Paul Malpas

Today we have a short little story of chaos, skulduggery and downright mismanagement.  Yes, we are talking about the Catholic Church of England and Wales.

Regular readers of this blog are well aware of the shambles that is the Salford Diocese Safeguarding Commission unably, led up until December 2011, by that nincompoop Fr Barry O’Sullivan until the bishop bundled him out and sent him to Strangeways Prison to practice his hobby on the prisoners, leaving that poor woebegone solicitor Mike Devlin to steady the sinking ship, having long since realised his Bene Merenti medal was not there for the taking.

Then we learnt about that fine actress Baroness Scotland who sailed into the lucrative position of Chair of the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission in a blaze of glory last March saying that her work on the Commission was the most important work in the world, attending a couple of meetings or social occasions and then realising that she did not have time to do her husband’s washing and chair the Commission at the same time, so slipped out the backdoor at Christmas, never to return.

Now we have half of Bristol resigning after a tiff with their Bishop Declan Lang, who happens to be the vice chair of the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission.  Now we know that poor old bish Declan had his eye off the ball as regards diocesan matters, especially with Mrs Scotland doing a bunk but as every dictator should know you have got to keep those at home sweet before you start poking your filthy little mitts into the world arena.  This unfortunately he did not do.

So this week we had the unedifying spectacle of his Safeguarding Commission resigning, or at least all those who seem to do the work there.  Retired judge and Chair of the Clifton Diocese Safeguarding Commission, Mr Roger Bird, Jane Dziadulewicz, the Coordinator of the Clifton Diocese Safeguarding Commission and Eugene Gallagher, the Safeguarding Officer of the Clifton Diocese Safeguarding Commission have all thrown their dummies out of the pram.  Why did they not realise sooner that when it came to abusing priests and clerical child pornography, the Church as a whole and the Diocese of Clifton in particular do not look on this sphere of activity from an altruistic perspective.  They should never have got involved with these sacerdotal villains in the first place and left them to maul about in their own mawkish mess.  It does however make you wonder whether the watchers are being abused.

It seems that one of the holy men of the diocese, an ordained priest, was caught downloading child pornography, brought to court and summarily convicted of his crime.  After the case friends of this holy man, who must have taken great delight in browsing through this mass of child pornography decided he had been treated unfairly by the Coordinator of the Clifton Diocese Safeguarding Commission, Mrs Jane Dziadulewicz and reported her to the police.  Declan “Eye-Off-The-Ball” Lang immediately called for a Clifton Diocese Independent Investigation Committee, consisting of a dozen holy priests and their ilk, to independently investigate these serious charges and very quickly they came to the decision that, yes, the poor holy downloader of child porn had been treated unfairly by the Clifton Diocese Safeguarding Commission and by Mrs Jane Dziadulewicz in particular.  The trio resigned en bloc and good old Mrs Dziadulewicz being the very successful social worker that she is and absolutely sure of her employment rights as she should be, is suing the Clifton Diocese for constructive dismissal.

Now we know that this tribunal will never come to be heard, the holy Catholic Diocese of Clifton as with all the rest of the holy catholic dioceses round the country do not wash their sperm stained linen in public.  What will undoubtedly happen, as has happened elsewhere, the Diocese will roll over, accept that they have done Mrs Jane Dziadulewicz wrong and give her a pocketful of dosh and cover everthing with a confidentiality agreement, sealing Mrs Jane Dziadulewicz’s lips for all time and this she will do willingly because we all need a little financial lift occasionally.  However, hopefully, this will not seal the lips of retired judge Roger Bird or is he in it up to his oxters from previous cases in the Diocese?

