Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Archdi

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

1985

28.78 In January 1985, Fr Carney was interviewed by Monsignor Stenson and Bishops Carroll and Kavanagh. They were appointed by Archbishop Kevin McNamara to look into the various new allegations against Fr Carney. (Archbishop McNamara had become Archbishop on 20 January 1985.) Among other things, there were suggestions that he was frequently in the company of an 18 year old late at night and there was a mention of “possible charges as a result of information made available to the Rape Crisis Centre. The precise details and the source of this information were not clear”. Fr Carney refused to go to Stroud and mentioned the possibility of going to Australia or challenging the allegations made concerning him. He was given 24 hours to consider the Stroud proposal.

28.79 Soon after this, Archbishop McNamara asked Monsignor Stenson to investigate the possibility of withdrawing Fr Carney‟s faculties in order to put pressure on him to reconsider his position and to accept the offer of help in Stroud or elsewhere.

28.80 About two weeks later (not within the 24 hours specified), Fr Carney wrote to Bishop Carroll saying that all his problems were due to alcohol and that he needed a new diocesan appointment. This is one of many long self-serving letters full of religious sentiment which Fr Carney wrote. It shows that he was then living in Baldoyle, even though his orders were to stay with the Marists and away from the northside.

28.81 The bishops and Monsignor Stenson decided to get a full report from Dr Cooney. It seems that this report was provided orally to one of the bishops (probably Bishop Kavanagh) so its contents are not known but it would appear that residential treatment was recommended. There was further communication between Fr Carney and Monsignor Stenson in which it became obvious that Fr Carney was not recognising his problem and was prevaricating. Among other things, Fr Carney said that he was attending a counsellor and that the counsellor thought his problems were due to alcohol: “she did not believe, no more than I do, that I have any problem in this sexual area”. Monsignor Stenson saw Fr Carney in Clonliffe College. He was accompanied by a youth. Eventually, in late March, Fr Carney informed the diocese that he would not go to Stroud – nearly three months after he had been given 24 hours to make a decision. Two weeks later, Bishops Carroll and Kavanagh met Fr Carney and made it clear to him that there was no place for him in the diocese but it was still possible for him to go to Stroud. He refused to go to Stroud saying: "I do not believe it is what God wants me to do" and "I would be afraid of drinking again. I know A.A. will improve me". Subsequently, he also refused to go to another therapeutic facility in the UK.

28.82 On 19 April 1985, Archbishop McNamara wrote to Fr Carney informing him that he was withdrawing his diocesan faculties. Fr Carney was now effectively suspended but there did not seem to be anyone checking on what he was doing or where he was living. There is no evidence that other priests were informed of his changed status.

28.83 In July 1985, the parent who had earlier complained of not being informed of developments wrote to point out that he had suffered financial loss because he had had to move house. This letter was acknowledged but no further action was taken.

28.84 Fr Carney and his solicitor continued to write to the Archbishop looking for his re-instatement. In September, Archbishop McNamara offered Fr Carney the option of going to Belmont Park Hospital, Waterford under the care of Dr Lane O‟Kelly. This was a psychiatric hospital which provided treatment for alcohol problems. (It closed in 1992). There is no evidence that it had any expertise in child sexual abuse. Fr Carney accepted this offer. Dr Lane O‟Kelly was told (in September) that he should contact Dr Cooney to get the background but it is not clear that Dr Cooney knew the full background. There is no evidence that the people who did know the full background actually briefed Dr Lane O‟Kelly at this stage. There is a record from the files in Archbishop‟s House that he was briefed when he visited there in late November. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he provided full information about Fr Carney‟s background to Dr Lane O‟Kelly in November 1985. It is clear that the programme Dr Lane O‟Kelly was implementing was for alcoholism even though Fr Carney himself claimed, and others seemed to believe, that he had not been drinking for two years. Monsignor Stenson accepts that alcoholism “was the focus and, with hindsight, I would say that was a mistake”.

28.85 Fr Carney was in the hospital for a very short time when he started scheming to be allowed out at weekends. It is clear that he was a less than enthusiastic participant in his treatment. In November, he discharged himself from the hospital and wrote a long letter to the Archbishop seeking clarification about his continuance in hospital and his prospects of operating as a priest again. The Archbishop made it clear that he was to return to the hospital and follow the doctor‟s orders. Dr Lane O‟Kelly came to Archbishop‟s House to meet the Archbishop and Monsignor Stenson and to report on Fr Carney‟s progress. He wanted Fr Carney to spend more time in hospital, with the possibility of a return to ministry in the new year. This would be “in a controlled situation” and subject to “careful monitoring”.

28.86 In December Fr Carney was allowed to say mass but did not yet have all his faculties restored.

1986

28.87 In January 1986, Fr Carney was released from hospital on a trial basis. Dr Lane O‟Kelly suggested an appointment south of the Liffey in order to facilitate his visits to the Waterford hospital. His faculties were restored on condition that he continue to attend Dr Lane O‟Kelly at monthly intervals and that he avoid those areas particularly on the north side of the city, for example, Ayrfield and Donoghmede parishes and Portmarnock Leisure Centre, where his presence “might give rise to unfavourable comment on the Church”. Fr Carney was appointed to the parish of Clogher Road. The parish priest, Fr James Kelly, issued a strong letter of protest. The letter refers to earlier experiences in this and a neighbouring parish and argues that he should have been consulted. It seems that Fr Kelly was aware of the nature of the problem but this is not explicit. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he discovered at a later stage that Fr Kelly had not been as well briefed as he (Monsignor Stenson) had thought at the time. Monsignor Stenson also told the Commission that he was “horrified” when he heard of the appointment; he himself had no involvement in appointments. This parish had already had a number of problem priests –

and there was another priest who had a different problem - and Fr Carney would be living alone.

28.88 During the year, Dr Lane O"Kelly reported to the Archdiocese that he was satisfied with Fr Carney‟s progress and attendance at the hospital. The Archbishop continued to remind Fr Carney that the appointment was temporary and was conditional on good reports.

1987

28.89 In February 1987, the parent who had reported financial problems wrote with information about proceedings for the recovery of possession of his house because he was in default with his payments. He was clearly very angry with the Church. His letter was acknowledged but nothing further was done. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that his reply was “curt” and he did not think much of it as a priest but he was concerned about the possible liability of the Church.

28.90 In November 1987, Monsignor Stenson noted in a memorandum that Bishop Desmond Williams told him that he (Bishop Williams) had been contacted by someone from the health board who was aware of Fr Carney‟s record in relation to children and who was concerned that he was back in ministry. Monsignor Stenson said that Bishop Williams did not tell him who this person was. A number of social workers who were working for the health board at the time told the Commission that they were not aware that Fr Carney had pleaded guilty to indecent assault and, in fact, did not become so aware until this Commission was established and they were preparing to give evidence. The Commission accepts that the social workers were not aware of the guilty plea but it has no reason to doubt that Bishop Williams was contacted by someone in the health board. Clearly, someone in the health board who was in a position to approach Bishop Williams was aware and did not inform his/her colleagues. Monsignor Stenson met Fr Carney and advised him that, given his past record, it was vital that he should not leave himself open to accusations of any kind, least of all from people who might be hostile to him. Fr Carney accepted this reluctantly. At this meeting, Fr Carney admitted that he had not attended the hospital for about a year. Monsignor Stenson said: “We thought that he had been attending Belmont Park on a regular basis but, in fact, he had not”. There was no one specifically mandated to check on this.

28.91 In December 1987, a boy who had been in care in St Joseph‟s told his foster parents that he had been abused by Fr Carney. The parents reported this to their local priest who reported to the Archdiocese and to a social worker. The social worker heard from a nun in the home that there were concerns about former residents who were staying with Fr Carney in Clogher Road. The boy was now aged 16 and he was adamant he did not want to report to the Gardaí.

1988

28.92 The priest to whom the allegation by the former resident of St Joseph‟s was reported and Monsignor Stenson established the following:

Fr Carney lived on his own in Clogher Road.

Children frequented the house and some children had stayed overnight; a former resident of a care home was currently living there and another former resident used to live there.

Fr Carney took local children swimming and organised regular outings for children; he was working with the boy scouts.

He had developed very familiar relationships with a small number of families that had problems and had no father figure, and had holidayed with these families.

There was “an awareness locally” of his history.

28.93 The priest to whom the allegation was made expressed concerns that the local priests in Clogher Road had not been consulted when Fr Carney was sent there and that there was no support from the diocese for local priests. He pointed out that “there seems to be nobody responsible” and that the parish priest was under pressure.

28.94 Monsignor Stenson concluded:

“With hindsight it would appear that:

i) the appointment to Clogher Road was a mistake - there was a previous history of this problem there;

ii) residential accommodation on his own is not in Bill's best interest;

iii) the 'monitoring' has not been as tight as it might have been. Fr. Kelly was hearing nothing from Archbishop's House and we were hearing nothing from him. The other priests in the Parish were aware of some problem but they never discussed it together;

iv) There was no 'ongoing' monitoring of medical reports - Bill in fact stopped seeing Dr. Lane when he considered he was no longer in need of him. We were unaware of this;

v) In the light of the above it would be helpful if all Departments co-ordinated information in respect of such cases. This happened with the file. But I gather from [the priest to whom the complaint of the boy from St Joseph‟s was reported] that Father Kelly had written of his concerns to Archbishop's House at some stage. Is this true? I have no record of it”.

28.95 It seems that nobody had told Fr Carney to stay away from children.

28.96 The health board offered counselling to the complainant from St Joseph‟s. There is no evidence that it followed up on any children who were in care at the time this abuse occurred or that it checked its own records to see if further information was available on other children. If it had, what were perceived at the time as concerns about crushes and inappropriate expectations would have been seen in a more sinister light. St Joseph‟s was closed at this stage.

28.97 The bishops decided to remove Fr Carney and provide residential care. Bishop Williams felt that Fr Carney‟s behaviour was inappropriate but did not yet merit a penalty, for example, suspension. They also decided that the priest to whom the allegations were made should be told that something was being done about his representations. Nobody reported back to the foster parents.

28.98 It is not clear that the allegation of sexual abuse of the boy from St Joseph‟s was ever put to Fr Carney. The other allegations about his activities in Clogher Road were put to him and he accepted that they were true but he was annoyed that what would be acceptable for other priests should be unacceptable from him. He “reacted badly” when told he was being removed. Subsequently his solicitor contacted Bishop Kavanagh requesting details of the complaints which had been made and asking for a meeting. Monsignor Stenson met the solicitor who told him that Fr Carney found the proposal to leave Clogher Road and obtain psychological assessment unacceptable.

28.99 In April 1988, about a month after he was consecrated as Archbishop of Dublin, Archbishop Desmond Connell met Fr Carney. The Archbishop told Fr Carney that he would be allowed to continue in Clogher Road, on a temporary basis, under certain conditions. These included seeing a Dublin based psychologist, being discreet in his behaviour and not having young people stay overnight. Monsignor Stenson raised the matters of monitoring and having some priest live with Fr Carney but these do not seem to have been addressed.

28.100 One of the parents from Ayrfield approached Fr Carney. He was very upset about the damage done to his son and spoke in terms of seeking compensation or writing to the papers. Fr Carney told Monsignor Stenson and his solicitor about this. Fr Carney was negotiating about his future directly with the bishops and indirectly through his solicitor. He wrote long pleading letters to the Archbishop.

28.101 In October 1988, Archbishop Connell met Fr Carney again. Fr Carney told the Archbishop that incidents were occurring in Clogher Road which were drawing attention to him and he wanted to discuss them. He said he took separated wives to Kerry. He felt that he could help some who had alcoholic problems. One of these women had children. Her husband had learned of Fr Carney‟s background and was anxious about the possible implications for the children. Fr Carney, on hearing of this, spoke to the woman in question and told her that he would not be able to continue the counselling arrangement that had existed between them. He also spoke of an incident that had occurred in the yard of the girls' school. The caretaker had said that he had observed an incident taking place between Fr Carney and a group of girls and had spoken to some people of this. Fr Carney said that a teacher in the school was also observing and would back him (Fr Carney) by saying that there was nothing wrong in what happened and the caretaker was wrong in his claims. Fr Carney took a group of the girls bowling on occasion. The Archbishop advised him against this in the future and Fr Carney agreed.

1989

28.102 In February 1989, Fr Carney called to see the Archbishop and informed him that the father of one of the girls in a group with which he was involved told him that he did not want Fr Carney near his daughters. Fr Carney assured the Archbishop that he had "done nothing" to this man's daughter. The Archbishop recommended that he tell the parish priest about this and that he continue working with the group for the rest of the year but remove himself from it after that.

28.103 In August, the parish priest reported that Fr Carney had been taking boys swimming but not alone. The parish priest thought a change for Fr Carney would be a good idea.

28.104 In August, parents from Ayrfield contacted Bishop O‟Mahony. They were concerned about their sons and about Fr Carney‟s access to children. The mother was looking for pastoral and spiritual help as her husband and sons had stopped practicing their religion. Bishop O‟Mahony reported this to Archbishop Connell. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that Archbishop Connell was “shocked and upset”. Bishop O‟Mahony believes that this was the first time that Archbishop Connell “became fully aware of the serious spiritual harm inflicted on children and young people through clerical sex abuse”. This, according to Bishop O‟Mahony, prompted Archbishop Connell to review Fr Carney‟s position and impose more restrictive conditions on any future appointments. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he rang the mother a few times after this. He did not meet the boys as they did not want to meet him.

28.105 Monsignor Stenson told the Church penal process that it was well known in Ayrfield parish that Fr Carney had problems and there were rumours about his behaviour. He had been seen in the local golf club and he had a young boy caddying for him. This was corroborated by two priests who said it was a constant feature of Fr Carney‟s pattern of behaviour at the golf club.

28.106 Archbishop Connell decided that Fr Carney should be moved and have more stringent conditions attached to his appointment. Monsignor Stenson and Bishop Kavanagh met Fr Carney and told him he was to be removed from Clogher Road, be moved to a shared ministry and was to continue to see the psychologist. Fr Carney regarded this as another proposal. He told them he was going on holidays with women and children.

28.107 The psychologist was asked for a report. He reported that he had seen Fr Carney on four occasions in the period March – May 1988. He said that Fr Carney showed no evidence of psychopathology. Again, it is not clear what the psychologist knew about Fr Carney because the report does not once mention child sexual abuse. It outlines various good and bad aspects of Fr Carney‟s personality and points out that he would deviate considerably from the Church‟s teaching on moral issues. He is “still seeing a married woman and a single girl”. The report states that he did not engage in sexual intercourse with them but did feel free to indulge in a “kiss and a cuddle”. It should be noted that Fr Carney had not actually attended this psychologist since May 1988 and seems to have been assessed but not treated by him. It is clear that nobody in authority in the Archdiocese knew what Fr Carney‟s interaction with the psychologist was for almost a year and a half after he was referred.

28.108 In late August 1989, a young woman who had been a resident in The Grange complained to Monsignor Stenson that she had been abused by Fr Carney while in the care home and subsequently. She alleged that he was the father of her recently born child. She was aware that Fr Carney now had a young boy staying with him and she was concerned about his welfare. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that this was the first time he had met an alleged victim of Fr Carney. He believed what she was telling him and he was horrified by what Fr Carney had done. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he virtually always believed the complainants even though he did not regard it as appropriate to his role to make them aware of that. His task was to record their stories. When confronted by Monsignor Stenson, Fr Carney accepted that he could be the father of the child. Fr Carney wrote to the Archbishop to apologise but said he had since made his peace with God.

28.109 Archbishop Connell told Fr Carney to leave Clogher Road by 30 September and go to live in a diocesan house in Cappaghmore (Clondalkin). Fr Carney, as usual, regarded this as negotiable. He looked for, and got, more time so that he could say goodbye to his old and ill parishioners on the First Friday. This extension was granted, with certain conditions. On 5 October, the Archbishop wrote to Fr Carney and told him to go to Cappaghmore. Although he was asked not to do so, Fr Carney made this public during a mass in Clogher Road shortly before he left, indicating that he was giving his blessing for the last time. This led to a number of letters from parishioners saying that it was most unfair that he should be going as he was a wonderful priest.

28.110 Fr Carney told the Archdiocese that the young woman had made a statement saying that matters had been resolved between herself and Fr Carney (this was clearly not so as subsequent events showed). Fr Carney then wrote to the Archbishop saying that the “agreement is done”, there is no possibility of scandal so his position should be reconsidered.

28.111 The young woman told the social worker with whom she had been dealing while she was in the institutions that she had been abused as a child by Fr Carney. The social worker told the Commission that, while she had not suspected sexual abuse at the time, the revelation did not surprise her. The social worker accompanied the young woman to the Garda station to make a complaint. The social worker notified her superiors in accordance with the normal reporting mechanisms. She offered counselling and gave ongoing support to the young woman. The Grange had been closed at this stage.

28.112 In October 1989, Monsignor Stenson wrote to Fr Carney stating that, given his stated preference to stay in the priesthood, the Archbishop and Auxiliary Bishops were asking him to consider living out his priestly life in a monastic setting or, if this were not acceptable and given the impossibility of appointing him to pastoral ministry in the Archdiocese, to consider retraining for the lay state. While his faculties were not formally removed, Fr Carney had no diocesan appointment. He was getting a monthly allowance of £500. He engaged in lengthy exchanges with Monsignor Stenson about the support he would get if laicised, the availability of a canon lawyer and the fact that he prayed for Monsignor Stenson.

28.113 Meanwhile, the young woman was pursuing her claim for maintenance of the child and the case went to court. Fr Carney wanted the Archdiocese to pay for the blood test to establish if he was the father. The blood tests established that he was not, in fact, the father. The Gardaí sent their file to the DPP but did not recommend prosecution.

1990

28.114 In February 1990, the Archbishop and Monsignor Stenson met Fr Carney and the Archbishop told him that he was not prepared to give him a diocesan appointment at that time or in the future. He asked him to consider applying for laicisation and asked for a response by 1 March; the only alternative open to him was for the Church to institute a penal process to dismiss him from the clerical state. Fr Carney looked for an extension and got one until Easter. There were numerous pleading letters but he was told that the process would start in May 1990.

28.115 Meanwhile, it was discovered that Fr Carney was still going to Clogher Road and he was instructed to cease this. The Archdiocese wanted him to move out of Cappaghmore; he was offered money to pay for alternative accommodation. He was very reluctant to move out. There was further correspondence between Fr Carney and Monsignor Stenson. Fr Carney started work as a taxi driver and was looking for money to buy a taxi plate. The Gardaí were investigating the allegations made by the young woman and Monsignor Stenson provided the Gardaí with an address for Fr Carney.

28.116 The tribunal to hear the penal process was set up in December 1990. Penal proceedings are described in Chapter 4.

1991

28.117 Fr Carney continued to write long self-serving letters looking to be restored to ministry. He was still living in Cappaghmore. He eventually said he would voluntarily seek laicisation. The Archdiocese decided not to bargain and to await the outcome of the penal process.

28.118 The penal process continued during 1991. A number of complainants and parents of complainants gave evidence. One complainant mentioned, in the course of his evidence, that he was in a holiday caravan with Fr Carney and there was another priest there with a boy. (In later civil proceedings, he named this priest as Fr Francis McCarthy). He also mentioned other teenage boys who were in Fr Carney‟s house in Ayrfield. Evidence was also given by a nun from one of the institutions and by a social worker.

28.119 During the church penal process, the Director of Psychological Services for the Hospitaller Order of St John of God was asked to study the file of evidence that was being presented to the Church court. He did not see Fr Carney nor did he see the previous psychological and psychiatric reports. He stated that once a pattern of paedophile activity was established it did not depend on alcohol for its expression. He identified Fr Carney as having a serious personality disorder the features of which are frequently associated with paedophilia. He noted that he had consistently denied the extent of his problems and the seriousness of his actions. Given the above characteristics, he believed that Fr Carney must be diagnosed as having a psychopathic personality disorder and was homosexually paedophile. As such, the prognosis for Fr Carney was very poor and it was the psychologist‟s view that he should not be given any status as a representative of the Church. He noted the arguments advanced in some quarters that paedophilia was a psychiatric disorder and included compulsive behaviour over which the sufferer had no control and could therefore plead insanity or diminished responsibility. His own view was that if society took such behaviour as Fr Carney‟s as meriting a judgment of insanity or diminished responsibility in circumstances where the perpetrator showed foresight and knowledge there would be no basis for moral or legal behaviour in society.

1992

28.120 Fr Carney himself did not participate in the church penal process but was represented by a canon lawyer. The penal process was completed and, on 9 March 1992, Fr Carney was dismissed from the clerical state. The judgment of the tribunal was unequivocal. Fr Carney was guilty of child sexual abuse and there was no basis for mitigating the penalty. The members of the tribunal were very clear about the damage caused by Fr Carney to the victims, his denial of wrongdoing, his total absence of remorse, the enduring and habitual nature of his offences and his failure to abide by the instructions of his superiors.

28.121 The judgment did not refer at all to the evidence given by one complainant about the presence of another priest in a caravan where this complainant was abused. This matter was not followed up by anyone in authority (see Chapter 41).

