Long Island Abuse Victims Face Dec. 21 Deadline For Compensation

National Catholic Reporter Article by Peter Feuerherd

Recounting the trail of sex abuse crimes that ended with Fr. Romano Ferraro in a Massachusetts prison serving a life sentence, representatives from the Minnesota-based Jeff Anderson & Associates law firm came to Long Island, New York, with a warning for victims delivered at a Nov. 15 press conference at the Marriott Hotel in Uniondale. Those abused by Ferraro , they said, need to put in a claim for compensation by Dec. 21 to the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, which ordained Ferraro in 1968. Court documents show that Ferraro served not only in the Brooklyn Diocese but also in the Rockville Centre Diocese on Long Island. Records released at the press conference indicate that Ferraro also worked as a priest in New Jersey and Missouri, as well as in Florida and the Philippines, two places where he served as a naval chaplain.

Over the past year, the New York Archdiocese and the Dioceses of Brooklyn and Rockville Centre have established programs to compensate victims of clergy sex abuse, most of whom are unable to press criminal or civil cases because of the state’s statute of limitations. The funds are administered by independent arbitrator Kenneth Feinberg. The three dioceses established different deadlines for victims seeking compensation, creating confusion in cases involving priests who victimized children in a diocese where they were not ordained, said Anderson attorney Mike Reck. Camille Biros, co-administrator of the three diocesan compensation programs, told the National Catholic Reporter that any confusion arising over a deadline involving a priest who worked in a diocese different from where they were ordained would not be used to penalize victims seeking redress. “We would absolutely accept that claim,” she said.

Carolyn Erstad, spokesperson for the Brooklyn Diocese, said the diocese wants to encourage applications to its program. “In no way are we trying to make it difficult for survivors to apply,” she said, noting the diocese has run ads promoting the program on social media, in the Brooklyn Tablet diocesan newspaper and the New York Daily News. Earlier this month, the Brooklyn Diocese announced on its website that Ferraro was among 13 priests from the diocese who were laicized because of sex abuse issues. Neither the Brooklyn Diocese nor the Rockville Centre Diocese has reached out to Ferraro’s victims, said Reck, whose firm represents a victim from Long Island. A statement from the Rockville Centre Diocese disputed that claim. That statement said that Ferraro was never officially assigned in the diocese but did celebrate Mass at St. Joseph’s Church in Kings Park from 1974 to 1977. It added that the diocese informed the parish community of Ferraro’s conviction in Massachusetts in 2004.

Ferraro experienced what church leadership circles described as a “geographic solution” to problems posed by sex abusers, said Patrick Wall, a consultant to the Anderson firm and a former Benedictine priest and canon lawyer. As was common practice in the 1970s and beyond, Ferraro was allowed to work in other dioceses even after his offenses became known. “They kept moving him around,” said Wall. Reck said Long Island was a “dumping ground” for abusive priests from outside the Rockville Centre Diocese, besides crimes committed by those ordained for the dioces e, which covers Nassau and Suffolk counties. According to Wall, 66 priests who worked in the Rockville Centre Diocese have been credibly accused of sex abuse.

At the press conference, the Anderson firm distributed copies of a 1977 memo written by then-Brooklyn chancery official Msgr. Anthony Bevilacqua, later the cardinal archbishop of Philadelphia, who died in 2012. In the memo, Ferraro was said to have admitted to sexual abuse with teenage boys on at least three occasions. The memo also said Ferraro was dismissed from the Navy after an incident with a minor boy. Bevilacqua recommended that the priest be temporarily relieved of his duties and be treated by a psychiatrist. Still, Ferraro later served in parishes in Brooklyn, Queens and Suffolk County, New York, and assisted in parishes in the St. Louis Archdiocese while receiving treatment at the House of Affirmation there in the early 1980s. He also worked in parishes in New Jersey until he was convicted in Massachusetts of sex abuse in 2004.

COMMENT BY BRIAN MARK HENNESSY
OF THE COMBONI SURVIVOR GROUP

I have been commentating for years on the subject of the sexual abuse of children by clerics, and I have never ceased to be shocked at the level of abuse in Diocese after Diocese and Religious Order after Religious Order. Is something fundamentally wrong, perhaps, with the notion of a celibate priesthood? It cannot be so – because abuse is also common in many human conditions other than the state of the Christian “priesthood”. It exists also amongst the “Holy Men” of most other denominations and creeds. Yet – it is not found only within the confines of religion either.

We have to be clear also and truthful to ourselves. Abuse is not just a problem related to religion, but it is a problem to be found in all institutions and environments – whether at home, scholastic, workplace related, sport or social. It is a problem not confined to men – but it is committed mostly by men. The world must find the answers to this dark, predatory trait within the human species where the physical strength, psychological power and opportunity of a malevolent few can blight the lives of weaker and vulnerable adults, women, adolescents of both sexes – and the most defenceless and assailable amongst us – tender, helpless and uncomprehending children.

PRIESTS AT AMPLEFORTH PHYSICALLY AND

SEXUALLY ABUSED CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS SIX

A News Article dated, 30 November 2017, by Rose Gamble

‘I think it’s very sad that something like this could have happened, because there was so much focus on bureaucracy that the real issues were missed’

Priests at Ampleforth College physically and sexually abused children as young as six, the national inquiry into child abuse has heard.

On the third day of a three-week hearing on the English Benedictine Congregation as part of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), former pupils at the fee-paying Catholic school and its junior school in North Yorkshire gave evidence, and written statements by other former pupils were read. Allegations were made against a priest referred to as RCF4 but most focused on Father Piers Grant-Ferris who was jailed for two years in 2006 for 20 counts of indecent assault on boys in his care.

One witness, who attended Ampleforth between 1965 and 1967, said he believed that Basil Hume, who was abbot of Ampleforth Abbey for 13 years until appointed archbishop of Westminster in 1976, had been aware of abuse at the schools. “I have no doubt he knew exactly what was going on at the time,” the witness told the inquiry. The witness described Fr Grant Ferris as “a nasty, cruel, physically violent man.”

From the age of seven, the witness said he was physically and psychologically abused by the priest. He said punishments became progressively more severe. The witness said he was beaten in “bizarre rituals” including being stripped naked and beaten in the confessional of the chapel. The witness said the experiences had left him with post-traumatic stress disorder, complex depression and severe anxiety.

Another witness, who attended Ampleforth’s junior school Gilling Castle from the age of six, described how a teacher would swim with them naked.  “We were all in our trunks and he swam with us naked, which, again, I think is not correct,” he told the inquiry.  The same teacher once put his hand down the boy’s trousers “to check my breathing” during a choir audition.

