• quick guide
• contents
• keywords & contacts
• catholic keywords
• values
• forms library
• contact us
• search

Contents

1. Purpose
2. Background
3. Current Situation
4. Exceptions
5. Support of Offenders
6. Action of the Bishop/Congregational Leader

1. Purpose

This guidance has been drawn up in order to clarify under what circumstances a decision not to initiate a process of dismissal from the clerical state following a criminal sentence of 12 months imprisonment or more of a priest or member of the religious, might be justifiable.

2. Background

Recommendation 78 of “A Programme for Action,” the Nolan Report, 2001, stated:

“If a bishop, priest or deacon is convicted of a criminal offence against children and is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, then it would normally be right to initiate the process of laicisation. Failure to do so would need to be justified. Initiation of the process of laicisation may also be appropriate in other circumstances.”

The report also acknowledges in 3.5.29 that:

“…it can be argued that clergy can be much better supervised if they remain as clergy than if they are laicised (because it is argued that in the latter case the Church will have no further relationship with them, and no role in their supervision).”

3. Current Situation

Section 5.9 Laicisation (Dismissal from the Clerical State)/Removal from Active Ministry (Responding to Allegations Policy) states:

1. As a general rule, Clergy or Religious who have received a Police Caution or Conviction for an offence against a child or vulnerable adult should not be allowed to hold a position that could possibly put children and/or vulnerable adults at risk again i.e. he or she must be removed from active ministry;
2. Initiating a process of dismissal from the clerical state (Laicisation), or from a Religious Congregation, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law will be considered following every conviction or caution for an offence against a child and/or vulnerable adult; 
3. Bishops and Congregation Leaders should be prepared to justify any exceptions to the above policy and record their reasons on the individual's personnel file. Removal from active ministry together with appropriate monitoring may be appropriate in certain cases.

4. Exceptions

Whilst the presumption will always be that initiating a process of dismissal in these circumstances is the norm, the Commission may consider in its deliberations the following issues:

• The age and current circumstances of the offender;
• Physical or mental ill health;
• Advice received from Police, Probation or Prison Services.

in determining whether they recommend an exception to the Bishop or Congregation Leader.

Age and Circumstances

There have been examples of allegations coming to light of an historical nature, where the offender is still alive but of advanced years.

If, on release from prison, or at the commencement of a suspended sentence, the offender is:

• 75 years of age or above;
• Withdrawn from all active ministry;
• Co-operating fully with all restrictions as identified in a Covenant of Care.

then the Commission may consider whether they wish to recommend an exception.

Physical and Mental ill Health

If on the commencement of a prison or suspended sentence the offender is:

• Suffering from a serious debilitating physical illness from which they are unlikely to recover;
• Suffering from a serious mental health condition rendering them incapable of making informed choices (lacking in “capacity”).

Then the Commission may consider whether they wish to recommend an exception.

Advice from Statutory Agencies

Either through strategy meetings between Church Safeguarding Officials, the Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) process or discussion with the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) in cases involving children or the Local Authority Safeguarding Co-ordinator in cases involving vulnerable adults, advice may be provided supported by reasons why, for public protection reasons, it is preferable not to initiate a laicisation process but rather manage the risk posed by the individual through removal from active ministry, application of appropriate restrictions and close monitoring within the Church.

The circumstances may be where the Church is able to exercise an element of control through for example, housing the individual in an enclosed community, which would be absent following dismissal from the clerical state.

5. Support of Offenders

There are occasions where individual offenders, on release from prison, would have no means of obtaining support other than through the State’s benefits systems.

It may be argued that in those circumstances the Church should retain responsibility for the cost of maintaining those individuals rather than the burden being placed on the state.

Whilst this argument has some validity, it does not require an exception to the norm of initiating a laicisation process.  Whilst a cleric loses the right to financial and material support following dismissal from the clerical state, the Bishop/Congregational Leader retains a moral responsibility to make provision in the best way possible for a dismissed cleric in a case of real need. Likewise, although a dismissed religious cannot claim as a right any financial or material support for the religious institute, the institute is required to show equity and evangelical charity to a member who is dismissed.

6. Action of the Bishop/Congregational Leader

Only the Bishop or Congregational Leader has the right to initiate a process of dismissal. When a Bishop/Congregational Leader decides not to initiate such a process in accordance with the policy set out above – whether the Commission has recommended an exception or not – s/he must provide a clear, written justification for this decision, signed and dated, and placed on the individual’s personnel file.

End