Damian Thompson is Editor of Telegraph Blogs and a journalist specialising in religion. He was once described by The Church Times as a “blood-crazed ferret”. He is on Twitter as HolySmoke.
Damian Thompson
Telegraph.co.uk
15 April 2010
From the front page of this week’s Catholic Herald:
Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster is considering legal action against the Times newspaper over its allegation that he tried to protect a paedophile.
The story, published on the front page on Saturday, marked a new low in relations between the Church and the British media.
The paper alleged that the Archbishop “protected” a priest who abused children at a Benedictine school in west London – even though, as then Archbishop of Birmingham, he had no involvement in the case.
A Church spokesman said: “The attempt to saddle the Archbishop with responsibility for this tragic case is completely unfounded and is an unwarranted slur. His office is taking legal advice.”
Sources close to Westminster have confirmed that one of the options being considered is a possible court action for defamation.
The story came amid what has been described as a “feeding frenzy” in the press over the Church’s handling of clerical sex abuse.
Bishop Kieran Conry of Arundel and Brighton said the Times report showed “all sorts of misapprehensions” about the Church.
And here is the Herald’s editorial. Note the reference to the paywall:
The extent of the abuse of children by Catholic priests and religious would never have been revealed without the media. One newspaper in particular exposed decades of paedophile crimes hushed up by American Church leaders: the Boston Globe, whose book-length investigation into abuse, lies and bribery led to the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston. The Globe articles were devastating because they were so carefully researched. Unfortunately, other newspapers – eager to gain similar plaudits for revealing clerical conspiracies – do not appear to have taken such care.
In America, the New York Times and the Associated Press have tried to implicate Pope Benedict XVI in the cover-up of crimes during his period as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. They have failed to do so, but their apparently slapdash research has helped fuel an atmosphere of anti-Catholic hysteria focused on the one person – the former Cardinal Ratzinger – who did more than any other to reform the Vatican’s utterly inadequate procedures for dealing with abuse cases.
We believe this amounts to journalistic irresponsibility and, sadly, this has not been confined to the United States. In Britain, one newspaper has consistently published biased reports under inflammatory headlines: the Times. Until this week, Pope Benedict was the chief victim of what appeared to many Catholic readers to be a campaign not against paedophile priests but against the Church, backed by gruesomely insulting cartoons. On Saturday, however, these same tactics were applied to Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster. A headline appeared in the Times implying that, while he was Archbishop of Birmingham, he helped cover up a sex scandal in a Benedictine monastery in Ealing, west London. The Archbishop did no such thing and, as we report today, he is consulting his lawyers about this slur.
Catholics are becoming more and more angered by the seemingly lazy reporting and cheap innuendos that the Times has been directing at the Church for well over a year, obscuring rather than illuminating the horror of abuse by priests; for, if the blameless Archbishop Nichols is attacked in this way, who will believe the paper if it identifies a truly guilty prelate? The newspaper’s bias bodes ill for the Pope’s visit – and, indeed, is causing alarm in British as well as Vatican diplomatic circles.
It is also self-destructive. This year, much of the online content of the Times will disappear behind a paywall. Has it not occurred to Rupert Murdoch that Britain’s Catholics, who are as revolted by abuse as everyone else, cannot in good conscience pay money to read news stories, columns and headlines that blacken the names of innocent men?
COMMENTS
“who did more than any other to reform the Vatican’s utterly inadequate procedures for dealing with abuse cases.”
When will you get it into your head, that he may well have done more than others, but it was still only a fraction of what was needed? This was because everything he did was with a view to protecting the power and influence of the church.
Also when will you realise that the only procedure needed for dealing with abuse cases, is one that involves phoning the police? It is unbelievable that the church can assume that the issue can be dealt with as an “internal affair”. I find it pathetic when people talk about defrocking and removing priests from their role. They should be put before a court and if found guilty, sent to prison. The arrogance of the church is what fuels the secularist fire….
