Give Away Lines (1): Theresa May on Child Sexual Abuse

Quoted in a BBC News headline, the Home Secretary Theresa May's original words come from an article in The Telegraph : Theresa May: Child abuse in the UK runs far deeper than you know. (The article, by the way, is a useful read for what it suggests about an appropriate language to use with regard to sexual abuse of children.)

We already know the trail will lead into our schools and hospitals, our churches, our youth clubs and many other institutions that should have been places of safety but instead became the setting for the most appalling abuse. However, what the country doesn’t yet appreciate is the true scale of that abuse. And that is understandable. I have only learnt about the extent and breadth of the problem since I first announced an overarching inquiry into whether public bodies and other non-state institutions had failed in their duty of care towards children. ....

In my discussions with older victims and survivors and their representatives, I began to realise how abuse is woven, covertly, into the fabric of our society.  

Of the institutions referred to in Theresa May's articles, I suspect that some are already "there" in terms of recognising where the trail will lead. The Catholic Church, for example, has already been rocked for many years by the scandal of the abuse of children by clergy. In addressing that issue, the Church in England and Wales already has in place a regime that takes harsher action in response to a report of an allegation against clergy or employees than would be taken in comparable circumstances for other professionals working with children.

What I find interesting in Theresa May's article are the following words:

....I began to realise how abuse is woven, covertly, into the fabric of our society.

The inquiry into how institutions failed in this regard aims to undo the "weave" of the abuse that has occurred, and to lead to institutions and individuals being held to account. But, after having undone that "weave", is there not a work to be done with regard to the remaining "fabric"?  Institutions and society are not co-terminous, and so, if Theresa May is right in what she says, there is a need for a searching look at the fabric of society, too, to see whether or not there are aspects of the fabric that allow abuse to be woven through it. And that is inescapably a question about what constitutes the shared morality of our society.

Pope Benedict XVI recognised this need for a renewal to accompany action on abuse of children in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, where n.14 gives outlines of a programme of renewal in the Church in Ireland that were to go alongside the expectation of decisive action by ecclesiastical authorities. And, speaking in Westminster Hall in 2010, he indicated the part that religion can play "to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles".

Whilst Theresa May's words are horrifying in their implications about the extent of abuse, do they not also have a "give away" character to them in asking a challenging question of our society that she might not have intended?

Covering up abuse

In a week when the question of alleged child abuse, and alleged covering up of that abuse, reached the heart of UK society (see BBC news reports here and here, and other media coverage of the last few days) .... the Catholic Church appeared to be well ahead of wider society on the matter.

Though the Vatican Information Service gave its report a completely misleading headline - what Pope Francis actually said when you read the text of his homily was that "There is no place in the Church’s ministry for those who commit these abuses" - Pope Francis' homily at Santa Marta will, I believe, stand out as one of the most remarkable engagements of the Church with the question of abuse by those in positions of responsibility in the Church. See also Catholic Voices comment here, with links to further news reporting of Pope Francis' homily.

What is particularly striking is how Pope Francis, by his reference to St Peter's experience of the gaze of Jesus, takes upon the Petrine office of which he is now the holder the burden of the sin of abuse by others who have held office in the Church.

Before God and his people I express my sorrow for the sins and grave crimes of clerical sexual abuse committed against you. And I humbly ask forgiveness.

I beg your forgiveness, too, for the sins of omission on the part of Church leaders who did not respond adequately to reports of abuse made by family members, as well as by abuse victims themselves. This led to even greater suffering on the part of those who were abused and it endangered other minors who were at risk.

Though I am not able to find a suitable link as I write, Pope Francis' predecessor spoke in a similar way on more than one occasion and, like Pope Francis, carried the burden of the abuse scandal in the office of the Successor Peter. Perhaps the most comparable example of Pope Benedict's would be his letter to the Catholics of Ireland.

