Philip Gilligan Visiting Research Fellow Social Work & Social Care University of Bradford

1. Philip Gilligan
Visiting Research Fellow
Social Work & Social Care, University of Bradford
gilliganphilip@gmail.com
Philip Gilligan
14 April 2015 - BASPCAN
Rhetoric, review and recognitio:
Exploring the failure of the
Catholic Church in England and
Wales to satisfy survivors of
sexual abuse by its clergy

2. Philip Gilligan

3. Philip Gilligan
Recurrent themes 1:
• Apparently successful strategy to create a
media and public discourse in which the
phenomenon is seen as a problem arising
outside England and Wales or as a largely
‘historical’ problem which need cause
relatively little current concern because
robust and appropriate policies and
procedures in place since 2001
• Untrustworthy and obfuscating nature of
statements made by the Bishops and their
agents

4. Philip Gilligan
Recurrent themes 2:
• Distress caused to many victims and
survivors and the discontent expressed by
their organisations
• Continuing absence of any formal process
which ensures that individual dioceses
follow policies apparently agreed and
apparently monitored at a national level
• Indications that at a local level, dioceses
are still behaving in unacceptable ways

5. Philip Gilligan
Rhetoric v. Reality :
• ‘the Church has been able to demonstrate a new
professionalism and greater transparency and
accountability in the way it deals with child
protection issues’ (Cumberlege, 2007: 16) and can
become ‘a beacon of excellent safeguarding
practice’ (Cumberlege, 2007: 26).
• Examples of specialist lay staff and volunteers
leaving safeguarding roles within dioceses:-
resignations, dismissals and ‘gagging’ clauses (see,
for example, The Tablet, 28 January 2012).
• Ongoing criticism. See for example:
http://www.childabuselawyers.com/campaigns/stop-church-child-abuse

6. STOP CHURCH CHILD ABUSE!, 2012: 6
For 20 years the leaders within the Catholic Church and the Church of
England/Wales have repeatedly stated that they will respond
appropriately to reports of child sexual abuse, and numerous
safeguarding/child protection procedures have been put in place.
Despite these assurances and procedures produced there have been
repeated court cases in which clergy and church officials have been
convicted of multiple child sexual offences … And repeatedly the
prosecution has revealed that Church authorities covered up past
reports of child abuse and allowed clergy and religious to remain
in post despite allegations and in some cases past convictions for child
sexual offences.
Until there is an inquiry which uncovers what was known about child
sexual abuse by Church authorities and when, and what actions were
taken when reports were made, these injustices will continue for
decades to come. Only when the truth is known,
when responsibility is accepted and we
are left with the truth of what happened, will
the institutional dynamics be changed.

7. Philip Gilligan
gilliganphilip@gmail.com
Today’s Aims:
To acknowledge some
facts and achievements
To question the rhetoric
To encourage you to
pursue the ‘realities’

8. • Safeguarding Commissions exist in all
dioceses in England and Wales
• 95% of parishes have safeguarding
representatives (NCSC, 2014: 30)
• 598 allegations reported to statutory
authorities 2003-12 (NCSC, 2014: 38)
• 40,943 DBS checks were initiated in 2011/
2012 / 2013 (NCSC, 2014: 30)
• 384 Covenants of Care were in place at 31
December 2013 (NCSC, 2014: 30)
• 81 allegations of abuse relating to
children

9. Philip Gilligan
p.a.gilligan@bradford.ac.uk
Relations with
Survivors
Groups

10. NCSC says that it “remains committed to
positive and constructive conversation as
to the needs of victims of abuse within the
Church and continues to pursue such
opportunities.”(NCSC, 2013. 5)
In 2014, NCSC ‘s report and minutes record:
• Plans for a Task and Finish Group to meet
in September 2014 and hold 3-4 meetings
before the end of February 2015 with the
“aim” of developing the terms of reference
and methods of recruitment for the Survivor
group which would advise the NCSC in the
future.” (NCSC, 2014a: 3)

