Chapter 19 Murphy Report
I have read many reports in the last few years detailing the Catholic Church’s cover up of the sexual abuse of children by many priests in different dioceses all around the world. Such reports always cause me huge sadness, so many children experienced so much sexual abuse at the hands of people they should have been able to trust. I feel so much anger too, because so many of those children were sexually abused by priests who were known to so many to be sexual predators and a danger to children. Chapter 19 of the Murphy Report, detailing the handling of allegations against catholic priest Fr Tony Walsh, follows the same pattern.
Tony Walsh was already sexually abusing children when he was a seminarian at Clonliffe College in Dublin during the 1970s. At that time he had a key to the house of another priest, Fr Noel Reynolds, who also sexually abused children, Walsh took children there and sexually abused them. As a seminarian he also sexually abused altar boys that he took to Clonliffe College. After his ordination in 1978 he was appointed to Ballyfermot in Dublin and within 48 hours of his arrival the first allegation of child sexual abuse was made against him. Nothing was done. Another allegation was made in 1979. It was hushed up. All through the 1980s allegations of child sexual abuse were made against Fr Tony Walsh yet he remained free to continue his activities. It was 10 years before the Archdiocese of Dublin even sent Walsh for assessment by anyone in the medical profession, but not before they had transferred him to a new parish in Westland Row, Dublin. This was done to avoid any further scandal and no priest in Walsh’s new parish was informed of his past.
Once parents or Gardai started asking questions of the Archdiocese Monsignor Alex Stenson engaged in the well rehearsed Church practice of being very economical with the truth. The parents of one child said they were concerned that Fr Walsh would suffer because of one misdemeanour; Stenson’s note on file read ‘I did not indicate that there was a history of this behaviour’. When the Gardai were investigating Walsh in 1991 on foot of a complaint from a parent they asked Stenson if he (Walsh) had a record; Stenson’s note on file read ‘I evaded that’.
We are also reminded in Chapter 19 that on at least two occasions the issue of reporting Walsh to civil authorities arose at meetings between the Dublin bishops in 1990 and 1991, on both occasions it was decided not to report him.
The behaviour of the Gardai at that time is also unforgiveable. One Garda informed Monsignor Stenson in 1990 that there would be ‘no question of prosecution’ of Walsh and the Murphy Commission conclude that it is unacceptable that Gardai who had concerns about Walsh failed to pursue a thorough criminal investigation.
At times like this many people express shock that none of the people who covered up for people like Walsh are being prosecuted – it is worthy of note that to this very day such people are under no more legal obligation to report than they were in the 1960s, 70s, 80s or 90s.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Murphy Report - One Year On
My Opinion Piece from today's Irish Times
I REMEMBER both my anger and sadness rising as I sat in offices of the Department of Justice early one morning a year ago reading about the nine-year-old girl who had to experience a priest put his hands inside her trousers during confession so as to abuse her, washing his hands in an altar bowl after wards. I felt sad for the boys who had to endure a priest’s predilection for “corporal punishment”, which gardaí subsequently described as brutal and having sado-sexual connotations.
I felt sad for the boys who were taken on holiday by “Fr Dante” and who were subject to his rules that all the boys were to sleep naked, that the bathroom door was to be left open when they were showering, that “punishment” was to be smacking on the bare bottom and that a different boy had to sleep with the priest every night. I felt sad for the boys who were sexually abused by Fr McNamee having been attracted to the indoor and outdoor swimming pools at his parochial house in Crumlin, which adults were excluded from using.
I was angry that another priest had sexually abused one boy while taking photographs at the same time and was so aggressive with another boy that he knocked him unconscious. On subsequently moving to the diocese of San Diego, he received a reference from Archbishop Connell to the effect that he was “an excellent priest in many ways” and “a priest in good standing”. I was angry that another priest, against whom allegations of child sexual abuse had already been made, was appointed chaplain to a school for deaf children, and that the first complaint against him there was made within a month of that appointment. This was a priest who kissed girls in confession and rubbed his hands all over their bodies inside their clothing. I was angry that despite these complaints he remained a curate in a parish for another four years.
I was angry that Fr Payne had been left in a position to sexually abuse at least seven more boys after I had told the archdiocese of Dublin about him in 1981.
As I mark the anniversary of the publication of the Murphy report, I think about the awfulness of what so many children endured and I wonder how they coped with what was happening to them. I wonder too about how their lives have been affected since; did they survive? Did they ever find happiness? How are they now?
I think about my own childhood experiences as an 11- or 12-year-old boy with Fr Ivan Payne. He had asked me to his house after serving 8am Mass during the school summer holidays; he said it was his way of saying thank you. Instead over time he got me into a pattern of going down to his house on a regular basis where he molested me as we sat on his couch watching television. I was so glad of that television – I had something to focus on while he did what he wanted. I froze. I didn’t acknowledge what he was doing in any way shape or form. I didn’t want to and I didn’t know how to. Rarely did he. My way of coping was to keep my eyes on the television. I remember on one early occasion I got up from the couch and went upstairs to the bathroom. When I came back downstairs and walked into the sitting room I could have sat in any other chair away from him. But I didn’t. I couldn’t. That would have been to acknowledge what he had been doing and I felt completely unable to do that. I sat right back down beside him. He didn’t need to use any harsh words or violent acts to control me. His position as a priest of our parish and the grooming he had initially engaged in were enough to secure my compliance. I was never going to tell anyone either. He knew that too. What words would I use? Who could ever believe what I would have to tell them? Everyone would know what I had been involved in, which is how I saw it at the time.
In the months leading up to my Junior Cert I felt strong enough to tell Fr Payne I wasn’t coming to his house anymore, I needed to study. Over the next couple of years I did my best to put the past behind me but it was impossible.
I felt very bad about myself on every level. I felt unattractive. I didn’t like my body. I covered up as much as I could, often wearing too many clothes during the summer when jeans and a T-shirt would have done. I didn’t join in sport at school. I felt far too inhibited. I would never have felt free enough to run down a basketball court or play football.
Worst of all I felt I had let Fr Payne do things that no other boy in class would have allowed. As an adult I can look back and see that’s not how it was, but as a struggling teenager, such thoughts were crushing.
I noticed the boys in school and wondered about girls. When I was 17 or 18 I wanted to ask a particular girl out but I wasn’t sure what she would expect me to do. I had some idea by then of what I might want to do but was this normal? Is it what other boys were doing? Or did I only know about such things because of my experiences with Fr Payne? If so, would she react badly and tell everyone?
At a time when I should have been throwing myself at every opportunity that presented itself, I withdrew, further compounding my feelings of isolation and loneliness.
Little wonder I found solace in alcohol and clumsily tried to overdose with tablets – all I really wanted was to let people know that I was hurting badly and couldn’t cope, but I didn’t know how to say it.
In my 20s, I had experiences and relationships with women and then with men. I’m sure the realisation that I was gay would have come to me a lot earlier if I had been left to grow up and develop in my own way and in my own time, free of Fr Payne’s interference.
Over time with these experiences and relationships it became clear to me that I had great difficulty enjoying emotional and physical intimacy with the same person at the same time and I have always attributed that to my experiences with Fr Payne.
So years after the childhood sexual abuse had ended, its effects had me engaged in a pattern of behaviour which compounded the isolation and loneliness I had felt as a struggling teenager. Alcohol made that bearable but was doing its own damage.
When I first went public about those childhood experiences 15 years ago, I had no idea that my battles with church and State would be matched by a personal battle to look at what I had become and try to recover.
I think again about how many thousands of children suffered experiences like mine at the hands of priests whom Catholic bishops had covered up for over many decades.
Today, as those bishops (and the commentators who still minimise what they did and make excuses for them) bemoan how hard done by they feel at the media and public response to the Murphy report, I invite them to think about the enormous suffering caused to so many children simply because for those bishops the reputation of the church was more important.
Let it not be more important than the truth.
I REMEMBER both my anger and sadness rising as I sat in offices of the Department of Justice early one morning a year ago reading about the nine-year-old girl who had to experience a priest put his hands inside her trousers during confession so as to abuse her, washing his hands in an altar bowl after wards. I felt sad for the boys who had to endure a priest’s predilection for “corporal punishment”, which gardaí subsequently described as brutal and having sado-sexual connotations.
I felt sad for the boys who were taken on holiday by “Fr Dante” and who were subject to his rules that all the boys were to sleep naked, that the bathroom door was to be left open when they were showering, that “punishment” was to be smacking on the bare bottom and that a different boy had to sleep with the priest every night. I felt sad for the boys who were sexually abused by Fr McNamee having been attracted to the indoor and outdoor swimming pools at his parochial house in Crumlin, which adults were excluded from using.
I was angry that another priest had sexually abused one boy while taking photographs at the same time and was so aggressive with another boy that he knocked him unconscious. On subsequently moving to the diocese of San Diego, he received a reference from Archbishop Connell to the effect that he was “an excellent priest in many ways” and “a priest in good standing”. I was angry that another priest, against whom allegations of child sexual abuse had already been made, was appointed chaplain to a school for deaf children, and that the first complaint against him there was made within a month of that appointment. This was a priest who kissed girls in confession and rubbed his hands all over their bodies inside their clothing. I was angry that despite these complaints he remained a curate in a parish for another four years.
I was angry that Fr Payne had been left in a position to sexually abuse at least seven more boys after I had told the archdiocese of Dublin about him in 1981.
As I mark the anniversary of the publication of the Murphy report, I think about the awfulness of what so many children endured and I wonder how they coped with what was happening to them. I wonder too about how their lives have been affected since; did they survive? Did they ever find happiness? How are they now?
I think about my own childhood experiences as an 11- or 12-year-old boy with Fr Ivan Payne. He had asked me to his house after serving 8am Mass during the school summer holidays; he said it was his way of saying thank you. Instead over time he got me into a pattern of going down to his house on a regular basis where he molested me as we sat on his couch watching television. I was so glad of that television – I had something to focus on while he did what he wanted. I froze. I didn’t acknowledge what he was doing in any way shape or form. I didn’t want to and I didn’t know how to. Rarely did he. My way of coping was to keep my eyes on the television. I remember on one early occasion I got up from the couch and went upstairs to the bathroom. When I came back downstairs and walked into the sitting room I could have sat in any other chair away from him. But I didn’t. I couldn’t. That would have been to acknowledge what he had been doing and I felt completely unable to do that. I sat right back down beside him. He didn’t need to use any harsh words or violent acts to control me. His position as a priest of our parish and the grooming he had initially engaged in were enough to secure my compliance. I was never going to tell anyone either. He knew that too. What words would I use? Who could ever believe what I would have to tell them? Everyone would know what I had been involved in, which is how I saw it at the time.
In the months leading up to my Junior Cert I felt strong enough to tell Fr Payne I wasn’t coming to his house anymore, I needed to study. Over the next couple of years I did my best to put the past behind me but it was impossible.
I felt very bad about myself on every level. I felt unattractive. I didn’t like my body. I covered up as much as I could, often wearing too many clothes during the summer when jeans and a T-shirt would have done. I didn’t join in sport at school. I felt far too inhibited. I would never have felt free enough to run down a basketball court or play football.
Worst of all I felt I had let Fr Payne do things that no other boy in class would have allowed. As an adult I can look back and see that’s not how it was, but as a struggling teenager, such thoughts were crushing.
I noticed the boys in school and wondered about girls. When I was 17 or 18 I wanted to ask a particular girl out but I wasn’t sure what she would expect me to do. I had some idea by then of what I might want to do but was this normal? Is it what other boys were doing? Or did I only know about such things because of my experiences with Fr Payne? If so, would she react badly and tell everyone?
At a time when I should have been throwing myself at every opportunity that presented itself, I withdrew, further compounding my feelings of isolation and loneliness.
Little wonder I found solace in alcohol and clumsily tried to overdose with tablets – all I really wanted was to let people know that I was hurting badly and couldn’t cope, but I didn’t know how to say it.
In my 20s, I had experiences and relationships with women and then with men. I’m sure the realisation that I was gay would have come to me a lot earlier if I had been left to grow up and develop in my own way and in my own time, free of Fr Payne’s interference.
Over time with these experiences and relationships it became clear to me that I had great difficulty enjoying emotional and physical intimacy with the same person at the same time and I have always attributed that to my experiences with Fr Payne.
So years after the childhood sexual abuse had ended, its effects had me engaged in a pattern of behaviour which compounded the isolation and loneliness I had felt as a struggling teenager. Alcohol made that bearable but was doing its own damage.
When I first went public about those childhood experiences 15 years ago, I had no idea that my battles with church and State would be matched by a personal battle to look at what I had become and try to recover.
I think again about how many thousands of children suffered experiences like mine at the hands of priests whom Catholic bishops had covered up for over many decades.
Today, as those bishops (and the commentators who still minimise what they did and make excuses for them) bemoan how hard done by they feel at the media and public response to the Murphy report, I invite them to think about the enormous suffering caused to so many children simply because for those bishops the reputation of the church was more important.
Let it not be more important than the truth.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Roscommon Child Care Inquiry
On the 22nd January 2009 Mrs A, a mother of six children, was sentenced in Roscommon Circuit Court to seven years in prison following her conviction for incest, neglect and ill treatment. The presiding Judge, Judge Miriam Reynolds (RIP) said the children were failed by everyone around them and that she was concerned that, while the former Western Health Board had been involved since 1996, the children had not been taken into care until 2004.
In the Central Criminal Court on March 5th 2010 Mr Justice Barry White sentenced Mr A to fourteen years in prison following his conviction for rape and sexual assault.
Today the HSE published the Report of the Roscommon Child Care Inquiry. The Inquiry had been established by the HSE to:
• Examine the entire management of this case from a care perspective,
• Identify any shortcomings or deficits to the care management process and,
• Make a Report on the findings and any learning arising from the investigation.
The Report is shocking and heartbreaking. No child should have to endure such abuse and neglect and the litany of repeated failures by the HSE is infuriating. The full Report can be found here - http://bit.ly/br3Bez
What is clear to me from reading the Report is that the need for the Children First Guidelines to be put on a statutory basis with failure to comply being a criminal offence could not be more urgent. The Report states that ‘prior to their admission to care, the voice of the child is virtually silent... Yet a basic requirement in the delivery of child protection services is the necessity to at least see the children and, ideally, to seek their views of their situation. This is set out as a key task in Children First... and its absence in practice has been identified as a deficit in other inquiry reports (Ferguson, 2007)’ The Report also states that while HSE staff were briefed, there was no systematic effort to embed Children First into practice. The failure to put a legal responsibility on people to be Children First compliant ensures we continue to fail children abysmally.
For me the Report also demonstrates yet again the absolute need for Government to hold the referendum to properly enshrine children’s rights into the Constitution. Again we are told that ‘The absence of the child’s voice was also evident in court proceedings. This was most noticeable in the High Court injunction proceedings taken by the parents to prevent the Western Health Board from removing the children from their parents. There, for constitutional and legal reasons, the parents’ right to be heard was not matched by equal consideration of the wishes or the needs of the children’. Further on we are told that ‘The failure to consult with, and to hear, the voice of the six children was a notable feature in this case’. We must, as a matter of urgency, have a referendum which guarantees children constitutional rights including the right that .... In the resolution of all disputes concerning the guardianship, adoption, custody, care or upbringing of a child, the welfare and best interests of the child shall be the first and paramount consideration.
In the Central Criminal Court on March 5th 2010 Mr Justice Barry White sentenced Mr A to fourteen years in prison following his conviction for rape and sexual assault.
Today the HSE published the Report of the Roscommon Child Care Inquiry. The Inquiry had been established by the HSE to:
• Examine the entire management of this case from a care perspective,
• Identify any shortcomings or deficits to the care management process and,
• Make a Report on the findings and any learning arising from the investigation.
The Report is shocking and heartbreaking. No child should have to endure such abuse and neglect and the litany of repeated failures by the HSE is infuriating. The full Report can be found here - http://bit.ly/br3Bez
What is clear to me from reading the Report is that the need for the Children First Guidelines to be put on a statutory basis with failure to comply being a criminal offence could not be more urgent. The Report states that ‘prior to their admission to care, the voice of the child is virtually silent... Yet a basic requirement in the delivery of child protection services is the necessity to at least see the children and, ideally, to seek their views of their situation. This is set out as a key task in Children First... and its absence in practice has been identified as a deficit in other inquiry reports (Ferguson, 2007)’ The Report also states that while HSE staff were briefed, there was no systematic effort to embed Children First into practice. The failure to put a legal responsibility on people to be Children First compliant ensures we continue to fail children abysmally.
For me the Report also demonstrates yet again the absolute need for Government to hold the referendum to properly enshrine children’s rights into the Constitution. Again we are told that ‘The absence of the child’s voice was also evident in court proceedings. This was most noticeable in the High Court injunction proceedings taken by the parents to prevent the Western Health Board from removing the children from their parents. There, for constitutional and legal reasons, the parents’ right to be heard was not matched by equal consideration of the wishes or the needs of the children’. Further on we are told that ‘The failure to consult with, and to hear, the voice of the six children was a notable feature in this case’. We must, as a matter of urgency, have a referendum which guarantees children constitutional rights including the right that .... In the resolution of all disputes concerning the guardianship, adoption, custody, care or upbringing of a child, the welfare and best interests of the child shall be the first and paramount consideration.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Apostolic Visitation
In May of this year details were released from the Vatican about the ‘Apostolic Visitation’ to Ireland of various Catholic Cardinals and Archbishops in response to the publication of the Murphy Report and indeed the Ryan and Ferns Reports previously.