The inquiry also heard from a female former pupil at Ampleforth College, who left the school in 2010. She said that a music teacher, Dara De-Cogan, had sexually abused her over a period of years, beginning when she was 14 years old.  De-Cogan was jailed for 28 months earlier this year pleading guilty to 10 charges of engaging in sexual activity while in a position of trust.

The witness said his abuse resulted in her self-harming.  When questioned by Riel Karmy-Jones QC, counsel to the inquiry, on Ampleforth’s approach to child protection the witness said it was “very poor”.  She described the focus as almost entirely on box ticking, filling out forms and getting the paperwork done, “the bureaucracy”. “Therefore, everything on the surface looked fine if everything was written down and properly presented. But it meant that nobody ever looked beneath the surface,” the inquiry was told. “I think it’s very sad that something like this could have happened, because there was so much focus on bureaucracy the real issues were really missed and they shouldn’t have been missed so easily,” she added.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) was set up in 2015 to investigate whether public bodies and other non-state institutions in England and Wales “have taken seriously their responsibility to protect children from sexual abuse”. On the first day of the hearing, Matthias Kelly QC, made a statement on behalf of Ampleforth expressing regret for past abuses. “We wish to apologise for the hurt, distress and damage done to those who suffered abuse when in our care. We will do everything we can to ensure that there is no repetition,” he told the inquiry. The Inquiry chose the English Benedictine Congregation as one of the Catholic Church’s case studies; its first public hearing in this phase is scheduled to run to 15 December when witnesses and core participants will provide evidence and face questioning.

(There is a “live stream” of the proceeding on the IICSA internet site for those who wish to watch the proceedings).

The Children Of Priests Step Out Of The Shadows

By Michael Rezendes GLOBE STAFF  SEPTEMBER 30, 2017

Mary “Mimi” Bull was happily married and the mother of three children when she found out that her biological father was a Catholic priest she had known growing up in Norwood in the 1940s. She had always believed that she was adopted and that the priest who often visited was just a family friend. But it wasn’t until last month, at age 80, that Bull finally spoke to someone with a life story like her own. He is an Irish activist who learned as an adult that his godfather, a local priest, was really his biological dad. Bull talked on the phone for an hour with Vincent Doyle, the first time she had ever spoken with another priest’s child. “It was huge,” Bull told the Globe.

Many children of priests grow up thinking they are alone in their situation, in their confusion, anger, or sorrow. But they are now discovering how much company they have, and some are coming forward in the aftermath of a Globe Spotlight series in August on a painful, little-discussed issue in the Catholic Church: the fate of children born to priests who break their promise to live without marriage or sex. Many grow up without the love and support of their fathers, and are often pressured to keep the relationship a secret. Others, like Bull, don’t even know who their biological father is until adulthood, if ever. A Globe review finds the children are often denied love and support and pressured to keep the scandal secret. And the church has done little to help. “We are clearly crawling out of the dark places of the church,” said Bull, who contacted Doyle, founder of a support group for children of priests, through the Globe.

The Globe so far has identified 19 people with connections to the Boston area who have strong evidence that they are the children of priests. Some have birth certificates or other documentation to support their assertions, while others have corroborating witnesses; in all cases, their fathers are deceased. Their life experiences are as varied as their backgrounds, ranging from successful, well-adjusted people like Bull, who admires her parents’ extraordinary effort to keep her biological father in her life, to those who have spent years suffering from emotional and financial neglect. But virtually all of them share one thing: a feeling that their stories have been kept in the shadows too long.

The growing number of people now identifying as children of priests has drawn a mixed reaction from the church so far, ranging from relative silence in Boston to indications that some church leaders may for the first time provide official guidance on a priest’s responsibility to his children. Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley has said little about the issue, even though he is a close adviser to Pope Francis and head of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, which is preparing to advise the Pope on how to prevent clergy sexual abuse. He declined requests for an interview. O’Malley has acknowledged that some priests do have children, citing in his blog the popular 1970s novel and 1980s mini-series, “The Thorn Birds,” about a young woman in Australia who falls in love with a priest. O’Malley concludes his blog post by saying that the offspring of priests are “a serious problem, but in my experience as a priest and as a bishop, the instance of when a priest has fathered a child has not been very frequent.” But the number of people with ties to the Boston area who claim to be the children of priests suggests the phenomenon may not be all that rare. Greater Boston represents only a tiny fraction of the world’s Catholics, suggesting that the total number of priests’ offspring worldwide could number in the thousands.

In the larger Catholic world, there are signs of a new willingness to address the needs of children of priests, a problem that has quietly dogged the church since leaders forbade priests to marry or have children nearly 900 years ago. Last month, two members of the commission O’Malley leads said the group has decided to tackle the issue, creating a working group to develop guidelines to ensure that children born to priests are adequately cared for. “It’s a horrendous problem in many cultures, and it’s not something that is readily talked about,” commission member Krysten Winter-Green told the Associated Press. A spokesman for the Vatican said he could not confirm Winter-Green’s contention that the commission is looking at the children of priests. But two other well-established Catholic groups, which together represent the supervisors of as many as half of the world’s 400,000 priests, are taking concrete action to address the issue.

The Conference of Major Superiors of Men, a research and advisory body for the supervisors of 11,500 religious order priests in the United States — just under a third of the total — has begun ratifying a set of principles for priests who father children, a process that could be completed as soon as January. The principles, recently approved by bishops in Ireland, call for any priest who fathers a child to take “personal, legal, moral and financial responsibility” for his offspring, and to include the child’s mother in all decisions about the child’s welfare. “The fact that you have the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference approving a policy should speed this along fairly quickly,” said Rev. Gerard McGlone, the organization’s associate director for the protection of minors. “Most of the religious superiors I’ve spoken with say, ‘Yeah, this seems logical and absolutely reasonable to look at.’”

In Rome, the worldwide umbrella group for the leaders of religious order priests has already e-mailed the Irish principles to some 220 members throughout the world. The Rev. David Glenday, secretary general of the Union of Superiors General and a Comboni Missionary priest, said the organization’s executive committee signed off on the principles earlier this year after they were brought to their attention by Doyle, founder of the support group known as Coping International. The committee “found them very useful and very helpful,” Glenday said. He cautioned, however, that only the Vatican can require bishops and the supervisors of religious order priests to follow protocols for dealing with priests who father children. Several of those who recently contacted the Globe, saying they were children of priests, said they tried for years to draw attention to the issue, but with little success.

