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.
A REPORT INTO child protection practices in the Diocese of Ferns, which was the subject of the Ferns Report into allegations of clerical sexual abuse, was published today.
The report was published by the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland (NBSCCCI), as part of a review of safeguarding practice within all the Church authorities on the island of Ireland.
Criteria
The 2005 Ferns Inquiry Report was an official government inquiry into clerical sexual abuse allegations made against the Diocese of Ferns. One of the offenders was Fr Seán Fortune, who abused a large number of teenage boys. Fortune took his own life before his trial.
Today’s report found Ferns met 47 out of its 48 criteria fully, and one partially.
There are approximately 100,000 Catholic residents in the diocese, across 49 parishes. Its bishop, Bishop Denis Brennan, was installed on 1 March 2006
There have been allegations made against 24 priests in the Diocese of Ferns since 1 January 1975, with 100 allegations overall, 99 of which were reported to the gardaí.
There are no priests who are in ministry against whom an allegation was made, but there are three priests in the diocese against whom an allegation was made and who are out of ministry but remain in the priesthood. Three priests from Ferns have been convicted of having committed an offences or offences against a child or young person since 1975.
The reviewers are satisfied that the diocese did everything possible to follow the leads that were given cases where a concern was raised but where there was not a complaint, and that the threshold for intervention was not reached in any of them.
Management practices
The Ferns Inquiry Report was very critical about how the diocese and the statutory agencies responded to concerns about clerical child sexual abuse.
Today’s report says:
It is obvious that historical case management practices in the Diocese of Ferns were poor and inadequate, but began to improve in 2002 when the Apostolic Administrator was appointed with the remit of implementing a robust case management approach.
The reviewers spoke at length with the bishop and the diocesan secretary about the standard of proof that existed in the three cases that had arisen since 2011. The reviewers accept that the bishop had received sufficient evidence of concern to ask each priest to step aside while the complaints against them were being investigated by the statutory authorities, and subsequently, while the appropriate canonical procedures were being followed.
The reviewers said they have a concern about the amount of sensitive information that is communicated by diocesan safeguarding personnel through email, which the reviewers would not consider sufficiently secure. The diocese provided advice from an IT consultant supporting their position that e-mails are secure.
Excellent example
The diocese reports all allegations of abuse to the civil authorities without delay, as it is expected to do. Its Interagency Review Group that operates was described as “an excellent example of best practice in child safeguarding”.
It includes Garda Chief Superintendent, a HSE Child Care Manager, a HSE Principal Social Worker, Bishop Brennan, and others.
The reviewers were impressed by the focus maintained in the Diocese of Ferns on the dissemination of the safeguarding message at diocesan and at parish level.
The report says it is clear that the diocese has developed channels for consultation and feed-back, and the next stage in this open approach could involve planned consultation with children and young people about their experiences of being involved in Church related activities and ideas about keeping themselves safe.
The fieldwork team were provided with evidence of a commitment to maintaining and secure filing of all concerns, suspicions and allegations about the abuse of children and young people by priests.
Recommendations
The report makes a number of recommendations, including that Bishop Brennan request the safeguarding committee to further develop the Five Year Plan.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
‘..face severe disciplinary action…’, should be facing severe criminal charges more like
My money is on PETA being behind this.
You do know what PETA stands for?
Can peta make you sick.
Yes I do know what they stand for. They are an organisation of people that care about fluffing their own egos than animal rights.
Check out an of the widely available documentation of PETA funding the extermination of healthy dogs that could have been rehomed.
Also they are categorically against dog breeders and as such would rather see the breeding animals die so that no further puppies may be bred from them.
PETA are filth.
Could not agree more peta are disgraceful bunch of aholes
Nonsense! It is obvious you have read very biased articles on Peta. They do not hide what they do, they admit they destroy animals only when there is no other option. I am not going to get into a discussion on the matter there is plenty of answers on Petas website. Its strange that all the anti Peta material is financed by a large drinks company that own a number of sealife parks that Peta has exposed as cruel.
It is evil to kill anything like this, full stop.
have your say