Safeguarding with Confidence - Cumberlege Report

Financial issues

5.15 Because of the rules of English civil law, most juridical persons within the Catholic Church in England and Wales hold their property in charitable trusts. This means that when the question of compensation and support for those who have been abused – and the two are quite distinct – are involved, there will be a need for recourse to insurance companies and lawyers, and to what may seem rather anonymous and impersonal procedures. However, professional involvement at this stage must not render impossible the individual’s need for a personal approach and a recognition of the distress felt. In our view the present system, whereby each juridical person in the Church is responsible for any mistakes it has made, should act as a spur to promote good practice in the future.

5.16 We have heard from a number of victims and those speaking on their behalf who believe that the involvement of some insurance companies has in the past put impediments in the way of the Church responding to them in ways that are in keeping with the Church’s own spiritual and pastoral ethos and with what is regarded as good welfare practice. Lord Nolan stressed the importance of a One Church approach to safeguarding. Clearly each juridical person within the Church is free to buy insurance wherever he or she wishes; however, it is imperative that all follow the good practice enshrined in national policies on responding to allegations and supporting those who have been abused and that the appropriate insurance cover is built around these welfare policies.

Recommendation 60
The National Safeguarding Commission should commission the Catholic Church Insurance Association to conduct an urgent review of insurance arrangements with the aim of moving towards a One Church policy on insurance matters. This review should not be an impediment to a just resolution of current cases. Individual dioceses and religious congregations should not commit themselves to respond to allegations in a way that contravenes national policies.

Historic cases

5.17 A special word needs to be said about those coming forward and alleging abuse that took place many years ago. We understand that these allegations – otherwise referred to as “historic cases” - represent the majority of disclosures that are being made today. A person making an allegation has the same right to have truth acknowledged and justice done in an historic case as in a current case – whether or not the alleged abuser has since died – and this needs to be clearly stated, and acted upon in national policies and in the current review of ‘past’ cases where a previous investigation may have taken place but the outcome is considered to be unsatisfactory.

5.18 We recognise, however, that to those making such allegations it may appear that they have not been treated with the care and attention they feel they deserve. The reality is that achieving a satisfactory outcome to the investigations of an historic allegation will often be difficult: evidence may be stale, the health of alleged abusers may be precarious, or they may be dead. Juridical persons in the Church may have been under-insured at the time in question. As a consequence insurance companies may be reluctant to provide fi nancial and other forms of therapeutic support let alone offer compensation. Nonetheless, the Church has the same obligation to speak the truth, to express its sorrow for past failings and to ensure protection of today’s children against possible abuse.

Some concerns of those who have been abused

5.19 One of the main concerns expressed by those bringing forward allegations of abuse is that this should not be allowed to happen again; in asking for stringent measures in respect of those who have committed abuse in the past, they are showing their care and concern for the children of today. The Church must listen to such concerns and the Church must continue to invite victims of abuse to come forward, even if it has not always succeeded in responding to them as well as it should have done. That invitation should remain open, and should not be frustrated by “confi dentiality agreements” where these are designed to prevent others from disclosing what has happened to them.

5.20 It is also important for the Church to ensure that anyone making an allegation of abuse against a member of the Church does not inadvertently encounter the alleged perpetrator. In protecting the reputation of the priesthood and the integrity of the Church’s worship, great care needs to be taken to ensure that full and clear instructions are given to a priest against whom an allegation is made and who is, for that reason, temporarily removed from active ministry. Any risk assessment undertaken, and treatment given, before a priest is able to return to active Ministry should be routinely informed by any statement the victim has given either to the statutory authorities or the Church in conducting its own enquiries. Where removal from post is permanent – either for a priest or anyone else working for the Church – because of concerns about their suitability to work with children or vulnerable adults the Church must always ensure that such information is given in any reference asked for.

5.21 Finally, we are only too aware of the pressure sometimes placed on those who have suffered abuse to forgive those who have abused them. This is unhelpful for several reasons. First the victim may not yet have reached the stage where he or she is able to forgive. Secondly forgiveness given under pressure may do considerably more to perpetuate the harm suffered by the victim. Thirdly, the perpetrator may not be ready to accept the consequences of forgiveness, which must necessarily include acceptance of the wrong that has been done and will often include a readiness to accept treatment and both criminal and canonical penalties. We are reminded that:

“It is important for the good name of the Church that the faithful know that: - misconduct has specific consequences and that such specifi c consequences will apply according to the law; - harmful or scandalous ministry will not be allowed.”34

Recommendation 61
The Church should not ask victims to sign a “confidentiality agreement” if the purpose is to inhibit other victims from coming forward or to conceal abuse when this has been established in a court of law.

Recommendation 62
When a priest is asked or required to withdraw from active ministry on account of an allegation being made against him, or when a priest is allowed only restricted ministry, it must be made clear in a written agreement what sacramental ministry is permitted to him, bearing in mind the circumstances and the place where he will be located.

Recommendation 63
When a priest or religious is asked or required to live in a different place on account of an allegation being made against him or her, it is imperative that he or she should not have access to the victim/complainant or other children or vulnerable adults pending the resolution of the case.

Recommendation 64
An allegation made against a person who is dead or not capable of responding to the allegation should be listened to by the Church and investigated as far as possible. This should be done even though it will often be difficult to establish the truth; the statutory authorities may not be willing to investigate the matter; and even though it may be impossible to sustain claims for compensation.

Recommendation 65
The information given by the victim in any statement to the statutory authorities and/ or Church investigating an allegation of abuse should be made available routinely to those involved in the risk assessment and treatment of the abuser.

Recommendation 66
If a person has been removed from working for the Church because of concerns about his suitability for work with children, this should be stated if a reference is given for that person.

Website design and maintained by CathCom.org