11. gilliganphilip@gmail.com
• Support for the ‘Hurt by Abuse’ Pilot in
Diocese of Hallam (see NCSC, 2014: 6-8) and “support
for the potential for the Hallam Project to be a
national project with a facilitating partner.”
• “positive discussion with one organisation
about its capacity and willingness to work with
the NCSC and CSAS” (emphasis added)
Unanswered Question?
• Why so little progress, 22 years after survivors
first called for a more appropriate pastoral
response in 1993?
• Withdrawal of survivors organisations from
exploratory talks in October 2011........

12. ...following growing concerns and anger
over the manner in which the talks have
been conducted, the lack of any coherent
purpose, aims or objectives, the
manipulation of these talks in the media
by the Catholic Church, and the failure of
the Catholic church to acknowledge the
duty owed to the many thousands of
victims of abuse perpetrated within the
Catholic Church and its religious
institutions in England and Wales.’
(MACSAS Press Release, October, 2011)

13. ‘Undoubtedly, 2012/13
has presented specific
challenges in advancing
our dialogue with
survivor groups ...’
(NCSC, 2013b: 5)
Philip Gilligan

14. Philip Gilligan
gilliganphilip@gmail.com
LaicisationLaicisation
‘. . .the consequence of a priest either
successfully applying to be relieved from
their priestly obligations, or the result of
their dismissal from the clerical state by due
process’ (Nolan, 2001a: 57)

15. • Laicisation ‘considered’ in 77 (45%)
of approx. 170* cases of living
clergy against whom there were
‘non unsubstantiated’ allegations in
the decade 2003 to 2013
• Laicisation ‘pursued’ in 44 (57%) of
these 77 cases (26% of the approx. 170)
(NCSC, 2014: 41)
• “52 laicisations completed since
2001.” (NCSC, 2014: 32) i.e. less than a third!
* based on 30.2% of alleged abusers being ‘Religious’ and 41.5% being ‘Diocesan
clergy’, 2004 to 2012 (NCSC, 2014: 39)

16. Philip Gilligan
Recommendation 78:
“If a bishop, priest or deacon is
convicted of a criminal offence against
children and is sentenced to serve a
term of imprisonment of 12 months or
more, then it would normally be right to
initiate the process of laicisation.
Failure to do so would need to be
justified. Initiation of the process of
laicisation may also be appropriate in
other circumstances.” (Nolan, 2001a: 44)

17. Philip Gilligan
Recommendation 77:
‘As a general rule, clergy and lay workers
who have been cautioned or convicted of
an offence against children should not be
allowed to hold any position that could
possibly put children at risk again. The
bishop or religious superior should
justify any exceptions to this approach
publicly (for example, by means of a
letter to be read out in churches at Mass).’
(Nolan, 2001a: 43) (Emphasis added)

18. Philip Gilligan
“. . . we were concerned to make plain that
there is a level of seriousness, as
demonstrated by the criminal courts, at
which we would expect the process of
laicisation always to be begun.” (Nolan, 2001a:14)
‘There is also the fact that a priest is still a priest
and by his very status, if he wishes to commit
child sexual abuse, he will find it easier to do so
than if he were a layman’ (Murphy, 2009: 20)
‘The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a
‘sacred power’ which is none other than that of
Christ’ (Chapman, 1995: 347)

19. Unanswered Questions?
Re. Laicisation
• Why was laicisation NOT ‘considered’ in
the other approx. 93 cases (55%) cases of
living clergy against whom there were ‘non
unsubstantiated’ allegations in the decade
2003 to 2013?
• Why was laicisation NOT ‘pursued’ in 33
(43%) of the 77 cases where it was
‘considered’ (26% of the approx. 170) ?
• Are the figures reliable?
• Where is the detail? Names? Dates?

