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.

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.

Ealing Abbey on "Sunday"

BBC Radio 4's Sunday will be carrying the Ealing Abbey story in the morning. This is from the programme schedule on the BBC website.

The Vatican has ordered an inquiry into child sex abuse at Ealing Abbey and the adjoining school in west London. Jane speaks to Sean O'Neill, Crime Editor of the Times on the paper's investigation into a number of high-profile cases at the Abbey. She also hears from Bishop John Arnold, the man appointed by Rome to conduct the Apostolic Visitation.

The programme starts at 7.10am. When it is available on BBC iPlayer, I'll provide a link.

Update: You can now listen to the programme on BBC iPlayer. Follow this link. The interviews with Sean O'Neill and Bishop John Arnold are the first item in the programme after the introductions.

The Visitation: the Vatican view

According to the Catholic News Service, the Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi has issued a statement about the Apostolic Visitation to Ealing Abbey.

Auxiliary Bishop John Arnold of Westminster and Abbot Richard Yeo, president of the English Benedictine Congregation, conducted the apostolic visitation at Ealing Abbey and the neighboring St, Benedict's School during September.

They have already made their report to the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which ordered the visitation.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, confirmed to Catholic News Service Oct. 25 that Bishop Arnold was asked by the doctrinal congregation to conduct the apostolic visitation.

The congregation, he said, has competency for handling "questions regarding the sexual abuse of minors."

"When the final report of the visitation is ready, it will be given to the congregation, which will take the appropriate steps," Father Lombardi said.

The purpose of the visitation was to ensure that the English and Welsh church's stringent and updated child protection and safeguarding procedures -- put in place in 2002 and revised in 2007 -- have been followed to the letter, said an Oct. 25 statement emailed to Catholic News Service by the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.

"In accordance with the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission's procedures, all allegations of abuse are passed onto the statutory authorities as has happened with the historic cases at Ealing Abbey," the statement said.

"The Catholic Church in England and Wales is determined to ensure its robust safeguarding procedures are followed, and this visitation is consistent with that aim," it added. "Any person with an allegation of abuse is urged to report it to the statutory authorities."

Well, that's all right then. If this is true, then the visitation has already finished and its report has been written. It was very nice of Bishop John Arnold to tell me so.

The Apostolic Visitation

You'll see in the Times today (article behind paywall) that an Apostolic Visitation has been ordered into Ealing Abbey.

Not everything I do gets published in this blog, or at least not at the time. In June, I wrote to the new Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Antonio Menini, summarising the situation at Ealing Abbey as I then knew it. I described the situation with regard to Father David Pearce, Father Stanislaus Hobbs, John Maestri, Abbot Laurence Soper, Father Gregory Chillman and Father Kevin Horsey. I described the Statutory Inquiries by the Charity Commission, the inspections by the Independent Schools Inspectorate, the Parental Forum that occurred in September last year, the Carlile Inquiry, the conflict of interest by the school's solicitor, commissioning Lord Carlil'e inquiry into (amongst other things) Father David Pearce's criminal activities while at the same time acting as Pearce's defending solicitor in the forthcoming criminal trial. I described the previous "independent inquiry" where Abbot Martin Shipperlee quite deliberately misled the person he commissioned concerning the extent of the Father David Pearce's activities.

I also described the issues which have occurred at St Augustine's Priory School, the fact that Father Gregory Chillman remained a Governor even though he had been placed on restricted ministry. I described the criticisms of the school's safeguarding measures as described in the ISI report, and the school's decision to contest this in the High Court rather than make the necessary improvements immediately. I also described the school services conducted by Father Gregory Chillman while under restrictions which supposedly meant that he had no public ministry.

I said that in my opinion, Ealing Abbey was incapable of reforming itself unaided, and so to ensure the future safety of the pupils of both schools and of the children of the parish, I requested an Apostolic Visitation or other inquiry.

Archbishop Antionio Menini invited me to a meeting at the Nunciature on 29th July. At the meeting, he announced that he had been making inquiries following my letter. He had consulted with Rome, and Cardinal Levada, the head of the CDF, had decided that there should be an Apostolic Visitation into Ealing, that it would start in September, and that it would be conducted by Bishop John Arnold (auxiliary bishop of the diocese of Westminster) and Fr Richard Yeo (Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation).

So, it seemed as if I was hurling my whole weight against a door to force it open, only to find that it was ajar all the time. I provided a file of information to the Nuncio to pass on to the Visitators, and explained what each item was. I said that this was a small subset of all the documentation I had available, and that I would welcome the opportunity to meet with them to pass across the rest of the information and to explain my concerns in more detail.

I was requested not to make any public mention of the Visitation until it was announced by the church itself in September. The Nuncio promised that my information would be passed to the Visitation and they would be in touch with me in due course.