In the present context in the United Kingdom, a section of Pope Benedict XVI's address during his meeting with the Bishops of England, Wales and Scotland in September 2010 seems very prescient, if not prophetic:

Another matter which has received much attention in recent months, and which seriously undermines the moral credibility of Church leaders, is the shameful abuse of children and young people by priests and religious. I have spoken on many occasions of the deep wounds that such behaviour causes, in the victims first and foremost, but also in the relationships of trust that should exist between priests and people, between priests and their bishops, and between the Church authorities and the public. I know that you have taken serious steps to remedy this situation, to ensure that children are effectively protected from harm and to deal properly and transparently with allegations as they arise. You have publicly acknowledged your deep regret over what has happened, and the often inadequate ways it was addressed in the past. Your growing awareness of the extent of child abuse in society, its devastating effects, and the need to provide proper victim support should serve as an incentive to share the lessons you have learned with the wider community. Indeed, what better way could there be of making reparation for these sins than by reaching out, in a humble spirit of compassion, towards children who continue to suffer abuse elsewhere? Our duty of care towards the young demands nothing less.

In England and Wales: a day of prayer for the victims of human trafficking

The Bishops of England and Wales have asked Catholics in their territories to keep today, the feast of St Josephine Bakhita, as a day of prayer for the victims of human trafficking.

This page at the website of the Bishops Conference gives some background, including the Collect for St Josephine Batkhita and an outline biography of her.

At a time when the United Kingdom receives more migrants than might have been the case in the past from the less prosperous countries of eastern Europe, this day of prayer has a particular relevance. That migration creates opportunities for human trafficking that did not previously exist. Conflict in non-EU countries, which can increase the flow of refugees into nearby EU countries who, once within the EU have much easier freedom of movement to other member countries, is another factor that creates opportunities for human trafficking.

The sexual exploitation of young people, both internationally and within the UK, is another aspect of the phenomenon of human trafficking. Indeed, the on-line exploitation of children could be seen as a form of "cyber-trafficking". Any form of trafficking represents an exploitation of the often vulnerable person who is trafficked; when the intentions behind that trafficking are sexual exploitation, then the nature of the crime takes on a paticularly horrific character.

In the background to this issue sits the call towards hospitality towards the stranger who lives in our midst. The United Nations places obligations on its member countries with regard to granting asylum to refugees; and the Catholic Church recognises its mission to migrants in the work of, for example, of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples.

O God, who led Saint Josephine Bakhita from abject slavery
to the dignity of being your daughter and a bride of Christ,
grant, we pray, that by her example
we may show constant love for the Lord Jesus crucified,
remaining steadfast in charity
and prompt to show compassion.
Through Christ our Lord.
Amen

Taken from the Missal as the Collect for 8 February

Ireland: an alternative point of view

I am not in a position to make my own comment on the controversy in Ireland over the Cloyne Report and the speech to the Dail by Taoiseach Enda Kenny. I was able to recognise that remarks about "the elitism, dysfunction, disconnection, and narcissism that dominated the Vatican" in all probability reached well beyond anything in the findings of an investigation into an Irish Diocese. I was also somewhat bemused by the recall of the Papal Nuncio from Dublin to Rome "for consultations". The language of the Holy See's spokesman -  that the recall "denotes the seriousness of the situation and the Holy See's desire to face it objectively and determinately, nor does it exclude some degree of surprise and disappointment at certain excessive reactions." - was diplomatic in the extreme. Such recalls for consultation are usually a signal of a serious disapproval of something in the relations with the host state, but I am not sure that this implication has really been taken up by the Holy See or by anyone else. Indeed, the reported appointment of Rev. Giuseppe Leanza to Prague has confused things even more.

An alternative point of view on these matters can be found:

How many questions on the Cloyne Report?

The Cloyne Report: tackling prevailing myths

There is a side story running, too, with regard to one of the possible candidates for the Irish Presidency: 1, 2 and 3. Is a different standard being applied to comment on this side story than to comment following the Cloyne report?

H/T Fr Tim (take care to read the whole post) and Fr Ray.

Two visits to Ireland in recent years have suggested to me both the strength and the weakness of the Church in Ireland. After one visit, I wrote about attending Mass one Sunday at Knock:

Mass struck me as expressing Irish Catholicism at its best - a very strong devotion on the part of the faithful - and at its worst - a complete lack of any real sense on the part of the clergy that this was Liturgy and was due some objective sense of honour.

