Priests Must Violate Seal Of Confessional, Inquiry Told

Posted on by markmurray1

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 – With a Note by Brian Mark Hennessy

Posted on by markmurray1

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

A Message to IICSA from Brian Mark Hennessy of the Comboni Survivor Group

Posted on by markmurray1

A Message to IICSA from Brian Mark Hennessy

of the Comboni Survivor Group:

 

The United Kingdom Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) must be clear and steadfast in it’s goals. The effects of the Inquiry must be felt far into the future. In order that that goal is achieved IICSA must be certain that the Information they gather now will achieve the purpose for which it was devised. They are not constrained by a monetary budget. The United Kigdom Government will pay the cost whatever the cost. Time is no Constraint. That is set out in the Constitution of the Inquiry by Parliament. If they fail to cover all aspects of the history of child abuse now, then they will fail children in the future. Any area of abuse today and in the past will continue unless investigated now. All Civil organizations, Religious Creeds, Civil and Religious Institutes must be investigated and put “on notice” now that they will be watched into the future – that they may be called to give evidence and to be examined – and that if they ever fail in years to come – the recriminations of the Judicial processes of the United Kingdom will be most thorough and severe – and ultimately – their very survival will be questioned.

 

The Royal Commission – Australia’s Inquiry – An Update

 

Distributed by Australia’s BLM Abuse News Blog

 

As Australia is the news through the IICSA child migrant investigation, the work being undertaken by the Royal Commission (RC) in considering issues relating to abuse across many different organisations in Australia should not be forgotten. We summarise below its most recent work, much of which is of relevance irrespective of the jurisdiction in which an organisation finds itself.

Hearings

A series of final hearings are taking place to inquire into the current policies and procedures of 10 institutions in relation to child protection and child-safe standards, including responding to allegations of child sexual abuse. These hearings will, amongst other matters, consider the responses to and implementation of, recommendations which have been made to date by the Royal Commission. It is reasonable to expect the inquiries in England & Wales and Scotland to ask similar questions, and to expect to see consideration being made by UK based organisations of the recommendations made in Australia. These are all available on the Royal Commission website.

A further hearing will meanwhile commence on 27 March to consider the nature, cause and impact of child sexual abuse in institutions. This will consider the nature of child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts in Australia, and how community understanding of abuse has changed over time. It will also look at the extent of child sexual abuse in institutional contexts historically and in contemporary Australia, and challenges to identification and prevention. It will consider if the factors that contribute to the risk of child sexual abuse in institutional contexts are:

  • Factors that make all children vulnerable to sexual abuse and heighten the vulnerability of particular groups of children to sexual abuse
  • Factors that may contribute to people sexually abusing children in institutional contexts
  • Institution-specific factors that may contribute to child sexual abuse.

 

It will also consider the impacts of child sexual abuse and institutional responses on survivors, both in childhood and throughout their adult lives, their families and supporters, and the wider community.

Research reports

Many good reports have already been published and we have previously commented on some of these in our blogs. The most recent are:

Disability and child sexual abuse in institutional contexts – The most reliable data suggests that between nine and 14 in every 100 children with disability are likely to experience sexual abuse. Children with a disability can be vulnerable to sexual abuse due to various factors including the locations and people with whom they spend time, the need for greater physical assistance and attitudes that children with disabilities are less competent and less likely to tell. The report includes recommendations for strategies to prevent future abuse.

 

The role of organisational culture in child sexual abuse in institutional contexts – This report looks at literature and some of the RC case study reports. It found that cultural factors associated with “total institutions” and “macho cultures” may be more conducive to the perpetration of child sexual abuse. This was because they were more likely to conduct their own investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse, rather than referring alleged perpetrators to authorities; to forbid children from retaining personal items and discourage the building of relationships with peers; to promote secrecy and withholding of information from children, staff and others, and/or command children to engage in or refrain from behaviours that make abuse possible and reporting less likely.

 

Children and young people’s views about their safety in residential care – Most of the children and young people who participated in this research described feeling unsafe in residential care due to bullying, harassment and the threat of sexual assault. The report’s conclusions include that children felt safest in residential care when it felt like home, for example when they were in a clean and welcoming environment, where they were able to celebrate events, and were well supervised by adults. To be safe, participants needed their residential care to offer stability and predictability. Many of the young people interviewed described their time in residential care as chaotic, found it difficult to feel settled and spoke of the high turnover of staff. Children were provided with a sense of safety when their residential care provided routine, fair rules and the ability to be heard during decision-making. Residential care felt most safe when adults and institutions took children and young people’s safety seriously and had proactive strategies in place to protect children from harm.

