Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE NATIONAL BOARD for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland (NBSCCCI) have today published the fifth tranche of reviews on child safeguarding in a number of dioceses.
The Archdiocese of Dublin review states that a “rational, comprehensive and integrated child safeguarding system” has been developed with the NBSCCCI saying, “their combined achievements in turning around a shocking and grievous situation is remarkable”.
In all, six recommendations are made to the Archdiocese of Dublin, which include that Archbishop Diarmuid Martin direct Child Safeguarding and Protection Service (CSPS) to work with the Safeguarding Committee to develop and publish guidance on the appropriate use of information technology, such as mobile phones, email, digital cameras, websites, the Internet, to make sure that children are not put in danger and exposed to abuse and exploitation.
It also recommends Archbishop Martin initiate a diocesan wide consultation with the priests and parishes to establish the need for producing child safeguarding materials in languages other than English.
Unique roles
The review commends the roles of Priest Support Co-ordinator and Priest Delegate – both roles being unique to the Dublin Diocese.
The Priest Support Co-ordinator monitors and supports priests out of ministry as a result of complaints of abuse.
The review team said this role showed the commitment of the Diocese in maximising the level of protection to the community while at the same time recognising a duty of care to priests accused.
Regarding the Priest Delegate it said “he, as a brother priest provides a level of support and understanding to the priests of the archdiocese around the whole area of child safeguarding.”
Safeguarding
The reviewers stated that “it is clear that Archbishop Martin heads up and leads the safeguarding project in the archdiocese,” adding that they were impressed by “the strong sense of team among this staff group and by the tangible commitment by every member to child safeguarding”.
Director of Safeguarding, Andrew Fagan welcomed the publication and said that the Diocese is “fully committed to implementing the six recommendations for improvement from the National Board”.
He added there was never room for complacency and he encouraged anyone affected by abuse, who had not yet come forward, to try and do so and get the help and support they may need. He said everyone on his team knew from past experience that days like today, when there is much public discussion on the issue of abuse, are particularly painful for people who have suffered.
The extensive review by the NBSCCCI brings to eight the number of inspections and investigations into child protection practice by Church and State agencies in the Archdiocese of Dublin over the past number of years. Others include the Murphy Report, a HSE Audit, three Garda inspections, the Apostolic Visitation and an internally commissioned audit.
Robust structures
However, Fagan said one of the most important findings was that the child safeguarding structures in the Diocese are now found to be “sufficiently rooted and robust to survive the movement of personnel from their current positions in the archdiocese” adding that it was an improvement on the position outlined in the Murphy Report in 2011, which referred to child protection structures being heavily dependent on just two people.
The Diocesan updated its child protection statistics to coincide with publication of the review today, finding that to date, the costs of settlement of claims regarding child sexual abuse by priests is currently €20.4 million – €14 million in settlements and €6.4 million in legal costs for both sides.
Since last year another three priests of the Archdiocese have been the subject of allegations of child sexual abuse. This brings to 101 the number of priests of Dublin who have been accused of abuse since 1940.
The Diocese states that 236 civil actions have been taken against 51 priests or former priests of the Diocese. 187 cases have concluded and 49 are on-going.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Commended for doing something that should be standard. Next they will be commending priests for not being paedos
And commend them for dealing with the Familys during the sudden loss of loved ones…Thats a pityfull comment
It’s a classic case of too little too late. Far too many lives have been ruined
Rick, seek help.
Why Ciaran?
Indeed rick plenty of boxes ticked and plenty of back slapping on a job well done. Yet a priest will still not report an abuser if he hears about it in confession. So there is still a real risk to children . We are at an advantage because we all know what the church did,so we are more careful of who to trust with our kids. I’m concerned at how the church is behaving in the wider world and in poorer jurisdictions where they still hold significant power. What child protection do they have in Africa or Latin America ? Very little I suspect. I take little solace in a catholic run organisation policing itself, the church has done that for over a thousand years already, see where that has got us.
I read through their standards and this line caught my attention : “Anyone …who has perpetrated abuse should be assisted and supported in seeking help” . That in my opinion is the major flaw with their organisation. From the outset the church has been more concerned with the spiritual well being of the abusing cleric than their victim.
And been taking also due to these sick individuals.
No… The Church is no more interested in the well being of individual priests (guilty or innocent) than it has been of children- it’s priority has been (and probably always will be) it’s own good name and not causing scandal…-as one of the longest existing institutions in the world, the Church’s instinct for self preservation is deeply engrained and permeates most (if not all) it’s processes and policies.
Dairmuid Martin’s priority for Dublin Diocese is no different than his predecessors. He has calculated that the Church’s self interest is best served by exposing the problems/ shining a light on them whereas those who went before him thought the best approach was to hide the problem. (This article and the like is what it’s all about- good publicity and a rebuilding of a shattered reputation). In fairness I think his the better approach but let’s not be fooled- the goal is the Good of the Church… Needs of children & individuals priests are of secondary importance…
It just goes to show: where there’s will there’s a way. Well done to bishop Martin
Good. This all sounds better and very welcome. As it should, the new brush is sweeping clean…..and thankfully this time not under the carpet!
Fair play to them. They are quick to commend themselves. Im sure there is a sainthood in there for someone.
I remain to be convinced.
Today AIB is reported to be in the black and we are told how little the average water charge per household will likely be.
We can believe all of these things if we like but there is such a thing as critical thinking.
It is results which count; not fancy processes and procedures.
Will we find in years to come that there are still cases of child sexual abuse?
One case of clerical child sexual abuse is far too many.
Isn’t it great…. but the horse has bolted.
Is the NBSCCCI a truly objective, detached and impartial review body?
How can it be when it was set up by the bishops. No mention of the guards here : In the event that an allegation is made against a Bishop, the Designated Officer should contact the Metropolitan; if the allegation is against the Metropolitan, the Bishop senior by appointment should be contacted. In the case of a Major Superior, the matter should be referred to the Supreme Moderator, or to the Holy See in the case of a Supreme Moderator, by the Designated Officer. And of course this will end up with a whitewash !
Bishop Martin would be the only clergyman I would cross the road to shake hands with.
A good example of what the church should be but isn’t.
NBSCCCI? CSPC? whatever other internal committees and groups they have – shouldn’t the state have all known rapist and child abuser behind bars, and all direct access to children removed? Throughout Ireland, we still have priests roaming around schools in their role as ‘patron’ – break this and the communion/confirmation charade in state schools, and the problem is eradicated. Then these reports and patting each other on the back would be as irrelevant.
“Dublin Archdiocese commended for ‘exemplar’ child abuse allegation reporting system”.
What is the need for using a stupidly posh word like “exemplar”? Why not simply use the word “excellent”?
Anyway, wouldn’t you expect their allegation reporting system to be excellent [or "exemplar"] by now anyway – surely the reporting of paedophile priests is obligatory and not something that warrants high praise?
How do we know that all cases of clerical child sexual abuse are actually and duly reported?
Congratulations on being less rapey than usual!
Sums it up!
Hmm
have your say