I can't help but feel that the abuse scandals, and the ineffectiveness of the response of some in the Dioceses and religious orders of Ireland, must be eating away at the strength.

Why humanists shouldn't join in this Catholic bashing

Auntie Joanna has pointed the way to an interesting article about attacks on the Catholic Church arising from the scandal of child abuse: Why humanists shouldn't join in this Catholic bashing.

Written by someone who is not themselves sympathetic to the Catholic Church or its teaching on human sexuality, the article points out ....

.... the relative rarity of incidents of abuse in the Church, though of course any such incident is a scandal

.... the prejudice of the "new atheism" against any institution with strong beliefs, and the part that this is playing in attacks on the Catholic Church.

The article is thought provoking, and provides some ammunition that is likely to be useful in the coming month or two. Whatever one's view of its provenance - the author appears to be rather in the thick of things as far as political and journalistic controversy goes - I think its content is worthy of consideration. There are also other articles linked at the bottom of this one, though I haven't read them yet.

Bishop Mixa's audience with Pope Benedict

One can only imagine what it must have been like for Bishop Mixa as he went to meet Pope Benedict today. His offer of resignation from his position of Bishop of Augsburg was reported here, on the BBC news website.

Pope Benedict's acceptance of that resignation was confirmed definitively at today's audience. What could also be seen as a canonical penalty - a time of silence, prayer and reconciliation - was also announced. One should not take away from the communique about Bishop Mixa's meeting with Pope Benedict any idea that no action is being taken against him.

The full text of the communique can be found here, at the Vatican news service blog. I found the following part of it particularly moving:

[Bishop Mixa] once again requested forgiveness for all his mistakes but also, and rightly, asks that despite those mistakes, all the good he has done not be forgotten.


The Holy Father expressed the hope that this request for forgiveness will find open ears and open hearts.Following a period of often excessive polemics, the Pope hopes for reconciliation, for a new and reciprocal acceptance in the spirit of mercy of the Lord and in faithful abandonment to His guidance. Above all, the Supreme Pontiff asks his confreres in the episcopal ministry to offer Bishop Mixa, more than in the past, their friendship and closeness, their understanding, and their help to find the right path.

Outrage reposted

UPDATE: Another element in this story, which I repost, is this report from the Brussels journal. Much of this report is carefully factual. That there has been incidence of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy, some of them in senior positions, in Belgium has become quite apparent. I am not in a position to know how widespread that incidence is, though this report suggests that it is very widespread. A warning is being given by other bloggers linking to this report that some aspects of it are sexually explicit and may be upsetting to some.

I have been away from home for a few days, so am coming to this story late. It is the story of the interrogation of members of the Belgian conference of Catholic Bishops and their staff by the police of that country.

The Vatican communique on the matter is here, being mainly made up of the text of a statement by the spokesman of the Belgian Bishops conference. I quote the section that appears to have been added to that statement by the Vatican Secretariat of State (further reporting from the BBC is here):

In publishing this statement, the Secretariat of State reiterates its firm condemnation of all sinful and criminal acts of abuse of minors by members of the Church, and the need to repair and face such acts in accordance with the requirements of justice and the teachings of the Gospel. It is in the light of these needs that the same Secretary of State also expresses great surprise at how some searches were conducted yesterday by the Belgian judicial authorities and its indignation at the fact that the tombs of Cardinals Jozef-Ernest Van Roey and Léon-Joseph Suenens, deceased archbishops of Malines-Brussels, were violated. Added to the dismay over those actions, is regret for some breaches of confidentiality, owed to those very victims for whom the searches were conducted.

I am not an expert in diplomatic language, but words like "great surprise", "indignation" and "dismay" appear quite strong to me.
 
As far as the violation of the tombs of Archbishops Van Roey and Suenens are concerned, my word would have been "outrage". I cannot think of any other circumstance in which the violation of graves, particularly those of public figures representative of a whole community, would not attract widespread condemnation.

UPDATE: Pope Benedict has written a letter of support to Archbishop Leonard and the bishops of Belgium in this situation. The text - in French - can be found here, at the Vatican website. The BBC reporting presents this letter as an upping of the Vatican's response to the police raids.

