The new Archbishop of Westminster, Dr Cormac Murphy O'Connor, said yesterday he had no intention of resigning in a controversy over his 1985 decision to allow a priest suspected of child sex abuse continue to work as a chaplain.
A spokesman for the archbishop said yesterday "he has dismissed calls for his resignation and believes he acted responsibly at all times". Many of the cases surrounding Father Micheal Hill, the priest involved, "only came to light at the trial" the spokesman said, "it is not a resigning issue at all."
In 1985, Dr Murphy O'Connor, then Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, allowed Father Hill back to work after revoking his licence to work in a parish in 1983. That followed concerns raised by fellow priests, and treatment for Father Hill.
The priest became chaplain at Gatwick Airport, where he would have less contact with children. But he abused a boy at the chapel after the boy missed a flight. In 1997 the priest was jailed for five years for 10 sex attacks on altar boys and other children.
Dr Murphy O'Connor said yesterday "it is true to say that if the strict procedures for child protection that are now in place . . . had been in operation in 1985, then [Father Hill's] situation would have been handled differently. I maintain that with the facts then known to me, the decisions made at that time in his regard were not irresponsible."
Some victims decided to sue the Church and the diocese paid compensation in a settlement which did not involve any admission of liability on its part.
Dr Michelle Elliot, the director of the British children's charity, Kidscape, demanded the archbishop's resignation yesterday. She said he must take personal responsibility for the fact that Father Hill continued to abuse children after complaints were made against him.
"The long history we have had of priests abusing children has led to the perception people have that the Catholic Church does not take it seriously," Dr Elliot told The Irish Times. "The archbishop has been saying that he did not have all the information. He's trying to justify the indefensible. It just doesn't wash. He should have gone to the police; he should have called the police. The priest carried on abusing children and he's [Dr Murphy O'Connor] responsible for that."
The Church's decision to pay compensation, but insist the families of those abused must not speak about the arrangement, "sounds like a bribe to me", Dr Elliot said. The Catholic Church was only interested in protecting its priests and its reputation, rather than vulnerable children "and that is morally bankrupt", she said.