Response to clerical child abuse report Andrew Madden

Friday, December 4, 2009
The Irish Times

Madam, – I started reading the Murphy report at 10am in an office of the Department of Justice last Thursday week and quickly became both very angry and very sad as chapter after chapter revealed sickening details of acts of abuse perpetrated by priests on vulnerable young children. No matter how many other reports I may have read or how easily I recall my own childhood experiences at the hands of former priest Ivan Payne, there is nothing that prepares a decent human being for the details of how any adults, let alone priests, sexually abused young children.

And then there is the cover-up of that abuse. The knowing calculating self-serving cover-up of the sexual abuse of children in order to maintain secrecy, avoid scandal, protect the reputation of the church and preserve its assets. The report is quite clear that these were the preoccupations of the archdiocese in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, adding that the commission of investigation had no doubt that child sexual abuse was covered up by the archdiocese and that the structures and roles of the church facilitated that cover-up.

Bishop Donal Murray’s behaviour is described as inexcusable; he protests that this is not the only description of his behaviour. He is right: the report also says he was aware for many years of complaints and/or suspicions of clerical child sexual abuse, dealt badly with a number of complaints, and he did not deal properly with the suspicions and concerns that were expressed to him. These comments don’t exactly balance out the finding of his actions being inexcusable.

Although Bishop Jim Moriarty told the people in Kildare and Leighlin, he was not directly criticised in the report, in fact he was. He claimed his reason for not properly investigating Fr Edmondus was because he did not have access to the archives, but the report says that he could have asked the archbishop to conduct a search which would have revealed earlier sexual abuse by the priest.

Bishops Drennan, Walsh and Field, were auxiliary bishops of Dublin during some of the period (1975-2004) covered by the commission of investigation. The report tells us that a number of auxiliary bishops were made aware of complaints of child sexual abuse by priests in their geographical areas. Others found out about such priests through the regular monthly meetings involving the archbishop and the auxiliary bishops. It is not believable to me that none of these three, as bishops attending those meetings, were unaware that child sexual abuse was covered up by the archdiocese. They were bishops working in a diocese where children were sexually abused by priests, priests that the diocese knew were dangerous. They were all part of a structure and culture that facilitated the sexual abuse of children.

It is time for Bishops Murray, Moriarty, Drennan, Walsh and Field to resign. Some of them tried to keep a low profile, others are trying to hold onto office in a manner that has become obscene. I would urge them not to hide behind the fact that some of them were not criticised in the report; the report details only a sample of allegations against 46 priests, but it found allegations against 172. There are almost 40 pages missing from the report: what will they reveal when they are published?

For the Murphy report to so conclusively find that child sexual abuse was covered up by the archdiocese at a time when these men were all bishops in the diocese, and for them all to remain in office is to add insult to injury to me, and many people like me, who were sexually abused by priests. It is deeply hurtful and distressing that none of them can see that the hurt and pain caused to so many children in the archdiocese at a time when they were bishops is reason enough for them all to respect those sad experiences and go.

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has told his fellow bishops that they must come out and answer questions raised in the report. But there are no questions raised in the report, each chapter concludes with findings of fact. It doesn’t ask Bishop Murray if he thinks his actions were inexcusable, it tells us they were. It doesn’t accuse him of behaving inexcusably, it tells us he did. Archbishop Martin has no right to tell bishops that they should respond to this report and if their responses are acceptable to him and his priests then maybe things will be okay.

Things are not okay; he is not the one to judge their actions, Judge Yvonne Murphy has done that and on the basis of her findings, the bishops, as named here, should resign. And if they don’t, Archbishop Martin should resign before his meeting with them next week. In the meantime, Archbishop Martin should stop trying to undermine the commission of investigation and its findings. – Yours, etc,