Tag Archives: NBSCCCI

Screen Shot 2016-05-04 at 13.57.02

The National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church has today published its final tranche of reviews – 30 in total – of child safeguarding practice within certain orders and congregations.

The NBSCCC is a church-run organisation and reviews are done on an invitation basis.

Among the 30 orders or congregations reviewed were the Blessed Sacrament Fathers; the Brothers of Charity; Hospitaller Order Of Saint John of God; the Marist Brothers; and the Personal Prelature of Opus Dei – all of whom had allegations made against them.

The following four orders or congregations – the Society of St Paul; the Society of Divine Saviour (Salvatorians); the Daughters of the Cross of Liege; and the Comboni Missionaries Of The Heart of Jesus – also had allegations made against them but, according to the NBSCCC, no longer have a ministry with children in Ireland.

The 30 reviews  – which can be accessed here – related to complaints made between January 1, 1975 and the period of the review which began in December 2015.

Overall, the reviews found there 288 allegations made against 90 priests, brothers or sisters with just 10 criminal convictions arising from those complaints.

The allegations relate to the period between 1950 and 2002 with one incident in 2013.

In relation to the Society of Divine Saviour (Salvatorians), the NBSCCC found the following in relation to a now deceased priest, referred to only as Fr A:

“Information received from the Salvatorians, indicate that there was one priest who ministered in Ireland against whom there were allegations of child sexual abuse. According to the Salvatorian case file, there is knowledge of 9 named children who were abused by Fr. A.”

“However, behind the small numbers recorded is this one case of a prolific, long term abuser of children, there is information on file which suggests, by his own admission Fr. A had abused in excess of 100 children, mostly girls in the age range 6 years to 9 years of age, in various parts of Ireland; but Fr. A did not provide the names of these children when making this admission.”

“Fr. A served as a Salvatorian priest from the time of his ordination in the 1950s to the time of his death, in 2009.”

“He worked as a teacher and a seminary lecturer in the UK, a member of the General Council of the Order in Rome, a parish priest in an Australian and in a Dublin parish, and as a congregational archivist and hospital Chaplain in Rome.”

His abuse began early in his priesthood and lasted at least until 2004.”

Fr. A was accused in 2002 by a female relative of abusing her when she was a child; and from reviewing the case files this appears to be the first allegation that was made known to the congregation.”

“While it is difficult from the written records to be completely sure of when his Provincial was first made aware of this allegation, Fr. A was withdrawn by the then Provincial from his parish in Dublin in December 2002.”

“By that time Fr. A had been assessed, though it is noted that Fr. A had arranged this assessment himself. The advice of the assessing professional was that, while the abuse alleged did happen, it was probably a once-off event.”

“He did however state that it would probably be wise not to allow Fr. A to have ministry that allowed him access to children. The Provincial wrote to the Archbishop of Dublin informing him that he was withdrawing Fr. A from the parish, and he implied that this was due to the stress of his responsibilities there.”

“The Provincial however did not inform the Archbishop of the real reason for withdrawing the priest; and he subsequently arranged for him to take up a position in the congregation’s archives at the congregation’s Motherhouse in Rome.”

“…As nobody in Rome had been made aware that there were child protection concerns about Fr. A, he was not supervised in any way while he worked in Rome.”

“To date the congregation has not received any allegations relating to Fr. A’s time spent in Rome as an archivist and hospital chaplain.”

“It is recorded that Fr. A returned in May 2004 on holidays to the Dublin parish from which he had previously been withdrawn, and that he said Mass and mixed with parishioners there. It is not recorded on file whether this was Fr. A’s only visit to Ireland following his posting to Rome in early 2003.”

“The Salvatorians are currently investigating an allegation from a woman who was abused as a child by a priest in that Dublin parish in 2004; during which time Fr. A was back on holidays ministering in the parish; it has not been confirmed that the respondent priest was Fr A.”

“…Fr. A was convicted of child sexual abuse in December 2007. The case related to his abuse of ‘several girls over a 25-year period. He was given a custodial sentence of four years with all but 18 month suspended.”

Fr. A was released from prison in early 2009… He died later that year.”