TO ALL CHRISTIANS:
Let’s boycott the Times! It has proven time and time again that it is antagonistic towards Christians. Sure, they may throw us a bone once in a while but look at the reality – they don’t like us! They don’t like that we oppose homosexuality, abortion and other immoral acts.
We don’t have to accept this – let’s vote with our money and refuse to give this christophobic newspaper our hard-earned income. With the paywall, we can do this! Tell your friends and family to do the same.
So let’s boycott it. Let’s put the Times out of business!
NOTE TO ALL COMMENTERS
Please avoid personal abuse of individuals on this thread. Any defamatory comments that could expose us to legal action, such as Clothilde’s, will be deleted.
largestyle23: You say that the Pope needed to do a great deal more and you then go on to say that all a religious authority faced with an allegation of abuse is required to do is to phone the police. Is there not a contradiction there?
Suppose the report of abuse is of something that is not a criminal offence but still worrying? Suppose the report is by someone who seems thoroughly unreliable? Suppose the report appears to be very unlikely to be true?
Do you do nothing in these cases other than report them to the police who might think you are wasting their time?
The reality of these situations is usually a bit more complicated and requires more consideration than just reporting to the police.
Nicolas Bellord
largestyle23: I understand your point that cases should be reported to the police. Most of the cases being mentioned by the press have already been reported to the police and often a conviction has been the result. When that didn’t happen originally, it is shameful. However, it is happening now and has been happening for a while – certainly in the USA and in UK.
You say: “I find it pathetic when people talk about defrocking and removing priests from their role. They should be put before a court and if found guilty, sent to prison.” I agree that they should be sent to prison if found guilty. But the question of defrocking and removing priests is important too. Firstly, because the Church has to show everyone that it believes the crime is so serious he can no longer function and work as a priest. If the Church did not do that it would be seen as ignoring the terrible hurt and damage caused by such a man. Like most organisations, the Church has to deal with membership questions! If it didn’t, it would also be accused of setting up the possibility of the priest abusing again when he emerges from prison STILL as a priest: no, defrocking and removal are important issues.
Secondly, in some cases there can be a police investigation which the Church assists but where no charges are laid and no conviction takes place. The police and the Church authorities may be convinced that there has been some criminal activity but the CPS may not see any realistic chance of a trial being successful. What does the Church then do? Allow the risk that he might abuse again? It is a difficult question since most of us presume that someone is innocent unless proven guilty; but already in UK, child abuse is one of those areas where a suspicion of abusing activity puts the onus of responisbility upon an employer to remove the suspect from dealing with children. Thus the question of the internal removal of a priest or suspension from pastoral activities IS important: don’t underestimate it.
As for The Times: it is as much of an ill-informed rag as many of the other papers. Mind you, nothing could be as irrational as some of the comments made by bloggers and others on the Guardian’s webpages: anger at the very idea or notion of God disguised as rationality.This morning, I have written to ++Vincent, advising him to climb the ladder to a higher stage and address the country on TV without the risk of any newspaper manipulation of his words. I do hope he responds posivtively.
I have also sent an email to the online editor of the Times telling him that the moderation (Catholic viewpoint eradication) in the comment section has got to stop. Im sure many of us here have experienced this first hand. WE are the people who can put pressure in the right places. DAMIAN, thank you for your good work, and God bless us all in our struggle.Bishop Kieran Conry of Arundel and Brighton said the Times report showed “all sorts of misapprehensions” about the Church.
Uhuh. This would be the same Kieran Conry who singularly, and after avoiding answering the question once, failed to give the Pope a word of support on the BBC (at the time a couple of weeks ago when the BBC was seeking HH’s scalp most viciously) except reluctantly to say, “Um, I think Catholics still trust the Pope… but they certainly trust their own clergy on the ground [i.e., me and my team].” Shameful.
Things getting a little uncomfortably close to home for him now?
