This is a full transcript, in the original English, of my interview with Danny Sullivan, former chairman of the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission in England. The article, in Portuguese, can be read here.
Esta é uma transcrição integral, no inglês original, da minha entrevista a Danny Sullivan, ex-diretor-geral da National Catholic Safeguarding Commission, em Inglaterra. O artigo pode ser lido aqui.
Since these scandals erupted, around the turn
of the century, what was the biggest scandal in England?
The
biggest scandal, which is reflected in the Public Inquiry, which is taking
place, is the evidence of cover up by religious leaders and others, not
listening to victims and survivors, and putting the reputation of the church
before the rights and the needs of victims and survivors.
Is the situation very different between
religious orders and the dioceses?
I think
one of the biggest scandals, and it doesn't look as if this meeting is going to
tackle it, is the dual system of reporting to Rome, between diocese and
religious orders. Nobody seems to be calling religious order leaders to
account.
I know a
group of survivors in England who have written to Cardinal Nichols, they have
written to the CDF, they have written to archbishop Scicluna, Hans Zoller has
supported them, but nothing happens about their experience of abuse in their
religious order when they were school boys in this country.
So how
can a meeting really come to global outcomes about the church when there are
not voting members from religious orders and religious orders do not seem to be
being called to account.
For
example, when the English and Welsh bishops went to the ad limina meeting in
Rome, they made a statement that every bishop would offer to meet with any
victim or survivor. Nothing was said about leaders of religious orders. They
have not made the same offer, as a group, so if you are a survivor or a victim
of a religious order you suffer even more.
From what I could find, there are guidelines
dating back to 1994, but the Nolan report is from 2001. What guidelines are in
place now?
There
was the Nolan Report in 2001 and then in 2007 baroness Cumberlidge, a member of
the House of Lords, reviewed safeguarding in the Catholic Church in England and
Wales, around five or six years after the Nolan Report. It was she who proposed
setting up an independent safeguarding board, always to be chaired by a lay
person, and independent of the bishops. That board then had an operational arm
- The Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service - and the responsibility of that
service was in setting up guidelines for safeguarding, auditing, inspecting
safeguarding in dioceses and religious orders. So this all happened post-2007,
and then they have constantly been looked at and reviewed.
The
board you mention, is that the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission?
Yes. I
chaired it for just over three years.
What would you highlight about the guidelines?
In what fields have they made more of a difference?
I think
they made a positive difference in that ostensibly all the bishops signed up to
them. And then, following that, we persuaded almost all the religious orders to
sign up to diocesan safeguarding structures, which they had to pay for, rather
than being independent. If any religious order wanted to have their own safeguarding
commission - and the Jesuits did - that was ok, so long as they subjected
themselves to national guidelines and inspection. The Jesuits actually have a
very good safeguarding commission. That is the positive side.
The
negative side is that you still, on occasions, come up against the autonomy of
the bishop. I had a bishop who ignored the national guidelines for how you
appoint a safeguarding coordinator. I had an archbishop and a bishop who
refused to meet with victims of abuse to apologise to them because their
lawyers said they shouldn't.
Is reporting mandatory? Do you think it should
be?
It is
not mandatory by law. I always said, when I was chair, that I would
unreservedly support it being the law. But in fact when we produced our
guidelines we made it mandatory that if anybody came forward with an allegation
then the appropriate services - police, social services - should be informed
immediately.
To your knowledge, is that being followed?
As much
as I know that is being followed.
Was there much communication between the Church
in England and other English speaking churches?
These
guidelines were produced. The Vatican liked them and recommended them to other bishops’
conferences around the world. Every year there is what is called and anglophone
conference in Rome, on safeguarding, for English speaking bishops conferences.
You would have people there from the African continent, from India, all kinds
of countries where English was a major language spoken. We had representatives
from Chile, because they just found it a supportive conference to go to, even
though their main language was not English.
I think
there was influence in that direction, that countries which were English
speaking were able to look at our guidelines and see how helpful they might be.
