BishopAccountability.org
	Cloyne, What Next? - Nuala O'loan Irish Catholic July 21, 2011 http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/cloyne-what-next-nuala-oloan he Cloyne Report makes very grim reading. I wrote about Cloyne in this newspaper in January 2009, and much of what I say now, I said then, but it is obviously necessary to say again that we must see proper positive action from those in leadership in the Church. We had come to expect that things had changed utterly, but we now know that that is not the case. It is essential now, that once and for all, the Church ensures that its systems are working to protect children, and to ensure that there is a process through which the Church can efficiently, effectively and compassionately deal with allegations of sexual abuse, whether by clerics or by others working for or with the Church. So what went wrong? Basically, the bishop and delegate (the person whom the bishop charges with responsibility for dealing with allegations of sexual abuse) did not keep the rules. They are quite simple and have been in operation since 1996. If an allegation is received by the Church it should be reported to the police or to a social worker. A support person should be offered to the complainant. The accused person, whether a priest or civilian, should be informed and a person should be appointed to support him. Detail It may not be possible immediately to tell the person the detail of the allegation against him or her, but they will be told that there is an allegation. In some circumstances, but not all, a priest will be asked to take administrative leave until the matter is resolved. This step of asking a priest to step aside should be informed by the need to protect children and should not be taken lightly. An investigation will then ensue. An independent advisory panel should be informed of the compliant and should advise the bishop. The bishop or religious superior should meet the accused person and put the charges to him or her. The accused may then deny or admit the charges. It is clear from the Cloyne Report that Msgr O'Callaghan, the delegate did not approve of these procedures. He largely ignored them. He acted as the Advisory Panel in many cases, and as Support Person to both the accused and the accuser, despite all the obvious conflicts inherent in such action. He did not report to the police and Health Service Executive (HSE) as required. He is said to have acted with kindness and generosity to complainants: he even gave them some of his own money, but at the end of the day he did not do what he should have done. He told the commission that he ''became emotionally drawn to the plight of accused priests and in this way compromised my care of some complainants''. Bishop Magee appears to have been totally disconnected from the process of dealing with allegations, acting only when asked to do so by Msgr O'Callaghan, and not doing all that was required of him by virtue of his Office. This was in stark contrast to the only case which involved a priest who was a member of a religious order. The report tells us that the order followed the procedures properly, it was sensitive to the complainant and conducted a proper investigation. The Advisory Committee was properly and fully informed. Nothing happened The report tells us that of 15 complaints which should have been reported to the police by the diocese, only six were so reported. Only one was reported to the HSE. In several cases complaints were made and nothing happened until the complainant came back years later, or until a second complainant appeared. Even when they were reported to the police there were cases in which nothing happened. In one case two women reported that as small children they had been abused by a priest. That priest admitted ''fondling'' four to six girls under their clothes. Msgr O'Calaghan said that ''apart from what would today be described as over-familiarity I did not find evidence of sex abuse''. Although this case was reported, gardai have no documentation and nothing happened. Eight years after the first complaint the priest died. In another case a young man who subsequently became a priest complained that he had been seriously abused at the age of 16 at a vocations workshop by a priest. This case was reviewed by Ian Elliott of the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church (NBSCCC). The report says that Mr Elliott was deliberately misled about facts known to Bishop Magee. Bishop Magee and Msgr O'Callaghan did not cooperate with the Garda investigation. Their concern was for the Church, the diocese and the accused priest. There was no concern for the protection of children. There was little concern for the ongoing needs of victims. The priest admitted abuse, and was finally convicted in 2010. What needs to happen? Resolution Key to the resolution of this problem is an effective audit of all the dioceses in Ireland. The bishops have already agreed that this should happen, and that it should be conducted by the Church's NBSCCC. The board must now be given all the resources it needs to conduct this review to ensure that all matters have been appropriately dealt with, and that there are no ongoing child protection issues. It is not enough that current complaints are dealt with properly. There could still be outstanding concerns about a few individual priests, as there were in Cloyne. If there are, they must be dealt with. As each diocesan audit is completed, the full results should be made public. This will, hopefully, enable much needed reassurance to the people of the Church as the audit proceeds, rather than waiting for all the audits to be completed. We also need a process for investigating complaints when the police and HSE have decided that there is no case to answer, but there remain outstanding issues. There is no national system for this. The National Board for Safeguarding Children has produced some draft templates for investigation, but these have yet to be adopted. The National Board could be expanded to include an investigation arm, which would be independent of the Church, and could provide a professional investigation of outstanding issues. Canonical procedures could then follow. This would ensure that everything which could be done to protect children is done. Necessary action could be taken to ensure that any necessary therapy was provided, and also that the good reputation of any priest against whom a false allegation was made (and this does happen) would be protected. The failure by the Church to deal properly (and in accordance with its own agreed procedures) with sexual abuse allegations, means that many priests who serve people faithfully and generously are tarred by the wrongful actions of some colleagues, and the failures of the institutional Church. Once again the victims are suffering and the ordinary people of the Church are scandalised. Our good priests, who give so much to people, particularly at the most difficult times, have the right to be protected just as little children and vulnerable people have the right to be protected. It is time for proper accountability so that we can know that what needs to be done has been done.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.