Richard Yeo resigning from the visitation?

The Times yesterday carried a report that Abbot Richard Yeo has offered to resign from his role in the Visitation.

A spokesman for the Diocese of Westminster said yesterday that Father Yeo had offered to resign after a meeting with Lord Carlile. “Father Richard Yeo felt that as he is the Benedictine Congregation’s Abbot he should offer his resignation to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF). Father Yeo has not yet received a response from Rome,” he said. “It is for the CDF to accept or decline Father Yeo’s offer to resign. Similarly, the CDF would determine if a replacement were to be needed.”

Lord Carlile said yesterday that Bishop Arnold and Father Yeo had met him in private after the publication of his report to discuss the conclusions he had reached.

“I suggested to Father Yeo that there would be at least a perception of a conflict of interest in taking part in any further Visitation,” Lord Carlile said. “Clearly following the discussion he felt that advice was appropriate and he would step down. It is the right and responsible decision.”

Abbot Richard Yeo should never have been appointed to the Apostolic Visitation in the first place. The conflict of interest is clear and obvious.

As the head of the English Benedictine Congregation and a member of the Cumberlege Commission, he should some years ago have been advising the Abbot of Ealing on safeguarding issues and making sure that the advice was taken. If any advice was given, it clearly wasn't taken. If the visitation is to be thorough and complete, he would have to investigate himself.

Bishop John Arnold, the other Visitor, also has a conflict of interest and should never have been appointed either. His immediate superior, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, has known for a number of years that there were significant problems concerning child sex abuse at Ealing Abbey, and he has done nothing as far as I know. He has said in public that he has no formal authority over Ealing Abbey, but he could at any time have requested an Apostolic Visitation. I did that, and my request was granted. A request initiated by Archbishop Vincent Nichols would have had far more authority than a request from a mere layman. So if the Visitation is to be thorough, it also has to review the inaction of the Diocese of Westminster, and John Arnold would therefore have to investagate the inaction of the diocese led by his own archbishop. That would include the appalling pastoral failing involved in Nichols' letter to "C", replying to C's description of the abuses he suffered at the hands of Pearce.

I am grateful to you for telling me something of your background. I was sorry to read of the harmful experiences you have had, and the continuing effects of these for you and your family. I am sorry that you feel that the Roman Catholic Church has failed your family.

So, no apology for the abuse. Just an expression of regret that C feels the church failed his family. Would Arnold have the nerve to criticise his own archbishop for this or any other failings? I very much doubt it.

You don't get a mess like Ealing Abbey without there being serious management failings at multiple levels. Obviously most of the responsibility has to lie with successive Abbots at Ealing itself, but the abuses could never have gone on for so long had there not been serious failings elsewhere as well. While the Apostolic Visitation is being run by Yeo and Arnold, it will always be suspected that its purpose is to find out as little as possible, lest it further embarrass the Catholic Church.

Carlile Report analysis - 6

The next section covering paragraphs 37 to 43 is titled "Best practice: the Nolan and Cumberlege reviews". Carlile includes the following brief extract from the Nolan report

Recommendation 1. The Catholic Church in England and Wales should become an example of best practice in the prevention of child abuse and in responding to it.

3.1.8 The 1994 Guidelines concentrated on the response to allegations of child abuse. In the present climate, much more emphasis is placed on child protection and it is worthy of note that almost all dioceses have in fact adopted policies and practices that are designed to prevent abuse occurring in the first place. Whilst the proper handling of allegations is important, it is much more important that the opportunity for abuse does not occur because awareness is high and an effective regime of good practice is in place, and is known to be so.
Recommendation 2. The top priority is to have preventative policies and practices operating effectively in parishes, dioceses and religious orders that will minimise the opportunity for abuse.

3.1.9 It is necessary, however, to face the reality that no organisation which has dealings with children can eliminate the risk of child abuse completely. It is therefore important to complement prevention policies with a clear understanding by those in positions of responsibility that abuse of their position in any way will inevitably have the most serious consequences for them.