And when
I was chair I was certainly aware of what was happening in Germany, Australia,
and I would be looking at what other countries were doing in relation to
guidelines. You can always learn good practice from others. It is a bit of a two-way
process.
I think
also some countries bishops don't believe they have a problem, they think it is
a western problem. I remember in one of these conferences an African archbishop
saying "we don't have this problem in Africa, our problem is priests who
have children", and Father Hans Zoller, from the Vatican commission on
safeguarding said "you don't have this problem because you don't recognise
it. When you do recognise it you will need our help and you will need our
support".
I am under the impression that England and
Wales had gone from a dreadful situation – especially at Catholic boarding
schools, apparently – to becoming a model institution in terms of child safety.
Is that correct?
The
guidelines are a good model.
If you
spoke to some of the victims and survivors, like that group I mentioned who
were victims of the Comboni religious order, they would say what good are
guidelines if the religious leaders ignore them? If they won't even meet us? If
they won't engage with us? The only way the comboni order will meet a victim or
survivor is in court. They won't meet them, they won't apologise, so while that
scandal still exists I would be very weary of saying that England has a good
model of anything, because your model is only as good as your weakest element,
and we have some very weak elements still, in England and Wales.
This
order has signed up to the guidelines, and they are ignoring them. They are
ignoring all the guidelines about how you relate and relate to victims and
survivors. They are ignoring everything that Pope Francis has said.
I took
two survivors to meet with Pope Francis in July 2014 and I compared with what
he said in his mass to victims and survivors from England, Germany and Ireland
with what the leader of the Comboni order in England said. Did he apologise?
No! He attacked me. How dare I criticise him. It’s all right for Pope Francis,
he doesn't have the responsibility, the leader of the religious order does. It
was unbelievable.
When you say "he attacked me" you
mean the head of the Comboni order in England?
Yes. The
Observer did a two-page story on the victims of the Combonis, and I was appalled
at the lack of pastoral sensitivity in the quotes of the leader of the order in
this country. I wrote a letter to the Observer, which they published, comparing
his comments to what Pope Francis had said to the victims at mass, in Rome.
At that
mass, in his homily, for the first time... I had never heard any bishop,
archbishop or cardinal say this, Pope Francis actually identified the lived
experience of victims of abuse in front of the victims. And he named that lived
experience as suicide, alcohol addiction, drug addiction, inability to either
make or sustain relationships and marginalisation from the Church.
I was
sitting with a victim I had brought over who had started a charity to help
victims of abuse, and he is quite a hardened person. And he was in tears. He
said "nobody in that position in the church has ever named our experience
like this".
In terms of new cases, have the guidelines made
a difference? Are there fewer new cases at the moment because of them?
One of
the unique things the Church in England and Wales has been doing, long before
my time, is have an annual report, and every diocese and religious order is
required to provide data, so we can monitor the number of allegations and
priests and religious who are suspended. When I was chair we had a 10-year
review of those statistics, which showed that over 50 priests had been removed
from the priesthood. I don't recall, in my time, seeing the number of
allegations falling in any significant way. But that might be a healthy sign,
since there are good guidelines, victims and survivors feel confident enough to
come forward and make the allegations.
Are children safer in the Church now than they
were 20 or 30 years ago?
I think
minors will only ever be safe in the Church when it is recognised that abuse is
linked directly to the abuse of power and when those in power who abuse or who
cover up abuse are speedily and effectively dealt with by the criminal systems
of their countries and by the Church. Until lay people become sharers in
decision making in the Church then a clerical elite will continue to make the
rules and decide how to follow them.
If you
think that exaggerated then consider:
The CDF
has a backlog of almost 2000 abuse cases.
It has
only recently increased the number of Canon Lawyers working on them.
It still
refuses to respond to victims of abuse who contact it but happily responds to
Bishops or indeed even perpetrators. You may recall that Cardinal Mueller when
in charge of the CDF and asked why he should write to victims responded by
saying it was their Bishops responsibility to do that not his. Shocking!