The reasons for this Visitation are given as:
1. To offer assistance to the Bishops, clergy, religious and lay faithful as they seek to respond adequately to the situation caused by the tragic cases of abuse perpetrated by priests and religious upon minors.
(I don’t know what the Vatican means by ‘respond adequately to the situation caused by the tragic cases of abuse’ – what is ‘the situation caused’ as they see it?)
2. To contribute to the desired spiritual and moral renewal that is already being vigorously pursued by the Church in Ireland.
(I have no confidence in the moral renewal of a Church whose leaders only tell the truth about their response to the sexual abuse of children by priests when they are hauled in front of statutory inquiries and whose leaders fail to take responsibility for their actions or inactions.)
3. To explore more deeply questions concerning the handling of cases of abuse and the assistance owed to the victims.
(‘Explore more deeply questions concerning the handling of cases of abuse’? That is typical of the spin the Bishops like to put on the Murphy Report. There are no questions. They have been asked and answered at the Commission of Investigation and the ultimate finding was one of bishops covering up for priests abusing children in order to protect the Church.)
4. To monitor the effectiveness of and seek possible improvements to the current procedures for preventing abuse.
(I have no trust in a Church monitoring the effectiveness of child protection measures when its own leadership is littered with Bishops who failed to protect children from priests known to the Church to be a danger and who still fail to take responsibility for that failure.)
By having this ‘Apostolic Visitation’ the Vatican is trying to maintain the pretence that the sexual abuse of children by priests was an Irish problem, but it wasn’t Irish bishops who were covering up the sexual abuse of children by priests in Dioceses throughout the United States and in Europe. The Philadelphia Report described the Catholic Church as having employed well-orchestrated strategies for decades and in all parts of the United States to keep abusing priests in ministry while minimising the risk of scandal or legal liability.
I also feel that there has been ample opportunity for Catholic Bishops to understand what was expected of them in response to publication of the Murphy Report – on all occasions the views of victims have been ignored. Bishop of Galway Martin Drennan refused a request for a meeting in December 2009, Bishops Eamon Walshe and Raymond Field eventually offered their resignations but apparently launched a very successful campaign behind the scenes to ensure they were not accepted by Pope Benedict. Pope Benedict himself has not even acknowledged the letter sent by Marie Collins, Maeve Lewis (OneInFour) and myself at the time the Irish Bishops were meeting him earlier this year. Cardinal Brady ignored victims’ requests for him to stand aside after it was revealed that he had participated in a process of cover up for Fr Brendan Smyth in 1975 who was left free to carry on sexually abusing children for another 18 years. This Apostolic Visitation is more about Catholic Bishops giving the impression of listening to what victims have to say as opposed to actually acting on our requests. To engage with this process is to mistakenly give it credibility and I do not intend to do that.
The Apostolic Visitation is nothing more than self-serving window-dressing nonsense.
The reasons for this Visitation are given as:
1. To offer assistance to the Bishops, clergy, religious and lay faithful as they seek to respond adequately to the situation caused by the tragic cases of abuse perpetrated by priests and religious upon minors.
(I don’t know what the Vatican means by ‘respond adequately to the situation caused by the tragic cases of abuse’ – what is ‘the situation caused’ as they see it?)
2. To contribute to the desired spiritual and moral renewal that is already being vigorously pursued by the Church in Ireland.
(I have no confidence in the moral renewal of a Church whose leaders only tell the truth about their response to the sexual abuse of children by priests when they are hauled in front of statutory inquiries and whose leaders fail to take responsibility for their actions or inactions.)
3. To explore more deeply questions concerning the handling of cases of abuse and the assistance owed to the victims.
(‘Explore more deeply questions concerning the handling of cases of abuse’? That is typical of the spin the Bishops like to put on the Murphy Report. There are no questions. They have been asked and answered at the Commission of Investigation and the ultimate finding was one of bishops covering up for priests abusing children in order to protect the Church.)
4. To monitor the effectiveness of and seek possible improvements to the current procedures for preventing abuse.
(I have no trust in a Church monitoring the effectiveness of child protection measures when its own leadership is littered with Bishops who failed to protect children from priests known to the Church to be a danger and who still fail to take responsibility for that failure.)
By having this ‘Apostolic Visitation’ the Vatican is trying to maintain the pretence that the sexual abuse of children by priests was an Irish problem, but it wasn’t Irish bishops who were covering up the sexual abuse of children by priests in Dioceses throughout the United States and in Europe. The Philadelphia Report described the Catholic Church as having employed well-orchestrated strategies for decades and in all parts of the United States to keep abusing priests in ministry while minimising the risk of scandal or legal liability.
I also feel that there has been ample opportunity for Catholic Bishops to understand what was expected of them in response to publication of the Murphy Report – on all occasions the views of victims have been ignored. Bishop of Galway Martin Drennan refused a request for a meeting in December 2009, Bishops Eamon Walshe and Raymond Field eventually offered their resignations but apparently launched a very successful campaign behind the scenes to ensure they were not accepted by Pope Benedict. Pope Benedict himself has not even acknowledged the letter sent by Marie Collins, Maeve Lewis (OneInFour) and myself at the time the Irish Bishops were meeting him earlier this year. Cardinal Brady ignored victims’ requests for him to stand aside after it was revealed that he had participated in a process of cover up for Fr Brendan Smyth in 1975 who was left free to carry on sexually abusing children for another 18 years. This Apostolic Visitation is more about Catholic Bishops giving the impression of listening to what victims have to say as opposed to actually acting on our requests. To engage with this process is to mistakenly give it credibility and I do not intend to do that.
The Apostolic Visitation is nothing more than self-serving window-dressing nonsense.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Association of Irish Priests / Safeguarding Children
The newly formed Association of Irish Priests had its first meeting yesterday. It is reported that the organisation will campaign for the rights of priests who have been wrongly accused of child sexual abuse who have not been supported by their diocese and priests who have been left in “limbo situations” where their right to natural justice is denied.
The Catholic Church’s child protection guidelines, Safeguarding Children, make it very clear that when an allegation of the abuse of a child is made against a priest or any other person working within the Catholic Church that person is entitled to the support of an Adviser appointed by the Bishop or other Religious Superior. That person is supposed to support the accused person as detailed below.
It is of great concern to me to learn from the Association of Irish Priests that Safeguarding Children is not being implemented in this regard as it raises the very obvious question: In what other ways is Safeguarding Children not being implemented?
_______________________
Safeguarding Children, Resource 1 Section 3:
Each Bishop or Religious Superior should appoint an Adviser to be available to the respondent. Advisers shall represent the needs of the respondent to the Church Authority and assist, where appropriate, with the care of the respondent and with communication between the respondent, the Designated Officer and the Church authority / Church organisation. The respondent’s adviser shall not be the respondent’s therapist or spiritual adviser.
Advisers should be particularly alert to the sense of isolation and vulnerability which a respondent may experience following an allegation of this nature. He or she will:
Accompany, if so requested, and be available after the respondent’s meeting with the Church authority and the Designated Officer.
Inform the respondent of his or her right to obtain advice in both in civil and canon law.
Indentify any therapeutic or other needs of the respondent and suggest how these may be met.
Consider the wishes of the respondent in regard to a pastoral response by the Church to his or her family.
Be available to the respondent throughout the inquiry process, and thereafter as required.
Ensure that the respondent is kept informed of developments in regard to the inquiry.
Represent the needs and wishes of the respondent to the Designated Officer, as required.
Advisers should receive appropriate training. Under no circumstances should the same Support Person be provided for the child or adult making the allegation/ disclosure of abuse and for the respondent.
____________________________
END 16/09/2010
The Catholic Church’s child protection guidelines, Safeguarding Children, make it very clear that when an allegation of the abuse of a child is made against a priest or any other person working within the Catholic Church that person is entitled to the support of an Adviser appointed by the Bishop or other Religious Superior. That person is supposed to support the accused person as detailed below.
It is of great concern to me to learn from the Association of Irish Priests that Safeguarding Children is not being implemented in this regard as it raises the very obvious question: In what other ways is Safeguarding Children not being implemented?
_______________________
Safeguarding Children, Resource 1 Section 3:
Each Bishop or Religious Superior should appoint an Adviser to be available to the respondent. Advisers shall represent the needs of the respondent to the Church Authority and assist, where appropriate, with the care of the respondent and with communication between the respondent, the Designated Officer and the Church authority / Church organisation. The respondent’s adviser shall not be the respondent’s therapist or spiritual adviser.
Advisers should be particularly alert to the sense of isolation and vulnerability which a respondent may experience following an allegation of this nature. He or she will:
Accompany, if so requested, and be available after the respondent’s meeting with the Church authority and the Designated Officer.
Inform the respondent of his or her right to obtain advice in both in civil and canon law.
Indentify any therapeutic or other needs of the respondent and suggest how these may be met.
Consider the wishes of the respondent in regard to a pastoral response by the Church to his or her family.
Be available to the respondent throughout the inquiry process, and thereafter as required.
Ensure that the respondent is kept informed of developments in regard to the inquiry.
Represent the needs and wishes of the respondent to the Designated Officer, as required.
Advisers should receive appropriate training. Under no circumstances should the same Support Person be provided for the child or adult making the allegation/ disclosure of abuse and for the respondent.
____________________________
END 16/09/2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Monitor / Support Sex Offenders
Tonight the Sunday Times claims that tomorrow it will reveal the whereabouts of convicted rapist Larry Murphy who was released from prison recently. It is not the first time newspapers have taken to revealing such details about such offenders but I don’t think it’s the job of media to monitor sex offenders. That is the responsibility of the State and it is imperative that we all insist that Government rises to this responsibility.
The monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders in Ireland is almost non-existent. Sex offenders who have served their sentences are generally released into the community without supervision, though some may be under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service. The requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 do not mean that there is any real supervision. ... and that’s not just my view, they are the words of Judge Yvonne Murphy in the Murphy Report.
There is an urgent need for changes to this system to be made ...
• There is no actual sex offenders’ register. Released offenders simply notify the Gardai of their intended residential address. A multi-agency approach to the support and monitoring of released offenders must be developed along with a more stringent regime of signing on procedures with regular personal visits to Garda stations by released offenders.
• All convicted sex offenders should be considered High Risk on release and should be monitored & supported accordingly. All such offenders should be subject to a Post Release Supervision Order which should be put in place at the time the offender is being released and not at the time of sentencing which is currently the case.
• Those responsible for monitoring sex offenders should have the powers and the resources to make regular unannounced visits to the homes of released sex offenders.
• Monitoring of sex offenders should include polygraph testing, electronic tagging, curfews and other restrictions, for example an offender who only ever abuses children after he/she has taken alcohol should have it as a condition of their release that they don’t consume alcohol.
• Parents and Guardians should be able to register a concern with authorities about any individual who has access to their children about whom they are genuinely worried and in some cases it should be possible for them to be told if such an individual is a known sex offender or not. This measure is already being rolled out in the UK, having being piloted to great effect over the last eighteen months the pilot scheme in four counties saw one in ten calls to police uncover evidence of a criminal past. Out of 315 applications for information from concerned parents, details of 21 paedophiles were revealed, these were sex offenders known to the authorities who were putting themselves in a position of having access to children again, and they were stopped because those parents could register their concerns and access this information.
• Finally, It is not appropriate to offer shorter sentences to offenders who participate in treatment programmes in prison, as the current Justice Minister has proposed – those who don’t participate voluntarily should be considered very high risk on release and should be monitored accordingly.
The monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders in Ireland is almost non-existent. Sex offenders who have served their sentences are generally released into the community without supervision, though some may be under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service. The requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 do not mean that there is any real supervision. ... and that’s not just my view, they are the words of Judge Yvonne Murphy in the Murphy Report.
There is an urgent need for changes to this system to be made ...
• There is no actual sex offenders’ register. Released offenders simply notify the Gardai of their intended residential address. A multi-agency approach to the support and monitoring of released offenders must be developed along with a more stringent regime of signing on procedures with regular personal visits to Garda stations by released offenders.
• All convicted sex offenders should be considered High Risk on release and should be monitored & supported accordingly. All such offenders should be subject to a Post Release Supervision Order which should be put in place at the time the offender is being released and not at the time of sentencing which is currently the case.
• Those responsible for monitoring sex offenders should have the powers and the resources to make regular unannounced visits to the homes of released sex offenders.
• Monitoring of sex offenders should include polygraph testing, electronic tagging, curfews and other restrictions, for example an offender who only ever abuses children after he/she has taken alcohol should have it as a condition of their release that they don’t consume alcohol.
• Parents and Guardians should be able to register a concern with authorities about any individual who has access to their children about whom they are genuinely worried and in some cases it should be possible for them to be told if such an individual is a known sex offender or not. This measure is already being rolled out in the UK, having being piloted to great effect over the last eighteen months the pilot scheme in four counties saw one in ten calls to police uncover evidence of a criminal past. Out of 315 applications for information from concerned parents, details of 21 paedophiles were revealed, these were sex offenders known to the authorities who were putting themselves in a position of having access to children again, and they were stopped because those parents could register their concerns and access this information.
• Finally, It is not appropriate to offer shorter sentences to offenders who participate in treatment programmes in prison, as the current Justice Minister has proposed – those who don’t participate voluntarily should be considered very high risk on release and should be monitored accordingly.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Bethany House
The Irish Government has repeatedly refused to allow Bethany Home, which was a combined children's home, maternity home & detention centre in Dublin, to be included in the list of qualifying Institutions for the Residential Institutions Redress Scheme. This deprives survivors of the opportunity to present their cases to the Redress Board and seek some semblance of justice and compensation for abuse suffered while they were children there.
I fully support calls from the Bethany House Survivors Group for an inquiry into the activities there and for survivors to be allowed to take their cases to the Redress Board.
Today’s Irish Independent reports that:
Almost 220 unmarked graves for forgotten babies who died in a Protestant children's home were discovered, it was claimed today. An academic revealed there was a shocking number of infant deaths at the Bethany Home in Rathgar over a 47 year period after he widened his trawl of cemetery records. On Monday, former residents of the facility, the Bethany Survivors Group, will call on Government ministers to include them in the redress scheme for victims of institutional abuse.
Lecturer Niall Meehan claimed officials ignored high death rates at the home in the 1930s and instead deflected complaints by turning the issue into a religious squabble. "The state did little or nothing about reported increases in illness and mortality during the 1935 to 1939 period, though it was brought to the attention of the Dept of Local Government and Public Health by its own inspectors," he said.
"Government knew the facility was insufficient and did nothing concrete to remedy it."
Bethany Home was a combined children's home, maternity home and detention centre for female convicts which closed in 1972.
In May, Mr Meehan discovered 40 unmarked Bethany graves at the Mount Jerome Cemetery in Harold's Cross after consulting documents from the institution and the cemetery. Survivors are campaigning for a monument to remember the babies, who died at an average age of three months to a year.
The Griffith College Dublin lecturer said he since found evidence of another 179 graves for the period 1922 to 1949. More than a third of the total - 86 - died over a five year period from 1935.
The highest mortality rate was recorded in 1936 when 29 babies were buried.
Mr Meehan said records from Bethany Home also showed there could be another 30 forgotten babies in another graveyard.
"It's a terrible indictment on Irish society that so many children were destined to be forgotten and not considered important enough to be acknowledged," he said.
"They were just put in the ground in an unmarked common grave and forgotten about forever.
"Think about these human beings and how terrible it was for their mothers."
I fully support calls from the Bethany House Survivors Group for an inquiry into the activities there and for survivors to be allowed to take their cases to the Redress Board.
Today’s Irish Independent reports that:
Almost 220 unmarked graves for forgotten babies who died in a Protestant children's home were discovered, it was claimed today. An academic revealed there was a shocking number of infant deaths at the Bethany Home in Rathgar over a 47 year period after he widened his trawl of cemetery records. On Monday, former residents of the facility, the Bethany Survivors Group, will call on Government ministers to include them in the redress scheme for victims of institutional abuse.
Lecturer Niall Meehan claimed officials ignored high death rates at the home in the 1930s and instead deflected complaints by turning the issue into a religious squabble. "The state did little or nothing about reported increases in illness and mortality during the 1935 to 1939 period, though it was brought to the attention of the Dept of Local Government and Public Health by its own inspectors," he said.
"Government knew the facility was insufficient and did nothing concrete to remedy it."
Bethany Home was a combined children's home, maternity home and detention centre for female convicts which closed in 1972.
In May, Mr Meehan discovered 40 unmarked Bethany graves at the Mount Jerome Cemetery in Harold's Cross after consulting documents from the institution and the cemetery. Survivors are campaigning for a monument to remember the babies, who died at an average age of three months to a year.
The Griffith College Dublin lecturer said he since found evidence of another 179 graves for the period 1922 to 1949. More than a third of the total - 86 - died over a five year period from 1935.
The highest mortality rate was recorded in 1936 when 29 babies were buried.
