IICSA - Wider Catholic Church

There's plenty of blame to go round in this sorry tale. This article covers next two candidates: the Diocese of Westminster and its safeguarding office, and the Holy See.

Diocese of Westminster

The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, has been so detached from the safeguarding scandal going on in his diocese that he doesn't even get mentioned in the report. He achieved precisely nothing, which is about as much as it appears he achieved when IICSA ran an investigation into his previous patch, the Diocese of Birmingham.

Peter Turner ran the safeguarding office during much of the period in question. He does come off a little better than Yeo, Shipperlee and Cleugh, For instance, the report records that allegations by RC-A622 (in 2004) and RC-A421 (in 2005) were promptly forwarded to the police. The Inquiry notes that for much of the time the office was under-resourced, which wasn't is fault. But there are still serious shortcomings reported.

In April 2005, in response to a number of allegations against Pearce, Turner wrote to Shipperlee recommending that 5 restrictions be placed on Pearce.

1. That Fr. David has no public ministry with the Parish setting.
2. That Fr. David is only allowed to say mass in private or within the monastery, and with no members of the public present.
3. That Fr. David is allowed to continue in a non-executive role within the Monastery as long as that does not bring him into contact with Children and Young Persons;
4. That Fr. David continues to serve as Chaplain to other Religious Communities as long as this does not bring him into contact with Children and Young Persons, and provided that the person in charge of such Communities is made aware of these conditions;
5. That if Fr. David visits families within the Parish, he does so only on condition that he does not wear clerical dress and that the families are bonafide families/friends.

Turner asked that “the recommendations be formally recognised in a formal letter to me” but this was never done and he never followed the matter up. The report states:

Mr Turner’s letter was insufficient. It did not give any guidance to Abbot Shipperlee as to how compliance with these restrictions should be enforced and monitored.

Following the civil action in 2006, the restrictions on Pearce were not reviewed. The report says:

Following the civil judgment against Pearce, the Diocese child protection team should have advised strongly that Pearce be required to leave Ealing Abbey. Abbot Shipperlee should have insisted that Pearce live elsewhere, rather than remain at Ealing Abbey, where he could and did use his position to abuse another child. While there may have been countervailing considerations as Shipperlee noted, such as difficulties in finding a suitable and safe place for Pearce to live, it should not have been insurmountable because it had previously been possible to make arrangements for him to leave the monastery during the civil trial.

The inquiry found that Turner did act correctly in insisting (against Shipperlee's entreaty) that the similar restrictions on RC-F41 should be maintained.

However there were major failures of record-keeping in the safeguarding office, some of which admittedly predated Turner's time there

For example, Peter Turner failed to record:

• the complaint made by RC-A418 in 2001 that he had been sexually abused by Father David Pearce in 1992;

• his recommendation in 2002 that Pearce should not come into any contact with children (which he had assured the police that he would make); and

• RC-A419’s complaint of sexual abuse by Pearce committed in the 1970s.

Mr Turner also failed to obtain and keep full records of the restrictions upon Pearce.
Some failures in record-keeping predated Mr Turner. For example, in 2004, he told the police that there were no previous allegations in respect of Soper, who was then being investigated in respect of RC-A622’s complaints. In fact, the Diocese of Westminster child protection team was aware of RC-A420’s claim in 2001 (before Mr Turner’s time) but no records of this were kept.

The significance of such failures is obvious: it means that an accurate picture of allegations was not maintained or available in the event of subsequent concerns.

He also failed to ensure that his advice was sufficient and also and enforced

The advice given to Abbot Shipperlee in respect of imposing restrictions upon Pearce and others was deficient. First, in identifying the restrictions upon Pearce, Mr Turner and the Diocese of Westminster child protection team overlooked that RC-A419’s account was of abuse by Pearce during a visit as a family friend. Pearce was allowed to continue to visit families within the parish; the only condition was “that he does not wear clerical dress and that the families are bona fide families/friends”. The conditions should also have stipulated that friends and families be made aware of the restrictions upon him, as Mr Turner admitted in his evidence to us. Similarly, Mr Turner did not ask whether any young people worked in the monastery:

“I just assumed that they had kitchen staff working at a weekend like they did during the week.
Q: Was that a safe assumption to make?
A: With hindsight, no.”

