The Jesuits in Britain have confirmed that Fr Damian Howard SJ has stepped down from ministry following a safeguarding investigation into a complaint of professional misconduct, with an independent review now under way. Fr Damian stands accused of “inappropriate behaviour” with a student.
In a statement, the order told the Catholic Herald that: “We take every complaint extremely seriously and respond with care and diligence. When this complaint was received, the safeguarding team of Jesuits in Britain carried out an investigation. Based on their conclusions, immediate action was taken: Fr Damian Howard SJ was asked to step down on the grounds of professional misconduct and has not been in ministry since.”
The statement set out the process followed by the order in handling the complaint. “All complaints are dealt with by following a structured process designed to ensure fairness, protection and care. Initial assessment is followed by appropriate action, and in cases requiring independent oversight, matters are referred for external review,” it said.
Describing the investigation, the Jesuits added: “In this case, the safeguarding investigation included interviews with relevant parties, as well as a careful examination of documented interactions between them. This comprehensive approach ensured that the matter was considered fully. We are now awaiting the recommendations from the independent review and stand ready to take any further actions as required.”
The order said it could not comment further while the review continues. “While we cannot comment on individual cases while the review is underway, we are confident that our procedures ensure complaints are addressed with integrity. We remain committed to transparency, accountability, and attending to the wellbeing of all involved,” the statement said.
Additional background provided by the Jesuits addressed the question of disclosure. The order said it was “resolved to be as transparent as possible”, but added that “details about the people involved or the investigation cannot be shared due to safeguarding and confidentiality obligations”.
It said that the matter was “handled with discretion”, reflecting both “the complainant’s request” and the assessment that “there was no ongoing risk requiring public disclosure”.
On reporting and oversight, the Jesuits said: “The safeguarding review included interviews and careful examination of documented interactions between the parties. The matter was reported promptly and accurately by telephone to the Archdiocese of Birmingham, in line with safeguarding procedures.”
The statement added that the case is now “subject to an independent investigation, which the Jesuits in Britain commissioned, and which should be allowed to take its course”.
The order also addressed support for those involved. “The Jesuits in Britain have sought to provide ongoing support to the complainant throughout this process,” it said.
The Catholic Herald has also learned that confusion surrounding claims the matter was “downplayed” by the Archdiocese of Birmingham stemmed from differences in reporting vocabulary rather than substance or intent. The issue was reported immediately by telephone, but subsequent documentation used different language, which later gave rise to misunderstanding. The Jesuits further indicated that the complainant did not originally wish to pursue a statutory complaint in the formal sense, and that this distinction has not always been accurately represented in external accounts.
However, in response, the complainant expressed deep concern about the developments, telling the Catholic Herald that “the timing is incredible” and that repeated demands for an explanation of the confusion had been met with silence. He said he was informed by the Catholic Safeguarding Standards Agency that the terms of reference for the independent review could not examine certain aspects of the case, describing the explanation and the statement from the British Jesuits as “post hoc”.
He added that the explanation now being offered, that the details were framed to avoid a statutory complaint, was “too much of a coincidence”, and said it was “totally incredible” to suggest that, if approached by statutory authorities, he would deny their jurisdiction.
.jpg)