Mr Meehan said records from Bethany Home also showed there could be another 30 forgotten babies in another graveyard.
"It's a terrible indictment on Irish society that so many children were destined to be forgotten and not considered important enough to be acknowledged," he said.
"They were just put in the ground in an unmarked common grave and forgotten about forever.
"Think about these human beings and how terrible it was for their mothers."
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
STAY SAFE / SPHE
STAY SAFE / SPHE
I am very concerned to read a report in today’s Irish Examiner revealing that the teaching of Stay Safe & SPHE programmes in schools is still not mandatory and that some schools are still not including those programmes in the curriculum.
EMPOWERING CHILDREN with knowledge, confidence and language is an important part of the child protection process. The STAY SAFE and SPHE programmes within schools are a significant part of this.
• All teachers should receive a basic SPHE pre-service training as all teachers are involved in social and personal education of young people.
• There should be a module in the SPHE programme dedicated specifically to Child Safety, Welfare and Protection at post-primary level.
• Children’s knowledge of SPHE should be assessed regularly.
I join with others today in calling on the Government to make the teaching of Stay Safe & SPHE Programmes in schools compulsory.
END 31/08/2010
I am very concerned to read a report in today’s Irish Examiner revealing that the teaching of Stay Safe & SPHE programmes in schools is still not mandatory and that some schools are still not including those programmes in the curriculum.
EMPOWERING CHILDREN with knowledge, confidence and language is an important part of the child protection process. The STAY SAFE and SPHE programmes within schools are a significant part of this.
• All teachers should receive a basic SPHE pre-service training as all teachers are involved in social and personal education of young people.
• There should be a module in the SPHE programme dedicated specifically to Child Safety, Welfare and Protection at post-primary level.
• Children’s knowledge of SPHE should be assessed regularly.
I join with others today in calling on the Government to make the teaching of Stay Safe & SPHE Programmes in schools compulsory.
END 31/08/2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Humbert Summer School Speech
Earlier this year I had occasion to return to Our Lady Help of Christians Church on the Navan Road. As a teenager I had started attending Mass there because I had stopped going to the Church in Cabra, where I lived, because I had told a school teacher about Father Ivan Payne and I knew he was to be challenged in due course. I loved that Church on the Navan Road and a very nice priest, Father Vincent Duffy, introduced me to the all the young people who ran the summer project. I had about 20 new friends, it was just what I needed. One of those friends passed away suddenly in April of this year and her remains were brought back from New York to the Church on the Navan Road. I sat in the Church with friends, some of us had not been in that Church for many years, others had never stopped attending - they had been baptised in that Church, made their First Holy Communion and Confirmations in that Church and since our summer project days they had married there, had their own children christened there and in some cases brought their deceased parents there. On the day of the funeral some of those friends stood on the altar and sang just as they had done in the folk group years earlier. For a moment I had a real sense of how much the Catholic Church and in particular the Church on the Navan Road had meant to me so many years earlier and how much it still meant to some of my friends from that time.
In conversations with some of those friends since, I recognised their sense of the Church being that Church on the Navan Road, it was a very significant part of how they lived their lives locally, it was social and spiritual, and they had a huge sense of belonging. Interestingly, and not very surprisingly, they did not at all identify with the Catholic Church they saw represented by self-serving bishops and those commentators who like to minimise what they have done, or in some cases, failed to do. And they were very clear that their support for their local Church should not be interpreted by anyone as support for how the institutional Catholic Church and the Vatican have responded to the findings of the Ferns, Ryan and Murphy Reports.
For they had no identification with a Catholic Church which claimed not to have understood child sexual abuse, no identification with a Catholic Church which minimised its own role in covering up that sexual abuse, no identification with a Catholic Church whose bishops saw nothing in the Murphy Report that should cause them to have to resign, no identification with a Catholic Church which tried to blame everyone else for its own actions and inactions and which failed to take any responsibility for them, nor did they identify with a Catholic Church which campaigned against a move towards equality for gay and lesbian people during the recent debate on civil partnership, nor with a Catholic Church which doesn’t value women the way it values men – I had a lot more in common than I realised with my Mass going friends.
Last November the Murphy Report was published within months of the Ryan Report. I was angered and saddened by its findings – so many children sexually abused by priests known to the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin to be a danger. Tactics employed by the Church showed Bishops knowingly and proactively cover up the sexual abuse of children in order to maintain secrecy, avoid scandal, protect the reputation of the Church, and preserve its assets.
And those tactics were not unique to the Catholic Church in Dublin. Much has being made of the 1962 and 2001 Vatican documents instructing Bishops around the world to conduct investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse in secret. But I believe that the similarity of actions of Bishops in Dioceses so far apart from each, from Ferns to Philadelphia, from Dublin to Boston, from Manchester to Munich, demonstrate very convincingly that such practices had to be centrally co-ordinated and approved of in essence if not in detail. This is not a few rogue Bishops – this is a rogue Church, at least at the level of its hierarchy.
So how has the Catholic Church responded - to the truth now being so widely known, a truth it fought so hard to hide? For me the response beggars belief.
Initially Catholic Bishops here in Ireland took some ownership of the cover up saying that they were shamed by the extent of it and that it reflected a culture of cover up that existed throughout the Catholic Church in Ireland, though within days the spin had started and cover up became mismanagement – Catholic Bishops no more ‘mismanaged’ allegations of child sexual abuse than Bernie Madoff ‘mismanaged’ his clients’ money, but look who’s behind bars.
To his credit Bishop James Moriarty got it right. I was very grateful to him for the content and tone of his resignation statement. He acknowledged that he should have challenged the prevailing culture that existed within the Archdiocese and apologised for failing to do so, this was very welcome. His acknowledgement that ‘the long struggle of survivors to be heard and respected by church authorities had revealed a culture within the Church that many would simply describe as unchristian’ was also very welcome - and compared very favourably to Bishop Drennan calling survivors vengeful and Cardinal Brady trying to pass himself off as a wounded healer. Add to that the sickening sight of Bishops Walsh and Field thinking they have won some battle to preserve their precious reputations, having lost sight of the fact that preserving reputations was one of the reasons so many children ended up being sexually abused in the first place.
Towards the end of last year Bishop Drennan had a meeting with his Galway priests to ascertain their views but ignored a request to meet victims . Instead, along with other Bishops, he described our requests for an honest, intelligent, meaningful response to the Murphy Report as unrealistic and exaggerated.
Pope Benedict similarly chose to ignore us - Marie Collins, Maeve Lewis on behalf of OneInFour and I wrote to the Pope a week before the Irish Bishops met with him earlier this year, it was important to us that our views would be considered at that meeting and unlike the Bishops we were happy to publish our submission. At no time then or since has the Pope even acknowledged our correspondence and our views were completely ignored.
Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone stated that there is a relationship between paedophilia and homosexuality. This is not the first time the Catholic Church has attempted to blame a small and often marginalised section of society for the actions of priests who sexually abused young boys and girls.
Nor is it the first time we have seen members of the Catholic Hierarchy misrepresent to the public, the views of the medical profession. As someone who was sexually abused as a child and who is a gay man today, I condemn any attempts by the Catholic Church to dishonestly misrepresent medical opinion in order to continue to avoid taking responsibility for its own actions and inactions in covering up the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests.
And the finger wasn’t just being pointed at gay men of course. Secularism, the media, loss of faith were all blamed, one minute revelations of sexual abuse and cover up were being ignorantly described as petty gossip, the next minute they were tantamount to the collective violence perpetrated by Christians on Jews over the centuries.
There are two parts to the response to a Report like the Ferns, Ryan & Murphy Reports – the first is looking to those responsible for the behaviour revealed to take responsibility for it. This has nothing to do with vengeance – it is a reasonable expectation that those who were part of the governance of an organisation at a time when the sexual abuse of children was being covered up, acknowledge how wrong that was, own the consequences of that and step aside. Out of pure self interest and a repulsive disregard for the experiences and wishes of those who were abused the Catholic Church has utterly failed in this regard – even as late as last month the Archbishop of Tuam Michael Neary complained about the culture of blame – asking people to take responsibility for their actions has nothing to do with a culture of blame.
The second part of the response is what we do as a society to ensure today’s and tomorrow’s children live in a safer world. In Ireland that part of the response in relation to the Catholic Church is well viewed in the context of the National Board for Safeguarding Children.
I welcome Safeguarding Children but I am concerned about the extent of its implementation – there is a lot more to child protection at parish level than people ticking boxes on forms to confirm attendance at training courses or knowing what to do in the event of an allegation being made. It is also hard to believe that child protection is taken seriously by people, who also believe that Cardinal Brady has done nothing wrong or by those who delight in Archbishop Martin’s standards being undermined by Pope Benedict.
I know this debate is about the Catholic Church and the Reports that have been published but the debate about the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children is of course much wider than this.
We know only too well that the State is as capable of failing children as the Catholic Church is. We’ve had Reports into the deaths of children in the care of the State, reports about the absence of proper care for separated non-Irish national children, reports about the failure by the HSE and others to comply with Children First, reports about children being left in abusive foster care situations even though serious concerns had been expressed by teachers and members of the public – in the recent example of the HSE having failed to investigate concerns over children living in abusive situations Minister for Children Barry Andrews was singing from the same hymn sheet as the aforementioned Archbishop of Tuam saying .....‘the focus is not about apportioning blame’ which in effect meant no HSE manager or social worker was to be held responsible.
A Health Service, a Catholic Church and a Minister for Children scrambling to hide their abject failure to protect and respect children behind each other’s plunging standards.
Our response to all we know about past and present abuse, neglect and failure to protect children should include –
Putting Children First on a statutory basis, applying to everyone, with failure to comply being a criminal offence.
Replacing Article 42 in the Constitution as proposed by Joint Oireachtas Committee in February 2010, I am concerned that at Government level there is a process currently underway to water down the wording as presently proposed, Government needs to confirm wording as a matter of urgency and announce a date for that referendum instead of putting its own political fortunes ahead of the best interests of children.
We need to radically enhance the monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders on their release back into community, the system as it currently stands fails to monitor and support the offender as much as it fails to reassure the public.
Garda Vetting of people working with children needs to be extended to facilitate the passing on of soft information, as recommended by the Ferns Report 5 years ago.
EMPOWERING CHILDREN with knowledge, confidence and language is an important part of the child protection process. The STAY SAFE and SPHE programmes within schools need to be rigorously implemented and never should a child’s right to information take second place to any organisation’s ethos.
These are the issues I want to see advanced today, they are about the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children... I speak with many people and organisations which care as deeply as I do about advancing this agenda.....
with its current absence of any credibility... the Catholic Church isn’t one of them.
In conversations with some of those friends since, I recognised their sense of the Church being that Church on the Navan Road, it was a very significant part of how they lived their lives locally, it was social and spiritual, and they had a huge sense of belonging. Interestingly, and not very surprisingly, they did not at all identify with the Catholic Church they saw represented by self-serving bishops and those commentators who like to minimise what they have done, or in some cases, failed to do. And they were very clear that their support for their local Church should not be interpreted by anyone as support for how the institutional Catholic Church and the Vatican have responded to the findings of the Ferns, Ryan and Murphy Reports.
For they had no identification with a Catholic Church which claimed not to have understood child sexual abuse, no identification with a Catholic Church which minimised its own role in covering up that sexual abuse, no identification with a Catholic Church whose bishops saw nothing in the Murphy Report that should cause them to have to resign, no identification with a Catholic Church which tried to blame everyone else for its own actions and inactions and which failed to take any responsibility for them, nor did they identify with a Catholic Church which campaigned against a move towards equality for gay and lesbian people during the recent debate on civil partnership, nor with a Catholic Church which doesn’t value women the way it values men – I had a lot more in common than I realised with my Mass going friends.
Last November the Murphy Report was published within months of the Ryan Report. I was angered and saddened by its findings – so many children sexually abused by priests known to the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin to be a danger. Tactics employed by the Church showed Bishops knowingly and proactively cover up the sexual abuse of children in order to maintain secrecy, avoid scandal, protect the reputation of the Church, and preserve its assets.
And those tactics were not unique to the Catholic Church in Dublin. Much has being made of the 1962 and 2001 Vatican documents instructing Bishops around the world to conduct investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse in secret. But I believe that the similarity of actions of Bishops in Dioceses so far apart from each, from Ferns to Philadelphia, from Dublin to Boston, from Manchester to Munich, demonstrate very convincingly that such practices had to be centrally co-ordinated and approved of in essence if not in detail. This is not a few rogue Bishops – this is a rogue Church, at least at the level of its hierarchy.
So how has the Catholic Church responded - to the truth now being so widely known, a truth it fought so hard to hide? For me the response beggars belief.
Initially Catholic Bishops here in Ireland took some ownership of the cover up saying that they were shamed by the extent of it and that it reflected a culture of cover up that existed throughout the Catholic Church in Ireland, though within days the spin had started and cover up became mismanagement – Catholic Bishops no more ‘mismanaged’ allegations of child sexual abuse than Bernie Madoff ‘mismanaged’ his clients’ money, but look who’s behind bars.
To his credit Bishop James Moriarty got it right. I was very grateful to him for the content and tone of his resignation statement. He acknowledged that he should have challenged the prevailing culture that existed within the Archdiocese and apologised for failing to do so, this was very welcome. His acknowledgement that ‘the long struggle of survivors to be heard and respected by church authorities had revealed a culture within the Church that many would simply describe as unchristian’ was also very welcome - and compared very favourably to Bishop Drennan calling survivors vengeful and Cardinal Brady trying to pass himself off as a wounded healer. Add to that the sickening sight of Bishops Walsh and Field thinking they have won some battle to preserve their precious reputations, having lost sight of the fact that preserving reputations was one of the reasons so many children ended up being sexually abused in the first place.
Towards the end of last year Bishop Drennan had a meeting with his Galway priests to ascertain their views but ignored a request to meet victims . Instead, along with other Bishops, he described our requests for an honest, intelligent, meaningful response to the Murphy Report as unrealistic and exaggerated.
Pope Benedict similarly chose to ignore us - Marie Collins, Maeve Lewis on behalf of OneInFour and I wrote to the Pope a week before the Irish Bishops met with him earlier this year, it was important to us that our views would be considered at that meeting and unlike the Bishops we were happy to publish our submission. At no time then or since has the Pope even acknowledged our correspondence and our views were completely ignored.
Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone stated that there is a relationship between paedophilia and homosexuality. This is not the first time the Catholic Church has attempted to blame a small and often marginalised section of society for the actions of priests who sexually abused young boys and girls.
Nor is it the first time we have seen members of the Catholic Hierarchy misrepresent to the public, the views of the medical profession. As someone who was sexually abused as a child and who is a gay man today, I condemn any attempts by the Catholic Church to dishonestly misrepresent medical opinion in order to continue to avoid taking responsibility for its own actions and inactions in covering up the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests.
And the finger wasn’t just being pointed at gay men of course. Secularism, the media, loss of faith were all blamed, one minute revelations of sexual abuse and cover up were being ignorantly described as petty gossip, the next minute they were tantamount to the collective violence perpetrated by Christians on Jews over the centuries.
There are two parts to the response to a Report like the Ferns, Ryan & Murphy Reports – the first is looking to those responsible for the behaviour revealed to take responsibility for it. This has nothing to do with vengeance – it is a reasonable expectation that those who were part of the governance of an organisation at a time when the sexual abuse of children was being covered up, acknowledge how wrong that was, own the consequences of that and step aside. Out of pure self interest and a repulsive disregard for the experiences and wishes of those who were abused the Catholic Church has utterly failed in this regard – even as late as last month the Archbishop of Tuam Michael Neary complained about the culture of blame – asking people to take responsibility for their actions has nothing to do with a culture of blame.
The second part of the response is what we do as a society to ensure today’s and tomorrow’s children live in a safer world. In Ireland that part of the response in relation to the Catholic Church is well viewed in the context of the National Board for Safeguarding Children.
I welcome Safeguarding Children but I am concerned about the extent of its implementation – there is a lot more to child protection at parish level than people ticking boxes on forms to confirm attendance at training courses or knowing what to do in the event of an allegation being made. It is also hard to believe that child protection is taken seriously by people, who also believe that Cardinal Brady has done nothing wrong or by those who delight in Archbishop Martin’s standards being undermined by Pope Benedict.
I know this debate is about the Catholic Church and the Reports that have been published but the debate about the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children is of course much wider than this.
We know only too well that the State is as capable of failing children as the Catholic Church is. We’ve had Reports into the deaths of children in the care of the State, reports about the absence of proper care for separated non-Irish national children, reports about the failure by the HSE and others to comply with Children First, reports about children being left in abusive foster care situations even though serious concerns had been expressed by teachers and members of the public – in the recent example of the HSE having failed to investigate concerns over children living in abusive situations Minister for Children Barry Andrews was singing from the same hymn sheet as the aforementioned Archbishop of Tuam saying .....‘the focus is not about apportioning blame’ which in effect meant no HSE manager or social worker was to be held responsible.
A Health Service, a Catholic Church and a Minister for Children scrambling to hide their abject failure to protect and respect children behind each other’s plunging standards.
