Part 2 of 3
Return to Jemez Springs, 1983
20.67 The records do not show, and none of the witnesses interviewed by the Commission has been able to explain, what happened in the immediate aftermath of these events. However, we do know that by 5 January 1983, Fr was back in Jemez Springs. He was now deemed by the Servants of the Paraclete to be a paedophile and the treatment to be afforded to him was for paedophilia. He was removed from the renewal and reorientation course which had been conducted in Foundation House to another area of their campus called Villa Louis Martin. There he came under the care and supervision of Fr Benedict Livingstone SP, who was director of Villa Louis Martin. On the day of his arrival, he entered a contract with the Servants of the Paraclete which, in effect, placed him under house arrest and in which he consented to undergo assessment for treatment with the drug Depo-Provera.
20.68 Depo-Provera, primarily used as a long acting contraceptive, had been shown in studies in the USA to lessen the testosterone level and consequently the libido, and therefore was helpful in controlling the urges of sexual deviants. Information on the drug and its use in treating sex offenders was sent to Archbishop Ryan by Jemez Springs.
20.69 Fr was started on Depo-Provera in February 1983. A progress report was sent to Archbishop Ryan in March 1983. Tests had shown a demonstrable reduction in his libido. As a result, the restrictions on his movements were relaxed and he was allowed into the city of Albuquerque.
20.70 The Archbishop was asked for advice on what was to happen next. Jemez Springs put forward a number of possibilities. The first was that Fr should remain in Jemez Springs until the follow-up workshop which was scheduled for June 1983. If this course was adopted, it was suggested that he should become involved in some ministry outside the treatment centre. It was acknowledged that there was something of a risk attached to
this but the true results of the drug therapy treatment could not be assessed until he returned to ministry. An alternative suggestion was that Fr................ would move to some of the other Servants of the Paraclete houses in the USA, where he could begin to do some ministry and where they could still monitor his behaviour and the effects of the drug therapy.
20.71 Archbishop Ryan was asked about the possible return of Fr to the Archdiocese of Dublin. It was pointed out that, if and when Fr returned to Dublin, he would need to remain on Depo-Provera. The question of the drug‟s availability in Ireland and the possible monitoring arrangements were raised. There is an undated, unsigned memo on the Archdiocesan file which appears to be in the handwriting of Archbishop Ryan which suggests that he made some enquiries as to the possibility of ongoing treatment for Fr , in Ireland. It states: “Tried 2 Dr‟s [doctors] Prognosis good if on drug Visa runs out mid June”.
20.72 In April 1983, Archbishop Ryan agreed to Fr involvement in ministry in the Santa Fe Archdiocese and cautioned that the archbishop of that diocese would need to be fully briefed as to his circumstances. Archbishop Ryan said he would discuss Fr possible return to Dublin on the telephone. This telephone conversation took place in mid May 1983. There is no direct record of the contents of the conversation. However, a letter from Jemez Springs in May 1983 shows clearly that Archbishop Ryan did not want Fr back in the Archdiocese of Dublin and was very concerned about the use of Depo-Provera in Ireland. The Director of the programme wrote:
“When Father returned here in January, after the incident with a young man while he was visiting home during December, I thought that it was understood by all that we would begin the drug treatment with Depo-Provera. Because of this, we began the initial procedures and blood tests and then initiated this drug treatment.
Over these months, Father has been receiving Depo-Provera on a regular basis. It has, in our opinion, greatly decreased his compulsive behavior in the area of pedophilia. I also thought that it was understood that Father would need to remain on this drug for the remainder of his life if he were to control this compulsive sexual acting out. I believe that I sent you the information concerning this drug sometime in January… We feel confident, if Father remains on this drug therapy, that he can continue to function in the active ministry. As you may know, as a result of the Depo-Provera treatment, one‟s blood testosterone level goes almost to zero and one looses [sic] the inclination towards any sexual fantasies. Also, if this drug is given on a regular basis, one becomes impotent. Compliance with the treatment can be checked by periodic blood testosterone level tests. This drug has been used in Scandinavia, West Germany, the British Commonwealth and in the United States for a number of years in treating a variety of sex offenders. When someone is on the drug the chances of repeating the sexual acting out is greatly reduced. The success in using Depo-Provera is close to 100%. In the professional opinion of our psychiatrist and the staff, as long as Father continues taking this drug, the probability that he will become sexually inappropriate with adolescent males is extremely low. [His psychiatrist] has been meeting with Father regularly since he began receiving the Depo-Provera and has monitored its effects… I did explain to you on the telephone that we could not find an assignment for Father here in the United States. Of course, Bishops are very cautious in terms of taking a strange priest who has had such a difficulty. However, this does not mean that you could not give him another opportunity to prove himself, as his own Archbishop.
I do understand that there may be some ethical or moral problems with the use of this drug in Ireland. However, I would like to mention here the theological ramifications of Double Effect. It would seem to me that it is far better for Father to continue in the active ministry, if at all possible, while using this drug rather then to leave the priesthood or be urged to give up his active ministry. As I also stated before, this was the understanding that I had when we began the treatment with Depo-Provera.
If it is not possible to obtain or use Depo-Provera in Ireland, there is another drug that has similar effects that can be obtained in Great Britain. It is called Cyproterone Acetate. This drug is also an anti-androgen but is not used for birth control. It is basically used for males and for treating tumors of the prostate gland. This drug also lowers the testosterone level in the same manner as Depo-Provera. Father agrees that he needs to remain on this drug. He has been able to observe the significant changes in his own bodily reactions and in his sexual attractions. I do believe that he will take the responsibility in terms of obtaining the drug for himself and will find a physician who can administer and monitor it. I spoke with Father for three hours after our telephone conversation. I did mention to him that you had suggested the possibility of sending him to a monastery. After consultation with [his psychiatrist] and the other staff people here, we do not recommend this at the present time. I do understand that you are having difficulties in terms of finding an assignment for Father in the Archdiocese of Dublin. Perhaps too many people know of the past incidents. However, we do believe that he should be given another chance while on the drug treatment. Perhaps you could help Father in terms of locating in another Diocese, at least temporarily. In this way, his behavior could be monitored and the success of the drug treatment could be assessed. I know that this situation causes many difficulties for you. However, Father has complied with the treatment here which has, at times, been painful and harsh. Also, he does have many talents and abilities that can be of service in the active priesthood. Further, we do not feel that he has the personality to remain for a long period of time in a monastic setting. Finally, and most importantly, he feels very strong concerning his commitment to priesthood and wants to continue functioning as an active priest.
I am hopeful that this information will help you in making some type of decision concerning Father . He is going to remain here for the follow-up workshop that will be held from June 6 through June 11. After this, he will be returning to Dublin at my request. We feel that we have done everything that is humanly and spiritually possible to be of service to Father and to you. I hope that you will be able to discover some possible ministerial setting for Father after talking with him.”
20.73 In June 1983, Bishop Comiskey was asked to make inquiries about extending Fr American visa. Even though a visa extension could have been obtained in the USA, Fr arrived back in Dublin in the summer of 1983, and stayed with his brother.
Santa Rosa diocese, 1983 - 1986
20.74 The Archbishop, meanwhile, was making efforts to ensure that Fr stay in Dublin would be brief. He contacted Bishop Mark Hurley, of the diocese of Santa Rosa, California, who clearly was known to him. It appears that Archbishop Ryan asked him to, as it were, "rid me of this troublesome priest‟,69 and Bishop Hurley agreed. Presumably Fr full history was made known to Bishop Hurley. The Commission did not seek confirmation on this point from the Santa Rosa Diocese as it is aware that in 1995, when issues of child sex abuse were being investigated in the Santa Rosa Diocese, Bishop Hurley, who was then assigned to Rome, swore a deposition to the effect that he had torn up all confidential personnel records before his resignation in 1987.70
20.75 In 1995, Monsignor John Wilson, who was Archbishop Ryan‟s secretary in 1983, recalled that he was in Archbishop Ryan‟s study while the Archbishop spoke by telephone to Bishop Hurley. Monsignor Wilson‟s recollection was that Archbishop Ryan explained to Bishop Hurley the personal difficulties that Fr had been treated for and, to the best of his recollection, the nature of the treatment.
20.76 In June 1983, Archbishop Ryan wrote to Bishop Hurley confirming in writing the arrangements made earlier with him regarding Fr and he provided the following statement to the diocese of Santa Rosa:
“I understand that Father has applied for a visa to work as a diocesan priest in the diocese of Santa Rosa, California, U.S.A., on a temporary basis. I am aware of this application and approve of his going to work as a priest in your diocese in view of the pastoral needs of the immigrants from Ireland and other English-speaking countries… When Father has completed his temporary service in the diocese of Santa Rosa, he will be accepted back into this Archdiocese of Dublin, Ireland, in which he has been incardinated from the time of his ordination.”
20.77 It was almost three years before Fr next surfaced as a problem for the Dublin Archdiocese. By then, Archbishop Ryan was dead, and his successor, Archbishop Kevin McNamara, was seriously ill.
20.78 On his arrival in Santa Rosa diocese, Fr had been assigned as a curate to Eureka, Northern California. The Commission does not know whether Santa Rosa diocese monitored Fr to ensure that he continued to adhere to the drug therapy prescribed for him. Initially however, he appears to have got on well. In January 1985. Bishop Hurley wrote to Archbishop McNamara to congratulate him and to wish him well on his recent appointment and in the course of the letter stated:
“At the request of Archbishop Ryan I accepted into the diocese on a trial basis Fr. of the Archdiocese of Dublin. I am happy to report that he seems to be very happy and doing quite well in St. Bernard‟s Parish in Eureka California.”
20.79 By the end of 1985, however, things had changed. Stories of inappropriate conduct began to emerge from Eureka. Bishop Hurley removed him from there and, following a brief locum appointment in another town, declined to offer him any further appointment. In March 1986 Fr wrote to Archbishop McNamara setting out the position as he saw it: “I write to you about my present position, and to keep you informed.
I was very happy and fulfilled in my ministry in Eureka C.A. (Santa Rosa Diocese) for the past few years. I was liked by the people, and I liked them, and I made many friends. My health, T.G. is also very good. I continue to take the help and the support I need. I have grown away from the problems that entered my life surprisingly and abruptly some years ago. It happened during the time of my long Dublin Pro-Cathedral (8 McDermott St.) ministry with the centre-city bombings, and later my involvement with the aftermath of the Stardust disaster in Coolock. I have tried to put into practice what I learned in therapy and the great services that Dr. Ryan put at my disposal. Though my dealings with young people has to be monitored and controlled I feel that I can effectively minister to them at school and in the family circle as effectively as I did in my ministry, before this, in the past. I did help a number of young people in my Dublin parishes who are now priests of the diocese. It came as a great disappointment to me when Bishop Hurley, whom I always found very friendly and helpful, whom I trusted, said that he was to discontinue my services. He has made it clear that I did not do anything wrong, but he received some complaint or complaints from a person or persons, who were uncomfortable in their observation of me. I was not told the nature or source of the complaint. Because of recent publicity here in the media and the legal implications about child abuse Bishop Hurley reacted very strongly. A great number of parishioners wrote to the Bishop, especially those with families, and many in posts of responsibility with whom I worked closely. They endorsed my ministry in general and many said that they were comfortable with my relationship with them, and the members of their families. The Bishop sent them a circular letter and said that “my good work at St. Bernard‟s was not at issue”, which they, nor I could not [sic] understand.
He asked Bp. Hurley if I was willing to fill a vacancy in another parish until the “new pastor was appointed and established” and that I have done and completed. (The entire town was flooded two weeks ago
and the church on the hill became the refuge of 400 people) The Bishop now says that he has no appointment for me”.
20.80 It is striking that there is no mention in this letter of the medication and blood tests which, only three years earlier, had been deemed essential to curb his paedophile tendencies. Indeed, not once in the ensuing years is there any evidence that Fr was asked by any official of the Dublin Archdiocese whether or not he was still taking the necessary medication or undergoing the blood tests necessary to monitor the medication‟s effectiveness.
20.81 Despite Archbishop Ryan‟s undertaking to Bishop Hurley in 1983 that Fr would be accepted back into the Archdiocese of Dublin when he had completed his temporary assignment, it is clear from the limited documentation available that he was not welcome back in Dublin. Archbishop McNamara replied to Fr letter in May 1986. This makes it clear that Archbishop McNamara had discussed with Bishop Hurley the circumstances in which Fr appointment had been ended. Archbishop McNamara, in his reply, recites the fact of the previous difficulties and states that, having discussed the matter fully with the council of the diocese, he regretted to have to say that he felt unable in the light of the advice given to him, to offer him an appointment in the diocese. He went on to suggest that, if Fr was successful in obtaining another appointment in the USA, that would enable him to continue in his priestly ministry.
Back in Dublin, 1986
20.82 Out of work, and with no immediate prospect of another appointment, Fr came home to Dublin in May 1986. The ostensible reason for his return was the celebration of the 25th anniversary of his ordination. He stayed, at least initially, at an address in Clontarf, where Archbishop McNamara wrote to him to congratulate him on the occasion of his silver jubilee and enclosed a copy of his earlier letter refusing him an appointment in Dublin. He met Fr . A memo of that meeting suggests that Fr accepted that the Archbishop could not offer him an appointment in the Dublin Archdiocese. He requested the Archbishop to provide him with a letter of introduction which he could use in approaching an American diocese.
The Archbishop agreed to provide such a letter and he further agreed that he would arrange for Fr to receive financial assistance until such time as he managed to obtain an appointment in the USA.
20.83 To the knowledge of the Archdiocese, Fr stayed on in Dublin for the summer of 1986. His activities appear to have been entirely unmonitored, despite the Archdiocese‟s knowledge that he had been declared a paedophile and despite its knowledge of many complaints against him. He moved from house to house and he had the use of a car. In July 1986, he moved into a house in Palmerstown, the property of a garda chief superintendent.
20.84 Fr appears to have applied immediately to the diocese of Los Angeles for work as a priest. In July 1986, Archbishop McNamara wrote to Archbishop Mahony of Los Angeles, stating that, from June 1983 to May 1986, Fr had worked in the diocese of Santa Rosa on a temporary basis with the approval of the Archdiocese. He described Fr as a good worker who was prayerful and very attentive to his priestly duties. He explained that, because of his over involvement with young people, it was felt, following a series of courses and counselling, that it would be advisable for Fr to work outside Ireland. Archbishop Mahony was told that Bishop Hurley of Santa Rosa would be able to advise him on how Fr had fared in his ministry during his three years there. The letter concludes: “I would appreciate it if you would give Fr. application a favourable consideration. If I can be of any further assistance to you in considering Father request for work please contact me”.
20.85 To those in the know, this carefully worded letter constituted sufficient warning as to Fr tendencies. The Dublin Archdiocese, while representing to Fr that it was amenable to his securing another position in the USA, was at the same time ensuring that he had little chance of actually getting such a position. Telephone calls appear to have been exchanged between Archbishop McNamara and Archbishop Mahony, and Fr does not appear to have been offered work in the Los Angeles diocese.
20.86 While this was happening, Fr was free to move as he pleased, without supervision. He visited a priest friend in a rural part of the Archdiocese where he spotted a young boy who, unfortunately, he is alleged to have sought out to molest a year and a half later, in January 1988. He put out the word among his former classmates that he was available for supply work during the holiday period, and though by now, numbers of his classmates were aware of the fact, if not the extent, of his problems, they also knew that he had concelebrated mass with them in Clonliffe at the silver jubilee celebrations, and so assumed, not unreasonably, that he was in good standing in the Archdiocese.
A week in August 1986
20.87 Through a classmate, Fr learned that a particular priest was urgently looking for someone to stand in for him while he was on holidays. As Fr had been recommended to him by another priest in the Dublin Archdiocese, the priest did not consider it necessary to make any inquiries as to Fr suitability to do supply work. In the space of one week in August 1986, the following events occurred.
20.88 On Sunday, Fr turned up to say mass in the parish. A nine year old boy was asked by a local nun to serve mass, as there was no one else available. The following day, Fr called to the boy‟s house and asked him to serve mass again. He did so and, after mass, it is alleged that Fr abused him. The abuse described was broadly similar to that described by previous complainants. Fr gave the boy a T-shirt and a prayer book.
20.89 The boy went home and told his mother what had happened. His parents brought him to the sexual assault treatment unit in the Rotunda hospital and immediately afterwards went to their local garda station to make a complaint. The initial garda reaction was exemplary. The garda who received the complaint arranged for a colleague to attend at the boy‟s house that very evening to take his statement. A detective garda took a comprehensive statement which included a lot of surrounding detail capable of independent verification, and had the statement witnessed by the boy‟s mother. The detective garda took possession of the prayer book and T-shirt given to the boy by Fr . The garda held on to these potential exhibits, in case this matter ever came before the courts. He still had these items in his possession at the time of his retirement from the Gardaí in 2002. This garda took no further part in the investigation. The following morning, the investigating garda went to the local presbytery to inform Fr of the complaint made against him and to invite him to attend at the local station for interview. The Commission is of the view that when the investigating garda arrived at the presbytery, the irate father of the boy was already there confronting Fr in relation to the assault. Fr later characterised this confrontation as an over-reaction by the father to the situation.
20.90 According to Fr , on being informed by the investigating garda of the complaint made against him of indecent assault, he offered to make a statement on the matter but was advised by the garda not to do so. This was denied by the garda, who told the Commission that his recollection was that Fr wished to conduct the interview there and then and that he (the garda) wanted to conduct it in the more formal setting of the garda station.
20.91 In any event, Fr did attend at the garda station later that same day in the company of a friend who was a retired garda sergeant who had served in that district. According to the two gardaí who conducted the interview, which was a voluntary interview, they put each of the allegations contained in the boy‟s statement to Fr . Each garda told the Commission that he took no notes of Fr responses, although each formed the view that Fr was lying. It strikes the Commission as extraordinary that no notes were taken during the course of this interview as the very purpose of the interview was to ascertain and note the response of Fr to the complaint being made against him. Unfortunately, as the garda file on this investigation is missing, the Commission has no means of crosschecking the gardaí‟s evidence in this respect.
20.92 One of the gardaí spoke with the retired garda sergeant who had accompanied Fr to the station. This retired garda sergeant was disinclined to believe any wrong of Fr . That same evening, Fr went to the home of Garda Chief Superintendent Joe McGovern. Fr had been staying in a house belonging to the chief superintendent since July. He made certain limited admissions to the chief superintendent who did not convey them to the investigating garda, but who did convey them and the fact of the garda investigation to his local parish priest, Fr Curley. When asked by the Commission why he took this course, the chief superintendent replied that he considered Fr behaviour to be a matter for the Church to deal with. This was despite his knowledge that an investigation had just commenced into an allegation of indecent assault. When asked why he did not consider it appropriate to notify anybody in the civil authorities about the admission made to him by Fr , the chief superintendent responded: “I didn‟t report - I didn‟t consider it appropriate to notify the local gardaí in case - they could even think I was meddling. I took the course that I thought was the proper course at the time. I contacted the local curate who was a very conscientious person and I knew who would take it on board and he did take it on board and he got onto the Archbishops House about the matter and he subsequently told me that he got onto the superintendent in Ballyfermot. So I think there was no omission on my part there.”
20.93 When pressed on the point, the chief superintendent stated that the question of disciplining the priest was a matter for Archbishop‟s House who were in the main responsible for the priest.
20.94 The following day, the Archdiocese, having been notified of the investigation by the chief superintendent, got involved in the matter. The detective garda handling the investigation contacted an official in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seeking advice. The investigation stopped. No further inquiries were made by the Gardaí. The boy‟s statement was full of detail which could have been independently verified by taking statements from third parties. No such statements were taken. No statements were taken from the boy‟s parents. The boy‟s father, in particular, had useful evidence to offer. He later told a Church official that Fr , when confronted by him, said that “this” had happened several times before and that he got carried away with children. Even though the Gardaí knew that Fr intended to return to the USA, no warrant was sought for his arrest. The explanation given to the Commission by the investigating garda for the failure to take additional statements was that he did not want to expose the boy within the community as having been indecently assaulted by a priest. The Commission does not find this explanation convincing, plausible or acceptable.
20.95 As the garda investigation stopped, the Archdiocesan investigation got underway. The Archdiocese‟s handling of events was facilitated in significant ways by the Gardaí. As already described, Fr visited Chief Superintendent McGovern who rang Fr Curley. According to his contemporaneous account, Fr Curley went to see another superintendent in a garda station. While there, he was given the boy‟s statement to read. This superintendent denied to the Commission that he had met Fr Curley at all. He stated that sometime later he met another priest from Archbishop‟s House in relation to the matter. While there was a priest with this name in the Archdiocese, he did not serve in the archdiocesan administration and had not been asked to take any steps on behalf of the Archdiocese in the matter. The superintendent further denied that he allowed Fr Curley to read the complainant‟s statement or facilitated his reading of it in any manner. While the Commission cannot fully determine the issue in the absence of some of the relevant parties, it prefers the evidence contained in the contemporaneous memo of Fr Curley. This was prepared by Fr Curley for his superiors in the Dublin Archdiocese and he would never have expected it to enter the public domain. Further, the Commission cannot conceive of any reason why Fr Curley would state that such a meeting had happened if such were not the case. The Commission‟s view in this regard is supported by the evidence of Chief Superintendent McGovern who told the Commission that, after the event, Fr Curley had confirmed to him that he had met the superintendent. It also appears clear to the Commission that someone told Fr that he was out of the woods in respect of this complaint because, in early 1988, when taxed with yet another sexual assault by the Church authorities, he commented that the warrant in respect of this incident had expired. In fact, no such warrant had been issued. The Commission is of the view that this particular garda investigation was marred by Church interference which was facilitated by the Gardaí and which was material in allowing Fr to evade justice.
20.96 After his meeting with the superintendent, Fr Curley met Bishop Williams. It was decided that Fr Curley should contact the boy‟s parents as soon as possible in an “unofficial capacity”. That meeting was arranged to take place in the garda station where the complaint had been made. According to Fr Curley, this arrangement was facilitated by the Gardaí. The investigating garda told the Commission that he had no recollection of arranging this meeting but he did not deny that it had occurred. Fr Curley got the boy‟s statement and agreed to send it to Archbishop‟s House.
20.97 The Commission interviewed the superintendent of the district, the detective inspector in charge of investigations and the three gardaí involved in the investigation in relation to this matter. Each of the five agreed that it was entirely improper that the church authorities should have been given a copy of the complainant‟s statement. The detective inspector went so far as to state that he would view the handing over of the statement as a serious disciplinary matter. Each of the five denied that he had been responsible for giving the complainant‟s statement to the Church authorities. The Commission is, however, satisfied that the Church authorities received the statement from the Gardaí but is not in a position to identify with certainty who was responsible.
20.98 Meanwhile, Fr prepared a statement of his version of events. This was given to Archbishop‟s House but not to the Gardaí. In it, he said that he and the boy “exchanged the kiss of peace during mass with an embrace”. He said he gave the boy a T-shirt and a prayer book but “At no time did I interfere with him privately”.
20.99 Bishop Carroll (who was in charge of the Archdiocese in the interregnum between Archbishop McNamara‟s death and the appointment of Archbishop Connell) and Bishop Williams (who was in charge of the archdiocesan finances) met Fr and compiled this report:
“He denied any sexual assault, but made vague references to hugging and petting and included some reference to offering the child a change of clothes. He admitted that it was the first and only occasion on which he has broken his rule of never being alone with young people, since he had problems previously. He resisted strong pressure to consult the Servants of the Paraclete in California, when he returns there, in the light of his previous treatment with them. He indicated an intention of travelling to California to take up a course in Pastoral Training in Hospital Work, commencing in October. Out of this, he would hope to obtain a post in Pastoral Ministry in hospitals in America. He also indicated a feeling of hurt at the fact that the Archbishop had indicated to him on his return in June that he would not get an appointment in this diocese. When asked why his appointment in America had ceased, he said that his contract had been for three years and the Bishop had indicated that he was not renewing it, but had given him no specific reason. Under questioning, he did admit that during the three-year period the Bishop had, on a number of occasions, expressed unease at Father over familiarity with young people”.
20.100 At the conclusion of that meeting, Bishop Williams gave Fr a cheque. In his memo of the event, he also raised the issue of insurance for the diocese “in matters of this sort”, which had been under active consideration by the Archdiocese for some time. Approximately one month later the Archbishop met the Church and General Insurance Company to expedite the question of insurance. An insurance policy was issued in March 1987 (see Chapter 9).
20.101 The Friday after the alleged abuse of the altar boy occurred, Fr returned to the USA.
Further Church activities in relation to 1986 complaint
20.102 Fr Curley continued his efforts to deal with the fall out from the incident. He met the boy‟s parents at their local garda station. His account of the meeting is as follows:
“As far as both parents were concerned I was a friend of [local priest], we worked together, and as he was away on holiday, I explained I wanted to help them to discuss the incident and more so out of concern for their child. The parents made the following points: - Fr. told the father that “this” happened several times before- he gets carried away with children. - They said they do not want him to get away with it. He should be charged and disciplined. - The matter was not to be swept under the carpet and threaten (sic) to expose the problem in the newspapers if something is not done about it.
- The Father and Mother said they felt so angry every time they looked at the child they had to send him away to relatives for a while. … - They insisted that the Archbishop should read their sons statement. - They were so upset because a priest is a person you put your trust in. Fr. bought presents for their son and they said Fr. was cute enough not to say anything to the boy about reporting it at home. - The parents want action and something to be done. … Concluding the meeting after other points were made I asked them to try to be loyal to [the local priest] who would see them on returning from holidays. I told them then I would be making a full report of our meeting to Archbishop‟s House”.
20.103 Undoubtedly, the Church authorities were still concerned at the potential for this incident to become a matter of public scandal. Bishop O‟Mahony, who was the area bishop but who had been away at the time of the incident, was brought up to date by Bishop Williams who gave him copies of all of the documents available.
20.104 On his return from holidays, the local priest, for whom Fr had done supply work, met Bishop O‟Mahony. They noted:
“1. We agreed that [local priest] would see the parents this evening and assure them of written confirmation if necessary that the Archbishop had personally seen the boy‟s statement.
2. A possible letter would contain:
*The above assurance if required. An expression of sympathy for the serious hurt suffered by the boy and his family. *A commitment to take all necessary and possible steps to ensure that the Diocesan authorities in the USA are aware of the situation and effective steps are being taken to exercise discipline and ensure treatment.”
20.105 The local priest then met the parents and reported to Bishop O‟Mahony that the meeting was “pretty good” but the parents felt that Fr ..had got away with it. The local priest said there “was now no need to write a letter of assurance”. He also told the bishop that rumour of the alleged incident had not spread very much in the community.
20.106 It appears that Bishop O‟Mahony was still concerned that this matter might give rise to scandal because a later meeting was organised at Bishop O‟Mahony‟s house with the local priest and the mother of the boy. Bishop O‟Mahony noted that the mother:
“was calm and impressive in her response to the traumatic incident but upset and angry that: 1. The priest had the opportunity of working […] with young boys. 2. He got away without any charge being made against him – “one law for the rich, the other for the poor”! 3. He could have the opportunity of doing similar damage back in the USA. She wants assurance that he would have treatment and no appointment that would involve contact with young boys. I told her that the necessary steps would be taken to ensure that her reasonable requests would be carried out and promised to make contact again with more specific information of the steps taken.” Bishop O‟Mahony disputes the characterisation of his motivation as being the avoidance of scandal. He told the Commission that his motivation was pastoral support for the family and the priest. However, the Commission considers that his notes and those of the local priest suggest that the avoidance of scandal was the primary consideration. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any ongoing Church support for the family once the immediate threat of scandal had passed.
Further garda activities in relation to 1986 complaint
20.107 In early September 1986, the investigating garda received a report from the sexual assault unit in the Rotunda hospital. Having regard to the nature of the assault complained of, not surprisingly, there was little physical evidence found of the assault on the boy. Later in September, the investigating garda forwarded the file to his district office. The file consisted of a covering letter from the garda, the statement of the boy, the report from the sexual assault unit and a request that the file be forwarded to the DPP‟s office. The superintendent of the district attached his note to the file stating:
“I understand that Fr. was transferred to America approximately six years ago arising out of an incident of a similar nature. He had no authority to minister in Dublin at present and was in fact on holidays. I now understand that he has again returned to America.”
20.108 When a garda file is submitted to the office of the DPP for directions as to charges, if any, it is usual for the Gardaí to submit a report with the file outlining the nature of their investigation, the evidence which has been gathered and their conclusions as to the charges, if any, which should be brought. No such report was submitted nor directions sought with this file when it was submitted to the DPP‟s office. The garda evidence to the Commission was to the effect that the file was being forwarded more for the information of the DPP than for any other purpose.
20.109 The DPP‟s office, in an internal memorandum, expressed the view that Fr should be prosecuted, were he available to be prosecuted, on the basis that the boy‟s statement of events was clear and convincing. The office commented on the incomplete nature of the investigation, for example, the failure to take statements from other children and the parents, but the ultimate conclusion was: “Even if one could, I wouldn‟t bother extraditing him.”
20.110 The DPP‟s office does not appear to have adverted in any way to the information given to them in the brief letter from the superintendent, which suggested that Fr had a previous history of this type of offence. This was a very brief file and one might have expected that further investigation or information would have been sought from the Gardaí as to this man‟s previous history.
20.111 Whereas there is no documentary evidence available that the DPP‟s decision was communicated by the Chief State Solicitor‟s Office to the Gardaí, the garda superintendent of the district in which the event occurred told the Commission that he was aware that there was to be no prosecution.
Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Archdi
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:22 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36171
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:22 am
Part 3 of 3
USA, 1986
20.112 Fr had told Bishops Carroll and Williams that he intended to enrol in a hospital chaplaincy course at a hospital in Orange, California. An official from Archbishop‟s House telephoned Los Angeles diocese advising “that a further incident was reported during Father recent vacation in Ireland”. Los Angeles diocese replied that, while they had received Fr application for work, they had not offered him any post due to the circumstances of his case. The Archdiocese also telephoned the diocese of Orange alerting them to the fact that Fr was enrolled on a hospital chaplaincy course there and that background information on Fr could be obtained from the Santa Rosa diocese. The most recent complaint about Fr was also mentioned.
20.113 Fr meanwhile was looking for funding from the Archdiocese for his activities in Orange. Bishop Williams directed that the course fees be paid and that he also get an allowance. A bank draft for in excess of $2,000 for tuition fees and incidental expenses for the months of October to December 1986 was forwarded to Fr . A further cheque was promised for early January 1987. Once again no one appears to have inquired as to whether or not he was taking his medication.
20.114 Fr did not start the hospital chaplaincy course. It is not clear why but it is likely that the warning given to Orange diocese by the Archdiocese of Dublin was responsible for this change of plan. Fr was living in Sebastapol, California and Bishop Williams wrote to him there in October 1986 seeking details of the new course which he proposed to embark on. The bishop also reminded him that, at their August 1986 meeting, both he and Bishop Carroll had stressed that they would expect a report either from the residential centre he had previously attended, Jemez Springs, or from some other competent professional source, to show that he had fully disclosed recent events in Dublin and had been treated in respect of them. The bishop expressed dissatisfaction that the report had not been received by him and stated that, pending receipt of the information required, he would keep his application for further financial assistance under review.
20.115 Fr replied saying he now intended to begin a clinical pastoral education course at another hospital, this time in the diocese of Sacramento.
He looked for further money to cover his tuition even though he had already received $2,000 to cover his course and keep. He dealt with the professional report as follows:
“I gave a full account to [solicitor] before I left Dublin. I also gave the same report [to] the priest psychologist whom I told you about. We have teased this out several times and I increased the frequency of my visits for that purpose. I asked him if he was willing to give a professional report and he said that as his clients come to him voluntarily (and not referred) and because he is also my confessor, he believes in keeping his professional services confidential. … I have grown from the incidents of some years ago and thank God have returned happily to ministry again. I am helping out at weekends and preaching.”
20.116 Once again, when asked to account for himself, Fr relied on self-serving pieties together with assurances of personal growth and development. Bishop Williams‟s response to this letter is remarkable in the context of all that had gone before and particularly given that the Archdiocese had knowledge that Fr had been diagnosed as a paedophile whose tendency could only be controlled by medication:
“Please be assured that you have my help and that I will provide every co-operation in your training and renewal. I would hope that it would go without question that just treatment will be ensured at all times for a priest of the diocese. However, having said that, I must come back to the question of the request which Bishop Carroll and I made to you that we should have a professional report from a qualified advisor, arising from our discussion before you left Dublin. If your priest/psychologist feels that because of his relationship to you as a confessor, he is unable to provide such a report, then I would have to ask you to consult some other psychologist or medical advisor, who will give us a comprehensive report.
I am sure that, on reflection, you will see the justice and the wisdom of our asking for this firm evidence that medical advice concurs with your opinion of the situation. It is in your own interest to let us have this firm evidence, so that the written and documented allegations will not remain unanswered.”
20.117 It is difficult to avoid the impression that Bishop Williams was more intent on keeping the file right by having on it a medical report which might exculpate the Archdiocese, rather than dealing appropriately with the ongoing threat that Fr posed to boys whom he might encounter. There is no evidence that the diocese of Sacramento was contacted about Fr presence there.
20.118 In January 1987, a decision appears to have been reached that the Archdiocese of Dublin would continue to fund Fr on his clinical pastoral education course in Sacramento, notwithstanding his repeated failure to comply with the request for a comprehensive medical report. There is a note on file advising the finance secretariat to send him a salary for three months.
First complainant comes forward again, 1987
20.119
20.120
20.121
20.122
20.123
More problems in the USA
20.124 Meanwhile, the supervisor of the course which Fr was pursuing in Sacramento, a nun, wrote to the Archdiocese concerning his status. This course was in a different hospital to the one Fr had told the bishops about earlier. The supervisor told the Archdiocese that, when Fr applied for the course in November 1986, he had provided a letter giving him release from the Dublin Archdiocese, an acceptance letter giving him faculties in Sacramento diocese and several letters which recommended him. He had also provided a reference from a nun who ran a similar course in Ireland. The supervisor said that there had been no problems with Fr but they had recently heard “rather ugly rumours about his reasons for leaving the diocese of Dublin and that of Santa Rosa. These rumours implied that he seeks out young boys for all the wrong reasons”. She went on to say that she was writing “at the suggestion of Bishop Hurley from Santa Rosa and am most anxious to clear this as soon as possible, because, if these rumours are true, Father will be asked to leave the programme after I have confronted him. We have had experience of this before and cannot countenance this.”
20.125 Bishop Williams telephoned the supervisor. Archbishop McNamara was ill in hospital. There are no notes of the contents of the telephone call but a subsequent letter to the supervisor suggests that Bishop Williams did confirm that the “rather ugly rumours” were true. The bishop then wrote to Fr telling him about the inquiry from the course supervisor and mildly upbraiding him for undertaking a course other than the one agreed and for not providing the professional assessment sought.
20.126 While Dublin failed to address the issues, Sacramento acted. After speaking to Bishop Williams, the diocese of Sacramento gave him two weeks to leave. He was ordered, initially orally, and the following day, in writing, not to exercise any ministry within the territory of the diocese. He was forbidden to participate further in the course in which he was enrolled. He was also ordered to submit himself to the care of the Archdiocese of Dublin.
20.127 Fr , as usual, did not do as he was directed. He did not submit himself to the care of the Dublin Archdiocese. Instead, he set about obtaining a medical report from a psychologist whom he had met in the context of the course. He also, somewhat surprisingly, managed to obtain an extremely favourable evaluation of his participation in the first quarter of this course. No doubt this favourable evaluation was assisted by the various untruths that Fr had conveyed to the course participants and directors. According to the evaluation:
“At age 48, Father left his country and came to the United States to settle down in a new country and culture. He said he had a suppressed longing to work abroad since he was very young. This move afforded him the opportunity to meet new challenges and break away from his old ruts71. This decision was very significant in his life, especially since his mother was not in favor of him leaving home. He has not regretted this change, but rather feels that it has helped him to better self acceptance and has stimulated his inner freedom and autonomy. He has said that in recent years his priest friends and other friends in Ireland have accused him of selfishness and that this hurt him very much, but in the process of his renewal, he has become convinced that he needs to be somewhat selfish in order to fulfil his own needs. I believe he is a well balanced person giving proper time and attention to all the facets of his life. This shows in his behaviour and interaction with those around him. His vital energies are used in affirmative and responsible ways to himself and others. He loves music and the arts. He has taken oil painting lessons and paints very well. He is a member of a health spa and is aware of diet and exercise for his well being. He seems to be in good health, taking primary responsibility for his own wellness. He is quick to use the healing energy of laughter and play. He has dressed up as a clown, looking very professional from the pictures he has shown us. He did this for grammar school children in Eureka at Halloween time a few years ago.