28.122 In June 1992, the judges of the tribunal wrote to Archbishop Connell with comments about the handling of the case. Their letter shows that they had a good understanding of the issues involved but they did not mention the risk posed by the other priest. They pointed out that “Paedophilia is a very special kind of deviancy and requires special vigilance”. They then went on to make the following points:

“In the Carney case we feel that a penal process should have been initiated earlier than was done in this case. The accused in that case accepted treatment for his alcoholism but refused to go to Stroud to get treatment specific to his complaint. Like Alcoholism there is no hope of cure for the paedophile unless he comes to terms with his complaint. To this day the accused has refused (despite a civil court case and much other evidence) to admit that he suffers from this paraphilia. Treatment for concomitant alcoholism is not a substitute for a recognition of and specific treatment for paedophilia. Even with special treatment the prognosis for the paedophile is generally rather bleak. A refusal to undergo such special treatment should be taken as proof of contumacy. When a priest like the accused is committed to a prudent parish priest for a period of trial it is important that the parish priest be made aware of the reason why the accused is committed to his care. This is more important in cases of paedophilia than, perhaps, any other. It seems that the parish priests to whom the accused was committed had no inkling of the precise reason as to why he was there. Paedophilia can wear a deceptive mask. Parishioners are easily fooled by the interest a priest shows in their children. Children are unable to tell their parents. There is abundant evidence of this in the present case. A Parish priest may easily suspect drink, or a liaison with a woman when a fellow priest is committed to his corrective care. He is less likely to suspect paedophilia. Again, it disguises itself as an interest in the altar boys or the youth of the parish. It is only when irreparable damage has been done that the parish priest realizes.

In the recent case it seems that monitoring of the accused was not helped by the fact that he had a house all to himself in Clogher Road, and again in Clondalkin. The evidence shows that he used these houses as he had used the house in Ayrfield. It is true that this was praeter intentionem”95.

28.123 Mr Carney‟s monthly allowance was stopped in April 1992. The Archdiocese was still trying to get him to leave the house in Cappaghmore. There were discussions between Mr Carney and Monsignor Stenson and then between Mr Carney and Monsignor Wilson about financial matters. It seemed as if a settlement was reached in November 1992.

1993 to date

28.124 There were further financial negotiations between the Archdiocese and Mr Carney. Mr Carney was, as described by Monsignor Wilson, constantly changing the goalposts. He eventually left the house in January 1994 – about four years after he was first asked to leave. He received a lump sum of £30,000 from the Archdiocese.

28.125 In July 1994, the two complainants in respect of whom Fr Carney had pleaded guilty sued the Archdiocese. The young woman also started proceedings. Her story began to appear in the newspapers and coverage continued throughout 1995.

28.126 Another complainant came forward in December 1994. Archbishop Connell and Monsignor Stenson met him in February 1995 and apologised to him. He was offered counselling. A number of other people made complaints in 1995. One complainant alleged that he was abused by both Fr Carney and Fr Francis McCarthy – see Chapter 41. He also complained to the Gardaí. The young man who had been in St Josephs‟s complained to the Gardaí and started civil proceedings. Monsignor Stenson made a statement to the Gardaí about his involvement with this case. Other complainants came forward in subsequent years. They were met by the chancellor and/or by the delegates. The procedures set out in the Framework Document were being followed.

28.127 In 1998, steps were taken to contact affected families in Ayrfield. The Archdiocesan records suggest that the parish priest visited one family and got a “cold reception”. This family told the Commission that they were not visited at that time. Archbishop Connell was particularly anxious to contact the family who had had to leave Ayrfield and had suffered financially as a result. Contact was eventually made after a series of errors about addresses. The delegate tried to keep in contact with a number of the complainants. Further complainants continued to come forward. It is likely that some made complaints to the Residential Institutions Redress Board.96 There was no further prosecution mainly because the DPP took the view that the delay in making the complaints was too great. A family told the Commission that one complainant had committed suicide.

28.128 Archbishop Martin met a number of the complainants after he was appointed as Archbishop and they generally found him sympathetic. The Child Protection Service continues to be in contact with those who want that contact.

28.129 Mr Carney had been a taxi driver for a time after his laicisation. By a remarkable coincidence, one of the complainants actually got into his taxi inadvertently. Mr Carney seems to have left Ireland sometime in the mid 1990s. He was known to be living in Scotland but his current whereabouts are not known.

The Commission’s assessment

Archdiocese

28.130 The handling by the Archdiocese of the large number of allegations and suspicions in relation to Fr Carney is nothing short of catastrophic. The Archdiocese, in its handling of the case, was inept, self-serving and, for the best part of ten years, displayed no obvious concern for the welfare of children. This had appalling consequences for all the complainants and their families, not least for those people who were abused after the Church had knowledge of Fr Carney‟s extensive history of abuse as, with appropriate handling, their abuse could possibly have been prevented.

28.131 In evidence to the Commission, a number of senior churchmen acknowledged that this case was very badly handled. Monsignor Stenson said that Fr Carney should not have been ordained. He went on to say that when problems arose “the nettle should have been grabbed much quicker and, if he didn‟t resign from the priesthood, he should have been thrown out much sooner”. He said the case was handled very poorly and with a lack of decisiveness. The Commission agrees.

28.132 There is a consistent pattern of failure by the Church authorities to address the problem of Fr Carney. Several people who knew Fr Carney testified that he was crude, loutish and constantly used foul language. This, of course, is not a crime but it is surprising that the issue was not addressed by his superiors while he was in the seminary or subsequently.

28.133 It is astonishing that Fr Carney‟s suggestion that he foster children was even considered in view of the Church‟s stated position in respect of priests having any family responsibilities, yet it seems he may have been encouraged by Bishop Kavanagh.

28.134 Fr Carney‟s ease of access to, and his degree of involvement with children in care was extraordinary. He was able to take children to his home for weekends whenever he wanted and this was encouraged by the authorities. While it may be understandable that the authorities in the homes did not even contemplate the possibility of sexual abuse, there is no evidence that anyone in authority asked basic questions relating to the care and safety of children such as who was going to look after the children while he was saying Sunday mass or if he had to leave the house at night to administer the last rites. There is evidence that children were left alone at night.

28.135 There is no evidence of any attempt at serious management of Fr Carney as the problems unfolded. There was no one in the Archdiocese who was in charge of monitoring him. No one person had full knowledge of the extent of the problem. It is clear that Monsignor Stenson was conscious of this lack of management but he did not have the power to do anything about it. He told the Commission that different files were kept in the different departments – a personnel file, a chancery file, a financial file - and the full picture was not available to anyone dealing with it. This was done in the interests of confidentiality. It became clear to him that “somebody had to manage the case and have all the information, otherwise disastrous decisions were going to happen and have happened”.

28.136 Even if the Church‟s main intention was to avoid scandal, the complete lack of competence in handling Fr Carney is remarkable. There is no doubt that Fr Carney was manipulative, not just in his abuse of children but also in his dealings with his superiors. His clear unambiguous refusal to follow orders does not seem to have been addressed by the archdiocesan authorities. He treated orders from his superiors as proposals for discussion rather than as orders and he was allowed to get away with this.

28.137 The archdiocesan authorities either did not understand the threat posed by Fr Carney to children generally or understood it but did not regard it as a significant consideration.

28.138 The Commission considers that the Church authorities did not exercise sufficient authority over Fr Carney. It accepts that the Church cannot restrict a priest‟s liberty in general but it can restrict his liberty to exercise ministry. No attempt seems to have been made to deal with other, less serious but unacceptable, aspects of Fr Carney‟s behaviour such as his foul language, loutish behaviour and too frequent appearances on the golf course.

28.139 It seems that the treatment for Fr Carney was focused largely on his alcohol problem. In fact, he was sent to an alcohol treatment facility in Ireland at a time when he said, and people seemed to believe, that he had not been drinking for a year.

28.140 The refusal of Fr Ó Saorai to report the parents‟ complaints to Archbishop‟s House is inexcusable. He knew of actual complaints of child sexual abuse from parents, he believed the parents, he had heard other rumours, he had received complaints of loutish behaviour by Fr Carney, yet he reported to Archbishop‟s House only because money went missing. However, it must be said that if he had reported when he should have, it is unlikely that there would have been a criminal prosecution of Fr Carney.

28.141 It was suggested to the Commission that Bishop Kavanagh had a “soft spot” for Fr Carney. He clearly did but the Commission does not think that this in any way excuses the lengths to which he went to protect him. It appears to the Commission that Bishop Kavanagh tried to prevent the prosecution of Fr Carney and, when the prosecution went ahead, tried to ensure that it was kept as quiet as possible. The Commission takes the view that there is evidence that Bishop Kavanagh, in the words of its terms of reference, did attempt to obstruct or interfere with the proper investigation of the complaints.

28.142 No attempt was made by the Archdiocese to provide help or counselling to the victims who were known and no attempt was made to establish if there were any other victims. (The Archdiocese must have known that there were likely to be other victims).

Health authorities

28.143 The question of how institutions cared for the children in their care has been examined in depth by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Ryan Commission). This Commission accepts that, in general, the authorities in the children‟s homes did not suspect that Fr Carney was abusing the children who were befriended by him. However, it is a matter of serious concern that they allowed children stay with him without ensuring that there were appropriate arrangements for their supervision.

28.144 The Commission also accepts that the health board social workers who dealt with the children in the institutions did not suspect sexual abuse. However, it is surprising that, in one case at least, a 14 year old girl‟s obsession with him was not viewed in a more sinister light than merely a crush or a fantasy.

28.145 There does not seem to have been any shared knowledge in the health board about perpetrators. For example, when the case of the young woman from the children‟s home was being dealt with in 1989, one section of the health board did not know that Fr Carney was known to another section as an abuser of the young man from another children‟s home, so no pattern of abuse in the institutions was recognised.

28.146 It is acknowledged that there was no statutory duty on health boards to promote the welfare of all children at that stage (see Chapter 6) but, nevertheless it is surprising to the Commission that no attempts were made to contact other residents in the children‟s homes in which these two complainants had lived.

The Gardaí

28.147 The Commission was impressed by the efficiency and speed with which Garda Finbarr Garland investigated the complaints from the young boys in Ayrfield in 1983 and the manner in which he and his immediate superior officers pursued the prosecution of Fr Carney. However, the Commission considers that Chief Superintendent O‟Connor had inappropriate dealings with Bishop Kavanagh.

28.148 It appears that Bishop Kavanagh tried to influence the conduct of the investigation and clearly did his best to ensure that there would be no publicity. His attempts to influence the process were unsuccessful because the lower ranking Gardaí had done their job properly. However, Chief Superintendent O‟Connor cannot take any credit for this. Chief Superintendent O‟Connor‟s description of how Bishop Kavanagh dropped into his office regularly for a chat does not seem plausible.

Communication between authorities

28.149 Neither the Church nor the Garda authorities made any effort to ensure that relevant people were made aware of the danger which Fr Carney posed to children. The health board social workers in the area where the offences occurred or in the areas to which Fr Carney was subsequently sent were not told.

[admin]

Chapter 29: Fr Tom Naughton

Introduction

29.1 Fr Naughton was ordained in 1963 for St Patrick‟s Missionary Society, Kiltegan, Co. Wicklow (commonly known as the Kiltegan Fathers) and after his ordination he spent time in Africa and the West Indies. He left the West Indies following a disagreement with another teacher and the bishop and sought a position in the Archdiocese of Dublin.

29.2 He was first appointed to Aughrim Street parish in April 1976 and then to Valleymount parish in 1980. While working there, he was incardinated (see Chapter 3) into the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1981.

29.3 The Commission is aware of complaints of child sexual abuse against Fr Naughton by more than 20 named people. There are suspicions in respect of many more. He has twice been convicted of child sexual abuse.

Valleymount

29.4 In 1983, two parishioners from Valleymount expressed concerns to Bishop Donal Murray about Fr Naughton‟s behaviour. They claimed he was “too close to the altar boys”. Bishop Murray told the Commission that the two men wanted Fr Naughton removed from the parish. He said that the men refused to be specific with him and that they were not suggesting that there was anything wrong going on. The bishop told the Commission that he was uneasy and was afraid that it could involve inappropriate or even abusive activity with children. The parish priest at the time investigated the complaints and concluded that they were unfounded.

29.5 The type of investigation carried out is not chronicled in the files and would appear to have been totally inadequate even by the standards of the time. It can be compared unfavourably with the excellent investigations carried out in 1977 by Canon Ardle McMahon into complaints and in 1983 by Canon McMahon and Monsignor Stenson in the Fr Bill Carney case (see Chapter 28). Bishop Murray considers that this comparison is unfair as there was no specific complaint of child sexual abuse in Valleymount.

29.6 Bishop Murray did interview Fr Naughton about the behaviour but he denied any wrongdoing. Bishop Murray said he told Archbishop Ryan of the allegations. The Commission accepts that he did tell Archbishop Ryan even though there is no contemporaneous record of this on the files. Monsignor Stenson was under the impression that Archbishop Ryan had been informed.

29.7 In a statement to Gardaí in 2003 another parishioner stated that she had been informed in 1983 by two children that they had been abused by Fr Naughton. She said she had told the parish priest of the abuse on two separate occasions and in response he had told her “to pray for the victims”. She stated that she and her husband approached another priest who took their complaints seriously. That priest‟s recollection was that he reported the matter to an auxiliary bishop. He thought it was Bishop Murray but Bishop Murray denies that it was he. The parishioner stated that she also tried to talk to Bishop Murray when she was attending a confirmation service in 1984 but that “he dismissed me and pretended he didn‟t hear me, and walked away”. There was no record of these complaints on the files of the Archdiocese until the mid 1990s. Bishop Murray told the Commission that he does recall a woman speaking to him after confirmation but said it was about Fr Naughton‟s difficult attitude and that sexual assault was not mentioned. The Commission considers that Bishop Murray should have pursued the matter with the woman since he was already aware that there were some problems with Fr Naughton.

29.8 In April 1984, Bishop Murray also received a letter from another parishioner proposing an investigation into “a less than satisfactory situation” in the parish. Bishop Murray told the Commission that this letter referred to financial matters.

29.9 Within six weeks Fr Naughton was transferred to Donnycarney parish.

29.10 At least four complainants have come forward from Valleymount but it is suspected that many more children were abused. As recently as February 2006, the local parish priest, a different person to the parish priest who was there in 1983, sought information on counselling services for those who had been affected by Fr Naughton‟s behaviour. He expressed the opinion that there might be a lot more people in the parish who may have been abused but who had not come forward. He put the number at between ten and twelve. He was encouraged by the Archdiocese‟s Child Protection Service to try and persuade anyone who might have been affected to come forward.

29.11 In June 2009, just as this report was being finalised, Fr Naughton pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault in relation to a complainant from Valleymount.

29.12 In a statement regarding the Valleymount situation, issued in 2002, Bishop Murray stated that he was very aware that if he had derived “more information from the various interviews I conducted, it might have been possible to prevent some of the dreadful suffering of child abuse. I very much wish that I had been able to do so. It is a matter of the greatest regret to me that I did not manage at that time to get to the root of the problem”. No attempt was made by Bishop Murray to revisit these concerns even after he became aware of Fr Naughton‟s abusive behaviour in Donnycarney and Ringsend (see below). Bishop Murray told the Commission that, when the Donnycarney complaint was raised at an Auxiliary Bishops‟ meeting with Archbishop McNamara in November 1985, he mentioned the concerns of the two men who had approached him in Valleymount. At this stage the concerns about Valleymount were known to two Archbishops and several auxiliary bishops and none of these men thought of revisiting the issue.

Donnycarney, 1984-1986

29.13 One of the more serious sexual assaults committed by Fr Naughton was against an 11 year old altar boy from Donnycarney Parish, Mervyn Rundle. The assaults took place on a number of occasions in 1984/85. The young boy told his mother about the assaults.

29.14 The Rundle family sought the help of a family friend and in November 1985 they (Mervyn, his father and the family friend) met the chancellor, Monsignor Stenson, at Archbishop‟s House. Archbishop McNamara had replaced Archbishop Ryan as Archbishop. At that stage the family, who were a religious family, were not anxious to report to the Gardaí as they felt the church would take steps to solve the problem. The father told Monsignor Stenson at that meeting that a number of other children might also have been abused by Fr Naughton. He named one other possible victim and said that there might be five. Monsignor Stenson then interviewed Mervyn on his own. Mervyn Rundle told the Commission that Monsignor Stenson questioned him closely about his account and he found this an intimidating experience.

Meeting with Fr Naughton

29.15 The very next day, Monsignor Stenson met Fr Naughton who categorically denied all the allegations against him. He stated that there may have been an incident of horseplay which may have been misinterpreted and that he had since apologised to the family for any misunderstanding. He did, however, tell Monsignor Stenson about the fact that he had been confronted by Bishop Murray in relation to an allegation. He said that the bishop had told him that it was nothing to worry about and that “cranks97 often make allegations”. He agreed with Monsignor Stenson to seek a transfer and gave an undertaking that he would withdraw from his responsibilities for the altar boys.

29.16 Ten days later Fr Naughton did admit to abusing Mervyn Rundle on six different occasions but denied any other incidents of abuse. The reaction of the Archdiocese was that he should take a break from the scene for a few days at least. In a January 1986 memo, Monsignor Stenson indicated that Fr Naughton had withdrawn from his involvement with the altar boys and was happy to remain in Donnycarney “now that some of the dust has settled”.

Medical report

29.17 Fr Naughton was referred to a consultant psychiatrist in relation to the abuse of Mervyn Rundle. The psychiatrist‟s conclusions were that the abuse was a manifestation of Fr Naughton‟s overwhelming loneliness and was merely a misguided attempt to establish a relationship. He contrasted it with other cases that they (meaning himself and the Church authorities) had had in the past where, unfortunately, there had been a long history of similar episodes. He said he was basing his analysis on the view that this was a once-off event and stated: “I take it you have no evidence to the contrary”.

29.18 He had not been informed that there might have been other children involved in Donnycarney, nor was he informed that there were suspicions about Fr Naughton while he was in Valleymount. The Archdiocese should have provided a full account to the psychiatrist in order to ensure that he could issue a meaningful report. The Archbishop thanked him for his report but did not address the fact that he, the Archbishop, did know that this was not a once-off event.

29.19 In February 1986, Fr Naughton was still living in the parish and the Rundle parents and their friend were annoyed by the lack of action and threatened to take the matter to the Gardaí. Their friend wrote the following letter to Monsignor Stenson. It clearly sets out how the matter had been handled to date:

“Following our meeting in your office on Fri 29th Nov. 1985 and the resulting lack of action it is now necessary to put details of the whole matter on paper for the record. On Nov. 29th 1985 at 10:15am a very serious charge of child abuse was made against a priest in a Donnycarney parish. One case in particular was brought to your attention, that of young Mervyn Rundle, although there were others that were known of. Having given you a copy of the notes I myself had made after talking to the child, I arranged at your request to bring the child and his father to see you that afternoon at 2:15pm. In the meantime you said you would consult with the Archbishop who was in the house at the time. That afternoon the child and his father came to your office. You questioned the child yourself and he confirmed what you had been told that morning by me. You assured us that immediate action would be taken. On December 3rd 1985 Mr. Rundle telephoned you about the matter of going to the parish priest for confession. In the course of the conversation you told Mr. Rundle that Fr. Naughton wished to tell the parish priest himself about the matter of child abuse. You had said that the charges had not been denied. Mr. Rundle left the matter in your hands assured by you that positive action would be taken.

However, when the parish priest came to the Rundle home on Friday the 6th Dec he was shocked to hear, for the first time, that one of his priests was involved in child abuse in the parish. He had not been informed by Fr. Naughton, he had not been informed by the Archbishop and he had not been informed by you yourself. This raises several very disturbing points of a very serious nature.

1 That a priest who had been charged with and had not denied child abuse was called to Archbishop‟s House and was allowed to leave at once to return to the same parish.

2 That both you and Dr. McNamara knew about the matter and yet a week later you did not see fit or think the matter of child abuse serious enough to see if the parish priest knew about it.

3 Knowing that child abuse is a very serious crime you allowed the priest to return to the same parish where the same children were.

4 That the Roman Catholic Church which claims to be the moral guardians of the people treat child abuse in such an off-hand manner calls into question the Church‟s ability to govern anything.

The way the whole matter has been handled by Archbishop‟s House has made the Rundle family feel very guilty and angry, as I do, by the manner in which they have been let down. The only reason that you were informed was to allow you to deal with the matter with as little fuss as possible. In this we were wrong not to have contacted the Gardai first. This mistake will now be rectified. The very least that was expected was that the priest would have been removed from the parish. Today, 11 weeks later the priest is still in the parish. This goes against all the medical information I have. In fact it seems nothing at all has been done.

I can see no defence for your lack of action and the matter must now be taken up at another level and because of the Church‟s lack of interest in the problem of its priests being involved in child abuse it will have to be brought out openly. There is now the additional fact that both Dr. McNamara and you knew about the child abuse and did what appears to be nothing. I would also have to question the matter of other priests who “were” involved in child abuse and you claim were treated. The whole thing takes on very sinister tones. Before any other action is taken by me, I would like to discuss the matter with you to make sure there is no misunderstanding.” Monsignor Stenson disagreed with the conclusions reached and, in reply to this letter, stated: “That is simply not true as action was taken at parochial level and professional help and guidance obtained for the priest concerned. You will appreciate that I am not at liberty to divulge the precise details of this help”.

29.20 At this stage Monsignor Stenson was aware of the existence of another allegation. A complaint had been made to a local priest by the parents of another altar boy.