Our response to all we know about past and present abuse, neglect and failure to protect children should include –
Putting Children First on a statutory basis, applying to everyone, with failure to comply being a criminal offence.
Replacing Article 42 in the Constitution as proposed by Joint Oireachtas Committee in February 2010, I am concerned that at Government level there is a process currently underway to water down the wording as presently proposed, Government needs to confirm wording as a matter of urgency and announce a date for that referendum instead of putting its own political fortunes ahead of the best interests of children.
We need to radically enhance the monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders on their release back into community, the system as it currently stands fails to monitor and support the offender as much as it fails to reassure the public.
Garda Vetting of people working with children needs to be extended to facilitate the passing on of soft information, as recommended by the Ferns Report 5 years ago.
EMPOWERING CHILDREN with knowledge, confidence and language is an important part of the child protection process. The STAY SAFE and SPHE programmes within schools need to be rigorously implemented and never should a child’s right to information take second place to any organisation’s ethos.
These are the issues I want to see advanced today, they are about the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children... I speak with many people and organisations which care as deeply as I do about advancing this agenda.....
with its current absence of any credibility... the Catholic Church isn’t one of them.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
My Response To The Quinn Spin On Bishops
Some time ago David Quinn, of 'christian think-tank' the Iona Institute was explaining to readers of his Irish Catholic blog why it was understandable that I had chosen to formally leave the Catholic Church - I had been abused by Fr Ivan Payne as a child and the Catholic Church had failed to do all it could to bring him to justice. If I were to summarise Chatpter 24 of the Murphy Report in one sentence I wouldn't use Mr Quinn's flowery language: I'd say the Catholic Church coverd up for Fr Ivan Payne in 1981 and as a result of that cover up many more children were sexually abused by Payne. Mr Quinn likes to minimise the church's role in covering up the sexual abuse of children.
He was at it again today on the RTE News at One when he said it was unfair for Bishop Field to have to resign because there was no cover up after 1996. The Dublin Archdiocese's handling of clerical child sexual abuse in 1996 and for some years after was no less obscenely disgraceful than in the years which preceeded 1996 and Bishop Field's appointment in 1997.
I appreciate you may not have time to read all of the Murphy Report but if you want a flavour of what was going on in the Archdiocese of Dublin from mid 90s on I have added relevant quotes from the Murphy Report below.
CHAPTER 1
1.113 In the mid 1990s, a light began to be shone on the scandal and the cover up. Gradually, the story has unfolded.
1.36 It was not until November 1995 that Archbishop Connell allowed the names of 17 priests about whom the Archdiocese had received complaints to be given to the Gardaí. This figure was not complete. At that time there was knowledge within the Archdiocese of at least 28 priests against whom there had been complaints.
CHAPTER 13
13.32 In March 1996.. Monsignor Stenson informed Mrs Collins that Fr Edmondus was not in a parish, was living in a religious house and was receiving therapy.
13.34 Fr Edmondus was in fact, contrary to assurances given to Mrs Collins, still a curate in Edenmore and was not immediately removed from ministry. Connell’s reason: the reason I did that of course was because there had been nothing against [Edmondus] for something like 30 years. It should also be noted that it is not correct to say that there had been nothing against Fr Edmondus for 30 years; there had been the concerns expressed in 1993.
13.39 The Gardaí met Monsignor Stenson in May 1996. They asked him for a copy of the Fr Edmondus file or at least for an opportunity to look at it. He refused stating he would need legal advice first. He said that canon law did not permit him to give permission for the file to be read.
13.40 Monsignor Stenson was also asked about the claim that Fr Edmondus had admitted the offence to him and a letter he wrote to Mrs Collins was shown to him. Monsignor Stenson expressed dismay on seeing the letter, saying that he would not have written that had he known that she would be handing over the letter to the Gardaí.
13.41 Despite having told Mrs Collins that Fr Edmondus had admitted to her abuse Monsignor Stenson refused to make a statement to that effect to the Gardaí.
13.48 In December 1996, Archbishop Connell met Mrs Collins and her support priest, Fr James Norman.
13.49 One of the matters that upset Marie most was the statement by Cardinal Connell that the Framework document was not binding in canon or civil law and that therefore he could follow what parts of it he wanted to follow. He claimed the Cardinal told her he had to protect the good name of the priest who had abused her.
13.78 The Commission is particularly concerned that the Archdiocese seems to have been in breach of the guideline which states: “If the bishop or religious superior is satisfied that child sexual abuse has occurred, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that the accused priest or religious does not remain in any pastoral appointment which affords access to children”.
CHAPTER 20
20.162 Mr file was revisited by the Archdiocese in 1994/1995 when clerical child sexual abuse was frequently in the headlines. In October 1995, a priest of the Archdiocese wrote to tell the Archbishop that Mr would arrive in Dublin in October 1995 and intended remaining for ten days. The Archdiocese did not tell the Gardaí that Mr was in Dublin in October 1995.
20.164 In November 1995, the Archdiocese disclosed to the Gardaí the names of 17 priests against whom complaints of sexual assault had been received. The name of was not on that list.
20.166 In 1997, the case was brought before the advisory panel. The panel recommended that the civil case should not be contested. It further recommended that the parish priests of Mr former parishes be gathered together to be briefed on what to do if anyone came in seeking help or who might need help in the future. This recommendation does not appear to have been acted on. Similarly, the abused who came forward were not told the truth. Their accounts were listened to and counselling was offered, but they were not validated or vindicated by the Archdiocese by being given the truth as the Archdiocese knew it.
20.167 Mr planned yet another visit to Dublin for June 1998. Archbishop‟s House was informed of his plans by a priest friend in January 1998. There is a memo on file which states that Monsignor Dolan, having taken legal advice, phoned the priest friend of Mr and told him:
(iii) If we become aware of his presence in Dublin we will inform the Gardaí.
20.169 Mr did arrive in Dublin in June 1998. He held a function in a hotel to which his various clerical and lay friends and family were invited. The Gardaí were not notified of his presence.
20.171 New complainants continued to emerge and further civil proceedings were issued against the Archdiocese. The diocese adopted a legalistic and defensive position in relation to the civil proceedings while at the same time offering what was described as „pastoral support‟ to the victims. Despite the growing evidence of the extent of Mr criminal behaviour and despite the Archdiocese‟s declared policy of not protecting abusers and despite the fact that his location was known within the Archdiocese, and was readily ascertainable on inquiry, the Gardaí were not notified of Mr whereabouts.
CHAPTER 26
26.28 In 1998, following a visit to Medjugorje, Fr Moore attempted to book a catholic youth hall for a weekend retreat for a number of adults and young persons whom he had met on that trip. The diocese instructed the youth organisation not to give him the hall. It was pointed out to Fr Moore that this activity was in breach of his contract with the diocese.
CHAPTER 27
27.23 Another complainant came forward in August 1997. The type of abuse alleged was of corporal punishment on his bare buttocks. It was decided in the Archdiocese that the nature of the complaint did not involve sexual abuse; consequently it concluded that there was no obligation under Church policy at the time to refer the matter to the Gardaí. In December 1997, the Gardaí recommended in relation to the August 1997 complaint: “… the Accused‟s conduct in this case was vile, despicable and probably sadistic. It comprised all but the worst elements of a bad assault in that it was brutal and had sado-sexual connotations. By stripping or partially disrobing these children they were made feel dirty, vulnerable and above all extremely ashamed. I also hold the view that the act of disrobing (and thereby indecently exposing) anyone –child or adult- amounts to an indecent assault. …
CHAPTER 30
30.13 The Dublin Archdiocese reviewed Fr Cicero‟s file in 1995 as part of its review of all cases involving child sexual abuse. Monsignor Stenson commented:
“by Framework standards it would appear that child-care issues would have arisen in respect of the children in [the parish] and this was never addressed at the time. It is clear that there was no question of the matter being reported to the Gardaí even though it would probably fall under the definition of child sexual abuse in the Framework document”. .... it seems that Bishop Forristal and Monsignor Sheehy agreed to let matters continue as they were, on the basis that there had been no incidents for many years, but that Fr Cicero should be referred for assessment.
30.27 When the Dublin Archdiocese decided to review matters in 1995 and took the decision to return Fr Cicero to Ossory, they found themselves stymied. Bishop Forristal, as he himself admits, was mainly responsible for the delays in having the priest assessed. The bishop told the Commission that his exercise of responsibility over Fr Cicero was “severely hampered by the vigour with which Monsignor Sheehy acted to preserve [Fr Cicero‟s] unofficial working function at the Tribunal and to defend his position generally”. The bishop said that, ultimately, he was persuaded by Monsignor Sheehy‟s view that Fr Cicero‟s “mental and physical wellbeing were being assured through his continuance in that role”. The Commission finds it extraordinary that Bishop Forristal and the Archdiocese allowed Monsignor Sheehy to have such influence as they had the power to have their wishes in respect of Fr Cicero implemented.
30.28 The matter was not reported to the Gardaí until April 2002 and was never reported to the health board. This was in breach of the Church‟s own guidelines.
CHAPTER 31
31.5 Bishop Murray was immediately informed and in turn contacted Archbishop‟s House in December 1988. The allegations were discussed at a meeting of the auxiliary bishops where it was decided that Fr Clemens would be given alternative accommodation in a non-parochial setting.
CHAPTER 34
34.20 In December 1997 Monsignor Stenson spoke to a local priest about the monitoring system that was supposed to be in place. The priest recalled a vague conversation with Bishop Murray but said that nothing was mentioned about a monitoring system. It would appear that the only system that was in place at that stage was one where Bishop Murray inquired from Fr Marius if he was behaving himself.
34.21 In October 1998, another complaint was made to the Archdiocese about Fr Marius. The complainant‟s doctor felt she was not physically or emotionally ready to make a formal complaint to the diocese at that time. The Archdiocese did not pursue the matter with the priest.
34.24 In February 2002, a complaint was received from a women who claimed that she had been abused by Fr Marius. The complainant later revealed that she was the same person who had reported the abuse to the parish priest in 1998. She also sought compensation for the trauma which she had suffered. She claimed that Fr Marius raped her once and sexually assaulted and attempted to penetrate her on other occasions. This abuse occurred while she was assisting with parish activities.
34.24 In May 2002, the Archdiocese notified both the Gardaí and the health board about this new complaint.
CHAPTER 35
35.29 In February 1998, the mother of one of Fr Reynolds‟s alleged victims spoke to the chancellor, Monsignor Dolan, indicating that her daughter had been sexually abused by a priest some 20 years previously. She did not give the name of the priest nor was she asked for it......the Commission finds it strange that the name of the priest was not sought. Had it been sought, Monsignor Dolan could have accessed Fr Reynolds‟s file and seen his admissions to Monsignor Stenson made almost two years earlier.
35.30 Bishop O‟Mahony had a meeting with Dr Walsh and Fr Reynolds in May 1998...he (Walsh) repeated that he should not be involved in non-structured or informal interactions with children in the parish or in school.
35.31 At this stage Fr Reynolds was still acting as chaplain in the National Rehabilitation Hospital.
35.32 Six days after Dr Walsh wrote to Bishop O‟Mahony, a social worker at a drug treatment centre contacted the chancellor, Monsignor Dolan, to tell him that a client had alleged that she had been abused by Fr Reynolds when she was nine years old.
35.33 She said she was particularly concerned because Fr Reynolds was a chaplain at the National Rehabilitation Hospital.
35.35 In July 1998, Archbishop Connell released Fr Reynolds from his duties as chaplain to the National Rehabilitation Hospital and nominated him as a beneficiary of the Diocesan Clerical Fund.
35.36 This was notified to the social worker who had approached the Archdiocese with the complaint against Fr Reynolds. She was told that he would be living in monitored retirement.
35.37 At this stage Fr Reynolds was not living in monitored retirement. He was living unmonitored first with his sister and subsequently with his stepmother.
35.40 The Archdiocese held the view that no formal complaint had been made. They therefore had not reported the matter to the Gardaí.
35.56 This case was extremely badly handled by the Archdiocese. Numerous indications of serious abuse and of admissions by Fr Reynolds were ignored. The suspicions about Fr Reynolds surfaced during his time in Glendalough in 1994. Despite the fact that the parents had no desire to go to the Gardaí or to the health board, and wished the Church to deal with the matter, it was March 1996 before any interview with Fr Reynolds was conducted. He admitted to the complaints. He stated that something similar happened in other parishes. No proper investigation was conducted into his activities in other parishes. Despite this admission he was allowed to remain on as parish priest in Glendalough until July 1997.
35.57 In the interview with Monsignor Stenson in March 1996, Fr Reynolds also admitted that his sexual orientation was towards children. A record of this interview is signed by Fr Reynolds. Again, despite this, he was given an appointment in the National Rehabilitation Hospital. This appointment gave him access to young children. Subsequently, Bishop O‟Mahony became aware that Fr Reynolds may have a problem with child sexual abuse but he does not seem to have mentioned this to anyone else in the Archdiocese or, indeed, to the hospital.
CHAPTER 42
42.3 The first complaint of sexually abusive behaviour towards a minor was made to the Gardaí in October 1995.
42.9 Fr Sergius applied for sabbatical leave in 1997 to go to a foreign diocese for two years. He was told that the Archdiocese would have to inform the foreign diocese about the complaints which had been made and the concerns which had been expressed. Archbishop Connell met Fr Sergius and told him that he would be welcome back in the Archdiocese after his two years abroad. Archbishop Connell wrote to the bishop of the foreign diocese saying that Fr Sergius was “a priest in good standing” ....but added the following reservations:
He could be aggressive in his use of language, especially if he has taken alcohol. He had had a three year involvement with a woman; this had been “dealt with and is now regarded as a thing of the past”. The Archbishop expressed the view that Fr Sergius would act responsibly but undertook to take him back immediately if this was requested. The violent nature of his relationship with the woman and the more recent general complaints were not mentioned in the letter.
42.10 The sabbatical leave was to run from September 1997 to September 1999. However, Fr Sergius returned home after just nine months. The Archdiocesan records do not show the reason for his early return. He was appointed to a parish in August 1998. It later became clear that the parish priest was not told of the problems which Fr Sergius had had in the past...
42.14 In April 2002, the parents of three altar boys complained that the boys had been physically and verbally abused by Fr Sergius.
42.21 His propensity to be sexually abusive was known to the Archdiocese so it should have been very concerned indeed about the complaints of the young girls. Bishop Ó Ceallaigh should have been informed of the full range of complaints against Fr Sergius when he was dealing with the December 1996 complaint.
42.22 His problems should have been made known to his parish priest and area bishop in 1998 and he should not have been allowed involvement with the confirmation class.
CHAPTER 43
43.3 There are three complaints or expressions of concern in relation to a trip to France by altar boys from the parish in which Fr Dante was a curate in 1985. The first was made in December 1995 .. ..One rule was that underwear could not be worn when the altar boys reached the continent, that all boys were to sleep naked and that the bathroom door was to be left open when showering so Fr Dante could “check”‟ on the boys. Punishment was to be smacking on the bare bottom. The former altar boy stated that he was once punished in this way and “something about it didn‟t feel quite right”.
43.4 The former altar boy also told Monsignor Dolan that the boys had to undress in front of Fr Dante at night and that a different boy had to sleep in the same bed as Fr Dante each night due to a shortage of beds.
43.5 In March 1997, .... Bishop Walsh concluded that the alleged incidents could be viewed as in the nature of strict discipline or containing some sort of gratification.
43.6 Monsignor Dolan concluded that the case did not pass the threshold of suspicion of child sexual abuse but he suggested, among other things, that an assessment would be appropriate.
43.7 Shortly after the meeting, it was confirmed to Monsignor Dolan that Fr Dante would be attending the Granada Institute. Fr Dante believed this would be better for him and the diocese as it would help him cope with his stress problems. He was treated in Granada for the following seven months. A psychological report ...concluded however that it would be prudent for him not to minister to children given the nature of the allegations. Fr Dante was allowed to return to ministry and was appointed curate in another parish from 1 September 1999. He did not take up the appointment due to “severe stress”. He was appointed a parish chaplain and chaplain to a hospital in July 2000. It seems that he actually carried out relatively little pastoral work in the parish because of his health problems; he did most of his work in the hospital.
43.8 Meanwhile, a second allegation was made ... In 1996, a woman informed Monsignor Dolan that there had been an incident with her son and Fr Dante when her son was ten years old. She alleged that ... had invited her son over to his house to learn about computers. On his second visit, Fr Dante allegedly invited the boy to sit on his knee. The boy refused and there was no further contact between the pair.
43.9 In late 2002, a third allegation, which was the second one concerning the trip to France in 1985, emerged. At some stage in 2002, a mother had spoken to a curate in her parish about incidents with her son during the trip to France in 1985. In December 2002, the allegations were brought to the attention of the parish priest who immediately contacted Fr Paddy Gleeson, one of the delegates at the time.
43.11 In January 2003, while the third allegation was being investigated, the parish priest spoke to the father of another altar boy. The father asked his son if he had seen anything on the trip to France. His son alleged that the boys had slept two to a bed and were made to sleep naked. He further alleged that Fr Dante had always slept with one of the boys. On a separate occasion when this boy was staying with Fr Dante, he had to undress in his presence.