 

Grooming and child sexual abuse in institutional contexts – This report concludes that grooming can involve a range of behaviours that target not only children, but also others involved in gaining access to the child’s life including parents and caregivers and staff in institutional settings. Grooming is often an incremental process which involves three stages – gaining access to the victim; initiating and maintaining the abuse; and concealing the abuse. The best way to identify and prevent grooming and child sexual abuse may be through the development and implementation of policies and procedures, particularly codes of conduct, to prevent and identify such behaviours and through developing an organisational culture that prioritises child safety.

 

Consultations:

 

Criminal Justice – Submissions to a consultation on criminal justice have been published and a seminar heard to discuss the content of the submissions. As part of this consultation a draft Bill has been published which address some issues relating to evidence. The benefit of cross jurisdictional considerations can be seen by the fact that this bill is based in part on laws in England & Wales which allow for much greater admissibility of tendency and coincidence evidence and for more joint trials.

 

Records and record keeping – Following a consultation last year, 40 submissions have been published which comment upon this issue. Five key principles have been determined, they are:

  • Creating and keeping accurate records is in the best interest of children.
  • Accurate records must be created about all decisions and incidents affecting child protection.
  • Records relevant to child sexual abuse must be appropriately maintained.
  • Records relevant to child sexual abuse must only be disposed of subject to law or policy.
  • Individuals’ rights to access and amend records about them can only be restricted in accordance with law.

 

 

Case study reports

The following reports have been published:

Jehovah’s Witnesses – Although the RC only heard evidence from two victims as well as institutional witnesses, it examined evidence from case files held which recorded allegations, reports or complaints by 1006 members of the organisation. The RC found children are not adequately protected from the risk of child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation and it did not believe the organisation responded adequately to allegations of child sexual abuse. It considered the Jehovah’s Witness organisation relied on outdated policies and practices to respond to allegations of child sexual abuse which were not subject to ongoing and continuous review. This included the two-witness rule in cases of child sexual abuse which, the RC considered, showed a serious lack of understanding of the nature of child sexual abuse. It noted the rule, which was relied on, and applied inflexibly was devised more than 2,000 years ago.

 

Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne – This inquiry looked at the response of the Yeshivah Centre Bondi and the Yeshivah College in Melbourne to allegations of child sexual abuse. In particular, consideration was made of the influence of Jewish (or ‘halachic’) law on the responses of the institutions to child sexual abuse allegations and the experiences of survivors of child sexual abuse and their families and the community’s response to them. Consideration was made of the impact of a Jewish law, known as mesirah, which forbids a Jew from informing upon, or handing over another Jew to a secular authority (particularly where criminal conduct is alleged). Even though there had been an advisory resolution in 2010 noting this did not apply to child sexual abuse there was some discouragement within the community to report abuse and a lack of supportive leadership for victims of abuse.

 

Sporting clubs – This report looked at allegations linked to certain football, tennis and cricket clubs. The RC heard evidence from a female football player who had been repeatedly raped by her coach; from a female tennis player sexually abused by her coach in the late 1990s; and from three male cricket players who had been sexually abused in the 1980s and 1990s. The RC gave its opinion on the steps taken by each of these sports clubs in response to the allegations and also looked at the wider policies and procedures of national sporting organisations. It singled out the website ‘Play By The Rules’, which is administered in part by the Australian Sports Commission and which promotes child protection in sport, as a very valuable and effective resource. It provides information, tools and free online training to assist administrators, coaches, officials, players and spectators to manage child safety issues in sport.

 

The Church of England Boys’ Society and the Anglican Dioceses of Tasmania, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney – The report concluded that most CEBS (a boys youth group) branches could operate in an autonomous and unregulated way and that abuse often occurred on camps, sailing and fishing trips as well as overnight stays at rectories and private residences. As a result a culture developed in which perpetrators had easy access to boys and opportunities to sexually abuse those boys. There were networks of sexual perpetrators at CEBS who had knowledge of each other’s sexual offending against boys and in some instances facilitated the sexual abuse of children. Systemic failures were also identified including child sexual abuse being treated as one-off offences, or isolated incidents of aberrant behaviour and historically, allegations of child sexual abuse not being reported to the police either at all or in a timely way. There was limited information-sharing between the dioceses about allegations of child sexual abuse; a lack of child protection policies and procedures within CEBS; and a lack of consistent record-keeping about complaints in CEBS at a national and state level. The report also identified minimisation of the offending, a focus on protecting the reputation of the church, dioceses, CEBS and individual clergy and links not being made at a national level in the Anglican Church regarding the possibility of a network of perpetrators within CEBS.