Already stopped taking Times and Sunday Times.
Note the paedowaggon has moved on…..to Primark. Just nipping down to join the queue to arrest the lot of them!“The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales presided over a child protection system that allowed a paedophile priest to continue abusing schoolboys despite repeated complaints from victims, an investigation by The Times has discovered.
The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, chaired the church’s child safety watchdog in 2001-08 while Father David Pearce was repeatedly investigated by church officials and police. Despite a High Court ruling in 2006 awarding damages to one of his victims, Pearce remained a priest at Ealing Abbey, West London, where he groomed and assaulted one final victim before his arrest in 2008.
Pearce, 68, a Benedictine monk and former headteacher at the prestigious St Benedict’s School, was jailed for eight years in October after admitting a catalogue of sex offences against teenage pupils during 35 years at the abbey.
snip
Church officials said that Archbishop Nichols was not told the full details of Pearce’s child abuse offences until he replaced Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor at Westminster last year.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7093935.ece
Charity Commission Report:
” 43. The second Inquiry established that following the previous allegations against Individual A [Father David Pearce of Ealing Abbey] the Charity took advice from the Diocese of Westminster Child Protection Commission as to what future role, if any, he should have in the Charity.
44. The Commission established that following consideration of advice obtained the trustees decided that Individual A could remain at the Charity’s premises. The following conditions were imposed:
(a) that he has no public ministry with the parish setting;
(b) that he is only allowed to say Mass in private, or within the monastery setting, with no members of the public present; and
(c) that he is allowed to continue in a non-executive role within the monastery, as long as this does not bring him into contact with children and young persons
45. The Charity informed the Commission that the Chair of trustees was responsible for ensuring that Individual A was monitored whilst on Charity premises.46. The trustees’ response to the Inquiry was that they were successful in ensuring that Individual A had no access to children or young people in the school or parish and were not aware that Individual A had access to a child on the Charity’s premises until the complaint was made in January 2008.
47. The Inquiry found in light of the allegations made and subsequent prosecution, that the trustees failed to ensure that the restrictions imposed on Individual A were properly implemented.”
It would be great if the Archbishop were to preside over a proper and open investigation of the thirty plus years of abuse by David Pearce at St Benedict’s School and the role played by the former Abbots Francis Rossiter and Lawrence Soper.
What is basically telling is how private people take the whole lot you write as seen in their comments.
Willodean, can you please explain your comments in regard to this matter?
If it were not for the diligence and objectivity of the media and of blogs such as this one , the world would be still completely oblivious to so many great atrocities and cover-ups by all levels of government everywhere in the world and by all levels and rank within the catholic church which has been taking place obviously for much longer than anyone would have ever thought and to an even greater degree in terms of rampant infestation of pedophiles past and present. It is becoming evermore clear that the church is not covering up merely to protect an image. All the cover-ups, the lies, the silence and now more than ever an attempt to stifle the very media who’s perseverance has exposed an infest of evil and has rescued many victims and helped to begin a road to recovery for countless others has motives undoubtedly not yet known to the real world. Now the evil ones in a perverted twist are about to assume the role of victim in order to shut down the voice of the oppressed and to discredit the “proclaimed enemy” (Media). It is obvious that those who are investigating (the enemy) are on a path to uncovering something even more serious and the only wall left for the church to hide behind is a fabricated enemy.
There are some priests who claim to be commited to the pursuit of justice for victims even if it means they have to be a martyr and buck their superiors but that commitment is limited to the mouth alone because when someone like archbishop nichols comes along with a clever sheme ,like the wind they are very quick to switch sides.
I need to drive this point home.
For the real world the media has been our saviour.
For the church, the media has been the enemy.
It’s a shame that not only does the catholic church refuse to THANK GOD for the media and the good that they have perpetuated but they insist on using the media as a scapegoat and a means to deflect focus from the evil whithin.
It really is a shame and a sorry contradiction of self proclaimed principle.