All very good in principle. The problem with the Nolan report is that the principle isn't followed up with properly effective practice. For instance, this is recommendation 61 of the Nolan report

Recommendation 61. When there is a disclosure, the statutory authorities should be brought in straight away, without any process of filtering, to take the lead in investigating and assessing the situation

If that "should" had been a "shall" then it would have been the basis for an effective policy - if followed. But having "should" there allows people at the local (parish or school) level to subvert the intent of the recommendation by writing exceptions which neuter it. Nolan reported in 2001, but eight years later, the child protection policy for St. Benedict's was so far from implementing the Nolan recommendations that it was essentially one long excuse for never reporting anything. As the ISI stated in its 2010 supplementary report:

The school did not have a fully established policy for reporting directly to the Department for Education and Skills (later the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and currently the Department for Education) or to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, responsible for such referrals since 20 January 2009.

But as Nolan only said "should", the abbey would have been able to claim if asked that they were complying with the Nolan recommendation, even though they didn't have an effective policy for reporting anything to anyone.

Carlile mentioned that the Cumberlege commission reviewed the situation after 5 years, their report being published in 2007. In paragraph 39, Carlile notes that

One of the members of the Cumberlege Commission was the Abbot President then and now of the English Benedictine Congregation. To objective observers it will be a disappointment that the governance of Ealing Abbey, St Benedict’s School and other related schools were not subjected to a governance review within a short time.

The Abbot President is Richard Yeo. At the press conference, Carlile criticised the appointment of Yeo to conduct the Apostolic Visitation, arguing that he had too close a connection with Ealing Abbey for any review by him both to be independent and to be seen to be independent.

All of Carlile's criticisms are entirely valid, and yet he has still missed the key point. It's not the governance that had to be reviewed, it was the existence sand implementation of appropriate and effective child protection policies. The school's was useless, and the parish in fact had no policy at all.

In fact, as far as I can tell, the parish still doesn't have a child protection policy. The Ealing abbey website has a child protection statement, and a link to the CSAS procedures, without actually stating that the CSAS procedures are being implemented in the parish. I have my criticism of the CSAS procedures and its extremely unfriendly website, but that's a story for another day. For now, it is sufficient to say that even after all the publicity, the Ealing Abbey website still doesn't have an unequivocal statement declaring what (if any) child protection procedures it is following. I would have hoped Carlile might have noticed that, but there is no mention of it in the report.

Carlile ends this section of his report with the following.

43. The above comments should not be seen in any way as implying that the Abbey Community should now, in 2011, be seen as a failure. My meetings with them suggest that is not the case. The vitality, academic success, community reach and diversity of the school are evidence of the positive aspects of the Abbey and St Benedict’s School. As one of my interlocutors put it:

“Any community of Christian men and women who take their Christian vocation seriously is going to be grappling all the time with the consequences of human sinfulness and our natural backsliding tendency.”

This very realistic person recognised that there are ‘backsliding tendencies’ so unacceptable that there can be almost no limit to the level of vigilance required. The outcome of the events under consideration, and of this Report, should be to provide assurance that the lessons have been learned.

It may well be true that the school is awash with "vitality, academic success, community reach and diversity. That doesn't for a minute excuse it for its shortcomings in safeguarding. In any case, Carlile is no more an expert in education that he is an expert on safeguarding procedures, and he's completely unqualified to make that statement.You can give it whatever weight you think it deserves.

In this section, Carlile has noticed that Abbot Richard Yeo (who was a participant in the Cumberlege Commission) failed to ensure that governance of the school was reviewed post-Cumberlege, but hasn't noticed the far more important point, that safeguarding at the school and parish were also not reviewed, because it is those policies which provide the primary protection against the backsliding tendency which Carlile's correspondent so correctly identifies.

You don't get a mess like Ealing without there having been management failures at multiple levels. Three such failures are now clearly visible. The headmaster should have been implementing an effective policy and proposing improvements in it for the Trustees' agreement and approval. The Abbot should have been taking note of the Nolan and Cumberlege recommendations and taking action to see to it that they were effectively implemented. And the Abbot President should have been conducting a review of all the English Benedictine houses to ensure as far as possible that Nolan and especially Cumberlege were getting implemented.

But none of this happened. This isn't a mere historical tragedy, this a serious failure of the duty of care on the part of the current management. Had even one of these three levels of management been doing their job properly, then the school's and probably the abbey's child protection procedures would have been in a fit state. And we know that at least one child suffered as a result of that failure.

