What next?

I have blogged reasonably fully on the unfolding CES scandal, as have others including Mark Lambert and Joseph Shaw.

There can be no doubt that something has gone very wrong. What happens next, in both the CES and in the Bishops' Conference, is very important and will be very instructive.

My hope is that each body will recognise that something has gone seriously wrong, will have the guts to explore the root problems, and the honesty to let us know what they are doing to ensure it does not happen again. After all, the Catholic laity fund the CES (at least in part - we don't know who else funds it) and the principles of accountability should apply here.

My worry is that each body will close ranks, to protect anyone from criticism, and indulge in an internal witch-hunt focussed not on what went wrong, but how they got found out.  If the energy is focused on who leaked the email and the document rather than the types of question I list below, it would suggest that the lessons of previous scandals have not been learned. It is always tempting for bureaucracies of all sorts to protect themselves; but as we saw with the abuse scandal, that is the wrong thing to do, and leads to greater harm.

As a straw in the wind, I was concerned about the very poor coverage of this in the Catholic Herald. Was this just shoddy reporting, or was it actually part of a damage-limitation exercise?

Some of the questions which should be answered are:

How did large portions of Stonewall (and allies') material find their way into a document intended for Catholic Schools?

Why was this not referenced?

What is the relationship between Stonewall (and allies) and the CES?

What is the role of St Mary's in all this?

Who donated to have the material circulated in our schools, and on what basis?

How much did the bishops charged with oversight of the CES know, and when?

Why did nobody reading this document notice (as was immediately apparent to non-experts such as myself, Mark Lambert and Joseph Shaw) that the document not only failed to put across Catholic teaching, but actually proposed an approach completely at odds with a Catholic ethos?

Why did nobody involved realise the profound problem of arguing that 'these particular people should not be bullied because x' rather than the Catholic position that all bullying is wrong?

... and so on.

Please pray for all involved in this sorry affair.