Resignation calls may render injustice to clerics accused of not challenging the culture, writes BREDA O'BRIEN
NUALA O’LOAN, former police ombudsman in Northern Ireland, says insisting that bishops Walsh, Field and Drennan resign in the wake of the Murphy report would perpetuate injustice.
Is she right? In order to judge, it is necessary to do what she did, and read the Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation’s report into the handling of clerical child sexual abuse between 1975 and 2004.
Reading the report of the commission, chaired by Judge Yvonne Murphy, is not easy. It is not just the depraved details of abuse that shock. There is no avoiding the stark failure to prioritise the needs and rights of children.
The church put “the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the church, and the preservation of its assets” above the need to protect children. There is no spinning or wriggling away from that reality. As a result, the lives of thousands of innocent children were blighted.
Looked at in that way, the resignations of a few auxiliary bishops are neither here nor there. There was a massive collective failure, and perhaps the only appropriate gesture was that allegedly suggested by one member of the bishops’ conference – that every bishop in Ireland resign.
It was certainly the way Bishop Jim Moriarty felt. Although the Murphy report did not find he had done wrong, he felt he had not challenged the culture enough, and should therefore go. But here’s the question – just how much do you have to have done to qualify as challenging the culture? And when?
Take Bishop Eamonn Walsh. He was commended in the report into allegations of clerical sexual abuse in Ferns for his help and support. “This level of co-operation went beyond anything the inquiry could have required or which a court of law could have compelled.”
On a Prime Timeprogramme following the Ferns report, Colm O'Gorman said: "I have no difficulty, Eamonn, in accepting your apology – your heartfelt apology or expression of regret that this happened . . . I accept your bona fides, I accept your absolute integrity in determining that this won't happen again."
At that time, O’Gorman’s worry was there was no guarantee other bishops would act in the same way. Since then, O’Gorman has decided Eamonn Walsh’s work in Ferns does not constitute challenging the culture, despite the fact some priests in Ferns felt the bishop had gone so far that their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty was being undermined.
The Murphy report is savage about the leadership structure in the Dublin archdiocese. “For most of the time covered by the commission’s remit, there was nothing resembling a management structure in the archdiocese . . . no clear job description for the auxiliary bishops . . . no clear delegated authority to deal with specific problems as they arose . . . might not be aware of the full background of each priest.”
The commission singles out four auxiliary bishops for particular censure. Bishop Walsh and Bishop Field do not feature. (Nor does Bishop Drennan.) Bishop Field was not appointed until 1997. The commission says the situation began to improve with the advent of the Framework document in 1996.
In short, Bishop Field became a bishop when Archbishop Desmond Connell had finally begun to “challenge the culture” himself. In the one case involving Bishop Field, that of Fr Benito, in 2001-2002, gardaí believed the complaints lacked veracity, and no prosecution ensued. A psychological report declared Fr Benito had no attraction to young children. He did, shamefully, have an affair with a vulnerable 17-year-old.
The commission complained it was extraordinary that Bishop Field was not informed about (or presumably, given a chance to correct) misapprehensions the Child Protection Committee had about what the bishop knew, and when. In short, wrong was done to Bishop Field.
The commission also considered Bishop Field was not specific enough with a parish priest about Fr Benito. He gave enough detail, however, that the parish priest’s “antennae were out at all times” regarding the priest.
The commission makes it abundantly clear the auxiliary bishops were in an impossible position, were kept uninformed, and had no real authority. Yet they are being treated as if they were fully accountable. It is hard to see how this is reasonable or fair.
The report was far, far more harsh about Cardinal Connell than about these two men, although it did also say that much of the positive change happened during his time.
Cardinal Connell’s obsession with secrecy extended to attempting to prevent the commission from getting hold of documents. Perhaps the media decided not to focus on Cardinal Connell, an elderly, very unwell man, who has already retired. But if they were being consistent, they would have been demanding he return his red hat.
It is a shame that Archbishop Martin is not available for interview and comment. His silence will inevitably be construed as enforced by the Vatican.
We do not know why Archbishop Martin made it abundantly clear he did not have confidence in his auxiliary bishops. It came as a shock to the auxiliaries. We do not know why he has decided to accept they will return to ministry. It is unfair to them and unfair to us. Perhaps Archbishop Martin thought the best way forward was a clean sweep of anyone in authority during the dark years. We don’t know, because he has not told us.
However, he said something simple and profound during one interview. “Sometimes good people do bad things.”
He was not talking about child abuse, but decisions made which endangered children. If we are to learn anything from this awful period, it will not be from merely erasing anyone associated with the past – like when the Soviets erased Trotsky from pictures that featured Lenin. We need to reflect on what allowed good people to do bad things. It will mean reflecting on what made good people do good things when given the opportunity, as Eamonn Walsh did in Ferns and on the episcopal child protection committee.
The church will not emerge from this dark period easily. Nor should it. Even when it has proven to public satisfaction it finally “gets it” on child safeguarding, and that day is far in the future, this week’s report of alleged serial abuse of one vulnerable man by three clerical classmates in all likelihood is an indication of other scandals to come. Will it never end?