As I was lying back this summer, feet up and enjoying my slothful retirement, I received an urgent call to arms. As a result of a preliminary report I had sent in, the Salford Diocese, in the form of their Safeguarding Commission wanted to see me as soon as possible to talk through the claims I had made in the report; that Monsignor Thomas Duggan, one time Rector of my alma mater, St. Bede’s College in Manchester, was an abuser of young boys, physically, mentally and sexually for 16 years whilst in charge of the school in the 1950s and 60s.
Safeguarding Commissions were established in all the 22 dioceses of England and Wales in the wake of the Nolan Report of 2001 which dealt with the clerical abuse on minors. The objective of these Commissions is to protect children (those under 18 years of age) and vulnerable adults from predatory assaults by officers of the Church. The welfare of the child being of paramount importance.
To date they have had some bad press but their task is unenviable, a little like holding back a tsunami. To do it right they have to show empathy and understanding with the victims and mean it. Unfortunately compensation and legal costs are the inevitable consequences of abuse and the natural reaction for these Commissions is to go on the defensive bolstered by a pack of lawyers that are naturally attracted to this scenario. At this point for me this defensive wall is the biggest drawback to their professed humanitarian values.
So in some ways I was amazed at the alacrity of their response, having read of the Church’s poor performance in this field of abuse. They almost wanted to invade my house in Ireland at 24 hours notice but it was finally arranged that a meeting in Manchester in early September would suffice.
With some trepidation that day approached and I wondered what their response and atitude would be to the very serious accusations I had made in my report. I asked a friend of mine, who had been at school with me and who had helped with the report to accompany me. Two always being better than one, I had visions of us being two Spitfire pilots attacking massed flights of German bombers and fighters in the Battle of Britain.
All the way through the school we had been cowed by the presence of this man Duggan, he had the whole school, priests, lay masters and pupils terrified by his presence. The priests because their natural reaction to perversity is not belligerance, the lay masters who worried about their employment and what a blot, instant dismissal would have on their records and the pupils because they were immature, lacking in confidence and aware that if they complained they would not be believed and therefore subject to more punishment. Some pupils would have been as young as 11 years old and would not have appreciated what was going on.
Tommy Duggan as we ‘affectionately’ called him, used to meet boys in the corridors, put his arms around them and rub his face into theirs, whilst asking “are you being pure boy?”. On other more secluded meetings he would put his arms round boys and lean into them, rubbing his face and his body into theirs and groaning and moaning into their ears or sometimes with the more naive boys threaten them with expulsion from the school for nothing in particular but just to put the fear of god into them.
All boys in those days were used to regular corporal punishment meted out by a master especially appointed to the role. He was known as the Prefect of Discipline: his job was to collect dinner money and strap boys, some were more efficient than others but they all did their job diligently.
As a punishment of last resort and this could be for failing a monthly Latin test or some such evil crime. a pupil would be sent up to Duggan. His preferred method of punishment was to tell the pupil to remove his clothing below his waist and stand naked in front of him whilst he spoke to the boy of his poor record. He would then either lean him over the arm of a sofa or put the lad over his knee and wallop him with a strap and at the same time fondling his rear end to presumably make the pupil more pliant. The testimonies I received all said the same with obvious small differences.
So nobody can tell me that there was not physical, mental and sexual abuse going on almost daily at the school. He had a man employed to dole out the corporal punishment, he did not have to threaten expulsion on the naive good guys, he did not have to lean into us and rub his body and his despicable face into ours, he did not need to fondle our arses, full stop. No other master did it. We were horrified and terrified as young boys, he did not bother the 6th Formers and there is evidence that when he was rebuffed by a boy who would stand up to him, he backed away but held this slight in his mind and dreamt up excuses to remove him from the school. He really was a nasty piece of work.
Off to the meeting we went and I was surprised at the warmth of their welcome, the web seemed very comfortable. The first question they asked was what we wanted to achieve from our campaign. I told them Acceptance, Acknowledgement and Apology: they looked visably relieved and set off at a cracking pace telling us all about their past good work in this difficult field, all their successes and how seriously they treated the report. Except on a few points they were studied, serious and almost word perfect. I should have left satisfied, but I wasn’t; it had all gone a little too much like clockwork. Their practised and professional manner did not completely cover up their worries and fear of repercussion.