Another significant emotional event in Fr. life was when a fire broke out in a school72 where he was teaching and 48 teenagers burned to death. This effected [sic] him very personally. This had to have made a very deep wound of grief and it seems he has worked through the agony of such a tragedy but I‟m not sure his healing process is as complete as it should be.
Fr. has travelled extensively in the past years before coming to the United States. He visited Irish Missionaries in Africa, Brazil and India73. Because of these opportunities, he said it has broadened his mind and spiritual life.”
20.128 This evaluation was signed by Fr supervisor, a lay woman, and by the religious sister who was the course supervisor. It is not known why the course supervisor was willing to endorse such a misleading evaluation. Perhaps it was because the lay supervisor who prepared the evaluation could not be brought into the confidence of the inner Church circle who knew the truth about Fr . Fr made extensive use of this evaluation when applying for work in the USA.
20.129 He succeeded in getting a favourable report from the psychologist whom he had met on the course. The psychologist reported that he had conducted five hours face to face interviewing and five hours of psychological testing. He concluded that Fr was in the correct career path. Additionally, he noted that Fr “is capable of and is actively using individual psychotherapy”. He was of the view that psychotherapy would continue to help him become more aware of himself. The psychologist also conducted a psychological evaluation of Fr . The history given by Fr to the psychologist was untruthful and full of glaring omissions. He failed to disclose the various complaints against him, he said he had been accused of being over familiar with young people but there were no specific complaints, he did not mention his time in Jemez Springs or in Stroud, he did not tell the psychologist that he had been diagnosed as a paedophile whose tendencies could only be controlled by anti-androgenic drug therapy. He said he had been traumatised by “the burning of 48 teenagers that came from a bomb that went off in the parish where Father was ministering in”. This presumably is an amalgamation of the Dublin bombings of 1974 and the Stardust disaster of 1981.
20.130 On the basis of the history given, the psychologist‟s report was clearly worthless. It, too, was used extensively by Fr when he sought work in the USA.
20.131 Fr sent this report and the course evaluation to Bishop Williams in March 1987. Fr made no reference to the fact that his faculties had been withdrawn by the diocese of Sacramento, nor to the fact that he had been ordered to leave the territory of that diocese. He said he was looking for suitable ministry.
20.132 Bishop Williams must have known that the psychological evaluation was worthless as it was based on an inaccurate, misleading and untruthful history given by Fr . Fr was not confronted by the inaccuracy of the history, nor does it appear from the documents that the psychologist was notified of the false basis upon which his report rested.
20.133 There is evidence that, at this stage, Bishop Williams was finally losing patience. In the archdiocesan documents is a memorandum on “Dismissal from the Clerical State” prepared by Monsignor Alex Stenson for Bishop Williams. Monsignor Stenson cannot remember whether this was prepared in the context of Fr or Fr Carney (see Chapter 28). Monsignor Stenson listed the three ways in which an ordained cleric can lose the clerical state being:
by a judgment of a court or an administrative decree, declaring his ordination invalid;
by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed;
by a rescript of the Apostolic See.
20.134 However, nothing was done to institute a process of dismissal in the case of Fr .
20.135 Between March and June 1987, Fr applied for chaplaincy posts in a number of dioceses in the USA and Canada. He made initial progress but each application ultimately foundered when inquiries were made of either Dublin, Sacramento or Santa Rosa dioceses. During this period, Fr also made himself available to do supply work. In May 1987, he somehow managed to get a letter granting him priestly faculties in the diocese of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
20.136 Back in Dublin, Archbishop McNamara died in April 1987 and Bishop Carroll took over as Diocesan Administrator for a second time. Bishop Williams wrote to Fr asking for a briefing on his current circumstances so that he could advise Bishop Carroll. In May 1987, Fr replied that he had been ministering and had just completed a long retreat in a Jesuit retreat house. He said that he was continuing therapy and was being helped and advised to seek permanent work. He asked for a reference from the Archdiocese.
20.137 In June 1987 an official from the diocese of Sacramento spoke to Monsignor Stenson on the telephone. The official gave a summary of Fr activities throughout the American west and mid-west during the month of May and was quoted by Monsignor Stenson as saying “Urgent to get him out of the USA – to anywhere.”
Withdrawal of faculties
20.138 Bishop Williams wrote to Fr declining to give him the letter of reference. Bishop Carroll wrote to him to say he had consulted with the auxiliary bishops and had decided to withdraw his faculties with effect from June 1987. He further withdrew permission to seek pastoral work in the USA. He recalled him to a residential course in Stroud. He said that any failure to comply with these instructions would mean that he (Bishop Carroll) would start a canon law penal process under canon 1395 (see Chapter 4).
20.139 This was undoubtedly the most direct letter sent by the Archdiocese to Fr in the ten years that the Archdiocese had been dealing with the fall-out from his sexual molestation of boys. Not surprisingly, Fr was shocked by this new direct approach. Nevertheless, he still made a last ditch effort to avoid returning to Stroud. This did not succeed.
20.140 Fr arrived back in Stroud in July 1987. By coincidence the priest now in charge of Stroud, Fr Livingstone, was the same man who had been in charge in Jemez Springs when Fr was there in 1983 and when he was diagnosed as a paedophile whose tendencies could only be controlled by anti-androgenic medication. Interestingly, this man‟s report to the Archdiocese in July 1987 makes absolutely no reference to that crucially important diagnosis, or to Fr adherence or otherwise to the drug treatment regime that had been prescribed. The report did state that Fr was being evasive and perhaps deliberately dishonest. Stroud had no confidence in his ability to control his psychosexual urges at that time. They did not think that a longer period of treatment would improve the situation as they would not be willing to risk recommending him for active work in the priesthood. The attending psychiatrist in Stroud raised the possibility of Fr being given permanent care in a supervised setting. At Stroud‟s request, Monsignor Stenson travelled there to discuss the future with Fr . Monsignor Stenson noted that Fr tended to gloss over his history in the Dublin Archdiocese but he acknowledged the problem there would be in recommending him elsewhere. A number of possibilities were discussed:
Laicisation - Fr did not like this as he still had ambitions for a return to active ministry when his problem was solved.
Dismissal – he would prefer this not to happen.
Early retirement and/or resignation: this seemed the most attractive proposal from Fr point of view because it would be seen as a voluntary act on his part and not something imposed by the diocese.
20.141 At the conclusion of the meeting, Monsignor Stenson felt sorry for Fr and compared him to the fugitive who did not quite know where to turn. Monsignor Stenson‟s own view was that the psychiatrist‟s suggestion of viewing Fr as a disabled priest in need of custodial care with a very limited ministry might be given further consideration but he recognised that it was questionable if Fr would be able or willing to do that.
20.142 After this meeting Fr wrote to Bishop Carroll saying that Monsignor Stenson was “realistic in his presentation of my case, but I thought that all of it was very negative”. Having pointed out some of the positive features of his recent life, as he saw it, he concluded:
“If necessary, I would envisage resignation from the active ministry, and that would include not involving myself actively in public ministry, and that the diocese would have no responsibility for my future conduct. That I would be given financial support in order to set myself up and find work, (in justice because of my years of service). That the diocese could say that I was a priest who had resigned from the active ministry. These are my wishes in order of preference. I need trust, compassion, justice and charity, I will be moving to my cousin‟s home 70 miles away”.
20.143 Bishop Carroll became anxious to ensure that Fr was in a monitored situation pending a decision in his regard. Stroud was prepared to provide a room for him but he had already left Stroud and had gone to relatives. He refused to go back. In August 1987, Bishop Carroll suspended him from ministry. This suspension decreed that he could not say mass, preach, hear confessions or receive stipends. He was also prohibited from presenting himself as a priest, wearing clerical dress or seeking or engaging in any form of pastoral ministry. Priests in the Archdiocese were not told of this suspension.
20.144 Sometime in August 1987, Fr moved to a centre in London which specialises in therapy and reflection for members of religious orders and clerics. Monsignor Stenson visited him there to tell him the terms of the decree of suspension. In September 1987, Fr applied for laicisation.
Laicisation
20.145 Monsignor Stenson prepared the documents necessary for laicisation and these were transmitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome in October 1987. The application was accompanied by medical reports prepared over the years in relation to Fr . The reports received from Jemez Springs in 1983 which diagnosed him as a paedophile were not included. The Commission asked Monsignor Stenson about this and he explained that there were enough other reports to serve the purposes of the process. He said that all the documents were not included: “you simply make a succinct statement” in order to give Rome adequate information on which to make a decision.
20.146 In November 1987, Bishop Carroll was not pleased to hear that Fr intended to come back to Ireland. One of his secretaries sent a memo to Monsignor Stenson stating that Bishop Carroll wanted to send a letter to Fr indicating Bishop Carroll‟s wish that Fr remain in England. The memo concluded “Even if the letter arrives after his departure it would in some way cover the Diocese”.
20.147 Unfortunately for the Archdiocese, Fr was already in Ireland. He had managed to get a live-in job in a rural college as a supervisor of studies. Monsignor Stenson contacted priest friends of Fr in order to locate him. He then wrote to Fr addressing him as “Mr XXXXXXX " and stating Bishop Carroll‟s regret that he had not seen fit to inform Bishop Carroll of his plans to return to Ireland nor indeed to seek his permission to return to Ireland. Monsignor Stenson also rang Fr XXXXXX new employers and advised them that “we have found him not to be a suitable person working with young people”. The employment was terminated.
1988
20.148 The documents do not reveal, and the Commission has been unable to ascertain, where Fr went after he lost this post. It is known that a number of lay people and clerics were supportive of him in the various parishes in which he had worked. He was still in the country in January 1988 when Monsignor Desmond Connell was announced as the Archbishop-elect of the Dublin Archdiocese. At a meeting of the auxiliary bishops in January 1988, which the Archbishop-elect attended, Bishop O‟Mahony reported to his colleagues that there was a complaint that Fr had, once more, committed a sexual assault. The assault had taken place in a school outside the diocese and was perpetrated on a 14 year-old-boy who Fr had first spotted a year and a half earlier when on holiday in a priest‟s house in a rural part of the diocese. Fr had gone to the boy‟s school, had celebrated mass despite the decree suspending him from doing so, and had then sexually assaulted the boy. It is not known how Fr managed to get to say mass at this school but it is rather astonishing to note that the headmaster of this school was also subsequently convicted of child sexual abuse. The bishops decided to locate Fr , to send word to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith immediately and to contact a psychiatrist.
20.149 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he had no memory of that meeting but he was already aware that Fr had problems because Archbishop Ryan, who was a good friend, had told him so some years earlier.
20.150 Bishop Carroll immediately wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith telling them of the most recent incident and asking that Fr be reduced to the lay state as quickly as possible “otherwise immense scandal and damage will ensue both for the Church and the priesthood in this Diocese”.
20.151 When Fr was located, he was sent to St Patrick‟s Hospital under the care of Dr John Cooney in late January 1988. It appears that all of the medical reports held by the Archdiocese were forwarded to Dr Cooney. Dr Cooney told Monsignor Stenson that Fr had very little insight and very little motivation. He suggested that he be put on a drug called Anquil, a drug frequently used to control deviant, anti-social sexual behaviour. In February 1988, Dr Cooney told Monsignor Stenson that Fr was full of “psycho-therapy” and that the psychotherapy was deemed counter productive, in the sense that it had given Fr a language to provide more elaborate rationalisations for his behaviour. Dr Cooney was of the view that psycho-therapy at this point for Fr would be more “codology”.
20.152 While in hospital, Fr told Dr Cooney that he was in the process of obtaining a green card for the USA and that he already had a job lined up there. Fr told Monsignor Stenson that he had a job offer in Stockton, California, to work with the homeless. Stockton was the only one of the Californian dioceses that had not been warned about Fr . The bishops wanted to know more about this job offer. Fr refused further information. He considered that it was not the business of the Archdiocese and he was adamant that the diocese would not once again prevent him obtaining employment in the USA. He also stated that he did not wish the hospital to have any further communication with the diocese and indicated that he would refuse treatment for so long as the hospital continued to communicate with the Archdiocese. He also told Monsignor Stenson that he was making great progress in the hospital and that after his stay there he would be cured. This self diagnosis was completely at odds with the view expressed by Dr Cooney.
20.153 Monsignor Stenson made inquiries of the Church authorities in Stockton about the proposed employment. He discovered that the job involved the housing of homeless people and research into its causes. The community which was proposing to employ him consisted of six people all of whom were adults. There was no Church link or connection.
20.154 The matter of Fr was on the agenda at all the auxiliary bishops‟ meetings in early 1988. Fr left the hospital sometime in February 1988 and appeared to be staying in Co Wexford, as a priest friend had received a card from him from there. He was, however, in contact with the Archdiocese as he was looking for the keys of his car which Bishop O‟Mahony was refusing to return to him. As far as the bishops were concerned, their options were either to let him go to the USA, where according to the note of the bishops‟ meeting, “he could take medication and therapy, or stay in Ireland and end up in Mountjoy”.
20.155 The bishops decided to let him go to the USA. They, in effect, set him loose on the unsuspecting population of Stockton, California. There is no record that they notified the bishop of Stockton of his arrival. They did get a report from Dr Cooney which is misleading. It refers to Fr continuing to receive therapy (which had previously been described as more "codology‟) and medication in America in circumstances where, given his history, both the doctor and Bishop O‟Mahony should have known that he was unlikely to continue to take any libido-suppressing medication. Bishop O‟Mahony wrote to the psychiatrist to thank him for his “valuable” report.
20.156 Archbishop Connell was consecrated Archbishop of Dublin in March 1988. That same month, Fr rescript of laicisation came through from Rome. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he was relieved when this came through. When asked by the Commission if he felt he had any further responsibility for this now former priest, Cardinal Connell said: “I think that that was a matter that Monsignor Stenson was looking after in the chancellery”. Cardinal Connell went on to point out that, as he was laicised, the Archdiocese now had no control over him.
20.157 Just a week after Mr was laicised, a garda inspector telephoned Archbishop‟s House asking about his whereabouts. He explained to Monsignor Stenson that he was following the DPP‟s instructions to investigate the original complaint.
Monsignor Stenson noted in a contemporaneous memo that the garda inspector, on being informed that Mr was in the USA, commented that this made his task much easier in that “they will hardly send me to America for him”. That same afternoon, the inspector called to Archbishop‟s House and, according to Monsignor Stenson‟s contemporaneous notes, informed Monsignor Stenson “the Guards are aware that should the matter surface in the Sunday World in two or three years time it is important for them to have covered their tracks. Hence the present enquiry”.
20.158
20.159 There the garda investigation ended. No inquiries were made as to whether or not Mr had on-going connections with Ireland and was likely to return, or as to whether or not he had friends or acquaintances in the Archdiocese with whom he was likely to remain in contact.
Back in the USA
20.160 In May 1988, the diocese of Sacramento wrote to Bishop Williams expressing surprise that , whom less than a year earlier they had advised should be removed from the USA to anywhere, was now back in their region. Sacramento diocese had learned of his presence because he had applied for a teaching job and the school had contacted them. The diocese of Sacramento assumed, wrongly of course, that the Dublin Archdiocese might not have been aware of his presence in Stockton. They informed the Dublin Archdiocese that they had a duty which they intended to fulfil, to notify Stockton diocese of the presence of Mr . The Archdiocese had an address for him because he had earlier written to Bishop O‟Mahony. Bishop O‟Mahony undertook to send him a copy of his rescript of laicisation. The Commission has not seen any evidence that it was in fact sent at this time but Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he did send it. A copy was sent to Sacramento diocese.
Dublin visits
20.161 There were no more inquiries from American dioceses and no fresh complaints of sexual abuse were emerging in Dublin. Mr kept in regular contact with friends in the Dublin Archdiocese. Though officially a wanted man, he returned to Dublin on a number of occasions. The Commission is aware that he attended the funeral service for one of his brothers, which appears to have occurred in 1992. The Gardaí were not notified of his attendance, but given the garda approach to the matter in 1988, the Commission is not convinced that any notification would have been acted upon.
20.162 Mr file was revisited by the Archdiocese in 1994/1995 when clerical child sexual abuse was frequently in the headlines. In October 1995, a priest of the Archdiocese wrote to tell the Archbishop that Mr would arrive in Dublin in October 1995 and intended remaining for ten days. The priest was told that the information had been passed on to the Archbishop and that nothing further was required of him. While Mr was in the country visiting his friends, some of whom were priests of the Dublin Archdiocese, the first claim for civil damages arising out of his sexual abuse of boys arrived in Archbishop‟s House. This was made by the boy who claimed to have been sexually molested in 1986 and whose parents had immediately made a complaint to the Gardaí. The Archdiocese did not tell the Gardaí that Mr was in Dublin in October 1995.
20.163 In November 1995, Monsignor Stenson forwarded a copy of his laicisation rescript to Mr in California. He also informed him about the claim for compensation.
20.164 In November 1995, the Archdiocese disclosed to the Gardaí the names of 17 priests against whom complaints of sexual assault had been received. The name of was not on that list. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that this was because he was no longer a priest of the Archdiocese. The Commission asked Cardinal Connell why this was and he stated: “because he was laicised, I presume”.
After 1995
20.165 After 1995, more complainants came forward. The Commission is aware of 21 people who have made complaints.
20.166 In 1997, the case was brought before the advisory panel. The panel recommended that the civil case should not be contested. It further recommended that the parish priests of Mr former parishes be gathered together to be briefed on what to do if anyone came in seeking help or who might need help in the future. This recommendation does not appear to have been acted on. As individual complaints came in, the parish priests appear to have been informed on a need to know basis. Similarly, the abused who came forward were not told the truth. Their accounts were listened to and counselling was offered, but they were not validated or vindicated by the Archdiocese by being given the truth as the Archdiocese knew it. There was one exception to that approach. Fr Cyril Mangan, as assistant delegate, did tell one of Mr victims of his history, to the extent that it was known to Fr Mangan.
20.167 Mr planned yet another visit to Dublin for June 1998. Archbishop‟s House was informed of his plans by a priest friend in January 1998. There is a memo on file which states that Monsignor Dolan, having taken legal advice, phoned the priest friend of Mr and told him:
“Because had been laicised, it would not be appropriate for the diocese to take any active part. However, I outlined the perspective in respect of the following:
(i) He is suspect of serious crime;
(ii) If [name of priest] becomes aware of his presence in Dublin, the Gardaí should be informed;
(iii) If we become aware of his presence in Dublin we will inform the Gardaí.”
20.168 The Commission questioned Mr friend about this memo and he was adamant that precise instructions of the type outlined were not given to him by the Archdiocese. As far as he was concerned he had given them the relevant information to allow them to act. Monsignor Dolan disputes this and maintains that his memos are an accurate reflection of what occurred. Nonetheless, the fact is that the Archdiocese did not act on this information nor, indeed, did Mr priest friend. They chose not to do so despite the fact that they were given specific dates when he would be in Dublin and the specific function that he was travelling to attend.
20.169 Mr did arrive in Dublin in June 1998. He held a function in a hotel to which his various clerical and lay friends and family were invited. The Gardaí were not notified of his presence.
20.170 Insofar as the Commission has been able to establish, Mr has not been back to Ireland since 1998. However, the Commission has established that he is in regular contact by way of letter or Christmas card with a number of clerical friends in the Archdiocese who have been aware of his whereabouts since his departure in 1988. He wrote to Bishop O‟Mahony on one occasion in 1995. One of these friends visited him in California in the late 1990s. It appears that he has been able to secure employment as a lay minister officiating at removals and burials.
20.171 New complainants continued to emerge and further civil proceedings were issued against the Archdiocese. The diocese adopted a legalistic and defensive position in relation to the civil proceedings while at the same time offering what was described as "pastoral support‟ to the victims. Despite the growing evidence of the extent of Mr criminal behaviour and despite the Archdiocese‟s declared policy of not protecting abusers and despite the fact that his location was known within the Archdiocese, and was readily ascertainable on inquiry, the Gardaí were not notified of Mr whereabouts.
Further garda inquiries
20.172 As already described, the garda investigationXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX came to an end when it was established that Mr had left Ireland in 1988. The garda inspector involved was interviewed by the Commission and stated that from then on, he checked the Dublin Diocesan Guidebook74 each year to see if there was a mention of . It appears to the Commission that this was a rather futile and useless exercise in circumstances where he had been informed that Mr had been laicised.
20.173 In 2003, the inspector, who was by then a senior officer in the Gardaí, did re-visit the issue. In February 2003, he wrote to Archbishop Connell setting out the fact of his previous inquiry in 1988 and asking if the Archdiocese had an address for Mr .
20.174 Between 1988 and 2003 not a single inquiry had been made by the Gardaí in relation to this matter. In the Commission‟s view, it is difficult not to conclude that the renewed interest in the complaint in 2003 was prompted more by a fear of public opprobrium then by any realistic prospect of successfully concluding the investigation.
20.175
The Commission’s assessment
20.176 This case encapsulates everything that was wrong with the archdiocesan handling of child sexual abuse cases. The story speaks for itself. Archbishop Ryan not only knew about the complaints against Fr , he had a considerable understanding of the effects of abuse on children. This is one of the few cases in which he took a close personal interest. He protected Fr to an extraordinary extent; he ensured, as far as he could, that very few people knew about his activities; it seems that the welfare of children simply did not play any part in his decisions.
20.177 Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that “this case was dreadfully, very poorly handled” and “a much more decisive decision should have been made earlier”. That, in the Commission‟s view, is a considerable understatement.
20.178 In a saga in which there are very few participants who can be commended, the Commission notes the thorough investigation carried out by Canon McMahon and the decisiveness of Bishop Carroll.
20.179 The connivance by the Gardaí in effectively stifling one complaint and failing to investigate another, and in allowing Fr to leave the country is shocking. It is noteworthy that the Commission would not have been aware of the Garda activity in question were it not for the information contained in the Church files.
USA, 1986
20.112 Fr had told Bishops Carroll and Williams that he intended to enrol in a hospital chaplaincy course at a hospital in Orange, California. An official from Archbishop‟s House telephoned Los Angeles diocese advising “that a further incident was reported during Father recent vacation in Ireland”. Los Angeles diocese replied that, while they had received Fr application for work, they had not offered him any post due to the circumstances of his case. The Archdiocese also telephoned the diocese of Orange alerting them to the fact that Fr was enrolled on a hospital chaplaincy course there and that background information on Fr could be obtained from the Santa Rosa diocese. The most recent complaint about Fr was also mentioned.
20.113 Fr meanwhile was looking for funding from the Archdiocese for his activities in Orange. Bishop Williams directed that the course fees be paid and that he also get an allowance. A bank draft for in excess of $2,000 for tuition fees and incidental expenses for the months of October to December 1986 was forwarded to Fr . A further cheque was promised for early January 1987. Once again no one appears to have inquired as to whether or not he was taking his medication.
20.114 Fr did not start the hospital chaplaincy course. It is not clear why but it is likely that the warning given to Orange diocese by the Archdiocese of Dublin was responsible for this change of plan. Fr was living in Sebastapol, California and Bishop Williams wrote to him there in October 1986 seeking details of the new course which he proposed to embark on. The bishop also reminded him that, at their August 1986 meeting, both he and Bishop Carroll had stressed that they would expect a report either from the residential centre he had previously attended, Jemez Springs, or from some other competent professional source, to show that he had fully disclosed recent events in Dublin and had been treated in respect of them. The bishop expressed dissatisfaction that the report had not been received by him and stated that, pending receipt of the information required, he would keep his application for further financial assistance under review.
20.115 Fr replied saying he now intended to begin a clinical pastoral education course at another hospital, this time in the diocese of Sacramento.
He looked for further money to cover his tuition even though he had already received $2,000 to cover his course and keep. He dealt with the professional report as follows:
“I gave a full account to [solicitor] before I left Dublin. I also gave the same report [to] the priest psychologist whom I told you about. We have teased this out several times and I increased the frequency of my visits for that purpose. I asked him if he was willing to give a professional report and he said that as his clients come to him voluntarily (and not referred) and because he is also my confessor, he believes in keeping his professional services confidential. … I have grown from the incidents of some years ago and thank God have returned happily to ministry again. I am helping out at weekends and preaching.”
20.116 Once again, when asked to account for himself, Fr relied on self-serving pieties together with assurances of personal growth and development. Bishop Williams‟s response to this letter is remarkable in the context of all that had gone before and particularly given that the Archdiocese had knowledge that Fr had been diagnosed as a paedophile whose tendency could only be controlled by medication:
“Please be assured that you have my help and that I will provide every co-operation in your training and renewal. I would hope that it would go without question that just treatment will be ensured at all times for a priest of the diocese. However, having said that, I must come back to the question of the request which Bishop Carroll and I made to you that we should have a professional report from a qualified advisor, arising from our discussion before you left Dublin. If your priest/psychologist feels that because of his relationship to you as a confessor, he is unable to provide such a report, then I would have to ask you to consult some other psychologist or medical advisor, who will give us a comprehensive report.
I am sure that, on reflection, you will see the justice and the wisdom of our asking for this firm evidence that medical advice concurs with your opinion of the situation. It is in your own interest to let us have this firm evidence, so that the written and documented allegations will not remain unanswered.”
20.117 It is difficult to avoid the impression that Bishop Williams was more intent on keeping the file right by having on it a medical report which might exculpate the Archdiocese, rather than dealing appropriately with the ongoing threat that Fr posed to boys whom he might encounter. There is no evidence that the diocese of Sacramento was contacted about Fr presence there.
20.118 In January 1987, a decision appears to have been reached that the Archdiocese of Dublin would continue to fund Fr on his clinical pastoral education course in Sacramento, notwithstanding his repeated failure to comply with the request for a comprehensive medical report. There is a note on file advising the finance secretariat to send him a salary for three months.
First complainant comes forward again, 1987
20.119
20.120
20.121
20.122
20.123
More problems in the USA
20.124 Meanwhile, the supervisor of the course which Fr was pursuing in Sacramento, a nun, wrote to the Archdiocese concerning his status. This course was in a different hospital to the one Fr had told the bishops about earlier. The supervisor told the Archdiocese that, when Fr applied for the course in November 1986, he had provided a letter giving him release from the Dublin Archdiocese, an acceptance letter giving him faculties in Sacramento diocese and several letters which recommended him. He had also provided a reference from a nun who ran a similar course in Ireland. The supervisor said that there had been no problems with Fr but they had recently heard “rather ugly rumours about his reasons for leaving the diocese of Dublin and that of Santa Rosa. These rumours implied that he seeks out young boys for all the wrong reasons”. She went on to say that she was writing “at the suggestion of Bishop Hurley from Santa Rosa and am most anxious to clear this as soon as possible, because, if these rumours are true, Father will be asked to leave the programme after I have confronted him. We have had experience of this before and cannot countenance this.”
20.125 Bishop Williams telephoned the supervisor. Archbishop McNamara was ill in hospital. There are no notes of the contents of the telephone call but a subsequent letter to the supervisor suggests that Bishop Williams did confirm that the “rather ugly rumours” were true. The bishop then wrote to Fr telling him about the inquiry from the course supervisor and mildly upbraiding him for undertaking a course other than the one agreed and for not providing the professional assessment sought.
20.126 While Dublin failed to address the issues, Sacramento acted. After speaking to Bishop Williams, the diocese of Sacramento gave him two weeks to leave. He was ordered, initially orally, and the following day, in writing, not to exercise any ministry within the territory of the diocese. He was forbidden to participate further in the course in which he was enrolled. He was also ordered to submit himself to the care of the Archdiocese of Dublin.
20.127 Fr , as usual, did not do as he was directed. He did not submit himself to the care of the Dublin Archdiocese. Instead, he set about obtaining a medical report from a psychologist whom he had met in the context of the course. He also, somewhat surprisingly, managed to obtain an extremely favourable evaluation of his participation in the first quarter of this course. No doubt this favourable evaluation was assisted by the various untruths that Fr had conveyed to the course participants and directors. According to the evaluation:
“At age 48, Father left his country and came to the United States to settle down in a new country and culture. He said he had a suppressed longing to work abroad since he was very young. This move afforded him the opportunity to meet new challenges and break away from his old ruts71. This decision was very significant in his life, especially since his mother was not in favor of him leaving home. He has not regretted this change, but rather feels that it has helped him to better self acceptance and has stimulated his inner freedom and autonomy. He has said that in recent years his priest friends and other friends in Ireland have accused him of selfishness and that this hurt him very much, but in the process of his renewal, he has become convinced that he needs to be somewhat selfish in order to fulfil his own needs. I believe he is a well balanced person giving proper time and attention to all the facets of his life. This shows in his behaviour and interaction with those around him. His vital energies are used in affirmative and responsible ways to himself and others. He loves music and the arts. He has taken oil painting lessons and paints very well. He is a member of a health spa and is aware of diet and exercise for his well being. He seems to be in good health, taking primary responsibility for his own wellness. He is quick to use the healing energy of laughter and play. He has dressed up as a clown, looking very professional from the pictures he has shown us. He did this for grammar school children in Eureka at Halloween time a few years ago.
Another significant emotional event in Fr. life was when a fire broke out in a school72 where he was teaching and 48 teenagers burned to death. This effected [sic] him very personally. This had to have made a very deep wound of grief and it seems he has worked through the agony of such a tragedy but I‟m not sure his healing process is as complete as it should be.
Fr. has travelled extensively in the past years before coming to the United States. He visited Irish Missionaries in Africa, Brazil and India73. Because of these opportunities, he said it has broadened his mind and spiritual life.”
20.128 This evaluation was signed by Fr supervisor, a lay woman, and by the religious sister who was the course supervisor. It is not known why the course supervisor was willing to endorse such a misleading evaluation. Perhaps it was because the lay supervisor who prepared the evaluation could not be brought into the confidence of the inner Church circle who knew the truth about Fr . Fr made extensive use of this evaluation when applying for work in the USA.
20.129 He succeeded in getting a favourable report from the psychologist whom he had met on the course. The psychologist reported that he had conducted five hours face to face interviewing and five hours of psychological testing. He concluded that Fr was in the correct career path. Additionally, he noted that Fr “is capable of and is actively using individual psychotherapy”. He was of the view that psychotherapy would continue to help him become more aware of himself. The psychologist also conducted a psychological evaluation of Fr . The history given by Fr to the psychologist was untruthful and full of glaring omissions. He failed to disclose the various complaints against him, he said he had been accused of being over familiar with young people but there were no specific complaints, he did not mention his time in Jemez Springs or in Stroud, he did not tell the psychologist that he had been diagnosed as a paedophile whose tendencies could only be controlled by anti-androgenic drug therapy. He said he had been traumatised by “the burning of 48 teenagers that came from a bomb that went off in the parish where Father was ministering in”. This presumably is an amalgamation of the Dublin bombings of 1974 and the Stardust disaster of 1981.
20.130 On the basis of the history given, the psychologist‟s report was clearly worthless. It, too, was used extensively by Fr when he sought work in the USA.
20.131 Fr sent this report and the course evaluation to Bishop Williams in March 1987. Fr made no reference to the fact that his faculties had been withdrawn by the diocese of Sacramento, nor to the fact that he had been ordered to leave the territory of that diocese. He said he was looking for suitable ministry.
20.132 Bishop Williams must have known that the psychological evaluation was worthless as it was based on an inaccurate, misleading and untruthful history given by Fr . Fr was not confronted by the inaccuracy of the history, nor does it appear from the documents that the psychologist was notified of the false basis upon which his report rested.
20.133 There is evidence that, at this stage, Bishop Williams was finally losing patience. In the archdiocesan documents is a memorandum on “Dismissal from the Clerical State” prepared by Monsignor Alex Stenson for Bishop Williams. Monsignor Stenson cannot remember whether this was prepared in the context of Fr or Fr Carney (see Chapter 28). Monsignor Stenson listed the three ways in which an ordained cleric can lose the clerical state being:
by a judgment of a court or an administrative decree, declaring his ordination invalid;
by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed;
by a rescript of the Apostolic See.
20.134 However, nothing was done to institute a process of dismissal in the case of Fr .
20.135 Between March and June 1987, Fr applied for chaplaincy posts in a number of dioceses in the USA and Canada. He made initial progress but each application ultimately foundered when inquiries were made of either Dublin, Sacramento or Santa Rosa dioceses. During this period, Fr also made himself available to do supply work. In May 1987, he somehow managed to get a letter granting him priestly faculties in the diocese of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
20.136 Back in Dublin, Archbishop McNamara died in April 1987 and Bishop Carroll took over as Diocesan Administrator for a second time. Bishop Williams wrote to Fr asking for a briefing on his current circumstances so that he could advise Bishop Carroll. In May 1987, Fr replied that he had been ministering and had just completed a long retreat in a Jesuit retreat house. He said that he was continuing therapy and was being helped and advised to seek permanent work. He asked for a reference from the Archdiocese.
20.137 In June 1987 an official from the diocese of Sacramento spoke to Monsignor Stenson on the telephone. The official gave a summary of Fr activities throughout the American west and mid-west during the month of May and was quoted by Monsignor Stenson as saying “Urgent to get him out of the USA – to anywhere.”
Withdrawal of faculties
20.138 Bishop Williams wrote to Fr declining to give him the letter of reference. Bishop Carroll wrote to him to say he had consulted with the auxiliary bishops and had decided to withdraw his faculties with effect from June 1987. He further withdrew permission to seek pastoral work in the USA. He recalled him to a residential course in Stroud. He said that any failure to comply with these instructions would mean that he (Bishop Carroll) would start a canon law penal process under canon 1395 (see Chapter 4).
20.139 This was undoubtedly the most direct letter sent by the Archdiocese to Fr in the ten years that the Archdiocese had been dealing with the fall-out from his sexual molestation of boys. Not surprisingly, Fr was shocked by this new direct approach. Nevertheless, he still made a last ditch effort to avoid returning to Stroud. This did not succeed.
20.140 Fr arrived back in Stroud in July 1987. By coincidence the priest now in charge of Stroud, Fr Livingstone, was the same man who had been in charge in Jemez Springs when Fr was there in 1983 and when he was diagnosed as a paedophile whose tendencies could only be controlled by anti-androgenic medication. Interestingly, this man‟s report to the Archdiocese in July 1987 makes absolutely no reference to that crucially important diagnosis, or to Fr adherence or otherwise to the drug treatment regime that had been prescribed. The report did state that Fr was being evasive and perhaps deliberately dishonest. Stroud had no confidence in his ability to control his psychosexual urges at that time. They did not think that a longer period of treatment would improve the situation as they would not be willing to risk recommending him for active work in the priesthood. The attending psychiatrist in Stroud raised the possibility of Fr being given permanent care in a supervised setting. At Stroud‟s request, Monsignor Stenson travelled there to discuss the future with Fr . Monsignor Stenson noted that Fr tended to gloss over his history in the Dublin Archdiocese but he acknowledged the problem there would be in recommending him elsewhere. A number of possibilities were discussed:
Laicisation - Fr did not like this as he still had ambitions for a return to active ministry when his problem was solved.
Dismissal – he would prefer this not to happen.
Early retirement and/or resignation: this seemed the most attractive proposal from Fr point of view because it would be seen as a voluntary act on his part and not something imposed by the diocese.
20.141 At the conclusion of the meeting, Monsignor Stenson felt sorry for Fr and compared him to the fugitive who did not quite know where to turn. Monsignor Stenson‟s own view was that the psychiatrist‟s suggestion of viewing Fr as a disabled priest in need of custodial care with a very limited ministry might be given further consideration but he recognised that it was questionable if Fr would be able or willing to do that.
20.142 After this meeting Fr wrote to Bishop Carroll saying that Monsignor Stenson was “realistic in his presentation of my case, but I thought that all of it was very negative”. Having pointed out some of the positive features of his recent life, as he saw it, he concluded:
“If necessary, I would envisage resignation from the active ministry, and that would include not involving myself actively in public ministry, and that the diocese would have no responsibility for my future conduct. That I would be given financial support in order to set myself up and find work, (in justice because of my years of service). That the diocese could say that I was a priest who had resigned from the active ministry. These are my wishes in order of preference. I need trust, compassion, justice and charity, I will be moving to my cousin‟s home 70 miles away”.
20.143 Bishop Carroll became anxious to ensure that Fr was in a monitored situation pending a decision in his regard. Stroud was prepared to provide a room for him but he had already left Stroud and had gone to relatives. He refused to go back. In August 1987, Bishop Carroll suspended him from ministry. This suspension decreed that he could not say mass, preach, hear confessions or receive stipends. He was also prohibited from presenting himself as a priest, wearing clerical dress or seeking or engaging in any form of pastoral ministry. Priests in the Archdiocese were not told of this suspension.
