IRISH INDEPENDENT 27 11 09

I was a little emotional on Prime Time on Thursday night. No one was more surprised than I was, I’m more used to being composed and articulate. But even though I had anticipated the essence of the Murphy Report, I will never get used to reading about priests ( or any adults ) ‘swimming nude with young boys in a swimming pool in the back garden’, ‘photographing children in sexual postures alone and in groups’, ‘liking physical intimacy with children’, ‘knocking a boy unconscious’, ‘kissing young girls in confession’ or ‘putting a hand down the trousers of a nine year old girl’. To read chapter after chapter of this disgusting behaviour is deeply upsetting for anyone with any regard for the safety and welfare of a beautiful child, as all children are.

As if this wasn’t upsetting enough we then read about what action was taken when bishops and priests were notified of the above abusive behaviour. The Report finds that after allegations were received, bishops and priests 1)encouraged one abusing priest to ‘stay on (in the parish) for a further six months in order to avoid any damage to his reputation’, 2)found that no canonical crime had been committed by the photographing of naked sick children in hospital, 3)conducted a marriage ceremony so a priest could marry a woman who he had sexually abused since the age of 13, 4)misled the medical profession about the extent of priests’ abusing in order to secure a favourable report and 5) worst of all used such ‘useless’ medical reports to justify sending paedophile priests out to new parishes where they carried on abusing more children.

When I was 17 years old I told our school guidance counsellor Ken Duggan that I had been abused by Father Ivan Payne for nearly three years up to aged 14. Ken Duggan reported my allegation to Archbishop’s House and Archbishop Ryan delegated responsibility for managing the allegation to Bishop Dermot O’Mahony. Some months later it was reported back to Ken Duggan that Father Payne had accepted that my allegations were true and he was eventually removed from our church in Cabra where I had been an altar boy. Bishop O’Mahony referred Father Payne to Professor Noel Walsh for assessment: unfortunately he said there had been a complaint from a 17 year old about inappropriate contact with Father Payne. He totally failed to mention that I was 17 now but the inappropriate contact was actually molestation, and had occurred when I was aged 12-14.

Shortly after this pretence of being referred for a medical assessement, Father Payne was moved to his new parish in Sutton. The Murphy Report finds that he abused at least 7 more boys after that time, though a total of 31 people made allegations against him. This, for me, is the worst single fact that has come out of this Report time and time again. Whether they manipulated information and medical professionals to get favourable but useless medical reports or wrote favourable letters of reference for paedophile priests moving onto other dioceses, they are absolutely responsible for the abuse of every child after that point. Listening to Archbishop Martin’s speech at Mater Dei on Thursday, which was printed in full in this newspaper yesterday, there is not one word of apology for this, and there should have been.

IRISH EXAMINER

I am still reeling from the sadness, shock and revulsion I felt on reading the Murphy Report since last Thursday. It is important to read the Report over time and fully appreciate the extent of what has happened in the Dublin Archdiocese in recent decades. It is also necessary to consider what should happen now and who should act. People ask me do I think the Catholic Church in Ireland will change? I don’t know and I don’t care. What needs to change is our government’s attitude to the Catholic Church and that’s not likely to change this side of the next General Election. The current office holders’ inappropriate deference to the Catholic Church, manifested in its disinclination from 1998-2002 to have this Inquiry, is only matched by their incompetence in eventually setting it up which took them a full 31/2 years 2002-2006.

Now the Commission has finished its work in Dublin, there are calls for it to investigate every other Diocese in the country besides Ferns ( already investigated ) and Cloyne ( investigation currently underway ). I support such calls. The first Dioceses investigated should be those which are led by a bishop who is named in the Murphy Report and found to have mishandled allegations of sexual abuse while auxiliary bishop in Dublin. It is quite reasonable to assume that bishops who engaged in a culture of calculated cover up of sexual abuse in Dublin, will have done the very same in any Diocese he is subsequently transferred to. I think it is also reasonable to assume that what has been revealed in Ferns and Dublin would be typical of practices and patterns of behaviour most likely to be found in any other Diocese in the country and victims in those Dioceses are surely entitled to the same process Ferns and Dublin have ‘enjoyed’. That alone would be a very good reason to ask the Commission to investigate the other Dioceses coupled with the fact that for many victims the full exposition of the truth is the only justice they may ever receive.