The NBSCCC found the following 19 orders or congregations had no allegations made against them while they have no or limited ministry with children in Ireland: Alexian Brothers; Benedictine Monks – Stamullen; Franciscans Conventual; Franciscan Renewal – Limerick and Derry; Marianists; Sons of Divine Providence; Adorers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus of Montmartre; Blessed Sacrament Sisters;  Carmelites – Aged and Infirm – Dalkey; Carmelites – Enclosed – x 10; Clarissian Missionary Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament; Franciscan Missionary Sisters of Littlehampton; Franciscan Missionaries of Mary; Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady; Handmaids of the Sacred Heart of Jesus; La Retraite Sisters; Missionaries of Charity – NON CORI; Missionary Sisters of St Peter Claver; Poor Clares – Enclosed x 6.

Review of Child Safeguarding Practice in the Society of the Divine Saviour (Salvatorians) (NBSCCCCI)

30 Review Reports on Child Safeguarding Practice, (May 4, 2016)

Earlier: ‘There Was No Cover-Up At All’

elliot2treanor

[From top: Former Chief Executive of the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland (NBSCCCI) Ian Elliott in September 2012 and Bishop of Down and Connor, Noel Treanor at a press conference after a meeting of the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference in Maynooth, Co. Kildare in 2008]

You may recall reports from earlier this month claiming that Mr Elliot – who carried out fieldwork in the diocese of Down and Connor in May 2013 – may sue Bishop Treanor over the December 2013 publication of the NBSCCCI review of safeguarding practice in the Diocese of Down and Connor, claiming the report failed to include a serious clerical child abuse case.

Mr Elliot told the Irish Independent that the diocese blocked the release of information it had about  former priest Jim Donaghy, who was jailed for 10 years in 2012 for abusing two altar boys and a trainee priest.

The National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland rejected the claim in a statement on its website this week while also claiming that Mr Elliot “has not yet responded to our correspondence with him”.

This morning, Patsy McGarry reports:

Last night Mr Elliott told The Irish Times that he “stands resolutely by the comments [he] made” and that it was untrue of the board to say he had not responded to its correspondence. “We have been in communication through our respective lawyers.”

Catholic Church child protection board rejects criticisms of audit by Ian Elliott (Irish Times)

Church watchdog denies omissions in abuse report (Irish Independent)

Related: Ian Elliott may sue Catholic bishop over child protection report (BBC, March 8, 2014)

Previously: “By Covert Means”

Sasko Lazarov/Photocall Ireland

Elliot

Former CEO of the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland Ian Elliot, above, writes:

At the end of June last year, I stood down from my post as Chief Executive Officer for the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland. Over the course of the preceding six years most objective observers would agree that great progress had been made in addressing the problem of inadequate safeguarding services within the Church in Ireland.

It was felt by many that finally the corner had been turned and all was set fair for a return to normality within the Irish Church. No more crises or damaging revelations but a return to a confident and growing Church. All that would be needed to sustain this progress would now be done without hesitation. It is this latter perception that I want to examine in the light of the evidence available.

I strongly assert that safeguarding the vulnerable child within Church is of critical and fundamental importance not only to the child, but to the institution itself. A priest friend of mine summed up the situation very well when he posed the question:-“How can we expect the message of Christ’s love for the vulnerable to be thought of as credible when it is delivered by an institution that has so often failed to protect its most vulnerable members, children?” Effective safeguarding of those who are vulnerable within the Church goes to the very heart of the core purpose of the Church itself.

To not provide adequate safeguards for the protection of those at risk, is to miss the point as to why the Church exists in the first place. In the past major errors of judgement have been made by those who have held positions of leadership and authority in the Irish Church. They failed to provide adequate safeguards and, as a consequence, the Church became the subject of repeated public scrutiny. In every case, it was shown to be neglectful of its duty of care towards children.

Heart- breaking stories came into the public domain detailing horrific abuse, the betrayal of trust, and failure to act. Victims were often not listened to or believed. Opportunities to prevent further abuse were squandered in the mistaken belief that these issues were best managed within the Church rather than outside. History has shown how wrong this view was and how damaging it was for all concerned. There have been many attempts to explain why these tragic events occurred. None have fully succeeded.

The search for a single cause is misguided, I believe, but much can be gained from seeking to learn the lessons from the numerous past mistakes and applying that learning to current practice and decision- making. There was no single cause but rather an accumulation of many factors which together gave rise to the emergence of the clerical abuse problem within the Church.

