Jude Collins

Thursday 10 March 2011

Clerical child abuse: the victims no one talks about




So  - one thing we know for sure: Fr John McManus is innocent. He’s the priest against whom “child protection allegations”, we learn today, have been leveled.  He’s the chancellor of the Diocese of Down and Connor (that means he runs the diocese’s administration), he’s a member of the diocese’s committee on child safety and he’s a priest in Ballygalget, Co Down. He’s stood down from his work as chancellor and as a priest while the police investigate the claims made against him.

How do I know he’s innocent?  That’s easy. It’s the law.  Everyone has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I don’t know Fr McManus, have never even met the man. I do know, though, that he hasn’t been proven guilty, therefore he is innocent. 

But but but.  There’s a harsh truth at the heart of the horror of child abuse by Catholic clergy that’s never been dealt with by the media here. You’ll get front page headlines (that’s where the McManus accusations are this morning) about the nature and circumstances of abuse. You’ll get feature stories, interviews with victims, investigative reporting of clerical cover-up. What you don’t get  and won’t get  is the impact on clergy of accusations which turn out to be totally groundless.

You didn’t know there were such cases? I haven’t made a study of them but I can think of at least two priests from one northern diocese who were accused of abusing children; they fought their cases in the courts and were proved innocent.  Happy ending, eh? Well not quite. One now works in a remote parish and feels let down by those who should have supported him in his innocence;  the other is broken physically and mentally, and requires constant care.

The problem is one shared by teachers and others working with the young. Once an accusation is hurled, that’s it: the teacher’s reputation is finished. S/he may fight in the courts and establish innocence but the child-abuse link will stay lodged in people’s minds. Likewise the priest: once the mud has been slung, proving innocence in the courts will never wash away the stain.

It’s a cruel and unjust situation, so here’s a suggestion. In future,  when an accusation is leveled at a priest or teacher, the name of the priest or teacher should remain concealed but the name of the person making the accusation should be made public. After all, a victim bears no responsibility for the vile deeds perpetrated against them, assuming the allegations to be true. But because the public mind, against all the interests of justice, effectively sees accusation as equivalent to conviction,  the identity of any priest or teacher charged should not be made public until and if they are convicted.

It’s too late now for Fr John McManus, as well as those other priests who were innocent of any crime and whose reputations and lives were destroyed by malicious liars. The fact that no journalist has had the guts to make a programme or write a feature about the effects of abuse allegations on innocent Catholic clergy shows us how close to a witch-hunt the clerical abuse issue has become. 

33 comments:

  1. A really good article however why is there a need to name anyone until the investigation has been completed. There is a need to balance the rights of both the victim and accused as well as the wider interests of the public. I think the media can report on the case once it is at the courts. I do feel for those who are wrongly accused because once the genie is out you can't put it back! Just a thought.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  2. Right on Jude. I listened to the B B C this morning and am sickened.. They really are a bunch of "hacks" destroying a person's integrity before the facts come out.That poor Priest's reputation has been destroyed and they don't even care. I wonder if they ever put themselves in another's shoes?. How can they live with themselves? dd

    ReplyDelete
  3. John McManus is in my view a decent man. I know him. He is as much a victim of hierarchy cover ups as any media conspiracy. Such unpardonable behaviour by the hierarchy means that virtually any allegation can be made and the priest is automatically disbelieved. As for naming the accuser but not the accused that's as bad as tarring priests. It sounds very like 'lets blame the victims'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for thoughts, Michael, dd and Anon. I suggested the name of the accuser since I've never understood why this traditionally is kept secret, for rape and abuse cases. If I'm physically attacked by someone, am I to blame? Obviously not. So I'd have no motive to keep my identity hidden, nor would I want to. If I'm sexually abused, why should I see myself in some way to blame, or in need of concealing my identity? The concealment rather than the revelation of identity seems to me to suggest some share in the guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jude, you say that the name of the priest/cleric should remain concealed, and the name of teh person making the accusation be made public. Do you no think that it would be a good idea to extend that idea for all cases of sex abuse?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is very traumatic for many vicitms of abuse to be identified. It adds to their sense of defilement. It is also very difficult for those accused of abuse. There are no easy solutions but naming only the accuser is not an answer. The current situation is unsatisfactory but should not be addressed in such a one sided fashion