20.144 Sometime in August 1987, Fr moved to a centre in London which specialises in therapy and reflection for members of religious orders and clerics. Monsignor Stenson visited him there to tell him the terms of the decree of suspension. In September 1987, Fr applied for laicisation.
Laicisation
20.145 Monsignor Stenson prepared the documents necessary for laicisation and these were transmitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome in October 1987. The application was accompanied by medical reports prepared over the years in relation to Fr . The reports received from Jemez Springs in 1983 which diagnosed him as a paedophile were not included. The Commission asked Monsignor Stenson about this and he explained that there were enough other reports to serve the purposes of the process. He said that all the documents were not included: “you simply make a succinct statement” in order to give Rome adequate information on which to make a decision.
20.146 In November 1987, Bishop Carroll was not pleased to hear that Fr intended to come back to Ireland. One of his secretaries sent a memo to Monsignor Stenson stating that Bishop Carroll wanted to send a letter to Fr indicating Bishop Carroll‟s wish that Fr remain in England. The memo concluded “Even if the letter arrives after his departure it would in some way cover the Diocese”.
20.147 Unfortunately for the Archdiocese, Fr was already in Ireland. He had managed to get a live-in job in a rural college as a supervisor of studies. Monsignor Stenson contacted priest friends of Fr in order to locate him. He then wrote to Fr addressing him as “Mr XXXXXXX " and stating Bishop Carroll‟s regret that he had not seen fit to inform Bishop Carroll of his plans to return to Ireland nor indeed to seek his permission to return to Ireland. Monsignor Stenson also rang Fr XXXXXX new employers and advised them that “we have found him not to be a suitable person working with young people”. The employment was terminated.
1988
20.148 The documents do not reveal, and the Commission has been unable to ascertain, where Fr went after he lost this post. It is known that a number of lay people and clerics were supportive of him in the various parishes in which he had worked. He was still in the country in January 1988 when Monsignor Desmond Connell was announced as the Archbishop-elect of the Dublin Archdiocese. At a meeting of the auxiliary bishops in January 1988, which the Archbishop-elect attended, Bishop O‟Mahony reported to his colleagues that there was a complaint that Fr had, once more, committed a sexual assault. The assault had taken place in a school outside the diocese and was perpetrated on a 14 year-old-boy who Fr had first spotted a year and a half earlier when on holiday in a priest‟s house in a rural part of the diocese. Fr had gone to the boy‟s school, had celebrated mass despite the decree suspending him from doing so, and had then sexually assaulted the boy. It is not known how Fr managed to get to say mass at this school but it is rather astonishing to note that the headmaster of this school was also subsequently convicted of child sexual abuse. The bishops decided to locate Fr , to send word to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith immediately and to contact a psychiatrist.
20.149 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he had no memory of that meeting but he was already aware that Fr had problems because Archbishop Ryan, who was a good friend, had told him so some years earlier.
20.150 Bishop Carroll immediately wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith telling them of the most recent incident and asking that Fr be reduced to the lay state as quickly as possible “otherwise immense scandal and damage will ensue both for the Church and the priesthood in this Diocese”.
20.151 When Fr was located, he was sent to St Patrick‟s Hospital under the care of Dr John Cooney in late January 1988. It appears that all of the medical reports held by the Archdiocese were forwarded to Dr Cooney. Dr Cooney told Monsignor Stenson that Fr had very little insight and very little motivation. He suggested that he be put on a drug called Anquil, a drug frequently used to control deviant, anti-social sexual behaviour. In February 1988, Dr Cooney told Monsignor Stenson that Fr was full of “psycho-therapy” and that the psychotherapy was deemed counter productive, in the sense that it had given Fr a language to provide more elaborate rationalisations for his behaviour. Dr Cooney was of the view that psycho-therapy at this point for Fr would be more “codology”.
20.152 While in hospital, Fr told Dr Cooney that he was in the process of obtaining a green card for the USA and that he already had a job lined up there. Fr told Monsignor Stenson that he had a job offer in Stockton, California, to work with the homeless. Stockton was the only one of the Californian dioceses that had not been warned about Fr . The bishops wanted to know more about this job offer. Fr refused further information. He considered that it was not the business of the Archdiocese and he was adamant that the diocese would not once again prevent him obtaining employment in the USA. He also stated that he did not wish the hospital to have any further communication with the diocese and indicated that he would refuse treatment for so long as the hospital continued to communicate with the Archdiocese. He also told Monsignor Stenson that he was making great progress in the hospital and that after his stay there he would be cured. This self diagnosis was completely at odds with the view expressed by Dr Cooney.
20.153 Monsignor Stenson made inquiries of the Church authorities in Stockton about the proposed employment. He discovered that the job involved the housing of homeless people and research into its causes. The community which was proposing to employ him consisted of six people all of whom were adults. There was no Church link or connection.
20.154 The matter of Fr was on the agenda at all the auxiliary bishops‟ meetings in early 1988. Fr left the hospital sometime in February 1988 and appeared to be staying in Co Wexford, as a priest friend had received a card from him from there. He was, however, in contact with the Archdiocese as he was looking for the keys of his car which Bishop O‟Mahony was refusing to return to him. As far as the bishops were concerned, their options were either to let him go to the USA, where according to the note of the bishops‟ meeting, “he could take medication and therapy, or stay in Ireland and end up in Mountjoy”.
20.155 The bishops decided to let him go to the USA. They, in effect, set him loose on the unsuspecting population of Stockton, California. There is no record that they notified the bishop of Stockton of his arrival. They did get a report from Dr Cooney which is misleading. It refers to Fr continuing to receive therapy (which had previously been described as more "codology‟) and medication in America in circumstances where, given his history, both the doctor and Bishop O‟Mahony should have known that he was unlikely to continue to take any libido-suppressing medication. Bishop O‟Mahony wrote to the psychiatrist to thank him for his “valuable” report.
20.156 Archbishop Connell was consecrated Archbishop of Dublin in March 1988. That same month, Fr rescript of laicisation came through from Rome. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he was relieved when this came through. When asked by the Commission if he felt he had any further responsibility for this now former priest, Cardinal Connell said: “I think that that was a matter that Monsignor Stenson was looking after in the chancellery”. Cardinal Connell went on to point out that, as he was laicised, the Archdiocese now had no control over him.
20.157 Just a week after Mr was laicised, a garda inspector telephoned Archbishop‟s House asking about his whereabouts. He explained to Monsignor Stenson that he was following the DPP‟s instructions to investigate the original complaint.
Monsignor Stenson noted in a contemporaneous memo that the garda inspector, on being informed that Mr was in the USA, commented that this made his task much easier in that “they will hardly send me to America for him”. That same afternoon, the inspector called to Archbishop‟s House and, according to Monsignor Stenson‟s contemporaneous notes, informed Monsignor Stenson “the Guards are aware that should the matter surface in the Sunday World in two or three years time it is important for them to have covered their tracks. Hence the present enquiry”.
20.158
20.159 There the garda investigation ended. No inquiries were made as to whether or not Mr had on-going connections with Ireland and was likely to return, or as to whether or not he had friends or acquaintances in the Archdiocese with whom he was likely to remain in contact.
Back in the USA
20.160 In May 1988, the diocese of Sacramento wrote to Bishop Williams expressing surprise that , whom less than a year earlier they had advised should be removed from the USA to anywhere, was now back in their region. Sacramento diocese had learned of his presence because he had applied for a teaching job and the school had contacted them. The diocese of Sacramento assumed, wrongly of course, that the Dublin Archdiocese might not have been aware of his presence in Stockton. They informed the Dublin Archdiocese that they had a duty which they intended to fulfil, to notify Stockton diocese of the presence of Mr . The Archdiocese had an address for him because he had earlier written to Bishop O‟Mahony. Bishop O‟Mahony undertook to send him a copy of his rescript of laicisation. The Commission has not seen any evidence that it was in fact sent at this time but Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he did send it. A copy was sent to Sacramento diocese.
Dublin visits
20.161 There were no more inquiries from American dioceses and no fresh complaints of sexual abuse were emerging in Dublin. Mr kept in regular contact with friends in the Dublin Archdiocese. Though officially a wanted man, he returned to Dublin on a number of occasions. The Commission is aware that he attended the funeral service for one of his brothers, which appears to have occurred in 1992. The Gardaí were not notified of his attendance, but given the garda approach to the matter in 1988, the Commission is not convinced that any notification would have been acted upon.
20.162 Mr file was revisited by the Archdiocese in 1994/1995 when clerical child sexual abuse was frequently in the headlines. In October 1995, a priest of the Archdiocese wrote to tell the Archbishop that Mr would arrive in Dublin in October 1995 and intended remaining for ten days. The priest was told that the information had been passed on to the Archbishop and that nothing further was required of him. While Mr was in the country visiting his friends, some of whom were priests of the Dublin Archdiocese, the first claim for civil damages arising out of his sexual abuse of boys arrived in Archbishop‟s House. This was made by the boy who claimed to have been sexually molested in 1986 and whose parents had immediately made a complaint to the Gardaí. The Archdiocese did not tell the Gardaí that Mr was in Dublin in October 1995.
20.163 In November 1995, Monsignor Stenson forwarded a copy of his laicisation rescript to Mr in California. He also informed him about the claim for compensation.
20.164 In November 1995, the Archdiocese disclosed to the Gardaí the names of 17 priests against whom complaints of sexual assault had been received. The name of was not on that list. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that this was because he was no longer a priest of the Archdiocese. The Commission asked Cardinal Connell why this was and he stated: “because he was laicised, I presume”.
After 1995
20.165 After 1995, more complainants came forward. The Commission is aware of 21 people who have made complaints.
20.166 In 1997, the case was brought before the advisory panel. The panel recommended that the civil case should not be contested. It further recommended that the parish priests of Mr former parishes be gathered together to be briefed on what to do if anyone came in seeking help or who might need help in the future. This recommendation does not appear to have been acted on. As individual complaints came in, the parish priests appear to have been informed on a need to know basis. Similarly, the abused who came forward were not told the truth. Their accounts were listened to and counselling was offered, but they were not validated or vindicated by the Archdiocese by being given the truth as the Archdiocese knew it. There was one exception to that approach. Fr Cyril Mangan, as assistant delegate, did tell one of Mr victims of his history, to the extent that it was known to Fr Mangan.
20.167 Mr planned yet another visit to Dublin for June 1998. Archbishop‟s House was informed of his plans by a priest friend in January 1998. There is a memo on file which states that Monsignor Dolan, having taken legal advice, phoned the priest friend of Mr and told him:
“Because had been laicised, it would not be appropriate for the diocese to take any active part. However, I outlined the perspective in respect of the following:
(i) He is suspect of serious crime;
(ii) If [name of priest] becomes aware of his presence in Dublin, the Gardaí should be informed;
(iii) If we become aware of his presence in Dublin we will inform the Gardaí.”
20.168 The Commission questioned Mr friend about this memo and he was adamant that precise instructions of the type outlined were not given to him by the Archdiocese. As far as he was concerned he had given them the relevant information to allow them to act. Monsignor Dolan disputes this and maintains that his memos are an accurate reflection of what occurred. Nonetheless, the fact is that the Archdiocese did not act on this information nor, indeed, did Mr priest friend. They chose not to do so despite the fact that they were given specific dates when he would be in Dublin and the specific function that he was travelling to attend.
20.169 Mr did arrive in Dublin in June 1998. He held a function in a hotel to which his various clerical and lay friends and family were invited. The Gardaí were not notified of his presence.
20.170 Insofar as the Commission has been able to establish, Mr has not been back to Ireland since 1998. However, the Commission has established that he is in regular contact by way of letter or Christmas card with a number of clerical friends in the Archdiocese who have been aware of his whereabouts since his departure in 1988. He wrote to Bishop O‟Mahony on one occasion in 1995. One of these friends visited him in California in the late 1990s. It appears that he has been able to secure employment as a lay minister officiating at removals and burials.
20.171 New complainants continued to emerge and further civil proceedings were issued against the Archdiocese. The diocese adopted a legalistic and defensive position in relation to the civil proceedings while at the same time offering what was described as "pastoral support‟ to the victims. Despite the growing evidence of the extent of Mr criminal behaviour and despite the Archdiocese‟s declared policy of not protecting abusers and despite the fact that his location was known within the Archdiocese, and was readily ascertainable on inquiry, the Gardaí were not notified of Mr whereabouts.
Further garda inquiries
20.172 As already described, the garda investigationXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX came to an end when it was established that Mr had left Ireland in 1988. The garda inspector involved was interviewed by the Commission and stated that from then on, he checked the Dublin Diocesan Guidebook74 each year to see if there was a mention of . It appears to the Commission that this was a rather futile and useless exercise in circumstances where he had been informed that Mr had been laicised.
20.173 In 2003, the inspector, who was by then a senior officer in the Gardaí, did re-visit the issue. In February 2003, he wrote to Archbishop Connell setting out the fact of his previous inquiry in 1988 and asking if the Archdiocese had an address for Mr .
20.174 Between 1988 and 2003 not a single inquiry had been made by the Gardaí in relation to this matter. In the Commission‟s view, it is difficult not to conclude that the renewed interest in the complaint in 2003 was prompted more by a fear of public opprobrium then by any realistic prospect of successfully concluding the investigation.
20.175
The Commission’s assessment
20.176 This case encapsulates everything that was wrong with the archdiocesan handling of child sexual abuse cases. The story speaks for itself. Archbishop Ryan not only knew about the complaints against Fr , he had a considerable understanding of the effects of abuse on children. This is one of the few cases in which he took a close personal interest. He protected Fr to an extraordinary extent; he ensured, as far as he could, that very few people knew about his activities; it seems that the welfare of children simply did not play any part in his decisions.
20.177 Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that “this case was dreadfully, very poorly handled” and “a much more decisive decision should have been made earlier”. That, in the Commission‟s view, is a considerable understatement.
20.178 In a saga in which there are very few participants who can be commended, the Commission notes the thorough investigation carried out by Canon McMahon and the decisiveness of Bishop Carroll.
20.179 The connivance by the Gardaí in effectively stifling one complaint and failing to investigate another, and in allowing Fr to leave the country is shocking. It is noteworthy that the Commission would not have been aware of the Garda activity in question were it not for the information contained in the Church files.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36171
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:24 am
Chapter 21: Fr Horatio*75
Introduction
21.1 Fr Horatio was born in the 1940s and ordained in the 1960s. He served in a number of parishes and eventually became a parish priest. He is now retired from ministry.
First complaint, 1980
21.2 In 1980 the parents of a 15-year-old boy complained to the Archdiocese that Fr Horatio had abused their son after he had met him in a gay club. Monsignor Glennon and Bishop Forristal met the boy and his parents and subsequently met the priest. Fr Horatio said he had thought the boy was over 18 and that the boy had touched him first. Fr Horatio told them that, two years earlier, he had volunteered to be part of the apostolate of the Church to homosexuals. He had consulted Bishop Kavanagh who had consented. It was through this ministry that he had met the boy. Monsignor Glennon concluded that Fr Horatio spoke “convincingly and with restraint”. He “confessed that he had been foolish on several occasions”. In his covering letter to the Archbishop, Monsignor Glennon said that this “young man” (meaning Fr Horatio) had got a “fright” and that he and Bishop Forristal thought the priest “candid and clear”.
21.3 At the time of this complaint, Fr Horatio was involved in marriage counselling and in teaching adults. It is clear that Archbishop Ryan consulted the two priests who were Fr Horatio‟s superiors in these activities and he also consulted Bishop O‟Mahony. The marriage counselling superior suggested that Fr Horatio be allowed to continue his marriage counselling work as this would “save him embarrassment and loss of face with counsellor and priest colleagues” as “a sudden change to a curacy in the more immediate future would, I think, raise unhelpful questions and be an occasion for unwelcome comment”. He should also be moved from his present “too easy” chaplaincy which would ensure that he would be “usefully occupied” at weekends and put him in touch with the “mainstream”. On the occasion of his appointment as parish chaplain, the Archbishop should explain to him “how delicate and how very dangerous is the work of counselling homosexuals”. He should be told that a number of priests and laypeople now regarded him as someone “closely associated with the „Gay Rights‟ people. To what extent he is involved, I cannot say, but one must ask the question, „What effect does all this have on his credibility as a marriage counsellor?‟”.
21.4 Apparently, Fr Horatio had come away from the meeting with Monsignor Glennon and Bishop Forristal with the “impression that what he was doing was all right and he could continue to help „GR‟ as he had been doing. It seems to me that there is need for clarification of his role in respect of „GR‟.”
21.5 Neither his superior in his teaching position nor Bishop O‟Mahony saw any reason why he should be moved from his teaching position at that stage. He was moved to another chaplaincy.
1989
21.6 In 1989, Fr Horatio approached Bishop Murray and told him that he was attracted to a young girl in a family to which he was close. He said there was no physical relationship but he had emotional difficulties. It was decided to move him to another parish. It subsequently became apparent that there was more to this attachment than had been told to Bishop Murray.
Report to Gardaí, 1995
21.7 In 1995, as a result of the Archdiocesan review of all relevant files, it was decided that the 1980 complaint should be reported to the Gardaí and that Fr Horatio should have a fitness for ministry review. Fr Horatio was named in the first list of priests given to the Gardaí by the Archdiocese in November 1995. The boy was contacted by the Gardaí but he did not wish to make a complaint. A file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for instructions in February 1996. Monsignor Stenson queried with the Gardaí why a file had been sent to the DPP even though there had been no formal complaint. He noted in March 1996 that he had been informed that the Garda procedure in such cases was to complete the file and send it to the DPP, even though no action could be taken, unless the person withdrew the complaint and said there was no substance to it. If the complaint was not withdrawn, it was interpreted as having been lodged but that the party involved did not wish to pursue it at that moment.
21.8 In March 1996 the DPP stated that directions could not be given regarding prosecution as the question had never been a live issue. They could only “note that there was no evidence against the suspect at present”.
Anonymous complaint, 1996
21.9 In January 1996, Archbishop Connell received an anonymous letter alleging that Fr Horatio had had a sexual relationship with the writer when he was 19 years old and that Fr Horatio had also had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old and that he was continuing to have homosexual relationships. Bishop O‟Mahony dealt with the matter. Fr Horatio told Bishop O‟Mahony that he thought this complaint related to the 1980 incident. It is clear to the Commission, from other documentation, that he was correct in his assessment. The complaint did refer to the 1980 incident. Bishop O‟Mahony arranged for an assessment at the Granada Institute.
21.10 Fr Horatio told Granada that he had had a sexual relationship with a married man. He admitted touching and hugging the 15-year-old who had complained in 1980, whom he had presumed was over 18. In June 1996, Granada concluded that Fr Horatio was predominantly heterosexual but with some capacity to respond emotionally and sexually to adult males. He did not have a high sexual drive and there was no evidence of attraction to children or adolescents. He showed no signs of a “compulsive tendency to act out sexually” and was unlikely to become involved in “homosexual encounters” in the future. From a clinical point of view, there were no substantive reasons to restrict his ministry, other than to the gay community.
21.11 In July 1996, Dr Patrick Walsh of Granada attended a meeting of the advisory panel to discuss this case. At the start, the chairman of the advisory panel asked Dr Walsh if it were possible to make an informed judgment after three meetings. Dr Walsh replied that he judged Fr Horatio to be very open and honest: “Usually and obviously dealing in this area we get denial and minimalisation but one gets a sense over the course of interviews”. He pointed out that it was critical to have as much information as possible about any complaints or concerns.
21.12 In terms of treatment and assessment, Dr Walsh said:
“From the beginning of the assessment one is involved in treatment. There is an invitation to individuals to take responsibility for past actions and that is how we try to connect with them. We are surprised by the level of co-operation of clerical abusers. Quite a number of people have been compliant with the process and that is a start. We also take for granted that there is a lot more. It takes time for full openness to develop - but that is down the road in the process”.
21.13 In relation to Fr Horatio, Dr Walsh told the advisory panel that he had not included in his report the priest‟s admission of a relationship with a woman whom he had wanted to marry. It is clear that the members of the panel had no idea of the woman‟s age at the time the relationship began and assumed that she was in the priest‟s age group. It subsequently became clear that this was not the case. Dr Walsh told the Commission that the priest did not tell him the truth about this relationship. Dr Walsh understood that she was an adult, that the relationship had ended and had been divulged to and dealt with by his bishop.
21.14 In response to a question from a panel member that, if Fr Horatio was predominantly heterosexual, why his ministry should be confined in relation to homosexuals, Dr Walsh replied that it was “precautionary and to prevent people drawing conclusions”.
21.15 Dr Walsh recommended that Fr Horatio stay in treatment for 12 months and meet Monsignor Dolan every four months. The panel supported Dr Walsh‟s recommendations and they were accepted by Archbishop Connell. Monsignor Dolan met Fr Horatio and reassured him that he was not considered to be in the child sexual abuse category: “if he was, he might not still be in ministry and there would be a greater level of supervision on him”.
21.16 In subsequent reports in December 1996 and in April 1997, Dr Walsh said that Fr Horatio was no longer in need of individual therapy. He reported that Fr Horatio remained very aware that he needed to avoid involvement with gay men. However, he had not experienced any need or desire to establish such an involvement or to act out sexually in any way. Dr Walsh concluded that he was stable and conscientious and could continue in his work as a priest without restrictions.
21.17 In August 1997, Fr Horatio became a parish priest. In September 1997 the advisory panel recommended to the Archbishop that the case should be concluded.
Adult complainant
21.18 In November 1997, the previously anonymous complainant, who had contacted Archbishop Connell in January 1996, made a signed complaint that Fr Horatio had sexually assaulted him on several occasions when he was 19 years old. As this is not a complaint of child sexual abuse, the Commission did not examine its handling in detail. However, it was connected to the child sexual abuse complaint which had been made in 1980. Many attempts were made by the Archdiocese to meet the complainant to discuss his allegations but he was reluctant to meet. In 1999, the Archbishop requested the convening of an emergency meeting of the advisory panel to discuss the case. In advance of this, Dr Walsh‟s views were sought and he wrote that there was insufficient reason to remove Fr Horatio from ministry on the basis of the second complainant‟s communications as it appeared that Fr Horatio had resolved the issues that had affected him previously. He did say that it would be useful for the priest to have a review assessment, “to document his current level of functioning and level of risk for acting inappropriately”, but this never occurred. In June 1999, the advisory panel concluded there was no reason to change its conclusions reached in 1996 and 1997 that there was no “substantive risk to minors” if Fr Horatio continued in ministry. However, “with hindsight”, it was “possible that the panel might have had reservations” about appointing Fr Horatio as a parish priest.
21.19 The panel recommended that Fr Horatio should meet Dr Walsh again with a view to assessing the need for ongoing therapy and that the delegate should explore with him the possibility of voluntary early retirement “both to reduce the risk of scandal and also for his own sake”.
21.20 Meanwhile, Fr Horatio had told his curate about this complaint. The curate was angry about the situation because he had already been in a parish with an abuser. The curate was not told of the 1980 complaint. In a letter to Monsignor Dolan, the curate said that while he was aware it was not looked upon as a case of child sexual abuse, “even though this may be debated in other circles”, it was inappropriate to appoint him to the same parish as Fr Horatio, given his (the curate‟s) “circumstances in previous appointments”. Monsignor Dolan, of course, was not involved in or consulted about Fr Horatio‟s appointment as a parish priest.
21.21 Monsignor Dolan had agreed with Fr Horatio that he should meet Dr Walsh annually but this did not happen. The advisory panel‟s suggestion in relation to Fr Horatio, namely that the delegate discuss the possibility of early retirement with him was not pursued. In 2005, in the course of investigating this case, Fr Aquinas Duffy spoke to Bishop Field, the area bishop, who said he was not aware that a formal complaint had been made in 1980. He thought that the only issue was in relation to the adult who had complained. Bishop Field suggested at that stage that Fr Horatio meet Dr Walsh again. In January 2005, Dr Walsh confirmed that he had not seen Fr Horatio since 1999. He stated that the advice he had offered in his 1997 report that Fr Horatio did not require therapy continued to be appropriate. The advisory panel was told this in January 2005 and it agreed that the file on Fr Horatio was closed: “The only issue of concern is always the threat of public scandal”.
Further complaint, 2005
21.22 In September 2005, Archbishop Martin received a letter from a woman‟s solicitor seeking compensation for “repeated and wanton acts of sexual abuse perpetrated on her as a young girl” by Fr Horatio between 1987 and 1990 when she was aged 16 to 19 years. The alleged abuse was stated to have taken place in a number of locations, including holiday homes which were available to Fr Horatio. The key to one such holiday home was given to him by Fr Sean Fortune, a notorious child sexual abuser from the diocese of Ferns. Fr Horatio said that the only link between him and Fr Fortune was that they both lived in the same area at the time.
21.23 This woman said that Fr Horatio began to talk of marriage in 1989. Fr Horatio told the Archdiocese that he went to see Bishop Donal Murray in 1989, told him the “whole story” and asked to be released from the priesthood and laicised. He said that Bishop Murray responded that he should take some time to consider it and that he would be moved to another parish. Fr Horatio began to make provision for earning a living. He moved parishes as already described. The relationship continued for some months. He said that the woman ended the relationship in 1990.
21.24 Bishop Murray‟s evidence to the Commission is that he was not told the whole story (in 1989) about Fr Horatio‟s relationship with the woman. The bishop was not aware that there was a sexual relationship nor was he aware of her age when the relationship began.
21.25 Archbishop Martin asked Fr Horatio to step down from ministry. The Archdiocese made extensive inquiries. It transpired that a number of priests were aware of the relationship between Fr Horatio and the girl at the time and it was thought that he had intended to leave the priesthood and marry her. There did not seem to be a great awareness of her age at the time.
21.26 In the course of the inquiries, Fr Horatio admitted for the first time that he had abused a boy of about 15 in 1983/4. He had never told anyone about the incident. He said that he did not tell Dr Walsh about that boy during his assessment in the mid-1990s because he felt he was in enough trouble. He had told Dr Walsh about the woman but did not discuss it fully.
21.27 The Archdiocese reported to the HSE and the Gardaí in accordance with the procedures. The woman complainant was offered counselling.
21.28 A draft statement to be read out at Sunday masses in Fr Horatio‟s parish was read to him. He was unhappy about the use of the phrase “child sexual abuse” as people would think he had abused a small child. The statement was re-worded to say that he was temporarily standing aside as parish priest because of an inquiry into an allegation of the “sexual abuse of a minor”. When the statement was being read out, an explanation was given that a minor is a person under the age of 18 and not necessarily a young child. Some weeks later, Bishop Field reported that there was some anger in the parish about the statement and that a nun had told him it should have been made clearer that it was not a case of paedophilia.
21.29 Fr Horatio was again sent for assessment to the Granada Institute. In October 2005, the advisory panel recommended that a canonical precept be imposed on him and said it did not see “any prospect of a return to ministry” by him. It recommended that he continue therapy on an active basis and that appropriate monitoring be provided. In November 2005, Archbishop Martin accepted his resignation as parish priest and he was nominated as a beneficiary of the Clerical Fund Society. A precept decreed that he was not to celebrate mass in public and that only those who knew the reason for the decree could attend any private mass; he was to have no unsupervised contact with minors, including all informal contact such as being alone with them in their homes or any other setting; he was not to wear clerical garb and he was to continue to consult on an ongoing basis with the Granada Institute.
21.30 The Archdiocese gave all the information which it had concerning Fr Horatio to the Gardaí.
The Commission’s assessment
21.31 Nothing happened as a result of the initial complaint even though Fr Horatio accepted that the incident had occurred, even if he said he thought the complainant was an adult. This follows the usual pattern of such complaints in the 1970s and 1980s. There is one unusual aspect to the handling of this complaint: Archbishop Ryan did tell a number of other people and sought their views on what to do. The apostolate to the gay community seems to have been an informal arrangement. The Commission considers that it is quite appropriate to have such an apostolate but that it should have been more formal and the priests delivering it should have been more carefully chosen and monitored.
21.32 It is clear that quite a few people knew about the relationship between Fr Horatio and the girl while it was going on. The Commission accepts that they may not have known her age but it is astonished that, in this and many other cases, the Church authorities seem to have turned a blind eye to behaviour by priests which is clearly in breach of its laws, both moral and canonical.
21.33 The Archdiocese dealt appropriately with the woman‟s complaint in 2005 and followed the agreed procedures. However, the Commission is concerned that the wording of the statement to the parish did try to minimise the seriousness of the allegation. The allegation was of child sexual abuse – the girl was 16 when the sexual activity began. Furthermore, Fr Horatio had also admitted to abusing two 15-year-old boys.
Introduction
21.1 Fr Horatio was born in the 1940s and ordained in the 1960s. He served in a number of parishes and eventually became a parish priest. He is now retired from ministry.
First complaint, 1980
21.2 In 1980 the parents of a 15-year-old boy complained to the Archdiocese that Fr Horatio had abused their son after he had met him in a gay club. Monsignor Glennon and Bishop Forristal met the boy and his parents and subsequently met the priest. Fr Horatio said he had thought the boy was over 18 and that the boy had touched him first. Fr Horatio told them that, two years earlier, he had volunteered to be part of the apostolate of the Church to homosexuals. He had consulted Bishop Kavanagh who had consented. It was through this ministry that he had met the boy. Monsignor Glennon concluded that Fr Horatio spoke “convincingly and with restraint”. He “confessed that he had been foolish on several occasions”. In his covering letter to the Archbishop, Monsignor Glennon said that this “young man” (meaning Fr Horatio) had got a “fright” and that he and Bishop Forristal thought the priest “candid and clear”.
21.3 At the time of this complaint, Fr Horatio was involved in marriage counselling and in teaching adults. It is clear that Archbishop Ryan consulted the two priests who were Fr Horatio‟s superiors in these activities and he also consulted Bishop O‟Mahony. The marriage counselling superior suggested that Fr Horatio be allowed to continue his marriage counselling work as this would “save him embarrassment and loss of face with counsellor and priest colleagues” as “a sudden change to a curacy in the more immediate future would, I think, raise unhelpful questions and be an occasion for unwelcome comment”. He should also be moved from his present “too easy” chaplaincy which would ensure that he would be “usefully occupied” at weekends and put him in touch with the “mainstream”. On the occasion of his appointment as parish chaplain, the Archbishop should explain to him “how delicate and how very dangerous is the work of counselling homosexuals”. He should be told that a number of priests and laypeople now regarded him as someone “closely associated with the „Gay Rights‟ people. To what extent he is involved, I cannot say, but one must ask the question, „What effect does all this have on his credibility as a marriage counsellor?‟”.
21.4 Apparently, Fr Horatio had come away from the meeting with Monsignor Glennon and Bishop Forristal with the “impression that what he was doing was all right and he could continue to help „GR‟ as he had been doing. It seems to me that there is need for clarification of his role in respect of „GR‟.”
21.5 Neither his superior in his teaching position nor Bishop O‟Mahony saw any reason why he should be moved from his teaching position at that stage. He was moved to another chaplaincy.
1989
21.6 In 1989, Fr Horatio approached Bishop Murray and told him that he was attracted to a young girl in a family to which he was close. He said there was no physical relationship but he had emotional difficulties. It was decided to move him to another parish. It subsequently became apparent that there was more to this attachment than had been told to Bishop Murray.
Report to Gardaí, 1995
21.7 In 1995, as a result of the Archdiocesan review of all relevant files, it was decided that the 1980 complaint should be reported to the Gardaí and that Fr Horatio should have a fitness for ministry review. Fr Horatio was named in the first list of priests given to the Gardaí by the Archdiocese in November 1995. The boy was contacted by the Gardaí but he did not wish to make a complaint. A file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for instructions in February 1996. Monsignor Stenson queried with the Gardaí why a file had been sent to the DPP even though there had been no formal complaint. He noted in March 1996 that he had been informed that the Garda procedure in such cases was to complete the file and send it to the DPP, even though no action could be taken, unless the person withdrew the complaint and said there was no substance to it. If the complaint was not withdrawn, it was interpreted as having been lodged but that the party involved did not wish to pursue it at that moment.
21.8 In March 1996 the DPP stated that directions could not be given regarding prosecution as the question had never been a live issue. They could only “note that there was no evidence against the suspect at present”.
Anonymous complaint, 1996
21.9 In January 1996, Archbishop Connell received an anonymous letter alleging that Fr Horatio had had a sexual relationship with the writer when he was 19 years old and that Fr Horatio had also had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old and that he was continuing to have homosexual relationships. Bishop O‟Mahony dealt with the matter. Fr Horatio told Bishop O‟Mahony that he thought this complaint related to the 1980 incident. It is clear to the Commission, from other documentation, that he was correct in his assessment. The complaint did refer to the 1980 incident. Bishop O‟Mahony arranged for an assessment at the Granada Institute.
21.10 Fr Horatio told Granada that he had had a sexual relationship with a married man. He admitted touching and hugging the 15-year-old who had complained in 1980, whom he had presumed was over 18. In June 1996, Granada concluded that Fr Horatio was predominantly heterosexual but with some capacity to respond emotionally and sexually to adult males. He did not have a high sexual drive and there was no evidence of attraction to children or adolescents. He showed no signs of a “compulsive tendency to act out sexually” and was unlikely to become involved in “homosexual encounters” in the future. From a clinical point of view, there were no substantive reasons to restrict his ministry, other than to the gay community.
21.11 In July 1996, Dr Patrick Walsh of Granada attended a meeting of the advisory panel to discuss this case. At the start, the chairman of the advisory panel asked Dr Walsh if it were possible to make an informed judgment after three meetings. Dr Walsh replied that he judged Fr Horatio to be very open and honest: “Usually and obviously dealing in this area we get denial and minimalisation but one gets a sense over the course of interviews”. He pointed out that it was critical to have as much information as possible about any complaints or concerns.
21.12 In terms of treatment and assessment, Dr Walsh said:
“From the beginning of the assessment one is involved in treatment. There is an invitation to individuals to take responsibility for past actions and that is how we try to connect with them. We are surprised by the level of co-operation of clerical abusers. Quite a number of people have been compliant with the process and that is a start. We also take for granted that there is a lot more. It takes time for full openness to develop - but that is down the road in the process”.
21.13 In relation to Fr Horatio, Dr Walsh told the advisory panel that he had not included in his report the priest‟s admission of a relationship with a woman whom he had wanted to marry. It is clear that the members of the panel had no idea of the woman‟s age at the time the relationship began and assumed that she was in the priest‟s age group. It subsequently became clear that this was not the case. Dr Walsh told the Commission that the priest did not tell him the truth about this relationship. Dr Walsh understood that she was an adult, that the relationship had ended and had been divulged to and dealt with by his bishop.
21.14 In response to a question from a panel member that, if Fr Horatio was predominantly heterosexual, why his ministry should be confined in relation to homosexuals, Dr Walsh replied that it was “precautionary and to prevent people drawing conclusions”.
21.15 Dr Walsh recommended that Fr Horatio stay in treatment for 12 months and meet Monsignor Dolan every four months. The panel supported Dr Walsh‟s recommendations and they were accepted by Archbishop Connell. Monsignor Dolan met Fr Horatio and reassured him that he was not considered to be in the child sexual abuse category: “if he was, he might not still be in ministry and there would be a greater level of supervision on him”.
21.16 In subsequent reports in December 1996 and in April 1997, Dr Walsh said that Fr Horatio was no longer in need of individual therapy. He reported that Fr Horatio remained very aware that he needed to avoid involvement with gay men. However, he had not experienced any need or desire to establish such an involvement or to act out sexually in any way. Dr Walsh concluded that he was stable and conscientious and could continue in his work as a priest without restrictions.
21.17 In August 1997, Fr Horatio became a parish priest. In September 1997 the advisory panel recommended to the Archbishop that the case should be concluded.
Adult complainant
21.18 In November 1997, the previously anonymous complainant, who had contacted Archbishop Connell in January 1996, made a signed complaint that Fr Horatio had sexually assaulted him on several occasions when he was 19 years old. As this is not a complaint of child sexual abuse, the Commission did not examine its handling in detail. However, it was connected to the child sexual abuse complaint which had been made in 1980. Many attempts were made by the Archdiocese to meet the complainant to discuss his allegations but he was reluctant to meet. In 1999, the Archbishop requested the convening of an emergency meeting of the advisory panel to discuss the case. In advance of this, Dr Walsh‟s views were sought and he wrote that there was insufficient reason to remove Fr Horatio from ministry on the basis of the second complainant‟s communications as it appeared that Fr Horatio had resolved the issues that had affected him previously. He did say that it would be useful for the priest to have a review assessment, “to document his current level of functioning and level of risk for acting inappropriately”, but this never occurred. In June 1999, the advisory panel concluded there was no reason to change its conclusions reached in 1996 and 1997 that there was no “substantive risk to minors” if Fr Horatio continued in ministry. However, “with hindsight”, it was “possible that the panel might have had reservations” about appointing Fr Horatio as a parish priest.