It was over before we knew it, with the burden on us to remove the anonimity from our witnesses so that the Commission could interview them. Over the next few days I did it with the strongest men but there are one or two who are still too emotional about their ordeals and I have left them out of the equation for the moment.
Nothing can remove the thoughts from my mind how the Safeguarding Commissions have sheltered these abusing priests in previous cases. You can read about it every day in the newspapers or on the internet and see it on television, especially on Channel 4 News. So at the meeting we were amazed that after they had finished blowing their trumpet, they told us that there was nothing in Duggan’s files. They did say that these files were poor and even an intimation that some files might have been edited in the past and that there might be other files but as far as they were concerned Duggan was snow white, even though the Coordinator of the Commission said that he had been hearing rumours of Duggan’s behaviour many times in the past, on the golf course etc. My mind came to a full stop; the web was getting sticky. I was glad to be out.
That night I awarded myself a prize; a bottle of Malbec from Argentina, courtesy of the citizens of Mendoza. I had won first prize. I was the first man in 60 years to complain about this sexual deviant who held sway over 2500 boys in his period in control. The Commission did say that they would look further into their records. Let us hope they do, but whatever they come up with does not bother me. There are more ways to skin a cat than sharpen a knife.
Paul,
I was very interested to read of your meeting with the Diocese of Salford Safeguarding Commission. Do you have a fuller record or recording of this meeting that you could make available to followers of your blog?
Thanks
Philip
Philip,
Thanks for commenting on my blog, I note that you have a blog on a similar subject. On a quick first look it seems amazing. I will spend this morning reading it in full and I will respond later when I have got my head round what you are saying.
Thanks again
Paul
Paul
Many thanks for sending me the link at http://www.mediafire.com/?se3udyzz3jql7gr . I and, more importantly, my partner, Patricia have listened to this with ever increasing amazement. As a result, Patricia has written the response, below, which is also available on http://caads.blogspot.com/
Thanks Paul and keep up the good work.
Philip
Statement by Patricia Gilligan, former Child Protection Adviser in the Diocese of Salford in response to information made public by Michael Devlin (Chair of the Salford Diocesan Safeguarding Commission) and Father Barry O’Sullivan (Safeguarding Coordinator) at a meeting held on 10 September 2010 at St Chad’s, Manchester.
I have accessed the audio-recording available on the internet at http://www.mediafire.com/?se3udyzz3jql7gr . This is a recording of a meeting held at St Chad’s, Manchester on 10 September 2010. The meeting involved Michael Devlin (Chair of the Salford Diocesan Safeguarding Commission), Father Barry O’Sullivan (Safeguarding Coordinator), Paul Malpas and Mike Harding. I understand from the recording that the meeting took place to discuss a letter and report from Paul Malpas regarding complaints about abuse suffered at the hands of Thomas Duggan, the former Rector of St Bede’s (1950 to 1966), by former pupils at St Bede’s College, Manchester. The meeting started at 2.10 pm and finished at 3.05 pm. It was also attended by Uschi Műller (Safeguarding Adviser) and Pam Jones (Safeguarding Office Manager).
Listening to the recording, I note that Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan, chose, at this meeting, to make information about several significant matters concerning the work of the Salford Safeguarding Commission (formerly the Child Protection Commission) available to Mr Malpas and Mr Harding, who Mr Devlin notes have no ‘official’ status, and through them, to anyone who accesses the audio recording of the meeting which is available to the public generally at http://www.mediafire.com/?se3udyzz3jql7gr .
As the former Child Protection Adviser in the Diocese of Salford (January 2002 to April 2008) I was surprised to hear Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan making information available about matters other than those which Mr Malpas and Mr Harding had come to discuss. However, I very much welcome the fact that, by making such information publicly available, the Chair of the Commission and the Safeguarding Coordinator have removed some of the restrictions on my own freedom to comment on these matters to others.