My pedantic and simple blog postings have not been in vain.  See posting of 17th March 2011 entitled Baroness Scotland, Another PR Cock Up and my posting of 30th July entitled  The Catholic Church Gone Mad.  Find them and read them before you read this article.
Well we have had news over the weekend, reported in The Times on Saturday that Baroness Scotland QC has resigned from her position of Chair of the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission of England and Wales (NCSC).  Whether this is good news or bad depends on how you look at her.  According to informed opinion Baroness Scotland reached her level in society by being an ethnic woman in an era of New Labour Ascendency.
According to the newspapers over the last few years, Scotland, the last Attorney General under Gordon Brown’s lack-lustre government, was under great pressure for supposedly thieving £170,000 in parliamentary expenses that she was not entitled to and being fined £5,000 for employing a Tongan housekeeper who did not have the necessary work papers to seek employment in this country under legislation she, Scotland, had steered through Parliament.  But being an ethnic woman under George Brown, she came through the scandals with flying colours to show how powerful New Labour’s philosophy is on ethnicity.
You could say her resignation was good news because you do not need an idiot like her in such an important position.  She proved herself an idiot in her only public utterance in her position as Chair, saying that priests are paedophiles because they are lonely.  Bring them home and give them a cup of tea or take them to a football match and then they will forget their paedophilic tendencies.  You could also say her resignation is bad news because this position of Chair is being lessened by the fact that she has resigned after only ten months in office.
Her resignation is mounted on the NCSC website as follows. “It is with much regret that the Right Honourable, the Baroness Scotland of Asthill QC has decided to tender her resignation as Chair of the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission of England and Wales.  Increasing pressures in other areas of her work have resulted in this decision.  The Baroness is encouraged by the continuing commitment of the Catholic Church and members of the NCSC in their work to improve the safeguarding of children and adults at risk, and also their work with survivor organisations.  She wishes the new Chair every success”.
What a pitiful excuse for her resignation which looks as though it was immediate, leaving no time for a newcomer to be installed.  She was appointed in early March 2011 and only attended one official meeting of the of the NCSC, which was on the 14th June 2011 in London.  She did not attend the September meeting and her resignation is from the 31st December 2011.  With interviews for her successor scheduled for February 2012, this position of Chair is being fundamentally demeaned.  After attending one meeting in her 10 month stint, it is obvious the position is not onerous and surely she could have stayed on until this new person was found.
No, her leaving is much more complicated than “increasing pressures in other areas of her work” and could be for one of the following reasons:-
1.)        She was caught with her hand in the till.  Her recent form shows she has a tendency towards this type of legerdemain.  It has been explained to me that this position carried with it a stipend of £190,000 per annum.  She is not the type of woman to cut this wedge off voluntarily.
2.)        Possibly she has found these social workers, bishops and monsignors that pack the committee of the NSCS are as slippery as hell and she can see the Indians coming over the hill and does not want to get involved in the obvious fall out and a £190,000 dive is worth taking to save her name from further black marks.
3.)        She has been involved in further financial scandals that the Church did not want to be implicated in.
4.)        She felt guilty in that she was taking this stipend and not actually doing anything
In my eyes 1 or 3 are the favourites and the NSCS guilty of employing such a mistake decided to do something right and immediate for a change and accept the ridicule of a rudderless ship.
One conference she did attend was in her early days in charge in Rome on 30th May to 5th June 2011, she was there for the first day certainly, I do not know about the rest.  The conference was quaintly called the Anglophone Safeguarding Conference, which was hosted by the Bishops, Religious and the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission of England and Wales and of course they decided to hold it in Rome as Rome is nice in June.  50 delegates attended from 20 English speaking countries and they included clergy, religious and safeguarding staff.  Scotland was asked to give the opening address and in this address  she said she knew of all the political and financial problems that the world was facing with politicians holding important international conferences on an almost daily basis.  However none of these conferences compare in importance to this one in Rome.  According to her it was the most important conference to be convened in 2011.  One minute her role is earth-shatteringly important, the next minute who gives a damn.
If nothing else this incident tends one to look at the profligacy of these safeguarders.  Why,  when as Englishmen you host a conference for English speaking people, do you have it in Rome, surely Birmingham would be cheaper?  Who pays for this profligacy?  Obviously the answer is those who contribute to the plate collections of a Sunday morning.
So to sum up what we seem to have, to quote my previous titles is either another cock up or the Catholic Church descending further into madness.  However although I am not claiming all the credit, last month Barry O’Sullivan, safeguarding man in the Salford Diocese, bit the dust and this month the out of her depth and tree Scotland has done the same.  Call it a coincidence if you like.

What are the qualities of a good priest?  Humility, generosity, intelligence, commitment, goodness, patience, responsibility, stability, openness, motivation, simplicity; in other words the qualities needed in an all round decent person.  What you do not want is pride, meanness, instability, irresponsibility, deviousness, irritability, ignorance, neglectfulness and all the other faults a lot of people have.

One’s gender should not come into it, all the good things mentioned above are shared between the sexes, just as much as all the bad things are.  On reflection and this is more than just a personal view, women tend to have slightly more of the good qualities than men, only because their mental and emotional needs and gifts have been nurtured since the beginning of time.  Women tend away from violence, confrontation, anger and competitiveness, while men tend towards them.  So on the whole women are better placed than men to play the priestly role in life.  Obviously there are good and bad in both sexes but when it comes to priestly qualities women tend to shade it better than men.

