Auxiliary Bishop Eamonn Walsh has a long history in relation to the Church and its response to clerical child sex abuse.
In 2009 Bishop Walsh became the centre of media attention in the wake of the Murphy Report on an investigation conducted by the Government into the sexual abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Dublin found that the archdiocese had dealt “extremely badly” with allegations against Fr Noel Reynolds.
The report said Bishop Walsh in the 1990s had advised an alleged victim of the priest to write to a clerical chancellor and that he did not report the allegations to Gardai.
However, Bishop Walsh was not the focus of the main criticisms made of senior members of the Hierarchy in the Archdiocese of Dublin made in the Murphy Report.
Overall, the report claimed the archdiocese’s investigation of complaints against Fr Reynolds was extremely bad as numerous indications of abuse and admissions by the priest were ignored.
However, it made no specific observation on Bishop Walsh’s involvement.
The Commission said complaints against another priest known as ‘Fr Dante’ (a pseudonym used in the report) which involved Bishop Walsh were dealt with appropriately.
Bishop Walsh initially rejected calls for his resignation at the bishops’ conference in early December 2009, following criticism in the fallout from the report.
Dublin clerical child sex abuse victim Marie Collins had called on the bishop to resign not because of the way he handled individual cases but because has was “part of the regime that facilitated abusing priests to carry on abusing and did nothing to stop it or expose it”.
“If I had done any wrong, I’d be gone. And the other thing is that my record on child protection goes back a long way and it’ll continue,” Bishop Walsh said at the time.
A few days later he said it would be an injustice if he was forced to resign, but conceded he would take this action if he became “a block on the gospel”.
In a letter written by Bishop Walsh a week before his resignation, the bishop outlined in detail a defence of his career in the diocese and of his personal dignity.
Bishop Walsh rejected in the letter the notion of resignation on the grounds of what he termed “guilt by association”.
''If anyone attributes such guilt to me, he or she does without foundation, and against the findings of the Dublin Report,” he said.
The letter also claimed that Archbishop Martin had backed both Dublin Auxiliary Bishops Walsh and Ray Field at a priests' conference in Citywest in early December 2009, a claim which was later clarified by the Archbishop's press office that he had confidence “in their ministry”, but did not go further.
After Archbishop Martin apparently failed to give them him his total support and against a backdrop of media pressure, both auxiliary bishops announced their resignation on December 24, 2009.
In a joint statement Walsh and Field said they hoped their resignations “may help to bring the peace and reconciliation of Jesus Christ to the victims/survivors of child sexual abuse”.
“We again apologise to them,” the bishops said.
Bishop Walsh’s new appointment as Episcopal Vicar for Clergy has now left priests and laity alike puzzled as to where Archbishop Martin stands on his previously held opinion.
Does the Archbishop now have full confidence in his auxiliary bishop?
And if so, what has made him change his mind?
With some clergy admittedly ‘mystified’ by the appointment, perhaps now would be a good time and opportunity for the Archbishop to make his apparent new found confidence in his auxiliary bishop publically known.
In 2009 Bishop Walsh became the centre of media attention in the wake of the Murphy Report on an investigation conducted by the Government into the sexual abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Dublin found that the archdiocese had dealt “extremely badly” with allegations against Fr Noel Reynolds.
The report said Bishop Walsh in the 1990s had advised an alleged victim of the priest to write to a clerical chancellor and that he did not report the allegations to Gardai.
However, Bishop Walsh was not the focus of the main criticisms made of senior members of the Hierarchy in the Archdiocese of Dublin made in the Murphy Report.
Overall, the report claimed the archdiocese’s investigation of complaints against Fr Reynolds was extremely bad as numerous indications of abuse and admissions by the priest were ignored.
However, it made no specific observation on Bishop Walsh’s involvement.
The Commission said complaints against another priest known as ‘Fr Dante’ (a pseudonym used in the report) which involved Bishop Walsh were dealt with appropriately.
Bishop Walsh initially rejected calls for his resignation at the bishops’ conference in early December 2009, following criticism in the fallout from the report.
Dublin clerical child sex abuse victim Marie Collins had called on the bishop to resign not because of the way he handled individual cases but because has was “part of the regime that facilitated abusing priests to carry on abusing and did nothing to stop it or expose it”.
“If I had done any wrong, I’d be gone. And the other thing is that my record on child protection goes back a long way and it’ll continue,” Bishop Walsh said at the time.
A few days later he said it would be an injustice if he was forced to resign, but conceded he would take this action if he became “a block on the gospel”.
In a letter written by Bishop Walsh a week before his resignation, the bishop outlined in detail a defence of his career in the diocese and of his personal dignity.
Bishop Walsh rejected in the letter the notion of resignation on the grounds of what he termed “guilt by association”.
''If anyone attributes such guilt to me, he or she does without foundation, and against the findings of the Dublin Report,” he said.
The letter also claimed that Archbishop Martin had backed both Dublin Auxiliary Bishops Walsh and Ray Field at a priests' conference in Citywest in early December 2009, a claim which was later clarified by the Archbishop's press office that he had confidence “in their ministry”, but did not go further.
After Archbishop Martin apparently failed to give them him his total support and against a backdrop of media pressure, both auxiliary bishops announced their resignation on December 24, 2009.
In a joint statement Walsh and Field said they hoped their resignations “may help to bring the peace and reconciliation of Jesus Christ to the victims/survivors of child sexual abuse”.
“We again apologise to them,” the bishops said.
Bishop Walsh’s new appointment as Episcopal Vicar for Clergy has now left priests and laity alike puzzled as to where Archbishop Martin stands on his previously held opinion.
Does the Archbishop now have full confidence in his auxiliary bishop?
And if so, what has made him change his mind?
With some clergy admittedly ‘mystified’ by the appointment, perhaps now would be a good time and opportunity for the Archbishop to make his apparent new found confidence in his auxiliary bishop publically known.