Vincent Begley, the half-brother of a Needham man with whom he shares the same biological mother but a different priest-father, even published a 1989 book recounting their story, only to have it land on what he jokingly calls the “least seller” list. “That was more than 20 years ago and all I heard was crickets,” he said. Begley, who lives in New York, and his half-brother, Thomas Harkins, were both put up for adoption and both say they’re grateful for their adoptive families. If anyone was victimized by the failure of their fathers to live up to their promise to lead celibate lives, it was their mother. Begley said their mother met the Rev. Maurice Leo Sullivan in St. Helena’s parish, in the Bronx, the beginning of a relationship that led to Harkins’s birth in 1945. Three years later, after seeking counseling from a second priest, the Rev. James Kevin Hargrove, the pair started a relationship and she gave birth to his child, Begley.

The story of Adrian Senna and Carla Latty, who grew up separately and later discovered they are very likely the offspring of an African-American woman and a white priest from Foxborough, also failed to draw lasting attention, even though it was the subject of a 2009 lawsuit that was covered by the news media. In their lawsuit, the siblings said their father’s religious order, the St. Joseph Society of the Sacred Heart in Baltimore, knew that the Rev. Francis E. Ryan had fathered them, but he never intervened or took responsibility for their well-being. They said Ryan had a long-running affair with their mother, Anna Maria Franklin Senna, beginning in the Deep South and continuing in Boston.

Adrian Senna said he did not believe Ryan was his father when a fellow teenager suggested as much when Ryan visited his mother in the predominantly black Whittier Street public housing development. “One of the guys asked me, ‘Is that your dad?’ And I said, ‘No, he’s just a friend. He’s a priest,’ ” Senna recalled. “Then it struck me years later that this kid could see things a lot better than I did.” But Senna and Latty lost their suit in part because of constitutional protections for religion, according to Carmen Durso, an attorney for the siblings. The church has the right to demand that priests live without marriage or sex, but cannot be held liable when priests fail to meet that requirement. “The courts can’t get involved in resolving a religious dispute,” Durso said. “But when you think about what happened to them — finding out your racial background isn’t what you thought it was, and then finding that your father was a priest — it’s really shocking.”

Mimi Bull said she spent years trying to find someone outside her family who would believe her story or at least listen to her, but to no avail. She said she contacted former priests who she believed would be sympathetic, but never received a meaningful response. In 2002, after the Spotlight Team revealed the pervasive cover-up of clergy sexual abuse, she telephoned the Boston Archdiocese to ask if there was a support group for the children of priests that she could join. “I called the Chancery and of course I got one of these very prim ladies,” Bull recalled. “I said I’m interested to know if you have a support group for the children of priests, and I got dead silence. It was worth the whole phone call.” Bull believes the children of priests have remained isolated because Catholics have been so deferential to priests, particularly in the Boston area when she was growing up, during the 1930s and 1940s. Today, Bull believes Catholics are ready to accept the fact that some priests — perhaps many — do not keep their promise to live without sex. She also says she hopes that more children of priests will break their silence and no longer help the church keep their existence a secret. “Whatever the church does, it cannot hide all us children in a dark chamber as it did along with its other secrets,” she said.

Comment by Brian Mark Hennessy

As a survivor of Sexual Abuse by a Priest – and a friend of many other survivors of clerical sexual abuse perpetrated by Comboni Missionary priests at their Mirfield seminary in Yorkshire, England, I recognize that these children of priests are as much victims of clerical abuse as those of us who were sexually abused. The psychological harm that the Catholic Church has done to such children throughout the ages is as incalculable as it is inhumane and outrageous. The Comboni Survivors feel their pain deeply – and thank God – that at last the Catholic Church has acknowledged the cruelty heaped upon these children. It is somehow ironic, however, that it is David Kinnear Glenday, a Comboni Priest at the USG who has consistently denied the sexual abuse perpetrated against his boyhood friends at the Mirfield seminary, who is now tasked with correcting the perversion of this cruel, travesty of human decency and justice.

Up to 40 Monks and Teachers Accused of Sexually Abusing Children at English Catholic Boarding School

A review of Reports in the News 1 December 2017

View photos

Children at a Roman Catholic church school in England are “still at risk”, with claims that up to 40 monks and teachers have sexually abused pupils. Since 1996 three monks and two lay teachers at Ampleforth have been convicted of sex offences against pupils, but Ms Karmy-Jones said that the inquiry had been notified of multiple allegations.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) is examining the prevalence of paedophilia in the English Benedictine Congregation and failures in protecting young people. But although numerous inquiries have exposed the problem of child abuse within church institutions and a string of offenders convicted, lingering safety concerns could remain, it was heard. The inquiry is focusing on offenders that targeted children at two Roman Catholic schools, Ampleforth in North Yorkshire and Downside in Somerset, over the course of many decades.

Counsel to the inquiry Riel Karmy-Jones told a hearing at IICSA’s headquarters in south London: “It may be that during the course of evidence and the submissions to come (that) there is some acceptance of failings, but reliance will be placed on changes that have been made over the years. “But, as you will hear, concerns remain and you are likely to hear evidence that suggests safeguarding problems are still ongoing, in some instances, and with the inevitable result that children may remain at risk.”

The Roman Catholic Church is one of 13 arms of public life being scrutinised for child safety failings by IICSA. Turning a blind eye to paedophilia should be made a criminal offence so Church institutions are discouraged from hushing up scandals, a victims’ lawyer said. Richard Scorer, who represents 27 core participants to the inquiry, said some Catholic Church schools concealed offending out of concerns for their reputation. Many rely on private school fees to survive and cannot risk exposing misconduct, turning schools into “honeypots where multiple offenders operate”, he said. “The reputational pressures, the cultural and theological factors which led to abuse being covered up in Catholic institutions have not gone away,” he told the hearing.

Previous inquiries into Catholic Church schools such as Ampleforth have revealed behaviour ranging from rape to voyeuristic beatings over many years, and resulted in convictions. Predators include teacher David Lowe, jailed in 2015 for 10 years for 15 indecent assaults on boys under Lowe’s offences were traced back to the 1980s at Westminster Cathedral School and Ampleforth.

Matthias Kelly, representing Ampleforth, offered a “sincere and heartfelt apology to anyone who has suffered abuse whilst in our care”. He added: “All students, past and present and future, are entitled to expect that they will be safe and cared for by us – I am deeply sorry that this was not always the case. “We wish to apologise for the hurt, injury, distress and damage done to those who were abused as a result of our failings.” He said the school would “strive with every fibre of our beings to alleviate the damage done “and, he said, “ensure that we do everything we can to ensure there is no repetition”. Kate Gallafen, representing the English Benedictine Congregation and Downside school, also expressed the remorse of both institutions. She said a review and audit of safeguarding procedures had been commissioned at Downside, which will be carried out by the Social Care Institute for Excellence.