 

Geelong Grammar School – Evidence was heard from 13 former students who reported sexual abuse between 1956 and 1989. The report comments upon the different acts or omissions of the school at the times of reporting of abuse. It also concludes that before 1994, Geelong Grammar had no formal systems, policies and procedures in place dealing specifically with child sexual abuse, or to prevent child abuse. Although policies are now in place, there is no system to either monitor the success of the policies or capture how often teachers are reporting allegations, in accordance with the policies and procedures.

 

Brisbane Grammar School and St Paul’s School – The report considers specific incidents of abuse and the response, or lack of response to disclosure. Amongst other findings are that the head teacher did not achieve his most fundamental obligation, which was to ensure that students under his care were kept safe.

RG Dance and the Australian Institute of Music – We have already commented on this report in our earlier blog.

Submissions in a number of investigations have also now been made publically available.

 

UNITED KINGDOM INDEPENDENT INQUIRING INTO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ON 28TH NOVEMBER 2017

Posted on by markmurray1

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

Posted on by markmurray1

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

Posted on by markmurray1

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

 

UNITED KINGDOM INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE. CATHOLIC CHURCH INVESTIGATION. OPENING STATEMENT BY DAVID ENRIGHT

Posted on by markmurray1

UNITED KINGDOM INDEPENDENT INQUIRY

INTO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.

CATHOLIC CHURCH INVESTIGATION.

 

OPENING STATEMENT BY

DAVID ENRIGHT – HOWE & CO

I appear on behalf of F12, a Scottish survivor of the English Benedictine Congregation. I also represent 12 core participant survivors of the Comboni Missionary Order and F44, a survivor of the Christian Brothers. Together, they represent 20 per cent of the victim/survivor core participants in this latest  investigation in a very long line of investigations into the Roman Catholic Church, but of course they are not a mere percentage, they are individual humans imbued  with dignity, bravery and fortitude. They, like the other core participants in this investigation, hope and pray that this is the last time a public inquiry will have to be called into the Catholic Church. I echo counsel to the inquiry’s submissions: there are almost a million children in Britain who are educated in institutions run by or in which a church is significantly involved, and, therefore, this inquiry must determine what has been and what is the scale of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in Britain; are there cultural inhibitors in the Catholic Church that prevent effective child safeguarding; are there structural inhibitors in the Catholic Church and its separate law that prevent effective child safeguarding? A line must finally be drawn, and this inquiry must answer the question: can children be safe in the care of the Catholic Church?

Those I represent are men who were, and in some cases still are, devout Catholics. It is very difficult to explain to someone not brought up in a Catholic community the power and depth of influence the Catholic Church exerts over its members. Counsel to the investigation has alluded to this, and it is a chilling aspect of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church that the abusers are not only men in positions of trust who wielded authority over children, they are also seen by the abused and their families as being spokesmen for the God they worship, men who are supposed to be the shepherds of their souls, men who hold the very keys to heaven. It is hard to imagine a greater hold that a child abuser could have over its victim.

F13 was abused at his Catholic primary school by Catholic brothers. He was abused by members of the English Benedictine Congregation at Pluscarden and Fort Augustus Abbey. We have heard of the movement of a paedophile from England to Fort Augustus this morning from counsel to the inquiry and Mr Scorer. On 8 November 2017, this November, the National Crime Agency’s Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Unit issued a conclusive grounds decision finding that F13 had been a victim of modern-day slavery. This finding by the National Crime Agency in relation to participant F13 demonstrates the seriousness of the issues before this inquiry. Two days after the National Crime Agency issued this finding, the inquiry’s first witness, Dom Richard Yeo, visited F13 at his home, along with Bishop John Keenan. We would hope that counsel to the investigation will  explore with Dom Yeo the reason for his visits to F13’s  home in the wake of this finding and the immediate  run-up to this hearing and, indeed, what the English  Benedictines hope to do for F13 to bring him comfort and closure.

F1 to F12 are 12 core participant survivors of the Comboni Missionary Order. They attended a Catholic  seminary school in Mirfield in Yorkshire run by that order, an order that specialises in missionary education  around the world. They are a striking group of men, highly educated and articulate. They include among their number  a retired senior officer of our armed forces, a retired executive of an international PLC, teachers, academics, businessmen and a highly regarded classical performer. Those men, or boys, as they were then, were   hand-selected as some of the brightest and most devout  children of their communities. They were selected also  because, as 10- and 11-year-olds, they dreamed of  becoming missionary priests. Quite a number went a long  way down the road to taking religious orders.