There is a second HSE audit of the Dioceses currently underway; so incompetent was the work of the HSE in its first ‘audit’ that it is now itself the subject of an investigation by the Children’s Ombudsman Emily Logan. Anyone who still has faith in the HSE’s ability to do anything besides waste money should read Emily Logan’s report into the care of non-Irish national children living in the care of the Irish state – they are failed every day of the week – and it’s almost 2010.

In July of this year Children’s Minister Barry Andrews published as 99 point plan in response to the Ryan Report. This needs to be implemented urgently though social workers working with children tell me he’s living on a cloud very near one Mary Harney lives on when she describes our hospitals in such glowing terms. Our national guidelines for protecting children are not on a statutory basis and Barry Andrew’s attempts to pretend that he’s changing this fools no one: he only wants to make compliance with the guidelines a statutory duty on any organisation in receipt of public funds ( this would exempt bishops for example ) and non-compliance would not actually be a criminal offence just a breach of employment contract. So not reporting knowledge of the abuse of a child would be less serious than not having a television licence, and Minister Andrews calls this progress!

The rights of children have to be enshrined in the constitution so that their rights as individuals have its protection and it is time the government presented the wording and a date for that referendum. The monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders in Ireland is almost non-existent, this needs to be resourced and improved considerably. Who is going to bring about such much needed change?

The next General Election will be unique in that in will be proceeded by these three shocking Reports which are testament to much, including this country’s failure to protect children to date. That failure would continue if we had all forgotten what response these Reports called for by the time of the next General Election. To show that political parties haven’t forgotten and are committed to raising standards of child protection dramatically after the next Election, I would expect the all the Parties’ next manifestos to reflect how seriously they take this matter and to have children’s welfare, rights and protection as a centrepiece of their policies for their first five years in Government. I very much hope I will not be disappointed as I have had quite enough of that in the last twelve years.

Response to Murphy Report

Today I would like to welcome the publication of the Commission of Investigation’s Report into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against priests operating in or under the aegis of the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.

It is worthy of note that it is almost 14 years since I first moved information into the public domain to the effect that the Catholic Church in Dublin had a practice of moving priests with a record of child sexual abuse into other parishes in the Diocese, a practice which clearly put other children at great risk. It is almost 11 years since I first wrote to then Taoiseach Ahern requesting an inquiry into this practice and only now is the State ready to publish a report detailing how such allegations of child sexual abuse by priests were handled. This inability to respond more efficiently does not say much for the State’s attitude to the protection, welfare and rights of children. Those who turn a blind eye to these offences are as much a part of the problem as those who actually commit them. Looking the other way causes more children to be sexually abused.

With regard to the report itself I would like to start by thanking Judge Yvonne Murphy and her team for their very hard work in conducting this investigation and producing this report.

No matter how much I may have already known or anticipated I was nonetheless shocked by the content of this report. This report details consistent practices by the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin to cover up child sexual abuse and cause children to be sexually abused by priests that should never have been allowed to continue in ministry.

Many times in the past the Archdiocese has claimed that such priests were only reappointed following medical advice to the effect that it was safe to do so. Repeatedly in recent years the Catholic Church has claimed that it felt very let down by that medical advice.

The truth, as spelled out in this report, shows that in many cases the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin misled the medical professionals it referred offending priests to and even when it received recommendations to send priests for residential rehabilitation or remove them from having access to children this medical advice was ignored.

Never again should the Catholic Church in Ireland attempt to blame others for its own decisions to reassign priests who were clearly a danger to children. Furthermore anyone who believes that what has been revealed in Ferns and Dublin has not happened elsewhere in the country is not living in reality, so vigilance at all times with an institution that has been so reckless with the welfare of children in the past is vital.

As a society we need to respond to the publication of this shocking report by working harder to raise standards of child protection. These are the measures that I believe are needed:

(It should be acknowledged that since the publication of the Ferns Report an offence of an act of reckless endangerment to children was incorporated into the Criminal Justice Bill, so much of the behaviour revealed in the Dublin Report would today attract criminal prosecution.)