29.21 Monsignor Stenson informed Archbishop McNamara of the complaints, both about inaction in relation to the Mervyn Rundle complaint and the new complaint. Monsignor Stenson met Mr and Mrs Rundle in February 1986 and explained what steps the Church had taken, including a psychiatric evaluation, in relation to Fr Naughton. He did not inform them about the suspicions that had been raised about Fr Naughton‟s time in Valleymount. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that, for reasons of confidentiality, he did not consider that he was free to tell them about the other complaints.

29.22 Monsignor Stenson advised Fr Naughton to tell his psychiatrist about all the allegations against him. It is not known if this happened.

Stroud, 1986

29.23 Eventually, in August 1986, Fr Naughton was relieved of his curacy and sent to Stroud for a course of therapy with the promise of a further placement in the Archdiocese on receipt of a favourable report from there.

29.24 In September 1986, the director of Stroud indicated to the Archbishop that he did not believe Fr Naughton was in touch with the gravity of the situation and expressed the view that it was difficult to believe that the problem was only surfacing now.

29.25 The director of Stroud noted, in October 1986, that he was more optimistic that things could work out for Fr Naughton. However, he warned that Fr Naughton would need further support when he returned to Dublin. He also advised that the parish priest in his new placement should be informed of the situation.

Ringsend, 1986

29.26 Fr Naughton was appointed in December 1986 to the parish of Ringsend and despite his background, was given responsibility for some work in schools. He told Stroud in a follow-up meeting that this was not a problem for him given his background. Stroud expressed concern that he had ended his relationship with his counsellor. The Archdiocese arranged for him to see yet another counsellor but, in June 1988, the headmistress of the local girl‟s primary school expressed concerns about Fr Naughton engaging in horseplay and failing to desist when brought to his attention. She had heard about the complaints from Donnycarney and Co Wicklow.

29.27 By September 1988, complaints about Fr Naughton‟s inappropriate behaviour and the fact that children were often visiting his house were known to the Archdiocese.

29.28 A specific complaint was made by a young boy who had accompanied Fr Naughton to a funeral. The boy said he was inappropriately touched by him in the car on the way to the graveyard. He ran home and complained to his parents who reported it to the principal of the school. The principal reported it to the health board and the director of community care reported the matter to the Gardaí.

29.29 By early October 1988, Fr Naughton had been relieved of his duties in Ringsend. The Archdiocese thought a further period in Stroud would refocus him. However, he did not return to Stroud immediately but was placed under the care of yet another doctor in Dublin. This doctor stated that Fr Naughton should be given another chance with as many precautions as possible put in place. He suggested a position as a chaplain in a hospital. He expressed himself doubtful about the Stroud techniques and the possibility of a fundamental change or transformation in Fr Naughton‟s behaviour. Fr Naughton did return to Stroud in December 1988 and remained there for five months.

29.30 It should be noted that the situation regarding Fr Naughton was quite well known in the parish of Ringsend. A local chaplain and teacher told the Commission that, on the day after Fr Naughton was removed from his duties in the parish of Ringsend, one of the girls in his class told him that the priest had been removed because “he was messing with altar boys”. This suggests that the situation regarding Fr Naughton was being spoken about in the parish of Ringsend. This chaplain also told the Commission that this was the first he had heard of the reasons surrounding Fr Naughton‟s removal. Later that week he met the local public health nurse and told her that he knew nothing of the circumstances surrounding Fr Naughton‟s removal. The nurse was dealing with the complaints and she briefed him on the situation. He also told the Commission that, when Fr Naughton was appointed to Ringsend in December 1986, and despite the fact that he was to share a house with the incoming Fr Naughton, he was not informed by the Archdiocese of complaints about Fr Naughton.

29.31 Bishop Kavanagh spoke to the St Patrick‟s Missionary Society about Fr Naughton‟s position in January 1989. The Society told the bishop that it was not aware of any similar complaints about Fr Naughton before his appointment to the Archdiocese of Dublin. The Society was clear that the Archdiocese, not the Society, was now responsible for Fr Naughton.

29.32 Fr Naughton was not given any further appointments by the Archdiocese.

29.33 Further complaints emerged from Ringsend at a later stage.

Health board response

29.34 Following notification from the school principal, health board personnel including the acting director of community care, the social work services and the public health nurse immediately responded to the complaints. At this stage the 1987 guidelines on child abuse had been issued by the Department of Health (see Chapter 6) so the acting director of community care, on hearing of the allegation, informed the Gardaí at Ringsend of the complaint.

She also convened a case conference to which the social workers, the Gardaí and the public health nurse were invited. The Gardaí sent their apologies. It was decided at that conference that the public health nurse should approach the parents of all the altar boys and also the parents of those boys involved in Fr Naughton‟s garden project. This was a project in which Fr Naughton encouraged young boys to assist him growing vegetables.

29.35 The public health nurse told the Commission that it was decided that the parents should speak with their own children to see whether there had been any inappropriate behaviour by Fr Naughton and if so, that they should come back to her and seek advice on how they could handle it. She also told them that if a subsequent disclosure was made, they could come back at any time and seek either counselling or advice. She gave evidence that the school principal had a very good relationship with the boys and that she encouraged the families that, if they did not want to communicate with her, they should communicate with him or any other person in the health board they thought might be appropriate.

29.36 The acting director of community care followed up matters by contacting Stroud. She expressed her concern that Fr Naughton had received treatment in the past but had subsequently re-offended. She was assured by Stroud that provision had been made for Fr Naughton under strict supervision outside the Dublin area and that he would not be receiving a further diocesan appointment. She also contacted her health board counterpart on the north side of the city to ensure that her counterpart was aware that there had been incidents in Donneycarney and subsequent incidents in Ringsend. In May 1989 she contacted Monsignor Stenson in order to get further information about Fr Naughton‟s current whereabouts.

Return to Kiltegan, 1989

29.37 In May 1989, St Patrick‟s Missionary Society agreed, at the request of the Dublin Archdiocese, to give accommodation to Fr Naughton at their headquarters at Kiltegan where work was provided for him. An attempt was made to excardinate him from the Archdiocese of Dublin but, as the St Patrick‟s Missionary Society was unable or unwilling to readmit him to the order, he remained and still remains a priest of the Dublin Archdiocese. The Archdiocese paid an allowance towards his upkeep in Kiltegan even though the Society did not think this was necessary. He attended a support group and he carried out some limited ministry. There was extensive communication between the Archdiocese and the Society in relation to him in the period 1989 – 1992.

Aughrim Street complaints

29.38 In the mid to late 1990s, a number of complaints of sexual assault were made to Gardaí by men who claimed they were abused by Fr Naughton while he was a curate in Aughrim Street between 1976 and 1980. The Gardaí followed up these complaints but the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) directed that no prosecution should take place due to the lapse of time.

Prosecution

29.39 A number of complainants who were already known to the Archdiocese made complaints to the Gardaí in 1995 and 1996. Fr Naughton was prosecuted in relation to sexual assaults on three boys. In May 1998, he pleaded guilty to six counts of indecent assault on Mervyn Rundle, the other altar boy from Donnycarney and the boy from Ringsend. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment by the Dublin Circuit Court. This was reduced on appeal to two and a half years.

29.40 The only incidents of abuse which Fr Naughton had admitted to archdiocesan officials were those relating to Mervyn Rundle.

Follow-up by the Archdiocese

29.41 In October 1995, Archbishop Connell met the Rundles and apologised to them. Counselling was offered to all the complainants. In the course of making inquiries about these complaints, the Archdiocese was told of a suspicion that Fr Naughton may have abused while he was in the West Indies.

29.42 After his conviction, a letter from the Archbishop expressing his sorrow and offering pastoral outreach was circulated to the parishes where Fr Naughton had served.

29.43 There was again extensive communication between the Archdiocese and St Patrick‟s Missionary Society about what was to happen when Fr Naughton was released from prison. He was released in June 2000. He was accommodated in a number of religious residences and eventually, the Society agreed that it would look after him under strict conditions.

29.44 The Archdiocese and the Society discussed the monitoring arrangements and who would be liable for any further offending by Fr Naughton. He was receiving therapy but he was a reluctant participant.

29.45 A report from Granada in June 2000 stated that Fr Naughton was unlikely to re-offend and had not abused in many years. It was stated that he would not require stringent monitoring or restrictions. It was recommended that he be placed in a religious community setting.

29.46 He returned to Kiltegan in January 2001, initially on a six month trial basis. He was forbidden from engaging in ministry and was not allowed to have any unsupervised contact with children. An agreement was signed between the Archdiocese and the Society which stipulated that Fr Naughton was to remain the responsibility of the Archdiocese and the Archdiocese was responsible for his supervision. This agreement has been renewed every six months since then. Fr Naughton became a beneficiary of the Clerical Fund Society (see Chapter 8).

29.47 He is visited regularly by his priest advisor who is very kind to him.

29.48 The health board was informed of his living arrangements and was satisfied with the measures adopted by the Archdiocese.

29.49 In spite of some difficulties and his desire to take on ministry, the arrangements seem to be working out reasonably well. He continues to be monitored by the Granada Institute. The delegate visits regularly to check that he is keeping to the restrictions that have been imposed.

29.50 Civil claims have been settled with a number of complainants.

Other complaints

29.51 During the currency of the Commission a number of other complaints have been received and are in the process of being investigated.

29.52 Following the Prime Time programme Cardinal Secrets in 2002, the Gardaí conducted an inquiry as to whether there was sufficient evidence to mount a case of misprision of felony against any Church official (see Chapter 5). They concluded there was not: “with the exception of this apathetic attitude in relation to this [the Mervyn Rundle] incident there does not appear to be any other evidence of knowledge by the Church as to Tom Naughton‟s catalogue of abuse”.

The Commission’s assessment

The Archdiocese

29.53 In the Commission‟s view, Bishop Murray must take some responsibility for the very poor handling of complaints against this priest. The Commission believes it is to his credit that he recognised this when he issued his statement admitting his failure to follow up properly the complaints he had received from Valleymount.

29.54 It is unacceptable that, when the Donnycarney complaints were being discussed by the bishops, he, they and Archbishop McNamara did not return to the Co Wicklow parish and carry out further investigations. This was despite the fact that Bishop Murray told the Commission that he informed the meeting about the two men‟s complaints about Fr Naughton.

29.55 The archdiocesan authorities were wrong not to inform all priests in Ringsend that there had been a serious complaint about Fr Naughton while he worked in Donnycarney.

29.56 Overall, in their handling of the complaints against Fr Naughton, archdiocesan authorities, particularly Bishop Murray, the Valleymount parish priest and Archbishops Ryan and McNamara let down those families who, because they were good Catholics, trusted the Church to do something about this man. Archbishop McNamara was slow to respond to the complaint from the Rundles despite the priest admitting sexual abuse. As a result, Fr Naughton was allowed to continue his abusive behaviour for several years thereby severely damaging more victims. It was only when they went to the Gardaí that they finally received satisfaction.

29.57 The Archdiocese was, at best, evasive in its referrals of Fr Naughton for medical treatment in Ireland. Nowhere was there a full revelation of its concerns or its knowledge. In particular, following the first report from the first psychiatrist who saw him, which was clearly based on wrong information, the Archbishop‟s response was merely to write a note thanking the psychiatrist for his most helpful report. Fr Naughton was then going to be retained in his ministry. It was not until the next complaint surfaced, which in fact happened the following month, that he was sent to Stroud to which a full report was provided.

29.58 The Archdiocese did, however belatedly, act correctly in the view of the Commission, in arranging for Fr Naughton to live with his former Society when the Ringsend complaints were made. Dismissing him then would have led to a situation where he could have continued his activities unsupervised. Returning him to live with his former Society meant that his activities could be strictly monitored and controlled. Indeed, his former Society is to be commended for accepting him.

29.59 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. Monsignor Stenson states that the aim was to rehabilitate the wrongdoer rather than to protect him. Regardless of the aim in respect of the wrongdoer, the welfare of the children was not addressed. As a result Fr Naughton was allowed to continue his abuse for several years after legitimate concerns were first raised. This would not have happened if the Archdiocese had fulfilled its duty to the children in the first instance.

29.60 There was good communication between the Archdiocese and St Patrick‟s Missionary Society throughout.

The Garda response

29.61 Once formal complaints were made to Gardaí they responded positively. The Commission considers that it was unfortunate that they failed to attend the meeting arranged by the acting director of community care following complaints about Fr Naughton‟s behaviour in Ringsend. Had they attended they would have been alerted earlier to the fact that these south Dublin complaints were not the only ones against Fr Naughton.

29.62 The Commission acknowledges that the Rundles and the mother of one Ringsend complainant did not want the Gardaí involved initially, believing that the Church authorities would handle matters.

Health board

29.63 The health board staff – the acting director of community care, the social workers and the public health nurse – acted with commendable speed and courage in dealing with this case. It is one of the very few cases examined by the Commission where the health authorities were proactive in trying to prevent abuse. The Commission recognises that the health authorities are often constrained by resources and their legal remit in taking such action (see Chapter 6).

[admin]

Chapter 30: Fr Cicero*98

Introduction

30.1 Fr Cicero was born in 1939 and ordained in 1963 for the diocese of Ossory. He died in 2002. He was intellectually clever and was an expert in canon law. He was given many appointments in the Ossory diocese but none was successful as he was totally disorganised and chaotic in dealing with everyday matters. In the early 1970s he was appointed to the Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal on a part time basis. This involved travelling to Dublin two days a week. He continued to work in Ossory on the other days.

30.2 In early summer 1981, two priests called to Fr Cicero‟s house to try and sort out what officials from the diocese of Ossory regarded as an administrative mess. As well as finding a very substantial amount of paperwork not dealt with, they discovered what Bishop Forristal, the bishop of Ossory, described in evidence to the Commission as “lurid magazines”. In September 1981 Fr Cicero was called to a meeting with Bishop Forristal. Bishop Forristal has stated that he, the bishop, was not aware of the existence of lurid magazines at the time of this meeting. The meeting was concerned with an appointment in which Fr Cicero‟s lack of organisation would not be such a problem. His chaotic approach to practical matters eventually led to a conviction for having no tax and insurance on his car and he was banned from driving. In June 1985, following a request from the Moderator of the Regional Marriage Tribunal, it was decided that he would be transferred to Dublin to work in the tribunal. He remained incardinated in the diocese of Ossory.

Dublin appointment

30.3 As well as working in the tribunal, Fr Cicero was appointed as a chaplain in an inner city parish. It was here that the first allegations of child sexual abuse surfaced.

30.4 In late 1986, his parish priest was approached by the mother of a girl who had called to collect her daughter at Fr Cicero‟s house. Fr Cicero had taken to inviting young girls back to his house to play with or use his computer. He had a personal computer and was an expert programmer.

(Personal computers were quite rare in the mid 1980s). When the mother called, the daughter was upstairs and the mother heard her say: “will we come down as we are or will we put our clothes on?”. The mother wrote a letter of complaint to the parish priest. The parish priest showed the letter to Fr Cicero. The parish priest‟s recollection at a later date was that Fr Cicero went white when he read the letter. Fr Cicero put the letter in his pocket and the parish priest thought that was the end of the matter.

30.5 In March 1987, two women reported their concerns about Fr Cicero and his computer to the local curate. They explained that their two eight-year -old daughters had told them of playing games in his house. The games involved a computer program to command the removal of socks and tops, kissing each other and kissing the priest. It later transpired that a number of other young girls were involved as well. The matter was also reported by the parents to the parish priest. Both the parish priest and the curate reported the complaint to their local bishop, Bishop Williams, and the parish priest also reported the 1986 complaint. The curate wrote a detailed letter outlining the complaints. These incidents were not reported to the Gardaí or any other appropriate authorities.

Medical report

30.6 Bishop Williams referred Fr Cicero to a psychiatrist, Professor Noel Walsh, who saw him on two occasions. Professor Walsh stated that there was some “substance to the complaints which were made against him”. Professor Walsh appeared to be under the impression that all that had happened was engaging in undressing games in Fr Cicero‟s presence. His report stated that there was no physical contact. He concluded that Fr Cicero was involved in “a form of compulsive voyeurism which had emerged as a problem for him in recent years”. Professor Walsh stated that Fr Cicero had no major psychiatric problem and that he was quite distressed by the problem he did have. Professor Walsh recommended that he return to work with the marriage tribunal and be relocated in part-time pastoral work. He also recommended that Fr Cicero return for some further sessions but he did not do so.

30.7 As with a number of other cases that were referred to Professor Walsh, the whole story does not appear to have been given to him. The local curate who had received the complaints had written a letter to Bishop Williams outlining in detail what he had been told and this account was supported by the parish priest. This letter does not appear to have been given to Professor Walsh. It is highly unlikely that Professor Walsh would state in his report that there had been no physical contact if the allegation of kissing Fr Cicero, as had been reported in the letter, had been known to him.

30.8 Fr Cicero was removed from the parish. The parents did not pursue the matter.

Supervision

30.9 Monsignor Sheehy, who was the judicial vicar and Fr Cicero‟s superior in the marriage tribunal, stated that he was prepared to have the priest continue as a full-time member of the tribunal on the basis that:

Fr Cicero knew that Monsignor Sheehy was aware of his difficulties;

he would work solely in accordance with the policy and practice of the tribunal;

any further aberration would inevitably mean his dismissal from the tribunal and accordingly his return to the diocese of Ossory;

some appropriate accommodation together with some kind of convent chaplaincy be found for him which would be supervised.

It is interesting to note that there is no mention of any possible civil or criminal sanction being applied against Fr Cicero for any past or future breaches.

30.10 A good deal of manoeuvring took place with the knowledge of Bishop Forristal, Bishop Williams and Monsignor Sheehy as the following communication, in May 1987, from Bishop Williams to Monsignor Sheehy illustrates:

“Bishop Carroll would be very grateful if you would quietly arrange for [Fr Cicero] to resume his duties in the Tribunal and to take up residence in [a convent] until the end of June. I would suggest that this could be arranged quietly through Bishop Forristal and that no formal appointment, or reappointment, to either Tribunal or chaplaincy, is necessary”.

30.11 In July 1987, Fr Cicero was appointed chaplain to a convent. It is surprising that, although the convent is a self-contained unit, no one appears to have considered its suitability in light of its proximity to a girls‟ school. The superior of the convent was made aware of his activities by Monsignor Sheehy and was instructed to maintain a watchful eye on him.

30.12 He remained in the convent until 1991 when the mother superior‟s term of office came to an end. He was then appointed as a parish chaplain with a self-contained residence. Monsignor Sheehy outlined the supervisory regime in a letter to Bishop Forristal. This involved a housekeeper attending Fr Cicero‟s apartment two days a week and regular visits by Monsignor Sheehy‟s secretary. There is a further letter early in 1992 indicating the regime was being maintained.

1995

30.13 The Dublin Archdiocese reviewed Fr Cicero‟s file in 1995 as part of its review of all cases involving child sexual abuse. Monsignor Stenson commented:

“by Framework standards it would appear that child-care issues would have arisen in respect of the children in [the parish] and this was never addressed at the time. It is clear that there was no question of the matter being reported to the Gardaí even though it would probably fall under the definition of child sexual abuse in the Framework document”. Some correspondence ensued between Monsignor Stenson and Bishop Forristal. In 1997, a number of options were given to Bishop Forristal. Bishop Forrestal had asked his own delegate (in the diocese of Ossory) whether the matter should be referred to the Gardaí; whether an investigation should be conducted internally; and whether the matter would be referred to the advisory panel. However, it seems that Bishop Forristal and Monsignor Sheehy agreed to let matters continue as they were, on the basis that there had been no incidents for many years, but that Fr Cicero should be referred for assessment.

1997-1999

30.14 Between 1997 and 1999 there was a series of letters from the Archdiocese to Bishop Forristal demanding that Fr Cicero be sent for assessment. Nothing was done until November 1999. Bishop Forristal told the Commission that he was “very slow in progressing the various steps which ought to have been taken”. While he did not regard it as an excuse, he told the Commission that both he and Fr Cicero had extremely serious health problems around this time. The Commission is satisfied that these health problems may have contributed to the delay and that there was no active conspiracy to prevent Fr Cicero having the assessment and treatment, but it still regards the delay as unacceptable.

30.15 Finally, after what could be described as a stern letter from Archbishop Connell to Bishop Forristal in November 1999, Fr Cicero was assessed at the Granada Institute.

30.16 Granada had knowledge of all the complaints. It also had Professor Walsh‟s report of 1987. Fr Cicero told Granada that he had been involved in sexually touching young girls when he was a teenager and had been interested sexually in young girls ever since. He said that the incidents reported in 1987 were the only other times he had acted on these impulses. He admitted that he played the games described by the girls but he denied touching any of the victims. He described his activities as largely voyeuristic. He estimated that there were approximately 12 victims dating from his 40s. He believed that what he was doing did not harm the girls.

30.17 Granada concluded that:

Fr Cicero urgently required a specialised therapy programme.

He could continue his work in the marriage tribunal while engaging in therapy.

He would likely require a life long programme of after care and support.

2000 - 2002

30.18 In June 2000 one of his victims attempted to make contact with Fr Cicero. She did not attend the arranged appointment. Fr Cicero told the Archdiocese about this. Discussions took place between the Archdiocese and the diocese of Ossory. During this time Fr Cicero was attending counselling sessions in Granada which he stated were beneficial. There was a review meeting at Granada involving Bishop Forristal, Fr Cicero and Granada staff. Granada now advised that Fr Cicero should cease ministry in the marriage tribunal and in his chaplaincy. It would appear that there was confusion in the Archdiocese because Archbishop Connell had been told that Granada was recommending that he could remain in the tribunal (which it did in November 1999) and Monsignor Dolan was aware that Granada was recommending that he be removed from the tribunal (which it did in August 2000). There was also some doubt about who was entitled to remove him from the marriage tribunal. The Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal deals with a number of dioceses including Ossory. Bishop Forristal had nominated Fr Cicero to the tribunal but, theoretically at least, he was appointed by all the relevant bishops. The issue then arose as to whether the other bishops needed to be told of the circumstances.

