police through to prosecution, and whether or not they have been abused within the Church or society as a whole, are, and have always been, free to seek compensation. If individuals decide to seek compensation they will instruct solicitors to act on their behalf. Compensation is agreed between solicitors acting in a professional capacity, and in accordance with agreed norms.

On the face of it that is deliberately evasive, not to say misleading. "in accordance with agreed norms" means including standard gagging terms. In ordinary commercial disputes it has become commonplace for such terms to be included in settlements. The victim gets compensation more quickly, more certainly and more cheaply than by a contested court action. In return, the wrong-doer gets less damage to their reputation. That may not be in the public interest, but it is not an unreasonable bargain between the parties.

The Times feels it is inappropriate for the Catholic Church to gag victims. So do I. I can see that a bishop would feel correctly that every time appalling details of a paedophile priest's activities emerge, the Church's good name is damaged. But I do not think that justifies putting financial pressure on a victim not to disclose them. It does even more damage to the Church's good name if bishops are perceived to close ranks to protect paedophile priests.

Finally, I do not like his closing sentences:

You also suggest that some may feel a sense of betrayal arising from mistakes the Church has made in the past, including in relation to paedophilia. I suggest in turn that many others feel deeply concerned by the apparently relentless attack by parts of the media on their faith, and on the Church in which they continue to believe.

The media is absolutely right to attack bad behaviour by the Church. Murphy-O'Connor's attitude that he should be exempt from criticism reeks of arrogance. He should realize that many others are watching carefully to see how he (and others) respond to such attacks. A response of "Shut Up, I am above criticism" does not help the Church's good name.

Indeed, any cynical type will immediately suspect that he is lying about (A) and that he simply wants to deflect further investigation. As far as I can see, after spending several hours reading everything I can find on the web, there is no evidence to support that suspicion. But a high-handed attitude, redolent of "I am a Prince of the Church, how dare you doubt my word or criticise me", is unhelpful.

On the other hand, I have to agree that he made a good recovery. He commissioned the Nolan report which led to the new procedures he mentioned (in the first extract above from his letter), and that was followed by the 2007 Cumberlege Review (Safeguarding with Confidence).