20. Unanswered Questions?
• When will bishops begin to fully
implement recommendations 77 & 78
of the Nolan Report which they
accepted in 2001 and which include
the recommendation that they “justify
any exceptions to this approach
publicly (for example, by means of
a letter to be read out in churches
at Mass)”? (Nolan, 2001: 43-44)

21. Philip Gilligan
CSAS procedures / guidance on Dismissal from the Clerical
State (Laicisation)
‘Purpose’: ‘to clarify under what circumstances a decision not to initiate a
process of dismissal from the clerical state following a criminal sentence of
12 months imprisonment or more of a priest or member of the religious,
might be justifiable.’ (CSAS, 2014: Section 5.5, Item 1) (Emphasis added)
‘Only the Bishop or Congregational Leader has the
right to initiate a process of dismissal. When a
Bishop/Congregational Leader decides not to
initiate such a process in accordance with the
policy set out above – whether the Commission
has recommended an exception or not – (s)he
must provide a clear, written justification for this
decision, signed and dated, and placed on the
individual’s personnel file’ (Emphasis added) (Item 6, Section 5.5, CSAS,
2013)

23. Philip Gilligan
gilliganphilip@gmail.com
RecognitioRecognitio
(Formal endorsement by the Holy See)(Formal endorsement by the Holy See)
“a special territorial law (c. 13§1) for England and
Wales which would both give juridical authority to
the Church’s most important safeguarding rules
for children and vulnerable adults and also
secure a right of recourse to the Holy See against
a diocese, religious congregation or other
juridical person which failed to fulfil the
obligations laid down in that law.’ (Cumberlege, 2007: 90)

24. Achievement?
• The child-protection
norms in England and
Wales were sent to
Rome in 2012 with a
view to their receiving
recognitio (Curti, 2014).
•‘One Church’
(Unified) approach
(implemented April 2013)
endeavours to ensure
“consistency across
the Church” (NCSC, 2014: 4)
Unanswered Question?
• Why did it take more than
a decade to implement
recommendations
apparently accepted in
2001 (Nolan, 2001: 19) and again
in 2007 (Cumberlege, 2007: 90) ,
especially when it was
highlighted in 2007 as a
recommendation which
needed to be implemented
“within 12 months of the
publication and
acceptance of this report’
(Cumberlege, 2007: 90-91)?

25. Philip Gilligan
“In canon law, every diocesan bishop has
equivalent status, and only the Holy See
has the power to control and limit the
exercise of the bishops' power.” (Nolan, 2001a: 19)
“At present then, the Recommendations of
the Nolan Report are precisely what they
claim to be, recommendations, not
obligatory norms” (Working Party of the Canon Law Society of Great
Britain and Ireland, 2004: 3)
‘processes have been applied
inconsistently’ (Cumberlege, 2007: 59)

26. Recommendation 72 (Cumberlege, 2007: 90)
‘The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales,
in consultation with the Conference of Religious,
should make the appropriate decreta generalia
and secure canonical recognitio of them (c. 455).”
‘as with Lord Nolan’s recommendations these
proposals will remain just proposals and lack
the force of any obligatory norms.’ (Cumberlege,
2007: 59)
Recommendation 72 = ‘a priority for action ... which
can be implemented in the short term - in other
words within 12 months of the publication and
acceptance of this report’ (Cumberlege, 2007: 90-91)
Philip Gilligan

27. Philip Gilligan
philipgilligan@lineone.net
SummarySummary

28. Philip Gilligan
• Nolan recommendations (2001) not
fully implemented
• Cumberlege recommendations (2007)
not fully implemented
• National procedures differ in detail
from those that might have been
expected
• Bishops remain free to act as they
choose; limited only by accountability
to the Holy See, pressure from public
opinion and the dictats of conscience

29. Philip Gilligan
• Survivors remain extremely
dissatisfied with the response of the
Church in England and Wales
• Recognitio is at last under
‘discussion’; 8 years after it was said
to be ‘a priority for action...which can
be implemented...within 12 months of
the publication and acceptance of this
report’ (Cumberlege, 2007: 90-91)
• The realities do not match the
rhetoric