Bishop John Arnold's interview

Bishop John Arnold was interviewed by BBC presenter Jane Little on the BBC R4 Sunday programme yesterday. below is a transcript of the interview with my comments

Jane Little: Let me start with Sean’s point that the archdiocese should have stepped in with an investigation of its own, even though technically religious orders don’t come under your jurisdiction.

Bishop John Arnold: No, and you were quite right to correct him. The monastery is autonomous and under the Benedictines, and they have their own structures there for visitations and of course the Vatican can step in and supervise that and establish an Apostolic Visitation. The parish as it is, is under the diocese and of course subject there to the safeguarding provisions and procedures adopted by the diocese and all dioceses in England and Wales.

We have a masterly bit of confusion right at the start here. He seems to be saying that Ealing Abbey both is and isn't under the jurisdiction of the diocese. It seems that in general terms it isn't, but in the specific context of safeguarding it is. So, if the parish is not implementing "procedures adopted by the diocese", does the diocese have the right to intervene in matters of safeguarding or does it not?

This is quite important. If the diocese has the right to intervene, then it should have done, and Archbishop Vincent Nichols was wrong to tell me he was unable to intervene. And if it hasn't the right to intervene, then it should have expressed its concerns to those who can intervene.

JL: But in the case of the diocese of Plymouth, the Bishop there had ordered a review into child protection at Buckfast Abbey and beyond, so why if it can happen there can’t you do it in the diocese of Westminster?

JA: I’m not that familiar with Plymouth itself, but as I understand it, Bishop Budd has brought in the NSPCC to review the whole operation of procedures following the conviction of Chris Jarvis, but again, the monastery would be autonomous. A bishop can make recommendations, and in this case it was in fact the Nuncio who made recommendations to the Vatican that there should be an Apostolic Visitation to Ealing.

The thing I most notice about this is that John Arnold has managed quite neatly not to answer the question. The question is why has the Diocese of Westminster not intervened at Ealing Abbey in the way the Diocese of Plymouth has at Buckfast. But all he's said in answer is to describe what has happened at Buckfast, and then describe what has happened at Ealing, which is that the Papal Nuncio (rather than the diocese) requested a visitation. What he hasn't said is why the diocese never requested a visitation. It is quite clear from comparable cases in other countries that Nichols does have the right to make a request along these lines to Rome, other bishops have (e.g. in Munich) when faced with obstructive Abbots.

JL: What about the argument made there by Sean that the church authorities here were obstructive rather than co-operative and that it’s very important to achieve some sort of transparency?

JA: Well, I’d have to disagree. I think the procedures are working pretty well, and they’re in place. I don’t tink there’s any intention of the church to be obstructive. We’ve got a very difficult problem here, and we’ve got ongoing work with victims, we’ve got to make sure that the safeguarding procedures are in place and I think there is transparency. What there mustn’t be is an overlap, so the Apostolic Visitation is looking to make sure that the safeguarding procedures are in place, and they’re being followed, but the investigations must be handed over to the statutory authorities.

Well, he would disagree, wouldn't he? Note that again though, he seems to be talking about the church in general, whereas Sean O'Neill was talking more specifcally about the church authorities responsible for safeguarding at Ealing and Buckfast.

And in his claims of transparency, I notice he says "we’ve got to make sure that the safeguarding procedures are in place" without making any statement about whether (at Ealing) the safeguarding procedures actually are in place.

And I have severe concerns about the church's procedures for handing over investigations to the statutory authorities. Section 2.1 of the CSAS procedures addresses handling of allegations of abuse of children. Within section 2.1, clause 2.1.1 deals with reporting allegations or concerns to the local safeguarding representative. But clause 2.1.2, describing referral to the police or social services starts as follows. 

"When the decision has been made, after consultation with the Safeguarding Officer or Safeguarding Coordinator or by the Local Safeguarding Representative or recipient of the information in the case of an emergency, to make a referral to Children's Social Care Services or the Police, the following steps need to be taken."

And it goes on to describe the actions to be taken, once the decision to refer has been reached. What the clause doesn't do is describe the basis for making the decision to refer, the circumstances under which a referral must be made. So, Ealing Abbey could arguably claim that it is following the CSAS procedures, and yet never refer anything!

JL: It’s a bit embarrassing though isn’t it that the Vatican has come in over the local church’s head, and essentially said “You can’t deal with it. We will.”