One, F3, became a brother of the Comboni religious order and  undertook missionary work in the most difficult circumstances of Idi Amin’s Uganda. All were abused by Catholic priests and brothers. In most cases, they were abused repeatedly over many months and, in a number of cases, years. They had led very sheltered lives in the Catholic families and communities they came from. They had no understanding of sex other than it was wrong, it was dirty, it was a sin. The culture of their school, their church and their faith was of obedience and, in particular, obedience to Holy Fathers. Over time, and as abuse continued, and as they grew, they came to have doubts. But as F6 explained his childhood dilemma to me, and he has flown a very long way to be here today, how could the hands that held the host, the body of Christ, aloft every morning in mass possibly do wrong? His words. F4 could also not bring himself to accept that the kindly Italian priest who tended to boys when they were ill could possibly do something wrong. He just couldn’t accept it. F4 described this to me, with tears in his eyes, how, as an adult, he would watch old-fashioned war films and the hero would be captured and subjected to torture and, gritting his teeth and taking his mind to another place, he would endure. F4 told me that every time he saw a scene like that, he was catapulted back in time to the infirmary at St Peter Claver Seminary College.

Other members of this group and F44 have similar accounts of how they were abused again and again and the terrible dilemmas and conflicts of their mind they suffered: how can this be happening if this holy man is doing it? These bright boys grew and so did their doubts and they began to speak up and, when they did, they did not stop speaking up. It is incredible the number of times these boys spoke up seeking support and protection, not just for themselves, but often to try to protect younger boys in the seminary college. It is incredible, also, the responses they received. After years of systematic abuse, F4 took a delegation of boys to see the college’s spiritual adviser and told him of the sexual abuse. The other boys were crying during that interview, but F4 was angry and he spoke out. The spiritual adviser stated he accepted the accounts of abuse were true. He told the boys he would look into the matter. He then swore them to secrecy and told them never to speak of it again. He did nothing. As F4 and the other boys turned to leave his room, the spiritual adviser stopped them and he reminded them that their abuser, this prolific abuser, may have availed himself of the sacrament of confession and, if he did, his sins were washed away and they, as good Catholics, must accept that.

F8 also reported the abuse he was suffering at the hands of the seminary’s vice rector to the seminary college’s spiritual adviser. The spiritual adviser told F8 to forget about the incidents and not discuss it anymore. F4 also went to a priest he trusted and admired. They went for a walk in the playground. He began to open his heart and, as soon as he did, that priest, his friend, told him, “Stop there” and would hear no more. F12 was also abused by the vice rector of St Peter Claver College. He told the father rector of the seminary about the abuse. The father rector asked no questions and took no action.

F6, who I have already mentioned, who has come a long way to be here today, attended the seminary college. Priests of the school abused him repeatedly as a young boy. Despite this, he was bright, he had a deep faith, he excelled and became the school captain, the head boy of the seminary school. When he was appointed to that position, he felt a huge sense of responsibility for the other boys, particularly the younger boys at the seminary, whom he knew were being abused just as he was being abused, and he felt, as school captain, he must act. So, once again, he led a delegation of older boys to see the spiritual adviser to tell him that the younger boys were being abused and that he felt a duty to protect them. The spiritual adviser did not take up the complaint on their behalf but he told the delegation of children that “You must go away, you must gather statements from the younger boys, you must take them to the Father Rector, but don’t tell him I told you to do this”. This priest, this spiritual adviser, sent a boy to do a man’s job, his job, but the boy he sent was up to it.

F6 gathered the statements of the abused boys and presented them to the Father Rector of the seminary. The Father Rector said that he would deal with the prolific abuser. He did not call the police. He did not launch an investigation. He did not inform the parents of the abused boys. He simply moved the abuser from the school and sent him to the oldest provincial house in London. From there, he was sent to Uganda,  where he worked as the bishop’s secretary and was then  appointed as the chaplain to secondary schools in Northern Uganda and became Scout Commissioner for Northern Uganda. The Father Rector to whom this report was made currently lives in the order’s house in Glasgow, he is in his 80s and is mentally well.

F5 was abused by a lay teacher employed at St Peter Claver Seminary College. It is believed this teacher was previously employed at Ampleforth. That teacher was removed from the school by the priest who was then the rector and who is now the financial director of a London province of the Comboni order and who lives in London.

F3 was repeatedly abused by another priest of the order. Despite this, he became a brother himself. But was always troubled by the abuse he and others had suffered. He raised it again and again with the order nationally and internationally. In legal correspondence, the order made clear admissions as to that abuse. Despite this admission, this priest was permitted to return to active ministry. When F3 challenged this fact with the Wrexham diocesan safeguarding officer and the Comboni Order’s safeguarding officer, he was assured the priest would  not be allowed access to children but remained in the order’s other house looking after the sick and dying. However, the evidence shows this priest continued to work with children until as recently as 2014.