Outrage

I have been away from home for a few days, so am coming to this story late. It is the story of the interrogation of members of the Belgian conference of Catholic Bishops and their staff by the police of that country.

The Vatican communique on the matter is here, being mainly made up of the text of a statement by the spokesman of the Belgian Bishops conference. I quote the section that appears to have been added to that statement by the Vatican Secretariat of State (further reporting from the BBC is here):

In publishing this statement, the Secretariat of State reiterates its firm condemnation of all sinful and criminal acts of abuse of minors by members of the Church, and the need to repair and face such acts in accordance with the requirements of justice and the teachings of the Gospel. It is in the light of these needs that the same Secretary of State also expresses great surprise at how some searches were conducted yesterday by the Belgian judicial authorities and its indignation at the fact that the tombs of Cardinals Jozef-Ernest Van Roey and Léon-Joseph Suenens, deceased archbishops of Malines-Brussels, were violated. Added to the dismay over those actions, is regret for some breaches of confidentiality, owed to those very victims for whom the searches were conducted.

I am not an expert in diplomatic language, but words like "great surprise", "indignation" and "dismay" appear quite strong to me.
 
As far as the violation of the tombs of Archbishops Van Roey and Suenens are concerned, my word would have been "outrage". I cannot think of any other circumstance in which the violation of graves, particularly those of public figures representative of a whole community, would not attract widespread condemnation.

UPDATE: Pope Benedict has written a letter of support to Archbishop Leonard and the bishops of Belgium in this situation. The text - in French - can be found here, at the Vatican website. The BBC reporting presents this letter as an upping of the Vatican's response to the police raids.

Can't read: Won't read - a follow up

The following notice is from the newsletter of a nearby parish. It appears in the Easter Sunday issue of the newsletter.

Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament on Fridays
In response to the Pope's letter to the people of Ireland, there will be Exposition on Fridays as an act of reparation for th sins of those who have abused children and vulnerable adults. Since it has also happened in this country, it would be very good for us to do that too. We will begin every Friday from 16th April onwards. Jesus says, "Can you watch one hour with me".

Can't read; Won't read

The letter below appeared in the Times today. My comments are inserted.

Sir, I write as someone who has no hostility to the modern Catholic Church and respects the faith it represents and its progress since Vatican II [Rabbi Romain is, as evidenced by his chairmanship of ACCORD and other interests, of a not illiberal tendency in Judaism - which is why he may not appreciate that the modern Catholic Church is also the ancient Catholic Church] . However, there is no doubt that Archbishop Williams was correct in his comments (“Church in Ireland has ‘lost all its credibility’,” Report, Apr 3) about its colossal trauma. The number and global spread of paedophile cases means that it is no longer possible to blame a few rogue priests, but the whole institution is under scrutiny.


Moreover, it is not yet possible to talk about “a new future”, as some Catholic bishops do, while past misdemeanours and cover-ups are still coming to light. [This doesn't readily square with the assertion of the writer that he "has no hostility to the modern Catholic Church"]

A papal missive is not enough to restore the Church’s moral credibility. What is needed is a large and highly public act of contrition, with a week of sorrow being declared, culminating in a day of fasting by all Catholics. [Oh dear, the poor Rabbi has not read the papal missive to which he refers! In that letter, Pope Benedict asks Catholics in Ireland - and many Catholics in countries other than Ireland will no doubt join with that initiative to make it an international one - to offer their Friday penances for a whole year, a whole year, do you get that, a whole year, that's 52 days, one Friday for every week of the year, that's 7 and a half weeks of Fridays, and not just one week ... for precisely the purpose that Rabbi Romain suggests.]

It would both demonstrate the Church’s deep regret and be a powerful act of self-cleansing.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain

In a similar vein, see the reports of Rocco Buttiglione's interview on Radio 4 this morning. He is one of my heros, as an outstanding model of how one brings Catholic faith into encounter with the political and cultural milieu of the 20th and 21st centuries, so I am rather disappointed I missed his interview. The BBC website is currently carrying a recording of the interview, though I am not sure how long it will remain on the Today programme site. If you are able to listen to the recording, you will find that Rocco Buttiglione is suitably robust, as exemplified by his concluding words:

There is a criticism that continues, because the anti-Catholic prejudice is the only prejudice that is fashionable in the world of today.

