The Safeguarding Commission of the Salford Diocese: Has the Inquisition Returned?
Tuesday, November 9th, 2010Before you read this posting, read “Safeguarding Commissions” posted on 7th October 2010 and “World War 3: The safeguarding Commission v Little Me” posted on 13th October 2010 to get you up to date with this saga. Perhaps you might have done so, then carry on.
The very title, Safeguarding Commission, starts to ask questions. Safeguarding what? Safeguarding who? Well the answer should be “children and vulnerable adults” from the wily ways of clerical officers of the various dioceses. It is supposed to put in place certain protocols and practices that prevent these unfortunate ones from being abused by the deviant behaviour of the officers of the Church.
In practice however, whilst the above might be correct, the vast part of their work is devoted, unsuccessfully, to safeguarding the name and reputation of that broken organization, the Catholic Church. 90% of their time, the Safeguarding Commission is standing in front of a tidal wave of accusation and allegation trying impossibly to ward off this tsunami which is about to overwhelm the stricken Church and during this 90% of their time, they have no time, concern or feeling for the abused children and vulnerable adults. These poor creatures are completely overlooked.
How do I know this, well I have witnessed it for the last few months and various survivors of abuse from all over the country have written to me telling of the terrible treatment they have received from these Safeguarding Commissions and the Church.
The Church now is so immune to criticism and overloaded with allegation, they will admit to anything and roll over. Damage limitation is the name of their game, so the quicker they roll over, the less information they have to give out and the less heed they pay to victims and so they think, the less damage is done to the Church. A large proportion of victims are denied their opportunity to describe their abuse and therefore to challenge for compensation in whatever form.
The words to describe this canonical philosophy are heartless, cruel and damaging but the Commissions spout honesty, openness and transparency. Only the Secret Services of major countries can put spin on these words like the Catholic Church does.
My battle with the Safeguarding Commission of the Salford Diocese started in earnest on 8th October 2010, a Friday afternoon, and Fr. O’Sullivan, the Coordinater of the Commission, telephoned me with some very important information. Himself and Mike Devlin, a solicitor and Chair of the Commission had sat down with the Bishop of Salford, Terence Brain, Monsignor Michael Quinlan, the Chair of Governors of St. Bede’s College, and Mr. Michael Barber, the Headmaster of St Bede’s College and come up with some “very serious and sensitive information” about Monsignor Thomas Duggan. Thomas Duggan was the Rector of St. Bede’s College, my alma mater, from 1950-1966. I had been running a campaign against this man because of his mental, physical and sexual abuse of young boys at the College within his tenure and we had already had a meeting with the Commission to put forward our findings.
This information was so “serious and sensitive” that Fr. O’Sullivan felt he could not talk about it over the phone or communicate by e-mail and he asked me to come to Manchester to discuss it, from my home in Roscommon in Ireland. So I thought this must be the break-through we were looking for and we arranged to meet in Manchester on 5th November 2010. He did say that the information was so compelling that he would not be interviewing my witnesses and that the Diocese considered that something serious had happened at St. Bede’s all those years ago.
Just prior to this telephone conversation and in the spirit of “openness and transparency” that the Commission exuded, I had decided to let the recording of our first meeting in September go into the public domain. There had been no talk of confidentiality at the meeting and the Chair, Mike Devlin, insisted that we had no status, and I thought that as nothing of any value was discussed, why not let it out.
Fr. O’Sullivan found out about this on Monday, 11th October and he again telephoned me and lambasted me for my “massive breach of confidentiality”. He harangued me for about 30 seconds before slamming down the telephone in mid-sentence. I did not get chance to say a word. There followed a flurry of e-mails over a three week period where the proposed 5th November meeting was on and then off, like the proverbial whore’s drawers and where his tone and language was most unholy and not priest-like.
Eventually he said that because I was an “incompetent and untrustworthy advocate” he could not recognize me and because I did not exist in his eyes, it would be impractical for me to go to the meeting. It was like the defence counsel sacking the prosecuting barrister, a new twist on the law and one that would solve a lot of problems in the judicial system if allowed. This decision of his was unfortunate, stupid and immature because I was the one who had made the original complaint, I was the only one who knew the victims. So how could he give out this “serious and sensitive ” information to others without me knowing about it. My problem was that I knew too much and that made him uncomfortable.
However he was adamant and I realised that this meeting would never take place if I turned up, so I resigned my position in the campaign and let others take my place. People who O’Sullivan would feel comfortable with. His parting shot was to threaten me with litigation, saying the Diocesan lawyers would sue me for “Deformation”. This word led to another flurry of e-mails and comments on the blog of a humourous nature and I suitably ignored his stupid threats.
Now it strikes me that lambasts over the telephone, bullying e-mails and telephone conversations and threats of litigation should not be the currency of the Catholic Church and its sub-divisions, but this is how these Safeguarding Commissions work and it is not just Salford Diocese, other dioceses react in exactly the same way. Damage limitation, sparse truths, legal battles and bullying attempts at victims silence and litigation threats at anybody who asks to many questions should surely not be the tools of a holy and religious body but organizations like the Inquisition have been proving it has been the case for nearly 900 years. It is nothing new, it has just been refined.