Should Fr McGrath be laicised?
Fr Jeremiah McGrath is still a priest of the Catholic Church. He was suspended by his bishop, Dr Joseph Duffy of Clogher, pending the outcome of his trial. Now that and sentenced to five years imprisonment for aiding the rape of a young girl in 2005, is the church going to make a statement confirming that it plans to seek a laicisation (dismissal from the clerical state) in his case?
In the words of Lord Nolan's 2001 of Child Protection, "Laicisation is the most serious perpetual penalty that can be imposed by the Church." It can be imposed only after a formal judicial process involving a tribunal of three judges (though this process could be avoided if Fr McGrath consented to laicisation).
The Nolan Review also emphasised that the laicisation penalty would not be appropriate in every case, but suggested that it would be appropriate to initiate the process of laicisation in respect of any priest or deacon convicted of a criminal offence against children who has been sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The Review arrived at this 12 month period because
. . . this is the minimum period adopted by statute for the compulsory disqualification of adult offenders from working with children (The Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000, section 28(4)).
Presumably Bishop Duffy, Archbishop Sean Brady, the Papal Nuncio and many others are already consulting relevant authorities and considering their options. The possibility of a legal appeal needs to be examined first; but once that matter has been resolved, many Catholics will wish to see a swift resolution of this case. If Fr McGrath's conviction and sentence stand, it is difficult to see how a judicial process of laicisation could be avoided. I wouldn't like to be the bishop who had to explain to the public why a man convicted of arranging and facilitating the rape of a young girl should be permitted to remain in the clerical state.
It would also help to maintain public confidence if church leaders were prepared to be interviewed, rather than merely issuing statements, in order to explain the options they are considering and some of the admittedly complex processes involved -- and to simply express their outrage at what has unfolded in a court in Liverpool. The public, and members of the Catholic Church, will appreciate and respect a church leader's willingness to articulate, in very personal terms, what many of us have been feeling as we've read reports of this priest's role in the appalling abuse of a 12 year old girl.
Comments
I'm fed up with my church's bishops refusing to answer questions. Why don't they just give an interview and say this is a disgrace and we're dealing with it. That's all they need to do. Instead, they regularly refuse to appear in front of a camera.
I agree. It never ceases to amaze me how bad the church is at handling a news story like this. For God's sake, bishops (literally) put you heads above the parapet.
The Guardian report ended: "After the guilty verdict was announced, the Bishop of Clogher in Northern Ireland, Joseph Duffy, said: "As soon as the allegations came to light, Father McGrath was suspended from ministry. Father McGrath's future will be considered. This is a complex process under canon law."
It does not look complex to me. The whole episode was vile, squalid and obscene. That McGrath had any part in it at all should be grounds for dismissal. If he was an employee of any other institution he would have been sacked immediately the court found him guilty. Once again the Catholic church is seen for what it is: a secretive gang of old men who have lost their grasp of ordinary common decency. The stink of paedophilia follows them everywhere.