21.19 The panel recommended that Fr Horatio should meet Dr Walsh again with a view to assessing the need for ongoing therapy and that the delegate should explore with him the possibility of voluntary early retirement “both to reduce the risk of scandal and also for his own sake”.
21.20 Meanwhile, Fr Horatio had told his curate about this complaint. The curate was angry about the situation because he had already been in a parish with an abuser. The curate was not told of the 1980 complaint. In a letter to Monsignor Dolan, the curate said that while he was aware it was not looked upon as a case of child sexual abuse, “even though this may be debated in other circles”, it was inappropriate to appoint him to the same parish as Fr Horatio, given his (the curate‟s) “circumstances in previous appointments”. Monsignor Dolan, of course, was not involved in or consulted about Fr Horatio‟s appointment as a parish priest.
21.21 Monsignor Dolan had agreed with Fr Horatio that he should meet Dr Walsh annually but this did not happen. The advisory panel‟s suggestion in relation to Fr Horatio, namely that the delegate discuss the possibility of early retirement with him was not pursued. In 2005, in the course of investigating this case, Fr Aquinas Duffy spoke to Bishop Field, the area bishop, who said he was not aware that a formal complaint had been made in 1980. He thought that the only issue was in relation to the adult who had complained. Bishop Field suggested at that stage that Fr Horatio meet Dr Walsh again. In January 2005, Dr Walsh confirmed that he had not seen Fr Horatio since 1999. He stated that the advice he had offered in his 1997 report that Fr Horatio did not require therapy continued to be appropriate. The advisory panel was told this in January 2005 and it agreed that the file on Fr Horatio was closed: “The only issue of concern is always the threat of public scandal”.
Further complaint, 2005
21.22 In September 2005, Archbishop Martin received a letter from a woman‟s solicitor seeking compensation for “repeated and wanton acts of sexual abuse perpetrated on her as a young girl” by Fr Horatio between 1987 and 1990 when she was aged 16 to 19 years. The alleged abuse was stated to have taken place in a number of locations, including holiday homes which were available to Fr Horatio. The key to one such holiday home was given to him by Fr Sean Fortune, a notorious child sexual abuser from the diocese of Ferns. Fr Horatio said that the only link between him and Fr Fortune was that they both lived in the same area at the time.
21.23 This woman said that Fr Horatio began to talk of marriage in 1989. Fr Horatio told the Archdiocese that he went to see Bishop Donal Murray in 1989, told him the “whole story” and asked to be released from the priesthood and laicised. He said that Bishop Murray responded that he should take some time to consider it and that he would be moved to another parish. Fr Horatio began to make provision for earning a living. He moved parishes as already described. The relationship continued for some months. He said that the woman ended the relationship in 1990.
21.24 Bishop Murray‟s evidence to the Commission is that he was not told the whole story (in 1989) about Fr Horatio‟s relationship with the woman. The bishop was not aware that there was a sexual relationship nor was he aware of her age when the relationship began.
21.25 Archbishop Martin asked Fr Horatio to step down from ministry. The Archdiocese made extensive inquiries. It transpired that a number of priests were aware of the relationship between Fr Horatio and the girl at the time and it was thought that he had intended to leave the priesthood and marry her. There did not seem to be a great awareness of her age at the time.
21.26 In the course of the inquiries, Fr Horatio admitted for the first time that he had abused a boy of about 15 in 1983/4. He had never told anyone about the incident. He said that he did not tell Dr Walsh about that boy during his assessment in the mid-1990s because he felt he was in enough trouble. He had told Dr Walsh about the woman but did not discuss it fully.
21.27 The Archdiocese reported to the HSE and the Gardaí in accordance with the procedures. The woman complainant was offered counselling.
21.28 A draft statement to be read out at Sunday masses in Fr Horatio‟s parish was read to him. He was unhappy about the use of the phrase “child sexual abuse” as people would think he had abused a small child. The statement was re-worded to say that he was temporarily standing aside as parish priest because of an inquiry into an allegation of the “sexual abuse of a minor”. When the statement was being read out, an explanation was given that a minor is a person under the age of 18 and not necessarily a young child. Some weeks later, Bishop Field reported that there was some anger in the parish about the statement and that a nun had told him it should have been made clearer that it was not a case of paedophilia.
21.29 Fr Horatio was again sent for assessment to the Granada Institute. In October 2005, the advisory panel recommended that a canonical precept be imposed on him and said it did not see “any prospect of a return to ministry” by him. It recommended that he continue therapy on an active basis and that appropriate monitoring be provided. In November 2005, Archbishop Martin accepted his resignation as parish priest and he was nominated as a beneficiary of the Clerical Fund Society. A precept decreed that he was not to celebrate mass in public and that only those who knew the reason for the decree could attend any private mass; he was to have no unsupervised contact with minors, including all informal contact such as being alone with them in their homes or any other setting; he was not to wear clerical garb and he was to continue to consult on an ongoing basis with the Granada Institute.
21.30 The Archdiocese gave all the information which it had concerning Fr Horatio to the Gardaí.
The Commission’s assessment
21.31 Nothing happened as a result of the initial complaint even though Fr Horatio accepted that the incident had occurred, even if he said he thought the complainant was an adult. This follows the usual pattern of such complaints in the 1970s and 1980s. There is one unusual aspect to the handling of this complaint: Archbishop Ryan did tell a number of other people and sought their views on what to do. The apostolate to the gay community seems to have been an informal arrangement. The Commission considers that it is quite appropriate to have such an apostolate but that it should have been more formal and the priests delivering it should have been more carefully chosen and monitored.
21.32 It is clear that quite a few people knew about the relationship between Fr Horatio and the girl while it was going on. The Commission accepts that they may not have known her age but it is astonished that, in this and many other cases, the Church authorities seem to have turned a blind eye to behaviour by priests which is clearly in breach of its laws, both moral and canonical.
21.33 The Archdiocese dealt appropriately with the woman‟s complaint in 2005 and followed the agreed procedures. However, the Commission is concerned that the wording of the statement to the parish did try to minimise the seriousness of the allegation. The allegation was of child sexual abuse – the girl was 16 when the sexual activity began. Furthermore, Fr Horatio had also admitted to abusing two 15-year-old boys.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36171
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:25 am
Chapter 22: Fr Donal Gallagher
Introduction
22.1 Fr Donal Gallagher was a member of the religious order of the Vincentians. He was born in 1936, ordained in 1962 and died in 1994. He served in a parish in the Archdiocese of Dublin, St Peter‟s Phibsborough, from 1975 to 1979. This parish is run by the Vincentians by agreement with the Archdiocese. He was a teacher and chaplain at a secondary school in the Archdiocese from 1980 to 1983 and he served in the parish again from 1983 to 1994.
22.2 There are 14 complaints of child sexual abuse against Fr Gallagher known to the Commission. It is likely, on the basis of evidence reviewed by the Commission, that he abused many more children.
22.3 Fr Gallagher was an alcoholic. A letter written by the provincial of his order in 1989 shows that, in 1974, while director of vocations, he was indulging in inappropriate behaviour with seminarians and altar boys. The provincial said that he was shocked at the way Fr Gallagher used his hands on them. There is no evidence that any action was taken by the order at the time this was going on or, indeed, on foot of this letter.
First complaints
22.4 The first external complaint of child sexual abuse against Fr Gallagher was made in 1981. Two young boys complained to the order that they had been sexually assaulted while they were attending an international camp for young people in north Dublin. This camp was run by a friend of Fr Gallagher‟s and was not connected with the Vincentians. The order told the Commission that there are no written records of what happened but “it is likely that these complaints were instrumental in his move” from teaching to the parish of St Peter‟s in 1983. Fr Gallagher was not attached to the Archdiocese at the time these complaints were made. There is no evidence that the order told the Archdiocese about these complaints when he returned to parish work. In effect, nothing at all seems to have been done about the complaints other than to move him on.
22.5 Around this time, during the course of a retreat in the school to which Fr Gallagher was attached, a member of the order asked the class in question for their opinion of Fr Gallagher. The boys said they did not have much time for the priest. One of the boys said “If Gallagher was in a room you made sure to keep your back to the wall”.
22.6 Despite this, Fr Gallagher was allowed to remain as a priest teacher in that school until he was transferred in the summer of 1983 to the parish of St Peter‟s. Extraordinarily, in the circumstances, in September 1983 he was appointed chaplain to St Mary‟s School for the Deaf.
St Mary’s School for the Deaf
22.7 Fr Gallagher started abusing girls as soon as he was appointed to St Mary‟s. A report was compiled in April 1985 by another member of the Vincentians who was also a chaplain at the school. This report shows that a complaint was made within a month of Fr Gallagher‟s arrival at the school. In October 1983, in confession, Fr Gallagher embraced a 15 year old girl and started plucking at her bra strap. This came to the attention of the other chaplain who reported it to the principal. She spoke to Fr Gallagher and told him that the pupil was upset by his behaviour. At the same time, some of the senior girls complained to the other chaplain that Fr Gallagher was kissing them in confession. The other chaplain assumed that the warning from the school principal would suffice and took no further action. One complainant told the Commission that Fr Gallagher would abuse her in confession by putting his hand down her trousers. She was nine years old at the time. He would have an altar bowl and a napkin at one side. When he had finished abusing her he would wash his hands in the altar bowl and dry them with the napkin.
22.8 In December 1984, there was “general fuss and skittishness” when one of the classes in St Mary‟s were going to confession. The principal investigated the cause of this fuss and was told by the girls that Fr Gallagher kissed each of them after confession. What the girls did not tell her at that time was that during confession he used to run his hands all over their bodies inside their clothing and then kissed them all on the lips at the end of confession. The principal again spoke about the matter to Fr Gallagher who said that, if the behaviour offended the girls, he would stop. The principal, incredibly, felt that perhaps Fr Gallagher‟s approach reflected the newer approach to the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) and took the matter no further. The principal told the Commission that, when she read the draft of this section of the report, she wondered how she “could have been so blind. Abuse would not have entered my mind; I could not imagine a priest doing anything like that.”
22.9 In February 1985, a number of parents complained to the principal about Fr Gallagher‟s behaviour. They urgently requested that he be removed from his chaplaincy. The principal told the Commission that, initially, she had difficulty in believing them. She approached the other chaplain about the problem and he talked to the provincial of the order. An investigation was carried out by another Vincentian, Fr Cleary. He told the parents that Fr Gallagher would be removed from the school and sent to a home in the country. He was not sent to a home in the country. The school principal was not informed about this investigation. In May 1985, Fr Gallagher attended a school play staged by the pupils of St Mary‟s at a venue outside the school. Subsequently, complaints were made by a number of other parents and, in May 1985, a parent complained that her daughter had been sexually abused in the kitchen by Fr Gallagher. The school principal was not aware of this complaint and considers that the incident could not have occurred in the school kitchen. Fr Cleary spoke to the parents who had made new complaints and compiled a report on all the complaints that had emerged.
22.10 Following Fr Cleary‟s report, it appears that Fr Gallagher may have been sent for some sort of therapy but the Commission has been unable to establish whether this therapy took place, and if it did, the nature of the therapy. In any event, he continued to minister in St Peter‟s and this meant the children in that school had some exposure to him (as, indeed did children of other local schools).
22.11 One complainant‟s mother, in her evidence to the Commission, stated that, when her daughter made her confirmation a year or two later, Fr Gallagher was one of the priests on the altar and that this upset her greatly. The school principal has told the Commission that the confirmation took place in St Peter‟s, and that Fr Gallagher was the master of ceremonies for the confirmation. This mother also told the Commission that she wrote to Archbishop McNamara in 1985 to complain about Fr Gallagher but there is no record of any such correspondence in either the Archdiocesan or the Vincentian files.
22.12 In spite of the overwhelming evidence, and the knowledge of his Vincentian superiors, that Fr Gallagher was an abuser, he was allowed to continue as a curate in St Peter‟s for the next four years.
Stroud, 1989
22.13 In February 1989, Fr Gallagher was admitted to Stroud. The reasons for his admission are not clear but the emphasis in the correspondence from Stroud is on his alcoholism. A letter written by a parishioner in May 1989 makes it clear that his drinking had become uncontrollable. He would wander the streets at night looking for houses prepared to take him in and offer him drink. He was constantly at the bar of a local football club and quite often had to be taken back to the presbytery by the club members.
22.14 Stroud asked a number of Fr Gallagher‟s friends to write to him telling him how his behaviour affected them. One letter written by Fr Mark Noonan, who had been appointed provincial of the Vincentians in 1986, detailed a history of abuse going back almost 15 years. In that letter Fr Noonan referred to:
Fr Gallagher using his hands on seminarians and altar boys in a “shocking” manner when he was Director of Vocations;
his consistent drunkenness;
the view held by the school boys about him;
the abuse of the girls in the School for the Deaf.
22.15 He remained in Stroud for almost six months. The correspondence from Stroud made it clear that his problem was not under control. The underlying tone was that alcohol was the primary problem. Nevertheless he was returned to full duties. There is no record that any attempt was made to monitor or control him, but his fellow priests in St Peter‟s were aware of his history. The Archdiocese of Dublin had still not been informed.
22.16 He returned to Stroud in September 1989. The staff in Stroud at that time were quite alarmed at his attitude and they suggested a further visit.
22.17 During a further visit in November the staff at Stroud stated: “It is quite essential that he bring his anxieties about his perceived sexual orientation out in the open and on the table”.
22.18 A behavioural contract was drawn up with him in December 1989. The first four clauses dealt with his alcoholism. In the next three he undertook to avoid all contact with altar boys, to avoid being alone with children and never to touch a child.
22.19 Fr Gallagher returned to St Peter‟s as curate and was allowed to remain there unsupervised for the next four years. His order has confirmed to the Commission that, in all that time, they did nothing to see if he was keeping to the terms of the behavioural contract.
Garda investigation, 1993
22.20 Early in 1993 a social worker was taking a group therapy session for deaf girls in a training centre. Three of the girls who had been pupils in St Mary‟s told her of the abuse. She contacted the Gardaí who initiated an investigation. Statements were taken from the three complainants. No parents were interviewed, and no inquiries were made either at the school or with the Vincentians. The Gardaí interviewed Fr Gallagher who denied the accusation completely. The sergeant who conducted the investigation stated in his report: “Fr Gallagher is a professional man and strikes me as a sincere and genuine individual. I can see no useful purpose to be gained by the prosecution of Fr. Gallagher at this late stage”. It was the view of the sergeant that, due to the passage of time and the fact that the abuse had been disclosed in a group therapy session, the chances of a successful prosecution were slim. Whatever the chances, they were certainly not helped by the decision not to seek any corroborating evidence.
22.21 A file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who, on the basis of the paucity of the information, the lack of corroboration and the fact that the girls did not have completely accurate recall of events, decided not to prosecute. The DPP went on to say: “I make this decision on the evidence on file, and on the assumption that this is the only available evidence”. The DPP also said that the Superintendent had asked for directions as to how the Gardaí should proceed with the investigation. The DPP said that he would not presume to direct the superintendent in this matter: “… if the Gardaí consider that further investigation is warranted, such investigations should be carried out”.
22.22 There is no doubt that further investigation was warranted. Corroboration and detail could have been provided by the parents and the school authorities if such had been sought by the Gardaí.
22.23 The direction of the DPP was sent to the Gardaí in June 1993. Around this time, there were newspaper reports about Fr Gallagher and the way in which the parents who complained had been treated. Fr Gallagher was not named. The head of the order told Archbishop Connell that Fr Gallagher was the person being referred to. This seems to be the first time the order contacted the Archdiocese about Fr Gallagher. In June 1993, a mother contacted the Archdiocese and told them that her daughter was the complainant mentioned in the newspaper reports. She met Monsignor Stenson and the Archbishop. She told the Commission that neither the order nor the Archdiocese had offered her daughter any form of counselling or therapy.
22.24 Later in June 1993, Fr Noonan asked Fr Gallagher to abstain from all public exercise of his ministry until the DPP had reached a decision. In fact, the DPP had given his direction at this time but clearly Fr Noonan was not aware of this.
1994
22.25 There is no evidence that the order to abstain from public ministry was rescinded but it clearly was not being implemented. In May 1994, it was alleged that Fr Gallagher was drunk while officiating at a baptism ceremony and that, at a reception afterwards, he slapped one of the young men attending on the backside and made advances towards two more young men and a young girl. He was then suspended from all duties. Shortly afterwards he was readmitted to Stroud where he died in June 1994.
22.26 The Gardaí revisited the file in 2003. This time, they got a statement from the school authorities which confirmed that the complaints had been made in 1984. Of course, it was now too late to do anything about this.
The Commission’s assessment
Church authorities
22.27 Fr Gallagher‟s victims were sadly failed by the Vincentians. Despite the fact that there were suspicions about his behaviour as far back as 1974 he continued abusing both boys and girls over the next 20 years and, apart from the period he spent in Stroud, no real efforts were made to curb his behaviour. It appears that his alcoholism was presented as an excuse and accepted.
22.28 It is astonishing that Fr Gallagher was appointed as a school chaplain in 1983 given what was then known about him.
22.29 It seems from the files that the Archdiocese was not aware of Fr Gallagher‟s activities before 1993. The letter which the mother wrote in 1985 is not in the files. The Commission finds it surprising that the Archdiocese did not hear something, even on the grapevine, of Fr Gallagher‟s problems given that he was attached to a parish. The Commission is astounded that these problems were not brought to the Archdiocese‟s attention by the Vincentians. The Vincentians communicated with the Archdiocese only when the newspaper reports appeared in 1993.
22.30 In spite of the knowledge available to both the Archdiocese and the Vincentians, Fr Gallagher seems to have been left in place for a further year.
Gardaí
22.31 The investigating garda sergeant accepts that there were shortcomings in the investigation but submits that these arose due to the nature of the offence and the manner of its reporting. The social worker who brought the incidents of abuse in St Mary‟s to the attention of the Gardaí acted promptly and appropriately.
Introduction
22.1 Fr Donal Gallagher was a member of the religious order of the Vincentians. He was born in 1936, ordained in 1962 and died in 1994. He served in a parish in the Archdiocese of Dublin, St Peter‟s Phibsborough, from 1975 to 1979. This parish is run by the Vincentians by agreement with the Archdiocese. He was a teacher and chaplain at a secondary school in the Archdiocese from 1980 to 1983 and he served in the parish again from 1983 to 1994.
22.2 There are 14 complaints of child sexual abuse against Fr Gallagher known to the Commission. It is likely, on the basis of evidence reviewed by the Commission, that he abused many more children.
22.3 Fr Gallagher was an alcoholic. A letter written by the provincial of his order in 1989 shows that, in 1974, while director of vocations, he was indulging in inappropriate behaviour with seminarians and altar boys. The provincial said that he was shocked at the way Fr Gallagher used his hands on them. There is no evidence that any action was taken by the order at the time this was going on or, indeed, on foot of this letter.
First complaints
22.4 The first external complaint of child sexual abuse against Fr Gallagher was made in 1981. Two young boys complained to the order that they had been sexually assaulted while they were attending an international camp for young people in north Dublin. This camp was run by a friend of Fr Gallagher‟s and was not connected with the Vincentians. The order told the Commission that there are no written records of what happened but “it is likely that these complaints were instrumental in his move” from teaching to the parish of St Peter‟s in 1983. Fr Gallagher was not attached to the Archdiocese at the time these complaints were made. There is no evidence that the order told the Archdiocese about these complaints when he returned to parish work. In effect, nothing at all seems to have been done about the complaints other than to move him on.
22.5 Around this time, during the course of a retreat in the school to which Fr Gallagher was attached, a member of the order asked the class in question for their opinion of Fr Gallagher. The boys said they did not have much time for the priest. One of the boys said “If Gallagher was in a room you made sure to keep your back to the wall”.
22.6 Despite this, Fr Gallagher was allowed to remain as a priest teacher in that school until he was transferred in the summer of 1983 to the parish of St Peter‟s. Extraordinarily, in the circumstances, in September 1983 he was appointed chaplain to St Mary‟s School for the Deaf.
St Mary’s School for the Deaf
22.7 Fr Gallagher started abusing girls as soon as he was appointed to St Mary‟s. A report was compiled in April 1985 by another member of the Vincentians who was also a chaplain at the school. This report shows that a complaint was made within a month of Fr Gallagher‟s arrival at the school. In October 1983, in confession, Fr Gallagher embraced a 15 year old girl and started plucking at her bra strap. This came to the attention of the other chaplain who reported it to the principal. She spoke to Fr Gallagher and told him that the pupil was upset by his behaviour. At the same time, some of the senior girls complained to the other chaplain that Fr Gallagher was kissing them in confession. The other chaplain assumed that the warning from the school principal would suffice and took no further action. One complainant told the Commission that Fr Gallagher would abuse her in confession by putting his hand down her trousers. She was nine years old at the time. He would have an altar bowl and a napkin at one side. When he had finished abusing her he would wash his hands in the altar bowl and dry them with the napkin.
22.8 In December 1984, there was “general fuss and skittishness” when one of the classes in St Mary‟s were going to confession. The principal investigated the cause of this fuss and was told by the girls that Fr Gallagher kissed each of them after confession. What the girls did not tell her at that time was that during confession he used to run his hands all over their bodies inside their clothing and then kissed them all on the lips at the end of confession. The principal again spoke about the matter to Fr Gallagher who said that, if the behaviour offended the girls, he would stop. The principal, incredibly, felt that perhaps Fr Gallagher‟s approach reflected the newer approach to the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) and took the matter no further. The principal told the Commission that, when she read the draft of this section of the report, she wondered how she “could have been so blind. Abuse would not have entered my mind; I could not imagine a priest doing anything like that.”
22.9 In February 1985, a number of parents complained to the principal about Fr Gallagher‟s behaviour. They urgently requested that he be removed from his chaplaincy. The principal told the Commission that, initially, she had difficulty in believing them. She approached the other chaplain about the problem and he talked to the provincial of the order. An investigation was carried out by another Vincentian, Fr Cleary. He told the parents that Fr Gallagher would be removed from the school and sent to a home in the country. He was not sent to a home in the country. The school principal was not informed about this investigation. In May 1985, Fr Gallagher attended a school play staged by the pupils of St Mary‟s at a venue outside the school. Subsequently, complaints were made by a number of other parents and, in May 1985, a parent complained that her daughter had been sexually abused in the kitchen by Fr Gallagher. The school principal was not aware of this complaint and considers that the incident could not have occurred in the school kitchen. Fr Cleary spoke to the parents who had made new complaints and compiled a report on all the complaints that had emerged.
22.10 Following Fr Cleary‟s report, it appears that Fr Gallagher may have been sent for some sort of therapy but the Commission has been unable to establish whether this therapy took place, and if it did, the nature of the therapy. In any event, he continued to minister in St Peter‟s and this meant the children in that school had some exposure to him (as, indeed did children of other local schools).
22.11 One complainant‟s mother, in her evidence to the Commission, stated that, when her daughter made her confirmation a year or two later, Fr Gallagher was one of the priests on the altar and that this upset her greatly. The school principal has told the Commission that the confirmation took place in St Peter‟s, and that Fr Gallagher was the master of ceremonies for the confirmation. This mother also told the Commission that she wrote to Archbishop McNamara in 1985 to complain about Fr Gallagher but there is no record of any such correspondence in either the Archdiocesan or the Vincentian files.
22.12 In spite of the overwhelming evidence, and the knowledge of his Vincentian superiors, that Fr Gallagher was an abuser, he was allowed to continue as a curate in St Peter‟s for the next four years.
Stroud, 1989
22.13 In February 1989, Fr Gallagher was admitted to Stroud. The reasons for his admission are not clear but the emphasis in the correspondence from Stroud is on his alcoholism. A letter written by a parishioner in May 1989 makes it clear that his drinking had become uncontrollable. He would wander the streets at night looking for houses prepared to take him in and offer him drink. He was constantly at the bar of a local football club and quite often had to be taken back to the presbytery by the club members.
22.14 Stroud asked a number of Fr Gallagher‟s friends to write to him telling him how his behaviour affected them. One letter written by Fr Mark Noonan, who had been appointed provincial of the Vincentians in 1986, detailed a history of abuse going back almost 15 years. In that letter Fr Noonan referred to:
Fr Gallagher using his hands on seminarians and altar boys in a “shocking” manner when he was Director of Vocations;
his consistent drunkenness;
the view held by the school boys about him;
the abuse of the girls in the School for the Deaf.
22.15 He remained in Stroud for almost six months. The correspondence from Stroud made it clear that his problem was not under control. The underlying tone was that alcohol was the primary problem. Nevertheless he was returned to full duties. There is no record that any attempt was made to monitor or control him, but his fellow priests in St Peter‟s were aware of his history. The Archdiocese of Dublin had still not been informed.
22.16 He returned to Stroud in September 1989. The staff in Stroud at that time were quite alarmed at his attitude and they suggested a further visit.
22.17 During a further visit in November the staff at Stroud stated: “It is quite essential that he bring his anxieties about his perceived sexual orientation out in the open and on the table”.
22.18 A behavioural contract was drawn up with him in December 1989. The first four clauses dealt with his alcoholism. In the next three he undertook to avoid all contact with altar boys, to avoid being alone with children and never to touch a child.
22.19 Fr Gallagher returned to St Peter‟s as curate and was allowed to remain there unsupervised for the next four years. His order has confirmed to the Commission that, in all that time, they did nothing to see if he was keeping to the terms of the behavioural contract.
Garda investigation, 1993
22.20 Early in 1993 a social worker was taking a group therapy session for deaf girls in a training centre. Three of the girls who had been pupils in St Mary‟s told her of the abuse. She contacted the Gardaí who initiated an investigation. Statements were taken from the three complainants. No parents were interviewed, and no inquiries were made either at the school or with the Vincentians. The Gardaí interviewed Fr Gallagher who denied the accusation completely. The sergeant who conducted the investigation stated in his report: “Fr Gallagher is a professional man and strikes me as a sincere and genuine individual. I can see no useful purpose to be gained by the prosecution of Fr. Gallagher at this late stage”. It was the view of the sergeant that, due to the passage of time and the fact that the abuse had been disclosed in a group therapy session, the chances of a successful prosecution were slim. Whatever the chances, they were certainly not helped by the decision not to seek any corroborating evidence.
22.21 A file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who, on the basis of the paucity of the information, the lack of corroboration and the fact that the girls did not have completely accurate recall of events, decided not to prosecute. The DPP went on to say: “I make this decision on the evidence on file, and on the assumption that this is the only available evidence”. The DPP also said that the Superintendent had asked for directions as to how the Gardaí should proceed with the investigation. The DPP said that he would not presume to direct the superintendent in this matter: “… if the Gardaí consider that further investigation is warranted, such investigations should be carried out”.
22.22 There is no doubt that further investigation was warranted. Corroboration and detail could have been provided by the parents and the school authorities if such had been sought by the Gardaí.
22.23 The direction of the DPP was sent to the Gardaí in June 1993. Around this time, there were newspaper reports about Fr Gallagher and the way in which the parents who complained had been treated. Fr Gallagher was not named. The head of the order told Archbishop Connell that Fr Gallagher was the person being referred to. This seems to be the first time the order contacted the Archdiocese about Fr Gallagher. In June 1993, a mother contacted the Archdiocese and told them that her daughter was the complainant mentioned in the newspaper reports. She met Monsignor Stenson and the Archbishop. She told the Commission that neither the order nor the Archdiocese had offered her daughter any form of counselling or therapy.
22.24 Later in June 1993, Fr Noonan asked Fr Gallagher to abstain from all public exercise of his ministry until the DPP had reached a decision. In fact, the DPP had given his direction at this time but clearly Fr Noonan was not aware of this.
1994
22.25 There is no evidence that the order to abstain from public ministry was rescinded but it clearly was not being implemented. In May 1994, it was alleged that Fr Gallagher was drunk while officiating at a baptism ceremony and that, at a reception afterwards, he slapped one of the young men attending on the backside and made advances towards two more young men and a young girl. He was then suspended from all duties. Shortly afterwards he was readmitted to Stroud where he died in June 1994.
22.26 The Gardaí revisited the file in 2003. This time, they got a statement from the school authorities which confirmed that the complaints had been made in 1984. Of course, it was now too late to do anything about this.
The Commission’s assessment
Church authorities
22.27 Fr Gallagher‟s victims were sadly failed by the Vincentians. Despite the fact that there were suspicions about his behaviour as far back as 1974 he continued abusing both boys and girls over the next 20 years and, apart from the period he spent in Stroud, no real efforts were made to curb his behaviour. It appears that his alcoholism was presented as an excuse and accepted.
22.28 It is astonishing that Fr Gallagher was appointed as a school chaplain in 1983 given what was then known about him.
22.29 It seems from the files that the Archdiocese was not aware of Fr Gallagher‟s activities before 1993. The letter which the mother wrote in 1985 is not in the files. The Commission finds it surprising that the Archdiocese did not hear something, even on the grapevine, of Fr Gallagher‟s problems given that he was attached to a parish. The Commission is astounded that these problems were not brought to the Archdiocese‟s attention by the Vincentians. The Vincentians communicated with the Archdiocese only when the newspaper reports appeared in 1993.
22.30 In spite of the knowledge available to both the Archdiocese and the Vincentians, Fr Gallagher seems to have been left in place for a further year.
Gardaí
22.31 The investigating garda sergeant accepts that there were shortcomings in the investigation but submits that these arose due to the nature of the offence and the manner of its reporting. The social worker who brought the incidents of abuse in St Mary‟s to the attention of the Gardaí acted promptly and appropriately.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36171
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:26 am
Chapter 23: Fr Hugo*76
Introduction
23.1 Fr Hugo was born in 1909 and ordained in 1935. He died in 1988. He had various appointments throughout the Archdiocese of Dublin, ending up as parish priest in Blessington, following a period as a curate in Drimnagh.
Complaint, 1981
23.2 There is one complaint of abuse against Fr Hugo. This complaint was initially made to the Archdiocese in 1981 but was not actually investigated until 1995. The complaint relates to Fr Hugo‟s time in Drimnagh. He is alleged to have abused a child from 1959, when the child was about 11 years old, until 1976 when she was in her mid-twenties.
23.3 In 1978 the complainant told her sister about the abuse. She said that Fr Hugo had been sexually abusing her continuously between 1959 and 1976 and the abuse included full sexual intercourse from the time she was a child. At first she did not know what was happening to her. Fr Hugo sent her to a nun to explain the facts of life. He also told her what to say in confession.
23.4 Fr Hugo lived alone in Drimnagh. He was very involved with the complainant‟s family and was a regular visitor to their house. He was very popular and used to holiday with the family.
23.5 In 1981, the complainant‟s sister informed Bishop Forristal who was then an auxiliary bishop of Dublin. A meeting with the bishop was arranged and she was accompanied to that meeting by another priest. At this meeting, the sister gave details of the abuse to Bishop Forristal. There was no follow-up of the complaint which she had made.
23.6 In evidence, Bishop Forristal agreed that he did meet the sister in 1981. Bishop Forristal said he had passed on the complaint either directly to Archbishop Ryan or to one of his secretaries, but there are no details in the Archdiocesan files of that complaint.
23.7 In February 1995, the sister wrote to Bishop Forristal referring to the 1981 meeting and asking why there had been no follow-up. She was aware that Bishop Forristal had been the chair of a committee which was responsible for drafting the Framework Document. She was anxious to know why they had been let down and why nothing was done about their complaint.
23.8 Bishop Forristal replied indicating that he remembered her visit to him in spring or early summer of 1981 and he remembered the priest who had accompanied her. He was certain that he had informed Archbishop Ryan or his secretaries of the complaint. He said that “as Auxiliary Bishop, I would have regarded the Archbishop as the only person in the diocese who was competent to deal with the priest and to pursue the case”. He told her that he had been unable to follow-up the matter as he had been appointed Bishop of Ossory in July 1981 and his jurisdiction in Dublin had ceased. He advised her to contact Archbishop Connell as he could no longer deal with cases outside his diocese.
23.9 In March 1995, both the sister and Bishop Forristal contacted Archbishop Connell to inform him of the complaints. Archbishop Connell asked Monsignor Stenson to investigate. Bishop Forristal confirmed the fact that he had had the meeting in 1981 and he also said to Monsignor Stenson that he had been told that Bishop O‟Mahony was looking after it.
23.10 At this stage, the priest who had accompanied the complainant had moved abroad but Monsignor Stenson made contact with him and he confirmed the meeting, and confirmed that Bishop O‟Mahony knew about the complaint. Monsignor Stenson met the sister. She gave him the details of the complaint and she mentioned that her sister had named others whom she suspected had been abused by this priest. Monsignor Stenson checked with Archbishop Ryan‟s secretary but he had no recollection of the 1981 complaint. The investigation did not go any further. In particular, Bishop O‟Mahony does not seem to have been asked about his involvement. Fr Hugo was dead at this stage.
23.11 Monsignor Stenson and Monsignor Dolan were in touch with the sister on a number of occasions and offered counselling and an apology. The sister was never asked to suggest that the alleged victim make a formal complaint herself and no questions were asked about the others who may have been abused. In response to this criticism, Monsignor Dolan said that, during the course of his work as a delegate, he had gained considerable awareness of the complex and sensitive issues relating to outreach to other possible victims. In particular, he observed that victims have a guilt when they discover that others have been abused. His experience was that, as the abuse involved an uninvited violation of a person, victims were sensitive to unexpected and uninvited approaches from the Church. The Commission could find very little evidence to support this contention by Monsignor Dolan.
23.12 The sister asked for and got a meeting with Bishop Forristal.
The Commission’s assessment
23.13 No attempts were made to deal with the original complaint made in 1981 even though it was made to an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese. Fr Hugo was then occupying a prestigious position as a parish priest and there is no record of him having been spoken to in relation to these matters. He remained in his position as parish priest for a further three years.
23.14 Efforts were certainly made to deal with the matter when her sister re-activated the complaint in 1995. However, at that stage, Fr Hugo was dead. Counselling was offered to both the complainant and her sister. There was no follow up in respect of the others whom the complainant believed to have been abused. The sister was satisfied with the response she received in 1995/1996. She was satisfied that her assertion that the original complaint was not properly investigated was found to be valid. She felt that, had the matter been more thoroughly investigated in the 1980s, some closure might have been brought earlier to a very painful episode in her and her sister‟s life.
23.15 There is no record in the garda files of notification of the complaint to them by the victim or the Church authorities.
Introduction
23.1 Fr Hugo was born in 1909 and ordained in 1935. He died in 1988. He had various appointments throughout the Archdiocese of Dublin, ending up as parish priest in Blessington, following a period as a curate in Drimnagh.
Complaint, 1981
23.2 There is one complaint of abuse against Fr Hugo. This complaint was initially made to the Archdiocese in 1981 but was not actually investigated until 1995. The complaint relates to Fr Hugo‟s time in Drimnagh. He is alleged to have abused a child from 1959, when the child was about 11 years old, until 1976 when she was in her mid-twenties.
23.3 In 1978 the complainant told her sister about the abuse. She said that Fr Hugo had been sexually abusing her continuously between 1959 and 1976 and the abuse included full sexual intercourse from the time she was a child. At first she did not know what was happening to her. Fr Hugo sent her to a nun to explain the facts of life. He also told her what to say in confession.
23.4 Fr Hugo lived alone in Drimnagh. He was very involved with the complainant‟s family and was a regular visitor to their house. He was very popular and used to holiday with the family.
23.5 In 1981, the complainant‟s sister informed Bishop Forristal who was then an auxiliary bishop of Dublin. A meeting with the bishop was arranged and she was accompanied to that meeting by another priest. At this meeting, the sister gave details of the abuse to Bishop Forristal. There was no follow-up of the complaint which she had made.
23.6 In evidence, Bishop Forristal agreed that he did meet the sister in 1981. Bishop Forristal said he had passed on the complaint either directly to Archbishop Ryan or to one of his secretaries, but there are no details in the Archdiocesan files of that complaint.
23.7 In February 1995, the sister wrote to Bishop Forristal referring to the 1981 meeting and asking why there had been no follow-up. She was aware that Bishop Forristal had been the chair of a committee which was responsible for drafting the Framework Document. She was anxious to know why they had been let down and why nothing was done about their complaint.