43.12 The Archdiocese informed the Gardaí of the third allegation in January 2003. In a follow-up letter Fr Gleeson asked, at the request of Cardinal Connell, that the Gardaí not contact Fr Dante until the diocese had informed him of the new complaint as the Cardinal was concerned about his unstable health. The Gardaí were also told of the other allegations/expressions of concern in relation to the trip to France.
CHAPTER 48
48.30 ... the Commission is concerned about the confusion which surrounds the level of information given to the other priests in the parish to which Fr Benito was assigned in December 2003. It is clear that Bishop Field did give the parish priest some information but it was certainly not complete or sufficiently specific. For example, the parish priest was not told that there were concerns about Fr Benito‟s relationship with a boy and he was not told the age of the girl involved.
He was at it again today on the RTE News at One when he said it was unfair for Bishop Field to have to resign because there was no cover up after 1996. The Dublin Archdiocese's handling of clerical child sexual abuse in 1996 and for some years after was no less obscenely disgraceful than in the years which preceeded 1996 and Bishop Field's appointment in 1997.
I appreciate you may not have time to read all of the Murphy Report but if you want a flavour of what was going on in the Archdiocese of Dublin from mid 90s on I have added relevant quotes from the Murphy Report below.
CHAPTER 1
1.113 In the mid 1990s, a light began to be shone on the scandal and the cover up. Gradually, the story has unfolded.
1.36 It was not until November 1995 that Archbishop Connell allowed the names of 17 priests about whom the Archdiocese had received complaints to be given to the Gardaí. This figure was not complete. At that time there was knowledge within the Archdiocese of at least 28 priests against whom there had been complaints.
CHAPTER 13
13.32 In March 1996.. Monsignor Stenson informed Mrs Collins that Fr Edmondus was not in a parish, was living in a religious house and was receiving therapy.
13.34 Fr Edmondus was in fact, contrary to assurances given to Mrs Collins, still a curate in Edenmore and was not immediately removed from ministry. Connell’s reason: the reason I did that of course was because there had been nothing against [Edmondus] for something like 30 years. It should also be noted that it is not correct to say that there had been nothing against Fr Edmondus for 30 years; there had been the concerns expressed in 1993.
13.39 The Gardaí met Monsignor Stenson in May 1996. They asked him for a copy of the Fr Edmondus file or at least for an opportunity to look at it. He refused stating he would need legal advice first. He said that canon law did not permit him to give permission for the file to be read.
13.40 Monsignor Stenson was also asked about the claim that Fr Edmondus had admitted the offence to him and a letter he wrote to Mrs Collins was shown to him. Monsignor Stenson expressed dismay on seeing the letter, saying that he would not have written that had he known that she would be handing over the letter to the Gardaí.
13.41 Despite having told Mrs Collins that Fr Edmondus had admitted to her abuse Monsignor Stenson refused to make a statement to that effect to the Gardaí.
13.48 In December 1996, Archbishop Connell met Mrs Collins and her support priest, Fr James Norman.
13.49 One of the matters that upset Marie most was the statement by Cardinal Connell that the Framework document was not binding in canon or civil law and that therefore he could follow what parts of it he wanted to follow. He claimed the Cardinal told her he had to protect the good name of the priest who had abused her.
13.78 The Commission is particularly concerned that the Archdiocese seems to have been in breach of the guideline which states: “If the bishop or religious superior is satisfied that child sexual abuse has occurred, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that the accused priest or religious does not remain in any pastoral appointment which affords access to children”.
CHAPTER 20
20.162 Mr file was revisited by the Archdiocese in 1994/1995 when clerical child sexual abuse was frequently in the headlines. In October 1995, a priest of the Archdiocese wrote to tell the Archbishop that Mr would arrive in Dublin in October 1995 and intended remaining for ten days. The Archdiocese did not tell the Gardaí that Mr was in Dublin in October 1995.
20.164 In November 1995, the Archdiocese disclosed to the Gardaí the names of 17 priests against whom complaints of sexual assault had been received. The name of was not on that list.
20.166 In 1997, the case was brought before the advisory panel. The panel recommended that the civil case should not be contested. It further recommended that the parish priests of Mr former parishes be gathered together to be briefed on what to do if anyone came in seeking help or who might need help in the future. This recommendation does not appear to have been acted on. Similarly, the abused who came forward were not told the truth. Their accounts were listened to and counselling was offered, but they were not validated or vindicated by the Archdiocese by being given the truth as the Archdiocese knew it.
20.167 Mr planned yet another visit to Dublin for June 1998. Archbishop‟s House was informed of his plans by a priest friend in January 1998. There is a memo on file which states that Monsignor Dolan, having taken legal advice, phoned the priest friend of Mr and told him:
(iii) If we become aware of his presence in Dublin we will inform the Gardaí.
20.169 Mr did arrive in Dublin in June 1998. He held a function in a hotel to which his various clerical and lay friends and family were invited. The Gardaí were not notified of his presence.
20.171 New complainants continued to emerge and further civil proceedings were issued against the Archdiocese. The diocese adopted a legalistic and defensive position in relation to the civil proceedings while at the same time offering what was described as „pastoral support‟ to the victims. Despite the growing evidence of the extent of Mr criminal behaviour and despite the Archdiocese‟s declared policy of not protecting abusers and despite the fact that his location was known within the Archdiocese, and was readily ascertainable on inquiry, the Gardaí were not notified of Mr whereabouts.
CHAPTER 26
26.28 In 1998, following a visit to Medjugorje, Fr Moore attempted to book a catholic youth hall for a weekend retreat for a number of adults and young persons whom he had met on that trip. The diocese instructed the youth organisation not to give him the hall. It was pointed out to Fr Moore that this activity was in breach of his contract with the diocese.
CHAPTER 27
27.23 Another complainant came forward in August 1997. The type of abuse alleged was of corporal punishment on his bare buttocks. It was decided in the Archdiocese that the nature of the complaint did not involve sexual abuse; consequently it concluded that there was no obligation under Church policy at the time to refer the matter to the Gardaí. In December 1997, the Gardaí recommended in relation to the August 1997 complaint: “… the Accused‟s conduct in this case was vile, despicable and probably sadistic. It comprised all but the worst elements of a bad assault in that it was brutal and had sado-sexual connotations. By stripping or partially disrobing these children they were made feel dirty, vulnerable and above all extremely ashamed. I also hold the view that the act of disrobing (and thereby indecently exposing) anyone –child or adult- amounts to an indecent assault. …
CHAPTER 30
30.13 The Dublin Archdiocese reviewed Fr Cicero‟s file in 1995 as part of its review of all cases involving child sexual abuse. Monsignor Stenson commented:
“by Framework standards it would appear that child-care issues would have arisen in respect of the children in [the parish] and this was never addressed at the time. It is clear that there was no question of the matter being reported to the Gardaí even though it would probably fall under the definition of child sexual abuse in the Framework document”. .... it seems that Bishop Forristal and Monsignor Sheehy agreed to let matters continue as they were, on the basis that there had been no incidents for many years, but that Fr Cicero should be referred for assessment.
30.27 When the Dublin Archdiocese decided to review matters in 1995 and took the decision to return Fr Cicero to Ossory, they found themselves stymied. Bishop Forristal, as he himself admits, was mainly responsible for the delays in having the priest assessed. The bishop told the Commission that his exercise of responsibility over Fr Cicero was “severely hampered by the vigour with which Monsignor Sheehy acted to preserve [Fr Cicero‟s] unofficial working function at the Tribunal and to defend his position generally”. The bishop said that, ultimately, he was persuaded by Monsignor Sheehy‟s view that Fr Cicero‟s “mental and physical wellbeing were being assured through his continuance in that role”. The Commission finds it extraordinary that Bishop Forristal and the Archdiocese allowed Monsignor Sheehy to have such influence as they had the power to have their wishes in respect of Fr Cicero implemented.
30.28 The matter was not reported to the Gardaí until April 2002 and was never reported to the health board. This was in breach of the Church‟s own guidelines.
CHAPTER 31
31.5 Bishop Murray was immediately informed and in turn contacted Archbishop‟s House in December 1988. The allegations were discussed at a meeting of the auxiliary bishops where it was decided that Fr Clemens would be given alternative accommodation in a non-parochial setting.
CHAPTER 34
34.20 In December 1997 Monsignor Stenson spoke to a local priest about the monitoring system that was supposed to be in place. The priest recalled a vague conversation with Bishop Murray but said that nothing was mentioned about a monitoring system. It would appear that the only system that was in place at that stage was one where Bishop Murray inquired from Fr Marius if he was behaving himself.
34.21 In October 1998, another complaint was made to the Archdiocese about Fr Marius. The complainant‟s doctor felt she was not physically or emotionally ready to make a formal complaint to the diocese at that time. The Archdiocese did not pursue the matter with the priest.
34.24 In February 2002, a complaint was received from a women who claimed that she had been abused by Fr Marius. The complainant later revealed that she was the same person who had reported the abuse to the parish priest in 1998. She also sought compensation for the trauma which she had suffered. She claimed that Fr Marius raped her once and sexually assaulted and attempted to penetrate her on other occasions. This abuse occurred while she was assisting with parish activities.
34.24 In May 2002, the Archdiocese notified both the Gardaí and the health board about this new complaint.
CHAPTER 35
35.29 In February 1998, the mother of one of Fr Reynolds‟s alleged victims spoke to the chancellor, Monsignor Dolan, indicating that her daughter had been sexually abused by a priest some 20 years previously. She did not give the name of the priest nor was she asked for it......the Commission finds it strange that the name of the priest was not sought. Had it been sought, Monsignor Dolan could have accessed Fr Reynolds‟s file and seen his admissions to Monsignor Stenson made almost two years earlier.
35.30 Bishop O‟Mahony had a meeting with Dr Walsh and Fr Reynolds in May 1998...he (Walsh) repeated that he should not be involved in non-structured or informal interactions with children in the parish or in school.
35.31 At this stage Fr Reynolds was still acting as chaplain in the National Rehabilitation Hospital.
35.32 Six days after Dr Walsh wrote to Bishop O‟Mahony, a social worker at a drug treatment centre contacted the chancellor, Monsignor Dolan, to tell him that a client had alleged that she had been abused by Fr Reynolds when she was nine years old.
35.33 She said she was particularly concerned because Fr Reynolds was a chaplain at the National Rehabilitation Hospital.
35.35 In July 1998, Archbishop Connell released Fr Reynolds from his duties as chaplain to the National Rehabilitation Hospital and nominated him as a beneficiary of the Diocesan Clerical Fund.
35.36 This was notified to the social worker who had approached the Archdiocese with the complaint against Fr Reynolds. She was told that he would be living in monitored retirement.
35.37 At this stage Fr Reynolds was not living in monitored retirement. He was living unmonitored first with his sister and subsequently with his stepmother.
35.40 The Archdiocese held the view that no formal complaint had been made. They therefore had not reported the matter to the Gardaí.
35.56 This case was extremely badly handled by the Archdiocese. Numerous indications of serious abuse and of admissions by Fr Reynolds were ignored. The suspicions about Fr Reynolds surfaced during his time in Glendalough in 1994. Despite the fact that the parents had no desire to go to the Gardaí or to the health board, and wished the Church to deal with the matter, it was March 1996 before any interview with Fr Reynolds was conducted. He admitted to the complaints. He stated that something similar happened in other parishes. No proper investigation was conducted into his activities in other parishes. Despite this admission he was allowed to remain on as parish priest in Glendalough until July 1997.
35.57 In the interview with Monsignor Stenson in March 1996, Fr Reynolds also admitted that his sexual orientation was towards children. A record of this interview is signed by Fr Reynolds. Again, despite this, he was given an appointment in the National Rehabilitation Hospital. This appointment gave him access to young children. Subsequently, Bishop O‟Mahony became aware that Fr Reynolds may have a problem with child sexual abuse but he does not seem to have mentioned this to anyone else in the Archdiocese or, indeed, to the hospital.
CHAPTER 42
42.3 The first complaint of sexually abusive behaviour towards a minor was made to the Gardaí in October 1995.
42.9 Fr Sergius applied for sabbatical leave in 1997 to go to a foreign diocese for two years. He was told that the Archdiocese would have to inform the foreign diocese about the complaints which had been made and the concerns which had been expressed. Archbishop Connell met Fr Sergius and told him that he would be welcome back in the Archdiocese after his two years abroad. Archbishop Connell wrote to the bishop of the foreign diocese saying that Fr Sergius was “a priest in good standing” ....but added the following reservations:
He could be aggressive in his use of language, especially if he has taken alcohol. He had had a three year involvement with a woman; this had been “dealt with and is now regarded as a thing of the past”. The Archbishop expressed the view that Fr Sergius would act responsibly but undertook to take him back immediately if this was requested. The violent nature of his relationship with the woman and the more recent general complaints were not mentioned in the letter.
42.10 The sabbatical leave was to run from September 1997 to September 1999. However, Fr Sergius returned home after just nine months. The Archdiocesan records do not show the reason for his early return. He was appointed to a parish in August 1998. It later became clear that the parish priest was not told of the problems which Fr Sergius had had in the past...
42.14 In April 2002, the parents of three altar boys complained that the boys had been physically and verbally abused by Fr Sergius.
42.21 His propensity to be sexually abusive was known to the Archdiocese so it should have been very concerned indeed about the complaints of the young girls. Bishop Ó Ceallaigh should have been informed of the full range of complaints against Fr Sergius when he was dealing with the December 1996 complaint.
42.22 His problems should have been made known to his parish priest and area bishop in 1998 and he should not have been allowed involvement with the confirmation class.
CHAPTER 43
43.3 There are three complaints or expressions of concern in relation to a trip to France by altar boys from the parish in which Fr Dante was a curate in 1985. The first was made in December 1995 .. ..One rule was that underwear could not be worn when the altar boys reached the continent, that all boys were to sleep naked and that the bathroom door was to be left open when showering so Fr Dante could “check”‟ on the boys. Punishment was to be smacking on the bare bottom. The former altar boy stated that he was once punished in this way and “something about it didn‟t feel quite right”.
43.4 The former altar boy also told Monsignor Dolan that the boys had to undress in front of Fr Dante at night and that a different boy had to sleep in the same bed as Fr Dante each night due to a shortage of beds.
43.5 In March 1997, .... Bishop Walsh concluded that the alleged incidents could be viewed as in the nature of strict discipline or containing some sort of gratification.
43.6 Monsignor Dolan concluded that the case did not pass the threshold of suspicion of child sexual abuse but he suggested, among other things, that an assessment would be appropriate.
43.7 Shortly after the meeting, it was confirmed to Monsignor Dolan that Fr Dante would be attending the Granada Institute. Fr Dante believed this would be better for him and the diocese as it would help him cope with his stress problems. He was treated in Granada for the following seven months. A psychological report ...concluded however that it would be prudent for him not to minister to children given the nature of the allegations. Fr Dante was allowed to return to ministry and was appointed curate in another parish from 1 September 1999. He did not take up the appointment due to “severe stress”. He was appointed a parish chaplain and chaplain to a hospital in July 2000. It seems that he actually carried out relatively little pastoral work in the parish because of his health problems; he did most of his work in the hospital.
43.8 Meanwhile, a second allegation was made ... In 1996, a woman informed Monsignor Dolan that there had been an incident with her son and Fr Dante when her son was ten years old. She alleged that ... had invited her son over to his house to learn about computers. On his second visit, Fr Dante allegedly invited the boy to sit on his knee. The boy refused and there was no further contact between the pair.
43.9 In late 2002, a third allegation, which was the second one concerning the trip to France in 1985, emerged. At some stage in 2002, a mother had spoken to a curate in her parish about incidents with her son during the trip to France in 1985. In December 2002, the allegations were brought to the attention of the parish priest who immediately contacted Fr Paddy Gleeson, one of the delegates at the time.
43.11 In January 2003, while the third allegation was being investigated, the parish priest spoke to the father of another altar boy. The father asked his son if he had seen anything on the trip to France. His son alleged that the boys had slept two to a bed and were made to sleep naked. He further alleged that Fr Dante had always slept with one of the boys. On a separate occasion when this boy was staying with Fr Dante, he had to undress in his presence.
43.12 The Archdiocese informed the Gardaí of the third allegation in January 2003. In a follow-up letter Fr Gleeson asked, at the request of Cardinal Connell, that the Gardaí not contact Fr Dante until the diocese had informed him of the new complaint as the Cardinal was concerned about his unstable health. The Gardaí were also told of the other allegations/expressions of concern in relation to the trip to France.
CHAPTER 48
48.30 ... the Commission is concerned about the confusion which surrounds the level of information given to the other priests in the parish to which Fr Benito was assigned in December 2003. It is clear that Bishop Field did give the parish priest some information but it was certainly not complete or sufficiently specific. For example, the parish priest was not told that there were concerns about Fr Benito‟s relationship with a boy and he was not told the age of the girl involved.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Bishop E Walsh Bishop R Field
The announcement that the offer of resignations from Bishops Eamon Walsh and Raymond Field have not been accepted by the Vatican comes as no surprise. Since the Murphy Report was published the Catholic Church in Ireland and at Vatican level has failed to take responsibility for the findings of that Report, in particular the finding that sexual abuse of children by priests was covered up by Archbishops and Bishops for decades.