I also welcome the opportunity to question the accuracy and selective nature of several of the things said by Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan during the meeting on 10 September 2010. I do this in the context of Mr Devlin’s statements that he and Fr O’Sullivan will supply Mr Malpas with all relevant information about Duggan, that he has always wished “to be as open and transparent as possible” and that these matters belong to “the body of the Church”.
Regarding Thomas Duggan:
Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan emphasise several times, in the recording of the meeting, available at http://www.mediafire.com/?se3udyzz3jql7gr that, despite Fr O’Sullivan’s lack of surprise at receiving Mr Malpas’ letter and his admission that he has been hearing stories about Duggan for 23 years (“on the golf course and on retreats”), Mr Malpas is the first person to raise such concerns about Thomas Duggan. Mr Devlin states, in reference to the complaints about Duggan, that “nobody had ever reported it or drawn it to the attention …”
However, I recall that on 7 November 2003, Fr O’Sullivan and I interviewed a former student of St Bede’s who wished to discuss the abuse he had been subjected to by Duggan.
This interview was audio-recorded and a transcript wordprocessed. I would, therefore, have assumed that a written record of it would be readily available in the Commission’s files.
Regarding Thomas Doherty, former parish priest of St Joseph’s Todmorden:
Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan give Mr Malpas and Mr Harding information about Doherty’s whereabouts following his release from prison and about Bishop Brain’s decision not to send Doherty’s request for laicisation to Rome. As far as I know, this is information that has never before been shared publicly with the people of the Diocese of Salford or with the parishioners of St Joseph’s, Todmorden.
However, whilst revealing this information, Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan do not mention the meetings that Fr O’Sullivan and I had with parishioners of St Joseph’s in 2003/2005 nor the fact that, at these meetings, Fr O’Sullivan left both these parishioners and me believing that Doherty had been laicised (dismissed from the clerical state under Canon Law) as we would have expected given the Bishops’ commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Nolan Report. There was at these meetings no hint that an ‘exception’ had been made in Doherty’s case, let alone a public justification of this, as would be required if the Nolan recommendations were being followed. Indeed, despite the fact that I was representing the Diocese in its discussions with the parishioners of St Joseph’s, at this time, I had not been told that Doherty had not been laicised and was, subsequently, very shocked to learn, during the summer of 2007, what Mr Devlin has now revealed publicly, i.e. that Doherty had written a letter requesting laicisation, but that Bishop Brain had decided not to send this to the Vatican. This was certainly not an “open and transparent” process.
Meanwhile, also in relation to Doherty, I note that, in the audio-recording,
• Mr Devlin refers to the process of laicisation as one which would have resulted in Doherty being “spat out by the Church”. This colourful expression is extremely misleading and in very marked contrast to what was said by the Nolan Committee. They say,
“…laicisation does not mean that the Church has no further part to play in relation to the abuser. As with lay worker abusers who are no longer employed by the Church, the Church may nonetheless be able to assist with the rehabilitation and pastoral needs of the individual.” (Nolan, 2001: 44)
Mr Devlin, later, says that “the rules that govern these matters within the Church have changed” and implies that it would have been impossible for the Church to retain any responsibility or role within a covenant of care before these “rules” were changed. However, as the quotation (above) makes clear that was not the position following the Bishops’ decision to implement the Nolan recommendations in 2001. It would have been possible for Doherty to be the subject of a covenant of care and for the Church to cooperate with the police and probation services whether he was laicised or not.
• Mr Devlin informs Mr Malpas and Mr Harding that Doherty had more than one victim. He refers to “very vulnerable young boys”. Again, this is information that, as far as I know, has not previously been shared publicly and has not been shared with the parishioners of St Joseph’s, Todmorden.