Arcbhishop Rowan Williams: context, context, context ....

Church in Ireland "has lost all its credibility"

This is a front page headline in the Times today, reporting remarks made by Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury. The headline refers to a BBC radio interview due to be broadcast on Monday, and the Church concerned is the Catholic Church in Ireland.

In the text of the report to which this is the headline, we read Archbishop Williams being quoted as follows (I have just heard the same quotation on BBC Radio 2, in an advance trail of Monday's interview during a news bulletin):

And in an institution so deeply bound into the life of a society suddenly becoming, suddenly losing all credibility - that's not just problem for the Church, it is a problem for everybody in Ireland.

Even this very limited context makes Archbishop Williams remarks sound rather different, and rather less of an attack on the Church, than the headline suggests.

According to another quotation of Archbishop Williams in the Times report, an Irish friend has told him that it is difficult in some parts of Ireland  to go down the street wearing a clerical collar. If this is a result of the media coverage .... On which note, read here: Why this is really happening.

Mis-reporting ....

A headline in The Times today: "This Pope does not do mea culpas, but it may prove his only way out". And the last paragraph of the report to which that is the headline: "It is not in the Pope's nature - he abhorred the 'mea culpas' issued by John Paul II, his predecessor - but it may be the only way out".

In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel. At the same time, I ask you not to lose hope. [Pope Benedict XVI's Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, n.6]

From a report in The Times today: "But instead of being defrocked and the police called in, it is alleged that Father Murphy avoided justice and remained a member of the Church after a key intervention by the Pope - then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger".

At the time Archbishop Rembrandt Weakland wrote to the Vatican in connection with the case of Father Murphy, the civil authorities had already investigated Father Murphy and had not proceeded to a prosecution or conviction. So the suggestion of "non-reporting to the police" is a complete red herring, and one that it is quite incorrect for victims groups to be taking up and promoting in the media (cf reporting on p.6 of today's Times). It would be interesting to know whether or not there are any criticisms being addressed to the police and legal authorities who dealt with the civil investigation, as, prima facie, there seems to be questions that could be asked about that investigation.

I listened to Archbishop Rembrandt Weakland's interview as broadcast on Radio 4's "PM" programme yesterday. For the next six days, you can listen to it on the BBC i-player, from this page. I found Archbishop Weakland's words to be largely an account of the events involved, and not in any way an attempt to attack the Pope. His interview, and the statement from the Vatican, give a clearly compatible account of the events.

Neither of them, either together or separately, justify the accusation (which was not made by Archbishhop Weakland in his PM interview, and has not been made by him so far as I am aware in any other context) that Cardinal Ratzinger knew about the case and took no action, and thereby engaged in an action of covering up of abuse. What Archbishop Weakland sought from the canonical process at the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine was the laicisation of Fr Murphy, and his motivation for that, expressed very carefully in his PM interview, was a pastoral concern for the feelings of the deaf community to which Fr Murphy had exercised his priestly office (this is an interesting aspect of Archbishop Weakland's interview to listen to). Archbishop Weakland does not articulate it in his interview, but there is also a sense that this would have been an act of justice towards those who had been affected by Fr Murphy's abuse. The outcome of the canonical process, described more fully in the statement from the Vatican than in media outlets, was NOT a lack of action. It was not the laicisation that Archbishop Weakland sought, but neither was it inaction. The outcome was to ask the diocesan authorities to reinforce ecclesiastical restrictions that were already in place against Fr Murphy. According to ZENIT's report of the Vatican statement:

The meeting participants noted that there were also "not enough elements to instruct a canonical trial," but nonetheless stated that the diocese should remove the offending priest from the celebration of the Eucharist and consider "penal remedies."