We have also seen attempts by Church leaders to blame others for what they refer to as ‘the scandal’ including blaming gay men, the loss of faith, secularism and even the children themselves.
Pope Benedict and Cardinal Brady both failed to protect children from priests they knew to be abusers and in both cases those priests went on to abuse more children – in that context today’s announcement should come as no surprise to anyone.
Today’s announcement also shows how utterly meaningless was the instruction that Pope Benedict gave to Irish Bishops (Papal Letter to Irish Catholics) to identify steps that would bring healing to victims of clerical child sexual abuse – victims asked for those who were part of the governance of the Archdiocese when sexual abuse was being covered up to resign, and this is ignored.
In Ireland to day both bishops and government ministers sing from the same hymn sheet, recently complaining about a culture of blame because those of us with a genuine interest in the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children seek accountability and the taking of responsibility from people whose actions or inactions put children at risk or worse have been shown in the past to have caused the abuse of children.
It is hard to believe that after all we have learned from both Church and State failure to protect children, that such failures, whether past or present, should still invoke in some people the desire to put their own interests above the needs or welfare of others.
END 11/08/2010
We have also seen attempts by Church leaders to blame others for what they refer to as ‘the scandal’ including blaming gay men, the loss of faith, secularism and even the children themselves.
Pope Benedict and Cardinal Brady both failed to protect children from priests they knew to be abusers and in both cases those priests went on to abuse more children – in that context today’s announcement should come as no surprise to anyone.
Today’s announcement also shows how utterly meaningless was the instruction that Pope Benedict gave to Irish Bishops (Papal Letter to Irish Catholics) to identify steps that would bring healing to victims of clerical child sexual abuse – victims asked for those who were part of the governance of the Archdiocese when sexual abuse was being covered up to resign, and this is ignored.
In Ireland to day both bishops and government ministers sing from the same hymn sheet, recently complaining about a culture of blame because those of us with a genuine interest in the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children seek accountability and the taking of responsibility from people whose actions or inactions put children at risk or worse have been shown in the past to have caused the abuse of children.
It is hard to believe that after all we have learned from both Church and State failure to protect children, that such failures, whether past or present, should still invoke in some people the desire to put their own interests above the needs or welfare of others.
END 11/08/2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Humbert Summer School
I am delighted and honoured to hear that I will receive the Humbert Summer School 2010 Outstanding Merit Award at the School’s annual conference in August in Ballina, Co Mayo. It is over 15 years since I first went public about my experience of child sexual abuse at the hands of a Catholic priest, something that was very difficult for me to do at that time. My primary motivation in speaking out was my concern for the safety, welfare and protection of children who were not being protected from adults known to some authorities to be a danger. Though I believe many children are safer today because there is more general awareness of risk there is still an enormous amount of work to do. Priorities for me include –
· Children First needs to be put on a statutory basis, applying to everyone, with failure to comply being a criminal offence.
· Referendum required urgently to replace Article 42 in the Constitution as proposed by Joint Oireachtas Committee in February 2010.
· Enhance the monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders on their release back into community.
· There is need for Garda Vetting of people working with children to be extended to facilitate the passing on of soft information.
· 100% implementation of Stay Safe / SPHE / RSE.
· Minimum mandatory sentences for downloading / file sharing images of child sexual abuse.
I will continue to be an active campaigner to advance the agenda of the safety, welfare and protection of children to the best of my abilities, and once again am very grateful to the Humbert Summer School for this very generous award.
END 21/06/2010
· Children First needs to be put on a statutory basis, applying to everyone, with failure to comply being a criminal offence.
· Referendum required urgently to replace Article 42 in the Constitution as proposed by Joint Oireachtas Committee in February 2010.
· Enhance the monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders on their release back into community.
· There is need for Garda Vetting of people working with children to be extended to facilitate the passing on of soft information.
· 100% implementation of Stay Safe / SPHE / RSE.
· Minimum mandatory sentences for downloading / file sharing images of child sexual abuse.
I will continue to be an active campaigner to advance the agenda of the safety, welfare and protection of children to the best of my abilities, and once again am very grateful to the Humbert Summer School for this very generous award.
END 21/06/2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Diocese of Cloyne
I wish to express my absolute horror at the report in today’s Irish Examiner that a statement taken from someone detailing allegations of child sexual abuse by a Catholic priest may have been passed from the Child Protection Delegate in the Diocese of Cloyne to the accused priest. At the very least such an act would represent an appalling act of betrayal of the trust any alleged victim would show in bringing allegations to the attention of any Diocese in the first place.
I am pleased to learn that this allegation has been brought to the attention of the ongoing Commission of Investigation as this is a body in which I have an enormous amount of respect and trust.
I would like to take the opportunity to urge any victims of child sexual abuse by priests to seek legal advice from appropriate sources and/or support from organisations such as OneInFour rather than bring allegations to the attention of any Diocese on their own.
END 25/06/10
I am pleased to learn that this allegation has been brought to the attention of the ongoing Commission of Investigation as this is a body in which I have an enormous amount of respect and trust.
I would like to take the opportunity to urge any victims of child sexual abuse by priests to seek legal advice from appropriate sources and/or support from organisations such as OneInFour rather than bring allegations to the attention of any Diocese on their own.
END 25/06/10
Monday, May 17, 2010
CHILDREN FIRST
Within the last week -
Children’s Ombudsman Emily Logan reminded us yet again that the HSE was failing to properly implement the State’s Children First Guidelines.
Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin reminded us that strong forces within the Catholic Church still did not want the truth about the cover up of the sexual abuse of children by priests to emerge and added that there are worrying signs that despite solid regulations and norms these are not being followed throughout the Church with the rigour required.
This morning Ian Elliott of The National Board for Safeguarding Children (NBSC) within the Catholic Church reported that within some areas of the church the commitment to put the safety of children before any other considerations has been tempered by a mistaken belief that it is possible to continue with past and familiar practices. This he said has led to a reliance on a defensive legal response when complaints emerge rather than a focus on safeguarding concerns and the elimination of risk to other vulnerable young people.
And on Friday last we were treated to the sight of Minister for Children Barry Andrews defend the failure of schools to properly implement Stay Safe & SPHE programmes in schools because such schools were entitled to their religious ethos.
This failure to advance the safety, welfare and protection of children is unforgiveable given what we have learned from the publication of the Ferns, Ryan and Murphy Reports and the Reports into the deaths of Tracey Fay and David Foley.
Part of the solution to the failures these Reports expose is the placing of Children First on a statutory basis and properly enshrining the rights of children into the Constitution. I repeat my call for the Government to advance this work as a matter of urgency – its continued failure to do so to date is an absolute disgrace.
END - 17/05/2010
Children’s Ombudsman Emily Logan reminded us yet again that the HSE was failing to properly implement the State’s Children First Guidelines.
Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin reminded us that strong forces within the Catholic Church still did not want the truth about the cover up of the sexual abuse of children by priests to emerge and added that there are worrying signs that despite solid regulations and norms these are not being followed throughout the Church with the rigour required.
This morning Ian Elliott of The National Board for Safeguarding Children (NBSC) within the Catholic Church reported that within some areas of the church the commitment to put the safety of children before any other considerations has been tempered by a mistaken belief that it is possible to continue with past and familiar practices. This he said has led to a reliance on a defensive legal response when complaints emerge rather than a focus on safeguarding concerns and the elimination of risk to other vulnerable young people.
And on Friday last we were treated to the sight of Minister for Children Barry Andrews defend the failure of schools to properly implement Stay Safe & SPHE programmes in schools because such schools were entitled to their religious ethos.
This failure to advance the safety, welfare and protection of children is unforgiveable given what we have learned from the publication of the Ferns, Ryan and Murphy Reports and the Reports into the deaths of Tracey Fay and David Foley.
Part of the solution to the failures these Reports expose is the placing of Children First on a statutory basis and properly enshrining the rights of children into the Constitution. I repeat my call for the Government to advance this work as a matter of urgency – its continued failure to do so to date is an absolute disgrace.
END - 17/05/2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
CHILDREN FIRST
I wish to express my welcome for today’s report by the Office of the Ombudsman for Children into the implementation of Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children. I have long been of the view that the Children First Guidelines need to be put on a full statutory basis and the concerns raised in the Ombudsman’s Report reinforce for me the need for that course of action to be taken as a matter of absolute urgency.
Despite so many Reports in the last 12 months detailing our failure to protect children in this country we have had 2 revelations in the last 24 hours about failures to follow child protection guidelines.
Today the Children’s Ombudsman stated that insufficient efforts were made to drive forward implementation of Children First by the HSE internally and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin stated last night that within the Catholic Church there are worrying signs that despite solid regulations and norms these are not being followed with the rigour required.
It is imperative that the current Government respond to these continued failures by placing Children First on a statutory basis as a matter of urgency.
END - 11/05/2010
Despite so many Reports in the last 12 months detailing our failure to protect children in this country we have had 2 revelations in the last 24 hours about failures to follow child protection guidelines.
Today the Children’s Ombudsman stated that insufficient efforts were made to drive forward implementation of Children First by the HSE internally and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin stated last night that within the Catholic Church there are worrying signs that despite solid regulations and norms these are not being followed with the rigour required.
It is imperative that the current Government respond to these continued failures by placing Children First on a statutory basis as a matter of urgency.
END - 11/05/2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
BISHOP MORIARTY
I welcome the announcement of the acceptance of the resignation of Bishop James Moriarty by Pope Benedict. Bishop Moriarty was a Bishop in the Archdiocese of Dublin during a time when the Commission of Investigation found that the sexual abuse of children by priests was covered up by the Archdiocese and other Church authorities and so it is only fitting that anyone who was part of the governance of the Archdiocese at that time should step aside following such findings.
I am very grateful to Bishop Moriarty for the content and tone of his resignation statement today. Bishop Moriarty acknowledges that he should have challenged the prevailing culture that existed within the Archdiocese and apologises for failing to do so, this is very welcome.
His acknowledgement that ‘the long struggle of survivors to be heard and respected by church authorities has revealed a culture within the Church that many would simply describe as unchristian’ is also very welcome - and compares very favourably to Bishop Drennan calling survivors vengeful and Cardinal Brady trying to pass himself off as a wounded healer.
END - 22/04/2010
I am very grateful to Bishop Moriarty for the content and tone of his resignation statement today. Bishop Moriarty acknowledges that he should have challenged the prevailing culture that existed within the Archdiocese and apologises for failing to do so, this is very welcome.
His acknowledgement that ‘the long struggle of survivors to be heard and respected by church authorities has revealed a culture within the Church that many would simply describe as unchristian’ is also very welcome - and compares very favourably to Bishop Drennan calling survivors vengeful and Cardinal Brady trying to pass himself off as a wounded healer.
END - 22/04/2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Cardinal Bertone
Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone has stated at a press conference in Chile that there is a relationship between paedophilia and homosexuality. This is not the first time the Catholic Church has attempted to blame a small and marginalised section of society for the actions of priests who sexually abused young boys and girls and the bishops who covered up for them.
Nor is it the first time we have seen members of the Catholic Hierarchy misrepresent to the public, the views of the medical profession. For many years members of the Catholic Hierarchy claimed that they only reassigned priests who had abused children on receipt of medical advice to the effect that it was safe to do so; the Ferns, Murphy, Philadelphia Boston Reports and others, show that claim to be untrue.
My advice is that the medical profession does distinguish between pre and post pubescent paedophilia and refers to the latter as regressive paedophilia which is widely considered to me more treatable.
As someone who was sexually abused as a child and who is a gay man today, I condemn any attempts by the Catholic Church to dishonestly misrepresent medical opinion in order to continue to avoid taking responsibility for its own actions and inactions in covering up the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests.
END - 13/04/2010
Nor is it the first time we have seen members of the Catholic Hierarchy misrepresent to the public, the views of the medical profession. For many years members of the Catholic Hierarchy claimed that they only reassigned priests who had abused children on receipt of medical advice to the effect that it was safe to do so; the Ferns, Murphy, Philadelphia Boston Reports and others, show that claim to be untrue.
My advice is that the medical profession does distinguish between pre and post pubescent paedophilia and refers to the latter as regressive paedophilia which is widely considered to me more treatable.
As someone who was sexually abused as a child and who is a gay man today, I condemn any attempts by the Catholic Church to dishonestly misrepresent medical opinion in order to continue to avoid taking responsibility for its own actions and inactions in covering up the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests.
END - 13/04/2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
SPEECH TO FINE GAEL CONF 20 03 10
Good afternoon....etc...
Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak this afternoon....etc..
I have been asked recently, am I finished my campaigning? Now that the Murphy Report has been published .........am I finished?
One in five children in the care of the State does not have a social worker.
Hundreds of children in the care of the State have gone missing.
Thousands of children live in poverty.
The HSE fails its statutory obligations to children every day.
Many children leaving the care of the State quickly become homeless.
It is a criminal offence to fail to have a television licence.... but not to fail to report the abuse or neglect of a child.
Since the HSE was formed it has not published a single report into the death of a child in its care........though there have been over twenty such deaths.
And a Catholic Church which covered up the rape and sexual abuse of children for decades in this country enjoys major involvement in our national school system.... a school system in which the current government claims it has no responsibility for the safety of children.
Am I finished now that the Murphy Report has been published? No ....I’m not finished .... and I hope you’re not either....
The next Government has a huge job of work to do in order to advance the safety, welfare and protection of children. In health, in education and in the care of the state, children have been failed appallingly for many years.
The Children First Guidelines need to put on a statutory basis as a matter of urgency - the current Government’s plans do not go far enough in this regard and the promise to have legislation drafted by the end of this year does not demonstrate an appreciation of the need to enhance child protection measures now.
It is imperative too, that the rights of children are more properly protected in the Constitution, it is deplorable that the current Government cannot even guarantee to a hold referendum by the end of this year.
The monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders in Ireland is almost non-existent. Sex offenders who have served their sentences are generally released into the community without supervision, though some may be under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service. The requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 do not mean that there is any real supervision. ... and that’s not just my view, they are the words of Judge Yvonne Murphy in the Murphy Report.
There is an urgent need for changes to this system to be made ...
· Firstly, there is no actual sex offenders’ register. Released offenders simply notify the Gardai of their intended residential address. A multi-agency approach to the support and monitoring of released offenders must be developed along with a more stringent regime of signing on procedures with regular personal visits to Garda stations by released offenders.
· Secondly, those responsible for monitoring sex offenders should have the powers and the resources to make regular unannounced visits to the homes of released sex offenders.
· Thirdly, monitoring of sex offenders should include polygraph testing, electronic tagging, curfews and other restrictions, for example an offender who only ever abuses children after he/she has taken alcohol should have it as a condition of their release that they don’t consume alcohol.
· Fourthly, parents and Guardians should be able to register a concern with authorities about any individual who has access to their children about whom they are genuinely worried .......and in some cases it should be possible for them to be told if such an individual is a known sex offender or not. This measure is already being rolled out in the UK, having being piloted to great effect over the last eighteen months.... the pilot scheme in four counties saw one in ten calls to police uncover evidence of a criminal past. Out of 315 applications for information from concerned parents, details of 21 paedophiles were revealed.... these were sex offenders known to the authorities who were putting themselves in a position of having access to children again, and they were stopped because those parents could register their concerns and access this information.
· Finally, It is not appropriate to offer shorter sentences to offenders who participate in treatment programmes in prison, as the current Justice Minister has proposed – those who don’t participate voluntarily should be considered very high risk on release and should be monitored accordingly.
With regard to Garda Vetting - There is urgent need for Garda Vetting of people working with children to be extended to facilitate the passing on of soft information, organisations working with or providing services to children have called for this to be done for many years but to no avail.
And then there’s the HSE..... its inability to work in its current structure is plain for all to see..........the safety, welfare and protection of children must no longer be left in the hands of an organisation so obviously unfit for purpose. A new Department of Children, with a Minister who knows what he or she is doing, is a must for any new Government interested in seriously addressing the current broken system.
EMPOWERING CHILDREN with knowledge, confidence and language is an important part of the child protection process. The STAY SAFE and SPHE programmes within schools are a significant part of this.
· All teachers should receive a basic SPHE pre-service training as all teachers are involved in social and personal education of young people.
· There should be a module in the SPHE programme dedicated specifically to Child Safety, Welfare and Protection at post-primary level.
· Children’s knowledge of SPHE should be assessed regularly.
For how much longer must children wait for these and other child protection measures to be implemented? What more must happen before Government is persuaded of the need to radically enhance measures which are meant to lend themselves to the safety, welfare and protection of children in this country? If the next Government continues this Government’s failures, then we will listen to many more harrowing accounts well into the future as today’s and tomorrow’s children ask ..... why was I not protected by you?....................I urge you not to let that happen.....!!
Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak this afternoon....etc..
I have been asked recently, am I finished my campaigning? Now that the Murphy Report has been published .........am I finished?
One in five children in the care of the State does not have a social worker.
Hundreds of children in the care of the State have gone missing.
Thousands of children live in poverty.
The HSE fails its statutory obligations to children every day.
Many children leaving the care of the State quickly become homeless.
It is a criminal offence to fail to have a television licence.... but not to fail to report the abuse or neglect of a child.