Later in life, these 12 men repeatedly sought to engage the Catholic Church over the abuse they had suffered and feared that children might still be suffering. They contacted and spoke to the most senior members of the order, all of whom had been at St Peter Claver College with them as fellow seminarians and as teachers. On one occasion, F4 was invited to the order’s provincial mother house in London for a meeting. He was told by one of the senior order members who had been at the school at the time when they were being abused that the abusing priests had hurt the Catholic Church as much as they had hurt the children. No, they did not.

The priests at the Catholic Church abused my clients, caused them wounds that never healed. They have never healed because the Catholic Church never admitted what happened fully, never apologised truly and never atoned. Of course it must be remembered, and it has been touched on today, that the abuse of my clients along with many of the other victims of abuse by Catholic priests was widely known of because they were reporting it regularly in the confessional, as indeed were the abusers. Why, then, was no action taken by the Catholic Church in relation to regular reports of abuse that were being given in the confessional and presumably still are?

The sacrament of confession is one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. It is fundamental to the practice of the faith. Catholic priests are also required under Canon law to undertake confession. The Australian Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse recently recommended that persons could be charged if they know, suspect or should have suspected that members — that a child is being abused. That recommendation included members of the clergy. The Archbishop of Melbourne was asked about this and if he would go to gaol rather than disclose matters disclosed to him in confession and he said, “I have said I would go to gaol. I believe this is an absolutely sacrosanct communication of a high order”. Why would the archbishop say he would go to gaol rather than reveal matters including child sexual abuse? Because, again, it is the law of the Catholic Church that he cannot. The Canon law states very clearly that a priest is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent. That is to say, the sinner or the abuser. Furthermore, matters revealed in confession, including child abuse, cannot be used for the purposes of governance. Again, Canon law directs this. A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purposes of external governance, use the knowledge about sins which has come to him during the confession. One could not think of a more serious example of a structural obstacle embedded in the law of the Catholic Church to child protection.

There have been many public inquiries here, in Australia, America, Ireland, Scotland, and it demonstrates that the Catholic Church has a modus operandi. It fails to report or record child abuse. It often shields abusers and simply moves them to another place. Often, the evidence has shown that this permits abuse to continue again. We have heard of this today in relation to Nicholas White. My clients seek truth, justice and accountability. But most importantly, they want to know that children in Catholic institutions now and in the future are safe from abuse.

So in conclusion, I return to the three questions that we and counsel to the inquiry say this inquiry must seek answers to: first, how big is the problem? Currently, we do not know, because the church has not, will not, or possibly is not capable of providing us with that information. However, in order to fulfill the terms of reference of this inquiry, the church must be compelled to produce the fullest picture possible.  Secondly, are there structural inhibitors to child protection in the church? The answer to this appears to be yes. The refusal to divulge or act upon reports of child abuse in the confessional is an obvious example of a most serious structural inhibitor to child protection. But there are others. Finally, is the Catholic Church capable of enforcing good governance and high uniform standards of child protection? The answer appears to be: no. The Catholic Church is so opaque, so disparate, so full of separate bodies which are not answerable to any central authority, it is hard to see how, without huge reform, it can provide good governance and the high uniform standards of child protection. So the question this inquiry must answer is: can the many strands of the Catholic Church, culturally, structurally and inherently, provide a safe place for children in Britain

RELIGION, POWER AND CHILD ABUSE GO HAND IN HAND By Brian Mark Hennessy

Posted on by markmurray1

RELIGION, POWER AND CHILD ABUSE GO HAND IN HAND
By Brian Mark Hennessy

A mother named Kausar Parveen struggles through tears as she remembers the blood-soaked clothes of her 9-year-old son, raped by a religious cleric. Each time she begins to speak, she stops, swallows hard, wipes her tears and begins again. Her son had studied for a year at a nearby Islamic school in the town of Kehrore Pakka in Pakistan. In the blistering heat of late April, in the grimy two-room Islamic madrassa, he awoke one night to find his teacher lying beside him. “I didn’t move. I was afraid,” he says. The cleric lifted the boy’s long tunic-style shirt over his head, and then pulled down his baggy pants. “I was crying. He was hurting me. He shoved my shirt in my mouth,” the boy says, using his scarf to show how the cleric tried to stifle his cries. He looks over at his mother. “Did he touch you?” He nods. “Did he hurt you when he touched you?” ”Yes,” he whispers. “Did he rape you?” He buries his face in his scarf and nods yes. Parveen reaches over and grabs her son, pulling him toward her, cradling his head in her lap.

Sexual abuse is a pervasive and longstanding problem at madrassas in Pakistan, an investigation has found. It is pervasive – from the sun-baked mud villages deep in its rural areas to the heart of its teeming cities. But in a culture where clerics are powerful and sexual abuse is a taboo subject, it is seldom discussed or even acknowledged in public. It is even more seldom prosecuted. Victims’ families say that the Police are often paid off not to pursue justice against clerics and cases rarely make it past the courts, because Pakistan’s legal system allows the victim’s family to “forgive” the offender and accept “blood money.” The perpetrators of the abuse, therefore, are rarely criminalized in the Courts.