30.19 One thing is clear however - the Archdiocese wanted to sever Fr Cicero‟s connection with Dublin. In November 2000, it was decided that he would withdraw from the marriage tribunal and return to Ossory. He was removed from his parish chaplaincy position but he did not return to Ossory.

30.20 In December 2000, Monsignor Sheehy described Fr Cicero‟s departure as “a shattering blow” to the marriage tribunal. He also had “a distinct anxiety as to the canonical validity of the procedure” but saw no point in pursuing that. In January 2001, Bishop Forristal met Fr Cicero and it appears that they and Monsignor Sheehy reached agreement that Fr Cicero would be allowed to remain in Dublin doing unofficial work for the marriage tribunal. Bishop Forristal told the Commission that this was a compromise which allowed Fr Cicero to carry out largely academic work which had no ministry with children. It appears that Monsignor Dolan was not aware of this agreement until about a year later.

30.21 The Commission considers that Monsignor Sheehy manipulated the situation in order to keep Fr Cicero as part of his team. As in other cases in which he had a less than helpful or constructive involvement, Monsignor Sheehy did not seem ever to consider the question of the protection of children. Bishop Forristal clearly felt that Monsignor Sheehy was always in the background when he was talking to Fr Cicero: he said he always “felt that when I was talking to him, whether it was in person or on the phone, that everything we discussed was discussed elsewhere and he was getting further advice”. The Commission is in no doubt that both Monsignor Sheehy and Fr Cicero used their extensive knowledge of the canon law as a means of avoiding a forced return to Ossory.

30.22 A series of correspondence then ensued between the Archdiocese, its legal advisers and Ossory in order to ascertain Fr Cicero‟s exact status. In the course of this correspondence, Fr Cicero, who had been suffering from ill health, died suddenly in August 2002. The first statement to the Gardaí by one of his victims was made in September 2002. The Archdiocese has made a civil settlement with one complainant.

30.23 In a statement to the Commission, Bishop Forristal very fairly accepted responsibility for the delays in dealing with Fr Cicero in the late 1990s. He said that, on reviewing the history of his dealings with Fr Cicero: “I have been deeply disturbed by my own delays and failures in applying the principles of our Church Guidelines, particularly that of the paramountcy of the safety of children”. He went on to say that Archbishop Connell and his chancellors were continually urging him to take action. “Any delay was my doing and was in no way due to the Archbishop of Dublin or his staff.”

The Commission’s assessment

30.24 The parish priest who did not immediately report the 1986 complaint is the same priest who discovered a person whom he described as a woman in her thirties in Fr Noel Reynolds‟s bed– see Chapter 35. As is pointed out in that chapter, “the woman” was more than likely to have been a young teenager. He also failed to report that discovery to archdiocesan officials. The Commission considers that the young curate acted responsibly by writing an account of complaints to his bishop.

30.25 The Archdiocese acted correctly in removing Fr Cicero from the parish. However, notwithstanding that the mother superior in the convent was aware of his history, there were undoubtedly dangers attached to giving him an appointment to a convent which bordered a girls‟ school.

30.26 It appears that, to a certain extent, everybody, including bishops, felt in awe of Fr Cicero‟s intellect. Most of the people with whom he dealt regarded him as intellectually superior to them and it appears that he concurred fully with this assessment. He undoubtedly had a powerful ally in Monsignor Sheehy. Monsignor Sheehy used the confusion which seemed to exist between the Archdiocese of Dublin and the diocese of Ossory to get the outcome he wanted. However, the Commission does recognise that Monsignor Sheehy put a monitoring system in place.

30.27 When the Dublin Archdiocese decided to review matters in 1995 and took the decision to return Fr Cicero to Ossory, they found themselves stymied. Bishop Forristal, as he himself admits, was mainly responsible for the delays in having the priest assessed. The bishop told the Commission that his exercise of responsibility over Fr Cicero was “severely hampered by the vigour with which Monsignor Sheehy acted to preserve [Fr Cicero‟s] unofficial working function at the Tribunal and to defend his position generally”. The bishop said that, ultimately, he was persuaded by Monsignor Sheehy‟s view that Fr Cicero‟s “mental and physical wellbeing were being assured through his continuance in that role”. The Commission finds it extraordinary that Bishop Forristal and the Archdiocese allowed Monsignor Sheehy to have such influence as they had the power to have their wishes in respect of Fr Cicero implemented.

30.28 The matter was not reported to the Gardaí until April 2002 and was never reported to the health board. This was in breach of the Church‟s own guidelines.

30.29 The files do not contain any account of how the Church dealt with the parents of the children who were abused. Bishop Forristal requested the Commission to note that, as bishop of Ossory, he was not in a position to respond directly to the parents who had not approached him. He did meet pastorally with one of the victims. The fact that Fr Cicero was moved from the parish appears to have satisfied the parents.

[admin]

Chapter 31: Fr Clemens*99

Introduction

31.1 Fr Clemens was born in the 1960s and ordained in the 1980s. He has served in a number of parishes in the Dublin Archdiocese but is currently voluntarily standing aside from ministry. He has had two allegations of inappropriate behaviour and sexual abuse made against him, the first arising within months of his ordination. The investigation into the second allegation is ongoing.

First allegations

31.2 In early December 1988, five sets of parents complained to the parish priest of the parish where Fr Clemens was serving. He had taken charge of the altar boys on his arrival in the parish a short time earlier. On one occasion during altar boy practice, some of the boys had been misbehaving and Fr Clemens allegedly made them lower their trousers as a form of punishment. There was no touching involved.

31.3 One of the altar boys immediately told his parents of the incident. He claimed that he had been kept in the vestry for approximately 40 minutes but had refused to remove his trousers. Fr Clemens allegedly released him only when he showed him the top of his underwear. This boy‟s parents immediately reported this to the parish priest who told them that there must be some mistake and made an appointment for them to return that evening. In the interim, these parents called to the parents of the other altar boys involved in the incident. One altar boy denied it had happened to him and it was not until a Garda investigation began in 2002 that he admitted he had been subjected to this treatment. In 2002, he alleged that this treatment had occurred at least 20 times over a two-year period; this, however, is unlikely to be accurate as the priest was in the parish for only a few months. This same former altar boy also alleged in 2002 that on one occasion he was asked by Fr Clemens to remove his underwear but he had refused. A third altar boy said at the time (December 1988) that he had been asked to remove his trousers. The parents of these three altar boys, and the parents of two others, went back to see the parish priest later that evening as arranged.

31.4 In the interim, it appears that Fr Clemens had met his parish priest and denied the allegations. However, when the allegations were put to him again in the presence of one of the families, he admitted to asking their son to remove his trousers, saying it was punishment for misbehaviour. The boy‟s father threatened to go to the media and the Gardaí but was dissuaded by the parish priest who promised to deal with the issue and to inform the Archbishop.

31.5 Bishop Murray was immediately informed and in turn contacted Archbishop‟s House in December 1988. The allegations were discussed at a meeting of the auxiliary bishops where it was decided that Fr Clemens would be given alternative accommodation in a non-parochial setting. He was removed from the parish and went to live with another priest. It would appear that a considerable number of parishioners were aware of the incidents and the parents of the boys involved were adamant that Fr Clemens should have no post in the parish.

31.6 Fr Clemens attended a psychiatrist and admitted that the punishment was of an impulsive nature and possibly related to voyeuristic impulses. The psychiatrist concluded that the incident could best be regarded as “an impulsive indiscretion which did not involve any harm to the boys in question and probably reflects a certain vulnerability in [Fr Clemens‟s] personality”. The doctor did not regard the incident as a serious problem and concluded it was very unlikely to recur. Continued outpatient care was arranged until September 1989. In December 1989 the psychiatrist recommended an appointment in a parochial setting as soon as possible.

31.7 Approximately one week after the first reported incident, the parish priest met some of the parents to update them on developments and offer their son some counselling but this was refused.

31.8 Fr Clemens was appointed curate in a parish at the other end of the diocese in January 1989. The parish priest of this parish was informed about the allegations but it was decided not to inform the other priests. Concerns were later raised in the new parish by teachers at the local primary school because they had heard rumours about the incident in the previous parish.

Bishop O‟Mahony met the teachers. He told the Commission that he had informed the teachers of the results of the psychiatric assessment and that Fr Clemens was being monitored. He told them that “within the limits of fallibility and having taken expert opinion there was no one at risk”.

31.9 When the Archdiocese began to report cases to the Gardaí in 1996, Fr Clemens was referred to the Granada Institute for a second review. (He was not named in the first list given to the Gardaí in November 1995 – see Chapter 5.) He had two meetings with a psychologist who issued a favourable final review in February 1998. This stated that Fr Clemens showed no evidence of maladjustment and presented as emotionally stable with a sexual orientation to adult women. There was no indication of an erotic interest towards children and no evidence of posing any risk to children.

31.10 In 2001, Fr Clemens was appointed to another parish as part of the normal process of appointments.

31.11 In May 2002, the parish priest in his first parish received a solicitor‟s letter on behalf of the altar boy who had claimed he was kept in the vestry for 40 minutes. The former altar boy was now an adult and he threatened civil proceedings for false imprisonment. He also said he intended to contact the Gardaí.

31.12 This young man‟s parents made a formal complaint to Gardaí in May 2002. The Gardaí carried out a thorough investigation. They took statements from the altar boys involved in the complaint, their parents and others who had served as altar boys in 1988. They also took statements from Fr Clemens, the parish priest and Bishop Murray. There were some conflicting statements given, some saying there was also smacking involved, others saying they had heard rumours but had never witnessed anything. Fr Clemens told Gardaí that, at the time of the incident, one boy had his underwear showing and he told him to tuck his shirt in; he did ask to see another boy‟s underwear. He denied all other aspects of the allegation.

31.13 The Gardaí contacted the chancellor, Monsignor Dolan in August 2002 and told him that there were four allegations against this priest. They wanted a statement from Archbishop Connell as to why this priest was transferred in 1988 and information on what treatment he had received. The Gardaí said they did not think there was much in the allegation but wanted further information before sending the file to the DPP. Monsignor Dolan provided them with a statement documenting events surrounding the allegations.

31.14 In November 2002, Monsignor Dolan contacted Granada seeking clarification as to whether Fr Clemens‟s behaviour could come under the definition of child sexual abuse as outlined in the Framework Document. Granada said it would not. An advisory panel meeting in October 2003 noted this firm view and agreed with Granada. The panel recommended that no action be taken until the Garda investigation had been concluded. The DPP decided not to prosecute.

Second allegation

31.15 A new allegation was made in April 2005. It related to an incident which had allegedly occurred in 1988/89 when the complainant was about five years old and Fr Clemens was in the parish where the first complaints were made. The complainant alleged that this priest had fondled him. The Archdiocese followed the Framework Document procedures. The complainant was offered counselling. Fr Clemens has stepped aside from ministry and denies the allegation. The matter had not been resolved by early 2007.

The Commission’s assessment

31.16 The Archdiocese dealt quite well with the allegations relating to the altar boys. There is no doubt that Fr Clemens‟s behaviour was inappropriate but it was not clear that it involved child sexual abuse. The second allegation does involve child sexual abuse and it is being dealt with in accordance with the agreed procedures.

[admin]

Chapter 32: Fr Dominic Savio Boland

OFM Cap

32.1 Fr John Boland is a member of the Capuchin Franciscan Order. His religious name is Fr Dominic Savio Boland. He was born in 1930 and ordained in 1966. He worked in the Archdiocese of Dublin as a teacher, school chaplain and hospital chaplain. He is now living in one of the order‟s houses in Ireland with restrictions on his activities and ministry.

32.2 Fr Boland is a convicted serial child sexual abuser. He has mainly abused males, but there are also allegations in relation to females. He was convicted of nine counts of indecent assault in 2001 against one victim and he received a 12-month suspended sentence. The Commission is aware of allegations or suspicions in respect of nine named children. Some of these children also reported that they were aware that Fr Boland had abused other children. He has admitted to abusing about 20 children.

First complaint

32.3 The first allegation of child sexual abuse against Fr Boland for which the Commission has documentary evidence was made in December 1989 to the order. A novice in the order alleged that he had been abused when he was about 13 years old; this was four years before he joined the order. The abuse involved fondling. The head of the order decided to “look after everything”. He arranged counselling for the victim and he sent Fr Boland to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist reported in March 1991 that Fr Boland was remorseful and seemed motivated to ensure no repetition.

Second complaint

32.4 Another complaint was made to the Gardaí in March 1994. The complainant alleged he had been abused by a priest in his own home in 1973 when he was about 11 years old. He did not know the priest‟s name but he knew the name of the order and he was able to describe a distinguishing physical characteristic of Fr Boland. The Gardaí then interviewed this complainant‟s parents. They said their son had told them about the assault at the time and the father had complained to a priest in Clonliffe College.

32.5 This complainant had told his parents in 1973 that he had been abused by a diocesan priest – Fr Ioannes* (see Chapter 17). The complaint in respect of Fr Ioannes was dealt with by Monsignor Richard Glennon (a former chancellor of the Archdiocese, then a vicar general and parish priest). There is no record of this original complaint in the files of the Archdiocese and Monsignor Glennon died in 1985. The complainant‟s parents told the Commission that Fr Boland had arrived at their house shortly after the complaint had been made to the Church authorities about Fr Ioannes. The parents thought he was visiting them as part of the process of dealing with that complaint. Fr Boland and the boy were left in a room together for a short time and the boy came out and complained about him.

32.6 In 1994, when the Gardaí were talking to Monsignor Stenson about Fr Ioannes*, they told him that there was a complaint against a Fr Dominic who wore a brown robe and had a distinguishing physical characteristic. The Gardaí told Monsignor Stenson that they knew who he was and they were following it up. Monsignor Stenson made a note of this but it was filed in Fr Ioannes‟s files and its connection to Fr Boland was not made by the Archdiocese until 2004.

32.7 Fr Boland was interviewed by the Gardaí immediately following this complaint in 1994. He said he could not recall this complainant but did remember his house and having tea with the complainant‟s mother. He said that, on occasion, he would hug children but he could not recall doing anything else.

32.8 The Gardaí prepared a file for the DPP. It is clear from the Garda report to the DPP that the Gardaí believed the complainant. The DPP decided not to prosecute mainly because of the delay, but it was also considered that Fr Boland‟s explanation was quite credible.

32.9 The order decided that, in light of this allegation, the action taken in relation to the allegation by the first complainant was inadequate. In October 1994, Fr Boland was sent to the Granada Institute for assessment and treatment. At this stage Fr Boland was living in one of the order‟s houses outside of the Archdiocese of Dublin. He was allowed to say mass in public but he did not hold any public appointment.

Suspicion/concern

32.10 Shortly after this, at Easter 1995, the matron of a hospital, to which Fr Boland was not the chaplain, expressed unease about the fact that he was visiting the children‟s ward. He was withdrawn from all hospital work.

32.11 Granada reported that Fr Boland asserted that his involvement with children in the hospital was purely pastoral and there was no sexual activity. He acknowledged that he had “transgressed a boundary” with the first complainant but nothing similar had happened since. Granada, having discussed the matter with Fr Boland and his superiors, concluded that Fr Boland had not been involved with children in any sexual way since the occasion ten years earlier. However, they pointed out that he had not realised the extent to which his ministry, especially with children, could be perceived as inappropriate and that he needed greater supervision. Fr Boland agreed to hand over his car keys to his superior and not to have any contact with children except with another adult present.

Third complaint

32.12 A third complainant came forward in October 1995. He was interviewed by the order‟s delegate. He alleged that Fr Boland had sat him on his knee and kissed him in one of the order‟s houses. He was about eight or nine years old at the time. Fr Boland ran a club for young boys and this complainant had seen him behave similarly towards other boys in the club. This complainant also made a complaint to the Gardaí.

32.13 In an interview with the order‟s delegate, Fr Boland admitted to sexual activity with the first complainant but not with the two subsequent complainants. He admitted that he had abused other boys in the past but claimed that this behaviour had ceased eight or nine years previously.

32.14 The order‟s advisory group met and considered the case which was now recognised to be more serious than had previously been thought. It was decided to withdraw Fr Boland from ministry, to send him to another location and to send him for assessment and treatment to a therapeutic facility in the UK. The Granada report and the report of the delegate‟s interview with Fr Boland were provided to the personnel in the UK facility.

32.15 The members of the order who had lived in the same house as Fr Boland were told that he had been transferred from this house to a clinic in the UK following reports about him which were brought to the Provincial‟s attention. They were also told that the only address to be given for him was that of the head of the order in the UK.

32.16 The assessment from the UK therapeutic facility showed that Fr Boland acknowledged that he had a sexual interest in, and had been fantasising about sex with, young children since his mid-teens. It described a well developed belief system which supported and legitimised his sexual interest in children. It became apparent to the therapists that Fr Boland had convinced himself that boys of 11 or 12 years were aware of sexual matters and might enjoy being touched in a sexual way. He believed that they would not be harmed by what he was doing to them. Consequently, it became clear to the therapists that Fr Boland had very distorted beliefs that allowed him to sexually offend.

32.17 Fr Boland described how he used his role as a priest to target children. He would seek out opportunities to be among children and would engage their interest by offering them holy medals and pictures. He would draw upon their perception of the priest to gain their trust and be accepted by them. Once he had targeted a particular child, he would befriend the parents and begin to visit that child‟s house. He would then gradually gain access to the child by manipulating the family members and creating situations where he would be alone with the child. He would then introduce and normalise sexual touching as a regular component of their meetings. He believed that the first complainant “both consented to and actively participated in the sexual contact”. He did acknowledge that he was responsible for the sexual nature of the relationship but failed to see the power differential between him and his victim.

32.18 He acknowledged that he had fantasised about children all of his adult life and had committed about 100 offences against 20 children. His first offence was when he was 16 years old when he abused an 11 year old. He claimed that he had himself been frequently abused at the age of eight.

32.19 The assessment concluded that Fr Boland had a high risk of re-offending.

32.20 The order delegate met the first complainant in December 1995. This complainant did not want any report to be made to the Gardaí and said he would regard such reporting as an invasion of his privacy.

32.21 A further report was received from the UK therapeutic facility in January 1996. This showed that Fr Boland had many manipulative techniques which he instinctively used to prevent analysis of his offending. He used methods such as:

intellectualising his sexual abuse and deflecting responsibility onto victims;

minimising the impact of the behaviour;

engaging in distorted thinking about children and sexuality.

32.22 This meant that there were blocks to treating him.

32.23 Fr Boland was visited in this facility by a member of the order‟s advisory group. She reported that he minimised how he sexually abused children and he attempted to manipulate her into getting him some form of ministry. He used religion and spirituality to divert from his offending. She concluded that he was a dangerous offender and expressed huge doubts about his ability to engage in treatment. His thinking was much distorted and she was of the view that treatment was not helping him and he should be removed from the unit.

Fourth complaint

32.24 A new allegation then emerged. This was from a girl who alleged she had been abused during a school retreat and that other girls had also been abused. They had told some teachers and two priests but the general reaction was that nobody would believe them as Fr Boland had such a saintly reputation. One of the priests told the order. The girl and her mother were contacted by a member of the order‟s advisory group. The girl was angry with the priest who had reported to the order but agreed to put her story in writing. She refused the offer of counselling.

32.25 A member of the order visited Fr Boland in the therapeutic facility to put the new allegation to him. He denied any sexual involvement but said he had comforted some girls during the retreat. He later said that there were a few girls whom he hugged and kissed.

32.26 In August 1996, a further report from the UK therapeutic facility showed that Fr Boland was not making progress. He was highly manipulative and continued to exploit the image of the “gentle, elderly, naïve priest”. Since the new allegations had been made, he regarded himself as the victim.

32.27 The advisory group decided that the health board should be informed of the allegations in relation to the school retreat and of the places where Fr Boland had worked and given retreats. The delegate met a representative of the health board.

32.28 The advisory group member visited Fr Boland again in April 1997. She found that he was making some progress but was still very manipulative. She discussed a support group for him when he was released. She considered that he would need strict boundaries regarding visitors and callers and that he would benefit from a relapse prevention programme.

32.29 Fr Boland returned to one of the order‟s houses in Ireland in May 1997. A contract of behaviour was agreed. This provided that Fr Boland:

• was free to wear his habit or clerical collar in the friary, but not in public;

• could celebrate mass privately;

• could use all areas of the house except the front door and front office;

• could make phone calls only to family, support group, counsellor, confessor or other members of the order with the permission of the superior in the house;

• could receive phone calls from family, support group, counsellor, confessor or other order members but was not permitted to answer the phone;

• could receive visits but only from family, support group, counsellor, confessor or other order members;

• could receive letters;

• could write letters to family, support group, counsellor, confessor or other order members with the permission of the superior in the house;

• could join the other order members in the Divine Office and could use the oratory but only when the doors were closed;

• could choose his own confessor outside the house;

• could not leave the house without a companion, except to visit the doctor or dentist, therapist or the head of the order and he was not permitted to drive a car.

32.30 All inquirers would be told that “D.S. Boland is not well and is off work, and that he is unable to see you or speak to you”.