So what are the criticisms that are implicit in the account of events in Archbishop Weakland's interview? One is delay in response from the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine to his letters and request for a canonical trial - but Archbishop Weakland recognises that everyone involved in those times failed to act as quickly as they should have done, including Archbishop Weakland himself, who recognises in the interview that he should have moved on Fr Murphy something like ten years earlier than he did.  It is also apparent in his PM interview that Archbishop Weakland would have liked Fr Murphy to have been laicised before his death because of the pastoral implications of this for the deaf community, but that the Vatican dicastery chose to suggest other penalties instead. But all of this is taking place many years after the civil authorities have decided not to prosecute a case against Fr Murphy.

In his Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, Pope Benedict refers to a need to establish the truth of events that have occurred (n.5). I listened to Archbishop Weakland's interview with this sense of what he was doing in that interview.

PS. Another aspect of today's media coverage is opportunistic efforts by liberal minded Catholics to attack the hierarchical structure of the Church, in favour of lay authority. According to a letter in today's Times: "If the Church in Europe and North America is to survive, never mind prosper, the laity need to throw off clergy-induced infantilism, raise their heads above the parapet and demand a new reformation". I have been a Catholic for more years than I can remember (decode: cradle Catholic who didn't lapse in teenage years), and have yet to really encounter the infantilism referred to here. Perhaps someone could show me some of it ...

Office and person in the light of Pope Benedict's letter

A conversation yesterday has prompted me to return again to the theme of a distinction between "office" in the Church and the "person" who might occupy that office. Roughly speaking, this distinction asks Catholics to keep a respect for the dignity of the "office" - that is, for the dignity of the place and being of the Bishop, priest, religious superior - in the Church. It also asks them to be realistic and honest about the people who might fill those offices - in other words, the failings of the people who are Bishops, priests or religious can be the subject of appropriate condemnation. Maintaining this distinction is to an extent an act of justice towards those very many Bishops, priests and religious - the large majority - who have not been guilty of any sinful or criminal conduct, or of covering it up, in the context of the child abuse scandals.

A group of people who might consider this distinction are those who have been scandalised or upset, even to the point of abandoning their practice of the Catholic faith. Yes, you are quite right to express your indignation and horror at what individual Bishops, priests or religious have done and to expect a redress - as Pope Benedict expresses it in is letter, confession and penance within their Christian life and the verdict of appropriately constituted tribunals in the civil arena. But the distinction between "office" and "person" allows you at the same time to keep your regard for the "office", for what I might call "bishop-ness" or "bishop-hood" - and so to keep your practice of the Catholic faith. Though the following passage from Pope Benedict XVI's letter is addressed most immediately to those who are direct victims of abuse, I think those who are victims through their being scandalised can also read it in the light of their own situation:

....... It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel. At the same time, I ask you not to lose hope. It is in the communion of the Church that we encounter the person of Jesus Christ, who was himself a victim of injustice and sin. Like you, he still bears the wounds of his own unjust suffering. He understands the depths of your pain and its enduring effect upon your lives and your relationships, including your relationship with the Church. I know some of you find it difficult even to enter the doors of a church after all that has occurred. Yet Christ’s own wounds, transformed by his redemptive sufferings, are the very means by which the power of evil is broken and we are reborn to life and hope. I believe deeply in the healing power of his self-sacrificing love – even in the darkest and most hopeless situations – to bring liberation and the promise of a new beginning.

Speaking to you as a pastor concerned for the good of all God’s children, I humbly ask you to consider what I have said. I pray that, by drawing nearer to Christ and by participating in the life of his Church – a Church purified by penance and renewed in pastoral charity – you will come to rediscover Christ’s infinite love for each one of you. I am confident that in this way you will be able to find reconciliation, deep inner healing and peace.

I think that the distinction between "office" and "person" is important for all Catholics in how they respond to the attacks on the Church in the media, particularly those sections of the media that are inspired by secularist ideology. Fr Tim gives an idea of the flavour of this media coverage here. It serves their purposes very well to confuse this distinction, and use (justified) attacks on Bishops, priests and religious who have shown failings in their lives as attacks on the institutions of the Church precisely as institutions. If this is not to undermine the faith of Catholics, or how non-Catholics in general view the Church, we need to be able to articulate a response that draws the distinction between "office" and "person" clearly. Pope Benedict's letter to the Church in Ireland, acknowledging as it does the failings of those concerned and initiating a realistic programme of action in response to them, is an important resource for this. In the world of the media, we can only successfully maintain the importance of the distinction between "office" and "person" when the failings in the area of the "person" are fully and clearly acknowledged.