23.8 Bishop Forristal replied indicating that he remembered her visit to him in spring or early summer of 1981 and he remembered the priest who had accompanied her. He was certain that he had informed Archbishop Ryan or his secretaries of the complaint. He said that “as Auxiliary Bishop, I would have regarded the Archbishop as the only person in the diocese who was competent to deal with the priest and to pursue the case”. He told her that he had been unable to follow-up the matter as he had been appointed Bishop of Ossory in July 1981 and his jurisdiction in Dublin had ceased. He advised her to contact Archbishop Connell as he could no longer deal with cases outside his diocese.
23.9 In March 1995, both the sister and Bishop Forristal contacted Archbishop Connell to inform him of the complaints. Archbishop Connell asked Monsignor Stenson to investigate. Bishop Forristal confirmed the fact that he had had the meeting in 1981 and he also said to Monsignor Stenson that he had been told that Bishop O‟Mahony was looking after it.
23.10 At this stage, the priest who had accompanied the complainant had moved abroad but Monsignor Stenson made contact with him and he confirmed the meeting, and confirmed that Bishop O‟Mahony knew about the complaint. Monsignor Stenson met the sister. She gave him the details of the complaint and she mentioned that her sister had named others whom she suspected had been abused by this priest. Monsignor Stenson checked with Archbishop Ryan‟s secretary but he had no recollection of the 1981 complaint. The investigation did not go any further. In particular, Bishop O‟Mahony does not seem to have been asked about his involvement. Fr Hugo was dead at this stage.
23.11 Monsignor Stenson and Monsignor Dolan were in touch with the sister on a number of occasions and offered counselling and an apology. The sister was never asked to suggest that the alleged victim make a formal complaint herself and no questions were asked about the others who may have been abused. In response to this criticism, Monsignor Dolan said that, during the course of his work as a delegate, he had gained considerable awareness of the complex and sensitive issues relating to outreach to other possible victims. In particular, he observed that victims have a guilt when they discover that others have been abused. His experience was that, as the abuse involved an uninvited violation of a person, victims were sensitive to unexpected and uninvited approaches from the Church. The Commission could find very little evidence to support this contention by Monsignor Dolan.
23.12 The sister asked for and got a meeting with Bishop Forristal.
The Commission’s assessment
23.13 No attempts were made to deal with the original complaint made in 1981 even though it was made to an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese. Fr Hugo was then occupying a prestigious position as a parish priest and there is no record of him having been spoken to in relation to these matters. He remained in his position as parish priest for a further three years.
23.14 Efforts were certainly made to deal with the matter when her sister re-activated the complaint in 1995. However, at that stage, Fr Hugo was dead. Counselling was offered to both the complainant and her sister. There was no follow up in respect of the others whom the complainant believed to have been abused. The sister was satisfied with the response she received in 1995/1996. She was satisfied that her assertion that the original complaint was not properly investigated was found to be valid. She felt that, had the matter been more thoroughly investigated in the 1980s, some closure might have been brought earlier to a very painful episode in her and her sister‟s life.
23.15 There is no record in the garda files of notification of the complaint to them by the victim or the Church authorities.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36171
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:28 am
Chapter 24: Fr Ivan Payne
Introduction
24.1 Ivan Payne was born in 1942 and ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1967. He was chaplain to Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin77 for a number of years. The Archbishop of Dublin was then, and continues to be, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the hospital. Appointments in the Archdiocese of Dublin are generally clear and well recorded. Priests are notified in writing of new appointments. However, Fr Payne‟s status in relation to Crumlin hospital is not clear for all of the years during which he was associated with it. He was appointed as chaplain to the hospital in February 1968. In October 1970 he started studies in University College Dublin and was appointed as assistant priest in Mourne Road parish. Crumlin hospital is located within the boundaries of that parish. It is not clear if he was meant to continue in his role as chaplain to the hospital but he clearly had access as such until 1974. Hospital records show that he did most of the baptisms there in 1970/71 and continued to do baptisms until 1974. Fr Payne explained to Monsignor Stenson in 1995 that, as there was no residential accommodation for a chaplain in the hospital, he lived with his parents in Drimnagh until appointed to Mourne Road and continued nominally as chaplain while in Mourne Road but the job was shared between the Mourne Road priests. He was appointed curate in Mourne Road in August 1972 and continued his involvement with the hospital. He left there in August 1974 and studied abroad for two years.
24.2 Fr Payne was appointed to the Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal in 1976 and he remained there until 1995. During this time he was also assigned to parishes and he lived in the parish accommodation. He was appointed as parish chaplain in Cabra in 1976 and subsequently in Sutton in 1983. He was regarded in the Archdiocese as being intellectually capable and was generally held in high regard. Consequently, his case was particularly shocking for the people who worked in Archbishop‟s House.
Extent of abuse
24.3 Ivan Payne is a convicted serial child sexual abuser. The Commission is aware of a total of 31 people who have made allegations of child sexual abuse against him; 16 of these people allege they were abused during his time as chaplain in Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin and the vast majority are male. There are concerns or suspicions that a number of other children were abused by him. He was convicted of indecent assault in respect of ten victims and he served a prison sentence. Compensation has been paid by the Archdiocese to nine78 of the victims in respect of whom he was convicted and to three other victims. It is likely that some other victims made claims to the Residential Institutions Redress Board79. The Archdiocese first heard a complaint about Fr Payne in 1981. The rest of the victims came forward in the period from 1995 onwards – the majority in the years 1995 and 1996; of these, seven were abused after the first complaint had been made to the Archdiocese.
First complaint to the Archdiocese
24.4 The first complaint to the Archdiocese about Fr Payne was made in November 1981. The complaint concerned the abuse of Andrew Madden.80 It was made by Andrew Madden‟s school guidance counsellor to Monsignor Alex Stenson who had been appointed chancellor of the Archdiocese a month earlier. Monsignor Stenson compiled a comprehensive contemporaneous written account of the allegations being made. The abuse took place in the house in which Fr Payne lived while attached to Cabra parish. Fr Payne was also working in the Regional Marriage Tribunal at the time. The abuse started when Andrew Madden was about 12 years old (about 1976) and continued until 1981. Andrew Madden visited Fr Payne‟s house every Saturday. The abuse involved fondling and masturbation. Fr Payne described the abuse (in 1993) as “going as far as was necessary to get satisfied without unnecessary violation”. Andrew Madden also mentioned that there was another boy who seemed to have a relationship with Fr Payne and who was particularly vulnerable because of his home situation.
24.5 Monsignor Stenson was a part time chancellor. This was his first case of this kind. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he went to Monsignor Gerard Sheehy for advice because Monsignor Sheehy was a former Chancellor and he was the head of the Marriage Tribunal where both Fr Payne and Monsignor Stenson worked at the time. Monsignor Sheehy advised him to make detailed notes and to tell Archbishop Ryan. Monsignor Stenson then told Archbishop Ryan who instructed him to ask Bishop O‟Mahony to deal with it.
Role of Bishop O’Mahony
24.6 Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that, when he was appointed as an auxiliary bishop (in April 1975), Archbishop Ryan gave him responsibility for the pastoral care of priests, particularly younger priests. This was not a written or formal appointment but it became known over a period of time by the priests of the Archdiocese. He says that this appointment was the “source of my responsibility for the pastoral care of Fr Ivan Payne at a very difficult time in his life”.
24.7 Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he was contacted by the newly appointed Chancellor, Monsignor Stenson, sometime in November 1981 to say that there was a complaint against Fr Payne. Monsignor Stenson told him that he (Monsignor Stenson) was not the right person to deal with it as he and Fr Payne had been classmates and were currently working together in the Marriage Tribunal. Monsignor Stenson gave Bishop O‟Mahony some background information. Bishop O‟Mahony says that he believed that Archbishop Ryan was aware of and approved of Monsignor Stenson giving him responsibility for the case. However, Bishop O‟Mahony “never received any instructions or brief to act on behalf of Archbishop Ryan other than to deal with Fr Payne”. Bishop O‟Mahony described his role as that of a “priest helper”, that is, he was required to “express the pastoral care of the diocese rather than to be involved in the process of the case either civilly or canonically”.
24.8 This absence of clear lines of authority is one of many reasons why this case was badly handled at the time. Bishop O‟Mahony saw himself as having a pastoral role only. It is not at all clear that this is what Archbishop Ryan meant him to do because Archbishop Ryan did not talk to him about it and did not issue written instructions. The records suggest that Archbishop Ryan did not take an active role in dealing with the complaint but left it largely in the hands of Bishop O‟Mahony.
24.9 Bishop O‟Mahony met the school guidance counsellor who had made the complaint. He then spoke to Archbishop Ryan who indicated that he was considering removing Fr Payne from the Marriage Tribunal. Bishop O‟Mahony said that he thought it would be appropriate to have an assessment of Fr Payne before that decision was made.
24.10 Bishop O‟Mahony met Fr Payne in December 1981. Fr Payne admitted guilt. Bishop O‟Mahony was “inclined to accept” that Fr Payne had no other attachments. It is clear that Bishop O‟Mahony knew the extent of the abuse and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Fr Payne said in 1993 that he had been assured by Bishop O‟Mahony that prosecution was unlikely.
24.11 Bishop O‟Mahony went to see Professor Noel Walsh, Professor of Psychiatry in UCD and a consultant psychiatrist, in his rooms in St Vincent‟s Hospital. He told the Commission that he “thoroughly briefed” Professor Walsh about “the nature and circumstances of Andrew Madden‟s allegations against Fr Ivan Payne”. He informed Professor Walsh that the “complainant was male and a minor”.
24.12 Fr Payne was then sent to Professor Walsh for assessment. In his report, Professor Walsh described Fr Payne as having “successfully overcome the crisis in question”. The report identifies this “crisis” as a blurring of the boundaries between pastoral and personal with a 17-year-old boy. The report states:
“His basic psychological difficulties centre around a friendship which developed between himself and a seventeen year old youth in whom Father Payne took an interest, initially in the hope of helping him with his problems. Gradually as the relationship developed it became increasingly difficult to define the pastoral and counselling boundaries and the relationship became more of a special friendship”.
24.13 Bishop O‟Mahony contends that the report is unclear as to whether the complainant was 17 at the time Professor Walsh saw him or at the time the “friendship” started. The Commission thinks it is quite clear that Professor Walsh thought that the boy was 17 when the “friendship” started.
24.14 When Bishop O‟Mahony received Professor Walsh‟s report, he informed Archbishop Ryan of its contents, gave his view that the report was positive and recommended that Fr Payne‟s position be kept under review. The report was not sent to Archbishop Ryan nor did he ask to see it. There were no further communications between Archbishop Ryan and Bishop O‟Mahony about Fr Payne. Archbishop Ryan did not consult Bishop O‟Mahony about moving Fr Payne to Sutton. Bishop O‟Mahony did not know that Fr Payne had any involvement with a children‟s holiday home where he had no official appointment. Archbishop Ryan retired as Archbishop in September 1984 in order to take up an appointment in Rome.
24.15 Bishop O‟Mahony made no contact with Andrew Madden or his family at the time the complaint was made. He described this in 1996 as “a definite pastoral omission and hard to understand as it ran contrary to Diocesan policy even at that time”. Nobody seems to have made any effort to establish who the other boy mentioned by Andrew Madden was.
Role of Professor Noel Walsh
24.16 Professor Walsh gave evidence to the Commission in July 2007. He is now retired and he had destroyed the medical notes and records of all his private patients in September 2006 in accordance with legal guidelines on the retention and destruction of medical records.
24.17 He gave general evidence about his role in dealing with child sexual abuse and then dealt with his involvement with Fr Payne. In general, he made a distinction between clinical psychiatry and forensic psychiatry; he did not regard his role as forensic. He was not there to judge his patient but to see what he could do to help. He “was given no data as far as I can recall by any of the bishops. They didn‟t send me letters from parents who had complained or anything. So I did not have the data which presumably led the bishop or whoever to refer these patients to me”. As far as he can remember, he did not get any written brief. Words like paedophile or child abuser were never used; the priest “might have crossed a boundary” was a likely expression. The priests he saw never admitted sexual activity. They might have said that they had been over affectionate. His task was to determine if they had psychiatric problems (whether they suffered from mental illness or not); he was not there to judge whether or not they had done something wrong.
24.18 He is adamant that he did not hear the specific allegations against the priests. Bishop O‟Mahony and/or Canon McMahon would say: “we are concerned about this priest, there have been certain complaints against him and we would like you to assess him…[T]he communication to me would have been minimal”… [T]here was no such thing as a specific statement Fr X has been accused of this, that or the other”.
24.19 Professor Walsh was asked what was the purpose of the psychiatric assessment which he was doing. He said: “It‟s a good question. I mean, you‟d have to really ask the Church or its representatives. I mean, I think at the time there was a sense that perhaps they were mentally disturbed and this is why they were behaving that way. That isn‟t so in fact. The explanation for paedophilia is not a psychiatric one. It may be a factor but only a factor”.
24.20 Specifically on Fr Payne, Professor Walsh described him as “a very smooth person. I didn‟t believe him, even though he was a very interesting man to talk to and interview”.
24.21 Bishop O‟Mahony did not “reveal to me the degree of interference with the victims”. Professor Walsh thought that Fr Payne was conducting an inappropriate relationship with a 17 year old. Professor Walsh did not know why Fr Payne was sent to him again in 1991 and 1994. He was not given any extra information on these occasions.
24.22 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he did not feel well served by the experts, including medical experts. This was put to Professor Walsh by the Commission. Professor Walsh said that the medical or psychiatric element is only one aspect of the problem: “if you say that the psychiatrist is the expert who can give the answer, that is to simplify the nature of paedophilia”. Effectively, he said that the Church put too much faith in psychiatry.
24.23 Bishop O‟Mahony agreed that psychiatrists were not generally given written briefings. In the case of Fr Payne, he told the Commission that he went to Professor Walsh‟s rooms and briefed him on the “actual nature and circumstances of the case”. He told the Commission that oral briefings were preferable as “I can be much more nuanced”. He imagined that any psychiatrist would have taken notes of what he was being told.
24.24 It is clear to the Commission that Professor Walsh cannot have been told the precise nature of the complaint against Fr Payne. It is obvious from his report, and he confirmed to the Commission, that he considered that the complainant was 17 years old when some inappropriate relationship was being conducted. (In 1982, all male homosexual relationships were illegal in Ireland but 17 was the age of consent for heterosexual relationships.) The report is clearly based on incorrect information.
24.25 It seems that Bishop O‟Mahony was the only person who read Professor Walsh‟s 1982 report. It must have been obvious to him that Professor Walsh was making a report based on false information. Such reports are, of course, useless.
Developments 1982 - 1993
24.26 In September 1982, Fr Payne was appointed to Sutton parish as parish chaplain. It seems that the other clergy serving there, or subsequently appointed there, were not informed of his background. No supervisory arrangements were put in place. The formal letter of appointment is from Archbishop Ryan with the usual words of thanks for previous service.
24.27 Sometime before September 1984, Monsignor Sheehy asked Archbishop Ryan to appoint Fr Payne as Vice Officialis81. The Archbishop resolutely refused this request. In June 1985, Monsignor Sheehy wrote to Archbishop McNamara, who had succeeded Archbishop Ryan, suggesting that Fr Payne be appointed Vice Officialis. Bishop Eamonn Walsh, who was the Archbishop‟s secretary at the time, gave evidence to the Commission that he did not know if Archbishop McNamara was aware of the complaint against Fr Payne. Fr Payne was appointed as Vice Officialis that month. Monsignor Sheehy said in 1997 that Archbishop McNamara did know of the complaint and further said that Archbishop McNamara had spoken to Bishop O‟Mahony about it.
24.28 In 1989, Andrew Madden rang Bishop O‟Mahony and asked to meet him. He found the bishop “very personable and very nice and very warm”. He raised the question of Fr Payne‟s presence in Sutton. Bishop O‟Mahony told him that he had no reason to believe Fr Payne was sexually abusing children in Sutton. Mr Madden replied that he (Bishop O‟Mahony) had no reason to believe that Fr Payne had been sexually abusing him (Andrew Madden) in Cabra at the time it was happening. Mr Madden found himself “very un-reassured by his response. I thought it was very casual given the serious nature of the risk to children at the time”. Mr Madden had been refused entry to Clonliffe College to train for the priesthood and was convinced that this was because of his complaint in relation to Fr Payne. Bishop O‟Mahony tried to reassure him that this was not so, but Mr Madden did not believe him. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he subsequently tried to contact Mr Madden a number of times but was unable to do so. He met Mr Madden again in 1995 and it was, according to Bishop O‟Mahony, “a friendly meeting”.
24.29 Fr Payne first came to the attention of Archbishop Connell in October 1991 when a question arose about promoting him from the Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal to be the President of the National Marriage Appeal Tribunal. Archbishop Connell consulted the auxiliary bishops and was told by Bishop O‟Mahony to look at Fr Payne‟s file in the secret archive. Having discovered what had happened in 1981, Archbishop Connell decided not to agree to his promotion. He satisfied himself that Fr Payne was not a danger to children, but considered he could not agree to the promotion as he would have to inform the other members of the Bishops‟ Conference about the complaint. This would, Cardinal Connell told the Commission, involve “defaming” Fr Payne. He explained that defamation involved both the sin of calumny and the sin of detraction. Calumny is the “unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty”82. Detraction is the “unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer”.83 So, defamation in church law includes both true and untrue statements. Defamation in civil law involves only untrue statements: “Defamation is committed by the wrongful publication of a false statement about a person, which tends to lower that person in the eyes of right-thinking members of society or tends to hold that person up to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or causes that person to be shunned or avoided by right-thinking members of society.”84 Many of the failures to report appalling behaviour by clergy may well be attributable to a wish to avoid committing the sin of detraction.
24.30 At this stage, Bishop O‟Mahony again sent Fr Payne to Professor Walsh for assessment. There is no written report of this assessment, but it appears from a subsequent report that Professor Walsh considered Fr Payne not to be a risk. This, of course, was still based on Professor Walsh‟s misapprehension about the nature of the complaint.
24.31 Cardinal Connell was questioned by the Commission on how he reached the conclusion that Fr Payne was not a risk. He said he “relied on Professor Walsh‟s assessment and opinion”. When questioned on this, he clarified that he did not read Professor Walsh‟s reports but instead relied on Bishop O‟Mahony‟s version of Professor Walsh‟s assessment and opinion.
24.32 Fr Payne became President of the Canon Law Association of Great Britain and Ireland.
24.33 In March 1992, Mr Madden wrote to Fr Payne looking for compensation; he did not seek compensation from the Archdiocese. Fr Payne seems to have told Bishop O‟Mahony about this. Archbishop Connell first heard of this when Mr Madden wrote to him in April 1993 complaining about the delay in settling his claim. The diocesan solicitors were acting for Fr Payne. They thought that Fr Payne had been referred to them by the Archdiocese. When Archbishop Connell received Mr Madden‟s letter, Monsignor Stenson spoke to Mr Madden and gave him Bishop O‟Mahony‟s phone number. The diocesan solicitors were instructed by Archbishop Connell to offer Fr Payne financial assistance in disposing of the case. Fr Payne was advised to get separate representation. A settlement was reached between Mr Madden and Fr Payne in May 1993. The financing of that settlement was later to prove very controversial and is dealt with further below.
24.34 In the context of these proceedings, Fr Payne admitted that he had experienced sexual desire towards youngsters prior to Mr Madden and had made moves on two boys and these were rejected. He claimed that he had not interfered with children since.
Public knowledge of complaint, 1994
24.35 From August 1994, Mr Madden began speaking to a number of journalists and the first media references to the payment began to appear. Mr Madden was angry that the Church continued to deny that anyone had received a payment as a result of clerical child sexual abuse. There were no names in the public domain at this stage.
24.36 Fr Payne was sent for a third assessment to Professor Walsh. It is clear from his report, issued in September 1994, that Professor Walsh was still operating under a misunderstanding about the nature of the complaint.
24.37 In November 1994, Mr Madden wrote letters to the papers under a pseudonym describing how his case had been handled. Archbishop Connell discussed this development with Monsignor Sheehy and suggested Fr Payne be sent for treatment. Monsignor Sheehy was the Judicial Vicar and so, was Fr Payne‟s superior, but he had no official role in dealing with priests who were abusing. He had been a close friend of Archbishop Connell since boyhood and was very influential. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that, as knowledge emerged about the wrongdoing of Fr Brendan Smyth in October 1994, he developed a greater understanding of what abusers were capable of. Even though there were no new complaints, he considered that prudence indicated that Fr Payne should be further evaluated. Monsignor Sheehy wrote, unsolicited, what can only be described as a tirade about anonymous letters and the unjust treatment of priests. Monsignor Sheehy‟s concerns, as expressed in letters to Monsignor Stenson and Archbishop Connell, were entirely related to the rights of the priest and the autonomy of the Church. He considered that sending Fr Payne for treatment was unwise and unjust and “a manifest invasion of his rights under the law of the Church”. He believed that Fr Payne had not re-offended (it is not clear what basis he had for this belief) and taking any action against him “could well destroy both him and his priesthood”. He went on to comment generally on the Church‟s approach to clerical child abusers:
“It is my opinion that there is a gross over-reaction on the part of many of our Church authorities to this whole "paedophile crisis‟. I heard the Cardinal85 on yesterday‟s radio specifically saying that, if there is a reasonable suspicion against a priest in this area, he should be turned over to the police for investigation and for whatever may follow from that. This is panic; it is also wrong. It takes no account whatever of the Church‟s own canonical procedures in dealing with situations of this kind – procedures which long have been acknowledged and accepted by the civil courts. There is, in my view, a real danger in all of this that some of the local churches may, unthinkingly, try to solve their problems at the risk of abandoning the autonomy which the Code of Canon Law, now clearly based on Vatican II, has established for the Church itself”.
1995
24.38 Fr Payne was sent to a therapeutic facility in the USA for a further assessment. Fr Payne told the therapists there Mr Madden was 13 when the abuse first started. A lengthy report was issued in January 1995 which showed, among other things, that Fr Payne:
“learned about sex in the seminary from the Archbishop of Dublin who called in seminarians for discussions”;
denied sexual contact with anyone other than Mr Madden;
was sexually attracted to adolescent boys but was also sexually attracted to adult men and women.
24.39 The therapeutic facility was inclined to believe that he had not engaged in sexual activity with adolescents other than Mr Madden, but recommended that he should have no unsupervised contact with minors. It also recommended that he undergo residential treatment.
24.40 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he did read this report. Fr Payne was not sent for residential treatment – it is not clear why. He did start to attend the Granada Institute in Dublin. He was continuing to work in Sutton parish (until June 1995) and in the Marriage Tribunal.
24.41 Mr Madden told his story on the Gay Byrne Show on RTE Radio 1 in April 1995. There were other media reports about the case. The Archdiocese issued a statement expressing regret and sorrow and a wish to be involved in the healing process. The statement went on to deal with the issues of the continuation in ministry by a priest who has offended and with the financial settlement.
24.42 The statement said that:
“While the presumption where child abuse has taken place is that the abuser will be removed and not be re-admitted to parish ministry, situations can arise where ministry may be possible. A core concern in such situations will be an evaluation of the potential risk to children. Decisions of this nature are made on grounds which are carefully considered and with the help of independent professional advice”. On the finance issue, it stated:
“As reported in recent days, a priest settled a claim in respect of such abuse. It has been suggested that this settlement was made by the diocese. Save for assistance as herein described, it was not. It is not and never has been the practice of the diocese to accept responsibility for any such settlement by a priest. The priest did receive financial assistance from the diocese to enable him to meet such claim, on the basis that this would be repaid, and a substantial portion in fact has already been repaid. The amount of the assistance is actually less than amounts donated to the diocese by the Archbishop himself out of his personal resources”.
24.43 During the early part of 1995, Monsignor Stenson heard reports from Sutton of inappropriate behaviour by Fr Payne and told Bishop O‟Mahony. There is no evidence that this was followed up. In June 1995, Fr Payne was released from Sutton (he had asked for this as he felt he had too much work), with the usual letter of thanks, and appointed chaplain to a convent. He did not in fact move to the convent but moved to a flat in the grounds of Archbishop‟s House instead. He did not get any subsequent appointment but he does not seem to have been formally removed from ministry. It would appear he had an agreement with Bishop O‟Mahony not to say mass in public. However, Monsignor Sheehy said he was doing supply work, including some arranged by Monsignor Sheehy himself. Monsignor Sheehy continued to campaign for him to be appointed to a chaplaincy. Cardinal Connell told the Commission this supply work was not being done with his knowledge or approval.
24.44 In July 1995, Mr Madden went public under his own name. Another complainant then came forward; he had been speaking to Bishop O‟Mahony since April but only named Fr Payne in July 1995. He claimed to have been abused while in Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin. He was advised by Bishop O‟Mahony to report the matter to the Gardaí. Bishop O‟Mahony explained to him that he could not guarantee confidentiality. The complainant was very unwilling to report to the Gardaí and, in fact, never did. He did not want to be the “cause of further bad publicity for the church”. He did not make a civil claim either. He did not report his complaint to the hospital and the hospital was not told by the Archdiocese even though the Archbishop is the Chairman of its Board of Directors.
24.45 The second complainant described how he was abused while a patient in Crumlin Hospital. The abuse involved Fr Payne coming to his bed late at night and fondling him while ostensibly checking to see if he was comfortable. Monsignor Stenson interviewed the complainant and compiled a comprehensive report. Monsignor Stenson then met Fr Payne who said he did not remember the alleged incidents but “it‟s not impossible that there was some contact which was misinterpreted”. Later, the second complainant was told that Fr Payne did not deny the possibility that there was truth in the allegation and that Fr Payne was going for therapy. The complainant accepted this as an apology. This was extraordinarily charitable of him since it does not, in the Commission‟s view, constitute even a half hearted apology.
24.46 Also in July 1995, two boys from Sutton made statements to the Gardaí alleging abuse by Fr Payne. The boys were altar boys and the abuse involved fondling. It occurred in the sacristy. They did not complain to the Archdiocese at this time. The Gardaí conducted an investigation which included interviewing other altar boys from the area. The local priests co-operated by providing lists of altar boys to the Gardaí. The Archdiocese heard about this investigation in August 1995.
24.47 In August 1995, the meeting of the Archbishop and auxiliary bishops considered removing Fr Payne from the Marriage Tribunal. In letters to Archbishop Connell, Monsignor Sheehy argued strongly against this: “It would be disastrous not only as a public act – which it would obviously be, and at once portrayed to be – but, far worse, as an act which would very likely be the final destruction of a good priest of this diocese”. In September, Fr Payne resigned as Vice Officialis but seems to have remained working for the Marriage Tribunal. From then until the end of the year there was extensive media coverage of the case and of child sexual abuse generally; the allegations of abuse in the diocese of Ferns were also being aired. The issue of the loan to Fr Payne was widely covered in the media – see below. More complainants came forward; most were from Crumlin and some were from Sutton.
24.48 In September 1995, the father of a boy in Sutton complained to the Archdiocese. The father questioned his son about Fr Payne after the father had got inquiries from a journalist. The father questioned why the Church authorities had not initiated some inquiries in the area. Also in September another man who alleged that he had been abused while a child in Crumlin hospital complained to the Archdiocese. His allegations were similar to those of the second complainant and he did not want to go to the Gardaí either. He did not complain to the hospital.
24.49 A priest who had served with Fr Payne in Sutton reported to Monsignor Stenson that he had not been aware of the complaints against Fr Payne while he was there. Now, in hindsight, Fr Payne‟s behaviour would give him cause for concern. He specifically mentioned a young foreign student who used to stay with Fr Payne and that this particular friendship gave rise to some critical comments at the time.
24.50 In October 1995, other former Crumlin patients came forward alleging abuse by Fr Payne. One of these said he had told his parents about the abuse at the time but was told not to be talking like that about a priest. His mother was now very upset when he reminded her that she had been told about it at the time.
24.51 The Secretary/Manager of Crumlin Hospital told Monsignor Stenson that some nursing people had a problem with Fr Payne while he was there. One complainant told the Commission that she complained to a physiotherapist and a person whom she thinks was a nurse about the abuse at the time.
24.52 Another complainant from Sutton complained that he had been abused over a number of years by Fr Payne in Sutton and in a children‟s holiday home. Fr Payne did not have an official appointment to this holiday home but, according to this complainant, he used to take care of some boys there. This complainant met Fr Payne in the holiday home and was abused while there and also at Fr Payne‟s house in Sutton. The abuse mainly involved fondling and mutual masturbation. This complainant also alleged that there was oral sex, digital penetration and attempted penile penetration.
24.53 Monsignor Sheehy continued to support Fr Payne‟s position in the Marriage Tribunal and railed against Archbishop Connell‟s proposal that he be removed: “[I] … could not but regard such a precipitate and so-called „public opinion‟-motivated decision as a grave mistake, pregnant with the possibility of even more grave injustice”. Monsignor Sheehy was very critical of a trip to the USA undertaken by Monsignor Stenson and “some civil-law associates”. This was a trip undertaken in 1994 to find out more about how the American bishops were dealing with cases of child sexual abuse.
24.54 Fr Payne resigned from the Marriage Tribunal in October following a meeting with Bishop O‟Mahony. It was clear that he felt there was no choice and he stipulated that his resignation was conditional on being given more appropriate accommodation and an assigned place in which to say mass daily.
24.55 Fr Payne became a beneficiary of the Diocesan Clerical Fund. He was attending the Granada Institute and he continued to attend for the next three years. The Garda investigation was continuing. Initially this was mainly concentrated on Sutton as the first complaints to the Gardaí came from there. The Archdiocese held a public meeting in Sutton to reassure the parishioners there.
24.56 Another Crumlin patient made a complaint followed soon afterwards by a Cabra complainant It is clear from the various statements made to the Gardaí by children abused in Crumlin that other children may also have been abused in their presence.
24.57 In November 1995, another person from Crumlin complained to the Archdiocese. Unlike all the other Crumlin complainants to date, he had not been a patient in Crumlin hospital but was an altar boy there and lived locally. He told Monsignor Stenson that it was “common knowledge” what Fr Payne was doing. In December, another former Crumlin hospital patient complained.
24.58 Monsignor Sheehy continued to argue against the way the Archbishop was handling the allegations. Monsignor Sheehy‟s main concerns were:
The public naming of priests against whom allegations had been made – he cited Fr Francis McCarthy (see Chapter 41) – when no formal charges had been made either in the ecclesiastical or the civil forum nor had there been any serious inquiry made in the ecclesiastical forum.
The priest could take an action for defamation against the Church authorities.
The public impression was that the bishops were being media driven.
There was a growing impression that the church had no means of dealing with these problems and that the problem could only be handled by the state. This impression had been “fuelled by some episcopal statements and actions”. He cited canons 204, 747, 794.1, and 1254.1 as showing that the canon law recognises the separation of Church and state. The Church should concern itself solely with applying its own law and it was up to the state to act in accordance with its laws. He questioned whether the state was doing that when it, in the case of Fr Payne, was “trawling” the homes of altar boys in the parish.
24.59 Archbishop Connell replied to Monsignor Sheehy:
“I am afraid that the „growing impression that the Church has itself no means of dealing seriously with a problem such as the current one‟ is not half so acute as the widespread belief that the means hitherto employed by the Church have failed to deal with the problems. … It is clear to me, for example, that if the recently published allegation against Father Payne is true, the ground upon which I and others have been standing in supporting him – at so terrible a cost – will have completely collapsed”.
More complaints and prosecution, 1996 - 1997
24.60 Fr Payne was questioned by the Gardaí in February 1996. Another former Crumlin hospital patient complained to the Gardaí. In his statement to the Gardaí he said that he told the nurses that he did not want Fr Payne coming near him but they had paid no attention to him. Fr Payne was later convicted in relation to the abuse of this complainant.
24.61 It is clear that there was no serious monitoring of Fr Payne‟s whereabouts at this time. In February 1996, he was seen in Northern Ireland with “two lads”; when asked, Fr Payne said they were two Austrians and one was a girl – nothing further was done even though concerns had already been expressed about his relationship with an Austrian.
24.62 Archbishop Connell seems to have held the view that Bishop O‟Mahony was responsible for monitoring Fr Payne but it is not clear that this responsibility was ever explicitly given to Bishop O‟Mahony. Bishop O‟Mahony resigned as an auxiliary bishop in 1996; he was ill for much of the period 1996 – 1998 and was abroad for treatment for some of this time.
24.63 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that, to the best of his recollection, he did not meet Fr Payne until he visited him in prison. There is evidence of an appointment with Fr Payne in the Archbishop‟s diary for 1996; the Cardinal accepts that that meeting took place but he has no recollection of it.
24.64 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he did not know what was being done about Fr Payne in the period 1996 – 98: “it was a matter for the Chancellery”. It is quite clear that it was not a matter for the chancellor as the chancellor has no powers to reprimand or sanction a priest. Cardinal Connell also said that he was not aware of the ongoing arrangements for Fr Payne‟s financial support during this period.
24.65 Fr Payne was attending Granada and Bishop O‟Mahony was “very good to him”. Another former Crumlin hospital patient complained in early 1997.
24.66 The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided to prosecute in respect of some of the complaints. There was no prosecution in respect of several of the cases from Crumlin because the complainants were unable to provide a clear description of Fr Payne.
24.67 In March 1997, Fr Payne was charged with 13 counts of indecent assault on nine of the complainants. Later he was charged with 29 counts of indecent assault on Andrew Madden. There were a number of court appearances during 1997. His support priest accompanied him to court. He was continuing to attend the Granada Institute. Monsignor Dolan (who was now the chancellor) and Fr Payne‟s support priest attended meetings with Granada. In October 1997, Monsignor Dolan had intended raising the issue of the formal removal of faculties from Fr Payne but did not do so when he was told of Fr Payne‟s non-involvement in pastoral ministry.
24.68 As part of their ongoing inquiries, the Gardaí made various attempts to interview Bishop O‟Mahony during 1997. Bishop O‟Mahony issued a statement in 1998 saying that the Gardaí had tried to contact him in 1997 but that he was unavailable due to convalescence in the USA.
Conviction and imprisonment, 1998
24.69 Fr Payne pleaded guilty in January 1998 to charges of indecent assault on ten victims and was sentenced in June 1998 to six years‟ imprisonment. He remained in prison until October 2002. He was visited in prison by Archbishop Connell in 2000 and 2002. The Commission considers that this is to Archbishop Connell‟s credit. He was visited regularly by his support priest who also brought his (Fr Payne‟s) mother to visit him in prison.
24.70 Archbishop Connell wrote a kind letter to Fr Payne‟s mother immediately after he was convicted. Fr Payne wrote to the Archbishop just before his sentencing expressing his regret and sorrow for the suffering the Archbishop had endured following the revelation of his abusive behaviour and to thank him for his support.
24.71 In February 1998, one complainant complained that he never received an apology despite the fact that it had been more than two years since he had met Monsignor Stenson and reported the abuse. He is one of the complainants who did not complain to Gardaí and did not make a civil claim. There does not appear to have been much follow up for this particular complainant. Another complainant complained that there had been no follow up from the diocese. In June 1998, the Archdiocese agreed to pay for therapy for one complainant. The policy was to pay for therapy for six months and then review the situation. Therapy was subsequently provided for a number of the complainants who sought it. Compensation was agreed with those who sought it.
Laicisation
24.72 In 2001, the Archdiocese asked Fr Payne to apply for laicisation. Fr Payne was shocked but eventually agreed. He was laicised in 2002. When he was released from prison, he went to live in the inner city. Some limited arrangements were made for his supervision while there but the local clergy do not seem to have been informed that he was living among them. He was visited by his therapist, his support priest and Monsignor Dolan. Monsignor Dolan told the Commission that he liaised with the Gardaí about the suitability of the accommodation. Fr Payne‟s whereabouts became known and there was a campaign to remove him. He moved to the UK in 2003. He has since moved a few times. At present, the Commission understands that he lives outside Ireland, but he has a convenience address in Ireland.
24.73 After his release from prison he was supported by the Clerical Fund Society. His entitlement to this support ceased on laicisation. The Archdiocese decided that, in view of his low employment prospects and his risk of becoming destitute, he should be supported at least until he qualified for the State Pension in 2009. This support was provided from the Poor of Dublin Fund (see Chapter 8) for the period until June 2007. He is now supported from the Curial Trust and money paid from the Poor of Dublin Fund has been reimbursed from the Curial Trust.
24.74 More allegations continued to emerge up to 2008.
The loan
24.75 The Archdiocese issued a statement about the loan to Fr Payne in 1995. In this, Archbishop Connell said that he had been approached by Fr Payne about a loan. It appears from other evidence that Archbishop Connell instructed the diocesan solicitors to offer Fr Payne a loan. Archbishop Connell said that he was motivated by a desire to see Andrew Madden “recompensed without undue delay” and that Fr Payne was functioning “more than satisfactorily” in his ministry and there was nothing to suggest that children were at risk.
