OPINION: Priests should quit parishes

By Bob O'toole
Newcastle Herald
August 18, 2014

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2495667/opinion-priests-should-quit-parishes/?cs=308

Father William Burston and Monsignor Alan Hart were criticised by the commission for their evidence.

HUNTER Catholic priests Monsignor Allan Hart and Father William Burston should be removed from their positions as parish priests immediately, and asked to retire or resign from active ministry.

The Clergy Abused Network (CAN), which is a voluntary group of survivors of sexual abuse in a religious context, does not seek to completely end their ministry. They should be free to perform relief liturgical celebrations in the diocese as required.

But the findings of the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry in May this year make anything less than their removal as parish priests unacceptable.

The commission investigated, among other things, Catholic Church knowledge of child sex allegations involving the late Hunter priests Denis McAlinden and Jim Fletcher.

Commissioner Margaret Cunneen, SC, found that Monsignor Hart was “an unsatisfactory and unimpressive witness”.

The behaviour of Monsignor Hart was an embarrassment to those present at the inquiry.

He contradicted himself. He attempted to distance himself from the issues by claiming he had passed information to his superiors and by doing so had abrogated himself from any further responsibility.

In response to most other questions about his senior role during the tenure of Bishop Leo Clarke from 1976 to 1995, Monsignor Hart had no recollection.

He claimed to have little involvement in the McAlinden issues, but Commissioner Cunneen rightly accepted the evidence of other witnesses over Monsignor Hart’s conflicting evidence in almost every instance.

Monsignor Hart had both a moral and civil obligation to report McAlinden to authorities from 1993 and possibly earlier, and he failed in both these obligations.

Sexual abuse of minors has always been a criminal offence and this failure is an abuse of the authority vested in him, and demonstrates a scant regard for the safety of children.

The logical conclusion reached by Commissioner Cunneen was that Monsignor Hart’s testimony was unreliable, and most people present agreed.

“The commission finds that Hart in fact played a central role in the diocesan management of the McAlinden problem in 1993,’’ she found.

Father William Burston was described as “an unimpressive witness in certain respects”.

Father Burston was a Jekyll and Hyde witness who attempted to convince the commissioner that he had almost no recollection of anything at all.

During one session, Father Burston responded that he had “no recollection” 35 times before morning tea break.

Margaret Cunneen summed Father Burston up this way: “The commission formed the view there was a reluctance on his part to fully consider questions put to him or to explore his memory for information that might assist the commission.”

There are a number of issues for the diocese that flow from the report.

The first is the commitment by the diocese to co-operate fully with the commission.

 In my opinion this hearing was an ideal opportunity for “the Church” to demonstrate “bona fides” – sadly it failed to do so.

The rampant amnesia and the attitudes, not just of Monsignor Hart and Father Burston but other more senior clergy as well, was on public display for all to see and hear.

This reflects badly on all Catholics.

A vital issue is the effect of this scourge on those Catholics who remain in the pews. Most of these people are looking for leadership and a practical demonstration that the attitude of the Church has changed. 

To take no action against Monsignor Hart and Father Burston is an insult to survivors, fails Catholics generally, preserves the status quo and will certainly result in fewer church-attending Catholics.

In all of the testimony of the clergy, there was little real consideration or compassion for the victims/survivors. The alleged concern for victims/survivors was used as a defence for not reporting criminal behaviour. Rather the real concern was self-preservation and protection of the Church’s reputation.

Monsignor Hart and Father Burston have for decades acted in a senior capacity in Maitland-Newcastle diocese.

For them to provide testimony to the commission of inquiry that they knew almost nothing about anything defies belief.

For justice to be seen to be done, they must be held to account for their past decades of inaction. They have shamed my church.

Recent comments by Pope Francis espousing a policy of zero tolerance towards sexual abusers (and their protectors) must be supported at a local level.

Bob O’Toole is spokesman for the Hunter and Manning Districts Clergy Abused Network (CAN). This is the CAN submission to Maitland-Newcastle Bishop Bill Wright’s panel considering future ministry by Monsignor Hart and Father Burston.