By Elaine Edwards
Irish Times
December 1, 2011
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1201/1224308420329.html
 |
| Msgr Eamon Martin speaking to the media at St Eugene's in Derry on the report into the Diocese of Derry.Photograph: Trevor McBride |
DERRY: REVIEWERS WHO audited the Diocese of Derry’s procedures received evidence of at least two priests who “seem to be less than fully behind” the safeguarding children project.
The report of the National Board for Safeguarding Children found that, following serious criticisms made in 2009, the diocese now had “very clear procedures” for the management of allegations against priests.
It noted that a number of deficits had been identified “through both the 2009 and current review exercises” concerning historical cases, including that priests, about whom there were clear concerns, were “not robustly challenged or adequately managed” and that problems were often “handled” by moving them.
“The 2009 reviewers were concerned about practice which, historically, had been quite weak and unco-ordinated and where many decisions were made to protect the institution of the Church rather than its child members. These historical practices showed a real lack of awareness of the suffering caused to victims by abusers, as well as an ignorance of the habitual nature of child abusing.”
Yesterday’s report made eight recommendations, including that the bishop address “as a matter of urgency” concerns raised by parish representatives concerning “the attitude and behaviour of two priests”.
Bishop Seamus Hegarty, who retired last month due to ill-health, is referred to throughout the report as head of the diocese. The review took place last July.
The reviewers noted “significant improvement” in the management of allegations since the last review of practice in 2009. A November 2010 diocesan policy and procedures document set out guidance that was “comprehensive and appropriate and can be easily followed”.
The reviewers met four parish representatives, one from each deanery area in the diocese. All the representatives reported “in the main” they received both practical support and encouragement from the priests in their parishes.
“Unfortunately, there were slight issues of concern raised by two of the representatives, relating to apparent cynicism by one of the priests within a deanery area and the priest’s lack of support for safeguarding,” the report says.
The report praised the work of the lay-designated person who took up a safeguarding post in the diocese in 2006. A priest-designated person appointed in 1999 had other duties in a busy role as parish priest, the report noted.
The review said the lay-designated person had demonstrated “great personal commitment and tenacity” in ensuring all concerns were given full consideration, “irrespective of the reported degree of seriousness” of the problem.
The report recognised the role could be “very challenging” and that without support or training the priest-designated person had had to manage “some fairly complex situations”. He had also given evidence in court against a colleague priest.
The report said two particular challenges now had to be met. The first was to engage actively with children and young people in a “meaningful way” which allowed them to have real input into safeguarding guidance at parish and diocesan level.
The second challenge was to continue to work on gaining full commitment from all priests in the diocese to the safeguarding policy and procedures, “in word and in deed”. It added that in 2011 “it should not be tolerated that any priest of Derry diocese can remain ambivalent towards and non-supportive of the diocesan policy” on safeguarding children.
Statements that conveyed “disdain” towards the policy, and actions that were in contravention of accepted child safeguarding practice “both undermine the great effort being made by most people involved in safeguarding at parish and diocesan level and in certain circumstances can in effect be collusive with exposing children to the risk of abuse”.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.