24.76 In May 1995 Archbishop Connell said on RTE television: “I have compensated nobody. I have paid out nothing whatever in compensation. It is my policy that if a priest is guilty and he wishes to make an out-of-court settlement that is his responsibility. The diocese does not pay for that”.
24.77 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that Mr Madden was entitled to compensation as Fr Payne had admitted the abuse. His decision to lend money to Fr Payne to pay the compensation was also based on his pastoral concern for Fr Payne as a man who it seemed, on the evidence available to him, “had reformed and would be able to live his life free of all that concern”.
24.78 The loan was given from money in the Curial Trust. In evidence to the Commission, Cardinal Connell said that he did not know if he was a trustee of the fund: “I would have left all that kind of thing to the Finance Secretariat”. Fr Payne repaid £5,000 in 1994. There is documentary evidence that Archbishop Connell personally paid £3,000 off the loan but he had no recollection of that when giving evidence to the Commission. Clearly, Fr Payne considered that the Archbishop had given a personal loan as he tried to repay £1,500 of this in September 1996. This was treated as a repayment of part of the diocesan loan. During 1996 and 1997, Fr Payne made further repayments. Fr Payne had no income while he was in prison so no further repayments were made. The outstanding loan to Fr Payne – approximately €14,000 – was written off in the accounts in 2004 when Mr Payne, as he then was, was receiving only a charitable donation from the Archdiocese.
The Commission’s assessment
The Archdiocese
24.79 The initial complaint against Fr Payne was handled very badly and, as a result of the failure to deal with it properly, many other children were abused or potentially exposed to abuse. Archbishop Ryan and Bishop O‟Mahony were particularly culpable. Archbishop Ryan did not properly address the complaint at all. He left it to Bishop O‟Mahony but did not specify what was to be done. Bishop O‟Mahony sent Fr Payne for psychiatric assessment but did not brief the psychiatrist properly. He then received a report from which it is clear that the psychiatrist was under a misapprehension about the age of the victim when the abuse occurred and he did nothing to rectify that misapprehension. He reported to Archbishop Ryan that there was a favourable assessment. Archbishop Ryan did not even read the report; if he had, he might have discovered its complete uselessness as it was based on erroneous information. Nobody contacted the victim or made any attempt to find out about the other boy mentioned by the victim. When they eventually met, Andrew Madden thought that Bishop O‟Mahony was sympathetic and generally a nice man but was very clear that the bishop was not really addressing the issue of the safety of children.
24.80 When Archbishop Connell first became aware of the problem, he did not inform himself properly. He took a very hands off approach to this case. The Archbishop seems to have met Fr Payne only once before Fr Payne went to prison. He regarded Bishop O‟Mahony as being in charge even though Bishop O‟Mahony was retired, abroad and ill for some of the relevant time. He nevertheless was financially kind to Fr Payne and visited him in prison. He was also kind to Fr Payne‟s mother. Cardinal Connell disputes the assessment that he took a hands off approach. He points out that he declined to promote Fr Payne in 1991, that he sent him to the USA for an assessment in 1994 and, as a result of that assessment, he removed him from Sutton parish. He argues that he was poorly advised in that he relied on Bishop O‟Mahony‟s report of Professor Walsh‟s assessment and on the report from the USA therapeutic facility which incorrectly concluded that Fr Payne had not offended since his abuse of Andrew Madden. The Commission notes that Fr Payne was not removed from Sutton for six months after the USA report. The USA report also recommended residential treatment and this was not implemented. The Commission agrees that Archbishop Connell was poorly advised but, ultimately, as Archbishop, he had responsibility for the appointment and removal of priests and so should have been more directly involved.
24.81 Monsignor Sheehy was not directly involved in handling this case but he was an influential background figure. He believed in Fr Payne‟s innocence even when it became abundantly clear that there was no basis for such a belief. He took the view that handing over a priest to the civil authorities for investigation was wrong and was contrary to canon law. The Archdiocese did not “hand over” Fr Payne for investigation by the civil authorities. A complaint was made to the Gardaí and they investigated it as they are required to do. Monsignor Sheehy wrote eloquently on the subject of the rights of priests without ever managing to refer to, or consider, the rights of children. He acted in an entirely irresponsible manner in arranging supply work for Fr Payne when Archbishop Connell had effectively, but not formally, removed him from ministry.
State authorities
24.82 Neither the health board nor the Gardaí was informed of the first complaint at the time. The Gardaí first received a complaint about Fr Payne in 1995 and dealt appropriately with this and subsequent complaints.
24.83 The health board does not seem to have been formally notified of complaints about Fr Payne at any stage. However, his name was in the public domain from 1994 onwards. It was notified of the fact that he was being released from prison in 2002.
Introduction
24.1 Ivan Payne was born in 1942 and ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1967. He was chaplain to Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin77 for a number of years. The Archbishop of Dublin was then, and continues to be, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the hospital. Appointments in the Archdiocese of Dublin are generally clear and well recorded. Priests are notified in writing of new appointments. However, Fr Payne‟s status in relation to Crumlin hospital is not clear for all of the years during which he was associated with it. He was appointed as chaplain to the hospital in February 1968. In October 1970 he started studies in University College Dublin and was appointed as assistant priest in Mourne Road parish. Crumlin hospital is located within the boundaries of that parish. It is not clear if he was meant to continue in his role as chaplain to the hospital but he clearly had access as such until 1974. Hospital records show that he did most of the baptisms there in 1970/71 and continued to do baptisms until 1974. Fr Payne explained to Monsignor Stenson in 1995 that, as there was no residential accommodation for a chaplain in the hospital, he lived with his parents in Drimnagh until appointed to Mourne Road and continued nominally as chaplain while in Mourne Road but the job was shared between the Mourne Road priests. He was appointed curate in Mourne Road in August 1972 and continued his involvement with the hospital. He left there in August 1974 and studied abroad for two years.
24.2 Fr Payne was appointed to the Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal in 1976 and he remained there until 1995. During this time he was also assigned to parishes and he lived in the parish accommodation. He was appointed as parish chaplain in Cabra in 1976 and subsequently in Sutton in 1983. He was regarded in the Archdiocese as being intellectually capable and was generally held in high regard. Consequently, his case was particularly shocking for the people who worked in Archbishop‟s House.
Extent of abuse
24.3 Ivan Payne is a convicted serial child sexual abuser. The Commission is aware of a total of 31 people who have made allegations of child sexual abuse against him; 16 of these people allege they were abused during his time as chaplain in Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin and the vast majority are male. There are concerns or suspicions that a number of other children were abused by him. He was convicted of indecent assault in respect of ten victims and he served a prison sentence. Compensation has been paid by the Archdiocese to nine78 of the victims in respect of whom he was convicted and to three other victims. It is likely that some other victims made claims to the Residential Institutions Redress Board79. The Archdiocese first heard a complaint about Fr Payne in 1981. The rest of the victims came forward in the period from 1995 onwards – the majority in the years 1995 and 1996; of these, seven were abused after the first complaint had been made to the Archdiocese.
First complaint to the Archdiocese
24.4 The first complaint to the Archdiocese about Fr Payne was made in November 1981. The complaint concerned the abuse of Andrew Madden.80 It was made by Andrew Madden‟s school guidance counsellor to Monsignor Alex Stenson who had been appointed chancellor of the Archdiocese a month earlier. Monsignor Stenson compiled a comprehensive contemporaneous written account of the allegations being made. The abuse took place in the house in which Fr Payne lived while attached to Cabra parish. Fr Payne was also working in the Regional Marriage Tribunal at the time. The abuse started when Andrew Madden was about 12 years old (about 1976) and continued until 1981. Andrew Madden visited Fr Payne‟s house every Saturday. The abuse involved fondling and masturbation. Fr Payne described the abuse (in 1993) as “going as far as was necessary to get satisfied without unnecessary violation”. Andrew Madden also mentioned that there was another boy who seemed to have a relationship with Fr Payne and who was particularly vulnerable because of his home situation.
24.5 Monsignor Stenson was a part time chancellor. This was his first case of this kind. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he went to Monsignor Gerard Sheehy for advice because Monsignor Sheehy was a former Chancellor and he was the head of the Marriage Tribunal where both Fr Payne and Monsignor Stenson worked at the time. Monsignor Sheehy advised him to make detailed notes and to tell Archbishop Ryan. Monsignor Stenson then told Archbishop Ryan who instructed him to ask Bishop O‟Mahony to deal with it.
Role of Bishop O’Mahony
24.6 Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that, when he was appointed as an auxiliary bishop (in April 1975), Archbishop Ryan gave him responsibility for the pastoral care of priests, particularly younger priests. This was not a written or formal appointment but it became known over a period of time by the priests of the Archdiocese. He says that this appointment was the “source of my responsibility for the pastoral care of Fr Ivan Payne at a very difficult time in his life”.
24.7 Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he was contacted by the newly appointed Chancellor, Monsignor Stenson, sometime in November 1981 to say that there was a complaint against Fr Payne. Monsignor Stenson told him that he (Monsignor Stenson) was not the right person to deal with it as he and Fr Payne had been classmates and were currently working together in the Marriage Tribunal. Monsignor Stenson gave Bishop O‟Mahony some background information. Bishop O‟Mahony says that he believed that Archbishop Ryan was aware of and approved of Monsignor Stenson giving him responsibility for the case. However, Bishop O‟Mahony “never received any instructions or brief to act on behalf of Archbishop Ryan other than to deal with Fr Payne”. Bishop O‟Mahony described his role as that of a “priest helper”, that is, he was required to “express the pastoral care of the diocese rather than to be involved in the process of the case either civilly or canonically”.
24.8 This absence of clear lines of authority is one of many reasons why this case was badly handled at the time. Bishop O‟Mahony saw himself as having a pastoral role only. It is not at all clear that this is what Archbishop Ryan meant him to do because Archbishop Ryan did not talk to him about it and did not issue written instructions. The records suggest that Archbishop Ryan did not take an active role in dealing with the complaint but left it largely in the hands of Bishop O‟Mahony.
24.9 Bishop O‟Mahony met the school guidance counsellor who had made the complaint. He then spoke to Archbishop Ryan who indicated that he was considering removing Fr Payne from the Marriage Tribunal. Bishop O‟Mahony said that he thought it would be appropriate to have an assessment of Fr Payne before that decision was made.
24.10 Bishop O‟Mahony met Fr Payne in December 1981. Fr Payne admitted guilt. Bishop O‟Mahony was “inclined to accept” that Fr Payne had no other attachments. It is clear that Bishop O‟Mahony knew the extent of the abuse and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Fr Payne said in 1993 that he had been assured by Bishop O‟Mahony that prosecution was unlikely.
24.11 Bishop O‟Mahony went to see Professor Noel Walsh, Professor of Psychiatry in UCD and a consultant psychiatrist, in his rooms in St Vincent‟s Hospital. He told the Commission that he “thoroughly briefed” Professor Walsh about “the nature and circumstances of Andrew Madden‟s allegations against Fr Ivan Payne”. He informed Professor Walsh that the “complainant was male and a minor”.
24.12 Fr Payne was then sent to Professor Walsh for assessment. In his report, Professor Walsh described Fr Payne as having “successfully overcome the crisis in question”. The report identifies this “crisis” as a blurring of the boundaries between pastoral and personal with a 17-year-old boy. The report states:
“His basic psychological difficulties centre around a friendship which developed between himself and a seventeen year old youth in whom Father Payne took an interest, initially in the hope of helping him with his problems. Gradually as the relationship developed it became increasingly difficult to define the pastoral and counselling boundaries and the relationship became more of a special friendship”.
24.13 Bishop O‟Mahony contends that the report is unclear as to whether the complainant was 17 at the time Professor Walsh saw him or at the time the “friendship” started. The Commission thinks it is quite clear that Professor Walsh thought that the boy was 17 when the “friendship” started.
24.14 When Bishop O‟Mahony received Professor Walsh‟s report, he informed Archbishop Ryan of its contents, gave his view that the report was positive and recommended that Fr Payne‟s position be kept under review. The report was not sent to Archbishop Ryan nor did he ask to see it. There were no further communications between Archbishop Ryan and Bishop O‟Mahony about Fr Payne. Archbishop Ryan did not consult Bishop O‟Mahony about moving Fr Payne to Sutton. Bishop O‟Mahony did not know that Fr Payne had any involvement with a children‟s holiday home where he had no official appointment. Archbishop Ryan retired as Archbishop in September 1984 in order to take up an appointment in Rome.
24.15 Bishop O‟Mahony made no contact with Andrew Madden or his family at the time the complaint was made. He described this in 1996 as “a definite pastoral omission and hard to understand as it ran contrary to Diocesan policy even at that time”. Nobody seems to have made any effort to establish who the other boy mentioned by Andrew Madden was.
Role of Professor Noel Walsh
24.16 Professor Walsh gave evidence to the Commission in July 2007. He is now retired and he had destroyed the medical notes and records of all his private patients in September 2006 in accordance with legal guidelines on the retention and destruction of medical records.
24.17 He gave general evidence about his role in dealing with child sexual abuse and then dealt with his involvement with Fr Payne. In general, he made a distinction between clinical psychiatry and forensic psychiatry; he did not regard his role as forensic. He was not there to judge his patient but to see what he could do to help. He “was given no data as far as I can recall by any of the bishops. They didn‟t send me letters from parents who had complained or anything. So I did not have the data which presumably led the bishop or whoever to refer these patients to me”. As far as he can remember, he did not get any written brief. Words like paedophile or child abuser were never used; the priest “might have crossed a boundary” was a likely expression. The priests he saw never admitted sexual activity. They might have said that they had been over affectionate. His task was to determine if they had psychiatric problems (whether they suffered from mental illness or not); he was not there to judge whether or not they had done something wrong.
24.18 He is adamant that he did not hear the specific allegations against the priests. Bishop O‟Mahony and/or Canon McMahon would say: “we are concerned about this priest, there have been certain complaints against him and we would like you to assess him…[T]he communication to me would have been minimal”… [T]here was no such thing as a specific statement Fr X has been accused of this, that or the other”.
24.19 Professor Walsh was asked what was the purpose of the psychiatric assessment which he was doing. He said: “It‟s a good question. I mean, you‟d have to really ask the Church or its representatives. I mean, I think at the time there was a sense that perhaps they were mentally disturbed and this is why they were behaving that way. That isn‟t so in fact. The explanation for paedophilia is not a psychiatric one. It may be a factor but only a factor”.
24.20 Specifically on Fr Payne, Professor Walsh described him as “a very smooth person. I didn‟t believe him, even though he was a very interesting man to talk to and interview”.
24.21 Bishop O‟Mahony did not “reveal to me the degree of interference with the victims”. Professor Walsh thought that Fr Payne was conducting an inappropriate relationship with a 17 year old. Professor Walsh did not know why Fr Payne was sent to him again in 1991 and 1994. He was not given any extra information on these occasions.
24.22 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he did not feel well served by the experts, including medical experts. This was put to Professor Walsh by the Commission. Professor Walsh said that the medical or psychiatric element is only one aspect of the problem: “if you say that the psychiatrist is the expert who can give the answer, that is to simplify the nature of paedophilia”. Effectively, he said that the Church put too much faith in psychiatry.
24.23 Bishop O‟Mahony agreed that psychiatrists were not generally given written briefings. In the case of Fr Payne, he told the Commission that he went to Professor Walsh‟s rooms and briefed him on the “actual nature and circumstances of the case”. He told the Commission that oral briefings were preferable as “I can be much more nuanced”. He imagined that any psychiatrist would have taken notes of what he was being told.
24.24 It is clear to the Commission that Professor Walsh cannot have been told the precise nature of the complaint against Fr Payne. It is obvious from his report, and he confirmed to the Commission, that he considered that the complainant was 17 years old when some inappropriate relationship was being conducted. (In 1982, all male homosexual relationships were illegal in Ireland but 17 was the age of consent for heterosexual relationships.) The report is clearly based on incorrect information.
24.25 It seems that Bishop O‟Mahony was the only person who read Professor Walsh‟s 1982 report. It must have been obvious to him that Professor Walsh was making a report based on false information. Such reports are, of course, useless.
Developments 1982 - 1993
24.26 In September 1982, Fr Payne was appointed to Sutton parish as parish chaplain. It seems that the other clergy serving there, or subsequently appointed there, were not informed of his background. No supervisory arrangements were put in place. The formal letter of appointment is from Archbishop Ryan with the usual words of thanks for previous service.
24.27 Sometime before September 1984, Monsignor Sheehy asked Archbishop Ryan to appoint Fr Payne as Vice Officialis81. The Archbishop resolutely refused this request. In June 1985, Monsignor Sheehy wrote to Archbishop McNamara, who had succeeded Archbishop Ryan, suggesting that Fr Payne be appointed Vice Officialis. Bishop Eamonn Walsh, who was the Archbishop‟s secretary at the time, gave evidence to the Commission that he did not know if Archbishop McNamara was aware of the complaint against Fr Payne. Fr Payne was appointed as Vice Officialis that month. Monsignor Sheehy said in 1997 that Archbishop McNamara did know of the complaint and further said that Archbishop McNamara had spoken to Bishop O‟Mahony about it.
24.28 In 1989, Andrew Madden rang Bishop O‟Mahony and asked to meet him. He found the bishop “very personable and very nice and very warm”. He raised the question of Fr Payne‟s presence in Sutton. Bishop O‟Mahony told him that he had no reason to believe Fr Payne was sexually abusing children in Sutton. Mr Madden replied that he (Bishop O‟Mahony) had no reason to believe that Fr Payne had been sexually abusing him (Andrew Madden) in Cabra at the time it was happening. Mr Madden found himself “very un-reassured by his response. I thought it was very casual given the serious nature of the risk to children at the time”. Mr Madden had been refused entry to Clonliffe College to train for the priesthood and was convinced that this was because of his complaint in relation to Fr Payne. Bishop O‟Mahony tried to reassure him that this was not so, but Mr Madden did not believe him. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he subsequently tried to contact Mr Madden a number of times but was unable to do so. He met Mr Madden again in 1995 and it was, according to Bishop O‟Mahony, “a friendly meeting”.
24.29 Fr Payne first came to the attention of Archbishop Connell in October 1991 when a question arose about promoting him from the Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal to be the President of the National Marriage Appeal Tribunal. Archbishop Connell consulted the auxiliary bishops and was told by Bishop O‟Mahony to look at Fr Payne‟s file in the secret archive. Having discovered what had happened in 1981, Archbishop Connell decided not to agree to his promotion. He satisfied himself that Fr Payne was not a danger to children, but considered he could not agree to the promotion as he would have to inform the other members of the Bishops‟ Conference about the complaint. This would, Cardinal Connell told the Commission, involve “defaming” Fr Payne. He explained that defamation involved both the sin of calumny and the sin of detraction. Calumny is the “unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty”82. Detraction is the “unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer”.83 So, defamation in church law includes both true and untrue statements. Defamation in civil law involves only untrue statements: “Defamation is committed by the wrongful publication of a false statement about a person, which tends to lower that person in the eyes of right-thinking members of society or tends to hold that person up to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or causes that person to be shunned or avoided by right-thinking members of society.”84 Many of the failures to report appalling behaviour by clergy may well be attributable to a wish to avoid committing the sin of detraction.
24.30 At this stage, Bishop O‟Mahony again sent Fr Payne to Professor Walsh for assessment. There is no written report of this assessment, but it appears from a subsequent report that Professor Walsh considered Fr Payne not to be a risk. This, of course, was still based on Professor Walsh‟s misapprehension about the nature of the complaint.
24.31 Cardinal Connell was questioned by the Commission on how he reached the conclusion that Fr Payne was not a risk. He said he “relied on Professor Walsh‟s assessment and opinion”. When questioned on this, he clarified that he did not read Professor Walsh‟s reports but instead relied on Bishop O‟Mahony‟s version of Professor Walsh‟s assessment and opinion.
24.32 Fr Payne became President of the Canon Law Association of Great Britain and Ireland.
24.33 In March 1992, Mr Madden wrote to Fr Payne looking for compensation; he did not seek compensation from the Archdiocese. Fr Payne seems to have told Bishop O‟Mahony about this. Archbishop Connell first heard of this when Mr Madden wrote to him in April 1993 complaining about the delay in settling his claim. The diocesan solicitors were acting for Fr Payne. They thought that Fr Payne had been referred to them by the Archdiocese. When Archbishop Connell received Mr Madden‟s letter, Monsignor Stenson spoke to Mr Madden and gave him Bishop O‟Mahony‟s phone number. The diocesan solicitors were instructed by Archbishop Connell to offer Fr Payne financial assistance in disposing of the case. Fr Payne was advised to get separate representation. A settlement was reached between Mr Madden and Fr Payne in May 1993. The financing of that settlement was later to prove very controversial and is dealt with further below.
24.34 In the context of these proceedings, Fr Payne admitted that he had experienced sexual desire towards youngsters prior to Mr Madden and had made moves on two boys and these were rejected. He claimed that he had not interfered with children since.
Public knowledge of complaint, 1994
24.35 From August 1994, Mr Madden began speaking to a number of journalists and the first media references to the payment began to appear. Mr Madden was angry that the Church continued to deny that anyone had received a payment as a result of clerical child sexual abuse. There were no names in the public domain at this stage.
24.36 Fr Payne was sent for a third assessment to Professor Walsh. It is clear from his report, issued in September 1994, that Professor Walsh was still operating under a misunderstanding about the nature of the complaint.
24.37 In November 1994, Mr Madden wrote letters to the papers under a pseudonym describing how his case had been handled. Archbishop Connell discussed this development with Monsignor Sheehy and suggested Fr Payne be sent for treatment. Monsignor Sheehy was the Judicial Vicar and so, was Fr Payne‟s superior, but he had no official role in dealing with priests who were abusing. He had been a close friend of Archbishop Connell since boyhood and was very influential. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that, as knowledge emerged about the wrongdoing of Fr Brendan Smyth in October 1994, he developed a greater understanding of what abusers were capable of. Even though there were no new complaints, he considered that prudence indicated that Fr Payne should be further evaluated. Monsignor Sheehy wrote, unsolicited, what can only be described as a tirade about anonymous letters and the unjust treatment of priests. Monsignor Sheehy‟s concerns, as expressed in letters to Monsignor Stenson and Archbishop Connell, were entirely related to the rights of the priest and the autonomy of the Church. He considered that sending Fr Payne for treatment was unwise and unjust and “a manifest invasion of his rights under the law of the Church”. He believed that Fr Payne had not re-offended (it is not clear what basis he had for this belief) and taking any action against him “could well destroy both him and his priesthood”. He went on to comment generally on the Church‟s approach to clerical child abusers:
“It is my opinion that there is a gross over-reaction on the part of many of our Church authorities to this whole "paedophile crisis‟. I heard the Cardinal85 on yesterday‟s radio specifically saying that, if there is a reasonable suspicion against a priest in this area, he should be turned over to the police for investigation and for whatever may follow from that. This is panic; it is also wrong. It takes no account whatever of the Church‟s own canonical procedures in dealing with situations of this kind – procedures which long have been acknowledged and accepted by the civil courts. There is, in my view, a real danger in all of this that some of the local churches may, unthinkingly, try to solve their problems at the risk of abandoning the autonomy which the Code of Canon Law, now clearly based on Vatican II, has established for the Church itself”.
1995
24.38 Fr Payne was sent to a therapeutic facility in the USA for a further assessment. Fr Payne told the therapists there Mr Madden was 13 when the abuse first started. A lengthy report was issued in January 1995 which showed, among other things, that Fr Payne:
“learned about sex in the seminary from the Archbishop of Dublin who called in seminarians for discussions”;
denied sexual contact with anyone other than Mr Madden;
was sexually attracted to adolescent boys but was also sexually attracted to adult men and women.
24.39 The therapeutic facility was inclined to believe that he had not engaged in sexual activity with adolescents other than Mr Madden, but recommended that he should have no unsupervised contact with minors. It also recommended that he undergo residential treatment.
24.40 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he did read this report. Fr Payne was not sent for residential treatment – it is not clear why. He did start to attend the Granada Institute in Dublin. He was continuing to work in Sutton parish (until June 1995) and in the Marriage Tribunal.
24.41 Mr Madden told his story on the Gay Byrne Show on RTE Radio 1 in April 1995. There were other media reports about the case. The Archdiocese issued a statement expressing regret and sorrow and a wish to be involved in the healing process. The statement went on to deal with the issues of the continuation in ministry by a priest who has offended and with the financial settlement.
24.42 The statement said that:
“While the presumption where child abuse has taken place is that the abuser will be removed and not be re-admitted to parish ministry, situations can arise where ministry may be possible. A core concern in such situations will be an evaluation of the potential risk to children. Decisions of this nature are made on grounds which are carefully considered and with the help of independent professional advice”. On the finance issue, it stated:
“As reported in recent days, a priest settled a claim in respect of such abuse. It has been suggested that this settlement was made by the diocese. Save for assistance as herein described, it was not. It is not and never has been the practice of the diocese to accept responsibility for any such settlement by a priest. The priest did receive financial assistance from the diocese to enable him to meet such claim, on the basis that this would be repaid, and a substantial portion in fact has already been repaid. The amount of the assistance is actually less than amounts donated to the diocese by the Archbishop himself out of his personal resources”.
24.43 During the early part of 1995, Monsignor Stenson heard reports from Sutton of inappropriate behaviour by Fr Payne and told Bishop O‟Mahony. There is no evidence that this was followed up. In June 1995, Fr Payne was released from Sutton (he had asked for this as he felt he had too much work), with the usual letter of thanks, and appointed chaplain to a convent. He did not in fact move to the convent but moved to a flat in the grounds of Archbishop‟s House instead. He did not get any subsequent appointment but he does not seem to have been formally removed from ministry. It would appear he had an agreement with Bishop O‟Mahony not to say mass in public. However, Monsignor Sheehy said he was doing supply work, including some arranged by Monsignor Sheehy himself. Monsignor Sheehy continued to campaign for him to be appointed to a chaplaincy. Cardinal Connell told the Commission this supply work was not being done with his knowledge or approval.
24.44 In July 1995, Mr Madden went public under his own name. Another complainant then came forward; he had been speaking to Bishop O‟Mahony since April but only named Fr Payne in July 1995. He claimed to have been abused while in Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin. He was advised by Bishop O‟Mahony to report the matter to the Gardaí. Bishop O‟Mahony explained to him that he could not guarantee confidentiality. The complainant was very unwilling to report to the Gardaí and, in fact, never did. He did not want to be the “cause of further bad publicity for the church”. He did not make a civil claim either. He did not report his complaint to the hospital and the hospital was not told by the Archdiocese even though the Archbishop is the Chairman of its Board of Directors.
24.45 The second complainant described how he was abused while a patient in Crumlin Hospital. The abuse involved Fr Payne coming to his bed late at night and fondling him while ostensibly checking to see if he was comfortable. Monsignor Stenson interviewed the complainant and compiled a comprehensive report. Monsignor Stenson then met Fr Payne who said he did not remember the alleged incidents but “it‟s not impossible that there was some contact which was misinterpreted”. Later, the second complainant was told that Fr Payne did not deny the possibility that there was truth in the allegation and that Fr Payne was going for therapy. The complainant accepted this as an apology. This was extraordinarily charitable of him since it does not, in the Commission‟s view, constitute even a half hearted apology.
24.46 Also in July 1995, two boys from Sutton made statements to the Gardaí alleging abuse by Fr Payne. The boys were altar boys and the abuse involved fondling. It occurred in the sacristy. They did not complain to the Archdiocese at this time. The Gardaí conducted an investigation which included interviewing other altar boys from the area. The local priests co-operated by providing lists of altar boys to the Gardaí. The Archdiocese heard about this investigation in August 1995.
24.47 In August 1995, the meeting of the Archbishop and auxiliary bishops considered removing Fr Payne from the Marriage Tribunal. In letters to Archbishop Connell, Monsignor Sheehy argued strongly against this: “It would be disastrous not only as a public act – which it would obviously be, and at once portrayed to be – but, far worse, as an act which would very likely be the final destruction of a good priest of this diocese”. In September, Fr Payne resigned as Vice Officialis but seems to have remained working for the Marriage Tribunal. From then until the end of the year there was extensive media coverage of the case and of child sexual abuse generally; the allegations of abuse in the diocese of Ferns were also being aired. The issue of the loan to Fr Payne was widely covered in the media – see below. More complainants came forward; most were from Crumlin and some were from Sutton.
24.48 In September 1995, the father of a boy in Sutton complained to the Archdiocese. The father questioned his son about Fr Payne after the father had got inquiries from a journalist. The father questioned why the Church authorities had not initiated some inquiries in the area. Also in September another man who alleged that he had been abused while a child in Crumlin hospital complained to the Archdiocese. His allegations were similar to those of the second complainant and he did not want to go to the Gardaí either. He did not complain to the hospital.
24.49 A priest who had served with Fr Payne in Sutton reported to Monsignor Stenson that he had not been aware of the complaints against Fr Payne while he was there. Now, in hindsight, Fr Payne‟s behaviour would give him cause for concern. He specifically mentioned a young foreign student who used to stay with Fr Payne and that this particular friendship gave rise to some critical comments at the time.
24.50 In October 1995, other former Crumlin patients came forward alleging abuse by Fr Payne. One of these said he had told his parents about the abuse at the time but was told not to be talking like that about a priest. His mother was now very upset when he reminded her that she had been told about it at the time.
24.51 The Secretary/Manager of Crumlin Hospital told Monsignor Stenson that some nursing people had a problem with Fr Payne while he was there. One complainant told the Commission that she complained to a physiotherapist and a person whom she thinks was a nurse about the abuse at the time.
24.52 Another complainant from Sutton complained that he had been abused over a number of years by Fr Payne in Sutton and in a children‟s holiday home. Fr Payne did not have an official appointment to this holiday home but, according to this complainant, he used to take care of some boys there. This complainant met Fr Payne in the holiday home and was abused while there and also at Fr Payne‟s house in Sutton. The abuse mainly involved fondling and mutual masturbation. This complainant also alleged that there was oral sex, digital penetration and attempted penile penetration.
24.53 Monsignor Sheehy continued to support Fr Payne‟s position in the Marriage Tribunal and railed against Archbishop Connell‟s proposal that he be removed: “[I] … could not but regard such a precipitate and so-called „public opinion‟-motivated decision as a grave mistake, pregnant with the possibility of even more grave injustice”. Monsignor Sheehy was very critical of a trip to the USA undertaken by Monsignor Stenson and “some civil-law associates”. This was a trip undertaken in 1994 to find out more about how the American bishops were dealing with cases of child sexual abuse.
24.54 Fr Payne resigned from the Marriage Tribunal in October following a meeting with Bishop O‟Mahony. It was clear that he felt there was no choice and he stipulated that his resignation was conditional on being given more appropriate accommodation and an assigned place in which to say mass daily.
24.55 Fr Payne became a beneficiary of the Diocesan Clerical Fund. He was attending the Granada Institute and he continued to attend for the next three years. The Garda investigation was continuing. Initially this was mainly concentrated on Sutton as the first complaints to the Gardaí came from there. The Archdiocese held a public meeting in Sutton to reassure the parishioners there.
24.56 Another Crumlin patient made a complaint followed soon afterwards by a Cabra complainant It is clear from the various statements made to the Gardaí by children abused in Crumlin that other children may also have been abused in their presence.
24.57 In November 1995, another person from Crumlin complained to the Archdiocese. Unlike all the other Crumlin complainants to date, he had not been a patient in Crumlin hospital but was an altar boy there and lived locally. He told Monsignor Stenson that it was “common knowledge” what Fr Payne was doing. In December, another former Crumlin hospital patient complained.
24.58 Monsignor Sheehy continued to argue against the way the Archbishop was handling the allegations. Monsignor Sheehy‟s main concerns were:
The public naming of priests against whom allegations had been made – he cited Fr Francis McCarthy (see Chapter 41) – when no formal charges had been made either in the ecclesiastical or the civil forum nor had there been any serious inquiry made in the ecclesiastical forum.
The priest could take an action for defamation against the Church authorities.
The public impression was that the bishops were being media driven.
There was a growing impression that the church had no means of dealing with these problems and that the problem could only be handled by the state. This impression had been “fuelled by some episcopal statements and actions”. He cited canons 204, 747, 794.1, and 1254.1 as showing that the canon law recognises the separation of Church and state. The Church should concern itself solely with applying its own law and it was up to the state to act in accordance with its laws. He questioned whether the state was doing that when it, in the case of Fr Payne, was “trawling” the homes of altar boys in the parish.
24.59 Archbishop Connell replied to Monsignor Sheehy:
“I am afraid that the „growing impression that the Church has itself no means of dealing seriously with a problem such as the current one‟ is not half so acute as the widespread belief that the means hitherto employed by the Church have failed to deal with the problems. … It is clear to me, for example, that if the recently published allegation against Father Payne is true, the ground upon which I and others have been standing in supporting him – at so terrible a cost – will have completely collapsed”.
More complaints and prosecution, 1996 - 1997
24.60 Fr Payne was questioned by the Gardaí in February 1996. Another former Crumlin hospital patient complained to the Gardaí. In his statement to the Gardaí he said that he told the nurses that he did not want Fr Payne coming near him but they had paid no attention to him. Fr Payne was later convicted in relation to the abuse of this complainant.
24.61 It is clear that there was no serious monitoring of Fr Payne‟s whereabouts at this time. In February 1996, he was seen in Northern Ireland with “two lads”; when asked, Fr Payne said they were two Austrians and one was a girl – nothing further was done even though concerns had already been expressed about his relationship with an Austrian.
24.62 Archbishop Connell seems to have held the view that Bishop O‟Mahony was responsible for monitoring Fr Payne but it is not clear that this responsibility was ever explicitly given to Bishop O‟Mahony. Bishop O‟Mahony resigned as an auxiliary bishop in 1996; he was ill for much of the period 1996 – 1998 and was abroad for treatment for some of this time.
24.63 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that, to the best of his recollection, he did not meet Fr Payne until he visited him in prison. There is evidence of an appointment with Fr Payne in the Archbishop‟s diary for 1996; the Cardinal accepts that that meeting took place but he has no recollection of it.
24.64 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he did not know what was being done about Fr Payne in the period 1996 – 98: “it was a matter for the Chancellery”. It is quite clear that it was not a matter for the chancellor as the chancellor has no powers to reprimand or sanction a priest. Cardinal Connell also said that he was not aware of the ongoing arrangements for Fr Payne‟s financial support during this period.
24.65 Fr Payne was attending Granada and Bishop O‟Mahony was “very good to him”. Another former Crumlin hospital patient complained in early 1997.
24.66 The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided to prosecute in respect of some of the complaints. There was no prosecution in respect of several of the cases from Crumlin because the complainants were unable to provide a clear description of Fr Payne.
24.67 In March 1997, Fr Payne was charged with 13 counts of indecent assault on nine of the complainants. Later he was charged with 29 counts of indecent assault on Andrew Madden. There were a number of court appearances during 1997. His support priest accompanied him to court. He was continuing to attend the Granada Institute. Monsignor Dolan (who was now the chancellor) and Fr Payne‟s support priest attended meetings with Granada. In October 1997, Monsignor Dolan had intended raising the issue of the formal removal of faculties from Fr Payne but did not do so when he was told of Fr Payne‟s non-involvement in pastoral ministry.
24.68 As part of their ongoing inquiries, the Gardaí made various attempts to interview Bishop O‟Mahony during 1997. Bishop O‟Mahony issued a statement in 1998 saying that the Gardaí had tried to contact him in 1997 but that he was unavailable due to convalescence in the USA.
Conviction and imprisonment, 1998
24.69 Fr Payne pleaded guilty in January 1998 to charges of indecent assault on ten victims and was sentenced in June 1998 to six years‟ imprisonment. He remained in prison until October 2002. He was visited in prison by Archbishop Connell in 2000 and 2002. The Commission considers that this is to Archbishop Connell‟s credit. He was visited regularly by his support priest who also brought his (Fr Payne‟s) mother to visit him in prison.
24.70 Archbishop Connell wrote a kind letter to Fr Payne‟s mother immediately after he was convicted. Fr Payne wrote to the Archbishop just before his sentencing expressing his regret and sorrow for the suffering the Archbishop had endured following the revelation of his abusive behaviour and to thank him for his support.