32.31 Fr Boland attended the Granada Institute for therapy. The local bishop was informed of his current circumstances including the details of the contract.

Suspicion/concern

32.32 In October 1997, a woman wrote to the Archdiocese about her experiences with Fr Boland when he was a hospital chaplain. She said he befriended her children when she and they were visiting her mother in the hospital. He subsequently began to show what she considered to be an abnormal interest in her ten-year-old son. This letter was sent to the order by Monsignor John Dolan. The Archdiocese was told that Fr Boland had been having treatment. Monsignor Dolan replied to the woman saying that the order would deal with the issues. The order replied to Monsignor Dolan telling him that the woman could contact their delegate. Monsignor Dolan wrote to the woman and gave her the details. It seems that she did not contact the order at this stage. The order did not contact her. The order explained to the Commission the thinking behind this failure to contact her:

“It is now clear that, out of pastoral concern for both herself and her son, […] should have been contacted by the Capuchins once they became aware of the allegation she made against one of their members. However, the thinking back then seems to have been as follows: since all correspondence relating to […] allegation on behalf of her son had been conducted through the good offices of the Diocesan Chancellery, it was thought that […] privacy might best be respected and her freedom of initiative be preserved by her not being contacted directly but, instead, by her being supplied with the phone number of the Order‟s delegate should she wish to contact the Order”.

32.33 Fr Boland continued to attend Granada and in 1998/9 wanted to have some of the restrictions lifted. Granada would not recommend this and it was made very clear to Fr Boland by the head of the order that the restrictions would stay in place.

Fifth complaint

32.34 In July 1999, another allegation was reported to the order. This came via the head of another religious order who said that one of its priests had complained that he had been abused by Fr Boland when he about 11 years old – between 1977 and 1979. This complainant had been an altar boy and Fr Boland was helping out in his parish – he officiated at baptisms and benediction. The head of the order met this complainant. He then put the complaint to Fr Boland who remembered the complainant but denied any sexual activity – he said he may have given him a hug. The complainant met the delegate and gave a full account of his experiences with Fr Boland. He also said that his school friend had been treated the same way. The complainant reported the allegations to the Gardaí in September 1999. Fr Boland was interviewed by the Gardaí. He said he could not remember any sexual activity with the complainant. The delegate was interviewed by the Gardaí and he gave them audio tapes of his interview with Fr Boland in relation to this allegation.

32.35 The Gardaí recommended that Fr Boland be prosecuted for 18 offences of indecent assault against this complainant. Further evidence was collected from the complainant‟s parents. The complainant had told his father about the abuse many years earlier but did not want anything done about it at that time. The DPP directed that Fr Boland be prosecuted on nine counts of indecent assault. He was arrested and charged in July 2000. He asked the order to allow him (rather than anyone else) to tell his family about the charges. The order paid £100 bail.

32.36 In January 2001, the head of the order was told by the superior in Fr Boland‟s house that it had been made clear to Fr Boland that he had lost the trust of the others in the house because of recurring breaches of his behavioural contract. The house superior suggested a number of changes to the contract. He said it needed to be renamed “Rules” so there could be no ambiguity and to prevent Fr Boland trying to wriggle out of the terms. He further suggested that it should be made clear that the purpose of the rules, above everything else, was the protection of children. He should stop going to Granada as the sessions there were preventing him from facing reality. Fr Boland regarded himself as a victim and did not accept responsibility for his actions or for the consequences of his actions on his victims and the religious order. The revised contract should simply prohibit contact with lay people except with the prior consent of the superior. Other members of the order wrote to the head in a similar vein.

32.37 In February 2001, Fr Boland wrote a letter of apology to the fifth complainant (in respect of whom he was being prosecuted). He also wrote to the head of the order admitting that he had not always been upright and honest in the past. He admitted that he had ulterior motives in his relationship with children. However, he promised to be a person of integrity and never again be dishonest in any way. He commented that he believed therapy had done him good.

32.38 Fr Boland was convicted on all nine counts of indecent assault in September 2001. The judge wanted to know if he was continuing to receive treatment. Evidence was given that the fifth complainant (who was working abroad) was making progress because of the letter of apology and the court case. The judge took account of this and the continuing treatment and imposed a 12 month suspended sentence. Fr Boland was also made subject to the Sex Offenders Act 2001 for five years.

32.39 The order did not report this complaint or conviction to any bishop, including the Archbishop of Dublin in whose diocese the abuse had occurred, or the bishop in whose area he was then living.

32.40 The order contacted the health board about the case. Fr Boland continued to live in the same house and continued to attend Granada. A review meeting was held in Granada in July 2002. Fr Boland felt he was doing well in the house and was determined not to re-offend. However, the other members of the order were concerned about his presence there. He was receiving numerous letters and visits. Granada considered that he was using these letters to perpetuate an image of the holy priest whose prayers had special powers and he should stop letter writing. The order head told Fr Boland that some of his relatives had been in touch recently and were angry that they had not been told of his offending.

32.41 In November 2002, the mother who had been concerned about Fr Boland‟s abnormal interest in her son contacted the Garda hotline. She said she had contacted the Archdiocese years earlier and got no response. Her son did not wish to make a complaint.

32.42 In February 2003, the delegate forwarded to the Gardaí particulars of allegations received by the order in relation to a number of its members including Fr Boland. The Gardaí asked the delegate to inform all the victims concerned that they had been identified to the Gardaí and the Gardaí would be in touch with them. The delegate contacted the first complainant and the third complainant and said he was still investigating the case of the girl. The complainants did not reply.

32.43 In 2004, as part of its review of all child abuse files, the Archdiocese contacted the order about Fr Boland and how the complaints had been dealt with. The Archdiocese was aware of only one complaint (the mother). The head of the order confirmed that the mother had not been in contact with them. He said that other complaints had been received by the order but none related to Fr Boland‟s appointments in the Archdiocese. He said Fr Boland had been removed from ministry. He also told the Archdiocese where Fr Boland was now living and that the local bishop had been fully informed. Astonishingly, he did not mention that Fr Boland had been convicted.

32.44 The Commission considers that the reply from the head of the order to the Archdiocese, while it may be technically correct, is not the full truth. The complaint in respect of which Fr Boland was convicted related to his involvement in doing supply work in the Archdiocese. It seems that Fr Boland organised various supply and school visiting roles himself, without the involvement of his order, but the order did know of the circumstances in which the fifth complainant was abused. The order has acknowledged to the Commission that the Archbishop of Dublin should have been informed of the complaints in accordance with the requirements of the Framework Document. The local bishop was not fully informed – he had not been told of the conviction although he had been told of some of the complaints.

32.45 The Archdiocese forwarded all the correspondence from the mother to the order and recommended that the hospital authorities be informed. The hospital was not informed. The hospital was one which had been amalgamated into a new hospital.

32.46 In October 2005, the order told members of Fr Boland‟s family that it was aware of four named victims and one unnamed victim (it seems that the order did not know the name of the girl who complained in 1996). They were also told that Fr Boland acknowledged 100 offences against 20 children. The order said he was a considerable risk to boys between the ages of nine and 14 years, as he would use his role as a priest to seek out opportunity to be among children and would draw on their perception of a priest to make himself totally trusted. Furthermore, he deflected responsibility onto the victims and minimised the impact of his behaviour.

32.47 In November 2005, the delegate wrote to the Gardaí requesting a meeting to establish a procedure in relation to offenders who are members of religious orders. A meeting took place in March 2006. Later, the order wrote to the Gardaí about the first complainant‟s request for absolute confidentiality. The Gardaí decided not to approach him.

Sixth complainant

32.48 Another complainant told the Commission that he had been abused by Fr Boland. He did not know his full name but did know him as Dominic Savio and described the distinguishing physical characteristic. His account of how Fr Boland befriended him and his family and his account of the abuse was similar to that provided by other victims. On one occasion in 1986, Fr Boland was fondling him in his home when his mother walked in. She immediately told Fr Boland to leave. She complained to a priest in the order house where Fr Boland lived at the time but she got no feedback. She did not inform the Gardaí. The order has no record of this complaint. This complainant was aware of one other boy (whom he named) who he alleged had been abused by Fr Boland.

The Commission’s assessment

32.49 The order‟s handling of the first complaint in 1989 was relatively good for its time. The priest was sent to a psychiatrist and counselling was provided to the complainant. This is one of the few cases of which the Commission is aware that counselling was provided for a complainant before the mid 1990s. This complainant was, of course, part of the order as well.

32.50 After the second complaint was made, the order did its best to try to ensure that Fr Boland did not have access to children. It organised treatment for him and then supervised him well in spite of the difficulties he presented. It co-operated with the Gardaí when they became involved.

Communication between the order and the Archdiocesan authorities

32.51 The communication between the order and the Archdiocese was very poor in this case – in fact, it was virtually non-existent on the part of the order. The order did not inform the Archdiocese of the complaints against Fr Boland or of the fact that he was convicted. The order has told the Commission that it accepts that this “represents an unacceptable lapse and wishes to express its regret and concern that such a lapse was allowed to occur”. Its current reporting policy, if maintained, means that such lapses should not occur in the future.

32.52 The Commission considers that the order‟s current arrangements for dealing with alleged child sexual abusers are robust and are being implemented.

Gardaí

32.53 The Gardaí dealt appropriately with all complaints reported to them.

DPP

32.54 The DPP decided not to prosecute in 1994 because of the delay factor. The approach of the DPP to the issue of delay is examined in Chapter 5.

[admin]

Chapter 33: Fr Quinton*100

Introduction

33.1 Fr Quinton is a member of a religious order. He was born in 1935 and ordained in 1960. He worked abroad for a number of years and then returned to Ireland. He was involved in formation, retreat and vocation work on behalf of his order for a number of years and spent some time studying abroad. He worked in the Archdiocese of Dublin from 1985 to 1992.

33.2 There are two allegations of child sexual abuse against Fr Quinton. These have not been proven or admitted but concerns remain about his suitability for public ministry. He has not been exercising public ministry since 1999. He lives in one of the order‟s houses and may engage in internal ministry only.

33.3 There is written evidence from 1978 that there had been some difficulties between Fr Quinton and his students when he was involved in formation work with the order. This does not show any evidence of difficulties relating to sexual abuse. However, it emerged in 1996 that there were concerns about inappropriate sexual behaviour with students.

Appointment to Archdiocese

33.4 In September 1984, Fr Quinton applied to Bishop Carroll (who was in charge of the Archdiocese of Dublin at the time) asking to be appointed to a specific parish in the Archdiocese for a year. He had already received permission from the head of his order. This application was treated in the normal way. It was referred to the Advisory Committee on Extra-Diocesan Priests. The committee agreed to consider him for a parish appointment. The head of his order told Bishop Kavanagh that he was a priest in good standing. The head of the order also said that Fr Quinton wanted to work in a parish “in order to assume more personal responsibility for his life. In recent years he has experienced difficulties in living in community life. However, he has sought direction and counselling in these matters”. Bishop Carroll accepted him for a temporary appointment in the Archdiocese of Dublin and, in February 1985, he was appointed temporary curate until summer 1985. In fact, he stayed there beyond that time and, in May 1986, he applied for a further extension of a year. This was approved in July 1986. In 1987, Bishop Carroll noted that he had heard high praise from the parish priest about Fr Quinton‟s work. In 1988, he applied for and was granted a three-year extension, that is, until 1991. He continued in his position when this period expired.

Complaint

33.5 In 1991, a young man with an intellectual disability who was working in a sheltered workshop run by the St John of God Hospitaller Services told the workshop manager that he had been sexually abused by a priest while he was staying in a hostel for young people. Fr Quinton used to visit the hostel but was not formally appointed to it. The workshop manager told the manager of the hostel and she also reported to Dr Patrick Walsh who was the director of psychological services in the St John of God order and had responsibility for ensuring that child protection policies within the order were carried out. The young man, who was aged 20 at this time, told Dr Walsh that the abuse had started when he was about 15 or 16. He alleged that the abuse had started with seductive behaviour towards him in the hostel. This was followed by oral sex in the priest‟s home. He also alleged that Fr Quinton had given him money from time to time. The young man told a similar story to the manager of the hostel.

33.6 The hostel manager informed the parish priest of the allegation and the parish priest told Bishop Murray, who was the area bishop. He told Bishop Murray that a psychologist thought there was “something in it”. Bishop Murray informed Monsignor Stenson. Bishop Murray spoke to Fr Quinton who denied the allegations. Fr Quinton said that the young man used to visit him in his house, they listened to music and watched videos and he did give him a “few quid” on occasions. The young man‟s brother had come to his house on a number of occasions and made allegations against him.

33.7 Bishop Murray then spoke to the hostel manager. The hostel manager told Bishop Murray that he was convinced that it was the young man‟s own story and he was not being put up to it by his brother. The hostel manager had “grilled” the young man twice and his story was consistent with what he had told Dr Walsh. The manager had also spoken to Fr Quinton, who had denied the allegation and said that no such accusation had ever been made to him (even though he told Bishop Murray that the brother had made such an allegation).

33.8 Bishop Murray spoke to Dr Walsh, who advised that, even though the complainant was an adult, the health board should be informed because he had an intellectual disability. They agreed that Dr Walsh would meet Fr Quinton.

33.9 Bishop Murray met the head of the order. The head told him that Fr Quinton had a poor relationship with him and with the authorities of the order but that there had been no sex abuse issues. Bishop Murray told Fr Quinton to see Dr Walsh and he agreed. Bishop Murray also told him to stay out of the parish for a period. Dr Walsh met Fr Quinton. Dr Walsh did not consider he was meeting him in order to carry out an assessment but Bishop Murray seems to have considered that was the case. Dr Walsh saw his role as dealing with a child protection concern within the St John of God services. He told the Commission that Fr Quinton understood his role. The Archdiocese usually referred priests against whom child sexual abuse allegations had been made to Dr Walsh for assessment. The Commission accepts that Dr Walsh saw his role as dealing with a child protection concern within his employment but considers that he should have explained this clearly to Bishop Murray and should have not become involved in reporting to Bishop Murray or anyone else in the Archdiocese or the order about the alleged abuser. His subsequent reports and advice to Bishop Murray, while they may not constitute a formal psychological assessment, do include assessments of Fr Quinton.

33.10 Dr Walsh reported to Bishop Murray that he was quite certain that Fr Quinton was not a paedophile but that he had blurred the boundaries of appropriate behaviour.

33.11 In a report compiled in January 1992, Dr Walsh concluded that there was a ring of truth to the allegation. He said that Fr Quinton staunchly denied the allegation. He described the priest as a “pugnacious” person who had a history of being in dispute with his superiors in the order but “inquiries there indicate that they never had any suspicions of homosexuality or sexual deviations”.

33.12 In March 1992, having been notified of the matter by Dr Walsh, the director of community care in the health board convened a case conference. This was attended by Dr Walsh and a number of social workers. The case conference concluded that it was impossible to “confirm or refute the allegations”. The health board considered that the hostel manager had acted responsibly and there was no contact between current residents of the hostel and Fr Quinton.

33.13 Dr Walsh reported to Bishop Murray about the case conference and his own dealings with Fr Quinton. He reported that Fr Quinton had denied the allegations. Dr Walsh understood from Fr Quinton that these were the first allegations of their kind against him and, as they were unsubstantiated, he could not ask him to receive treatment. He did not believe Fr Quinton was a risk but he should be warned that his relationship with the complainant was inappropriate. He also recommended that Fr Quinton have a change of duties. If he was to be allocated parish work, the parish priest should be made aware of the allegations and that he should be careful about any involvement with residential homes for children or young people.

End of Archdiocese appointment

33.14 In April 1992, Fr Quinton sought a further year‟s extension to his appointment to the Archdiocese of Dublin (his existing appointment had already formally expired in July 1991). Monsignor Stenson advised Archbishop Connell to withhold his consent. He pointed out that, according to Canon 693 of the code of canon law: “If the member is a cleric the indult101 is not granted until he has found a bishop who will incardinate him in his diocese or at least receive him there on probation. If he is received on probation, he is by virtue of the law itself incardinated in the diocese after five years, unless the bishop has rejected him”. Monsignor Stenson pointed out that Fr Quinton could argue that he was received on probation in the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1985 (seven years earlier) and was, therefore, automatically incardinated (see Chapter 3). However, he thought the more correct view was that Fr Quinton remained a member of his order. Monsignor Stenson was concerned that the time for incardination would run from 1988 and it was, therefore, important that no automatic incardination be allowed. Fr Quinton was granted a retrospective extension of a year which meant that his appointment would end in mid 1992. The Archbishop made it very clear that Fr Quinton could continue in ministry in the Archdiocese until then but that he would not be willing to incardinate him permanently into the diocese. Fr Quinton was released from his diocesan duties as planned.

33.15 It would appear that the complaint was the main reason for the unwillingness to incardinate Fr Quinton. However, there were indications that he was a somewhat difficult personality and this may have been a factor. The order seems to have believed that the complaint was the main factor. The Archdiocese is not obliged under canon law to give reasons for its refusal.

Attempts to rejoin the Archdiocese

33.16 Immediately after he ceased working in the Archdiocese in mid 1992, Fr Quinton‟s superior wrote to Archbishop Connell saying that Fr Quinton wished to continue working in the Archdiocese. He proposed that Fr Quinton would continue to live within the order but would be available full time for archdiocesan duties. Bishop Murray was consulted and he recognised that there was a risk in such an arrangement. The Archdiocese was aware that there were unresolved issues in Fr Quinton‟s relationship with his order but did not know exactly what these were.

33.17 Fr Quinton was not allowed back to the Archdiocese but no formal decision to that effect was issued. He remained within his order but his request for a return remained in place.

33.18 In 1995, at the request of the order, Dr Walsh saw Fr Quinton and issued a report on the complaint made by the young man. He had offered the young man and his brother a number of appointments in order to establish what exactly was being alleged and they had not pursued the matter. He concluded that the matter should be brought to a close as the case had been effectively dropped because it was never substantiated and should consequently not have any bearing on Fr Quinton‟s future life or work. Bishops Murray and Walsh were informed of the report. Bishop Murray told the Commission that he had no further dealings with the case as he was appointed Bishop of Limerick in March 1996. The St John of God order continued to support the young man in its sheltered workshop until his death in 2007.

Rumours and suspicions

33.19 In March 1996, the head of the order reported that he had met Fr Quinton to discuss the allegations against him. He wanted to bring the allegations “to a conclusion”. He also spoke to Fr Quinton about the rumours of improper behaviour which allegedly took place while he was master of students in the early 1970s. This was the first time that a member of the order had raised these rumours with Fr Quinton. At a meeting with the Granada Institute these rumours/innuendos were discussed. The conclusion reached was that the rumours from the 1970s could not be substantiated and the two brothers involved in the 1991 complaint would not be credible witnesses. The head of the order then wrote to Archbishop Connell saying that he, Fr Quinton and Dr Walsh had met and “all matters relating to the allegations made … were thoroughly discussed”. He enclosed a separate letter which included the information about the rumours from the time Fr Quinton was a master of students. This separate letter does not seem to have been received by the Archdiocese. It is not in the archdiocesan files and Monsignor Stenson did not refer at all to these rumours when he next dealt with the subject of Fr Quinton. The head of the order expressed the wish that “this will bring the matter to a successful conclusion”.

33.20 In August 1996, the order proposed that Fr Quinton be appointed to one of the parishes for which it had responsibility in the Archdiocese. It appears that the priest had been exercising ministry at an oratory in the Archdiocese.

33.21 Monsignor Stenson recommended to Archbishop Connell that he not accept the appointment of Fr Quinton to the parish run by the order and the Archbishop did not do so. Monsignor Stenson argued that just because the victim and his brother did not pursue the matter with Granada did not itself establish that no incidents had occurred. Although the allegations remained unsubstantiated they were never withdrawn and were never canonically investigated.

33.22 Monsignor Stenson suggested to the head of the order that a canonical investigation be held into the allegations. The head of the order told Monsignor Stenson that Fr Quinton was living in one of the order‟s houses and occasionally helped out in an oratory. Monsignor Stenson said this involved exercising ministry in the diocese and the Archbishop would not be happy with that. The head then mentioned the rumours/innuendos but said he could not provide details. Monsignor Stenson noted “I thought it was an interesting revelation”. The head of the order told Dr Walsh of the intention to hold a canonical investigation.

33.23 In September 1996, Dr Walsh provided another report to the head of the order. This contained very detailed information about the 1991 complainant which he had obtained in the course of his investigation on behalf of the St John of God order and contained the same analysis as the previous reports. It did not mention the rumours/innuendos of which Dr Walsh was aware. This report was also provided to the Archdiocese. After examining the report, the head of the order and his canon lawyer agreed that a canonical investigation was unnecessary when a thorough investigation of the case had already been carried out in 1992 by the health board.

33.24 In April 1997, Archbishop Connell said that if Fr Quinton was to be allowed a diocesan appointment, the details of his case must be considered by the advisory panel. Fr Quinton agreed to this. The advisory panel recommended that Fr Quinton be comprehensively assessed by a psychologist other than Dr Walsh and that further inquiries be made of the parish priest. If the result of these actions was satisfactory, the panel considered that Fr Quinton could be appointed to one of his order‟s parishes in the diocese. They recommended that he should not be reappointed in isolation from his order as had happened in his earlier appointment.