“The Australian Church Is In Desperate Trouble”

Posted Thursday, 30 Nov 2017, by Natasha Marsh – a Freelance Journalist based in Melbourne

In 2017, the Church has Endured an Abuse Crisis, lost a Same-Sex Marriage Vote and Failed to Stop Euthanasia. Can it recover?This Sunday marks Advent, the beginning of a new year in the Church’s liturgical calendar. That may be a relief for Australian Catholics, who will be glad to say goodbye to 2017 a few weeks early. The year opened on a hard note, with the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse, in its fifth and final year, holding a three-week “wrap-up” session on the Catholic Church in February. The results were shocking and sickening, and were splashed across the news daily. While the vast majority of abuse was historical (between 1950 and 2010) these reports cast a chill on all good-hearted people – Catholic or not.

Many faithful Catholics were further disappointed and disillusioned as entire archdioceses lay paralysed by silence, peeping out from behind media releases and communications offices. Where were the prayer vigils? The novenas? The tears? Church billboards declaring “Not in my name”? While disappointment was one emotion, another was rage. And the mainstream media capitalised on the zeitgeist, openly speculating whether it was Catholicism itself – from celibacy to Confession – that was intrinsically “paedophilic”.

Over the months, the spotlight was slowly directed towards one man – Australia’s highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell. The Cardinal became the subject of countless articles, parodies and memes. A comedic song, calling him “scum”, gathered 2.5 million views, while a polemical book “Cardinal: the Rise and Fall of George Pell” was published in May. In November, an obscene public mural crept across a pub wall in Sydney depicting the cardinal with former prime minister Tony Abbott. When Cardinal Pell returned to Melbourne from the Vatican to answer charges of historic child sex abuse – charges which he will denounce when the trial begins in March next year – hundreds of journalists camped for hours to report as the 76-year-old presented himself to court.

As June slipped into August, the spotlight shifted from the Catholic Church, and Cardinal Pell in particular, to Christian morality in general. Australia has never been, strictly speaking, a Judaeo-Christian country. It is a country that was built on Enlightenment ideals, but at a time when Enlightenment principles were still benefiting from, and dependent on, a robust Christianity. But the past few months have seen the axe laid to the last tendrils of Christianity in Australia, and a new morality is replacing the old. While the new secular morality is rightfully outraged at the historic abuse of children, it seems less clear on how it feels about the current sexualisation of children.

In September, “The Gender Fairy”, a book which teaches that being a “boy” or a “girl” can be a matter of personal decision, was released. It ends with the claim: “Only you know whether you are a girl or a boy.” The book is promoted by the radical LGBTQI sex education programme, “Safe Schools”. Although the work of “Safe Schools” is marketed as an anti-bullying programme, the federal government announced it would discontinue funding out of concern over some of the material (including online links to other resources full of graphic content). Dismissing these concerns as “homophobic”, the Victoria government pledged $1 million of its own funds, declaring that all state secondary schools would be members of the Safe Schools Coalition by 2018.

November has also been a month for headlines, with the historic announcement that a solid majority of Australians (62 per cent) voted “yes” to proposals to change the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry, quickly followed by the Victoria government’s upper house voting to allow euthanasia. In this way, same-sex marriage and euthanasia for Victorians may be legal by Christmas. Out of this changing culture it is clear that there are three groups emerging within the Catholic community. The first group does not realise that there has been any change; the second group seeks to embrace the changing culture; and the third group rejects the new culture.

Statistics suggest that the first group has the largest membership. Of the nearly 5.5 million Australians who put themselves down as Catholic in the 2016 census conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, fewer than 10 per cent said they attend Mass – and only 10 per cent of that 10 per cent accept all the teachings of the Church. The second, smaller, group is passionate about seeing the Church move “with the times”. Driven by a desire for reform, its members dominate the corridors of the diocesan and archdiocesan offices, Catholic education offices, academic boards and hospital ethics committees. The third group seeks to hold to the truths of the faith and embrace the Cross as a “stumbling block”, and believes that the spirit of the world, as Scripture says, is antithetical to the Holy Spirit. For Catholics of this third kind, the most hostile places are the “edifices built in prosperity”, that is, the hospitals, schools and universities with Catholic names.

The fraught relationship between these groups dominates the experience of Catholics “on the ground”. As Catholic leadership roles are often mastered by people who no longer believe in the power of the Catholic message, this explains many decisions made by the Church this year. It explains how millions can be spent in high schools implementing a dubious “Catholic Identity Project” from Louvain University in Belgium (a country haemorrhaging its Catholic identity at giddying speed), while the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family, Melbourne, one of the bastions of international-level orthodox Catholic academia, is closed for “financial reasons”. It explains how Bishop Vincent Long of Parramatta could write a letter before the same-sex marriage plebiscite telling Catholics “It should not be a matter of a simple answer Yes or No”, and weeks later be asked to write the 2017-2018 Australian Catholic Bishops’ Social Justice Statement (“Everyone’s Business: Developing an Inclusive and Sustainable Economy”) without a word of reproach. It also explains how a chaplain at one Catholic college could be sacked days after celebrating his first Extraordinary Form Mass on campus, and how a Victorian Catholic palliative care nurse could receive a letter from the office Lady, following the example of Archbishop Julian Porteous of Tasmania. She was told: “Prayer is valuable. Keep it up. Consecrations should not be used as some kind of weapon.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, has often been called prophetic for words spoken nearly 50 years ago in 1969: “What will the future Church look like? From the crisis of today a new Church of tomorrow will emerge – a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.”

Priests Must Violate Seal Of Confessional, Inquiry Told

Posted Tuesday, 28 Nov 2017 by a Staff Reporter of the “CATHOLIC HERALD”

British priests should be compelled to break the Seal of the Confessional in cases of child sexual abuse, lawyers have told the UK Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.

Solicitor David Enright, representing former pupils at a Comboni Missionary Order seminary, said it was a problem that “matters revealed in Confession, including child abuse, cannot be used in governance. One can’t think of a more serious obstacle embedded in the law of the Catholic Church to achieving child protection.The Catholic Church is so opaque, so disparate, so full of separate bodies who are not subject to any authority that it is difficult to see how reform can be made to provide good governance and introduce acceptable standards of child protection.”