If you examine the abusive career of any of the infamous and prolific perpetrators that have been identified within the Church, you will be struck by the fact that for each offender there is at least one and sometimes several individuals who were in leadership and had the opportunity to intervene but did not do so. The reasons for their actions are, I suspect, varied but the outcome was always the same, the extension of the abusive career of the offender. When you examine these circumstances a number of key areas for learning emerge. One that I wish to highlight relates to the inability of the Church authority to which the offender belonged, to consistently identify and report concerns. Effective safeguarding demands vigilance and a willingness to report concerns to the appropriate authorities. Sadly, the state has, on occasions, had to take on this role through compulsory intervention into the life of the Church. Too often the individuals that held a responsibility to monitor risky behaviour within the Church, failed to do so.

It is also true that state services were often ineffective and failed to respond in a way that held the Church to account. The existence of policies and procedures in themselves are no guarantee that practice will comply with them. As has been shown through public scrutiny, policies did exist in Church authorities but they were not always followed. In at least one case, the Church authority itself was misrepresenting what was happening and was not providing a true account of their practice. It is this issue of compliance with agreed standards of practice and truthful reporting on them that I particularly want to highlight.

I have always felt that the most important part of the remit given to the National Board was the monitoring of safeguarding practice across all of the Church. It is not enough to agree to adhere to a certain standard, you have to be willing to be examined to ensure that your practice meets that standard. Monitoring practice in the Church in this area is not an easy task. There are heightened sensitivities amongst those being reviewed. This can lead to resistances and barriers being placed in your way. In the case of the National Board these were overcome and a credible review process for safeguarding practice was implemented. It is essential that this should continue and that it should be seen not as an event but as a continuing process that needs to become part of the life of the Church, as it should be for every organisation that provides services to children on this island.

Reviews should not be seen as a “one off” task. Rather they should be accepted as a necessary part of achieving continuous improvement in safeguarding practice within the Church. The structure of safeguarding services should reflect this and resources should be made available to set it in place. When you examine the decisions that have been taken in recent years with regard to safeguarding services in the Church you see a proliferation of new resources. Skilled and experienced individuals have been recruited from statutory children’s services to new posts within dioceses and other Church authorities.

Although this investment is to be welcomed, it is concerning that a similar level of commitment has not been shown to the National Board itself. On the contrary, its budget has been reduced, year on year, for the last four years. From a staffing perspective, it has less resources than some dioceses. This may not seem to be a matter that should concern people but I would assert that it is.

History has shown that the effective monitoring of practice within the Church requires independence, and adequate resources. I would argue that to site investment within individual Church authorities, and to starve the National Board of the support that it requires, is running the risk of a lapse back to poor risk management or possibly worse. I see no justification for it other than a desire to limit the role of the Board by covert means.

I would argue that there has to be investment in and support for a viable National Board at the centre of the Church. It has to have a level of resources to allow it to fulfil its remit. It also should be given the authority to examine practice where there is a concern that poor work has taken place. At present, it is forced to work on a consent basis alone. If it is not invited into a Church authority, it has no way of gaining entry. To be seen as a credible monitor, it has to be given the power to intervene where it believes circumstances warrant it. One of the common misperceptions that existed amongst many within the Church was that the operation of the Board was something that was not in the best interests of the clergy. I strongly believe that the opposite is the case.

Effective safeguarding practice based on fair, transparent and agreed policies are a support and added protection for priests in their work. Where these are not in place, priests are far more vulnerable. Towards the end of my time in post, I believe that this critical fact was gaining recognition amongst many in the clergy who recognised that the National Board through its work could help to bring these policies into being and have them accepted across the Church.

Bad decision-making in safeguarding is not in the best interests of anyone involved and certainly not the wrongly-accused priest. The progress made in safeguarding in the Irish Church is territory hard won. It would be a matter of great regret and disappointment to me if it was lost through lessons from the past not being learned. A strong, well-resourced, and properly supported National Board is an essential part of the recovery process for the Church as a whole.

If there is a move away from a single, one Church strategy, to the adoption of each individual Church authority meeting its own needs independently, that progress will be lost. The large and rich Church authorities may prosper but the small and the poor will not. I cannot see this as an attractive prospect if you consider the position of the vulnerable child and take a Church-wide view.

It has sometimes been said that history repeats itself through time. When you consider the experiences that the Irish Catholic Church has had in recent years, I would assert that the best way to bring a lie to this statement is to learn the lessons of the past. The Church needs a strong, effective National Board that has the resources and support that are required for it to fulfil its remit. There is no viable alternative.

(This article first appeared in the January issue of The Furrow Volume 65 Number 1)

A Single Safeguarding Strategy: Learning from Past Mistakes (Ian Elliot)

Previously: Fumbling In The Church’s Greasy Till

Disappointing

Sasko Lazarov/Photocall Ireland