THE commission found there was no concern shown for the
protection of children in the case of a priest who received an 18-month
suspended sentence after pleading guilty to one of three counts of gross
indecency last year.
Allegations against Fr Caden were first made in
December 2004 by another priest named as "Patrick", who said he was
abused by Fr Caden when he attended a vocations workshop when he was
aged about 16.
The commission found that because the complainant was a priest, both Bishop John Magee and his diocesan child abuse delegate, Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan, hoped for a reconciliation between the two.
"They hoped that the complaint could be managed within the Church without the involvement of the state authorities," it states.
The view taken by the bishop and the monsignor coloured their approach to the handling of the complaint and effectively guaranteed non-compliance with the child protection measures that were purportedly applied in the diocese.
"It is clear that their concern was for the institution of the Church, the diocese and the accused priest. There was no concern shown for the protection of children," it says.
The commission found that the diocesan records relating to allegations against Fr Caden were unclear, and some were deliberately misleading.
Bishop Magee has admitted that he created two versions of his September 22 meeting with Fr Caden.
The commission says other documents do not record the full truth.
Not only was the reporting to the gardaí delayed and lacking in basic information, but Bishop Magee and Msgr O’Callaghan did not co-operate with the Garda investigation in 2006.
The commission notes that Bishop Magee considers he did co-operate with the gardaí subject to the privilege in law which he believed to exist.
"Bishop Magee and Msgr O’Callaghan seem to have immediately come to the opinion in 2005 that Fr Caden did not constitute any continuing threat to children. They had no basis for this."
Bishop Magee disputes the suggestion that he immediately came to the opinion that Fr Caden did not constitute any continuing threat to children.
The commission found that because the complainant was a priest, both Bishop John Magee and his diocesan child abuse delegate, Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan, hoped for a reconciliation between the two.
"They hoped that the complaint could be managed within the Church without the involvement of the state authorities," it states.
The view taken by the bishop and the monsignor coloured their approach to the handling of the complaint and effectively guaranteed non-compliance with the child protection measures that were purportedly applied in the diocese.
"It is clear that their concern was for the institution of the Church, the diocese and the accused priest. There was no concern shown for the protection of children," it says.
The commission found that the diocesan records relating to allegations against Fr Caden were unclear, and some were deliberately misleading.
Bishop Magee has admitted that he created two versions of his September 22 meeting with Fr Caden.
The commission says other documents do not record the full truth.
Not only was the reporting to the gardaí delayed and lacking in basic information, but Bishop Magee and Msgr O’Callaghan did not co-operate with the Garda investigation in 2006.
The commission notes that Bishop Magee considers he did co-operate with the gardaí subject to the privilege in law which he believed to exist.
"Bishop Magee and Msgr O’Callaghan seem to have immediately come to the opinion in 2005 that Fr Caden did not constitute any continuing threat to children. They had no basis for this."
Bishop Magee disputes the suggestion that he immediately came to the opinion that Fr Caden did not constitute any continuing threat to children.