I have come across a lot of men in my life and few women.  Unfortunately women are not drawn to the rugged, dirty, competitive world that construction is whilst men are and I can count on a couple of hands the good men I have actually met.  Whilst in my limited experience of women, this percentage of good priestly qualities seem to be amply scattered about.

In my dotage I now deal with more women than men which I suppose in one way is a little unfortunate but the majority of women that now surround me, I would honestly say, are humble, generous, intelligent, committed, good, patient, responsible, stable, open, motivated, simplistic human beings.

Celibacy is not one of the qualities I look for in a priest and neither do most folk but if you have to throw this ridiculous burden into the mix then women again are better able to withstand its pressures.

So why if women have a vocation, why can they not become priests?  They would surely make a better fist of it than some of the men priests I have come across.  Well the why is important, the why is because the misogynistic, old boys club that is the Catholic Church will not let them.  They are scared that the rare priestly qualities they expect from their priests will soon be exposed when the people realise that women have them in spades.  They are scared that they will be exposed for the strutting peacocks they are.  They realise where their scrap heap is.

I have been told that in Jesus’ legacy women were of equal standing but just because in that Iron Age era men could chuck a spear farther than women it was decided that men should fulfill the role of priest.  Now things are different you get rid of your enemies by pressing a button and women can do that with the same if not better dexterity than men.  Women can reach out and capture the hearts and minds of people and are far better placed in this modern environment.  So let us have it, three cheers for HABEMUS PAPESS.

At least with a woman as Pope and with women as bishops we would not have the horrible monstrosities of priests I have met in my time like Monsignor Thomas Duggan, Father Joseph Coulthard, Father Richard Hynes and the ignominious, misplaced horror that was Fr Barry O’Sullivan,  Coordinator of the Salford Diocese Safeguarding Commission, until his recent sacking and his daft dogs.

Today, 8^th December 2011,  some very bad news has been given to me through the offices of the Salford Diocese and it is really very bad news for the past, present and future priests of the Diocese.  Fr Barry O’Sullivan, the Safeguarding Coordinator, is moving on.  The man, more than any other human being in this area, responsible for keeping the lid on clerical abuse in Salford, is going.  The priests of the Diocese will be sad and sweating.  What in God’s name will the new man bring.  Will he be honest and true, as he should be, to overcome the problems he faces or will he be a deceitful obfuscator like Sullivan

The news was leaked in the Keeping Connected newsletter issued by the Safeguarding Commission to all its officers and volunteers in the Salford Diocese.  With it is an attachment from Mike Devlin, the Chair of the Commission, which is a particularly nauseous piece of flimflammery which has been written by a man who seems to have sold his soul to Mammon.

I give it you in its entirety and will then comment on its content because we cannot let this type of rubbish be fed to the body of the Church without reacting in some way and also the demise of a man as awful as O’Sullivan should be remarked upon and celebrated.

 

FATHER BARRY O’SULLIVAN

 Para 1.  Father Barry is moving on to a new challenge. In the New Year he will be devoting himself to his work as a Chaplain at Strangeways Prison. In addition he will be completing his PhD at Manchester University.

 

Para 2. He will remain involved with the Safeguarding Commission in an informal consultancy capacity so his knowledge, experience and expertise will not be lost.  Father Barry has held the post of co-ordinator for over10 years now.  He was the person chosen by Bishop Brain to implement the recommendations of the Nolan Report in our diocese.

 

Para 3. In that time Father Barry, together with his staff at the Safeguarding Commission, has dedicated himself to establishing a structure and systems aimed at the protection of children and vulnerable adults.

 

Para 4. The Salford Diocese Safeguarding Commission has led the way in producing its own Resource Pack and Training Manual. The national body CSAS has used our materials as a template for other dioceses. Under Father Barry we have been recognised as an example of excellence. Father Barry is frequently invited to attend and speak at conferences and to advise other practitioners.

 

Para 5. Together with our administrator Pam Jones, our training consultant Alison Williams and our Safeguarding adviser Uschi Muller, Father Barry has been responsible for a rolling programme of training and education to Parish representatives, volunteers and diocesan clergy which is regarded as a model of excellence by the national body.