September came and went. No further word from the Nuncio, no contact from the Bishop or Abbot, no public announcement. So in October, I wrote again to the Nuncio. I told him that I wanted to pass the additional information I had to the Visitation, and asked if he could tell me when it was due to start, what were its terms of reference, and how I could make contact to provide my additional information.

The Nuncio replied saying that the visitation had already started, and said that in the circumstances I should direct my questions straight to them. He provided me with postal addresses, but no phone numbers or email addresses.

I managed to find an email address for John Arnold, and wrote to him asking the same questions. He provided a couple of "I will reply fully later" responses, before sending me the following more substantial email

Dear Mr West,

Thank you for your email of 20 October, and for your patience.  Again, I apologise for not getting back to you earlier, but both Abbot Richard Yeo and I have rather heavy schedules at the moment.  As you have been informed by the Nuncio in London, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has requested us to conduct an Apostolic Visitation of Ealing Abbey.

You ask about our terms of reference.  The role of Apostolic Visitors is to inquire into a given situation and report back to the Holy See.  It is up to the Holy See (and in this case the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) to decide when the Apostolic Visitation should be concluded.  As visitors, we do not have the power to impose our views on Ealing Abbey. Rather, we make recommendations to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which then decides whether to implement those recommendations or not.  For that reason, Apostolic Visitors do not publish their recommendations, either to the institution being visited or to outsiders.  It may be that the Congregation will want to publish its decisions but that is not up to us to determine.

We cannot speak in the name of the Congregation.  Nevertheless, in order to give a response to your queries, it may be helpful to give some thoughts of our own, even though I expect some of them will be obvious to you.

The general policy of the Catholic Church in this country in regard to safeguarding is that it is extremely important not to interfere with, nor in any way impede, the work of the statutory authorities.  In making our visitation, we wish to be sure that the Church’s safeguarding policies are being properly carried out and that the Church’s safeguarding authorities are playing their proper part, and to be able to tell the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that they are doing so. However, it is not for us to interfere in their work or take over their role. This, as you know, was the recommendation of the Nolan Report which was reinforced by the Cumberlege Report. By insisting on the role of the statutory authorities we have the best guarantee that there is transparency and accountability.

You mention that you have examined the child protection policies of St Augustine’s Priory School and of St Benedict’s School, and that they fall short of best practice, and that you wish to discuss with us how improvements can made.  We understand that the Independent Schools Inspectorate is responsible for ensuring that these schools have appropriate policies. We would suggest that it makes more sense for you to approach this body. The Inspectorate is currently monitoring those policies with the schools. If you were to speak to us about this, there is nothing we could actually do except pass on your suggestions to the Independent Schools Inspectorate.

Given our role, it is not for us to judge whether allegations are well grounded. We would not be equipped to make such a judgment and we are not empowered to do so. Therefore it would be wrong for us to receive details of offences which are alleged to have been committed by the eight individuals you name; these should (indeed must) be given to the police.

All this means that we are not sure that a meeting with you would be helpful to us or to you.  We fully agree that it is important that any restrictions imposed by the Church’s safeguarding authorities should be appropriate and should be properly observed, and this has been an issue which we have examined.  You sent a long letter on the subject to the Nuncio on 11th October; a copy of that letter has been passed on to us.  It contains some information that we did not previously have, and we are grateful for this.

We have asked at Ealing Abbey what is your interest in this matter, and we have been told that you are the parent of a former pupil in the school.  However, when we asked whether your son was a victim of abuse, we were told that this had not been alleged.  If this is correct, then we wonder whether we could say anything to you beyond what we have written in this letter.

I am sorry to sound rather negative but, while we are not ruling out a meeting, we would invite you first to reflect on what we have written in this letter. I believe, and think you would agree, that we share the same concerns for the proper implementation of best practice with regard to safeguarding at Ealing but I think that you will understand our particular role and our need not to appropriate the role of the statutory authorities and the Independent Schools Inspectorate.

Please let me know what you think

With all good wishes,

+John

So, he didn't answer my question about the terms of reference of the Visitation. He just talked about how visitations in general are carried out. Score 0/1 for transparency.

Then he explained that Visitiations don't publish their reports. The reports go back to Rome, and Rome decides what (if anything) to do. The public, parents and even Ealing Abbey itself doesn't get to see trhe report. Transparency score 0/2.

He then waffled a bit about the role of the statutory authorities, and how it is important not to interfere with their role. This seems to miss the point that good safeguarding practice should be pro-active and go beyond the minimum statutory requirements. It involves such things as education and institutional awareness.

The next bit is really troubling. I'll re-quote it in full.