30. Philip Gilligan

31. Philip Gilligan
Barnett, A. (2010) ‘Catholic abuse in England and Wales revealed’, Channel 4 News.
Available:
http://www.bishopaccountability.org/news2010/09_10/2010_09_14_Channel4News_Catho
[22 March 2014].
Bonthrone, P.J. (2000) ‘Nolan will head Catholic review into child abuse’. Daily
Telegraph, 13 September. Available:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1355213/Nolan-will-head-Catholic-review-into-ch
[22 March 2014].
Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service (CSAS) (2013) Procedures Manual. Available:
http://www.csasprocedures.uk.net/ [26 February 2015].
Chapman, G. (1995) Catechism of the Catholic Church (Trans.), Cassell: London.
Cumberlege Commission Report (2007) Safeguarding with Confidence – Keeping
Children and Vulnerable Adults Safe in the Catholic Church, London: Incorporated
Catholic Truth Society.
http://www.cathcom.org/mysharedaccounts/cumberlege/report/Foreword.asp?FontSize=13
(22 March 2014).
Gilligan, P. (2012a) ‘Contrasting narratives on responses to victims and
Survivors of clerical abuse in England and Wales: challenges to Catholic
Church discourse’, Child Abuse Review, 21 (6), 414–426.

32. Philip Gilligan
Gilligan, P. (2012b) ‘Clerical Abuse and Laicisation: Rhetoric and Reality in the Catholic
Church in England and Wales’, Child Abuse Review, 21 (6), 427–439.
Kennedy, M. (1995) Submission to the National Commission of inquiry into the
Prevention of Child Abuse, London: Christian Survivors of Sexual Abuse.
Malik, S. (2011) ‘Abuse victims accuse Catholic church of using talks as a
smokescreen’, The Guardian, 14 October 2011.
Http://www.Theguardian.Com/society/2011/oct/14/abuse-victims-catholic-church-talks
(11 March 2014).
Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors (MACSAS) (2011) MACSAS end
’Exploratory Talks’ with the Catholic Church. Press release, 11 October 2011. Available:
www.macsas.org.uk/PDFs/News/MACSAS_press_releaseOct2011.pdf [30 January
2012].
Murphy Report (2009) Report by Commission of Investigation into the handling by
Church and state authorities of allegations and suspicions of child abuse against clerics
of the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform:
Dublin. Available: http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504 [22 March 2014].
National Catholic Safeguarding Commission (NCSC) (2013b) Annual Report 2012-2013.
NCSC: Birmingham. http://www.catholicsafeguarding.org.uk/documents.htm [22 March
2014]).

33. Philip Gilligan
Nolan (2001) A programme for action. Final report of the independent review on child
protection in the Catholic Church in England and Wales, London, Catholic Bishops’
Conference of England and Wales. http://www.bishop-
accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/NolanReport.pdf (22 March 2014).
Pilgrim D. (2011) ‘The child abuse crisis in the Catholic Church: international, national
and personal policy aspects’, Policy & Politics, 39 (3): 309–324.
Robertson, G. (2010) The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights
Abuse. Penguin Books: London.
Scorer, R. (2014) Betrayed: The English Catholic Church and the Child Sex Abuse
Crisis, London: Biteback Books.
STOP CHURCH CHILD ABUSE! (2012) A call for a Public Inquiry into abuse of children
and vulnerable adults by Clergy in England and Wales, STOP CHURCH CHILD ABUSE
Available: www.stopchurchchildabuse.co.uk (22 March 2014).
The Tablet (2012) ‘Key members of Clifton safeguarding team quit’, The Tablet: 38, 28
January 2012.
Working Party of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland (2004) Responding
to allegations of clerical child abuse: Recommendations for harmonising the Nolan
Report and the Code of Canon Law

34. Philip Gilligan
gilliganphilip@gmail.com
Philip Gilligan