ANALYSIS:Why were the resignations of bishops Murray and Moriarty accepted by the Pope yet those of bishops Walsh and Field were not?, asks PATSY McGARRY
THE MURPHY report on clerical child abuse in the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin covered “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,” said Bishop Jim Moriarty in his resignation statement last December.
He went further. “With the benefit of hindsight, I accept that, from the time I became an auxiliary bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture.”
He hadn’t, so he offered his resignation to Pope Benedict on December 23rd last. It was accepted on April 22nd.
Bishop Moriarty was appointed an auxiliary bishop of Dublin in September 1991, and held that post until his appointment as Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin in June 2002.
Bishop Eamonn Walsh was appointed an auxiliary bishop of Dublin in April 1990, almost 18 months before Bishop Moriarty.
Unlike Bishop Moriarty, who had been a chaplain at UCD and served in various parishes before he became a bishop, Bishop Walsh has been at the heart of governance in the Dublin archdiocese since 1985, when he became secretary to Archbishop Kevin McNamara. He served in a similar role with Cardinal Desmond Connell before his appointment as an auxiliary bishop in 1990.
So why was Bishop Moriarty’s resignation accepted by the pope while that of Bishop Walsh was not? Is it possible that the offers of resignation, tendered under pressure by Bishop Walsh and Bishop Ray Field on Christmas Eve last, were never genuine at all?
Were they a ruse to deflect the slavering mob and which could be undone in the dog days of August when most people are on holiday or in a holiday state of mind? Was that the purpose and intention all along?
Let us remember how the Murphy report found that every single auxiliary bishop in Dublin over the period investigated had knowledge of incidents of the crime that is clerical child sex abuse in the archdiocese.
When the report was published last November five of those auxiliary bishops were still serving.
They included Bishop Donal Murray of Limerick, who resigned on December 18th; the current Bishop of Galway Martin Drennan, appointed an auxiliary bishop of Dublin in September 1997 on the same day as Dublin auxiliary bishop Ray Field; and bishops Walsh and Moriarty.
So why were the resignations of bishops Murray and Moriarty accepted by the pope while those of bishops Walsh and Field were not? Bishop Drennan, of course, never offered to resign.
The main finding of the Murphy report, where clerical child sex abuse and the Dublin archdiocese was concerned, was unequivocal.
It said: "The commission has no doubt(my italics) that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin and other Church authorities over much of the period covered by the commission's remit."
It went further. It said that “the welfare of children, which should have been the first priority, was not even a factor to be considered (my italics) in the early stages”.
It continued: "Instead the focus was on the avoidance of scandal and the preservation of the good name, status and assets of the institution and of what the institution regarded as its most important members - the priests(my italics)".
Bishops Walsh, Field and Drennan, as well as bishops Moriarty and Murray, were all part of the regime which oversaw that “cover-up”.
They met regularly to discuss management of the archdiocese and those discussions included addressing, or not, allegations of clerical child sex abuse. All were party to the “cover-up”.
And, in case some conclude that the cover-up applied only to the early years of the period investigated, it should be remembered that criticisms of Bishop Field in the report refer to a case in 2003.
What we are witnessing here is not simply a double standard, but an exercise in moral bankruptcy.
And what of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin in all of this? Do we now know why he returned from the bishops’ meeting with the pope in Rome last February with “his wings clipped” as Dublin abuse survivors concluded after a meeting with him then?
Certainly Rome has placed him in a difficult position. It was an intervention of his which led directly to bishops Walsh and Field offering their resignations on Christmas Eve last.
The previous day he had issued a statement in response to a letter sent by Bishop Walsh to all priests in his area of the Dublin archdiocese in which he said the archbishop had expressed full confidence in his auxiliary bishops. The letter claimed the archbishop did so at a meeting with Dublin clergy in Citywest on December 12th last. The Murphy report was published on November 26th.
A statement on behalf of Archbishop Martin on December 23rd said he wished “to clarify” that when asked at the meeting whether he had confidence in his priests and auxiliary bishops, he replied that he had “confidence in the ministry they were carrying out”. It continued that “with regard to the auxiliary bishops, he is still evaluating their positions regarding the manner in which they addressed the question of accountability for the implications of the Murphy report”.
It said “Archbishop Martin does not believe that anyone could interpret his comments as giving unconditional support and he has, indeed, received critical comments for his not offering such support.”
The following day bishops Walsh and Field offered their resignations.
Patsy McGarry is Religious Affairs Correspondent of The Irish Times