THE BISHOP of Galway Martin Drennan has declined to answer queries from The Irish Times arising from his response to four questions posed by this newspaper, to which he replied last Friday.The fourth of those questions asked: “Was he aware of the legal stance adopted by the archdiocese against (clerical child sex abuse victims) Martha and Mary after they initiated legal action in 2001? If so, did he do anything about it?”
He responded “I was not aware of the legal stance taken.”
Bishop Drennan was an auxiliary bishop of Dublin from September 1997 to July 2005. Two articles in this newspaper, published on June 9th and 10th 2003, gave details of the abuse to which Martha and Mary (pseudonyms) were subjected as children by Fr Noel Reynolds and of the legal stance adopted by the Dublin archdiocese. The details were repeated in another article, titled “Pushing credibility beyond belief”, in this paper on June 14th, 2003.
The archdiocese argued then that, as it was not a legal entity, no claims could be made against it by the sisters. It denied it was the priest’s employer or had any supervisory role regarding him. It claimed the then archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell, was not responsible in law for any wrongdoings by Fr Reynolds and said wrongs alleged against him were criminal acts and were not a part of his duties. (In 1998 these wrongs were admitted by Fr Reynolds to church authorities in Dublin).
The supplementary query put to Bishop Drennan last Monday was: “As details of the cases of Martha and Mary were in the public domain for two years of his period as an Auxiliary Bishop of Dublin and prior to his installation in Galway (July 2005), did Bishop Drennan take: (a) any action on their cases; (b) query the legal stance of the archdiocese towards them; and (c) if not, why not?”
Yesterday a spokesman for Bishop Drennan said “he will not be answering any further questions relevant to the Dublin report”. There was a similar response to an additional verbal query also put to Bishop Drennan, through his spokesman last Monday. It concerned the funeral of Fr Reynolds in 2002.
As also reported in The Irish Times in June 2003, Martha had attended that funeral. When she heard that Fr Reynolds had died (on April 29th, 2002), she felt she had to be sure. The funeral was private and took place at the oratory in Roebuck House nursing home, on Dublin’s south side, where the priest had died. Martha was accompanied there by a professional who was helping with her recovery programme and who believed this was necessary for Martha’s recovery.
They “blagged” their way in, Martha said. When she saw Fr Reynolds in the coffin she was convinced it was him, even noticing the missing joint on one of his fingers with which he used to perform magic tricks for her and Mary when they were young children.
But she was astonished at the attendance. “Over 50 priests and a bishop. We counted them,” she said. Asked again yesterday whether the bishop referred to was Bishop Drennan, his spokesman repeated that the bishop would not be answering any further questions relevant to the Murphy report.
The area of the Dublin archdiocese in which Roebuck House nursing home is located was within Bishop Drennan’s jurisdiction as an auxiliary bishop of Dublin. However, a priest who attended the funeral of Fr Reynolds told The Irish Times yesterday he wasn’t sure the bishop present was Bishop Drennan. He suggested the name of another bishop as also a possibility.
On December 23rd last, announcing his decision to offer his resignation to Pope Benedict XVI, the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin Jim Moriarty said: “The Murphy report covers far more than what individual bishops did or did not do. Fundamentally it is about how the leadership of the archdiocese failed over many decades to respond properly to criminal acts against children.”
He concluded that “with the benefit of hindsight, I accept that, from the time I became an auxiliary bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture”.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us 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 we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
SIC: IT