The 99 point plan announced by Minister Barry Andrews in July of this year needs to be implemented in full and on time. The time frame given for some of the changes to be made go as far as December 2011 which is strangely generous and implementation must be monitored by all to ensure that the agenda doesn’t slip once media attention is focused elsewhere. I would have preferred if non compliance with Children First was a criminal offence instead of a breach of contract but in time we will see if the new arrangements are strong enough. There is also no mention of a duty to report by any member of the public who may have concerns or even knowledge about physical or sexual abuse of a child or child neglect. In short the Children First guidelines need to be put on a statutory basis and should include a statutory responsibility on every person to report knowledge, suspicion or reasonable grounds for concern of abuse or neglect of a child.

The rights of children have to be enshrined in the constitution so that their rights as individuals have its protection and it is time the government presented the wording and a date for that referendum. It should specifically reflect the following:

The inclusion of an express reference to the rights of children, and to the special and vulnerable nature of childhood, asserting that all children must be treated equally.

The right to have their voices heard and to be represented in any proceedings affecting their welfare.

The right to be protected from abuse and exploitation.

The right to appropriate alternative care outside the family where needed. Also included should be obligations on the State:

To supply that care, but always with due regard to the rights and welfare of the child.

To promote their welfare fairly.

To safeguard with special care the interests of children who are disadvantaged by economic, social or cultural exclusion, or by disability, and to support parents as far as practicable who cannot meet their children’s needs unaided.

The monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders in Ireland is almost non-existent. Some changes have been made to the current system but much more is needed:

The fact of being on the sex offenders register should involve more stringent signing on procedures with regular personal visits to Garda stations by released offenders.

Those responsible for monitoring sex offenders should make regular unannounced visits to the homes of people on the sex offenders register.

Parents and Guardians should be able to register a concern about an individual who they may be concerned about and in some cases it should be possible for them to be told if such an individual is a registered sex offender or not. This measure is already at an expanded pilot level in the UK.

Monitoring of sex offenders should include polygraph testing, electronic tagging, curfews and certain 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.

It is not appropriate to offer shorter sentences to offenders who participate in treatment programmes in prison – those who don’t participate voluntarily should be considered very high risk on release and should be monitored accordingly.

Vetting of adults working with children – there is need for Garda Vetting of people working with children to be extended to facilitate the passing on of soft information, this could possibly be done by amending the Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act, 1998.

In conclusion this Report is a shocking indictment on the Catholic Church in Dublin. Its publication may bring closure for some victims, it may also serve as the only justice some victims ever receive, but its publication if not acted upon will have been a wasted opportunity to raise standards of child protection in this country.

DUBLIN ABUSE REPORT

I wish to condemn in the strongest possible terms the leaking of some details of the Commission of Investigation’s Report into how allegations of child sexual abuse against priests were handled by the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin and agencies of the State between 1975 and 2004. It is wholly inappropriate that those of us who have worked so hard over the years to ensure that the Government held this Inquiry should now be reading extracts of the Report in a Sunday newspaper before we have even been notified of a date and time for publication.

I am also particularly annoyed as I wrote to Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern TD in July of this year requesting that I be given an embargoed copy of the Report 24 hours before its eventual publication and this request was refused. It is inappropriate that any victim should have been denied this request only to then read details of the Report in today’s Sunday Independent.

DUBLIN ABUSE REPORT

I very much welcome the Judgement from Mr. Justice Gilligan in the High Court this afternoon. It is now clear that this judgement requires that only references to the person identified in Chapter 20 have to be removed from the Report but most of this important Chapter will be published. It is vital that both the actions of the former Eastern Health Board and the Gardaí be investigated alongside the actions of the Catholic Church in their handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against priests and publication of most of this Chapter lends itself to this.

It is now imperative that the Government publish this report before the end of next week at the latest, as publishing any later than that would be inappropriate given the upcoming budget on 9th December and I urge Justice Minister Ahern to attend to this matter without delay or fault.

DUBLIN ABUSE REPORT

I wish to condemn in the strongest possible terms the government's decision to delay publication of the Report into sexual abuse by priests in Archdiocese of Dublin by referring the matter back to the High Court today. The government has had this report since July 2009. It has had plenty of time to read it, detail its concerns over ongoing criminal proceedings and present them to the High Court on two separate occasions.

Last Thursday the High Court issued a very clear order regarding publication which a child could have understood and have actioned within an hour, but a full week later Minister Barry Andrews announces that there is 'a material fact that wasn't brought to the attention of the High Court', and so they are having to go back. If the government had made a competent presentation to the High Court originally it would not have to now return to the court with its material fact it didn't present first time round.