Richard Scorer, another lawyer representing victims, called for a “mandatory reporting law” – asking: “Why has the temptation to cover up abuse been particularly acute in organisations forming part of the Roman Catholic Church?” The lawyers were speaking at the opening of a three-week hearing into abuse at English Benedictine schools. Their recommendations echo a suggestion heard in August by Australia’s royal commission on child abuse, which prompted Archbishop Denis Hart of Melbourne to say he would go to jail rather than violate the Seal. The Catechism says the seal of Confession is “inviolable” and any priest who violates it incurs automatic excommunication.

The hearing into two English Benedictine independent schools, Ampleforth and Downside, is the latest segment of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse – thought to be the biggest public inquiry ever established in England and Wales. Lawyers representing the Benedictines expressed regret for past abuse. Kate Gallafent QC, for the English Benedictine Congregation, said there had been “intense sadness at the anguish caused to so many people”. Matthias Kelly QC, speaking for Ampleforth, said: “We wish to apologise for the hurt, distress and damage done to those who suffered abuse when in our care. We will do everything we can to ensure that there is no repetition.”

Australia to Ban Convicted Paedophiles From Travelling Abroad

Distributed by Australia’s BLM Abuse News Blog
Written by Catherine Davey, associate at BLM & Posted on June 26, 2017

Australia punishes people who abuse children overseas with up to 25 years imprisonment. Despite this, some Australian paedophiles are known to take inexpensive holidays to South East Asian and Pacific island countries to abuse children. In response, Australia is going to introduce new laws to tackle child sex tourism in what has been described as a “world first”. The Government has said the new rules, which includes the cancellation of passports, will ensure child sex offenders cannot travel “to vulnerable countries where they are out of sight and reach of Australian law”. Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop has said that her country “is leading the way when it comes to protecting vulnerable children overseas.” She said governments in the Asia-Pacific region wanted Australia to do more and that the new laws would prevent convicted Australian paedophiles taking part in the “growing child sex tourism trade.”

There are around 20,000 registered child sex offenders in Australia who are subject to reporting obligations and supervision. In 2016 almost 800 travelled abroad and about half went to Southeast Asian destinations. The Australian register contains 3,200 serious offenders who will be banned from travel for life. “Less serious” offenders, who will be removed from the register after several years of complying with reporting conditions, will become eligible to have their passports renewed. According to EPCAT, an NGO which campaigns against child sex tourism, there are more than 24 countries where child sex tourism is prevalent, with the worst affected locations in South America and Southeast Asia. UNICEF estimates that two million children globally are exploited sexually every year.

Tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation requires a collaborative, worldwide effort, with each country taking responsibility for the part their nationals play in child abuse. 44 countries, including England, have legislation that enables them to prosecute their nationals for crimes against children committed abroad. However, EPCAT says that “there are very few countries that have invoked extraterritorial legislation frequently”, possibly due to the cost of investigating crimes abroad. Australia’s new approach seems to be a powerful tool with which to reduce child sex tourism. It will be interesting to see if other countries follow in their footsteps.

NOTE BY BRIAN MARK HENNESSY

The United Kingdom Government must review its processes regarding the movements of known paedophiles to ensure that those procedures are as equally robust as that proposed by the Australian Government. Countries must take note and learn from each other on best practice.
It is of note also at this moment, whilst IICSA is in process, that amongst the Catholic Religious Orders, notably the Comboni Missionary Order of Verona, Italy, that, when abuse has been alleged, there has been a perverse historic practice of immediately posting their clerics accused of child abuse to overseas third world countries. This is a deliberate attempt to avoid any possible consequences and the Laws of the United Kingdom to prosecute individuals suspected or known to have committed acts of child abuse. The United Kingdom Government must take all measures to make certain that in United Kingdom law such a practice is illegal and that those clerics within the control of Religious Institutes are bound by civil law to report all allegations of child abuse to the Civil Authorities for investigation immediately and that those Religious Institutes participating in such perverse practices as the concealment of alleged abusers of children by moving them overseas will themselves be investigated and prosecuted if found guilty of such

UNITED KINGDOM INDEPENDENT INQUIRING INTO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ON 28TH NOVEMBER 2017
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BETWEEN COUNSEL MR SAM STEIN AND DOM RICHARD YEO, FORMER ABBOT PRESIDENT OF THE
ENGLISH BENEDICTINE CONGREGATION

MR STEIN: Dom Richard, may I just ask you a question about monks that are part of the English Benedictine Congregation that have abused. What steps have been taken by the English Benedictine Congregation to institute a fund or redress scheme for survivors of sexual abuse by English Benedictine Congregation monks?

A. Again, the answer is that this is the responsibility of the individual monastery. The only qualification I would make about that is that we have, sadly, both actual victims and people who have made allegations of abuse at Fort Augustus, and since that monastery has now closed, the English Benedictine Congregation wishes to see what it can do.

Q. My question was, what actual steps have been taken by the English Benedictine Congregation to institute a fund or redress scheme for survivors of abuse by English Benedictine Congregation monks? Can you help us, please?

A. Yes. As regards Fort Augustus monks – sorry, as regards survivors of abuse at Fort Augustus, we recognise a moral responsibility and because we hold some money which was gifted to us by the trustees of Fort Augustus Abbey when it closed, we are asking the Charity Commission to allow us to use that money for compensation to victims of abuse at Fort Augustus. Now, that decision was taken when I was Abbot President. Since then, I understand the Charity Commission is still looking at that. So that’s a partial answer to your question. The other answer to your question is, for those who were — or for those who were abused at other monasteries, I repeat what I said before, that is the responsibility of the individual monastery.

Q. So you have dealt with Fort Augustus and there’s a sum of money that arose through the closing down of that monastery and that’s what you are considering with the Charity Commission. Is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Let’s move on to Downside and Ampleforth and the survivors of abuse at those institutions. What has the EBC, the English Benedictine Congregation, done to set up some sort of fund or redress scheme for those? If the answer is “Nothing”, then say “Nothing”?

A. I will say “Nothing”, and I have given you the reason: because it is the responsibility of the monastery.

Q. So nothing has been done to set up fund or redress scheme in relation to the survivors of sexual abuse at those two schools; is that
A. Correct.

Q. I am going to ask you some questions about the Rule of St Benedict and that has been set out in those issues that have been granted. I have asked the evidence handler to put up on the screen the Rule of St Benedict. Can we please go to rule or chapter 23 which our evidence handler will find at page 18 of the Rule of St Benedict. Dom Richard, have you got the Rule of St Benedict coming up on your screen?