 

Para 6. Father Barry’s greatest achievement, in my opinion, is the way in which he has approached his job as Safeguarding Co-Ordinator. At the beginning many people in the diocese viewed the Commission and the Co-Ordinator with a degree of suspicion, mistrust and resentment. At best the Co-Ordinator was a necessary evil. Father Barry through his tireless dedication, patience, belief in his mission has won over the hearts and minds of the vast majority of the congregation of the diocese. There is now an acceptance his role and the work of the Commission is essential and carries many positive benefits for us all. Father Barry’s own passion is to allow Priests to have confidence in their ministry – a confidence which will flow from a sound safeguarding structure and system based on our Christian beliefs and underpinned by our modern understanding of human behaviour, psychology and risk management.

 

Para 7. We have been very fortunate to have had Father Barry at the helm for the last 10 years. He leaves the Commission in very good shape. He has promised to make himself available for consultation in the future.

 

Para 8. In the New Year the Trustees will appoint a new Safeguarding Co-Ordinator and Father Barry and the rest of the Commission will work together to ensure as smooth a transition as possible.

 

Para 9. On behalf of the Commission I thank Father Barry for all that he has done. It has been a privilege to work with him and we wish him all the very best for the future.

 

Mike Devlin

Chair

 

.

What an unholy load of tosh that is.  Obviously they are giving a good reference to O’Sullivan just to unload him.

 

Comments.

Para 1.  Obviously the fortitude of prisoner’s minds have been weakened by O’Sullivan’s 10 year distraction of clerical abuse.  Their souls need stiffening and Barry is obviously the man for this neglected area.  My other thought is that if Barry can manage a PhD from Manchester University, my faith in this revered institution would be seriously eroded.  Barry’s poor use of English, which has been well documented in the past and will not have improved in his dotage, would not I am sure set him up for an 11+ examination never mind a PhD.

 

Para 2.  Barry’s abilities as Coordinator of the Safeguarding Commission have been well tried and tested and found to be woefully wanting, so any future input will obviously not be required.  Devlin, if he does not know this by now should follow Sullivan to HMP Strangeways on Southall Street.  Take as an example of this lack of care the list of Old Bedians who sought a meeting with him after his name and e-mail address was posted on the Manchester Evening News following the Bishop’s “apology” regarding the sexual abuse of young boys at St Bede’s by the then Rector, Monsignor Thomas Duggan.  Having been contacted by them, Barry saw fit to ignore them.

 

Para 3.  The establishment of a structure and systems aimed at protecting children and vulnerable adults was carried out by others.  Barry would not have a clue about sentences never mind structures.

 

Para 4.  This Resource Pack and Training Manual produced by others owes nothing to Barry and as we know of the frailties of the CSAS, is it any wonder that this august yet vacuous institution would not want to pick up some pieces from other sources?

 

Para 5.  How can Pam, Alison, and Uschi live with themselves being surrounded by Barry and his ilk, but perhaps they need a job too much?

 

Para 6

i)  In the beginning, in the middle and at the end many people have been found to be correct in treating the Commission and the Coordinator with suspicion, mistrust and resentment and regarding O’Sullivan as an unnecessary evil.

ii)  Fr Barry’s “tireless dedication, patience, and belief” does not exist.  Devlin must be talking about another man unknown to us.  Read my other blog postings to discover the real Barry.

iii) If O’Sullivan has a passion that is that great, what is he doing leaving.  The job is not half done.  No, Sullivan’s only passion is for his two little white terriers that trip around him wherever he goes.

 

Para 7.  Another of Devlin’s nursery rhymes.  The Commission will obviously be in good shape but by his leaving not by his previous deeds.  O’Sullivan’s name is synonymous with chaos and obfuscation.  Good shape etc. cannot come into any equation that includes Barry.

 

Para 8.  God help the new Coordinator if O’Sullivan is going to meddle, he will have to be a strong man to deal with the nuisance of Fr Barry and the pomposity of Devlin.  What the Diocese needs first and foremost is a man or woman who can support the victims and not the entrails of the Diocese.

 

Para 9.  This sentence shows Devlin up for the man he is.

 

So there it is in its entirety, in my opinion O’Sullivan was useless, chaos was his middle name.  His only thought was his dogs. Victims of abuse did not enter into his scale of vision.  I am glad to see him go and hope the Diocese and its safeguarding ambitions improve with the new man, but somehow I doubt it.  If Brain could pick such an imbecile once, he surely is capable of managing it a second time and also the tawdry Devlin is still there with the same philosophy and the same ability to bore any potential victims to apathy.  When he authored that piece on Barry he shook the world with his banality.