In the 1980s I attended a school run by Benedictine monks called Worth Abbey. It was at the time, for many, a violent and uncaring institution. Friends and acquaintances at the school were victims of serious sexual abuse. The Investigation Report published by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: ‘Ampleforth and Downside (English Benedictine Congregation case study)' published in August 2018 should have included Worth Abbey. An addendum is urgently required.

Worth Abbey fulfils the Inquiry’s selection criteria for investigation in that there are credible allegations of historic child sexual abuse in this institutional setting, the school’s culture facilitated and failed to prevent child sexual abuse, through acts, policy and omission and school officials failed to respond appropriately to allegations of child sexual abuse. Abuse at Worth Abbey followed a pattern, that was typical of child sexual abuse in the sector and context. Detailed examination through oral and written evidence would be practical and would involve no significant risk to the fairness and effectiveness of any ongoing police investigation or prosecution. Finally, it would be likely to result in informing currently relevant conclusions and recommendations.

Worth was founded by Downside and many prominent monks at Worth were either educated or ordained at Downside. The current ‘Designated Safeguarding Lead for Worth School’, Andre Gushurst-Moore, is the former 'Director of Pastoral Care' at Downside. Many parents of pupils at Worth were educated at Downside and the current Head Master of Downside was educated at Worth and so there is something of a shared culture. However, where they differ is that Worth was not included in the IICSA report on the Benedictine Congregation whilst Downside was. This has not been explained but it has been suggested that it may be because Worth separated Abbey and School in 2002 when serious allegations of sexual abuse began to emerge. Whilst Downside and Ampleforth have been found to have failed to properly address a culture of abuse, Worth did act but it has been argued that it did so to protect the public profile of the school and accordingly the financial security of the monastery rather than specifically to protect children. Victims seeking answers from the school have been preemptively warned that the school has ‘no assets or endowments’. Such an assertion could suggest that the school’s priority is its finances rather than addressing past wrongs and seeking to assist victims. The separation of monastery and school could appear to have been used to frustrate acknowledgement of past crimes and as such perpetuates the abuse through legal detail. Another significant, unexplored difference between Worth and the subjects of the report is the strong relationship between Worth and Peter Ball, a prominent convicted child abuser in the Anglican congregation.

By failing to investigate what happened at Worth the enquiry is inadvertently continuing abuse by ignoring victims and their painful testimonies. Rightly or wrongly the exclusion of Worth Abbey from the enquiry is also perceived by many as corrupt in that it protects the current Abbot President of The Benedictine Order and the Director of National Vocations from any scrutiny of his role in the management of both the school and monastery as a former House Master, Head Master and Abbot of Worth. As such the enquiry appears to perpetuate a system where powerful priests are protected and abuse victims are effectively silenced.