24.71 In February 1998, one complainant complained that he never received an apology despite the fact that it had been more than two years since he had met Monsignor Stenson and reported the abuse. He is one of the complainants who did not complain to Gardaí and did not make a civil claim. There does not appear to have been much follow up for this particular complainant. Another complainant complained that there had been no follow up from the diocese. In June 1998, the Archdiocese agreed to pay for therapy for one complainant. The policy was to pay for therapy for six months and then review the situation. Therapy was subsequently provided for a number of the complainants who sought it. Compensation was agreed with those who sought it.
Laicisation
24.72 In 2001, the Archdiocese asked Fr Payne to apply for laicisation. Fr Payne was shocked but eventually agreed. He was laicised in 2002. When he was released from prison, he went to live in the inner city. Some limited arrangements were made for his supervision while there but the local clergy do not seem to have been informed that he was living among them. He was visited by his therapist, his support priest and Monsignor Dolan. Monsignor Dolan told the Commission that he liaised with the Gardaí about the suitability of the accommodation. Fr Payne‟s whereabouts became known and there was a campaign to remove him. He moved to the UK in 2003. He has since moved a few times. At present, the Commission understands that he lives outside Ireland, but he has a convenience address in Ireland.
24.73 After his release from prison he was supported by the Clerical Fund Society. His entitlement to this support ceased on laicisation. The Archdiocese decided that, in view of his low employment prospects and his risk of becoming destitute, he should be supported at least until he qualified for the State Pension in 2009. This support was provided from the Poor of Dublin Fund (see Chapter 8) for the period until June 2007. He is now supported from the Curial Trust and money paid from the Poor of Dublin Fund has been reimbursed from the Curial Trust.
24.74 More allegations continued to emerge up to 2008.
The loan
24.75 The Archdiocese issued a statement about the loan to Fr Payne in 1995. In this, Archbishop Connell said that he had been approached by Fr Payne about a loan. It appears from other evidence that Archbishop Connell instructed the diocesan solicitors to offer Fr Payne a loan. Archbishop Connell said that he was motivated by a desire to see Andrew Madden “recompensed without undue delay” and that Fr Payne was functioning “more than satisfactorily” in his ministry and there was nothing to suggest that children were at risk.
24.76 In May 1995 Archbishop Connell said on RTE television: “I have compensated nobody. I have paid out nothing whatever in compensation. It is my policy that if a priest is guilty and he wishes to make an out-of-court settlement that is his responsibility. The diocese does not pay for that”.
24.77 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that Mr Madden was entitled to compensation as Fr Payne had admitted the abuse. His decision to lend money to Fr Payne to pay the compensation was also based on his pastoral concern for Fr Payne as a man who it seemed, on the evidence available to him, “had reformed and would be able to live his life free of all that concern”.
24.78 The loan was given from money in the Curial Trust. In evidence to the Commission, Cardinal Connell said that he did not know if he was a trustee of the fund: “I would have left all that kind of thing to the Finance Secretariat”. Fr Payne repaid £5,000 in 1994. There is documentary evidence that Archbishop Connell personally paid £3,000 off the loan but he had no recollection of that when giving evidence to the Commission. Clearly, Fr Payne considered that the Archbishop had given a personal loan as he tried to repay £1,500 of this in September 1996. This was treated as a repayment of part of the diocesan loan. During 1996 and 1997, Fr Payne made further repayments. Fr Payne had no income while he was in prison so no further repayments were made. The outstanding loan to Fr Payne – approximately €14,000 – was written off in the accounts in 2004 when Mr Payne, as he then was, was receiving only a charitable donation from the Archdiocese.
The Commission’s assessment
The Archdiocese
24.79 The initial complaint against Fr Payne was handled very badly and, as a result of the failure to deal with it properly, many other children were abused or potentially exposed to abuse. Archbishop Ryan and Bishop O‟Mahony were particularly culpable. Archbishop Ryan did not properly address the complaint at all. He left it to Bishop O‟Mahony but did not specify what was to be done. Bishop O‟Mahony sent Fr Payne for psychiatric assessment but did not brief the psychiatrist properly. He then received a report from which it is clear that the psychiatrist was under a misapprehension about the age of the victim when the abuse occurred and he did nothing to rectify that misapprehension. He reported to Archbishop Ryan that there was a favourable assessment. Archbishop Ryan did not even read the report; if he had, he might have discovered its complete uselessness as it was based on erroneous information. Nobody contacted the victim or made any attempt to find out about the other boy mentioned by the victim. When they eventually met, Andrew Madden thought that Bishop O‟Mahony was sympathetic and generally a nice man but was very clear that the bishop was not really addressing the issue of the safety of children.
24.80 When Archbishop Connell first became aware of the problem, he did not inform himself properly. He took a very hands off approach to this case. The Archbishop seems to have met Fr Payne only once before Fr Payne went to prison. He regarded Bishop O‟Mahony as being in charge even though Bishop O‟Mahony was retired, abroad and ill for some of the relevant time. He nevertheless was financially kind to Fr Payne and visited him in prison. He was also kind to Fr Payne‟s mother. Cardinal Connell disputes the assessment that he took a hands off approach. He points out that he declined to promote Fr Payne in 1991, that he sent him to the USA for an assessment in 1994 and, as a result of that assessment, he removed him from Sutton parish. He argues that he was poorly advised in that he relied on Bishop O‟Mahony‟s report of Professor Walsh‟s assessment and on the report from the USA therapeutic facility which incorrectly concluded that Fr Payne had not offended since his abuse of Andrew Madden. The Commission notes that Fr Payne was not removed from Sutton for six months after the USA report. The USA report also recommended residential treatment and this was not implemented. The Commission agrees that Archbishop Connell was poorly advised but, ultimately, as Archbishop, he had responsibility for the appointment and removal of priests and so should have been more directly involved.
24.81 Monsignor Sheehy was not directly involved in handling this case but he was an influential background figure. He believed in Fr Payne‟s innocence even when it became abundantly clear that there was no basis for such a belief. He took the view that handing over a priest to the civil authorities for investigation was wrong and was contrary to canon law. The Archdiocese did not “hand over” Fr Payne for investigation by the civil authorities. A complaint was made to the Gardaí and they investigated it as they are required to do. Monsignor Sheehy wrote eloquently on the subject of the rights of priests without ever managing to refer to, or consider, the rights of children. He acted in an entirely irresponsible manner in arranging supply work for Fr Payne when Archbishop Connell had effectively, but not formally, removed him from ministry.
State authorities
24.82 Neither the health board nor the Gardaí was informed of the first complaint at the time. The Gardaí first received a complaint about Fr Payne in 1995 and dealt appropriately with this and subsequent complaints.
24.83 The health board does not seem to have been formally notified of complaints about Fr Payne at any stage. However, his name was in the public domain from 1994 onwards. It was notified of the fact that he was being released from prison in 2002.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36171
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:29 am
Chapter 25: Fr Donato*86
Introduction
25.1 In July 1995, the Gardaí received a complaint from a young woman who claimed that she had been sexually abused by Fr Donato in the early 1980s when she was a school-girl. She claimed she had been seeing him for some time in relation to some personal problems. On a particular day, he asked her to come and sit on his lap. She claimed he spread her legs apart and then he slowly put one leg over the arm of the chair. She said he put his hand up her skirt and into her pants and, while he was doing this, he asked her had anyone else done it to her.
25.2 She said she went to see the parish priest that same day in the early 1980s. She claimed that he told her it was her own fault; that she should not dress the way she did and she should not say things about Fr Donato who was one of his best friends.
25.3 The young girl reported the matter to her teacher. The school principal was informed. The principal spoke to the girl‟s mother.
25.4 The parents of the young girl went to see the parish priest who told them that Fr Donato was a very affectionate young man. He said he had spoken to him and that he had felt that something had happened. He had warned Fr Donato to stay away from the young girl and assured the parents that it would never happen again. There is no evidence that the parish priest ever reported the matter to the archdiocesan authorities.
25.5 When the complaint was made to them in 1995, the Gardaí interviewed a number of the young girl‟s friends, her brother and Fr Donato himself in October 1995. Fr Donato recalled embracing her on the last day they had met in order to comfort her but he stated that there was no sexual element to it. He said that any touching that occurred “was done through emotion and care for her and was not of a sexual nature”. He told Gardaí he did recall the parish priest receiving a complaint.
25.6 The case did not result in a prosecution as the DPP considered there was insufficient evidence.
Priest’s background
25.7 Fr Donato was born in 1940 and ordained in 1970 for a foreign diocese. He initially worked in that diocese but, according to his local bishop, he got into difficulty with gambling debts and the bishop advised him to return to Ireland. In 1977, Archbishop Ryan considered his request for a pastoral appointment in Dublin and gave him an appointment in January 1978. Fr Donato‟s gambling difficulties were disclosed to Archbishop Ryan by his previous bishop. In 1981 he was formally incardinated (see Chapter 3) into the Archdiocese of Dublin. The committee which advised the Archbishop on matters of incardination had no reservation about his incardination.
25.8 In 1983 he was appointed to a new parish. It was during his period in this parish that the alleged indecent assault of the young schoolgirl occurred. He was subsequently appointed to other positions in the Archdiocese.
25.9 As already stated, a complaint had been made to the parish priest in 1984 but he did not inform the Archdiocesan authorities. The Archdiocese became aware of this complaint when the Gardaí told Monsignor Stenson about it in December 1995.
Adult complainant
25.10 The Archdiocese was, however, aware of a different complaint about Fr Donato in October 1992. This did not involve child sexual abuse. The mother of a 20 year old woman complained that her daughter was the victim of very unwelcome attentions from Fr Donato. She threatened to go to the media if nothing was done about him. With great haste a full investigation had been set in motion by the end of October. Canon Ardle McMahon was put in charge of the investigation. By early December, Canon McMahon had concluded his investigation stating that:
Both the priest and the young woman in question denied any sexual irregularity.
The relationship had lasted less than three months.
The priest admitted some errors in judgment.
The situation called for an expeditious solution: the report did not suggest what should be done.
Even though this was not a case of child sexual abuse, the young woman and her mother were adamant that Fr Donato should be removed. They reported the matter to the Gardaí who investigated whether an offence had been committed. No prosecution ensued.
25.11 Other problems, apart from the complaint of sexual harassment, arose about Fr Donato‟s ministry. Archbishop Connell met Fr Donato in June 1994 and suggested a sabbatical. In August 1994, he approved a year‟s sabbatical for him. This was to be spent attending a third level course. By the end of 1994 it was clear that Fr Donato was not actually attending the course.
25.12 In May 1995, Fr Donato stated that he wished to be released from ministerial priesthood. At the end of June, Archbishop Connell released him from ministry. This occurred 14 days before the young woman who had made the 1984 complaint went to the Gardaí. The request to be laicised from the priesthood was left in abeyance until August 1998 when Monsignor Dolan wrote to Fr Donato asking whether he still wished to be laicised. At this stage the Archdiocese had had little or no contact with Fr Donato for over three years. In September 1998, as no response had been received from him, Archbishop Connell withdrew his faculties. In December 1998, Fr Donato wrote to Archbishop Connell and told him that he was married; however, he did not wish to be laicised.
25.13 On further investigation, it transpired that Fr Donato had commenced a long-term relationship with a woman in or around 1977, the year he was first appointed to a position in Dublin, and they had had a daughter in 1979. They subsequently married in or around 1997. The Archdiocese had not been aware of this relationship.
The Commission’s assessment
25.14 The only complaint of child sexual abuse of which the Archdiocese became aware was the one involving the school girl who complained to the parish priest in 1984 and to the Gardaí in 1995. The parish priest was remiss in not reporting the matter to the Archdiocese.
25.15 It would appear that for the entire time this priest was working in the Archdiocese of Dublin, he had a relationship with a woman who bore him a child in 1979 yet the Archdiocese seems to have been totally unaware of this. Although he explained in a letter to Archbishop Connell in December 1998 that he was now married, it appears that he was not laicised until 2007.
25.16 No one in the Archdiocese knew anything about him for the years between 1995 and 1998 or tried to find out where he was, even though he was still a priest of the diocese and one against whom a complaint of child sexual abuse had been made.
25.17 The Gardaí carried out the investigations appropriately.
Introduction
25.1 In July 1995, the Gardaí received a complaint from a young woman who claimed that she had been sexually abused by Fr Donato in the early 1980s when she was a school-girl. She claimed she had been seeing him for some time in relation to some personal problems. On a particular day, he asked her to come and sit on his lap. She claimed he spread her legs apart and then he slowly put one leg over the arm of the chair. She said he put his hand up her skirt and into her pants and, while he was doing this, he asked her had anyone else done it to her.
25.2 She said she went to see the parish priest that same day in the early 1980s. She claimed that he told her it was her own fault; that she should not dress the way she did and she should not say things about Fr Donato who was one of his best friends.
25.3 The young girl reported the matter to her teacher. The school principal was informed. The principal spoke to the girl‟s mother.
25.4 The parents of the young girl went to see the parish priest who told them that Fr Donato was a very affectionate young man. He said he had spoken to him and that he had felt that something had happened. He had warned Fr Donato to stay away from the young girl and assured the parents that it would never happen again. There is no evidence that the parish priest ever reported the matter to the archdiocesan authorities.
25.5 When the complaint was made to them in 1995, the Gardaí interviewed a number of the young girl‟s friends, her brother and Fr Donato himself in October 1995. Fr Donato recalled embracing her on the last day they had met in order to comfort her but he stated that there was no sexual element to it. He said that any touching that occurred “was done through emotion and care for her and was not of a sexual nature”. He told Gardaí he did recall the parish priest receiving a complaint.
25.6 The case did not result in a prosecution as the DPP considered there was insufficient evidence.
Priest’s background
25.7 Fr Donato was born in 1940 and ordained in 1970 for a foreign diocese. He initially worked in that diocese but, according to his local bishop, he got into difficulty with gambling debts and the bishop advised him to return to Ireland. In 1977, Archbishop Ryan considered his request for a pastoral appointment in Dublin and gave him an appointment in January 1978. Fr Donato‟s gambling difficulties were disclosed to Archbishop Ryan by his previous bishop. In 1981 he was formally incardinated (see Chapter 3) into the Archdiocese of Dublin. The committee which advised the Archbishop on matters of incardination had no reservation about his incardination.
25.8 In 1983 he was appointed to a new parish. It was during his period in this parish that the alleged indecent assault of the young schoolgirl occurred. He was subsequently appointed to other positions in the Archdiocese.
25.9 As already stated, a complaint had been made to the parish priest in 1984 but he did not inform the Archdiocesan authorities. The Archdiocese became aware of this complaint when the Gardaí told Monsignor Stenson about it in December 1995.
Adult complainant
25.10 The Archdiocese was, however, aware of a different complaint about Fr Donato in October 1992. This did not involve child sexual abuse. The mother of a 20 year old woman complained that her daughter was the victim of very unwelcome attentions from Fr Donato. She threatened to go to the media if nothing was done about him. With great haste a full investigation had been set in motion by the end of October. Canon Ardle McMahon was put in charge of the investigation. By early December, Canon McMahon had concluded his investigation stating that:
Both the priest and the young woman in question denied any sexual irregularity.
The relationship had lasted less than three months.
The priest admitted some errors in judgment.
The situation called for an expeditious solution: the report did not suggest what should be done.
Even though this was not a case of child sexual abuse, the young woman and her mother were adamant that Fr Donato should be removed. They reported the matter to the Gardaí who investigated whether an offence had been committed. No prosecution ensued.
25.11 Other problems, apart from the complaint of sexual harassment, arose about Fr Donato‟s ministry. Archbishop Connell met Fr Donato in June 1994 and suggested a sabbatical. In August 1994, he approved a year‟s sabbatical for him. This was to be spent attending a third level course. By the end of 1994 it was clear that Fr Donato was not actually attending the course.
25.12 In May 1995, Fr Donato stated that he wished to be released from ministerial priesthood. At the end of June, Archbishop Connell released him from ministry. This occurred 14 days before the young woman who had made the 1984 complaint went to the Gardaí. The request to be laicised from the priesthood was left in abeyance until August 1998 when Monsignor Dolan wrote to Fr Donato asking whether he still wished to be laicised. At this stage the Archdiocese had had little or no contact with Fr Donato for over three years. In September 1998, as no response had been received from him, Archbishop Connell withdrew his faculties. In December 1998, Fr Donato wrote to Archbishop Connell and told him that he was married; however, he did not wish to be laicised.
25.13 On further investigation, it transpired that Fr Donato had commenced a long-term relationship with a woman in or around 1977, the year he was first appointed to a position in Dublin, and they had had a daughter in 1979. They subsequently married in or around 1997. The Archdiocese had not been aware of this relationship.
The Commission’s assessment
25.14 The only complaint of child sexual abuse of which the Archdiocese became aware was the one involving the school girl who complained to the parish priest in 1984 and to the Gardaí in 1995. The parish priest was remiss in not reporting the matter to the Archdiocese.
25.15 It would appear that for the entire time this priest was working in the Archdiocese of Dublin, he had a relationship with a woman who bore him a child in 1979 yet the Archdiocese seems to have been totally unaware of this. Although he explained in a letter to Archbishop Connell in December 1998 that he was now married, it appears that he was not laicised until 2007.
25.16 No one in the Archdiocese knew anything about him for the years between 1995 and 1998 or tried to find out where he was, even though he was still a priest of the diocese and one against whom a complaint of child sexual abuse had been made.
25.17 The Gardaí carried out the investigations appropriately.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36171
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:31 am
Chapter 26: Fr Harry Moore
Introduction
26.1 In March 1982, Archbishop Ryan received the following letter:
“At 4am approx. on Sat., February 27th 1982, I was indecently assaulted by Fr. H. Moore C.C. of St. Josephs parish, Glasthule Co. Dublin. Inquiries subsequently conducted by me lead me to believe that this was by no means an isolated incident. I therefore earnestly request that appropriate action be taken without delay”.
26.2 The sender of this letter identified himself and his address. However, he did not give his age but he is likely to have been in his late teens. The response of Archbishop Ryan was as follows: “In view of the fact that your letter of the 8th March was marked “Private and Confidential”, there is little I could do about the matter. If, however, you wish to discuss the matter further, I would ask that you get in touch with Monsignor Jerome Curtin, who is a Vicar General of the Diocese”.
Priest’s history
26.3 At the time of this complaint Fr Harry Moore was a curate in Glasthule parish and the alleged assault was said to have taken place in the presbytery. Fr Moore was born in 1936 and was ordained in 1960. His first appointment was as chaplain to Artane Industrial School from 1960 - 1967. During his time there he compiled a report at the request of Archbishop McQuaid on the conditions under which the boys lived in Artane. This report was handed over by the current Archbishop of Dublin to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.87
26.4 His next appointment after Artane was as a curate in Ringsend parish until 1975. He was then sent to Kilquade parish for one year. He asked to be reassigned because of loneliness and he was given a position as assistant priest in a Catholic youth organisation.
26.5 During this period Fr Moore developed a serious alcohol abuse problem and was admitted to St John of God Hospital in 1977. A comprehensive medical report from this hospital was provided to Archbishop Ryan in March 1977. This report stated that Fr Moore was admitted “ostensibly because he had a problem with alcohol” which he said started about three years earlier and had progressively become worse over the years.
26.6 The report stated that Fr Moore had begun to drink heavily in his early curacy and was consequently sent to a parish in Wicklow for six months where, owing to maladjustment, he was removed to the Catholic youth organisation for another six month stint. This in turn was followed by a year‟s sabbatical to study theology. By this time, the report noted, he had had two hospital stays for alcohol addiction.
26.7 He underwent various psychiatric and personality tests while in the hospital. The doctor noted that he had real concerns about Fr Moore‟s sexual functioning as he had “difficulty in satisfying his strong affectionate needs because of his inability to establish mature adult relationships”. His was described as a personality with “a very strong element of psychopathy and hysteria”. He recommended Fr Moore for team-based occupations if supervised correctly, but he did not recommend him for parish work.
26.8 Despite this medical report, Archbishop Ryan returned Fr Moore to active parish ministry, appointing him a curate in Edenmore parish in November 1977.
26.9 Over the next two years he is recorded as receiving treatment for alcohol dependency. Despite leaving one of the facilities without completing his therapy, he was appointed a curate in Glasthule in February 1980. It is while he was assigned to Glasthule that the complaint of indecent assault noted above was conveyed to the Archdiocese (in March 1982).
26.10 In August 1982, it was suggested to Archbishop Ryan, by his auxiliary bishop, Bishop Comiskey, that Fr Moore needed treatment in Stroud. Fr Moore himself reacted negatively to that proposition. Within hours of having been informed of this proposal he was reported as having been discovered drunk and “with some young lay men”. He had to be admitted to hospital suffering from an ulcer.
Treatment
26.11 In September 1982, Fr Moore was sent to a therapeutic facility in the UK (not Stroud). Archbishop Ryan wrote to the administrator outlining Fr Moore‟s situation. He explained that various attempts had been made to rehabilitate him but all had failed. He stated that in addition to his alcoholism “there is some evidence of sexual indiscretions during Fr Moore‟s drinking bouts but it has been rather difficult to collect evidence concerning the nature and extent of these activities”.
26.12 Of particular significance is the fact that Archbishop Ryan does not appear to have sent the report from the St John of God‟s doctor although he did send a confidential letter from a friend of Fr Moore.
26.13 Fr Moore was relieved of his curacy in Glasthule due to ill health. He remained at the UK facility until March 1983. The final report from the facility said that Fr Moore had explored his use of alcohol “as a means of covering his confused sexual identity, his way of evading responsibility…”. Further therapy was advised.
26.14 In June 1983 Fr Moore was appointed curate in Bayside parish. It was while he was there that he committed a number of very serious sexual assaults, including buggery, on a young teenager. Complaints in relation to these assaults were not received by the Archdiocese until 1999. The Archdiocese was, however, aware of his escalating alcohol problem while in Bayside. In 1985 he had become unmanageable because of his alcoholism and the parish priest had asked for him to be removed. He was then appointed to Francis Street but relapsed again.
26.15 Despite the 1982 complaint from Glasthule and his prior history, Fr Moore was appointed chaplain to a secondary school for boys in October 1986. He also had an appointment in Cabinteely parish. He complained in 1992 about the lack of an official appointment to the secondary school. It was noted in September 1993 that he was angry, upset and annoyed at having to attend a psychologist for assessment. It was noted by the psychologist, Dr Patrick Walsh, that “he is relieved to have given up his position as chaplain to the school but that he is happy to continue his work of giving school retreats”. In a submission to the Commission, Fr Moore said that he did not give school retreats but gave parish retreats.
Adverse reports. 1993 and 1995
26.16 In 1993 and again in 1995 there were adverse reports about Fr Moore‟s behaviour with young adults. There was an allegation of sexual assault. He was allegedly supplying young people with alcohol and hash and allowing them to watch blue movies in his home. There were also complaints of a very unsuitable phrase used in a school homily. The person who made the majority of those complaints stated in 2002 that she felt alienated by diocesan officials who did not “listen or didn‟t hear how serious [it] was”. There was confusion as to whether the 1993 complaint was formally noted at the time.
26.17 In December 1994, Monsignor Dolan conducted a preliminary review of Fr Moore‟s file in order to assess his suitability for an appointment. He noted that the file contained no reference to the fact that Fr Moore had been chaplain at Artane Industrial School from 1960 to 1967. Monsignor Dolan concluded in his report that “the period 1983 - 89 remains tricky if there was no investigation of the allegation and H. M. had an open-ended unmonitored appointment. This should be reviewed immediately”. The allegation referred to is the Glasthule allegation.
26.18 In January 1995 Archbishop Connell, finding that circumstances satisfying the requisite “semblance of truth” requirement existed, started a canon law penal process. He appointed Monsignor Alex Stenson as delegate to investigate “both the allegation and the priest‟s imputability”. It is unclear from the documents what allegation was being investigated at the time. Subsequently, it transpired that this process was not proceeded with.
26.19 In January 1995 Fr Moore‟s situation was discussed by Bishop Murray and the Archbishop. Bishop Murray noted that Fr Moore was looking for a parish and that “we need to give thought to his future”. In March 1995, Dr Patrick Walsh was approached for a further assessment of Fr Moore, after he had been reported to have made inappropriate remarks to parents at a school function.
26.20 Dr Walsh informed Monsignor Stenson that Fr Moore “shows every sign of gravitating towards young people, especially males, as objects of affection”. He also warned the authorities to be vigilant in their supervision of him and stated “unless he was prepared to engage over a long period of time with a therapeutic programme and with a system of supervision and regular reviews, I believe there are considerable risks of a return to alcohol abuse or to inappropriate behaviour, particularly towards young people”.
26.21 In May 1995, at a meeting in Archbishop‟s House attended by the auxiliary bishops, the conclusion was reached that the only alternatives left to the Archbishop were:
a) the complete removal of Fr Moore from ministry for life;
b) that the Archbishop receive a report that would enable him to give Fr Moore an appointment.
26.22 In the end, Archbishop Connell terminated Fr Moore‟s tenure in Cabinteely and released him from all priestly duties. Fr Moore was still attending Dr Walsh at this stage and was recorded as making progress.
26.23 In October 1995, Dr Walsh wrote to Archbishop Connell stating that the medical professionals were more optimistic of a meaningful recovery. He said: “as long as he remains sober, he will not, I believe, act out” and added that Fr Moore was adamant that “he has never sexually abused children or adolescents”. In light of his known history, Fr Moore‟s assertion should have been troubling to the Archdiocese.
26.24 Fr Moore expressed worry about the newly stated policy of the bishops of reporting all cases of child sexual abuse whether current or past. In November 1995, the Archdiocese did report the Glasthule incident to the Gardaí. When contacted by the Gardaí, the complainant did not want to make a formal complaint at that particular time but the matter was left open. Somewhat late in the day, in 2002, the suspicions that arose in 1993 and 1995 were notified to the Gardaí.
26.25 Fr Moore was very annoyed about the reporting to the Gardaí and claimed that his recovery had been sabotaged and retarded by the disclosure. Monsignor Curtin, who had spoken to Fr Moore at the time of the Glasthule complaint and again in May 1995 about the 1995 adverse reports, was also annoyed about the matter, condemning what he saw as “a grave violation of justice and charity”. In February 1996, there was some discussion about whether Fr Moore might have some sort of informal chaplaincy with the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) group, with which he was already involved.
The advisory panel
26.26 In April 1996, the file was passed to the recently established advisory panel who noted that the file is “light on certain important facts, particularly the ages of the young people involved”. The panel expressed reservations on the proposed appointment of Fr Moore as chaplain to the AA until there was a comprehensive assessment and treatment programme establishing whether there existed “significant danger of inappropriate behaviour occurring other than in an alcohol related situation”.
26.27 Fr Moore decided not to be further assessed and to retire on health grounds. He retained his clerical faculties. He was allowed to say mass and hear confessions whenever there was a need, for example, if a priest was sick or on holidays. In April 1997, he signed the following document but it was noted that he expressed “unhappiness in relation to the need for signing the document” and “unhappiness about the manner of the process”. The document reads as follows:
“DUBLIN DIOCESAN CURIA I, Father Harry Moore, a priest of the Archdiocese of Dublin, now retiring on grounds of health from holding any priestly office in the said Archdiocese, hereby declare in reference to my diocesan faculties which I continue to enjoy: 1. I will confine the exercise of my sacramental ministry within Churches and Oratories; 2. I will not be available for any ministry outside of the above except for the administration of the sacraments of penance and the anointing of sick in situations of grave need. I further declare: 1. I will attend for review meetings with Doctor Walsh on a basis to be agreed with him; 2. I will maintain contact on a regular basis with Monsignor Jerome Curtin and [another named priest] 3. I will maintain my regular involvement with A.A.; 4. To avoid even the suspicion of any possible impropriety, I shall avoid being alone with any person under 18 years of age.” This document is signed by Monsignor John Dolan as a witness and Fr Moore, and is dated 29 April 1997.
1998
26.28 In 1998, following a visit to Medjugorje, Fr Moore attempted to book a catholic youth hall for a weekend retreat for a number of adults and young persons whom he had met on that trip. The diocese instructed the youth organisation not to give him the hall. It was pointed out to Fr Moore that this activity was in breach of his contract with the diocese.
Bayside complaint, 1999
26.29 In February 1999, a man complained to the Gardaí that, while he was a teenager, he had been sexually abused by Fr Moore while Fr Moore was attached to Bayside parish between 1983 and 1985. The complainant had also complained to a bishop in the UK about this abuse. The UK bishop contacted Archbishop Connell. The complainant travelled to Dublin in March 1999 to make a formal statement to the Gardaí. He told how he and a group of his friends used to drink with Fr Moore. On one occasion he poured out his soul to the priest because he had problems at school and at home. The priest brought him to his own house and plied him with several kinds of drink. He woke from a semi-conscious state to find Fr Moore performing oral sex on him. He alleged that there was anal and oral sex frequently at Fr Moore‟s house during 1983 and 1984.
26.30 When interviewed by the Gardaí, Fr Moore admitted that they had oral and anal sex but said that it was consensual and that it had occurred on only two occasions.
26.31 In September 1999, the 1997 declaration (see above) was amended and he agreed not to “exercise any public sacramental ministry within churches and oratories”.
Criminal charges, 2000
26.32 In 2000, Fr Moore was charged with 18 counts of sexual assault including buggery in respect of the Bayside victim. He sought a judicial review on the grounds of delay and was unsuccessful.
26.33 The charges were reduced to four and in July 2004, Fr Moore pleaded guilty to two charges of indecent assault and two charges of buggery while a curate in Bayside. Sentencing eventually took place in May 2005 and on that date he was sentenced to seven years in respect of each of the buggery charges and three years in respect of each of the sexual assault charges. These sentences were suspended for a period of ten years and he was put under the supervision of the probation services. He was also ordered to abide by the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This is generally described as "being placed on the sex offenders‟ register‟ – see Appendix 2.
26.34 While awaiting trial it was reported to Bishop Murray (who was no longer an auxiliary bishop of Dublin) in 2002 that Fr Moore had resumed giving school retreats. Fr Moore told the Commission that this was untrue. Bishop Murray informed the Archdiocese of this report.
26.35 In 2004, the Archdiocese notified the health board about the complaints. Social workers from the area where Fr Moore lived met him to discuss the advisability of refraining from contact with children. This information was not produced in the initial HSE discovery (see Chapter 6) and was brought to the Commission‟s attention only after the HSE received the draft of this chapter.
The Commission’s assessment
Church authorities
26.36 The reaction of Archbishop Ryan to the 1982 complaint was totally inadequate. The Archbishop had a comprehensive psychiatric report detailing Fr Moore‟s problems with alcohol and with his sexuality. Given that the Archbishop had already ignored the advice of the psychiatrist (in 1977) about not locating Fr Moore in a parish setting, the Archbishop‟s response to the 1982 complaint was inexcusable.
26.37 Here was a priest whom he knew, from the 1977 psychiatric report, had many problems. There was a complete failure on his part to comprehensively investigate a complaint of actual sexual abuse and possible other incidents of sexual abuse as reported in the letter. His excuse, that there was little he could do since the letter was marked private and confidential, is deemed by the Commission to be unacceptable. Had he acted appropriately in relation to this complaint, it might have prevented the very serious assaults that took place some years later on a teenager for which Fr Moore was convicted.
26.38 The Archbishop did not forward the 1977 psychiatrist‟s report to the UK therapeutic facility in May 1982, when he sent Fr Moore for treatment there. He did however tell that facility that there had been sexual indiscretions during Fr Moore‟s drinking bouts. He also gave permission to that facility, subject to Fr Moore‟s consent, to contact St John of God Hospital directly.
26.39 One of the features of the handling of this case was the number of different doctors to whom Fr Moore was sent. There was a failure to coordinate their efforts, diagnoses and recommendations until very late in the day.
26.40 The Commission‟s view is that it was unacceptable for the Archdiocese to leave Fr Moore unmonitored for a period of six years in the 1980s.
26.41 There was good communication between the UK bishop (to whose diocese the Bayside complaint was initially made) and the Archdiocese. The English bishop notified the Archdiocese. Archbishop Connell replied promptly that he was nominating Monsignor Dolan to deal with it. The UK bishop met the complainant and told him this. He also notified the Archdiocese that he had done so and told them that the complainant had gone to the police in the UK with his complaint.
Gardaí
26.42 The Gardaí handled the case appropriately and their efforts resulted in a successful prosecution.
Introduction
26.1 In March 1982, Archbishop Ryan received the following letter:
“At 4am approx. on Sat., February 27th 1982, I was indecently assaulted by Fr. H. Moore C.C. of St. Josephs parish, Glasthule Co. Dublin. Inquiries subsequently conducted by me lead me to believe that this was by no means an isolated incident. I therefore earnestly request that appropriate action be taken without delay”.
26.2 The sender of this letter identified himself and his address. However, he did not give his age but he is likely to have been in his late teens. The response of Archbishop Ryan was as follows: “In view of the fact that your letter of the 8th March was marked “Private and Confidential”, there is little I could do about the matter. If, however, you wish to discuss the matter further, I would ask that you get in touch with Monsignor Jerome Curtin, who is a Vicar General of the Diocese”.
Priest’s history
26.3 At the time of this complaint Fr Harry Moore was a curate in Glasthule parish and the alleged assault was said to have taken place in the presbytery. Fr Moore was born in 1936 and was ordained in 1960. His first appointment was as chaplain to Artane Industrial School from 1960 - 1967. During his time there he compiled a report at the request of Archbishop McQuaid on the conditions under which the boys lived in Artane. This report was handed over by the current Archbishop of Dublin to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.87
26.4 His next appointment after Artane was as a curate in Ringsend parish until 1975. He was then sent to Kilquade parish for one year. He asked to be reassigned because of loneliness and he was given a position as assistant priest in a Catholic youth organisation.
26.5 During this period Fr Moore developed a serious alcohol abuse problem and was admitted to St John of God Hospital in 1977. A comprehensive medical report from this hospital was provided to Archbishop Ryan in March 1977. This report stated that Fr Moore was admitted “ostensibly because he had a problem with alcohol” which he said started about three years earlier and had progressively become worse over the years.
26.6 The report stated that Fr Moore had begun to drink heavily in his early curacy and was consequently sent to a parish in Wicklow for six months where, owing to maladjustment, he was removed to the Catholic youth organisation for another six month stint. This in turn was followed by a year‟s sabbatical to study theology. By this time, the report noted, he had had two hospital stays for alcohol addiction.
26.7 He underwent various psychiatric and personality tests while in the hospital. The doctor noted that he had real concerns about Fr Moore‟s sexual functioning as he had “difficulty in satisfying his strong affectionate needs because of his inability to establish mature adult relationships”. His was described as a personality with “a very strong element of psychopathy and hysteria”. He recommended Fr Moore for team-based occupations if supervised correctly, but he did not recommend him for parish work.
26.8 Despite this medical report, Archbishop Ryan returned Fr Moore to active parish ministry, appointing him a curate in Edenmore parish in November 1977.
26.9 Over the next two years he is recorded as receiving treatment for alcohol dependency. Despite leaving one of the facilities without completing his therapy, he was appointed a curate in Glasthule in February 1980. It is while he was assigned to Glasthule that the complaint of indecent assault noted above was conveyed to the Archdiocese (in March 1982).
26.10 In August 1982, it was suggested to Archbishop Ryan, by his auxiliary bishop, Bishop Comiskey, that Fr Moore needed treatment in Stroud. Fr Moore himself reacted negatively to that proposition. Within hours of having been informed of this proposal he was reported as having been discovered drunk and “with some young lay men”. He had to be admitted to hospital suffering from an ulcer.
Treatment
26.11 In September 1982, Fr Moore was sent to a therapeutic facility in the UK (not Stroud). Archbishop Ryan wrote to the administrator outlining Fr Moore‟s situation. He explained that various attempts had been made to rehabilitate him but all had failed. He stated that in addition to his alcoholism “there is some evidence of sexual indiscretions during Fr Moore‟s drinking bouts but it has been rather difficult to collect evidence concerning the nature and extent of these activities”.
26.12 Of particular significance is the fact that Archbishop Ryan does not appear to have sent the report from the St John of God‟s doctor although he did send a confidential letter from a friend of Fr Moore.
26.13 Fr Moore was relieved of his curacy in Glasthule due to ill health. He remained at the UK facility until March 1983. The final report from the facility said that Fr Moore had explored his use of alcohol “as a means of covering his confused sexual identity, his way of evading responsibility…”. Further therapy was advised.
26.14 In June 1983 Fr Moore was appointed curate in Bayside parish. It was while he was there that he committed a number of very serious sexual assaults, including buggery, on a young teenager. Complaints in relation to these assaults were not received by the Archdiocese until 1999. The Archdiocese was, however, aware of his escalating alcohol problem while in Bayside. In 1985 he had become unmanageable because of his alcoholism and the parish priest had asked for him to be removed. He was then appointed to Francis Street but relapsed again.