A. I do, yes.

Q. I’m grateful. Help us, please, understand this. The Rule of St Benedict is the basic rule of life — is that a fair way of putting it? — that is followed by Benedictine monks?

A. Correct.

Q. In particular, it is the rule of life followed by English Benedictine monks within the congregation; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. We are going to be looking at the particular rules that are set out first of all, page 18, chapter 23. The first one sets out the question of excommunication for faults if a brother is found to be stubborn or disobedient or proud. It goes on to talk about that monk if he grumbles or in any way despises the Holy Rule and defies the orders of his seniors. It then sets out, as we understand the disciplinary procedure, he should be warned twice privately by the seniors. Would a senior in a monastery be a dean?

A. It means one of the senior — one of the older monks.

Q. So he should be warned twice privately by a senior in the way you describe in accord with Our Lord’s injunction and there is then a biblical reference. Is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. “If he does not amend, he must be rebuked publicly in the presence of everyone. But if, even then, he does not reform, let him be excommunicated, provided that he understands the nature of this punishment. If, however, he lacks understanding, let him undergo corporal punishment.” Is that still a current rule of the Rule of St Benedict?

A. The Rule of St Benedict was written in the 6th century, so it is still part of the rule.

Q. Right.

A. But it doesn’t follow that the precise material prescriptions of the rule are followed today.

Q. We are going to deal in a minute with the question of what is applied or not. I’m just going to go through some rules. Can I take you then to chapter 29, page 20 of the rule. This deals with readmission of brothers who leave the monastery, and it says: “If a brother, following his own evil ways, leaves the monastery but then wishes to return, he must first promise to make full amends for leaving.” Then it says: “Let him be received back …” I think the maximum number of times he can be received back, it looks like four times, “no more than three”; is that correct?

A. Three.

Q. Help us, please, understand that. Would that apply as an example to a child abuser monk?

A. No.

Q. Help us, please, where it says that within these rules?

A. Because this belongs to a section, 23 to 30, which we normally call “The disciplinary code”. That section of Page 144 the rule contains wise spiritual advice, particularly, I would say, on excommunication, which is a different idea to modern ideas of excommunication, and also mercy, which you will find, above all, in chapter 27. Chapter 27 is a very valuable guidance for an abbot, how to deal with a brother who is misbehaving. So the spirit of the rule applies, but in the 21st century a lot of the material prescriptions which are suitable for the 6th century are clearly inapplicable.

Q. Help us, please, a little bit further with page 20, chapter 30. This particular chapter 30 refers to the manner of reproving boys. In relation to, it seems, some misdeed of a boy, the rule states that “they should be subjected to severe fasts or checked with sharp strokes so that they may be healed”. Help us, please, in relation to the applicability of that particular rule, as an example, being got rid of from the rules?

A. Again, you cannot get rid of it in the sense that you cannot amend the text which has been written in the 6th century, but that is one of the provisions which was presumably suitable for the 6th century and totally inappropriate for the 21st century, so it is not applied.

Q. Chapter 45, “Mistakes in the oratory”. This particular one sets out mistakes in the oratory: “Should anyone make a mistake in a psalm, responsory, refrain or reading, he must make satisfaction there before all.” Then it goes on to talk about the question of, “If he does not use this occasion to humble himself, he will be subjected to more severe punishment for failing to correct by humility the wrong committed through negligence. Children, however, are to be whipped for such a fault.” Are you going to tell us that that is again a matter for the 16th century and not to be applied now. Is that what you are going to say?

A. 6th century, yes.

Q. And not applied now?

A. Indeed.

Q. Help us with these references to corporal punishment in relation to monks, first of all. Within the monastery of which you were part, was corporal punishment still used in relation to monks?

A. It wasn’t, and it hasn’t been used for several hundred years.

Q. What about other monasteries?

A. I have a pretty wide knowledge of monasteries throughout the world, and I think I can be quite certain in saying that it is not applied anywhere.

Q. In relation to children, corporal punishment, when did that stop?

A. In this country, it has been illegal now for something like 20/30 years. I think — I couldn’t say for certain when it finished in each individual school, but it finished well before it became unlawful.

Q. Right. So you’re saying the 6th century rules are no longer followed; in particular, the disciplinary system is to be regarded as a part of old rules not to be applied. Is that what you are saying?

A. I didn’t say the disciplinary system. I said that these material applications. I’m saying the spirit of the rule is still important. The concept of excommunication, which is depriving a person of community life, and the concept of the abbot as a wise physician who knows how to cure spiritual ills, that is something which is very valuable, but I am saying that the material — the provisions about corporal punishment, which you mentioned, are clearly inappropriate for today.

Q. Where are the modern rules that deal with the current disciplinary system in relation to monks? Where are they set out?

A. Above all, they would be in the customary of the monastery.

Q. So each of the customary of the monasteries, is this correct, contains a modern-day, up-to-date, as far as it can be done, disciplinary system for monks? Is that what you are saying?

A. I’m saying that — for example, at the end you mentioned chapter 45 of the rule, what happens if you come late. I think must customaries will say, and if the customary doesn’t say, the custom, the unwritten custom of the monastery does say what way a monk should do penance for arriving late.

Q. Arriving late for what?

A. For the oratory.

Q. For a reading; is that correct?

A. For a service in the church.

Q. What about more serious infractions of any particular rule, so a monk abusing children, as an example? Where is the disciplinary system set out in any rule that we can find, read, graph, talk to you about? Where is it set out?

A. That would be superseded by the law of the land.

Q. So is the answer to my question that there is no disciplinary system set out within a coherent written text for monks today? Is that the answer?

A. I think, as I have tried to say before, we find value in elements of chapters 23 to 30. I gave a series of talks about this to a group of nuns a couple of years ago, and was able to, I think, talk for about — give at least three talks on the subject. There is a lot of spiritual value there. But if you are talking about a modern code of discipline, that’s not the way a monastery today works.

Q. Is your answer that there is no written code of discipline that is applicable to EBC monks?

A. I’m saying that each individual monastery may have its customary and it may — it will say some things about discipline, but it won’t be a systematic disciplinary code in the way that you might have in civil legislation.

Q. When you were the Abbot President, did you enquire into these customaries, these disciplinary rules, to consider whether they were adequate?

A. We issued, in 2009, some guidance for the writing of a customary. Whether it spoke specifically of disciplinary matters, I cannot remember. But, again, it will have been the responsibility of each monastery to compose its own customary after considering the model which the congregation had given.

Q. So is, again, the answer that you, as Abbot President, did not look into the question of individual disciplinary codes written into the customaries within monasteries?

A. I encouraged monasteries to write customaries. Customaries were often given to me at the time of visitations and I occasionally made a comment on them.