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mmm - I guess I'd have no over-strong feelings about the accuser being named, but I'd like to hear the argument for him/her not being named. I certainly believe the accused's identity should be protected.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry, final Anon - missed your posting. I know that notion of the alleged victim being kept anonymous is traditional but I still struggle a little that blame/being unclean should somehow attach to a person who's been guilty of no wrong-doing - on the contrary, has SUFFERED from wrong-doing. As I say, I'd like to hear the argument made for revelation. But my central point is the one I really care about: anonymity for those accused until guilt has been proven beyond doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jude, I personally know Fr john McManus, and may I say he is one of the finest and most caring priests I have ever met. My child was an altar server under him, and was very fond of him. I have no doubt of his innocence, and only hope that he has not already been destroyed by the media playing judge, jury and executioner. God bless him and his family, and any victim of abuse of any kind.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What if the allegations are true? What if there are two, three or who knows how many real people out there who really have suffered at this person's hands? How must they be feeling as this becomes a news story? If they are of Fr McManus's faith, how must they feel when they read of their motivations being impugned by their co-religionists? Might they ask if a powerful and well-connected media savvy priest has been "working the phones" to put over a case whilst they must stay anonymous? We don't know what the allegations are but the sorry history of the Catholic Church over the past twenty years surely teaches one lesson: besides the great priests who have done great good, there have been many who led double lives and many who used positions of power and a myriad of psychological tricks to intimidate victims into silence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon - I think you have a point regarding Catholic hierarchy cover-up of abuse cases. I'd simply add two under-considered facts. (i) Every organisation, when faced with what it sees as a threat from outside, covers up. I've seen it happen in several different contexts. (ii) The level of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is, as far as can be established, the same as the level of child sexual abuses in other Christian Churches - and in other religions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fr McManus was my Dean in the Seminary at St Malachy's. He was an excellent and hard working priest, and had a wonderful way with people. He instilled in us a love of God by showing God's love in action. I can not accept that these allegations could be true. While under his guidance he was so careful in what he taught in relation to child protection.

    ReplyDelete
  13. We don't know if he is innocent or guilty. We must presume innocence until proven otherwise. Justice is needed here and it is not justice if a priest is set up. Every institution covers up. The Church loses its moral authority when it becomes like every other institution.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kevin P. McManus12 March 2011 at 16:53

    Jude - Thanks for this article. I agree with Anonymous. I too know from personal experience that Father John walks the walk. He is, like his Evangelist namesake, a lover and disciple of his Master, and he is following his Master this Lent 2011 into the Wilderness. Father John, know that Our prayers are with you and that we trust that you will emerge from this trial strengthened and renewed in your Ministry.

    Kevin P. McManus

    "The Christian cannot desire freedom from the cross of nonviolent love when the Christian has been chosen specifically for the cross of nonviolent love".
    ~ (Rev.) Emmanuel Charles McCarthy

    ReplyDelete
  15. I really do think that people should be more restrained in airing their opinions. While I acknowledge that commentators have the right to free speech, and strongly agree with this reverend Gentleman's right to the presumption of innocence; you should be reminded that there is presently an active PSNI investigation into these matters! Eventual guilt or innocense will only be established through the due process of the justice system. Then, and only then, will we know who is the victim in this affair. While the facts remain unknown, commentators run the risk of being unfair to, and adding to the pain of an innocent person. I am not saying your opinions are wrong, I'm simply pointing out that there is absolutely no way you can KNOW they are right! It may be better just to remain silent on these matters. 

    ReplyDelete
  16. point well taken, anon. I think I let my emotions get the better of me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. actually, that last post was me, logged in accidentally on my wife's account. Kevin P. McManus

    ReplyDelete
  18. I disagree. Until a case is proven otherwise, a person is innocent of all charges. The mistake we make is to mistake the charge - in this case the investigation - for guilt. Fr John McManus IS innocent and will remain so except a court of law proves otherwise. To take any other position, in my opinion, is grossly unfair and opens the doors to witch-hunting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry, I'm a bit slow. Could you clarify for me exactly what I said that you disagree with?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hello Anon - my last comment was directed at the statement 'eventual guilt or innocense will only be established through the due process of the justice system'. That's true. But it suggests that the person's guilt or innocence at present is unestablished. It isn't. Until a person is proven guilty they are innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  21. They enjoy the presumption of innocence. But the reality is we don't know if they are actually innocent or guilty irrespective of what a future court determines.