33.25 Monsignor Stenson then effectively carried out his own investigation – he spoke to the parish priest and to the hostel manager. The hostel manager told him that he considered there was a ring of truth about the allegations. Monsignor Stenson was impressed by this man and considered that his “opinion should not be discounted lightly”.

33.26 In July 1997, the Archbishop was concerned to discover that Fr Quinton was involved with a youth group; he discovered this from a magazine. The head of the order told Fr Quinton to cease this involvement and reported to Monsignor Stenson that he (the head of the order) had not been asked for Fr Quinton‟s services nor had Fr Quinton been given permission for this involvement.

Another complaint, 1998

33.27 In August 1998, a former student for the priesthood reported to the order about events that had occurred in 1972/3 when Fr Quinton was in charge of the students. This particular student had reported to another member of the order that Fr Quinton was abusing a young boy. He claimed that he knew the abuse was occurring “for a fact” but nothing was done about it. Shortly after this he was asked to leave the order.

33.28 After some time, he revealed the name of the victim and that he had reported in 1973 to a number of members of the order. The order has told the Commission that concerns were expressed to two members of the order at the time. One has been dead for many years but the other recalls being approached by this man and concerns being expressed about Fr Quinton‟s relationship with students. Concern was expressed in relation to one student in particular but no specific allegation of abuse was made. Fr Quinton, as well as being in charge of students, was also in a position of authority within the order. The order member to whom the concerns were expressed did not report the matter further. This seems to the Commission to have been due, partly at least, to the position Fr Quinton had in the order. The order has told the Commission that it is no longer possible for the person in charge of students to be in such a position of authority.

33.29 In September 1998, a member of the order who had been a novice in the early 1970s noted that Fr Quinton had a reputation among novices of being sexually disinhibited in his contact with them and was prone to sexual “acting out”. This was made known to Granada and is mentioned in the report which was issued in November 1998.

33.30 In November 1998, another Granada psychologist issued a report on Fr Quinton. As well as a personality analysis, this showed that Fr Quinton had been alienated from the authority structures in the order for many years. Fr Quinton was sceptical about the assessment and his life as a priest in general. He denied the allegation of sexual assault and reported no erotic interest in males. The report noted that Fr Quinton had gravitated towards ministry with younger adults over the years and had enjoyed relating to young adults more than older groups. While Fr Quinton denied any sexual misconduct, it was possible that a person with his profile could break other boundaries including sexual boundaries.

33.31 The report concluded that Fr Quinton was not amenable to therapeutic intervention due to his bitterness and resentment but should the allegations be clarified, he might agree to attend a therapeutic programme.

33.32 The order decided to pursue the complaints made by novices in the 1970s. The allegations do not seem to have been put to Fr Quinton. In fact, he seems to have heard of them only when he got the Granada report just before he went abroad. The specific allegation of abuse does not seem to have been investigated further nor was it put to Fr Quinton.

33.33 Fr Quinton was helping out in a parish at weekends at this time.

Withdrawal from ministry

33.34 In January 1999, due to the inconclusive allegations against Fr Quinton, his involvement with the youth group, the Archbishop‟s discomfort with him ministering in the Archdiocese and the repeated concerns expressed over the years about his relationship with young adult men, the head of the order asked him to have an assessment carried out. Fr Quinton went to a therapeutic facility abroad for this assessment. A report was issued in February 1999.

33.35 This report shows that, for the first time, Fr Quinton admitted that he became aware of his homosexuality in his early 20s. He denied any activity with others. It was recommended that he participate in a residential programme in order to address psychosexual issues and that he remain out of ministry until such a programme was completed.

33.36 Fr Quinton was unwilling to take part in such a programme. The order withdrew him from ministry because of his failure to comply with this recommendation. The order reported all of this to the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese would not allow him to undertake any public ministry until his difficulties were addressed. Fr Quinton was referred to a psychotherapist by Dr Walsh. This therapist seems to have acted as an intermediary between him and the order. In November 1999, he reported that Fr Quinton had attended 16 sessions and that he had not seen anything that would indicate a danger of sexually abusing children during the course of his ministry. However, this therapist clearly heard only Fr Quinton‟s version of events and he was under the impression that the 1991 allegation against Fr Quinton was “without substance”. He does not seem to have been aware of the concerns in relation to the 1970s.

33.37 Many meetings were held within the order with Fr Quinton to try to resolve the impasse. Fr Quinton argued that he was being considered guilty and invoked canon law. The order consulted its canon lawyer who took the view that removing the priest from public ministry could not be regarded as automatically damaging his lawful good name and reputation and referred to canon 682.2 which states that no religious has a right to a pastoral assignment and can be removed from office.

33.38 The order did try to find suitable work for him. The delegate for the order investigated the rumours/innuendos relating to the 1970s. The main complaints were not related to sexual abuse but there were allegations that Fr Quinton was over friendly with some students and there was excessive drinking in the seminary.

33.39 The specific complaint about sexual abuse of a young student does not seem to have been further investigated. This complaint was not made known to the Archdiocese.

33.40 The problem remained that an allegation had been made and not withdrawn. It was impossible to prove or disprove it. Nevertheless, it was clear that both the hostel manager and Dr Walsh considered that there was something in it. There were also concerns about Fr Quinton‟s relationship with young men. The report from the overseas therapeutic facility is clear that Fr Quinton needed residential treatment to deal with psychosexual issues and that he should not be in ministry until this was completed. Fr Quinton refused to take such treatment. The impasse remains. His psychotherapist, whom he had been attending for six years, recommended in 2006 that he should be allowed public ministry.

The Commission’s assessment

33.41 The woman in charge of the sheltered workshop is to be commended for her prompt and caring response. The hostel manager also dealt well with the matter and ensured that Fr Quinton did not have further access to the hostel. The health board did not report to the Gardaí. The Commission considers that it should have done so even though the complainant was an adult at the time. He was an adult with an intellectual disability and so the health board acted appropriately in organising a case conference.

33.42 The Commission considers that the Archdiocese was correct in not allowing Fr Quinton back into ministry as serious concerns remain over his behaviour. It is also clear from his involvement in the therapeutic facility abroad that he was less than candid in his dealings with the Church authorities and Granada.

33.43 The order does not seem to have thoroughly addressed the complaint about specific sexual abuse in the 1970s. The order did have a problem in finding suitable activities for Fr Quinton who clearly was disenchanted with the order but chose to remain in it.

33.44 The Commission is concerned about the role of Dr Walsh in this case. The Commission recognises that Dr Walsh dealt appropriately with the complaint in his role within the St John of God order. However, he should have made it clear to Bishop Murray and to the order that this was how he saw his role. The Commission considers that he should have taken no further part in assessing Fr Quinton because of the potential conflict of interest between the interests of the young man and the interests of the alleged abuser. Dr Walsh does not accept that there was any conflict of interest.

33.45 Communication between the order and the Archdiocese was reasonable in this case. However, neither the Archdiocese nor the order seems to have adverted to the fact that Fr Quinton‟s original appointment to the Archdiocese had ended and was allowed to continue without specific sanction. In fact, the Archdiocese nearly allowed Fr Quinton to become incardinated by default.

[admin]

Chapter 34: Fr Marius*102

Introduction

34.1 In August 1992, Monsignor Alex Stenson, the then Chancellor of the Archdiocese, received a call from a mother alleging that her daughter, who was now in her late twenties, had been abused by Fr Marius when she was 12 years old in the 1970s. Fr Marius was then based in a parish on the north side of Dublin. A preliminary investigation was ordered by Archbishop Connell and Monsignor Stenson was appointed the delegate for the purpose of the investigation.

34.2 The very next day Monsignor Stenson met the mother and daughter and recorded their complaints. The abuse was alleged to have taken place in the complainant‟s own home. She told Monsignor Stenson that when her mother would make tea she would be left alone with Fr Marius and he would put his hand down her top and feel her. She said that it was common for him to hold girls‟ faces in his hands and to kiss their faces and lips. She named another girl who she said was subjected to this.

34.3 She recounted an evening where Fr Marius called to her home on the pretext of taking her to a group meeting in the presbytery. When they got to the presbytery, no one else was there. She said that he shut the door and began to kiss her and removed her top and he then opened his trousers and masturbated on her. After that evening she tried to avoid him and also avoided any parish activities in which he was involved. Later she married and, like many abused people, her marriage broke down because she developed a repugnance to the sexual side of marriage. She was now anxious to ensure that this priest no longer had the opportunity to abuse.

34.4 Two days after meeting the complainant, Monsignor Stenson met the priest and put the allegations to him. He “accepted the apparent truthfulness” of the account but said he had no recollection of the girl. He wondered how it would affect his future as a priest and if he would be ruined. He then recalled the girl and he wrote to Archbishop Connell to deny the allegations.

The priest’s background

34.5 Fr Marius was ordained in the 1950s. While a student in Clonliffe, he was charged with indecently assaulting a 15-year-old girl in a cinema. He was acquitted and the District Court Judge at the time made it clear that it was not to affect his future in the college.

34.6 His first appointment was as chaplain to a geriatric hospital. Allegations were made while he was there that he was too close to a trainee nun. Archbishop McQuaid had the matter discreetly investigated and it seems to have been decided that it was totally out of character for the priest. Documentation about this complaint was discovered in the Clonliffe College archive in 2004.

34.7 Fr Marius subsequently held appointments in a number of parishes. He was a parish priest when the complaint was made in 1992.

Assessments and Church investigation

34.8 Following Monsignor Stenson‟s preliminary investigation, both the complainant and Fr Marius were sent for a psychological assessment and the consensus was that the complainant‟s account was more than likely to be true. In September 1992, Monsignor Stenson informed Archbishop Connell that the medical professional considered the matter “to be very serious” and “would suggest we act immediately” and “that others are probably at risk”. Sometime between 1992 and 1995, Archbishop Connell carried out a search of the secret archives to ascertain if there were any previous complaints about this priest. At that stage he would have discovered the records of the 1950s charge and acquittal. Monsignor Stenson was not aware of any archival material when he received the 1992 complaint. Further inquiries by Monsignor Stenson revealed that many women felt uncomfortable in Fr Marius‟s company. They stated that he was inclined to encroach on their personal space and was overly tactile. There were rumours emanating from his period as parish priest that he had fathered a child who was placed in foster care. Fr Marius denied this allegation. It was not followed up by the Archdiocese. A priest colleague noted what he referred to as a „hint of a pattern‟. He stated “I took no direct action on the matter, other than always watchful, ready to take evasive action”.

34.9 A further medical report was obtained and the view of the second medical practitioner was that the priest was in denial. It was also noted that he expressed a worrying preference for working with children.

34.10 Around this time Fr Marius developed a heart complaint and had to be admitted to hospital.

34.11 Eventually Monsignor Stenson thought that the best option for Fr Marius would be to resign on health grounds. He would be given a number of weeks to tidy up parish matters and leave with “dignity”.

34.12 A medical report in December 1992 noted that Fr Marius was not a compulsive paedophile but there were concerns about his inappropriate behaviour towards women. His treating psychologist concluded that he was unlikely to abuse again in the future. The psychologist proposed that continued counselling and adequate supervision would be sufficient safeguards. The psychologist made it clear that he believed the complainant unreservedly.

34.13 The Archdiocese paid for counselling for the complainant and offered counselling to her mother.

Resignation

34.14 Fr Marius accepted the proposal regarding his resignation. There were restrictions put in place on his activities. In March 1993, a house which he was to share with his brother was bought for him. Bishop Murray, who was the area bishop, told the Commission that he was aware of the background when Fr Marius moved into his area. Fr Marius was allowed to say mass once a week, to help with Sunday mass and hospital mass but he was not allowed any involvement in any sermons or activities where young people were concerned. These restrictions were to be put in the form of a behavioural contract.

34.15 By May 1993, the behavioural contract had not been put in place and Monsignor Stenson noted that he was not being properly monitored at this time. Eventually, towards the end of June 1993, a behavioural contract was drawn up and signed. Under the contract:

• He was to be in regular contact with a clinical expert, an unnamed church representative and the local parish priest in connection with his personal situation and pastoral involvement with the nursing home in the area.

• He was to keep in regular contact with his spiritual director.

• He was to be willing to attend any qualified counsellor on the understanding that the information would not be shared with a third party

• He was restricted from taking part in any apostolate involving children.

• He was restricted from taking part in any pastoral work other than in the nursing home.

• He was restricted from physical contact with children beyond a handshake.

• Under no circumstances was he to allow himself to be alone with a child whether inside or outside his place of residence.

• He was not allowed to become familiar with the families and children of the residents he came into contact with through his work in the nursing home.

• The parish priest of the parish where he lived was to be made aware of the situation and he was to be allowed to discuss with him any areas of concern about the manner in which he conducted his relationships with children.

• Failure to comply with any of the conditions could result in termination of his employment as well as having to share accommodation with another priest.

34.16 Despite the fact that this contract was signed in June 1993, it was late 1994 before the parish priest in the area where Fr Marius lived was told of his situation by Bishop Murray. Bishop Murray told the Commission that the parish priest in the area where Fr Marius did some ministry in nursing homes had reservations about his ministering in those homes. These reservations were based on his manner which was “hard to take”. Bishop Murray said that he met Fr Marius on several occasions between 1993 and 1995 to “ask him whether he was abiding by his contract, that he was having no contact with children in the locality and to enquire about his general wellbeing”. Bishop Murray told the Commission that he was not responsible for the monitoring of Fr Marius.

34.17 In March 1995, concerns were expressed about the monitoring system as Fr Marius had not returned to the Granada Institute where he was receiving treatment. In November 1995, he was told by Bishop Murray to cease all work in the diocese.

34.18 Bishop Murray had received reports from the nursing home where he was ministering stating that he was unsatisfactory to work with as he would invite young nurses back to his home and attempt to kiss them.

Notification to the Gardaí

34.19 The Gardaí were notified about the 1992 allegation in July 1995, but as the complainant did not wish to make a statement to the Gardai, the matter went no further.

Monitoring system, 1997

34.20 In December 1997 Monsignor Stenson spoke to a local priest about the monitoring system that was supposed to be in place. The priest recalled a vague conversation with Bishop Murray but said that nothing was mentioned about a monitoring system. It would appear that the only system that was in place at that stage was one where Bishop Murray inquired from Fr Marius if he was behaving himself.

Further complaints

34.21 In October 1998, another complaint was made to the Archdiocese about Fr Marius. This complaint was made to the parish priest of the area where the abuse had taken place. The complainant‟s doctor felt she was not physically or emotionally ready to make a formal complaint to the diocese at that time. The Archdiocese did not pursue the matter with the priest. It did make clear to the complainant that it would assist with counselling.

34.22 In July 1999 the Archdiocese received reports that Fr Marius was offering his services to the priests of an English parish.

34.23 In February 2002, a complaint was received from a women who claimed that she had been abused by Fr Marius. She alleged that the abuse occurred when she was aged between 12 and 17 years old. The complainant later revealed that she was the same person who had reported the abuse to the parish priest in 1998. In April 2002, she requested answers to the following questions through her solicitor:

• How long did he serve in the parish where he abused her?

• What other parishes did he serve in?

• How many allegations were made against him?

• When did the complaints come to the notice of the Archdiocese and how were they dealt with?

• When was he removed from ministry?

• Did he have any contact with schools or institutions?

She also sought compensation for the trauma which she had suffered. She claimed that Fr Marius raped her once and sexually assaulted and attempted to penetrate her on other occasions. This abuse occurred while she was assisting with parish activities.

34.24 In May 2002, the Archdiocese notified both the Gardaí and the health board about this new complaint.

34.25 As the second complainant had not received a reply to her letter of April 2002 to Cardinal Connell by August 2002, she instructed her solicitors to take a civil action. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that the delay in replying to her letter was due to a delay in his Solicitor‟s office. She also expressed her annoyance that the Church had notified the Gardaí without her permission. Her civil case was settled in 2005.

The advisory panel

34.26 In June 1997, the advisory panel considered the case and recommended that Fr Marius be given an appointment as a chaplain to a community of nuns. In 2002 the panel recommended that he be made the subject of a canonical precept. This was done and, under the terms of the precept, he was:

• forbidden from celebrating mass publicly; he was allowed to celebrate mass privately but only with those who knew the reasons behind the precept;

• not permitted to celebrate the other sacraments with the exception of the sacrament of penance, in situations of danger of death;

• restricted from any kind of unsupervised contact with minors;

• not permitted to wear clerical garb;

• obliged to attend the Granada Institute for assessment;

• obliged to remain in regular contact with his priest advisor;

• told that any violation of the precept would result in suspension and reduction of income.

34.27 In November 2002, the advisory panel recommended that his faculties be formally withdrawn. The panel was unsure whether the terms of the canonical precept had been put in place.

The Gardaí

34.28 As the Gardaí had not received a direct complaint, they felt they could not investigate the matter.

The health board

34.29 In November 2003, a social worker from the health board requested an update on Fr Marius‟s situation.

34.30 She asked about monitoring and also whether the psychological assessment was a “risk assessment” and if so what the results were.

34.31 In September 2004 the Child Protection Service of the Archdiocese wrote to the social worker outlining the fact that Fr Marius lived with his brother, that he was visited by his support priest once a week and that the parish priest of the area where he was living had been informed of his past. The social worker expressed satisfaction with these arrangements.

The Commission’s assessment

34.32 The Commission is concerned at the delays that occurred in this case, in particular, the failure to respond speedily to a complainant‟s correspondence, (even if it was a delay in the solicitor‟s office); the delay in putting the behavioural contract in place; and the delay in notifying the parish priest about his residence within the parish.

34.33 There was a major problem about the monitoring of this priest. Despite the fact that he was the area bishop and was in touch with the priest on a regular basis between March 1993 and the time of his appointment as bishop of Limerick in February 1996, Bishop Murray failed to put a proper system in place. Bishop Murray has said that it was not his responsibility to put a monitoring system in place. He told the Commission that his involvement was “solely at the request and direction of Archbishop Connell.” Bishop Murray also said that there was “no developed thinking” within the Archdiocese at this time regarding how a known or suspected offender should be supervised. Once again, this case illustrates the weaknesses in the management of the Archdiocese, the lack of communication between the authorities in the Archdiocese and the failure to properly address the whole question of monitoring. In the Commission‟s view, there was nobody responsible for monitoring.

34.34 The Commission is aware that further complaints have been received in relation to Fr Marius. These complaints emerged during the currency of the Commission‟s remit and are the subject of an ongoing Garda investigation.

[admin]

Chapter 35: Fr Noel Reynolds

Introduction

35.1 In June 1992, Fr Noel Reynolds was appointed parish priest of Glendalough, Co Wicklow. He was just under 60 years of age. This was his first appointment as a parish priest. It was while there in 1994 that, according to a statement given to Gardaí, concerns were expressed to a neighbouring curate about his behaviour with young children. Among those concerns were that he talked “dirty” to a group of children aged between 11 and 12, that he spoke to them in a sexual manner, that he was in the habit of bringing young children for walks, that he encouraged them to swim naked in the river, that he would bring them in his car and have them sitting on his lap while driving and that he exchanged sweets for kisses. Some of the children spoke to their school principal telling him that they did not feel safe with the priest. These matters were reported to the chancellor, Monsignor Stenson, in September 1995.

Background

35.2 Fr Reynolds had been a priest for just over 30 years at this stage. He was ordained in 1959. He had entered Clonliffe College in 1952 on the personal recommendation of Archbishop McQuaid after he was deemed unsuitable to train as a Holy Ghost Father. He had been educated by the Holy Ghosts.

35.3 He had attended boarding school from the age of eight. He was extremely lonely and it was noted in a psychological report by Dr Patrick Walsh of the Granada Institute in May 1997 that he (Fr Reynolds) recalled going through classes and falling for young attractive boys although he was totally unconscious of any sexual content to such attractions. Dr Walsh noted that he was warned from time to time against special relationships by the dean of studies.

35.4 His passage through Clonliffe was unremarkable but Dr Walsh noted in his psychological report that it was clear from the time of his ordination that Fr Reynolds had a special interest in ministry to children. It was also noted that he had children sit on his knee during confessions.

35.5 He spent periods as a chaplain to a number of girls‟ schools before being appointed in 1969 as a curate to Kilmore Road parish. He stayed in this parish until 1978.

35.6 During the course of his curacy at Kilmore Road he wrote a very unusual seven-page letter to Archbishop Ryan about the deep unrest that was permeating his life. He stated that “a feeling of unrest has been continually with me for the past six months or so. I am upset by the quality of my life…Would it be possible to live with the poor? To live with a family…”.

35.7 At this stage, Fr Reynolds had already begun abusing children. While the Commission accepts that to live among the poor may be a commendable desire for a priest, it is nevertheless surprised that this letter did not lead to some further assessment of the suitability of Fr Reynolds for parish work.

35.8 The mother of one of the complainants told the Commission that he was a constant presence in their home over a period of seven years while in Kilmore Parish. He would take meals with the family and watch television with them. He would ask permission to wish the girls goodnight and unknown to her was abusing them in their own bedroom.

35.9 Fr Reynolds‟s friendship with children was noted in the area as he constantly brought young children to his home as well as on outings to the sea. A priest of the diocese who was an altar boy around this time vividly remembers the fact that young girls were constantly around Fr Reynolds. While he himself did not witness any impropriety he felt that this kind of lifestyle made Fr Reynolds vulnerable to having a complaint made against him.

35.10 From 1978 until August 1983 he was in East Wall parish. While there, the parish priest went into Fr Reynolds‟s bedroom one evening to turn off the light and noted a female lying asleep in his bed. He considered she was around 30 years old. According to his statement to Gardaí in July 1997, he said he was shocked by the discovery but that he did not speak to Fr Reynolds or anybody else about the matter.

