BISHOP Magee offered to promote a priest accused of molesting a girl after the priest threatened to sue him for defamation.
In a move described by the commission as "shocking,"
Bishop Magee said he offered the priest the position of parish priest
of an "insignificant parish" that he knew he would decline but had to
make the offer because the priest was putting him under pressure.
The priest, referred to as Fr Ronat, has been the subject of a number of criminal and civil actions and the chapter in the report dealing with him is heavily redacted.
The priest, referred to as Fr Ronat, has been the subject of a number of criminal and civil actions and the chapter in the report dealing with him is heavily redacted.
However, it is clear that a complaint was made
about him to another priest and subsequently a parish priest in the
diocese in 1989 but nothing was done about it.
In 1995, the same girl and her parents met with Bishop Magee and he ordered a canonical investigation but only one interview was carried out and the commission said of the resulting report: "It is not an impartial recording of the facts."
There were discussions in 1995 about promoting Fr Ronat, a move ruled out at that time because of the fear it would prompt the complainant to take further action, although the offer was later made to him "under pressure" in 1999. The commission said the diocese was "more concerned about causing scandal than about protecting children".
It was also proposed that Fr Ronat take leave to have counselling and qualify in "some neutral area of pastoral care" but this did not happen.
In 1995, the same girl and her parents met with Bishop Magee and he ordered a canonical investigation but only one interview was carried out and the commission said of the resulting report: "It is not an impartial recording of the facts."
There were discussions in 1995 about promoting Fr Ronat, a move ruled out at that time because of the fear it would prompt the complainant to take further action, although the offer was later made to him "under pressure" in 1999. The commission said the diocese was "more concerned about causing scandal than about protecting children".
It was also proposed that Fr Ronat take leave to have counselling and qualify in "some neutral area of pastoral care" but this did not happen.
The commission said: "The question of informing
the gardaí does not seem to have been considered."
He was meant to be under restricted ministry but he continued to attend confirmations.
The first civil proceedings began in 2000 but they were not pursued. Questions about Fr Ronat emerged again in 2002 when there were proposals for a national audit of clerical child sex abuse cases and one complainant sought assurances she would not be named if this happened.
He was meant to be under restricted ministry but he continued to attend confirmations.
The first civil proceedings began in 2000 but they were not pursued. Questions about Fr Ronat emerged again in 2002 when there were proposals for a national audit of clerical child sex abuse cases and one complainant sought assurances she would not be named if this happened.
She also wanted a guarantee that Fr Ronat would not come near her or
her family.
Complaints were made to the gardaí in 2003 and 2005 and another civil action was commenced.
Complaints were made to the gardaí in 2003 and 2005 and another civil action was commenced.
Fr Ronat was removed from
ministry, although publicly he was allowed to retire on the grounds of
ill-health.
Monsignor O’Callaghan advised colleagues how to answer any
potential Garda inquiries.
"Minimal is the key in any statement."
In 2006, a parishioner expressed concern about Fr Ronat, who it was felt was continuing to represent himself as a priest in good standing.
In 2006, a parishioner expressed concern about Fr Ronat, who it was felt was continuing to represent himself as a priest in good standing.
The commission said it was clear he was "not being monitored in any
meaningful way" and that "the bishop’s control over him was limited".
In
2007, Bishop Magee discovered him living in a vacant parish house
despite being told not to.
It was not until 2009 that the matter was
referred to Rome but the commission said there appeared still to be no
canonical inquiry.