Investigations have found hundreds of cases of sexual abuse by Islamic clerics reported in the past decade, and officials suspect that there are many more within a far-reaching system that teaches at least 2 million children in Pakistan. The investigation was based on police documents and dozens of interviews with victims, relatives, former and current ministers, aid groups and religious officials. The fear of clerics and the militant religious organizations that sometimes support them came through clearly. One senior official in a ministry tasked with registering these cases says that many madrassas are “infested” with sexual abuse. The official asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution; he has been a target of suicide attacks because of his hard position against militant groups. He compares the situation to the abuse of children by priests in the Catholic Church.

“There are thousands of incidences of sexual abuse in the madrassas,” he says. “This thing is very common.” Pakistan’s clerics close ranks when the madrassa system is too closely scrutinized, he says. Among the weapons they use to frighten their critics is a controversial blasphemy law that carries a death penalty in the case of a conviction. “This is not a small thing here in Pakistan — I am scared of them and what they can do,” the official says. “I am not sure what it will take to expose the extent of it. It’s very dangerous to even try. That’s a very dangerous topic,” he says. A tally of cases reported in newspapers over the past 10 years of sexual abuse by clerics and other religious officials came to 359. That represents “barely the tip of the iceberg,” says Munizae Bano, executive director of Sahil, the organization that scours the newspapers and works against sexual abuse of minors.

The above heart-wrenching report was written by Katthy Gannon and Kehrore Pakka of the Pakistan News outlet of the Associated Press. For those readers who were abused in childhood by clerics of the Catholic Church, the ingredients of the abuse – the vulnerability, fear and shame of the innocent child in juxtaposition with religion, power, threats, cover-up, lack of apology and blood money in exchange for silence – will all have familiar echoes. It is easy to understand why it was that the anonymous official had made a comparison between clerical sexual abuse in the Islamic madrassas and the schools and seminaries of the Roman Catholic Church.

Kausar Parveen, the mother of the boy struggling to hide his mental and physical pain through his tears, will have a chance, at least, to help her 9-year-old son overcome his trauma simply because the boy’s blood-stained clothes were visible evidence that something horrendous had happened to him. With her love and care and his trust in her, she may be able to help him to overcome at least some of the psychological damage that has been inflicted upon him so early in his childhood. That is small comfort, however, and only the best prospects in the circumstances. For those children whose abuse remains uncovered, life is more difficult – because, often in silence and alone, child victims of sexual abuse face secondary trauma in the long process of the critical path to disclosing the events that had taken place.

Often, when victims of abuse try to tell their stories to the clerics responsible for their wellbeing, they are in fear of the consequences of their disclosure. It may cause them the trepidation of being disbelieved and induce them to produce hesitant, unconvincing, incomplete and even partially retracted descriptions of the events. Such assumptions are often well-founded for it is common for victims to be assaulted with counter-charges of disbelief and blame – and that further inflicts upon them the curse of their rejection. Their expectation of help and comfort may reap only negative responses such as charges of lying, imagining, complicity and even their manipulation of the adult abuser.

 

Such damaging abandonment of the child by the very adults who are critical to their recovery constitutes re-victimisation and can result in deep-seated and permanent responses such as self-blame, self-hate and alienation. That sense of rejection will be increased proportionately to the child’s degree of expectation, trust and help that they had anticipated from the person in whom they had confided. Hence, it is not uncommon that the very fear of such rejection inhibits the disclosure of the trauma a child is suffering to anyone. From then on the child may take the wrong options and descend into a state of secrecy and helplessness. The last hope for such a child is that in later adulthood they begin to unravel the damage and find themselves able to speak out, but, that does not always happen.

 

I feel a deep and poignant care for the son of Kausar Parveen as he faces his future. Worlds apart from where he and his mother struggle to unravel both the present and the future trauma that they will re-live again and again, I recall the lifelong, internal conflicts of so many of the boys who were abused by Catholic clerics at the Comboni Missionary Order’s seminary at Mirfield in England. Some of those boyhood friends still wrangle in their hearts and minds over the events of abuse that was perpetrated against them half a century ago by priests whom they trusted implicitly. Betrayal by an adult – one that a child had admired and sought to emulate – is a mentally debilitating and spiritually cancerous injury. It creates a bitterness that cannot be sweetened by time alone. Indeed, whilst the clerics of the Catholic Church remain concerted in their abject denial of the truth – such denials can be life-threatening.