Patricia Gilligan,
7 October 2010
Pingback: World War 3. The Safeguarding Commission v Little Me | Paul Malpas
Philip,
Might I just point out that Fr. O’Sullivan, the Coordinator of the Salford Diocese Safeguarding Commission has written to me pointing out that there are inaccuracies in Patricia’s statement in that the interview on 7th November 2003 was not about Duggan. Now without some form of corroboration from either side I do not know who is accurate. So I will leave it up to the reader to decide who speaks with forked tongue. Poor Mrs. Gilligan or the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Paul
Paul
This is fascinating news which raises a number of interesting issues, but which, regardless of whose recall is the more accurate, actually changes nothing of any significance. That said, I would offer the following observations:
1. From what you report, I assume that Fr O’Sullivan is only querying the detail of whether the meeting on 7 November 2003 was specifically about Duggan and not the accuracy of other parts of the statement. This did, of course, cover many other issues, including the fact that Fr O’Sullivan, the Salford Diocesan Safeguarding (formerly Child Protection) Coordinator, since 2002, has admitted that he has been hearing stories about Duggan for 23 years (“on the golf course and on retreats”).
2. In this context, and regarding only the question of whether the meeting on 7 November 2003 was specifically about Duggan, I realise that Fr O’Sullivan has ready and current access to the Commission’s files and is, therefore, presumably in a position to check the details of the transcript of the interview which he and Patricia conducted on 7 November 2003, whereas Patricia is recalling this interview from memory, 7 years after the event. It may be the case that another alleged perpetrator was named or that no specific alleged perpetrator was named during this particular interview. Fr O’Sullivan could, perhaps, clarify this point for us all.
3. For myself, I remain extremely confident that Patricia has never had any intention of misleading anyone about even this very specific issue. I would encourage readers to carefully consider the other points she makes; for example regarding the case of Thomas Doherty.
Philip
Philip,
Fr. O’Sullivan’s exact words were:-
“On your blog post you refer to a claim by Mrs Patricia Gilligan that there was a meeting at the Commission on 7th Nov. 2003 at which a former pupil at St Bede’s made a complaint about Mgr. Duggan.I am writing to you, for the third time, to inform you that no such complaint about Mgr. Duggan was received until you presented the Commission with your report. The meeting Mrs Gilligan refers to was about an entirely different matter, her recollection of the day, month and year of one of our meetings is accurate, however she is quite mistaken as to the content.
I once again, respectfully, ask you to amend this inaccurate account of the said meeting.
Fr Barry O’Sullivan”
By the way, he also threatened me with litigation if I did not remove the offending piece. My knowledge of the internet is not good and I do not know how to cowtow to his demands to remove something that is already published. Anyway I think what I have done is a lot fairer. He has threatened me with litigation for “deformation”. Now I am no lawyer but can any citizen out there explain to me what “deformation” is. The presumed thought of it has me in a tizzy.
Paul
Scarily, my ‘Shorter Oxford English Dictionary’ tells me that ‘Deformation’ is “1. The action (or result) of deforming; disfigurement, defacement. 2. Alteration of form for the worse (often opp. to reformation) 1546. 3. Physics. Alteration of shape; altered form of 1846″.
Did you ever expect to be on the receiving end of such Torquemada-esque threats when you set out to seek assistance from the Diocese of Salford for victims of abuse?
Philip
Philip,
Does this mean that the Inquisition has come to England. I can now feel my toes burning in the oncoming fires of hell as O’Sullivan tries to get one more ratchet on the rack.
When I approached the Commission in the first place I expected honesty, openness and transparency not wholescale bloody torture.
Paul
Paul
In fact, it is only a few weeks since Scotland and England received state visits from the man who was for a quarter of a century (1981 to 2005), the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; known from 1542 until the early 20th century, as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.
This is, ironically, the body responsible for investigations into “delicta graviora”, including crimes committed by a cleric against a person under the age of eighteen.
Philip
On the 15th of this month, I saw an item on the BBC News website mentioning the activities of of the late Rt. Rev. Thomas Duggan . Having been a boarder at St. Bede’s from 1955 to 1962 I can well remember the activities of this extraordinary creature. If you would like to contact me about this sorry matter, please do so. Congratulations on efforts so far. Regards , John Butler.
John,
thanks for your comment and invitation to contact you. I will e-mail you for privacy.
Paul
Hi Paul, I think we have communicated previously (about 2-3 years ago) regarding Doherty. I’d be grateful if you could contact me via email please… regards J