    People who know an accused should be careful in what they say. They can speak about their knowledge of someone, their character etc. But they cannot, unless able to offer an specific alibi, say that someone definitely didn't do something. It's unfair to alleged victims to have a line up of people emerging essentially calling them liars when they clearly don't have the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Funny how this story from BBC about an Anglican Minister is described as "inappropriate relationship" - the "abuse" word never appears. Interesting.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12726193

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jude, I'm responsible for comments 16 and 20. I'm I getting this right? You think my statement is true, but you disagree with it because it's open to misinterpretation???

    ReplyDelete
  24. Andy - I haven't numbers on the comments and I don't feel inclined to start counting. I think I'll make this my final comment: there should be no implication, suggestion or question mark that a person is guilty until proof has been produced that they are. To take any other position would be to leave everyone - you, me, our grannies - open to public doubt regarding our innocence of any crime that anyone might want to suggest we were guilty of.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I don't think that anyone has used the word "liar". However, that implication could certainly be drawn from some of the above comments. Thus, I repeat my earlier suggestion; it may be better just to remain silent on these matters. 

    ReplyDelete
  26. Not all former seminarians of St Malachy's College would be so glowing in their accounts of John McManus (nicknamed 'Phyliss') in his role as Dean of Students. Others found him creepy and intrusive. He is, of course, 'innocent until proven guilty', in the eyes of the Law. In the Eyes of God, however is an entirely different matter. God knows (and so does John McManus) whether he is guilty or not. The Law, often, is 'an Ass' and favours perpetrators over victims. Many sexual predators who are 'guilty as sin' get off on all sorts of technicalities and loopholes. McManus will also have to face the scrutiny of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, once the legal process finishes with him. Even if he gets off, criminally and civilly, Rome looks for 'the semblance of truth' in an allegation and is much stricter. Many abusers, who weren't found guilty in the criminal or civil courts, have been dismissed from the clerical state by the Holy See (due to strict guidelines promulgated by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001, now P. Benedict XVI). If McManus is innocent, he will be found innocent and has nothing to fear. As you point out Jude, all those in professions/walks of life/vocations who work with children and young people, are vulnerable to false accusations. However, please note that over 90% of allegations against clergy have been proved credible.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I would be happy to continue to let my child alter serve for fr John such is my faith in him and my child served for him right up to the night he stood down
    let justice prevail!

    ReplyDelete
  28. There is a naive trust in legal/police procedures to find and reveal the truth. However if the police find no evidence then there is no trial. Therefore there is no public validation of innocence. However the accusation stays public, on the web, in press archives etc. The only recourse if charges are not brought is for the accused person to sue for defamation, as in the Reynolds/RTE affair. In such cases this action should be systematic.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I personally know Fr. John & he is the most wonderful priest I have ever had the privilege to know. He is an extremely well respected member of our community & I have no doubt whatsoever that he is innocent. He has remained level headed & our community can back him through & through as we know he is a wonderful man. It disgusts me that people need to claim false stories in order for attention & that people who know nothing about the matter still follow the 'guilty until proven innocent' term. It doesn't matter what they think- we his parishioners, know the truth & we back him all the way

    ReplyDelete
  30. Just to update everyone Fr John McManus has be cleared of all charges by the PPS! Shame on anyone who asumed him guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Until you walk in someone else`s shoes, you have no RIGHT to judge or condemn, What if an accusation was made against you for whatever reason, out of spite, revenge, or hate for eg:, and it was publicized in the Media, Papers, internet T.v., You knew you were innocent, yet no-one believed you, and the ones that said they did, there was still a tiny question mark, in the backs of their minds, human nature being what it is, although many would of course deny this. How would you feel then. for what happened to Fr John McManus, could so easily happen to you. So be very careful in the words that you write and in the words that you say, before you jump on the Judge and Jury Bandwagon. Fr John McManus is a Good Person, and honestly do I have to repeat myself, HE HAS BEEN CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES, FULL STOP.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I know Fr Manus
    He did nothing but cause upset in every Parish that she was in! He was nasty rude and completely unsproachable! I believe that something happened but being the worm that he is he has managed to get out if it. He is a creep and brought our parish to its knees! Hurt many and in general was horrible
    Don't be fouled by his act and his ability to manipulate people!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. If ever Fr McManus was unapproachable, or rude at any given time which I do not believe, Then I have to say, Is it any wonder, with PEOPLE like you in the Parish. and you have the Cheek to call yourself a Christian
    .
    Maybe you should think about going to Confession, before you receive Communion in the next Mass, otherwise you are just being a Hypocrite.
    .

    ReplyDelete