MR STEIN: You have answered questions about the presence or non-presence of a disciplinary code. You seem to describe the Rule of St Benedict to be genius. That’s in your statement at paragraph 29, page 8. You describe the rule to be genius, or a genius rule.

A. I think what I said is I spoke of the genius of the rule, which is a slightly different thing from saying the rule is genius.

Q. I will read it out: “Inevitably, much of this detail suited to life in the 6th century is outdated today. But part of its genius is its flexibility which has enabled monks and nuns of different cultures, as well as different 17 centuries, to use it as a guide to monastic living.” Do you stand by that?

A. Yes.

Q. You also say that monks spend a good deal of time studying the rule and that we, yourself included as a monk, have all been formed by the rule? That’s within your statement at paragraph 30; is that correct?

A. Correct
.
Q. Help us, please, understand the situation with a monk: where is it set out for a monk which chapters, which rules, within the Rule of St Benedict should be followed or not be followed?

A. It isn’t, because we don’t talk about not following rules — not following individual chapters. We are talking about chapters which are — where the material provisions are outdated and not applied, but, nevertheless the context and the spiritual value is still there.

Q. You have worked — “worked” may be the wrong description, but you have been the Abbot President of the EBC; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You have served on the Cumberlege Commission; is that also correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You are currently a representative of the Catholic Council, the body that’s designed to support this inquiry; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You have worked as an adviser to the Conference of the Religious; is that also right?

A. Correct.

Q. In relation to your senior roles within those organisations, what steps have you taken to advise, as an example, the NCSC, of deficiencies in the Rule of St Benedict?

A. I don’t believe there are deficiencies in the Rule of St Benedict, so I haven’t taken any advice – any steps to inform the NCSC about them.

Q. You have mentioned in your evidence this afternoon that there is guidance that’s been given to monasteries in relation to disciplinary matters. You said that already. Have you discussed that with the NCSC, as an example?

A. No:

Q. Did you discuss that with the Nolan Commission?

A. No.

Q. The Cumberlege Commission?

A. No. Mr Stein, maybe I can help you by reminding you of what I said in answer to one of Ms Karmy-Jones’ questions, that the constitution to the congregation consists of two parts. The first part is the declarations on the rule which complement the rule and which, in many cases, describe the way in which the monastic life is lived today. Therefore, areas where the rule is clearly anachronistic will be complemented by what is written in the declarations.

Q. Is our understanding correct that there was a re-approval by the Holy See of the English Benedictine Congregation’s constitutions in 2013?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there, first of all, a discussion about the disciplinary procedures in relation to monks’ miss-behaviour when the Holy See revisited the EBC constitutions in 2013?

A. Yes, because there was discussion of the way in which we should incorporate safeguarding into the constitutions and, following the discussion, matters about safeguarding were introduced into the constitutions.

Q. That’s safeguarding. What about the disciplinary measures for monks who may, as an example, have abused children? What discussion was conducted with the Holy See about the disciplinary measures that relate to those monks in the 2013 re-approval of the constitution?

A. That would not come into the constitutions. As I said before, that is largely superseded by national policies and procedures on safeguarding, and also by the rules set out by the CDF as regards the punishment of abusers.

Q. Do you accept that the English Benedictine Congregation bears a moral responsibility to those people that have been abused by its monks?

A. I accept that the monasteries of the English Benedictine Congregation have a responsibility which is both moral and in many cases may be legal. The Congregation as a whole, as I have said, regrets, is sorry for and is ashamed of abuse which has been committed in any monastery.

Q. Why don’t you say that the EBC has a moral responsibility for the survivors of abuse? Why do you give an answer which says that, “Well, we are very sorry, but don’t accept moral responsibility”?

A. Because I think that the primary responsibility must be with the individual monastery, and survivors must go to, in the first — well, I would advise survivors to go to the abbot of their monastery, of the monastery where they were abused. Now, as Ms Gallafent said yesterday, the Abbot President is very willing to hear any complainants who come to him. He has invited them to come to him. And I am sure he would express his sorrow at any abuse. But I think he would probably refer the matter eventually to the individual monastery where the abuse was suffered. I’m not certain that saying the EBC accepts moral responsibility — I’m not certain what that means.

A. You, Abbot President ex of the EBC, are saying that you don’t understand what the words “moral responsibility” mean? Are you saying that?

A. I’m saying that I’m not certain what the EBC accepting moral responsibility implies.
ENDS

CATHOLIC CHURCH ‘PARTICULARLY SUBJECT’ TO TEMPTATION TO COVER UP ABUSE, INQUIRY TOLD

A “TABLET” ARTICLE – 27 November 2017 – by Rose Gamble

Mandatory Reporting of Sexual Misconduct Should be Introduced to Prevent Abuses Occurring, National Inquiry is Told

The Catholic Church is “particularly subject to the temptation to cover up abuse” in order to protect its reputation, the national inquiry into child sex abuse has been told.

On the opening day of a three week hearing on the English Benedictine Congregation as part of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), lawyers representing abuse victims said mandatory reporting of sexual misconduct must be introduced in the church to prevent abuses occurring. “The reputational pressures, the cultural and theological factors which led to abuse being covered up in Catholic institutions have not gone away. They remain as powerful as ever,” Richard Scorer of the law firm Slater & Gordon, who is representing 27 core participants, told the inquiry on 27 November. “Because we have no mandatory reporting law, that temptation to cover up in our view remains undiminished today,” he added.

David Enright, a solicitor at Howe and Co representing more than 12 former schoolboys from a Catholic Comboni missionary school, highlighted the “power and depth of influence” held by those in leadership positions in the Catholic church. Removing the privileges of priestly confession would be beneficial in tackling abuse, he said. Matters revealed in confession, including child abuse, cannot be used in governance,” Enright said. “One can’t think of a more serious obstacle embedded in the law of the Catholic church to achieving child protection. “The Catholic church is so opaque, so disparate, so full of separate bodies who are not subject to any authority that it is difficult to see how reform can be made to provide good governance and introduce acceptable standards of child protection,” he said. 

William Chapman from the firm Switalskis likewise highlighted the culture of the Catholic Church and the Benedictine religious order as allowing for an abuse of power. He described the Benedictine church as “a Harry Potter world of beguiling charm that invites a high degree of trust and indeed receives a high degree of trust. Therein lies the danger.” Bishops and those in leadership positions, he said, are given too much power. “It means, inevitably, there is a lack of independent oversight,” he concluded.