The calling that we all receive, lay, religious or ordained, in the Christian life is that we, as persons, live our lives in complete accord with our "office". In the terms used by Hans Urs von Balthasar, particularly in reference to the mission of Jesus Himself, we are called to an identity between our person and our mission. Re-establishing this identity in the life of the Church in Ireland is the purpose of the programme of action outlined in Pope Benedict's letter.

Pope Benedict XVI's Pastoral Letter to the Catholic faithful in Ireland

The full text of Pope Benedict's pastoral letter can be found here, at the Vatican website. I was particularly moved by the following section, n.14. I have added the emphases in the text below. It is a programme in which we can all join, whether or not we are in Ireland. And it is a programme that has relevance to countries other than Ireland.

I now wish to propose to you some concrete initiatives to address the situation.


At the conclusion of my meeting with the Irish bishops, I asked that Lent this year be set aside as a time to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country. I now invite all of you to devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace.

Particular attention should also be given to Eucharistic adoration, and in every diocese there should be churches or chapels specifically devoted to this purpose. I ask parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries to organize periods of Eucharistic adoration, so that all have an opportunity to take part. Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.

I am confident that this programme will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland in the fullness of God’s own truth, for it is the truth that sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32).

Furthermore, having consulted and prayed about the matter, I intend to hold an Apostolic Visitation of certain dioceses in Ireland, as well as seminaries and religious congregations. Arrangements for the Visitation, which is intended to assist the local Church on her path of renewal, will be made in cooperation with the competent offices of the Roman Curia and the Irish Episcopal Conference. The details will be announced in due course.

I also propose that a nationwide Mission be held for all bishops, priests and religious. It is my hope that, by drawing on the expertise of experienced preachers and retreat-givers from Ireland and from elsewhere, and by exploring anew the conciliar documents, the liturgical rites of ordination and profession, and recent pontifical teaching, you will come to a more profound appreciation of your respective vocations, so as to rediscover the roots of your faith in Jesus Christ and to drink deeply from the springs of living water that he offers you through his Church.

In this Year for Priests, I commend to you most particularly the figure of Saint John Mary Vianney, who had such a rich understanding of the mystery of the priesthood. "The priest", he wrote, "holds the key to the treasures of heaven: it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods." The Curé d’Ars understood well how greatly blessed a community is when served by a good and holy priest: "A good shepherd, a pastor after God’s heart, is the greatest treasure which the good Lord can grant to a parish, and one of the most precious gifts of divine mercy." Through the intercession of Saint John Mary Vianney, may the priesthood in Ireland be revitalized, and may the whole Church in Ireland grow in appreciation for the great gift of the priestly ministry.

The 2001 letter.

Fr Peter suggests that it is not the smoking gun than many would like to think, and I am inclined to agree with him.

One aspect of my professional life is that of trade union casework, and it can involve supporting colleagues who face allegations. A key principle is that any such allegations are dealt with confidentially - that is, without public discussions - and follow the due processes of the employers disciplinary procedures. There are allegations, though, which require referral to the local safeguarding board for a strategy conference, and/or which involve a police investigation. None of this is prevented by the consideration of confidentiality - it is all accepted as being within the circle of the confidentiality. Why should we not see the request to refer allegations to the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine in the same way, a way that does not imply at all that allegations should be kept secret from civil authorities?

It is also worth noting that suspension from work is, so far as the truth or otherwise of the allegation is concerned, a neutral act. In my professional area, suspension is not automatic on the receipt of an allegation, but is only undertaken when the nature of the case or the circumstances of the investigation of the allegation demand it. As Fr Peter points out, the Catholic Church's practice in England and Wales of automatically placing on "adminstrative leave" (equivalent to suspension in other contexts) priests who face an allegation is in practice a harsher standard than is applied in other contexts.

More on putting abuse cases in context

Again, I link to Dolphinarium, who has a detailed response to a letter in The Times. She makes very ably the point that the child protection regime now in place in the Catholic Church in this country is a strong one.