You mention that you have examined the child protection policies of St Augustine’s Priory School and of St Benedict’s School, and that they fall short of best practice, and that you wish to discuss with us how improvements can made.  We understand that the Independent Schools Inspectorate is responsible for ensuring that these schools have appropriate policies. We would suggest that it makes more sense for you to approach this body. The Inspectorate is currently monitoring those policies with the schools. If you were to speak to us about this, there is nothing we could actually do except pass on your suggestions to the Independent Schools Inspectorate. 

WHAT!!!! They are conducting a visitation in response to serious safeguarding failings at Ealing Abbey, involving criminal activities that went unreported for decades. All John Arnold proposes to do in response to information about continuing shortcomings in policies and procedures is to pass it on to the ISI. If that is so, what on earth is the purpose of him being there? Because for sure it isn't to ensure that safeguarding is actually improved at Ealing!

Then the next paragraph is even worse.

Given our role, it is not for us to judge whether allegations are well grounded. We would not be equipped to make such a judgment and we are not empowered to do so. Therefore it would be wrong for us to receive details of offences which are alleged to have been committed by the eight individuals you name; these should (indeed must) be given to the police.

This betrays an illiteracy about safeguarding that should be shameful in any churchman. In somebody whi participated in the Cumberlege Commission, is it nothing short of an absolute scandal.

For Bishop John's benefit as much as anybody else, let me explain the real basics here. There are two entirely separate issues to be considered. The first issue is whether there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed, that a person should be convicted and punished. Once an allegation is passed to the authorities (a duty of the church and school), the investigation of this is the job of the police and courts.

The second issue is whether, on the balance of the available evidence, it can reasonably be concluded that a person may pose a risk to children, and that for the safety of children, it should be considered whether that person should still be permitted to supervise children. For instance, if a teacher makes sexually suggestive remarks to children, then you wouldn't want that teacher to remain in charge of children. It isn't a police matter, because no crime has been committed. Something less than a crime still needs to be reported to the authorities, because of the duty of care the school has towards the pupils.

If something less than a crime is not properly reported and investigated (generally by social services) then there is the risk that abuse may continue and escalate until a crime is committed. Nobody wants that. But if the school's policy is inadequately clear about reporting allegations and incidents to the LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer for child protection), and is unclear about what to do thereafter, then there is a risk that abuse will go unreported and escalate.

On the evidence of his email, the Bishop seems to think that nothing need ever be done except to pass on reports of crimes to the police.

He went on as follows:

All this means that we are not sure that a meeting with you would be helpful to us or to you.  We fully agree that it is important that any restrictions imposed by the Church’s safeguarding authorities should be appropriate and should be properly observed, and this has been an issue which we have examined.  You sent a long letter on the subject to the Nuncio on 11^th October; a copy of that letter has been passed on to us.  It contains some information that we did not previously have, and we are grateful for this.

So, let me understand. He's received information in my initial letter which he didn't previously know, and which has been helpful. But he doesn't think there is any purpose in meeting me to see if there is anything further that I know that might be useful. The strong impression he gives is that he doesn't want to find out too much lest it require the church actually take some action!

The next paragraph is nothing short of a straight insult.

We have asked at Ealing Abbey what is your interest in this matter, and we have been told that you are the parent of a former pupil in the school.  However, when we asked whether your son was a victim of abuse, we were told that this had not been alleged.  If this is correct, then we wonder whether we could say anything to you beyond what we have written in this letter.

So, they are investigating Ealing Abbey, as a result of information I have provided. But they ask Ealing Abbey about my interest, but they don't bother to ask me about it! And they are saying that they think they can't say anything further to me. The idea that there might be something it would be worth their while to listen to has been dismissed out of hand.

I have been corresponding recently with another highly experienced campaigner against child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, who has been chasing this issue for many more years than I have. His opinion is as follows.

I am most grateful for all of your information about the abbey and the so-called visitation.  To be blunt but realistic, such ventures by the church are a total farce.  I do not know of a single internal investigation that has been honest.  The older and more established the entity the more dishonest the investigation and with some of the old English abbeys you can bet for sure that they have no intention of getting at the truth.

On the evidence of Bishop John Arnold's email to me, I have to conclude that this is quite correct. This visitation has no intention of getting at the truth, end even less intention of making any attempt to reveal the truth, and no intention of making any serious improvements in safeguarding at Ealing. The sole purpose is to impress that Catholic laity by showing that Something is Being Done. But because that something is being kept entirely secret, the laity have no way of knowing that it is designed solely to protect the reputation of the church, and will not in any way address the safety of children in the church's care.

I go by evidence. If Bishop John Arnold or Abbot Richard Yeo wants to contact me and demonstrate that my conclusion is wrong, I will be very ready to hear them.

But I'm not optimistic.