Bishop Magee's claim that children's safety is his priority is not borne out by church report. WHAT EMERGED last Friday about the handling of clerical child sex abuse allegations in Cloyne diocese has set public perception of the Catholic Church's commitment to child protection back years.
Following publication of the Church's National Board for Safeguarding Children (NBSC) in Ireland report, you would imagine that it was still the late 1980s, where this devastating issue is concerned. At least in Cloyne.
It is as if the Church's 1996 guidelines, updated in 2000 and again in 2005, never existed. It is as if child protection measures put in place in all dioceses, including Cloyne, was just so much window dressing. It is as if the Ferns Inquiry never took place.
The Bishop of Cloyne, Most Rev John Magee, could not be unaware of any of these. He has been a member of the Irish Bishops' Conference since 1987.
In 1996, when discussing her abuse in 1960 by a Dublin priest with Cardinal Connell, then Archbishop of Dublin, Marie Collins was told by him that church guidelines on clerical child sex abuse were "only guidelines", not binding in canon law, and did not have to be followed. Fr James Norman, who was at that meeting, corroborated all of this.
Fr Norman had been appointed Marie Collins's "support person" by the archdiocese in accordance with the 1996 guidelines after she first made complaints in 1995 about abuse by Fr Paul McGennis.
Fr Norman also confirmed Mrs Collins's claim that Cardinal Connell had accused her of trying to ruin Fr McGennis's good name over something that had happened 30 or 40 years before.
Fr Norman further confirmed that everyone at that meeting knew Fr McGennis had admitted the abuse in interviews earlier that year with Mgr Alex Stenson, chancellor of the archdiocese. The archdiocese refused to confirm that admission to gardaí, on confidentiality grounds.
The Dublin archdiocese has moved on. Cloyne, it seems, did not. At least until this summer.
According to the NBSC report, in December 2004 a priest there reported to Bishop Magee that he had been abused as a child but did not name the perpetrator. In May 2005 the priest named his abuser, another priest of the diocese. Four months later Bishop Magee met the accused, who resigned.
It was not until November 19th, 2005, six months after the Cloyne authorities were first made aware of the abuser priest's name, that gardaí were informed. Cloyne only supplied the name of the victim. Gardaí were not told that the accused was also a priest of the diocese. Church guidelines, going back to 1996, all advise that civil authorities be informed immediately of allegations.
The NBSC report also found "the failure to name the alleged perpetrator to the gardaí was not exceptional" in Cloyne diocese. It continued: "Indeed, it is described as 'their normal practice' by the Bishop in a signed minute of a meeting which took place on May 25th, 2006" concerning that case.
It also found "glaringly absent any references to the need to protect vulnerable young people and to act in a timely and effective way to achieve this end." The only concern appeared to be for the alleged abuser priest.
"The suggestion is noted that the option of retirement to the accused might be offered if appropriate," the report noted. And that is what happened.
The report wondered about the objectivity of the management committee which dealt with the case, as all its members except one were clergy. This, the report concluded, raised issues "about the objectivity of the advice that this group offered". And although the accused Fr A had regular contact with children, there was "no evidence in the case papers that any attempt was made to identify any other possible victims amongst those young people".
The first sex abuse allegations against the other accused priest referred to in the NBSC report, Fr B, were made by a girl through her father, to the diocese in early 1995. A series of meetings took place about it through that year and doubts were raised about the "quality of the alleged abuse".
The garda was not told.
A second allegation was made about Fr B in September 1996, by an adult woman concerning B's relationship with her teenage son.
On December 9th, 1997, another girl alleged sex abuse by B, while he heard her confession. B, a career guidance teacher, was placed on restrictive ministry by Bishop Magee. In January 2003 the woman who had complained about the abuse of her teenage son by B repeated her allegations.
Gardaí were contacted then for the first time, eight years after the first allegation.
In November 2005 another woman alleged she had been raped regularly by Fr B from the age of 13 until 18. In January 2006 Bishop Magee outlined how this might be reported to the Garda.
As the NBSC report put it, "it is clear from the papers contained in the file that the policy of the diocese in their contacts with the gardaí was to give 'minimal' information. In particular, it is indicated that no information was to be volunteered in respect of any previous complaints involving this priest [Fr B]."
Last Friday Bishop Magee claimed that "the safety of children is the priority for me and for the diocese of Cloyne". Given what has been disclosed in the NBSC report, who can possibly believe that this is the case?
Archdiocese of Dublin Statement
THE ARCHBISHOP of Dublin Dr Diarmuid Martin notes that as a result of an investigation carried out by the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church, a situation has been reached in relation to a specific diocese in which the national board now feels that agreed procedures regarding child protection are adequately in place with the full co-operation of that diocese.
The archbishop is, however, extremely concerned at the fact that within a purported "one- Church-policy" there may in fact be a wide diversity in the interpretation and application of agreed procedures.
This is of particular concern for the archdiocese of Dublin where hundreds of priests from outside the diocese - from other dioceses and religious congregations - play an active role in many aspects of church life in the archdiocese of Dublin.
Having regard to that, the archdiocese is aware of and appreciates the unique role that a single, independent national office can play, as is evident in the current situation.
For example, a single diocese would not have the same ability to elicit conformity of practice from a wide range of Church bodies.
Archbishop Martin has made it known both to the Irish Bishops' Conference and to the national board that if serious doubts were to persist concerning the coherence and consistency of approach in any system, he would find it necessary to implement his own system of accountable child protection.
Therefore, while continuing for the moment to apply norms compliant with "Children First", "Our Children Our Church" and any guidelines published by the national office, Archbishop Martin awaits to be satisfied by the national board, through reasonable written assurance, that all dioceses and religious congregations have committed themselves to a common system and are applying it in a uniform way.
The archdiocese would be in better position to assess the situation were it to know something of the results of the audit, commissioned by the HSE in the aftermath of the Ferns report, of all dioceses and religious congregations in the Republic of Ireland.
No further information has been received on the status of that audit since it was launched two years ago.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
(Source: IT)