35.11 It is highly unlikely that the female in Fr Reynolds‟ bed was a 30-year-old woman given his admitted propensity for young children. Later, in his garda interviews, Fr Reynolds admitted to abusing a female teenager over a period of two days while he was in East Wall and the evidence strongly suggests that it was that teenager who was in Fr Reynolds‟s bed.

35.12 In 1983 he sought a transfer from Dublin to an island posting so that he could “be more in tune with the people”. He told the Archbishop that he wanted “to give away everything (or as much as possible) and separate myself from life in Dublin where there are far too many distractions”.

35.13 In July the Archbishop told him that he had written to the Archbishop of Tuam with a view to finding an island home for him: “Meanwhile I am informing him of your identity which so far as been carefully concealed”.

35.14 When he did identify Fr Reynolds as the priest seeking the transfer, Archbishop Ryan assured Archbishop Cunnane of Tuam “that Father Noel Reynolds is a dedicated and devoted priest and will give good service to the Islanders”. No assessment was done of him prior to assigning him to Tuam. In his interviews with the Gardaí, Fr Reynolds admitted to abusing on the island but did not identify the victims.

35.15 After leaving the island he spent some time in Bonnybrook parish and studying prior to being appointed as a curate in Saggart, Co Dublin. In 1992 he was appointed parish priest of Glendalough and in 1994, the concerns outlined above were raised.

The Church’s investigation

35.16 In October 1995, Archbishop Connell issued a decree initiating a preliminary investigation into complaints from Glendalough under canon 1717 of the code of canon law (see Chapter 4). Monsignor Stenson was appointed as delegate. It was not until late February 1996 that Monsignor Stenson met the school principal to receive details of the complaint. Because the allegations related to matters outside the school, the principal had recommended to the parents of the girls involved that they contact Archbishop‟s House or the health board‟s director of community care. They were unwilling to do that. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he had made a number of attempts to contact the school principal before the actual meeting took place.

35.17 At that meeting the principal claimed that there was no physical or sexual abuse. He said that a parent had spoken directly to Fr Reynolds about the matter and that Fr Reynolds indicated that it would stop. An indication of how seriously the principal viewed the matter can be gleaned from his statement: “There was gossip and innuendo - I never left him in a class on his own subsequently. I didn‟t allow my daughter to be an altar girl. They were saying he was talking about „making love‟ when the girls first spoke to me”.

35.18 Another parent was unhappy about getting a parent to approach Fr Reynolds. He told Gardaí that in 1997 there were rumours that Fr Reynolds was interfering sexually with local children. He told Gardaí that he rang Archbishop‟s House and said he wanted Fr Reynolds removed. Fr Reynolds was removed the following July. The Commission could find no evidence of this phone call in the Archdiocesan files.

Interview with Fr Reynolds

35.19 Despite the existence of a decree initiating a preliminary investigation in October 1995, Monsignor Stenson, in his capacity as delegate, did not meet Fr Reynolds until March 1996. The following note, created by Monsignor Stenson, and signed by him and by Fr Reynolds, records what happened at that meeting:

“I informed Noel that I would let him hear the complaint and that he need not comment or say anything - that he had his rights. I read the file. Noel would agree that what I told him was a perfectly good description of what had taken place. He was approached by a parent [. . .] concerning his own daughter and he mentioned that his teenage daughter used to snub me when I visited the house. They asked what was wrong and she said that Fr Reynolds used to talk dirty. Dirty talk? I suppose jokes that you‟d be embarrassed to tell in the company of their parents. Word games - a rhyme with sexy connotations.

And since [the parent] was with me I have stopped all this. For the past two years it‟s been like that. It was my own folly rather than maliciousness. I didn‟t want to frighten anyone or make them feel unsafe. Something similar had occurred in other parishes but never became public. If I‟d been assessed before going into Clonliffe I would have been a repressed person and in need of affection. My mother died at 4. Longing for love. In 1959 in Dundrum Tech I freaked giving children a class on sex instruction. I was always trying to disassociate the idea of dirt from sex. I never allowed them take the Holy Name but allowed them to talk sex. Even in confession I overstressed the affection of God with children. People knew the children sat on my knee but it never gave rise to complaints. A nun in East Wall made life difficult – wanted me in and out of the school in a half an hour - because of my talks on the facts of life with children. I have spoken this over with some priest friends - but listening to [a priest counsellor] I believe loneliness as a child has been a huge factor. I would admit that my sexual orientation is towards children. Children would arouse me sexually. Noel agreed that he had taken children for walks and outings on his lap in the car etc. On another occasion another group of children in fourth class wanted to get into the river for a swim. Noel went away – he had a towel in his car so they could dry their feet - if paddling. But he didn‟t want to be around so he didn‟t know if in fact they had or not.

As the youngest in the family I never took charge of situations - but I was afraid to say no. I have had nightmarish outings – rows on the beach - stopping the bus for sweets – I was lacking in discipline. My orientation to children has caused me much pain. I took on children who were disadvantaged and some very bold. Noel would look back on his judgement in this area of children with a degree of suspicion. Folly he would call it. I haven‟t noticed any „cooling off‟ in the Parish by adults. I have a funny feeling that I never had an adolescence. At 63 my judgement in these areas of children has been foolish. I think I can control it. It was a habit. I think I can avoid bad behaviour anymore - imprudent - folly. I will go for any help that is required.

I am considering taking a sabbatical in Moone103 with a possible view to entering there. . . I‟m still journeying myself. But there is an element of letting me be 70 million miles away from all this…the school, allegations etc.”

35.20 Shortly after this meeting with Monsignor Stenson, Fr Reynolds met the Archbishop. He expressed a desire to go to Moone to be a Cistercian monk. This seemed acceptable to the Archbishop.

35.21 A meeting was held with the Abbot of Moone following which he wrote to Monsignor Stenson as follows:

“I had a visit recently from Fr. Noel Reynolds. As you may be aware he has expressed a wish to enter our Community. In the course of our conversation he told me about some incidents involving children while he was administering as P.P. in Glendalough. He had discussed the incidents with the Archbishop who told him to ask me to contact you. He seemed rather reticent about the whole matter and I didn‟t like to press him because it is a very sensitive area. But it would seem that there was a complaint made to Archbishops House. I would be glad therefore if you could let me know what you think I should know about these incidents.”

35.22 In May 1996, a meeting took place between the Abbot and Monsignor Stenson. It was agreed that Fr Reynolds should be assessed by someone like Dr Patrick Walsh with a view to assisting the monks and Fr Reynolds to reach a decision. He did not join the Cistercians.

Advisory panel

35.23 In March 1997, the case was referred to the advisory panel. Monsignor Stenson, as the delegate, produced a report for the panel. In April 1997, the panel concluded that it did not consider there was any firm evidence that any incidents of child sexual abuse took place although it seemed clear that some inappropriate behaviour did happen. The panel recommended that he undertake an assessment by Dr Patrick Walsh of the Granada Institute. At this stage, over two years had elapsed and he was still in the parish of Glendalough.

Dr Walsh’s assessment

35.24 In May 1997, Dr Walsh issued a preliminary report. He noted that he could not give a definite conclusion until he had completed a more detailed assessment of Fr Reynolds‟s personality and the history of the problem. He stated that Fr Reynolds was capable of maintaining a positive and appropriate ministry to adults. He was also capable of a positive and appropriate ministry to children but in a limited way. He recommended that Fr Reynolds should not be involved in non-structured or informal interactions with children in the parish or in school. He also recommended that Fr Reynolds should confine himself to the administration of the sacraments in the normal way but with the proviso that, when he heard confessions, he maintain the proper protocol and avoid physical contact and remain focused on the administration of the sacrament. He further stated that it would be inadvisable for Fr Reynolds to be involved in teaching and that he should not be involved in matters dealing with sexuality. Overall, Dr Walsh concluded that Fr Reynolds had shown “considerable confusion in his relationships with children. He has confused his own needs as a child with their needs and consequently has failed to maintain appropriate adult-child boundaries. In addition he has used inappropriate language in his classes and interaction with children”.

35.25 Dr Walsh recommended that a priest support person be put in place for him. This was not done until around July 1998.

National Rehabilitation Hospital

35.26 Despite this assessment, Fr Reynolds was appointed by Archbishop Connell as chaplain to the National Rehabilitation Hospital, Rochestown Ave, Dun Laoghaire in July 1997. Granada was not informed of this appointment. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he was the liaison bishop for hospital chaplains. He called to the hospital as a result of concerns raised by the director of nursing about Fr Reynolds‟s physical health. He told the Commission that it was during this visit that he became aware that Fr Reynolds might have a problem with child sexual abuse. He arranged an appointment for Fr Reynolds with Dr Walsh of Granada. Bishop O‟Mahony explained to the Commission that, at that time, he was not aware that Fr Reynolds had already been assessed by Dr Walsh in 1997 nor was he aware of the contents of Monsignor Stenson‟s interview with Fr Reynolds in 1996.

35.27 The National Rehabilitation Hospital caters not only for adult patients in need of rehabilitation but it also has a children‟s ward and a school. The hospital authorities were not informed of Fr Reynolds‟s history and did not discover it until approached by a representative of the Prime Time programme Cardinal Secrets in 2002. The director of nursing, not surprisingly, expressed great concern both to the Archdiocese and in the media at the failure of Archbishop Connell to provide her or the hospital with full details of Fr Reynolds‟s background. The hospital management wrote a strong letter of complaint to Cardinal Connell. The Cardinal replied with an apology in the following terms: “No explanation of mine could justify the fact that the National Rehabilitation Hospital was not informed of this background at the time of Fr Reynolds appointment as chaplain. I acknowledge that this was a serious error, although made without realisation of the risk involved”.

35.28 It is difficult for the Commission to understand how, in 1997, Archbishop Connell, in view of the information he had of complaints, could not have been aware of the risk involved in such an appointment. Over the period of Fr Reynolds‟s time at the hospital, there were a total of 646 in-patients of whom 94 were aged 18 or younger. When it became aware of Fr Reynolds‟s history, the hospital wrote to all 646 patients and established a help line. None of the calls or letters received reported issues of concern or required further action. The hospital also reported the matter to the health board and introduced improved safeguards for its young patients.

Further complaints

35.29 In February 1998, the mother of one of Fr Reynolds‟s alleged victims spoke to the chancellor, Monsignor Dolan, indicating that her daughter had been sexually abused by a priest some 20 years previously. She did not give the name of the priest nor was she asked for it. She was told that, as her daughter was now an adult, she would have to make the complaint herself. She was also told that if the complaint passed the threshold of suspicion it would have to be reported to the Gardaí. The mother expressed herself very pessimistic about the ability of her daughter to go to Archbishop‟s House. The mother told Monsignor Dolan that she herself was receiving counselling and he was assured she had someone to talk to about her situation. Given that the matter was serious enough for the mother to receive counselling, the Commission finds it strange that the name of the priest was not sought. Had it been sought, Monsignor Dolan could have accessed Fr Reynolds‟s file and seen his admissions to Monsignor Stenson made almost two years earlier.

35.30 Bishop O‟Mahony had a meeting with Dr Walsh and Fr Reynolds in May 1998. Dr Walsh wrote to Bishop O‟Mahony stating that he was of the firm view that Fr Reynolds posed no threat to children. However, the recommendation of May 1997 should continue to be observed that “Fr. Reynolds is also capable of positive and appropriate ministry to children but in a limited way” and he repeated that he should not be involved in non-structured or informal interactions with children in the parish or in school.

35.31 At this stage Fr Reynolds was still acting as chaplain in the National Rehabilitation Hospital.

35.32 Six days after Dr Walsh wrote to Bishop O‟Mahony, a social worker at a drug treatment centre contacted the chancellor, Monsignor Dolan, to tell him that a client had alleged that she had been abused by Fr Reynolds when she was nine years old. She said that she had informed Bishop Eamonn Walsh of the matter the previous week and he had advised her to write to the Chancellor.

35.33 She said she was particularly concerned because Fr Reynolds was a chaplain at the National Rehabilitation Hospital stating: “I regret to have to write this letter but I feel it is important that you are alerted as the person is in a Chaplaincy position”.

35.34 It is recorded that Archbishop Connell was notified of the social worker‟s allegations in late May 1998. A handwritten note indicated that Dr Patrick Walsh was sent a copy of her letter in early July 1998.

35.35 In July 1998, Archbishop Connell released Fr Reynolds from his duties as chaplain to the National Rehabilitation Hospital and nominated him as a beneficiary of the Diocesan Clerical Fund (see Chapter 8). The hospital was not informed of the reasons for Fr Reynolds‟s removal and assumed it was due to his poor health. By this time, Fr Paddy Gleeson had been appointed assistant delegate and was now handling the matter on behalf of the Archdiocese.

35.36 This was notified to the social worker who had approached the Archdiocese with the complaint against Fr Reynolds. She was told that he would be living in monitored retirement pending the outcome of his case and that he would be receiving therapy from Dr Walsh.

35.37 At this stage Fr Reynolds was not living in monitored retirement. He was living unmonitored first with his sister and subsequently with his stepmother.

Meeting with victim’s mother

35.38 In November 1998, the mother who had initially contacted the Archdiocese and who now claimed that not one, but two, of her daughters had been abused by Fr Reynolds had a meeting with Fr Reynolds and his support priest. At this meeting, Fr Reynolds acknowledged that he had abused her daughters. This was confirmed by his support priest.

35.39 Following this meeting Fr Reynolds was medically examined and it was noted that, in addition to his cardiac problems, he suffered from the initial stages of diabetes and Parkinson‟s disease and that he should not live alone. He had been living with his sister and later moved in with his stepmother. In January 1999 a place was found for him in a nursing home.

Formal complaint

35.40 The Archdiocese held the view that no formal complaint had been made. They therefore had not reported the matter to the Gardaí. In June 1999, the social worker contacted Fr Gleeson to inform him that the two sisters had made contact with the Gardaí with regard to making a complaint about Fr Reynolds. She told him both had been interviewed but had not made statements.

35.41 Later in June 1999, Fr. Gleeson contacted the Gardaí at the sexual assault unit at Harcourt Street and informed them that the Archdiocese had received complaints of sexual abuse by Fr Reynolds while he was attached to the parish of Kilmore West in the late 1970s.

35.42 It was clear from the statements made by the two sisters to the Gardaí that the allegations were extremely serious. It was the worst case of “serious and systematic abuse” that the drug centre social worker had encountered.

35.43 In August 1999, the priests in all the areas where Fr Reynolds worked were contacted and brought together for a meeting to explain the situation.

35.44 A report in a newspaper in August 1999 alleged that the Gardaí had launched a major investigation into rape claims by two sisters against an elderly priest. It also alleged that the priest had used a crucifix in what was described as a sick sex assault. The priest was not named.

35.45 Later in the same month, Fr Reynolds travelled to Rome to celebrate the 40th anniversary of his ordination.

A further complaint

35.46 In October 1999, the Gardaí received a complaint from another woman alleging that she had been sexually abused by Fr Reynolds while he was a curate in Kilmore West in the 1970s. She alleged that, as she was preparing for her communion, he sat her on his knee and put his hands into her pants and put his finger into her vagina. It was alleged that this had happened on five separate occasions prior to her making her first communion.

Admissions by Fr Reynolds

35.47 Fr Reynolds was arrested in October 1999 for the offence of raping one of the two sisters referred to above between the years 1971 and 1979.

35.48 The Gardaí carried out a very thorough investigation into this case. Fr Reynolds was interviewed and he admitted widespread abuse. He claimed that he was pressurised into making a number of comprehensive statements but the Commission could find no evidence of this. During the course of his interviews with the Gardaí, Fr Reynolds admitted abusing one of the sisters when she was 11 and the other when she was six years old and putting his finger into their vaginas when they were in bed in their own home. He told the Gardaí that he was sexually attracted to young girls and that they were not the only two victims in Kilmore. He could remember about 20 girls in total; there were others in East Wall and on the island in the diocese of Tuam. He admitted inserting a crucifix into one girl‟s vagina and back passage. He said he had admitted to their mother that he had abused her daughters. He said he offered their mother £30,000 in compensation but that she did not accept it.

35.49 Not only did he admit the abuse of the two sisters and several others in many other parishes, but he also offered as evidence to the Gardaí, the crucifix with which he had said he had abused one of the complainants. The Gardaí did not confine their investigations to the area where the two women claimed they had been abused but they also conducted inquiries in several of the parishes where Fr Reynolds worked. A very comprehensive file was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The DPP was prepared to initiate a prosecution against Fr Reynolds and gave instructions to that effect. Following representations from his solicitor about Fr Reynolds‟s deteriorating health, and specifically the medically verified onset on dementia, the DPP changed his mind.

35.50 The two sisters were bitterly disappointed with the outcome.

Other complaints

35.51 The Gardaí became aware of another 12 complainants. While nine were prepared to make statements, the other three declined to do so. The incidents ranged from fondling of genitals to touching around the leg area, digital penetration, anal rape, attempted sexual intercourse, oral sex, actual sexual intercourse and inviting the children to fondle his penis.

35.52 In many cases the abuse continued for between two and seven years.

35.53 In total, nine females and six males claim they were abused by Fr Reynolds. They were aged between six years and 11 years at the time of the abuse. Of course, he has admitted to many more cases of abuse, at least 20 in Kilmore alone.

Health board

35.54 A note on the health board file states that the matter was referred to them in February 2001. A second note in November 2002 states that “we had decided to follow up on safety issues in relation to the above. I now understand the man is deceased, so current living arrangements need no further follow up”.

35.55 Fr Reynolds died in April 2002.

The Commission’s assessment

Archdiocese

35.56 This case was extremely badly handled by the Archdiocese. Numerous indications of serious abuse and of admissions by Fr Reynolds were ignored. The suspicions about Fr Reynolds surfaced during his time in Glendalough in 1994. Despite the fact that the parents had no desire to go to the Gardaí or to the health board, and wished the Church to deal with the matter, it was March 1996 before any interview with Fr Reynolds was conducted. He admitted to the complaints. He stated that something similar happened in other parishes. No proper investigation was conducted into his activities in other parishes. Despite this admission he was allowed to remain on as parish priest in Glendalough until July 1997. The Commission accepts that Monsignor Stenson only became aware of the complaints in October 1995.

35.57 In the interview with Monsignor Stenson in March 1996, Fr Reynolds also admitted that his sexual orientation was towards children. A record of this interview is signed by Fr Reynolds. Again, despite this, he was given an appointment in the National Rehabilitation Hospital. This appointment gave him access to young children. Subsequently, Bishop O‟Mahony became aware that Fr Reynolds may have a problem with child sexual abuse but he does not seem to have mentioned this to anyone else in the Archdiocese or, indeed, to the hospital. This, the Commission believes, represents a major breakdown in communications among those in overall charge of the Archdiocese.

35.58 When the mother of two of Fr Reynolds‟ complainants reported to the chancellor, in February 1998, that her daughter had been sexually abused by a priest 20 years previously she was told that, because her daughter was an adult she would have to make the complaint herself. The Commission recognises that she did not name the priest nor was she asked for his name. She explained that her daughter was unlikely to go to the Church authorities to complain.

35.59 When the social worker reported her fears that a priest whom she claimed may have sexually abused one of her clients some 20 years previously was currently working in a situation where he had access to children, this also was ignored. She did name Fr Reynolds.

35.60 It seems to the Commission that a somewhat extraordinary approach was adopted towards Fr Reynolds. The situation was that, in 1994, the Church authorities had received information about inappropriate behaviour by a priest in Glendalough. They themselves had set up a preliminary investigation and discovered that the priest in question had admitted a sexual orientation towards children and to inappropriate behaviour in other parishes. Yet, when an allegation was received from the social worker who specifically named the priest as having allegedly abused the woman, the priest was allowed to remain in the hospital for a further seven weeks.

35.61 There is no evidence that Bishop O Mahony related the contents of his conversation with Fr Reynolds to the hospital management. When the management of the hospital discovered in 2002 that a child sexual abuser, unknown to them, had been assigned to them as chaplain, they took all appropriate steps to ensure that their patients were informed and facilitated should they have any complaints. Furthermore, it is commendable that they put improved structures and appointment procedures in place to protect children.

35.62 It seems to the Commission that, had the two women themselves not complained to the Gardaí, the Archdiocese would have been quite happy to ignore the fact that any abuse had taken place.

The Gardaí

35.63 The Gardaí carried out a very thorough investigation into this case as described above.

Health board

35.64 There was no significant involvement by the health board in this case because the matter was not referred to it until February 2001 by which time the priest was living in a retirement home and died shortly thereafter.

[admin]

Chapter 36: Fr Daryus*104

Introduction

36.1 Fr Daryus was ordained in the 1950s and served in a number of parishes throughout the Archdiocese, finishing as a parish priest. He died in the 1990s.

36.2 In the early 1960s, another priest reported to the Archdiocese that Fr Daryus was involved with a young girl. It is not known what age she was and there is no documentary evidence about the matter. Fr Daryus was treated by a psychiatrist in the 1960s but there is no evidence that this was related to child sexual abuse.

36.3 There were complaints against Fr Daryus in relation to aggressive and arrogant behaviour in the early 1990s and the Archdiocese was considering removing him from his position when complaints of sexual abuse emerged.