JA: No, not really. Apostolic Visitations are not uncommon, and Rome very often steps in. As any big company when procedures are under question, they will come in and review procedures and make sure they are in place. So it’s not unusual, and some people have said this is a rebuke to Archbishop Vincent and a rebuke to the Benedictines, that couldn’t be the case. Here I am, I’m Archbishop Vincent’s auxiliary, and  the Abbot President of the Benedictines is my co-visitor. Really, if was in a way a rebuke to either, then there would be a much more senior official from the Vatican coming in and doing the Apostolic Visitation.

In that case, there is a significant concern as to whether the visitors chosen are in a position to be sufficiently independent. For instance, Bishop John Arnold himself is an auxiliary in the Diocese of Westminster, yet the Pontius Pilate job the diocese has done here in leaving Ealing to its own devices is something that ought to be worthy of comment in the visitation's report. But is John Arnold going to have the guts to criticise his own Archbishop? I doubt it very much.

And Abbot Richard Yeo is in an even more invidious position. As Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation, he had a role in advising Abbot Martin Shipperlee how to address the crisis in Ealing, and has the benefit of his own participation in the Cumberlege Commission. If he has failed to give the proper advice, then his own personal actions are ones which reasonably ought to be considered by the visitation. So, it is quite possible that Yeo will have to investigate himself as part of his visitation duties. This is madness.

And it is worse. There have been allegations of abuse at Downside, dating from the time when Yeo was Abbot there. So it may yet happen that Yeo will be found to have covered up abuse. Also, the English Benedictine Congregation isn't all that big, the senior monks all know each other very well, they have been colleagues for years. For instance, Richard Yeo has known Abbot Francis Rossiter for many years. Rossiter was Abbot of Ealing from 1967-1991, a time when it seems that Father David Pearce (convicted of abuses), Father (later Abbot) Laurence Soper (on the run from the police) and John Maestri (convicted of abuses) were all teaching at St. Benedict's. Who knows how many oher abusers Rossiter was allowing to run around unhindered? Can we reasonably expect Yeo to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of an old friend and colleague? He might be able to, but we can't have confidence that he actually will. So somebody who really is independent needs to be appointed if the visitation is going to be remotely credible.

A mess like Ealing doesn't happen without multiple management failures at different levels within an organisation. The immediate responsibility lies in the Abbey itself of course, but there are further levels of responsibility in the diocese and in the wider Benedictine Community, in that the mess in Ealing ought to have nbeen noticed and dealt with many years ago. Both in the diocese and the English benedictine Congregation (EBC) failed to do so. And yet the diocese and the EBC are conducting the visitation! Is there any reason to think that they are going to look into any of this?

JL: Critics have suggested that the Visitation has been carefully designed to achieve nothing at all.

JA: Well, we have our remit. The scope was the monastery to make sure safeguarding procedures are there and being followed, there is a pastoral concern for the monks, and for the victims of past abuse. I think that’s the scope we hope to complete and to achieve in your report to the Congregation.

That "carefully designed to achieve nothing at all" is me, quoted in the Times. I stand by that statement. Consider the following:

• Who has been chosen to conduct the visitation
• The visitation started without the public announcement by the church which had been promised to me by the Nuncio
• The visitation has started and issued an interim report without attempting to contact me to obtain the information I told the Nuncio I had available for them.
• Bishop John Arnold has been very vague about the terms of reference of the visitation
• Bishop John Arnold is supposedly investigating Ealing, and yet he's asked them about me, and as a result has decided it seems that he doesn't need to ask me about them!

What other conclusion could I reasonably come to on the basis of the evidence available to me so far? I'm very ready to be persuaded otherwise. John Arnold has my phone number, he can call me any time and arrange a meeting.

JL: When will you report, and will you make the findings public?

JA: Well, an interim report is already being made. We don’t make a final report yet, we want also to see Lord Carlile’s report. He was invited in to consider the whole governance of safeguarding between school and abbey.

JL: And that’s coming out in a couple of weeks.

JA: That’s right, so we’ll want to consider that too. As to publication, we don’t actually own the report, the Congregation does. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they choose to make it public given the circumstances, but it is their report.

What's the betting that the report will sit on a desk in the CDF for several months, and then quietly get forgotten about? They didn't even voluntarily announce that the visitation was happening, the Times found that out for themselves.