Since the HSE was formed it has not published a single report into the death of a child in its care........though there have been over twenty such deaths.
And a Catholic Church which covered up the rape and sexual abuse of children for decades in this country enjoys major involvement in our national school system.... a school system in which the current government claims it has no responsibility for the safety of children.
Am I finished now that the Murphy Report has been published? No ....I’m not finished .... and I hope you’re not either....
The next Government has a huge job of work to do in order to advance the safety, welfare and protection of children. In health, in education and in the care of the state, children have been failed appallingly for many years.
The Children First Guidelines need to put on a statutory basis as a matter of urgency - the current Government’s plans do not go far enough in this regard and the promise to have legislation drafted by the end of this year does not demonstrate an appreciation of the need to enhance child protection measures now.
It is imperative too, that the rights of children are more properly protected in the Constitution, it is deplorable that the current Government cannot even guarantee to a hold referendum by the end of this year.
The monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders in Ireland is almost non-existent. Sex offenders who have served their sentences are generally released into the community without supervision, though some may be under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service. The requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 do not mean that there is any real supervision. ... and that’s not just my view, they are the words of Judge Yvonne Murphy in the Murphy Report.
There is an urgent need for changes to this system to be made ...
· Firstly, there is no actual sex offenders’ register. Released offenders simply notify the Gardai of their intended residential address. A multi-agency approach to the support and monitoring of released offenders must be developed along with a more stringent regime of signing on procedures with regular personal visits to Garda stations by released offenders.
· Secondly, those responsible for monitoring sex offenders should have the powers and the resources to make regular unannounced visits to the homes of released sex offenders.
· Thirdly, monitoring of sex offenders should include polygraph testing, electronic tagging, curfews and other restrictions, for example an offender who only ever abuses children after he/she has taken alcohol should have it as a condition of their release that they don’t consume alcohol.
· Fourthly, parents and Guardians should be able to register a concern with authorities about any individual who has access to their children about whom they are genuinely worried .......and in some cases it should be possible for them to be told if such an individual is a known sex offender or not. This measure is already being rolled out in the UK, having being piloted to great effect over the last eighteen months.... the pilot scheme in four counties saw one in ten calls to police uncover evidence of a criminal past. Out of 315 applications for information from concerned parents, details of 21 paedophiles were revealed.... these were sex offenders known to the authorities who were putting themselves in a position of having access to children again, and they were stopped because those parents could register their concerns and access this information.
· Finally, It is not appropriate to offer shorter sentences to offenders who participate in treatment programmes in prison, as the current Justice Minister has proposed – those who don’t participate voluntarily should be considered very high risk on release and should be monitored accordingly.
With regard to Garda Vetting - There is urgent need for Garda Vetting of people working with children to be extended to facilitate the passing on of soft information, organisations working with or providing services to children have called for this to be done for many years but to no avail.
And then there’s the HSE..... its inability to work in its current structure is plain for all to see..........the safety, welfare and protection of children must no longer be left in the hands of an organisation so obviously unfit for purpose. A new Department of Children, with a Minister who knows what he or she is doing, is a must for any new Government interested in seriously addressing the current broken system.
EMPOWERING CHILDREN with knowledge, confidence and language is an important part of the child protection process. The STAY SAFE and SPHE programmes within schools are a significant part of this.
· All teachers should receive a basic SPHE pre-service training as all teachers are involved in social and personal education of young people.
· There should be a module in the SPHE programme dedicated specifically to Child Safety, Welfare and Protection at post-primary level.
· Children’s knowledge of SPHE should be assessed regularly.
For how much longer must children wait for these and other child protection measures to be implemented? What more must happen before Government is persuaded of the need to radically enhance measures which are meant to lend themselves to the safety, welfare and protection of children in this country? If the next Government continues this Government’s failures, then we will listen to many more harrowing accounts well into the future as today’s and tomorrow’s children ask ..... why was I not protected by you?....................I urge you not to let that happen.....!!
PASTORAL LETTER
I have read the ‘Pastoral Letter’ from the leader of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI. The context is of course inappropriate, as by its very definition a pastoral letter is addressed only to practicing Catholics and so ignores many other people who may in some way have been affected by this issue. A pastoral letter is not the way to respond to the Ferns, Ryan & Murphy Reports detailing the rape, abuse and sexual abuse of children by priests and religious in this country and its cover up by Church authorities.
As I had anticipated the letter also fails to address any of the issues raised by myself and others in our open letter to the Pope last month, in advance of the Irish Bishops’ trip to Rome. Our requests were straightforward and easily actionable:
That Pope Benedict, on behalf of the Catholic Church, articulate full acceptance of the findings of the Murphy Report.
That Pope Benedict accept the resignations of Bishops Moriarty, Walshe, and Field without delay.
That Pope Benedict remove Bishop Martin Drennan from office.
That Pope Benedict request the resignations of any other Bishops, who know that their own handling of allegations of child sexual abuse in their own Dioceses, would not stand up to the same scrutiny that the Dioceses of Ferns and Dublin have had e.g. Cardinal Sean Brady...
That Pope Benedict issue all returning Bishops with an expressed instruction to follow all Sate guidelines and protocols as they exist, and as they are further developed, in relation to the safety, welfare and protection of children.
All of this has been ignored, again. There has been no owning of the Catholic Church’s part in causing the sexual abuse of so many children by protecting paedophile priests. Instead Pope Benedict has repeated his apology for the hurt caused to those abused by abused but the Church’s role is referred only as failing to deal with criminal and sinful acts. The Catholic Church did not fail to act – it acted very clearly to protect itself and leave other children to pay the price. Pope Benedict goes on to propose a path of healing, renewal and reparation. It takes a certain level of arrogance to cause the sexual abuse of children and then put yourself forward as part of the healing process.
Over the next few days I can give a more considered response to this letter, but on first reading it has failed to address this issue at all seriously.
As things currently stand, the Catholic Church in Ireland and globally is led by Cardinal Sean Brady and Pope Benedict respectively, both of whom failed to protect children from priests known to them be a danger to children. If the Catholic Church wants to have any credibility moving forward from this point that situation must change.
END - 20/03/2010
As I had anticipated the letter also fails to address any of the issues raised by myself and others in our open letter to the Pope last month, in advance of the Irish Bishops’ trip to Rome. Our requests were straightforward and easily actionable:
That Pope Benedict, on behalf of the Catholic Church, articulate full acceptance of the findings of the Murphy Report.
That Pope Benedict accept the resignations of Bishops Moriarty, Walshe, and Field without delay.
That Pope Benedict remove Bishop Martin Drennan from office.
That Pope Benedict request the resignations of any other Bishops, who know that their own handling of allegations of child sexual abuse in their own Dioceses, would not stand up to the same scrutiny that the Dioceses of Ferns and Dublin have had e.g. Cardinal Sean Brady...
That Pope Benedict issue all returning Bishops with an expressed instruction to follow all Sate guidelines and protocols as they exist, and as they are further developed, in relation to the safety, welfare and protection of children.
All of this has been ignored, again. There has been no owning of the Catholic Church’s part in causing the sexual abuse of so many children by protecting paedophile priests. Instead Pope Benedict has repeated his apology for the hurt caused to those abused by abused but the Church’s role is referred only as failing to deal with criminal and sinful acts. The Catholic Church did not fail to act – it acted very clearly to protect itself and leave other children to pay the price. Pope Benedict goes on to propose a path of healing, renewal and reparation. It takes a certain level of arrogance to cause the sexual abuse of children and then put yourself forward as part of the healing process.
Over the next few days I can give a more considered response to this letter, but on first reading it has failed to address this issue at all seriously.
As things currently stand, the Catholic Church in Ireland and globally is led by Cardinal Sean Brady and Pope Benedict respectively, both of whom failed to protect children from priests known to them be a danger to children. If the Catholic Church wants to have any credibility moving forward from this point that situation must change.
END - 20/03/2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
CARDINAL BRADY
This morning Cardinal Sean Brady confirmed that he has no intention of resigning at this time. In response I say that if the Catholic Church in Ireland is to be led by a man who accurately reflects it in its current state, then perhaps it is only right and fitting that it be led by a man who has participated in the cover up of the sexual abuse of children by a priest.
END - 17/03/2010
END - 17/03/2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
IRISH INDEPENDENT 15 03 2010
That sick feeling I’ve had in my stomach on and off since the Murphy Report was published last November is back. And I’m angry. In 1975 When Cardinal Sean Brady was a priest investigating allegations of child sexual abuse against Father Brendan Smyth he had the children who made the allegations sign a document to say that their allegations and his investigation would be kept secret. Today Sean Brady says that that does not mean he covered up those sexual abuse allegations. Yes it does. He says Brendan Smyth was no longer allowed to be a priest. Yes he was. He just wasn’t a priest of the Diocese, but he was still a priest, with all of the access to children that such a position gave him. What Sean Brady did was to participate in a process which removed Smyth as a problem, a liability, for the Diocese. But that process did nothing to remove Smyth from having access to more children who he went on to sexually abuse.
People are livid with anger listening to Sean Brady’s pathetic excuses in the last couple of days. He says he was not the designated person to report the matter to the authorities – this is self serving nonsense. He was an intelligent man, highly enough regarded by the Catholic Church to conduct this investigation in the first place. He allowed himself to be part of a process whereby the Church did investigate these matters internally instead of reporting them to the civil authorities. That process blatantly failed, as it was destined to do, because the motivation behind it was the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal and the protection of the reputation of the Church. Other children paid the price for that failure and Sean Brady should step aside not least out of respect for the experiences of children who were sexually abused after that time in 1975.
Father Ivan Payne did enormous damage to me when he sexually abused me as a child. For many years I carried the hurt and pain that that caused me and my life fell apart. In time I turned things round again for myself and I feel that I live my personal life very much, though not entirely, free of that hurt and pain. When the Murphy Report was published I was deeply saddened at the thoughts of so many other children sexually abused by priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin. I was furious to read of so many of those children abused by priests that the Archdiocese knew to be a danger to children.
I expected to see Bishops who were part of the governance of the Archdiocese at any time between 1975 and 2004 immediately offer to stand aside. To me it was irrelevant the extent to which individual Bishops were named or not named, so horrendous were the accounts of sexual abuse of children, I thought Bishops would be so shamed that so much of it was covered up on their watch that they would go immediately. Instead we were treated to the sight of one Bishop after another attempt to minimise his own role and refer to the Report as containing nothing that should cause him to have to resign.
Bishop Moriarty said he was not directly criticised in the Report, Bishop Drennan said there was nothing negative about him either, Bishop Field said he’d done nothing wrong, Bishop Walsh said if he had done any wrong he’d be gone and Bishop Murray said he never deliberately or knowingly sought to cover up or withhold information brought to my attention.
None of them seemed to be at all moved by experiences so many children had at the hands of abusing priests. Didn’t they care? No they didn’t. Paragraph 1.35 of the Murphy Report describes the bishops’ attitude as they covered up for paedophile priests: “There was little or no concern for the welfare of the abused child or for the welfare of other children who might come into contact with the priest.” (That sentence could have been written for Sean Brady). Judging from the sight of Bishops as they obscenely attempted to cling onto office they had no more concern for the welfare of adult men and women who demanded they account and take responsibility for what they had done, and what they had failed to do, as they had for those same men and women when they were little children whose lives were being devastated by known paedophile priests.
Bishop Murray has since resigned. Bishops Moriarty, Walshe and Field offered their resignations to Pope Benedict before Christmas 2009 but they have not yet been accepted and we don’t know that they will be. Bishop Drennan not only refuses to meet victims of clerical sexual abuse, but he adds insult to injury by describing victims as being hard to move on from a position of seeking revenge. Such insulting comments don’t bring up hurt and anger from when I was a child. I am hurt and angry today to see Catholic Bishops so intent on clinging onto office that they disregard and disrespect the experiences of children sexually abused by priests by describing us as vengeful and unreasonable and unrealistic in our expectations. When Bishops consider the extent to which children were sexually abused by known paedophile priests and still shrug off calls for resignations it’s as if they are saying such matters are not important enough to cause them to have to resign.
Cardinal Sean Brady is doing the very same thing now, he knows children were sexually abused after 1975, when he was aware of Brendan Smyth’s activities, but he says that his failure to protect those children from Smyth isn’t a serious enough matter to cause his resignation. Yes it is.
People are livid with anger listening to Sean Brady’s pathetic excuses in the last couple of days. He says he was not the designated person to report the matter to the authorities – this is self serving nonsense. He was an intelligent man, highly enough regarded by the Catholic Church to conduct this investigation in the first place. He allowed himself to be part of a process whereby the Church did investigate these matters internally instead of reporting them to the civil authorities. That process blatantly failed, as it was destined to do, because the motivation behind it was the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal and the protection of the reputation of the Church. Other children paid the price for that failure and Sean Brady should step aside not least out of respect for the experiences of children who were sexually abused after that time in 1975.
Father Ivan Payne did enormous damage to me when he sexually abused me as a child. For many years I carried the hurt and pain that that caused me and my life fell apart. In time I turned things round again for myself and I feel that I live my personal life very much, though not entirely, free of that hurt and pain. When the Murphy Report was published I was deeply saddened at the thoughts of so many other children sexually abused by priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin. I was furious to read of so many of those children abused by priests that the Archdiocese knew to be a danger to children.
I expected to see Bishops who were part of the governance of the Archdiocese at any time between 1975 and 2004 immediately offer to stand aside. To me it was irrelevant the extent to which individual Bishops were named or not named, so horrendous were the accounts of sexual abuse of children, I thought Bishops would be so shamed that so much of it was covered up on their watch that they would go immediately. Instead we were treated to the sight of one Bishop after another attempt to minimise his own role and refer to the Report as containing nothing that should cause him to have to resign.
Bishop Moriarty said he was not directly criticised in the Report, Bishop Drennan said there was nothing negative about him either, Bishop Field said he’d done nothing wrong, Bishop Walsh said if he had done any wrong he’d be gone and Bishop Murray said he never deliberately or knowingly sought to cover up or withhold information brought to my attention.
None of them seemed to be at all moved by experiences so many children had at the hands of abusing priests. Didn’t they care? No they didn’t. Paragraph 1.35 of the Murphy Report describes the bishops’ attitude as they covered up for paedophile priests: “There was little or no concern for the welfare of the abused child or for the welfare of other children who might come into contact with the priest.” (That sentence could have been written for Sean Brady). Judging from the sight of Bishops as they obscenely attempted to cling onto office they had no more concern for the welfare of adult men and women who demanded they account and take responsibility for what they had done, and what they had failed to do, as they had for those same men and women when they were little children whose lives were being devastated by known paedophile priests.
Bishop Murray has since resigned. Bishops Moriarty, Walshe and Field offered their resignations to Pope Benedict before Christmas 2009 but they have not yet been accepted and we don’t know that they will be. Bishop Drennan not only refuses to meet victims of clerical sexual abuse, but he adds insult to injury by describing victims as being hard to move on from a position of seeking revenge. Such insulting comments don’t bring up hurt and anger from when I was a child. I am hurt and angry today to see Catholic Bishops so intent on clinging onto office that they disregard and disrespect the experiences of children sexually abused by priests by describing us as vengeful and unreasonable and unrealistic in our expectations. When Bishops consider the extent to which children were sexually abused by known paedophile priests and still shrug off calls for resignations it’s as if they are saying such matters are not important enough to cause them to have to resign.
Cardinal Sean Brady is doing the very same thing now, he knows children were sexually abused after 1975, when he was aware of Brendan Smyth’s activities, but he says that his failure to protect those children from Smyth isn’t a serious enough matter to cause his resignation. Yes it is.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
CARDINAL BRADY
It is no surprise that yet another member of the Irish Catholic Hierarchy, Sean Brady, has been found to have been involved in covering up the sexual abuse of children by a Catholic priest, in this case Brendan Smyth. This afternoon Cardinal Brady has confirmed he has no intention of resigning. This brings to 5 the number of those within the Irish Catholic Hierarchy who are known to have been involved in the cover up of the sexual abuse of children by priests, either by acts of commission or omission.
Each of these men, Sean Brady, Martin Drennan, James Moriarty, Raymond Field and Eamon Walshe are all still serving Bishops ( despite Moriarty, Field and Walshe having offered their resignations to Pope Benedict towards the end of 2009 ). They are Bishops in a Church which the Murphy Report reminds us ‘is not only a religious organisation but a human civil instrument of control and power... a significant secular power with major involvement in education and health’...and it says ‘the Church ought to have some regard to secular requirements in its choice of leader’ (Chapter 1 Para 55).
Given the Catholic Church’s role as a secular power and its role in our publicly funded services, the Irish Government’s silence is most inappropriate. It is not good enough for Taoiseach Brian Cowen to hide behind the Bishops’ role as religious leaders as he did when the Murphy Report was published - he must be asked to explain to the Irish people, why each of these Bishops has not been asked by him to remove themselves from any role within our health and education services.