I am reminded of the incompetence and snail's pace of progress I observed as I watched the Department of Justice fumble and stumble its way through every stage of setting up the Dublin Commission of Investigation as a full three and a half years went by. It beggars belief that this government has found yet another example of its incompetence to parade in front of the country as if it wasn't already plain for all to see.

CARDINAL CONNELL

Shame on Cardinal Connell. The Archdiocese of Dublin made a promise to victims of clerical sexual abuse, to the people of Dublin whose taxes are paying for the Commission of Investigation, to the Government and to the Commission itself that it would co-operate fully with the Commission of Investigation which was eventually set up in 2006 to investigate how allegations of child sexual abuse by priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin were handled, regardless of who those allegations were made to.

Now Cardinal Connell is running to the High Court in an attempt to get in the way of some of its work. This is not at all acceptable behaviour. Seemingly the Cardinal is now claiming that the current Archbishop of Dublin Dr Diarmuid Martin had no right to hand over all the documentation that the Commission had requested from him as this documentation includes legal advice which the Cardinal had sought and he believes this somehow entitles him to some personal privilege in relation to these documents. It is hard to imagine that the Cardinal as a legal leg to stand on.

When he sought legal advice in handling allegations of child sexual abuse against Dublin priests he did so in his capacity as Archbishop of Dublin and so it should follow that the advice and any documentation relating to it belongs to the Archdiocese and not to the Cardinal. Indeed if this was personal legal advice to the Cardinal why were the papers still in Archbishop’s House long after the Cardinal retired? And who paid the legal bill – the Cardinal personally or the Archdiocese?

I have read reports into child sexual abuse by priests in the Archdioceses of Boston and Philadelphia. In reading these reports it becomes very clear that the statutory investigations into these Archdioceses enjoyed full access to any documentation they required to properly ascertain whether allegations were handled properly or not. If Cardinal Connell were to be successful in his legal action in the High Court there is a risk that his claim for privilege with legal documentation could spread into other areas.

What happens if the Cardinal runs back to the High Court next week and claims that any medical reports he received on paedophile priests should also be blocked from the Commission of Investigation’s eyes? The Catholic Church in Dublin and elsewhere has for many years repeated its mantra that offending priests were only ever returned to ministry (with further access to children) after the Church had received medical advice that it was perfectly safe to do so. Any Inquiry into how allegations against such priests were handled must surely be in a position to ask the Church to produce documentary evidence of such medical advice. What will Cardinal Connell do then?

It is imperative that such claims can be examined thoroughly – In Boston and Philadelphia such claims did not stand up to much scrutiny. In those published reports it was revealed that both of those Dioceses used various tactics to enable them to claim that they had sound medical advice to the effect that it was safe to re-appoint a priest with a record of child sexual abuse. In one case where a priest admitted to the sexual abuse of a child he claimed to have a problem with alcohol. The Diocese sent the priest for treatment for his alcoholism (declining to advise the treatment centre of the priest’s sexual abuse of a child) and then sent him back out to his work as a priest. Yes the priest had “received treatment” but he was not safe to be put back in a position where he had access to children just because he had done a stint at an alcohol treatment centre. On another occasion a priest was sent for treatment after confirming that one allegation of sexual abuse against him was true. During his time in treatment many other allegations of child sexual abuse were made against him but these were never passed on to the people treating him and so they did not have a clear picture of the nature and extent of abuse committed by the priest they were treating. Those reports also revealed that all too often priests who had admitted sexually abusing children were sent to treatment centres controlled by the Catholic Church. This practice was strongly criticised by the Inquiry because it gave the Diocesan leaders inappropriate influence in the production of medical reports. In went on to give the example of one Bishop who instructed staff in a treatment centre not to use the word paedophile in any report about an offending priest. That Bishop then spent several years claiming on the public record that he had never returned a known paedophile priest to ministry even though he had indeed returned to ministry many priests with a record of sexually abusing children.
And so it is in the Archdiocese of Dublin that all documentation relating to how allegations of child sexual abuse by priests were handled should be handed over to the Commission of Investigation in order for it to properly ascertain if those allegations were handled properly and if not why not – and Cardinal Connell should be ashamed of himself for attempting to block that process.