Over the next few weeks the IICSA’s inquiry is focusing on two Benedictine abbeys and their associated private, fee-paying schools, Downside and Ampleforth. Introducing the investigation, Riel Karmy-Jones QC, counsel to the inquiry, said past allegations and convictions at the schools had exposed a range of misconduct ranging from excessive physical chastisement to rape. She said that during the course of the hearing the inquiry were likely to hear of occasions when victims did not report allegations; police were not informed; reports were ignored or families pressured not to submit allegations.

She also said there were cases where known abusers were moved to another location apparently to appease parents or avoid scandal; where abusers were allowed to remain in their posts or even return to the Abbeys, where they continued to have contact with children. It may be that there is some acceptance of failings,” said Karmy Jones. “But as you will hear, concerns remain and you are likely to hear evidence that suggests safeguarding problems are still ongoing, with the inevitable result that children may remain at risk.” Spokespeople from both Ampleforth and Dowside Abbey made opening statements expressing regret for past abuses.

Matthias Kelly QC, for Ampleforth, said: “We wish to apologise for the hurt, distress and damage done to those who suffered abuse when in our care. We will do everything we can to ensure that there is no repetition.” He said that Ampleforth has learnt many lessons and that “there is much that is now changed in our approach”. The school, he said, is now run by an external trust and is monitored by the Independent Schools Inspectorate. “Ampleforth can no longer be described as a clerical closed shop,” he explained.

Kate Gallafent QC, for the English Benedictine Congregation, said that as the number of children abused had become apparent, there had been a sense of shame and “intense sadness at the anguish caused to so many people”. She said that Downside abbey has commissioned a review and audit of its safeguarding procedures. In addition, the Downside Abbey General Trust is actively exploring ways by which the abbey can become separate from Downside School. She said: “Downside abbey and school are all committed to learning from the past and taking all appropriate steps for the future to protect children from sexual abuse.”

In the final section of the opening statements, Sam Stein QC of Howe and Co said that the inquiry has received late disclosure of “large tranches of material” from Downside Abbey. “Is there a reason for the late disclosure by Downside?” he asked, adding later: “Is what is going on here a deliberate act?” Ms Gallafent responded on behalf of the Abbey saying it would be “wholly unjustified” to suggest that Downside Abbey is trying to hide something from the inquiry.

In her opening statement, Karmy Jones said the inquiry was aware of the late disclosure of material, adding: “No one suggests that these proceedings should be adjourned.”  The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) was set up in 2015 to investigate whether public bodies and other non-state institutions in England and Wales “have taken seriously their responsibility to protect children from sexual abuse”.

The Inquiry chose the English Benedictine Congregation as one of the Catholic Church’s case studies; its first public hearing in this phase is scheduled to run to 15 December when witnesses and core participants will provide evidence and face questioning.

There is a live feed of the hearings here.

End Secrecy of Confessionals

‘To Protect Catholic Children’

By Owen Bowcott

Legal Affairs Correspondent

Writing in the

GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER

Monday 27 November 2017 

Child sexual abuse inquiry is told that not reporting suspected incidents should be a crime

A solicitor representing victims said of the secrecy in the confessional box: ‘One can’t think of a more serious obstacle embedded in the law of the Catholic church to achieving child protection.’

Mandatory reporting of sexual misconduct and abolishing the secrecy of the priest’s confessional box are needed to protect children at Catholic schools, the national inquiry into child sexual abuse has been told.

At the opening of a three-week hearing into Benedictine schools, lawyers representing scores of victims have called for fundamental changes to the way the church handles complaints and deals with suspected offenders.

Richard Scorer, of the law firm Slater and Gordon, who represents 27 core participants at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), said the failure to make reporting suspected abuse a crime had allowed clerics to evade responsibility.

“A mandatory reporting law would have changed their behaviour,” Scorer told the hearing. “At Downside Abbey, abuse was discovered but not reported and abusers were left to free to abuse again and great harm was done to victims.

“The Catholic church purports to be a moral beacon for others around it yet these clerical sex abuse cases profoundly undermine it. Why has the temptation to cover up abuse been particularly acute in organisations forming part of the Roman Catholic Church?”

David Enright, a solicitor at Howe and Co who represents more than a dozen former schoolboys from a Catholic Comboni Missionary seminary – run by an order founded in Italy in the 1860s – said there were more than a million children attending Catholic-run educational institutions in the UK.

One former abuser at the Comboni seminary had not been punished but moved elsewhere after complaints and eventually became a Scouts commissioner in Uganda, Enright revealed. Removing the privileges of priestly confession would help change attitudes, he suggested.

“Matters revealed in confession, including child abuse, cannot be used in governance,” Enright said. “One can’t think of a more serious obstacle embedded in the law of the Catholic Church to achieving child protection.

“The Catholic Church is so opaque, so disparate, so full of separate bodies who are not subject to any authority that it is difficult to see how reform can be made to provide good governance and introduce acceptable standards of child protection.”

The latest strand of the IICSA’s inquiry is focusing on two Benedictine abbeys and their associated schools, Downside and Ampleforth. Introducing the investigation, Riel Karmy-Jones QC, counsel to the inquiry, said past allegations and convictions at the two schools had exposed a wide range of misconduct.

She said these included excessive physical chastisement, sometimes apparently for sexual gratification; voyeuristic beatings where children had been made to strip and to bend over so as to expose their naked bottoms; grooming; fondling of genitalia; buggery and rape.

Karmy-Jones said the inquiry was likely to hear allegations of complaints being ignored, pressure being applied to families not to report abuse, the police not being informed and known abusers being moved to other locations to avoid scandal.

In other cases, she said, abusers were permitted to stay in their posts and allowed to have contact with children and other vulnerable individuals.

“It may be that there is some acceptance of failings, but reliance will be placed on changes that have been made over the years,” Karmy-Jones said. “But as you will hear, concerns remain and you are likely to hear evidence that suggests safeguarding problems are still ongoing, with the inevitable result that children may remain at risk.”

Representatives of both abbeys made opening statements expressing regret for past abuse. Matthias Kelly QC, for Ampleforth, offered “sincere and heartfelt apologies”. He said: “We wish to apologise for the hurt, distress and damage done to those who suffered abuse when in our care. We will do everything we can to ensure that there is no repetition.

“Before 2005 [when a new abbot took over], there were failings, omissions, a lack of transparency and misguided loyalty [to the abbey]. Ampleforth is committed to learning from the past.”

Kate Gallafent QC, for the English Benedictine Congregation, said that as the number of children abused had become apparent, there had been a sense of shame and “intense sadness at the anguish caused to so many people”.

ENDS