 

ANOTHER PRIEST IN ITALY IS “DISAPPEARED”! By Brian Mark Hennessy

Posted on by markmurray1

ANOTHER PRIEST IN ITALY IS “DISAPPEARED”!

By Brian Mark Hennessy

A short while ago we reported in this Blog that an Italian priest had disappeared. Those familiar with this site will know that story well as it concerned the disappearance of the Comboni Missionary Priest, Romano Nardo, but for those unfamiliar with the case I repeat the bones of it again here:

The Comboni Missionary Order has resisted attempts by the United Kingdom’s West Yorkshire Police to have an Italian priest extradited to the United Kingdom to face criminal charges. That priest named, Romano Nardo, a native of Prata di Sopra in Pordenone, Italy, had been dumped out of sight in Uganda at the Aduku Mission in the Diocese of Lira from the time that his abuse of a fourteen year old junior seminarian was discovered at Mirfield in England. In that Uganda Mission, obviously, he had unchecked access to even more children for decades. Following his exposure as a priest who had abused boys at the Mirfield seminary, he was moved from Uganda to Verona in Italy. After his discovery there in 2015 by one of his former victims, he was again moved to a secret place of hiding where he remains today under constant guard in order to prevent the possibility of his discovery by the Italian press and media – and extradition to the United Kingdom. To all intents and purposes, Don Romano Nardo has disappeared.

Now, according to the Italian organization Rete L’Abuso, which tracks the movements within Italy of priests accused of the sexual abuse of children, Don Gabriele Martinelli, who is accused of abuse of junior seminarians at the Vatican St Pius X Junior Seminary, has also disappeared. Martinelli was only ordained in July 2017! Apparently, the priest, whilst still a senior seminarian at the Vatican had a casual relationship over a period of time with at least one other boy younger than him and aged just 13 years. According to eye-witness accounts, however, there were other victims of Martinelli at that same Vatican seminary.

Given that the seminary is located within the Vatican State this places Pope Francis in a difficult situation for he, as head of both the Vatican State and the Catholic Church – and the Pope has declared that he has “No Tolerance” and that “There is no place in the Catholic Church for those clerics who abuse children”! In addition, what will Pope Francis ask of the Bishop of Como, for according to the reports, witnesses to the abuse have also stated that the abuse was reported to the Bishop of Como before Martinelli was even ordained.

The Diocese of Como has been forced to issue a report regarding the accusations and stated that, “The accusations made were investigated by the relevant ecclesiastical officials and the priest’s canonical superiors had evaluated Martinelli and his behavior prior to his ordination. The Bishop of Como, having taken note of the outcome of this inquiry, all the assessments of Martinelli’s personality and the vocational journey of the seminarist, then made the decision personally to proceed with the ordination of Don Martinelli”
.
Following his ordination in July, Don Martinelli was sent to work in Valtellina, Lombardy in the Diocese of Como. Attempts have been made by journalists to contact Martinelli there, but he has not been seen in the town or country surroundings. So where has this priest been “disappeared” to? Has he been “dumped” somewhere else in the diocese by the Bishop of Como? Curiously, we should note, Como is also the diocese where Father Domenico Valmaggia, a Comboni Missionary Priest accused of abuse of many Junior seminarians at Mirfield in England, was “dumped” in the 1970’s! They are obviously not very “choosey” about their clerics in the Como Diocese – and presumably – have very little regard for the welfare of children also!

(Note: Passages of this article were produced from reports on the subject by the reporter, Susanna Zambon writing for “Il Giorno” and Francesco Zanardi, President of “Rete L’Abuso”. The information regarding Don Romano Nardo was published in the Pordenone “Il Gazzettino”. This Blog, “Comboni Missionaries – A Childhood in their Hands” accepts no responsibility for errors in reporting by third parties).

ABUSE SHOULD NOT BE THE INEVITABLE BIRTHRIGHT OF A CHILD By Brian Mark Hennessy

Posted on by markmurray1

ABUSE SHOULD NOT BE THE INEVITABLE BIRTHRIGHT OF A CHILD
By Brian Mark Hennessy

I was born in 1946. We always think that the start of our life is that specific moment of our birth, but of course it is not precisely.

Conception is the true moment of our creation and earthly existence. Our development in the womb takes place in the safest and most secure environment that we will ever experience in our lives. My conception took place at the most destructive time that is known to humanity. It was when nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It has always perplexed me that I was given life at the very moment when so many other lives perished. I was, of course, unaware of that devastating moment in human history when I was safe and secure in my mother’s womb.

Our actual date of birth denotes the moment of the awakening of our awareness of the world around us, but it also denotes the moment of ever increasing consciousness that we are helpless in the perilous world into which we are born. For years to come we remain dependent on those around us for our safety and survival. Until the time of adulthood we will continue to need care and protection.

