ANALYSIS:Bishop Donal Murray's lack of action resulted in the destruction of many young lives
WHEN BISHOPS start talking about heads on plates you know it is the specific spectre of John the Baptist they seek to conjure up – the forces of vindictive secularism in the shape of wicked Herod and his wanton progeny hounding the saintly prophet to his doom.
Bishop Willie Walsh should know better. The head on a plate he referred to on radio yesterday morning is that of his fellow bishop Donal Murray, currently under siege for his mishandling of complaints of child sexual abuse by priests during the period up to 1996 during which Bishop Murray was an auxiliary bishop in the Dublin archdiocese.
Bishop Murray is no John the Baptist. He is a man whose lack of action resulted in the destruction of many young lives. His failure to protect children in no fewer than three dioceses from the sexual assaults of paedophile priest Thomas Naughton is not just “inexcusable”, as the Dublin report puts it, it is unconscionable.
In his quite shocking radio interview, Bishop Walsh stated that there had been “a gross misreading” of the Dublin diocesan report with regard to the role of Bishop Murray. He then added that he hadn’t read it himself, but that someone had told him this.
On this basis, he saw fit to address the nation, putting his own considerable reputation on the line for his colleague. He says we should look at the facts.
Well, they are as follows, all carefully documented contemporaneously and meticulously examined by the commission which compiled the Dublin diocesan report.
In 1983, two parishioners told Bishop Murray that local curate Fr Thomas Naughton was “too close to the altar boys”. The bishop told the commission that he interpreted this to mean that abuse might be involved, despite the lack of specifics in the complaint.
The investigation carried out by the parish priest found no case to answer, but is described by the commission as “totally inadequate even by the standards of the time”.
The following year, a woman approached Bishop Murray at Confirmations. She tried to tell him about Naughton. She told the commission that “he dismissed me and pretended he didn’t hear me, and walked away”. Bishop Murray told the commission that he did recall a women speaking to him after Confirmations, but claimed that “sexual assault was not mentioned”.
The commission’s view was that “Bishop Murray should have pursued the matter with the woman since he was already aware that there were some problems with Fr Naughton”. But the story does not end there. Fr Naughton was moved to Donnycarney parish, where he continued to destroy the lives of more children. The family of one of his victims, nine-year-old Mervyn Rundle complained. The commission states that “no attempt was made by Bishop Murray to revisit these concerns even after he became aware of Fr Naughton’s abusive behaviour in Donnycarney”. The commission adds that concerns about Naughton were at this stage known to “two archbishops and several auxiliary bishops and none of these men thought of revisiting the issue”.
After Donnycarney, Naughton was eventually moved to Ringsend. Here he found yet more new child victims to prey on. Again, neither Bishop Murray nor any of his fellow bishops thought to properly investigate the priest’s past. The commission variously describes the handling of complaints against Naughton by Bishop Murray as “very poor” and “unacceptable” and “inexcusable”. It adds that Bishop Murray (together with the other bishops) “let down those families who, because they were good Catholics, trusted the church to do something about this man [Naughton]”. It adds: “As a result, Fr Naughton was allowed to continue his abusive behaviour for several years thereby severely damaging more victims”. But why is there this concentration on the case of one priest?
The commission itself provides the answer: “Fr Naughton’s case is symptomatic of the Dublin archdiocese’s attitude to child sexual abuse in the 1980s. Until the problem became so great it could not be hidden, the archdiocesan procedure was to do all in its power to protect the wrongdoer, while almost completely ignoring the effect of this abuse on the victims . . . the welfare of the children was not addressed. As a result Fr Naughton was allowed to continue his abuse for several years. “This would not have happened if the archdiocese had fulfilled its duty to the children in the first instance.”
And then there is Bishop Murray’s behaviour in respect of Fr James McNamee, the notorious parish priest and sexual predator in Crumlin who built a swimming pool in his back garden to facilitate his access to young children. When complaints were made, this priest was finally removed from Crumlin. He was shifted to a convent in Delgany, Co Wicklow, where, however, none of the nuns was informed of the reason for his transfer and that he was a danger to children.
When it came to the attention of the archdiocese that McNamee was seen driving children around Delgany in his car, alarms bells rang. Bishop Murray went to the monastery in late 1994. According to the commission “he inquired with the superior as to Fr McNamee’s health and general well-being. He failed to mention to the superior the real purpose of his visit and the concerns which the archdiocese had in regard to Fr McNamee”.
When the bishop put it to McNamee himself that there had been some “things suggested about him” in relation to child abuse, the priest denied it vehemently saying it was all a conspiracy against him. The Dublin report states that “Bishop Murray accepted Fr McNamee’s denials that he had young people in the car. This was the extent of his inquiries”. The report adds that neither Archbishop Connell nor Bishop Murray “seemed to have given any consideration to the risk Fr McNamee might have posed to the altar boys attending the convent”.
And then there is the case of Fr Marius. The report is highly critical of Bishop Murray’s failure to put in place a proper monitoring system to protect children against this particular paedophile. The commission states that “it would appear that the only system . . . was one where Bishop Murray inquired from Fr Marius if he was behaving himself”.
These events took place during the 1990s, not in the distant past. The idea that calls for Bishop Murray to be accountable for his grotesque negligence constitute some form of scapegoating simply beggars belief.
Mary Raftery is a freelance journalist who, with reporter Mick Peelo, produced and directed the documentary Cardinal Secrets.