END 14/03/2010
Each of these men, Sean Brady, Martin Drennan, James Moriarty, Raymond Field and Eamon Walshe are all still serving Bishops ( despite Moriarty, Field and Walshe having offered their resignations to Pope Benedict towards the end of 2009 ). They are Bishops in a Church which the Murphy Report reminds us ‘is not only a religious organisation but a human civil instrument of control and power... a significant secular power with major involvement in education and health’...and it says ‘the Church ought to have some regard to secular requirements in its choice of leader’ (Chapter 1 Para 55).
Given the Catholic Church’s role as a secular power and its role in our publicly funded services, the Irish Government’s silence is most inappropriate. It is not good enough for Taoiseach Brian Cowen to hide behind the Bishops’ role as religious leaders as he did when the Murphy Report was published - he must be asked to explain to the Irish people, why each of these Bishops has not been asked by him to remove themselves from any role within our health and education services.
END 14/03/2010
CARDINAL SEAN BRADY
In 1975 Cardinal Sean Brady (then Father Sean Brady) was part of a process within the Catholic Church which investigated allegations of child sexual abuse against Father Brendan Smyth. Subsequent to this process Father Smyth was allowed to continue in ministry and he went on to abuse many more children. In 1994 he was convicted of sexually abusing children some of whom were abused after that process in 1975 of which Cardinal Brady was part.
In December 2009 when pressure was mounting on other Irish Bishops following publication of the Murphy Report, Cardinal Brady was quite clear that he would resign if it was found that any child had been sexually abused as a result of a failure on his part. The time has now come for Cardinal Brady to own that failure, respect the experiences of those who were abused because of it, and resign.
There will of course be no pressure from Rome on Cardinal Brady to resign, as other revelations in recent days make it clear that the Vatican is now something of a glasshouse.
END 14/03/2010
In December 2009 when pressure was mounting on other Irish Bishops following publication of the Murphy Report, Cardinal Brady was quite clear that he would resign if it was found that any child had been sexually abused as a result of a failure on his part. The time has now come for Cardinal Brady to own that failure, respect the experiences of those who were abused because of it, and resign.
There will of course be no pressure from Rome on Cardinal Brady to resign, as other revelations in recent days make it clear that the Vatican is now something of a glasshouse.
END 14/03/2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
BISHOPS’ SPRING CONFERNECE
On Saturday 13th February this year, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin told me that there was only one thing worse than the Bishops being disunited – and that was the Bishops being united, because they would unite around the lowest common denominator. He was right about that, though he was wrong to stoop to their level.
Since the Irish Catholic Bishops came back from Rome they have engaged in the most dishonest and reprehensible spinning of the truth. There has been a collective attempt by the Bishops to portray those of us who were sexually abused as children by priests as unreasonable in our expectations, as people who now live ‘in pain’ and as people who are to be helped though life by the prayers of those same Bishops who caused the sexual abuse of more children by covering up for paedophile priests.
Maeve Lewis of One In Four, Marie Collins and myself had asked for some issues to be included on the agenda during the Bishops’ meeting with Pope Benedict last month. They were:
That Pope Benedict articulate full acceptance of the findings of the Murphy Report.
That Pope Benedict accept the resignations of Bishops Moriarty, Walshe & Field.
That Pope Benedict remove Bishop Drennan from office.
That Bishops, who admitted in their December 2009 statement, that the cover up of clerical child sexual abuse revealed in Dublin was indicative of a culture that existed in other Dioceses throughout Ireland, consider their own positions.
That all remaining Bishops are instructed by Pope Benedict to follow all state child protection guidelines and laws as they exist and as they are further developed.
As the Bishops gather in Maynooth this week for their spring conference, they might consider explaining what is exaggerated and unreasonable about these points.
END - 08/03/2010
Since the Irish Catholic Bishops came back from Rome they have engaged in the most dishonest and reprehensible spinning of the truth. There has been a collective attempt by the Bishops to portray those of us who were sexually abused as children by priests as unreasonable in our expectations, as people who now live ‘in pain’ and as people who are to be helped though life by the prayers of those same Bishops who caused the sexual abuse of more children by covering up for paedophile priests.
Maeve Lewis of One In Four, Marie Collins and myself had asked for some issues to be included on the agenda during the Bishops’ meeting with Pope Benedict last month. They were:
That Pope Benedict articulate full acceptance of the findings of the Murphy Report.
That Pope Benedict accept the resignations of Bishops Moriarty, Walshe & Field.
That Pope Benedict remove Bishop Drennan from office.
That Bishops, who admitted in their December 2009 statement, that the cover up of clerical child sexual abuse revealed in Dublin was indicative of a culture that existed in other Dioceses throughout Ireland, consider their own positions.
That all remaining Bishops are instructed by Pope Benedict to follow all state child protection guidelines and laws as they exist and as they are further developed.
As the Bishops gather in Maynooth this week for their spring conference, they might consider explaining what is exaggerated and unreasonable about these points.
END - 08/03/2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
ARCHBISHOP MARTIN
I wish to express my huge disappointment at the meeting that took place today between Archbishop Diarmuid Martin and some survivors of child sexual abuse by priests in Dublin. Diarmuid Martin certainly came across as a very different man to the man I met last Saturday in advance of his trip to Rome. I put it to him that he appeared to have had his wings clipped in Rome and that this might go some way to explaining why his fellow Bishops seemed so happy on their return to Ireland; Diarmuid Martin preferred the view that it was more likely because they were delighted to have met Pope Benedict as most of them had never met him before.
Despite no reference in the Vatican Statement of 16th February 2010 to any of the points we submitted in advance of the Rome meeting, or indeed to some of those submitted by other survivors, Diarmuid Martin was not of the view that our views had been ignored but could provide no evidence to the contrary.
Diarmuid Martin accepted the Vatican Statement that all Bishops come back from Rome ‘to speak with one voice’ despite saying last Saturday that the only thing worse than disunity amongst the Bishops was unity amongst the Bishops, as they would unite around the lowest common denominator.
Diarmuid Martin saw no difficulty with the Vatican Statement saying Bishops should ‘identify concrete steps aimed at bringing healing to those who had been abused’. We had identified our requirements in advance of the Rome meeting, had conveyed them to Pope Benedict and to Diarmuid Martin and they had been ignored. Is Martin Drennan a man fit to identify steps that would bring healing to victims?
Diarmuid Martin could not explain why he thought it was appropriate for Bishop Drennan to remain in office, though he did agree with the Murphy Report that just because the Catholic Church produced guidelines in 1996, that did not mean that all cases were dealt with properly after that time.
END - 19/02/2010
Despite no reference in the Vatican Statement of 16th February 2010 to any of the points we submitted in advance of the Rome meeting, or indeed to some of those submitted by other survivors, Diarmuid Martin was not of the view that our views had been ignored but could provide no evidence to the contrary.
Diarmuid Martin accepted the Vatican Statement that all Bishops come back from Rome ‘to speak with one voice’ despite saying last Saturday that the only thing worse than disunity amongst the Bishops was unity amongst the Bishops, as they would unite around the lowest common denominator.
Diarmuid Martin saw no difficulty with the Vatican Statement saying Bishops should ‘identify concrete steps aimed at bringing healing to those who had been abused’. We had identified our requirements in advance of the Rome meeting, had conveyed them to Pope Benedict and to Diarmuid Martin and they had been ignored. Is Martin Drennan a man fit to identify steps that would bring healing to victims?
Diarmuid Martin could not explain why he thought it was appropriate for Bishop Drennan to remain in office, though he did agree with the Murphy Report that just because the Catholic Church produced guidelines in 1996, that did not mean that all cases were dealt with properly after that time.
END - 19/02/2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
BISHOP DRENNAN
In response to many media inquires this morning with regard to Bishop Martin Drennan’s insistence on not standing aside because there is nothing in the Murphy Report to cause him to, I can only reiterate that the Archdiocese of Dublin continued to mishandle cases of child sexual abuse against priests long after Bishop Drennan became an auxiliary Bishop in 1997. The extent to which Bishop Drennan is mentioned in the Report or not is irrelevant, like Bishop Moriarty he was part of the governance of the Archdiocese and therefore should have challenged the culture that existed there. Below I have detailed some of the behaviour revealed in the Murphy Report published almost 3 months ago. It should also be remembered that resignations are not just about ‘healing’, they are also about taking responsibility for what one has done, or failed to do, in a way requested by those you have offended against, not on one’s own terms.
END - 16/02/2010
END - 16/02/2010
IRISH BISHOPS IN ROME
Two days of talks between 24 Irish Catholic Bishops and Pope Benedict and his senior officials have ended. It would appear that submissions made by some survivors of sexual abuse by priests have been completely ignored, specifically:
Pope Benedict has not articulated full acceptance of the findings of the Murphy Report, as we asked him to do, in order to quell the rise in revisionism and the surge in denial from some quarters within the Catholic Church in relation to its findings.
Bishops Moriarty, Walshe, and Field have not yet had their resignations accepted.
Bishop Martin Drennan has not been removed from office despite doing nothing to challenge the culture of cover up that existed in the Archdiocese of Dublin when he became a Bishop there in 1997.
Bishops, who stated in December 2009 that the culture of cover up as revealed in the Murphy Report about the Archdiocese of Dublin indicated a culture that was widespread throughout the Catholic Church in Ireland, have not offered to resign out of respect for the experiences of children who suffered as a result of that very culture.
And Bishops returning to Ireland do not appear to have come back from Rome with an expressed instruction from Pope Benedict to follow all Sate guidelines and protocols as they exist, and as they are further developed, in relation to the safety, welfare and protection of children.
It would appear that self preservation and damage limitation for the Catholic Church is still a higher priority for Pope Benedict and the Bishops than the concerns and wishes of people who had been sexually abused as children by priests in the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin over many decades, and that hardly represents change. I can only conclude that the Catholic Church remains a disgraced, discredited organisation that seems to be entirely incapable of responding in any intelligent, meaningful way to the findings of the Ferns, Ryan and Murphy Reports.
END - 16/02/2010
Pope Benedict has not articulated full acceptance of the findings of the Murphy Report, as we asked him to do, in order to quell the rise in revisionism and the surge in denial from some quarters within the Catholic Church in relation to its findings.
Bishops Moriarty, Walshe, and Field have not yet had their resignations accepted.
Bishop Martin Drennan has not been removed from office despite doing nothing to challenge the culture of cover up that existed in the Archdiocese of Dublin when he became a Bishop there in 1997.
Bishops, who stated in December 2009 that the culture of cover up as revealed in the Murphy Report about the Archdiocese of Dublin indicated a culture that was widespread throughout the Catholic Church in Ireland, have not offered to resign out of respect for the experiences of children who suffered as a result of that very culture.
And Bishops returning to Ireland do not appear to have come back from Rome with an expressed instruction from Pope Benedict to follow all Sate guidelines and protocols as they exist, and as they are further developed, in relation to the safety, welfare and protection of children.
It would appear that self preservation and damage limitation for the Catholic Church is still a higher priority for Pope Benedict and the Bishops than the concerns and wishes of people who had been sexually abused as children by priests in the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin over many decades, and that hardly represents change. I can only conclude that the Catholic Church remains a disgraced, discredited organisation that seems to be entirely incapable of responding in any intelligent, meaningful way to the findings of the Ferns, Ryan and Murphy Reports.
END - 16/02/2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
IRISH INDEPENDENT MARY KENNY
In her column in this newspaper last Saturday Mary Kenny chose to make reference to my spiritual life. She pitied me for having no spiritual element in my life, assuming it consisted only of the material and was therefore bland and unimaginative.
Mary Kenny has of course never met me, never phoned me, never asked for a meeting or an interview over coffee, never tried to contact me in any way to ask me about anything. Until now I have made little or no reference in public to what spiritual life I do have, so she had absolutely no information on which to base her opinion. What she did have was the most contemptible arrogance to assume to know enough to write about it anyway. A more ignorant, condescending pouring out of sanctimonious drivel I have not read in a long time.
All Kenny knew was that I had completed the formal process of defecting from the Catholic Church and from that one single fact she assumed to know everything else, next week she’ll probably preach to us all she knows about humility. Thousands of others have chosen to leave the Catholic Church too but, unlike Kenny, I don’t assume to know all of their reasons.
I have been a Catholic in name only for many years but after all I have seen of the Church in recent times I decided I did not want that organisation in my life anymore, not even in name only. To assume, as Kenny does, that I therefore have no spirituality in my life is truly reprehensible.
I am crossing a line here I haven’t crossed before but Kenny’s vitriolic nonsense last Saturday cannot go unchecked. Almost 13 years ago I tried to stop drinking, having tried twice before and failed. I had been an active alcoholic for 14 years by then and was quite a mess at the end of it all. Anything I did, in all those years I was drinking, was done with a drink in my hand. I lived at about 10% of what I was capable of and I struggled to do even that. When I stopped drinking I had to learn how to live without it. I had to learn how to be. How to get through a whole day without getting drunk. How to pass an evening. How to enjoy music. How to conduct friendships properly. How to relax at the end of a day’s work. How to socialise and meet people sober. How to watch tv or read a book.
I also learned that I could not do all of this by myself. I had friends who themselves had crossed the bridge from addiction to normal living, but more was needed. Over time as I slowly became a happy confident able man I accepted that I was receiving more help than that of friends. I came to believe in a power greater than myself and came to believe that that power was helping me to stay sober and helping me learn to live happily, because I had never been able to do that on my own unaided will. I chose to call that power the Spirit of Recovery, that which keeps me sober.
It didn’t come easy or natural for me to start believing in any such power but as time in recovery passed my belief in a power greater than myself grew and deepened. Instead of believing that a higher power was just helping me stay sober I believed that it was helping me in all areas of my life. As a friend of mine says ‘he’s looking after all of it, or none of it.’ I see my higher power as a loving caring essence in my life that wants me to be well, happy and living a good life.
Today I try to hand my will and my life over to the care of that higher power every morning before I leave the house in order that my actions and thoughts might be guided by my higher power’s will for me. At night I review my day and thank my higher power for everything including the fact that I didn’t drink. I ask my higher power to look after other people too, just like I used to ask God to do when I was a little boy lying in bed thinking I would one day be a priest.
But of course I don’t need to be a priest to believe in a power greater than myself, spirituality is not the preserve of practising Catholics and having a sense of oneself that extends beyond the physical and the material is not an understanding exclusive to the obnoxious Mary Kenny. And the next time she chooses to write about other people she should afford them the courtesy of getting her facts right first, and keep her patronising pity to herself.
Mary Kenny has of course never met me, never phoned me, never asked for a meeting or an interview over coffee, never tried to contact me in any way to ask me about anything. Until now I have made little or no reference in public to what spiritual life I do have, so she had absolutely no information on which to base her opinion. What she did have was the most contemptible arrogance to assume to know enough to write about it anyway. A more ignorant, condescending pouring out of sanctimonious drivel I have not read in a long time.
All Kenny knew was that I had completed the formal process of defecting from the Catholic Church and from that one single fact she assumed to know everything else, next week she’ll probably preach to us all she knows about humility. Thousands of others have chosen to leave the Catholic Church too but, unlike Kenny, I don’t assume to know all of their reasons.
I have been a Catholic in name only for many years but after all I have seen of the Church in recent times I decided I did not want that organisation in my life anymore, not even in name only. To assume, as Kenny does, that I therefore have no spirituality in my life is truly reprehensible.
I am crossing a line here I haven’t crossed before but Kenny’s vitriolic nonsense last Saturday cannot go unchecked. Almost 13 years ago I tried to stop drinking, having tried twice before and failed. I had been an active alcoholic for 14 years by then and was quite a mess at the end of it all. Anything I did, in all those years I was drinking, was done with a drink in my hand. I lived at about 10% of what I was capable of and I struggled to do even that. When I stopped drinking I had to learn how to live without it. I had to learn how to be. How to get through a whole day without getting drunk. How to pass an evening. How to enjoy music. How to conduct friendships properly. How to relax at the end of a day’s work. How to socialise and meet people sober. How to watch tv or read a book.
I also learned that I could not do all of this by myself. I had friends who themselves had crossed the bridge from addiction to normal living, but more was needed. Over time as I slowly became a happy confident able man I accepted that I was receiving more help than that of friends. I came to believe in a power greater than myself and came to believe that that power was helping me to stay sober and helping me learn to live happily, because I had never been able to do that on my own unaided will. I chose to call that power the Spirit of Recovery, that which keeps me sober.
It didn’t come easy or natural for me to start believing in any such power but as time in recovery passed my belief in a power greater than myself grew and deepened. Instead of believing that a higher power was just helping me stay sober I believed that it was helping me in all areas of my life. As a friend of mine says ‘he’s looking after all of it, or none of it.’ I see my higher power as a loving caring essence in my life that wants me to be well, happy and living a good life.
Today I try to hand my will and my life over to the care of that higher power every morning before I leave the house in order that my actions and thoughts might be guided by my higher power’s will for me. At night I review my day and thank my higher power for everything including the fact that I didn’t drink. I ask my higher power to look after other people too, just like I used to ask God to do when I was a little boy lying in bed thinking I would one day be a priest.
But of course I don’t need to be a priest to believe in a power greater than myself, spirituality is not the preserve of practising Catholics and having a sense of oneself that extends beyond the physical and the material is not an understanding exclusive to the obnoxious Mary Kenny. And the next time she chooses to write about other people she should afford them the courtesy of getting her facts right first, and keep her patronising pity to herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)