It is a poignant thought for me personally that when I was born the world was in ruins. I was aware as an infant walking to school that every other house was a bombed-out shell or hole in the ground. Even later as a young teenager, from the steps of Portsmouth’s destroyed Guildhall, I could still see a full square mile of Blitz rubble in front of me. Since the end 1946, the year of my birth, however, humanity was already striving in earnest to create a better world for children – and UNICEF, the United International Children’s Emergency Fund, as it was then called, had been created under the umbrella of the United Nations.
More than seventy years later we think of most children as being safe – and it is true that most children are – but it is not a moment for complacency. UNICEF reports in our world today are not just saddening, but alarming and all adults need to take stock of what is happening around them – not just in a general global sense – but in our very own neighbourhoods. There, unseen and often unheard, children are suffering. UNICEF reports that:
“Three quarters of children aged from 2-4 are regularly subjected to violent discipline by their parents or caregivers. Worldwide, half of all school-age children live in countries where corporal punishment at school is not fully prohibited, leaving 732 million children without legal protection. Bullying is experienced by 1 in 3 students between the ages of 13-15. That is close to 130 million students worldwide. Columbia, Honduras, Brazil, El Salvador and the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela had the highest homicide rates among adolescents age 10-19 as of 2015. Nearly half of all adolescent homicides occur in the Latin American and Caribbean region. Of the 59 school shootings that resulted in at least one reported fatality in the last 25 years, nearly three quarters of them happened in the United States”.
“Violence against children in all its forms, from the slap of a parent to the unwanted sexual advance of a peer, is harmful, morally indefensible and a violation of every child’s human rights. Every five minutes a child dies as a result of violence. Millions of children live in fear of physical, emotional and sexual violence. All children have the potential to be happy, healthy and successful, but witnessing or experiencing violence erodes that potential and affects a child’s health, wellbeing and future. The effects can stay with them for life. It is for all of us to stand up and speak out to end violence against children, recognise it and report it.”

For the Victim, however, we should also be aware that the destructive effects of child abuse, in whatever shape or form it was inflicted upon them, does not necessarily cease when they reach maturity – and nor will the pain automatically cease with the Victim’s own adult acknowledgement of the facts of the abuse that they suffered in their childhood. Their resolution of the damage done to them can be so severe that the effects of the abuse can – and most probably will – cling to them in their adulthood in the same way as would the inheritance of a physically destructive and progressive disease.

The psychological destruction caused by childhood abuse can be made worse if those children in later adulthood are unlucky enough to have been abused by someone in a powerful organisation such as the Catholic Church. Despite all the pronouncements of the Vatican, local Bishops and the leaders of Religious Institutes, the rightful cause of seeking acknowledgement from those responsible for the day to day monitoring and governance of offenders of abuse can be harrowing.
Of course, it would be most wrong of me to generalise and there are many within the Catholic Church, both clerics and laypeople, who feel both horror and shame at the flagrantly egregious and devastating effects of the failure of some elements within the Church Hierarchy to embrace victims in their own community. Just today, one such victim of child sexual abuse said to me:
“You have no idea what it has been like. It has been years of pure hell. Birthdays, Christmases and holidays have passed by with the sword of Damacles hanging over me. It has led me to sickness, both physical and mental. I have had work problems, family problems and relationship problems. The Religious Order of the one who abused me even threatened that if I proceeded they would ruin me financially and leave me in penury for the rest of my life. It is all too much”.

UNICEF – like me – is 71 years old now, but the need to protect children will, most regrettably, never cease. The work to eradicate one of the world’s most injurious evils – which is the infliction of ill treatment, sexual molestation and psychological harm upon children remains with us today and it will be there in the future.

Those of us who are the Survivors of sexual abuse by members of the Comboni Missionary Order have also learned another lesson from our own experiences. That is that in this world, there are institutions that claim for themselves the moral values of exemplary righteousness, but, in reality, they use a facade of ritual, vestments and Biblical mutterings on one day of the week – only to expend their energy on the next six days on the concealment and denial of a history of callous physical and mental injury to children.

This forum, entitled “The Comboni Missionaries – A Childhood in their Hands”, was founded specifically to assist and open up a “space” for those sexually abused by clerics of the Catholic Religious Institution that was founded with the name of “Comboniani Missionari” – sometimes also known historically as the “Verona Fathers”. Those survivors of child sexual abuse perpetrated by members of that Religious Institute – extend a welcome to all those who were abused as children to use this space to express their pain and anxieties. We understand you in a way that others cannot – and in a way that many others with manifestly irrefutable accountability for the abuse, like the Comboni Missionary Order of Verona, Italy, will deny to you.