Complaints

36.4 In October 1994, two complaints of sexual abuse were made against Fr Daryus. One was from a woman who complained that she had been digitally raped by him in the late 1960s when she went to him for advice about becoming a nun. She was 18 years old at the time. Fr Daryus admitted that he had abused her but played down the extent of the abuse. This case does not involve child sexual abuse so the Commission did not undertake an examination of how it was handled. However, the Commission notes that the Archdiocese was kind and helpful to this woman and that she was extraordinarily charitable towards Fr Daryus.

36.5 The other complaint, which was also made in October 1994, was one of child sexual abuse. A young man complained that he had been abused by Fr Daryus in the mid 1960s while he was an altar boy. The abuse involved groping and fondling his private parts. The complainant believed that others were abused as well. The priest was known to the boys as “sexy [Daryus].”

36.6 Bishop O‟Mahony met the former altar boy complainant in October 1994. In November 1994, he met Fr Daryus. Bishop O‟Mahony was not then aware of the woman‟s complaint. Fr Daryus denied the young man‟s allegations and pointed out a discrepancy in dates. Bishop O‟Mahony believed the priest‟s denial. Subsequently, the complainant corrected his assessment of the dates and said that the abuse occurred in the late 1960s. In December 1994, the complainant asked Bishop O‟Mahony to do nothing further about the complaint.

36.7 Fr Daryus was persuaded to resign in December 1994. The usual letter of thanks for his service was issued.

36.8 In October 1995, the complainant contacted Bishop O‟Mahony again and said that he stood over everything in his statement of 1994. Arrangements were made for counselling for the complainant. Bishop O‟Mahony and Monsignor Dolan met Fr Daryus. The situation is rather confusing but it seems that Fr Daryus denied the allegation when he met Bishop O‟Mahony and Monsignor Dolan on 23 October 1995. Subsequently it appears that Fr Daryus admitted the allegation to Bishop O‟Mahony. This admission was not immediately known to Monsignor Dolan and this initially caused confusion when Monsignor Dolan was dealing with the complainant.

36.9 In any event, Monsignor Stenson reported the allegation to the Gardaí in November 1995.

36.10 The complainant made a statement to the Gardaí in March 1996. Fr Daryus was interviewed in the presence of his solicitor and he did not answer any questions about the allegations. In August 1996, the DPP decided not to prosecute because of the lapse of time since the alleged abuse had occurred – approximately 30 years.

36.11 The complainant issued civil proceedings against Fr Daryus and the Archdiocese in May 1996. Later in 1996, a settlement was reached with Fr Daryus and the case against the Archdiocese was discontinued. The Archdiocese paid the priest‟s legal costs. A short time later, Fr Daryus died.

36.12 The complainant contacted the Archdiocese again in 1998. He met Archbishop Connell in 2002. He was in touch with the Child Protection Service in 2005.

The Commission’s assessment

36.13 This priest was effectively removed from his position as soon as the allegations were made in October 1994. The fact of two unrelated complaints probably facilitated this move. Initially Bishop O‟Mahony dealt well with the altar boy complainant but the Commission is concerned that Monsignor Dolan was not immediately informed of Fr Daryus‟s admission in October/November 1995.

[admin]

Chapter 37: Fr Terentius*105

Introduction

37.1 Fr Terentius is a member of a religious order. He was born in the 1930s and ordained in the 1960s. He was a curate in the Archdiocese of Dublin in the 1970s and 1980s. He served as a missionary for a number of years both before and after his time in the Archdiocese. He also worked publicly in Ireland on behalf of his order for a number of years before complaints were made.

37.2 The Commission is aware of three complaints of child sexual abuse in respect of his time in the Archdiocese of Dublin. Two of these complaints were made within one month of each other in late 1994 - this appears to be entirely coincidental but may be linked to the furore caused by the Brendan Smyth affair. One complaint was made directly to the order and the other was made initially to the Archdiocese. The third complaint was made in 1998 but the alleged victim did not personally make this complaint. In the course of dealing with these complaints, Fr Terentius admitted to “a series of incidents” involving a total of six boys, starting in 1960 and including incidents while on the missions. His therapist was of the view that there were probably “loads” of victims.

37.3 Fr Terentius has been living under strict supervision within the order since the complaints were made.

First complaint, 1994

37.4 The first complaint was made to the order106 in November 1994 by the sister of the victim. She said the abuse occurred when her brother (who was now in his late 20s) was about 13 or 14 years old. Fr Terentius was well known to her family and was trusted by them. He had brought the young boy and another boy on a trip. Subsequently Fr Terentius asked the boy to help him in his house. The boy was reluctant to go but his parents insisted that he go. Fr Terentius gave him dinner and alcohol. The boy was sick and Fr Terentius brought him to his (the priest‟s) bed where he abused him.

37.5 At this stage the victim was not aware that a complaint was being made. His sister wanted to be sure that Fr Terentius did not have access to children but did not want anything else done.

37.6 The head of the order briefed the superior of the house where Fr Terentius was living and asked him to supervise. Fr Terentius was ill at the time so the matter was not put to him immediately. At this time, the order, like most other Church and State institutions, had no procedure in place, other than that specified in canon law, for dealing with such complaints but it immediately set about putting one in place. The order reported the complaint to Monsignor Alex Stenson, the chancellor of the Archdiocese of Dublin, who told the order that he made inquiries of the area bishop and there was nothing further to report.

37.7 In December 1994, the sister told the victim that she had made the complaint. He then wanted to meet the order and see what kind of help he could get. He did not want to press charges.

37.8 The superior and other senior members of the order met Fr Terentius and told him of the complaint. Fr Terentius admitted that one incident of child sexual abuse had occurred. The order was in the process of dealing with this complaint when the second complaint came to light.

Second Complaint

37.9 The second complaint was made in December 1994 to the Archdiocese of Dublin by the victim and his mother. Monsignor Stenson met them and made a detailed note of the meeting. The complainant was an altar boy in the church to which Fr Terentius was attached when he was serving in the Archdiocese. The abuse took place when the boy was about 13-14 years old (around 1977). The abuse occurred in Fr Terentius‟s house and involved hugging, embracing and fondling of private parts. The boy escaped because the telephone rang. On the day following the abusive incident, he told his mother what had happened. She confronted Fr Terentius who responded “I was drunk”. She did not accept this. Some days later she suggested to Fr Terentius that he go and see a charismatic priest with whom she was familiar. She also spoke to this priest and asked that “the specific matter be dealt with”. He confirmed that they had discussed “the matter”. The mother suspected that there were other victims in the parish and she provided the name of a family. Both the complainant and his mother said they would be willing to confront Fr Terentius.

37.10 Monsignor Stenson advised the complainant and his mother to report the matter to the Gardaí. Monsignor Stenson contacted the head of the order. The complainant subsequently said that Monsignor Stenson was “very apologetic” on receiving his complaint and that he was very kind and respectful to his mother and to him.

37.11 The head of the order contacted the mother immediately and apologised. In a series of telephone calls, it was clear that the mother was very forgiving. She said that her son did not propose to take any further action. The order assured her that Fr Terentius had no contact with young boys; he was not exercising any ministry and they were organising a treatment programme for him. The order was not in direct contact with her son at this time.

Restrictions

37.12 The superiors of the order had a meeting with Fr Terentius who now admitted to a series of incidents involving six boys in total, including the incidents involving the two complainants, and one involving an 18-year-old. Fr Terentius was reluctant to go on a treatment programme but was persuaded to do so. The order set out the following restrictions on him:

• He could not leave the premises without the consent of the head of the order;

• He could have no contact whatever with young boys, including altar boys;

• He could have no contact with people who reported the incidents;

• He could not exercise any pastoral ministry whatever, even evening weekly mass (the priest found this last stipulation very hard to accept).

37.13 Arrangements were made to send him to Stroud. Stroud asked for a letter setting out the concerns, examples of the problems and any other helpful information. In his referral letter, the head of the order outlined the problems as:

Alcohol abuse: this had been discussed with him on a few occasions and he had not accepted that he needed to follow a recovery programme;

Child sexual abuse: “As a result of an investigation into a recent allegation of sexual abuse by [Fr Terentius] of a young boy (13 to 14 years), some twelve to fifteen years ago, we have become concerned about the existence of other inappropriate sexual contacts by him with other boys around the same time”.

37.14 Fr Terentius was sent to Stroud in January 1995. After assessment, he first undertook the addictions programme and then the psychosexual treatment programme.

Contact with complainants

37.15 In January 1995, the first complainant wrote to the order saying he had no intention of making a formal complaint; he just wanted to ensure that there would be no recurrence. The order replied offering an apology and assuring him that Fr Terentius was not in a position to be involved in a similar betrayal of trust.

37.16 The second complainant‟s mother continued to be in touch with the order. The order arranged a meeting with this complainant which took place in July 1995. At the meeting, he said that he was pleased to have been contacted, he did not want anything from the order, he did not intend to go to court, he would like to meet Fr Terentius after he completed his programme, he wanted to keep in contact in the future, and he was grateful for the recognition – that was his main aim. The head of the order told him that he was entitled to go to the Gardaí and seek a legal solution. The complainant said he would not do that and was not interested in money. He sought recognition of the wrong done to him and an assurance that Fr Terentius would not be in a position to do it again.

37.17 In September 1995, it emerged that Fr Terentius had been drinking while in Stroud and had been doing so since March. He was transferred to another treatment centre. The authorities in Stroud suggested that the order should suspend him from any active public ministry and withdraw all priestly faculties. They also suggested that he be asked to pay for some of his treatment himself as he was clearly fairly well off and was in the process of buying a car in the UK which he intended to bring back to Ireland.

37.18 Fr Terentius wrote to the order expressing great shame and remorse. The head of the order replied expressing his deep disappointment and sadness but also his support. He suspended Fr Terentius from public ministry and was awaiting a meeting of the governing body of the order before deciding on the removal of faculties. He asked Fr Terentius to pay half the costs of his current treatment. Fr Terentius was shocked at the suspension.

37.19 The order was in touch with the first complainant‟s sister. She reported further concerns from another sister. They discussed contacting the Gardaí; the order was willing to do so but the complainant did not want this.

37.20 Fr Terentius completed a primary treatment course in the second therapeutic facility. As a place in Stroud was not available until December 1995, a new place had to be found. He moved to a care home for drug and alcohol dependents in early November. In early December, he returned to Stroud. He wanted to drive himself there but this was not approved and the order arranged for him to be accompanied. He was asked by the order not to use his car while in Stroud. In fact, Stroud took his car keys. (Later, the order advised him to sell the car. He did this and gave the proceeds to the order as part payment for his treatment; he subsequently made another contribution to the cost.)

37.21 The personnel in Stroud were of the view that it was unlikely that they would recommend Fr Terentius for return to ministry; they considered he was manipulative and untrustworthy; the likelihood of a relapse was very high and the order was going to have a “big problem handling the situation” when he left Stroud. He left there and returned to live in one of the order‟s houses in Ireland in July 1996. On leaving, the assessment was that he had “almost no internal inhibitors upon which to rely once he leaves residential treatment”. Because of this, it would “be an absolute necessity that a great deal of external inhibitors be put in place” in order to help him manage his sexual addiction. He would need 24-hour monitoring and supervision and ought never travel alone or be in public ministry.

37.22 On his return, the order imposed the following conditions:

• He was not allowed to leave the house without the permission of the superior.

• He must be accompanied when leaving the house at all times.

• He could not celebrate public mass.

• He was not allowed be the principal celebrant in the oratory.

• The order would look for a suitable job which would not include contact with minors.

37.23 He also began individual and group therapy.

37.24 The order reported the allegations to the Gardaí in July 1996 in accordance with the procedures of the Framework Document. The names of the complainants were not given as they did not want this. The Gardaí were told that Fr Terentius was retired and not engaged in any ministry.

37.25 Fr Terentius was given office work within the order. In a follow up visit, Stroud was impressed with the supervision arrangements. Fr Terentius followed the Stroud continuing care programme until 1998 and was also seeing a therapist locally, initially once every two weeks and subsequently once a month. He was also attending AA meetings and was always accompanied when he left the house.

37.26 In April 1997, Archbishop Connell wrote to the order (he wrote to all relevant orders at the time) asking if the allegations against Fr Terentius had been addressed. He was not “looking for specific detail, merely simple confirmation that the Diocese can close its files in their regard. My sole purpose in making this enquiry is to eliminate the risk that at some future date, for whatever reason, the concerns raised may appear to have been overlooked”. The order replied reassuring the Archbishop that the alleged offences had been addressed, that Fr Terentius underwent appropriate treatment and was now engaged in work which precluded him from contact with young children and there was ongoing supervision by a senior member of the order.

37.27 In November 1997, the wife of the second complainant telephoned the head of the order to say that her husband was upset that contact had not been maintained. She said the head of the order had promised to keep in touch and to arrange a meeting with Fr Terentius. The head did not think he had promised this and there is no evidence in the documents that he had. The head phoned the complainant and updated him on the current status of Fr Terentius. He explained that the order had been advised against a meeting between the complainant and the priest but that, if the complainant wanted it, it would be arranged. The head then met the complainant and his wife in December 1997. The complainant said that the order had not been in touch since the last meeting over two years earlier. He was angry and not sure what he wanted. He talked about a financial settlement and about going public. He said he wanted counselling and to meet Fr Terentius. The head pointed out that it is not recommended that victims meet their abusers. This complainant was not entirely convinced about this but agreed to wait until after counselling. The order was in touch with him several times during 1998.

Third complaint, 1998

37.28 The order was also in touch with the first complainant‟s sister and, in May 1998, she alleged that her sister had also been abused by Fr Terentius.

37.29 The order offered to meet the sister who had allegedly been abused but she did not want to make a complaint. The allegation was not put to Fr Terentius as there was no specific complaint or allegation.

37.30 Meanwhile, Fr Terentius was continuing with the Stroud continuing care programme. He was expressing some unhappiness about his work environment, particularly his treatment by his immediate superior. These complaints were, in the Commission‟s view, relatively trivial and the order was very patient in dealing with them.

37.31 In June 1998, the order again met the second complainant. The complainant said he had become very angry and aggressive since starting counselling. He felt that the fact that the order was paying for the counselling meant the Church was still in control. He intended to cease counselling. He talked about a financial settlement but did not want to go to court. He said he could use money for a holiday and for counselling over which he would have control.

37.32 There was another meeting in July 1998. The head of the order told the complainant that Fr Terentius had agreed to meet him and that he (the head) would be present at the meeting. The question of compensation was discussed. The head told the complainant and his wife that the order was not responsible for the priest‟s transgressions. The order wanted to keep the question of compensation separate from the pastoral response. The order did not want to get involved in paying money to any parties and refused to take any legal responsibility for the action of one of its priests.

37.33 In July 1998, the first complainant‟s mother rang to complain that the order had not kept an appointment with her. It would appear that such an appointment had not been made. She was looking for compensation for her son as he was on expensive medication. The head of the order met this complainant and his parents. His sister contacted the head of the order and told him that she had contacted the health board for the area in which Fr Terentius was living but was told that the abused person would have to be in contact. She said she had also reported to a young priest in her parish soon after the incident happened and nothing had been done.

37.34 In September 1998, the second complainant told the order that he was considering legal action if the order did not make some offer. The order continued contact and meetings with both complainants and their family members. Both complainants wanted an out of court settlement and were mainly looking for expenses.

37.35 In November 1998, the head of the order met Monsignor John Dolan, the chancellor of the Archdiocese of Dublin, to update him on developments in this case.

37.36 The first complainant wrote directly to Fr Terentius seeking his medical expenses. Fr Terentius replied offering him about one third of the amount claimed and said that this was all he could afford. The complainant accepted this and also accepted the order‟s offer of a charitable donation to cover some of the medical expenses. This was arranged with a charity which specialises in helping victims of abuse; the order regarded arranging this as part of its pastoral response.

37.37 In December 1998, the second complainant met Fr Terentius. The meeting was mediated by the head of the order. Fr Terentius apologised to the complainant and the meeting was amicable. Subsequently, Fr Terentius sent him an unsolicited sum of money.

37.38 The order remained in touch with the complainants in 1999.

37.39 At this stage, Fr Terentius was still engaging in individual and group therapy. He now wanted some of the restrictions removed as he considered that the two complainants seemed to have settled matters with him. In July 1999, he complained to the order about not being allowed to go on holidays alone. In May 2000, his therapist recommended that he should not be allowed to travel alone. In October 2000, the therapist pointed out that Fr Terentius was working fine in therapy but there was no evidence of how he would be in another environment. She suggested gradual change “maybe”, but no drastic change. She mentioned that Fr Terentius had written his life story, copies of which he was distributing to his friends, but it did not refer at all to the sexual abuse and she wondered if the sexual dimension of his life had been integrated. At her suggestion, the order contacted Stroud for advice on this issue. Stroud urged caution.

37.40 In November 2000, the order discovered that the priest had been drinking and he admitted he had not attended AA since 1998. He was still agitating to be allowed to holiday alone. He argued that a holiday was “a fundamental human right”. The head of the order replied that the right of children to be protected from abuse was a superior right.

37.41 In June 2001, Fr Terentius‟s therapist said she could not achieve any more but said that the priest did need ongoing support. She considered that he “is by no means free or cured of the underlying concerns” but that he thought he was and his discontinuation of counselling indicated this. The therapist said he should go back to AA and she did not recommend holidaying alone. He did go back to AA and remained angry at the continuing restrictions.

37.42 It is notable that Fr Terentius‟s perception of the views of his therapist was often markedly different from those views as recorded by the head of the order.

Granada report, 2001

37.43 In September 2001, Fr Terentius was sent to the Granada Institute for a reassessment. Stroud was no longer providing this service. The head of the order provided Granada with a summary of the priest‟s situation from notes which he had compiled over the years.

37.44 The report from Granada was issued in November 2001. Psychometric testing was carried out and the following documents were taken into account: the referral letter from the order, the summary of notes from therapists provided by the order and the priest‟s life story (which, as is noted above, did not make reference to sexual abuse).

37.45 The Commission considers the Granada report to be seriously deficient in many respects:

The report states that two allegations of sexual abuse were made but that he had not admitted to any others – this is not true; he had admitted to several incidents involving six boys. Further, his therapist in the initial stages of his treatment had expressed the view that there were likely to have been “loads of victims”. Granada pointed out to the Commission that the therapist‟s views were not substantiated. However, it is clear from the order‟s referral notes that he had admitted to abusing more than two boys.

The report states that the two boys were aged 17 at the time – this is untrue, they were aged 13/14. Granada told the Commission that this information was reported by the priest and that the assessment was based “on the assumption that the ages of the victims ranged between 13 years to over 16 years”.

The report states that he had “successfully completed a treatment programme for sex abusers in 1996”. The Commission finds it surprising that this can be stated when the full report from Stroud was not seen by Granada and that Granada did not ask for the full report.

The report states that he “continues to have therapy on an individual basis” – it is not clear if this is true. He seems to have been seeing a spiritual advisor but not a therapist at this stage.

37.46 The report concluded that Fr Terentius:

was at low risk of sexually re-offending;

needed to be supported in his present alcohol free state;

should continue to avoid any unsupervised contact with any children;

should continue with counselling to deal with his anger;

should be allowed to go on holiday and travel abroad without restriction.

37.47 As a result of this assessment, Fr Terentius was allowed to travel abroad on three occasions with a company specialising in holidays for older people. All his travelling companions were aged 50 or over. He was forbidden to interact with minors while on holidays. The head of the order told the Commission that he felt bound by the findings of the Granada report which recommended that he be allowed to travel.

37.48 Fr Terentius continues to live within the order and is subject to the restrictions described above. The order maintains an “open door” policy towards the complainants – they can get in touch whenever they want.

The Commission’s assessment

Church authorities

37.49 Responsibility for the wrong done in clerical child sexual abuse cases rests squarely with the offending priest. The authorities cannot undo the wrong but they can help to mitigate the harm by dealing properly with the complainants and the offender. In this case, the Commission considers that the order dealt well and quickly with the complaints. It dealt sympathetically with the complainants and did all it could to contribute to their healing process. It is clear that the complainants consider that their complaints were well handled.

37.50 The Commission considers that the order dealt well with Fr Terentius. He was immediately removed from ministry and placed in therapeutic care. A considerable amount of money was spent in attempting to rehabilitate him. After he returned to Ireland he was well supervised and monitored. His superiors displayed considerable patience in dealing with him.

37.51 The Commission is very concerned that the assessment carried out in the Granada Institute in 2001 did not take account of the full facts. The conclusions reached may be justified but, on its face, the assessment is, at best, questionable.

Communication between Church authorities

37.52 The Commission recognises that members of religious orders are subject to the rules of their order and complaints against them are dealt with by the order even if the priest in question was attached to the Archdiocese when the alleged abuse occurred. The Commission is concerned that this may mean the Archdiocese is not fully informed about abuse which occurred under its aegis. In this case, the Archdiocese was informed of the complaint. The Archdiocese informed the order of the complaint made to it and left it to the order to deal with it. There was no further communication until Archbishop Connell contacted all relevant orders in 1997. In this case, the absence of further communications between the order and the Archdiocese is not a major issue as the order was closely monitoring all Fr Terentius‟s activities. However, in general, the Commission is concerned that the Archdiocese does not require more frequent updates on the current status of religious order priests who abused children while under its aegis.

Gardaí and health board

37.53 The order did report to the Gardaí but, as the complainants in this case did not want to make a complaint to the Gardaí, there was no Garda investigation. Similarly, there was no contact with the health authorities.