Mr Turner also failed to advise Abbot Shipperlee as to how the restrictions should be implemented and monitored. Mr Turner had more experience of child protection matters than Abbot Shipperlee, including the difficulties there may be in monitoring compliance with restrictions. As he told the Inquiry:

“in my experience, especially with sex offenders, they will do anything to get around any restrictions that are placed upon them”.

The inquiry criticises him for assuming all was well when he had no knowledge of whether his restrictions were actually in force.

Despite this lack of proper consideration of the risk posed by Pearce or of what action the Diocese of Westminster child protection team should take, Mr Turner informed the Deputy Child Protection Manager at the London Borough of Ealing in July 2006 that:

“I am certain that [Pearce has] been removed from all Ministry, and [does] not have any contact with Children or Young Persons, and that no further action is required at this stage.”

This assertion was made solely on the basis of the fact that restrictions had been put upon Pearce, rather than on how they had been implemented and monitored. To suggest ‘certainty’ was misleading.

This same lack of proper consideration is evident in the Diocese of Westminster child protection team’s failure to review or reflect on its approach after it was discovered that Pearce had abused RC-A621 while under restrictions.

The Holy See

The Holy See has been determinedly uncooperative with the inquiry.

We have sought evidence from the Holy See, initially through a formal request made to the Apostolic Nuncio, its diplomatic representative in London, and subsequently to the Holy See directly. The Holy See has provided some documentation in response to the Inquiry’s request but aspects remain outstanding. As a result we are unable to fully assess the role that the Holy See may have played in events concerning the EBC. It is likely therefore that the position of the Holy See will be considered further in the Inquiry’s investigation into the response of the Catholic Church as a whole, by which point we expect to have some answers.

The main action of the Holy See has been to conduct an Apostolic Visitation of Ealing.

The primary response of the Holy See in respect of events at Ealing Abbey was the request for an Apostolic Visitation in 2011. This would appear to have been authorised in response to a lengthy letter of 18 June 2011, sent by Jonathan West, a member of the public and campaigner, to the Apostolic Nuncio:

“I request that there be an intervention from the highest levels within the Church. It seems to me that an Apostolic Visitation might be an appropriate response to the situation, to ensure the safety of the children of the schools and of the parish.”

The Apostolic Visitation was undertaken by Bishop Arnold and, initially, Abbot President Yeo. The recommendations of the final report in 2012 were that:

• Abbot Shipperlee should not be removed from office;
• the CDF should accept the relevant recommendations made in the Carlile report;
• the EBC should make a further canonical visitation of Ealing Abbey; and
• the healing of those who have been abused was of paramount importance.

Note that if the intent of the visitation was (as I had requested) "to ensure the safety of the children of the schools and of the parish" then the Visitation was complete failure as the report did not address that question at all. Presumably the scope defined by the Holy See was somewhat different and more minimal. In this, the Holy See was clearly following Abbot Shipperlee's previous example when commissioning the Wright-Nixson report.

The Holy See's response to this report was to insist that Lord Carlile's report must not be endorsed. The reasons for this are unclear and have not been explained by the Holy See.

Concerning the hunt for Soper, the report states

In November 2015, Detective Sergeant (DS) Chris Sloan of the Metropolitan Police was tasked to assist with undertaking financial enquiries in relation to Soper.526 In November and December 2015, DS Sloan asked for two intelligence requests to be made of the Holy See through the National Crime Agency (NCA), which was the gateway for such international enquiries. According to Commander Neil Jerome, it appears that although DS Sloan did not himself receive any response, the NCA was provided with information originating from the Holy See that led to Soper’s eventual arrest in Kosovo in May 2016.

We do not know what the Holy See knew, whether any steps were taken after Soper’s disappearance to discover whether he had an account at the Vatican Bank, or whether they had any information that might have assisted in locating him earlier.

Prior to the hearing we sought a witness statement from the Holy See in relation to these, and other, matters. The Chair’s powers to compel evidence are limited to the United Kingdom and as a result the request to the Holy See has been to provide information on a voluntary basis. The request was initially made to the Apostolic Nuncio to the United Kingdom, the Holy See’s diplomatic representative in the UK. He is covered by diplomatic immunity and therefore cannot be compelled to give evidence.

Our request asked a number of questions in respect of a series of factual issues. The Holy See has confirmed that it does not intend to provide a witness statement. As a result, the Inquiry is unable to fully understand and assess the role that the Holy See may have played.

It would appear that the Catholic Church's unwillingness to engage with civil authorities is the result of an example set by the very top of the church.