UPDATE: Again, from Dolphinarium: Response to clerical abuse report - a couple of letters in the Irish Times. The quotation below is in the context of Ireland, where Catholic Bishops are under attack in the media. Whether members of the Garda and other professionals are under similar attack over exactly the same events is an interesting point!

If bishops have to resign, then, in justice, leaders of other professions and statutory bodies who made serious errors of judgment in this matter should likewise resign.

Abuse scandals in context

Dolphinarium has done something I have been pondering for a few days now. I was thinking of suggesting that the media should have taken OFSTED to task for giving Haringay Council's Children's Services a "good" inspection rating just months after the death of Baby P. Should OFSTED have been investigated for trying to hide incompetence in child protection? Did they fail to act when they should have acted? But such an investigation didn't happen, did it. 

Dolphinarium has done a much better job at putting the scandals in context. And it will not make comfortable reading for the secularists.

See here, here and here.

Another point worth making. Whilst abuses occurring within the Church are particularly reprehensible because of the moral responsibility of the Church and her particular interest in education, there are abuses occurring in other areas. The recent Vatican note cites the following statistic, (but, from its wording may be comparing the number of proven cases in ecclesial contexts to the number of allegations in other contexts - even if that is the case, I think the general point remains valid):

Certainly, the errors committed in ecclesiastical institutions and by Church figures are particularly reprehensible because of the Church's educational and moral responsibility, but all objective and well-informed people know that the question is much broader, and concentrating accusations against the Church alone gives a false perspective. By way of example, recent data supplied by the competent authorities in Austria shows that, over the same period of time, the number of proven cases in Church institutions was 17, while there were 510 other cases in other areas. It would be as well to concern ourselves also with them.

And the numbers of priests and religious guilty of abuse against those entrusted to their care remains a small proportion, perhaps less than 1%, of the total number of priests and religious in the Church, though, again, that should not lead us to underestimate the gravity of the actions of that minority. See the figures cited in the Avvenire interview with Mgr Scicluna, published online in English translation by ZENIT.

Report on child abuse in Dublin Archdiocese

It is very difficult to find the appropriate words to respond to the publication of this report. A round-up of the news, and the reaction of representatives of the Catholic Church in Ireland, can be found at Whispers in the Loggia. Catholic Anaylsis offers a reaction to which I would also subscribe. A BBC account of the contents of the report can be found here, and RTE's account from yesterday is here. This is the reaction of a priest today.

There are perhaps three observations that I would like to make.

The first echoes that of Catholic Analysis. Evil, serious evil, needs to be recognised as serious evil. It needs to be called serious evil. And it needs to be condemned as serious evil. The covering up of abuse, when it is known, adds to the original evil of the abuse itself a further evil -  an implicit refusal to call the original evil the evil that it really is. The publication of the report, and other reports like it, contributes to the overcoming of this second evil.

A second observation comes from the picture showing up in the report of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the police and other civil authorities in Ireland. The report also highlights failings in the civil authorities arising from their deference to the Catholic Church. On occasions, police authorities reported allegations to the Church instead of carrying out their duty of investigation that would arise from their position in civil society. My own background is not one from which I have any immediate experience of Irish Catholicism - I am an English Lancashire Catholic by family background and by culture. There is a real sense in which I do not understand Irish Catholicism, and do not think I would live very comfortably with it. The report into child abuse in Dublin illustrates the serious risk that does arise from too close an affiliation between the life of faith and that of civil life. An appropriate secularity is needed in the action of lay Catholics in the world, as mediating the action of the Church to the world, and this is not achieved through the type of subervience to the clergy that appears in some aspects of the Dublin child abuse report.

My third observation is taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and suggests a way in which we all, as different members of the Church, might respond in penance to the events reported. The quotation included is from Pope Paul VI, and the emphasis added is mine:

All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time.Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ's salvation but still on the way to holiness:  "The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace. If they live her life, her members are sanctified; if they move away from her life, they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for those offenses, of which she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit."

If we are wondering how we, as individuals, should respond to the great evils that are the subject of the news at the moment, then acts of penance seem to me entirely appropriate. Saying this is, of course, easier for me than doing it ...