26.15 Despite the 1982 complaint from Glasthule and his prior history, Fr Moore was appointed chaplain to a secondary school for boys in October 1986. He also had an appointment in Cabinteely parish. He complained in 1992 about the lack of an official appointment to the secondary school. It was noted in September 1993 that he was angry, upset and annoyed at having to attend a psychologist for assessment. It was noted by the psychologist, Dr Patrick Walsh, that “he is relieved to have given up his position as chaplain to the school but that he is happy to continue his work of giving school retreats”. In a submission to the Commission, Fr Moore said that he did not give school retreats but gave parish retreats.
Adverse reports. 1993 and 1995
26.16 In 1993 and again in 1995 there were adverse reports about Fr Moore‟s behaviour with young adults. There was an allegation of sexual assault. He was allegedly supplying young people with alcohol and hash and allowing them to watch blue movies in his home. There were also complaints of a very unsuitable phrase used in a school homily. The person who made the majority of those complaints stated in 2002 that she felt alienated by diocesan officials who did not “listen or didn‟t hear how serious [it] was”. There was confusion as to whether the 1993 complaint was formally noted at the time.
26.17 In December 1994, Monsignor Dolan conducted a preliminary review of Fr Moore‟s file in order to assess his suitability for an appointment. He noted that the file contained no reference to the fact that Fr Moore had been chaplain at Artane Industrial School from 1960 to 1967. Monsignor Dolan concluded in his report that “the period 1983 - 89 remains tricky if there was no investigation of the allegation and H. M. had an open-ended unmonitored appointment. This should be reviewed immediately”. The allegation referred to is the Glasthule allegation.
26.18 In January 1995 Archbishop Connell, finding that circumstances satisfying the requisite “semblance of truth” requirement existed, started a canon law penal process. He appointed Monsignor Alex Stenson as delegate to investigate “both the allegation and the priest‟s imputability”. It is unclear from the documents what allegation was being investigated at the time. Subsequently, it transpired that this process was not proceeded with.
26.19 In January 1995 Fr Moore‟s situation was discussed by Bishop Murray and the Archbishop. Bishop Murray noted that Fr Moore was looking for a parish and that “we need to give thought to his future”. In March 1995, Dr Patrick Walsh was approached for a further assessment of Fr Moore, after he had been reported to have made inappropriate remarks to parents at a school function.
26.20 Dr Walsh informed Monsignor Stenson that Fr Moore “shows every sign of gravitating towards young people, especially males, as objects of affection”. He also warned the authorities to be vigilant in their supervision of him and stated “unless he was prepared to engage over a long period of time with a therapeutic programme and with a system of supervision and regular reviews, I believe there are considerable risks of a return to alcohol abuse or to inappropriate behaviour, particularly towards young people”.
26.21 In May 1995, at a meeting in Archbishop‟s House attended by the auxiliary bishops, the conclusion was reached that the only alternatives left to the Archbishop were:
a) the complete removal of Fr Moore from ministry for life;
b) that the Archbishop receive a report that would enable him to give Fr Moore an appointment.
26.22 In the end, Archbishop Connell terminated Fr Moore‟s tenure in Cabinteely and released him from all priestly duties. Fr Moore was still attending Dr Walsh at this stage and was recorded as making progress.
26.23 In October 1995, Dr Walsh wrote to Archbishop Connell stating that the medical professionals were more optimistic of a meaningful recovery. He said: “as long as he remains sober, he will not, I believe, act out” and added that Fr Moore was adamant that “he has never sexually abused children or adolescents”. In light of his known history, Fr Moore‟s assertion should have been troubling to the Archdiocese.
26.24 Fr Moore expressed worry about the newly stated policy of the bishops of reporting all cases of child sexual abuse whether current or past. In November 1995, the Archdiocese did report the Glasthule incident to the Gardaí. When contacted by the Gardaí, the complainant did not want to make a formal complaint at that particular time but the matter was left open. Somewhat late in the day, in 2002, the suspicions that arose in 1993 and 1995 were notified to the Gardaí.
26.25 Fr Moore was very annoyed about the reporting to the Gardaí and claimed that his recovery had been sabotaged and retarded by the disclosure. Monsignor Curtin, who had spoken to Fr Moore at the time of the Glasthule complaint and again in May 1995 about the 1995 adverse reports, was also annoyed about the matter, condemning what he saw as “a grave violation of justice and charity”. In February 1996, there was some discussion about whether Fr Moore might have some sort of informal chaplaincy with the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) group, with which he was already involved.
The advisory panel
26.26 In April 1996, the file was passed to the recently established advisory panel who noted that the file is “light on certain important facts, particularly the ages of the young people involved”. The panel expressed reservations on the proposed appointment of Fr Moore as chaplain to the AA until there was a comprehensive assessment and treatment programme establishing whether there existed “significant danger of inappropriate behaviour occurring other than in an alcohol related situation”.
26.27 Fr Moore decided not to be further assessed and to retire on health grounds. He retained his clerical faculties. He was allowed to say mass and hear confessions whenever there was a need, for example, if a priest was sick or on holidays. In April 1997, he signed the following document but it was noted that he expressed “unhappiness in relation to the need for signing the document” and “unhappiness about the manner of the process”. The document reads as follows:
“DUBLIN DIOCESAN CURIA I, Father Harry Moore, a priest of the Archdiocese of Dublin, now retiring on grounds of health from holding any priestly office in the said Archdiocese, hereby declare in reference to my diocesan faculties which I continue to enjoy: 1. I will confine the exercise of my sacramental ministry within Churches and Oratories; 2. I will not be available for any ministry outside of the above except for the administration of the sacraments of penance and the anointing of sick in situations of grave need. I further declare: 1. I will attend for review meetings with Doctor Walsh on a basis to be agreed with him; 2. I will maintain contact on a regular basis with Monsignor Jerome Curtin and [another named priest] 3. I will maintain my regular involvement with A.A.; 4. To avoid even the suspicion of any possible impropriety, I shall avoid being alone with any person under 18 years of age.” This document is signed by Monsignor John Dolan as a witness and Fr Moore, and is dated 29 April 1997.
1998
26.28 In 1998, following a visit to Medjugorje, Fr Moore attempted to book a catholic youth hall for a weekend retreat for a number of adults and young persons whom he had met on that trip. The diocese instructed the youth organisation not to give him the hall. It was pointed out to Fr Moore that this activity was in breach of his contract with the diocese.
Bayside complaint, 1999
26.29 In February 1999, a man complained to the Gardaí that, while he was a teenager, he had been sexually abused by Fr Moore while Fr Moore was attached to Bayside parish between 1983 and 1985. The complainant had also complained to a bishop in the UK about this abuse. The UK bishop contacted Archbishop Connell. The complainant travelled to Dublin in March 1999 to make a formal statement to the Gardaí. He told how he and a group of his friends used to drink with Fr Moore. On one occasion he poured out his soul to the priest because he had problems at school and at home. The priest brought him to his own house and plied him with several kinds of drink. He woke from a semi-conscious state to find Fr Moore performing oral sex on him. He alleged that there was anal and oral sex frequently at Fr Moore‟s house during 1983 and 1984.
26.30 When interviewed by the Gardaí, Fr Moore admitted that they had oral and anal sex but said that it was consensual and that it had occurred on only two occasions.
26.31 In September 1999, the 1997 declaration (see above) was amended and he agreed not to “exercise any public sacramental ministry within churches and oratories”.
Criminal charges, 2000
26.32 In 2000, Fr Moore was charged with 18 counts of sexual assault including buggery in respect of the Bayside victim. He sought a judicial review on the grounds of delay and was unsuccessful.
26.33 The charges were reduced to four and in July 2004, Fr Moore pleaded guilty to two charges of indecent assault and two charges of buggery while a curate in Bayside. Sentencing eventually took place in May 2005 and on that date he was sentenced to seven years in respect of each of the buggery charges and three years in respect of each of the sexual assault charges. These sentences were suspended for a period of ten years and he was put under the supervision of the probation services. He was also ordered to abide by the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This is generally described as "being placed on the sex offenders‟ register‟ – see Appendix 2.
26.34 While awaiting trial it was reported to Bishop Murray (who was no longer an auxiliary bishop of Dublin) in 2002 that Fr Moore had resumed giving school retreats. Fr Moore told the Commission that this was untrue. Bishop Murray informed the Archdiocese of this report.
26.35 In 2004, the Archdiocese notified the health board about the complaints. Social workers from the area where Fr Moore lived met him to discuss the advisability of refraining from contact with children. This information was not produced in the initial HSE discovery (see Chapter 6) and was brought to the Commission‟s attention only after the HSE received the draft of this chapter.
The Commission’s assessment
Church authorities
26.36 The reaction of Archbishop Ryan to the 1982 complaint was totally inadequate. The Archbishop had a comprehensive psychiatric report detailing Fr Moore‟s problems with alcohol and with his sexuality. Given that the Archbishop had already ignored the advice of the psychiatrist (in 1977) about not locating Fr Moore in a parish setting, the Archbishop‟s response to the 1982 complaint was inexcusable.
26.37 Here was a priest whom he knew, from the 1977 psychiatric report, had many problems. There was a complete failure on his part to comprehensively investigate a complaint of actual sexual abuse and possible other incidents of sexual abuse as reported in the letter. His excuse, that there was little he could do since the letter was marked private and confidential, is deemed by the Commission to be unacceptable. Had he acted appropriately in relation to this complaint, it might have prevented the very serious assaults that took place some years later on a teenager for which Fr Moore was convicted.
26.38 The Archbishop did not forward the 1977 psychiatrist‟s report to the UK therapeutic facility in May 1982, when he sent Fr Moore for treatment there. He did however tell that facility that there had been sexual indiscretions during Fr Moore‟s drinking bouts. He also gave permission to that facility, subject to Fr Moore‟s consent, to contact St John of God Hospital directly.
26.39 One of the features of the handling of this case was the number of different doctors to whom Fr Moore was sent. There was a failure to coordinate their efforts, diagnoses and recommendations until very late in the day.
26.40 The Commission‟s view is that it was unacceptable for the Archdiocese to leave Fr Moore unmonitored for a period of six years in the 1980s.
26.41 There was good communication between the UK bishop (to whose diocese the Bayside complaint was initially made) and the Archdiocese. The English bishop notified the Archdiocese. Archbishop Connell replied promptly that he was nominating Monsignor Dolan to deal with it. The UK bishop met the complainant and told him this. He also notified the Archdiocese that he had done so and told them that the complainant had gone to the police in the UK with his complaint.
Gardaí
26.42 The Gardaí handled the case appropriately and their efforts resulted in a successful prosecution.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36171
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:33 am
Chapter 27: Fr Septimus*88
Introduction
27.1 Fr Septimus was ordained in the 1950s. He served in a number of parishes of the Archdiocese and ultimately became a parish priest. In 1997, Archbishop Connell imposed a canonical precept placing certain restrictions on his contact with children and imposing other conditions. His active ministry effectively ended in 2002 when he was forced to step down as a parish priest by Archbishop Connell. He has not resumed ministry since then.
27.2 The Commission is aware of 17 complaints of child abuse in relation to Fr Septimus. The nature of the abuse alleged against him predominantly involved the administration of severe beatings to boys on their bare buttocks, sometimes using a strap or other implement. Following the beatings, the boys would then be forced to stand facing away from Fr Septimus in a state of undress. Sometimes the beatings resumed. There was one allegation of Fr Septimus masturbating following a beating while the beaten boy was in the room and facing away from him. The Commission is satisfied from the evidence considered that the beatings were for the sexual gratification of Fr Septimus and that the abuse constituted child sexual abuse.
First complaints, 1982
27.3 The first recorded allegations to the Archdiocese against Fr Septimus were made in October 1982. A woman contacted Bishop O‟Mahony and reported on behalf of three named people. One was a witness to the beating of altar boys “with their pants down”. Another was a mother whose son was made to remove his underwear for misbehaving and the third was a mother whose son was refusing to serve mass because he did not want the priest “putting his hands up my pants anymore”. In 1983, she reported, on behalf of a mother, about a further incident of a boy being beaten with his pants down. There is no evidence that Bishop O‟Mahony spoke to the named people or made any further inquiries. He did not report the complaints to Archbishop Ryan.
27.4 In February 1983, Fr Septimus was admitted to St John of God hospital in a state of “acute anxiety and depression” which, according to the psychiatrist who treated him there, had been brought on by an allegation that he had assaulted a boy. It seems that this had occurred while on a camp and was not related to the allegations made by the woman to Bishop O‟Mahony. This psychiatrist had treated him 20 years earlier when Fr Septimus had had a breakdown “brought about through intense psychological stress”. In March 1983, Bishop O‟Mahony recorded a discussion between himself and the psychiatrist as follows:
“The priest has made a very good recovery and has come to terms with his sexuality. Homosexuality is covert rather than overt. The beatings are a moderated manifestation of the tendency. He should be able to minister without too much difficulty. “It is not a very serious problem”. He should avoid boys‟ clubs/camps etc. No change is recommended provided there is no scandal”.
27.5 All the discussions between Bishop O‟Mahony and the psychiatrist in 1983 are not recorded. However, in a report in 1995, the psychiatrist indicated that he had discussed the matter with Bishop O‟Mahony at the time and had “agreed that it would be best to leave him in the parish but to ensure that he did not continue to work with young boys”.
27.6 At this stage, Bishop O‟Mahony seems to have made further inquiries about the complaints. There is no evidence that he spoke to the people who had been named by the woman who had approached him. He did speak to the principal of the local school and another person associated with the school. There is no obvious connection between these people and the complaints. They were dismissive of the woman and said she had made a similar complaint against a former principal. Bishop O‟Mahony decided that “the entire matter would be dropped”.
Complaints reconsidered, 1995
27.7 Fr Septimus was appointed a parish priest in the early 1990s and there seems to have been no consideration of the complaints against him at the time of his appointment. In 1995, these issues were addressed again in the context of a general review of all child abuse cases. In April 1995, Bishop O‟Mahony made a note about the case. This note stated that the incidents complained of by the woman had never taken place and “people then saw through her and no longer tolerated her gossip”. It also noted that the complainant was reconciled with the priest and “she is now paying her dues.” The note also stated that the incidents referred to by the psychiatrist took place on a camp. Bishop O‟Mahony had advised Fr Septimus not to go on further camps and he had not done so. Bishop O‟Mahony, in an affidavit provided to the Commission, said that the woman contacted him in April 1995 and “indicated that none of the incidents reported by her” had occurred. Bishop O‟Mahony‟s April 1995 note does not mention that the woman was in contact with him at that stage. His April 1995 note appears to deal only with reports from other people.
27.8 Bishop O‟Mahony discussed the case with the Granada Institute and, on the basis of that discussion, a report was issued in May 1995. The Granada report expressed the view that the woman‟s complaints on behalf of others related to inappropriate punishment rather than sexual gratification and that there were currently no grounds for believing that Fr Septimus was a danger to others. Interestingly, the Granada Institute, unlike Bishop O‟Mahony, seemed to accept that there was a basis for the woman‟s complaints. Granada recommended that the complainant not be contacted as she might not welcome such an approach and this would place extra stress on Fr Septimus.
Further complaints, 1995
27.9 In October 1995, a complaint was received by the Archdiocese from a named woman on behalf of an unnamed woman who alleged that her son had been a victim of buggery 21 years previously, in 1974. Archbishop Connell initiated a preliminary investigation under canon law and appointed Monsignor Alex Stenson as the delegate to investigate. Shortly after that, another complaint was received with an allegation of abuse 35 years previously – in 1960. Monsignor Stenson met this most recent complainant and told him that he might have to report the matter to the Gardaí. The complainant was accompanied by his sister who verified his account of what had happened. The nature of the abuse alleged was similar to that reported in the first complaints made in 1982, namely of being severely beaten while undressed. The severity of the beating was so bad that the child had to stay in bed for three weeks following the assault. He claimed that school mates had suffered similar treatment. The abuse happened in the school, after school hours. Fr Septimus had a key to the school.
27.10 Monsignor Stenson met Fr Septimus in October 1995, as part of his preliminary investigation. Monsignor Stenson made a detailed note of their conversation and this was signed by the priest. Fr Septimus told Monsignor Stenson that the account of the most recent complainant was “highly coloured but basically true”. He said that “I went into a coma for twelve days at the time of the Cuban war … I thought the Atom Bomb had fallen”. It is not clear if this refers to the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 or the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. He offered to pay for counselling “within reason”. He went on to say that he was “rough with kids” during that period of his life but that he was now “great with kids”. He went on to talk about the 1980s complaints and told Monsignor Stenson that he could speak to Bishop O‟Mahony about that. Monsignor Stenson‟s note further records Fr Septimus saying:
“On a few occasions there would have been similar outbursts in the other appointments - always with young boys - never girls. I did get them to take off some of their clothes and would hit them. I usually used my hand. I would place them across my knees and smack them on their naked behinds. … I did this as a form of punishment. It occasionally generated in me a sexual movement. But I never touched them in the private parts nor got them to touch me. Never - that‟s sexual abuse. Sometimes it gave me sexual pleasure. This pattern would have continued elsewhere until I got treatment in St John of Gods. There might have been four boys in each place up to and including [the parish he was in when the 1980s complaints were made]. After my treatment it has never happened again. Some of those boys were altar boys. A lot would happen on Summer Camps - if boys went missing they got a warning and if it happened a second time they had a choice - no pocket money or a spanking and they chose the spanking… Bishop O‟ Mahony knows all about that…
[Fr Septimus] apologises for what happened to [the latest complainant] and asked me to convey this…”
27.11 Later on, Fr Septimus denied that he had made any of the admissions contained in this statement and alleged that his signature had been forged. Later still, he said that he had signed a blank piece of paper and that the statement was not shown to him or read to him. If either of these allegations were true, one would have expected the priest to have taken vigorous action against the Church authorities either in canon or civil law to vindicate his good name and to ensure that the perpetrators of a most grievous wrong were appropriately punished. Despite some posturing, he did neither. The Commission has absolutely no doubt that the statement is accurate.
27.12 In November 1995, Monsignor Alex Stenson notified the Gardaí of the most recent complaint (the one relating to the 1960 incident). Fr Septimus was one of the priests named on the first list of priests given to the Gardaí in November 1995 (see Chapter 5). Monsignor Stenson noted “The assault was seen in terms of spanking.”
Medical opinion
27.13 Fr Septimus was referred to the psychiatrist who had treated him in the 1980s. The psychiatrist told Monsignor Stenson that the priest would appear to pose no risk as there had been no problems in the last 12 years. He should, however, “maintain a low profile for the moment, not least for his own sake”. The psychiatrist also referred him to the Granada Institute (Granada had reported to Bishop O‟Mahony in May 1995 but had not seen Fr Septimus at that stage.) The psychiatrist issued a written report in November 1995 to the Archdiocese. This report included his own assessment and a summary of the Granada assessment provided by Dr Patrick Walsh. It stated:
“It should perhaps be stressed that at all times [Fr Septimus] has denied any frank sexual element in his activities and maintains that he was merely being a strict disciplinarian. He now recognises that his behaviour was unwise and open to other interpretations. He insists that he has not engaged in any such activities since 1983 …
I would agree with Dr Walsh that the question of the advisability of allowing him to resume his parochial duties is one which must be made by the Diocesan authorities, taking all the circumstances into account. From the strictly psychiatric viewpoint , and on the strict assumption that there has been no evidence of misconduct since at least 1983, it would be reasonable to allow him to resume his duties with the strict proviso that he does not have unsupervised contact with children or male youths.” Granada‟s report to which the psychiatrist refers was also sent to the Archdiocese.
27.14 In February 1996, Fr Septimus denied that he had made admissions to Monsignor Stenson as described above. In March 1996, he was instructed by Bishop Ó Ceallaigh not to have any contact with children or young people. The bishop met the senior curate in the parish and arranged a reallocation of responsibilities in order to ensure this. Monsignor Stenson arranged therapy for the complainant.
27.15 Meanwhile, the Gardaí were investigating the October 1995 complaint (the complaint relating to the 1960 incident). They told the Archdiocese in March 1996, as recorded by Monsignor Stenson that: “…the issue seemed to be more corporal punishment and physical assault. Nevertheless, they intend to speak with [Fr Septimus] in the near future. They believe the case will go to the D.P.P. but it is highly unlikely that it will be seen as anything other than physical assault”.
27.16 The file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in June 1996 and he directed that there should be no prosecution.
Referral to advisory panel
27.17 Fr Septimus‟s case was referred to the advisory panel in April 1996. At the request of the panel, Monsignor Stenson sought clarification as to the meaning of “unsupervised contact”, as such a prohibition does not sit easily with the responsibilities of a parish priest. The psychiatrist and Dr Walsh of Granada each provided some clarification – it meant not being alone with children and restricting the priest‟s ministry to children in “substantial” ways to avoid suspicion and this included informal contact such as scouts, home visits and playgrounds.
27.18 The panel made a recommendation in June 1996. Having considered “one specific allegation of extreme physical abuse on a young boy carried out in the early 1960s and two separate accusations of somewhat uncertain reliability”, it considered that Fr Septimus was in the category of people about whom there were insufficient grounds “in justice” to remove from ministry.
“The Panel has concluded that in justice there is not a case for removing [Fr Septimus] from his present ministry. It does however believe that the restrictions outlined above by Dr Walsh should be enforced and carefully monitored. In addition it is the view of the Panel supported by [an expert] that in the interests of prudence a formal assessment could be conducted to rule out any risk that [Fr Septimus] may be a latent paedophile…”
27.19 The panel‟s recommendations were accepted. Archbishop Connell met Fr Septimus and outlined the restrictions that were to be observed in relation to children. He also told Fr Septimus that arrangements would be made for a formal assessment.
27.20 Meanwhile, the Gardaí reported in May 1996 in respect of the complaint made in October 1995 of a severe beating in 1960: “the assaults alleged by [the complainant] do not in my opinion amount to a sexual assault. They amount perhaps if proven to common assault maybe bordering on actual bodily harm. However, they are totally uncorroborated and there is only [the complainant‟s] word that they occurred. [Fr Septimus] did not totally deny that they happened”. The Gardaí recommended that, owing to the time delay in reporting the matter and the differences between the versions of events of the complainant and the school principal, no further action be taken on the file.
27.21 In January 1997, the curate in Fr Septimus‟s parish who now had responsibility for dealing with any matters involving children, including altar boys, arrived at the church to find Fr Septimus training a number of altar boys. The curate challenged him and he replied that the allegations had come to nothing and that the Archbishop had brought him in more or less to apologise to him. This was not true – the Archbishop brought him in to outline the restrictions. The curate reported the matter to Monsignor Stenson who immediately reported the matter to Bishop Ó Ceallaigh.
27.22 On a date unknown in 1997, Archbishop Connell imposed a canonical precept on Fr Septimus with the following conditions:
• that he reside in the presbytery;
• that he was forbidden to be alone with children or assume responsibility for assignments that have primary responsibility for them;
• that he continue to see his therapist;
• that he attend weekly group therapy;
• that he maintain regular contact with his spiritual director;
• that he be supervised/ monitored.
Another complaint, 1997
27.23 Another complainant came forward in August 1997. The type of abuse alleged was of corporal punishment on his bare buttocks. It was decided in the Archdiocese that the nature of the complaint did not involve sexual abuse; consequently it concluded that there was no obligation under Church policy at the time to refer the matter to the Gardaí. The complainant was advised of this view and it was suggested that he might wish to complain directly to the Gardaí. It was however decided to refer the matter to the advisory panel again. Fr Septimus denied this complainant‟s allegations and was reluctant to undergo a formal assessment as requested by the Archdiocese.
27.24 In December 1997, the Gardaí recommended in relation to the August 1997 complaint:
“… the Accused‟s conduct in this case was vile, despicable and probably sadistic. It comprised all but the worst elements of a bad assault in that it was brutal and had sado-sexual connotations. By stripping or partially disrobing these children they were made feel dirty, vulnerable and above all extremely ashamed. I also hold the view that the act of disrobing (and thereby indecently exposing) anyone –child or adult- amounts to an indecent assault. … In those circumstances I would recommend a charge (or charges) of indecent assault”.
27.25 Despite this recommendation, the Commission has not found a record of this file being sent to the DPP.
Fr Septimus and Monsignor Stenson
27.26 Fr Septimus expressed his dissatisfaction with how Monsignor Stenson was handling his case. He continued to deny having made the statement in relation to the 1995 complaint. He demanded an apology from Monsignor Stenson which “acknowledges fully and explicitly the injustice he did to me”. Fr Septimus‟s solicitor was in contact with the Archdiocese looking for copies of statements. The priest saw himself as being a “priest-victim”. Eventually, after much discussion, Fr Septimus agreed to go for formal assessment in November 1997.
27.27 Granada reported in May 1998 that Fr Septimus was so focused on the way he was treated by Monsignor Stenson that it had been unable to carry out the proposed assessment. In September 1998, Granada reported:
“Difficulties remain in relation to the complaints made against [Fr Septimus], in that, they have been either made anonymously or the people making them have refused to formalise them89. As a result it has not been possible to act on the complaints. Furthermore, [Fr Septimus‟s] own position is that while he acknowledges physical complaints, he has denied sexual abuse. Given this set of circumstances it is concluded that unless the diocese can verify and substantiate the complaints, [Fr Septimus] should remain in ministry. Continuing in ministry, however, should be with the explicit proviso that he has no formal contact with children or young people and that he agrees to avoid informal contact with them also.”
27.28 A further canonical precept was issued by Archbishop Connell in October 1998 which decreed that:
Fr Septimus was to have neither unsupervised involvement with minors nor any direct ministry to minors except in the public celebration of mass.
He was to continue to consult with the Granada Institute (or similar institute) on an ongoing basis.
The curate would have direct responsibility for altar servers in the parish.
27.29 Fr Septimus wrote to the Archbishop claiming that Monsignor Stenson had defamed him and that under canon law he was entitled to challenge assertions made by him. He rejected any suggestion that he might have been involved in child sexual abuse or that he had “beaten up” anyone, though he found his attendance at the Granada Institute helpful “in assisting me over the traumas imposed on me by Monsignor Stenson…which were inflicted in your name”.90 He took offence at the canonical decree and sought to have it set aside. He continued with this campaign through his solicitors, seeking the destruction of the statement attributed to him which he had said was falsified.
27.30 Following a meeting in March 1999, Fr Septimus finally agreed to withdraw from ministry involving children by discontinuing his connection with the local national school and agreed that the curate and a lay person would have responsibility for altar servers.
27.31 There was some monitoring of compliance with the conditions. Monsignor John Dolan met Fr Septimus in October 2001. Monsignor Dolan advised him of the mandatory direction for his continued attendance at Granada with which he had not been complying. By December 2001, he was attending Granada again. The precept was extended for a further period of two years.
Further complaints, 2002
27.32 Another complainant emerged in July 2002. This man made his complaint to a priest of the Archdiocese, who brought it to the attention of the archdiocesan authorities. The priest was asked to encourage the man concerned to make a formal complaint about the matter so that the Archdiocese could pursue it and report it to the Gardaí. The complaint was of sexual abuse in the 1970s. The nature of the abuse alleged was similar to that alleged in the other complaints but this time, there was little room for doubt that the acts were carried out for sexual gratification. The complainant said he saw Fr Septimus masturbating immediately after he was beaten.
27.33 This complainant also informed the Archdiocese about his knowledge of abuse of three other boys. One of these had already complained to the Archdiocese. This complainant said one of the others had since committed suicide. Monsignor Dolan asked this complainant to encourage the third person to contact the Archdiocese. This man did so in August 2002. His complaint was similar to the others in many respects.
27.34 Fr Septimus denied the allegations made by these two complainants. The Archdiocese informed the Gardaí.
27.35 Fr Septimus initially declined to resign as parish priest. Subsequently, following a telephone conversation with Archbishop Connell in August 2002, he agreed to retire on the grounds of ill health. The Archdiocese insisted that he move away from the parish and he was not permitted to carry out any public ministry. He was informed that, although he could resign on the grounds of ill health, the Archdiocese would not mislead as to the real reason behind the resignation if it was asked for an explanation.
27.36 In November 2002, Archbishop Connell revoked the faculties of the Archdiocese from Fr Septimus although he was permitted to continue to say mass privately. The other conditions regarding continued attendance at Granada and a ban on unsupervised contact with children continued to apply. Fr Septimus appealed against the precept to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. The Congregation confirmed the Archbishop‟s decree. It was pointed out by the Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), that the imposition of a precept in canon law was only valid in the short term pending the formal outcome of a canonical process. The type of process envisaged is either a penal process, the outcome of which may lead to laicisation or simply a process seeking to impede the priest from ministry.
Bishop O’Mahony and the 1980s complaints
27.37 In March 2003, Bishop O‟Mahony prepared a statement referring to his investigation of this matter in the early 1980s. He stated:
“To the best of my recollection [Fr Septimus] resumed his ministry at [the parish] following the discharge from hospital. I judged the situation as one in which the information relayed by [the complainant] was not reliable. I believe that I emphasised to [Fr Septimus] the importance of following the advice of [the psychiatrist]. I did not inform Archbishop Dermot Ryan of the complaint. Sensitivity towards [Fr Septimus‟s] mental state, particularly as he recovered from his nervous breakdown caused me to treat the matter as confidential”.
27.38 In this statement, Bishop O‟Mahony also said that the complainant had returned to him in 2002 and told him that she had since discovered the allegation that she had made was untrue. He did not mention anything about her saying this to him in 1995. He reported that she stated: “She had been ostracised by the community when it became known that she had reported the priest to the Bishop with a false allegation” and he further stated that she had told an investigating Garda of this fact. This 2003 statement does not address the fact that the treating psychiatrist clearly believed that there were sustainable allegations about Fr Septimus in the early 1980s. Bishop O‟Mahony also clearly believed at the time that there were sustainable allegations about beatings on holiday camps. His emphasis, in 2003, on the veracity of this particular complainant neatly allows him to avoid addressing the fact that there were sustainable complaints similar in nature to those reported by this complainant and that child protection measures were not put in place.
27.39 In August 2003, Cardinal Connell initiated the canonical process to impede Fr Septimus‟s ministry under Canon 1044.91 In October 2004, Archbishop Martin wrote to Fr Septimus telling him that he had witnessed him wearing clerical garb in violation of the precept and warning him to abide by the terms of the precept until the determination of the administrative process.
27.40 The canonical process was still continuing in 2007.
27.41 Between 2003 and 2005, five further complaints were made to the Gardaí against Fr Septimus.
The garda investigations
27.42 The DPP decided not to prosecute in the case of the 1995 complaint – the complaint that related to the 1960 incident. A file does not appear to have been sent to the DPP in relation to the 1997 complaint.
27.43 The fact that the files were reviewed in January 2002 suggests that the files were not submitted at the conclusion of the investigations in the late 1990s in relation to the 1997 complaint. The detective inspector who reviewed the files stated: “As I would not deem the assaults as sexual assaults but common assault, I respectfully suggest that no further action be taken in the case”.
27.44 The files were finally submitted to the DPP‟s office in 2005. The DPP directed no prosecution in relation to these complaints or in relation to the two complaints which were made in 2002 or in relation to the five further complaints which emerged between 2003 and 2005. All cases were stated to be compromised because of the lapse of time since the offences allegedly took place (most of the complaints dated back as far as the 1960s), some inconsistencies in relation to statements taken, lack of corroboration, and difficulties which were anticipated because individual complainants had consulted each other prior to making formal complaints to the Gardaí.
27.45 Two different explanations were offered by Gardaí in 2006 as to why the file in the 1997 complaint was not sent to the DPP much earlier. One explanation was that the decision was deferred pending the outcome of investigations into other complaints. Another explanation was that Fr Septimus had never been interviewed about the complaint.
The Commission’s assessment
27.46 The Commission is of the view that, had a thorough investigation of the allegations been undertaken at the time of the first complaints in 1982 and 1983, at the very least by approaching the parents of the children concerned, the truth of the matter could easily have been ascertained. The Commission considers that the purported investigation of these events at the time was inadequate and could never have got to the truth of the matter.
27.47 It is quite astonishing that Bishop O‟Mahony did not report the complaints to Archbishop Ryan.
27.48 The Commission is concerned that nobody in the Archdiocese, other than Bishop O‟Mahony, contacted the woman who made the 1982 complaints and nobody at all contacted the people whom she alleged were abused.
Introduction
27.1 Fr Septimus was ordained in the 1950s. He served in a number of parishes of the Archdiocese and ultimately became a parish priest. In 1997, Archbishop Connell imposed a canonical precept placing certain restrictions on his contact with children and imposing other conditions. His active ministry effectively ended in 2002 when he was forced to step down as a parish priest by Archbishop Connell. He has not resumed ministry since then.
27.2 The Commission is aware of 17 complaints of child abuse in relation to Fr Septimus. The nature of the abuse alleged against him predominantly involved the administration of severe beatings to boys on their bare buttocks, sometimes using a strap or other implement. Following the beatings, the boys would then be forced to stand facing away from Fr Septimus in a state of undress. Sometimes the beatings resumed. There was one allegation of Fr Septimus masturbating following a beating while the beaten boy was in the room and facing away from him. The Commission is satisfied from the evidence considered that the beatings were for the sexual gratification of Fr Septimus and that the abuse constituted child sexual abuse.
First complaints, 1982
27.3 The first recorded allegations to the Archdiocese against Fr Septimus were made in October 1982. A woman contacted Bishop O‟Mahony and reported on behalf of three named people. One was a witness to the beating of altar boys “with their pants down”. Another was a mother whose son was made to remove his underwear for misbehaving and the third was a mother whose son was refusing to serve mass because he did not want the priest “putting his hands up my pants anymore”. In 1983, she reported, on behalf of a mother, about a further incident of a boy being beaten with his pants down. There is no evidence that Bishop O‟Mahony spoke to the named people or made any further inquiries. He did not report the complaints to Archbishop Ryan.
27.4 In February 1983, Fr Septimus was admitted to St John of God hospital in a state of “acute anxiety and depression” which, according to the psychiatrist who treated him there, had been brought on by an allegation that he had assaulted a boy. It seems that this had occurred while on a camp and was not related to the allegations made by the woman to Bishop O‟Mahony. This psychiatrist had treated him 20 years earlier when Fr Septimus had had a breakdown “brought about through intense psychological stress”. In March 1983, Bishop O‟Mahony recorded a discussion between himself and the psychiatrist as follows:
“The priest has made a very good recovery and has come to terms with his sexuality. Homosexuality is covert rather than overt. The beatings are a moderated manifestation of the tendency. He should be able to minister without too much difficulty. “It is not a very serious problem”. He should avoid boys‟ clubs/camps etc. No change is recommended provided there is no scandal”.
27.5 All the discussions between Bishop O‟Mahony and the psychiatrist in 1983 are not recorded. However, in a report in 1995, the psychiatrist indicated that he had discussed the matter with Bishop O‟Mahony at the time and had “agreed that it would be best to leave him in the parish but to ensure that he did not continue to work with young boys”.
27.6 At this stage, Bishop O‟Mahony seems to have made further inquiries about the complaints. There is no evidence that he spoke to the people who had been named by the woman who had approached him. He did speak to the principal of the local school and another person associated with the school. There is no obvious connection between these people and the complaints. They were dismissive of the woman and said she had made a similar complaint against a former principal. Bishop O‟Mahony decided that “the entire matter would be dropped”.
Complaints reconsidered, 1995
27.7 Fr Septimus was appointed a parish priest in the early 1990s and there seems to have been no consideration of the complaints against him at the time of his appointment. In 1995, these issues were addressed again in the context of a general review of all child abuse cases. In April 1995, Bishop O‟Mahony made a note about the case. This note stated that the incidents complained of by the woman had never taken place and “people then saw through her and no longer tolerated her gossip”. It also noted that the complainant was reconciled with the priest and “she is now paying her dues.” The note also stated that the incidents referred to by the psychiatrist took place on a camp. Bishop O‟Mahony had advised Fr Septimus not to go on further camps and he had not done so. Bishop O‟Mahony, in an affidavit provided to the Commission, said that the woman contacted him in April 1995 and “indicated that none of the incidents reported by her” had occurred. Bishop O‟Mahony‟s April 1995 note does not mention that the woman was in contact with him at that stage. His April 1995 note appears to deal only with reports from other people.
27.8 Bishop O‟Mahony discussed the case with the Granada Institute and, on the basis of that discussion, a report was issued in May 1995. The Granada report expressed the view that the woman‟s complaints on behalf of others related to inappropriate punishment rather than sexual gratification and that there were currently no grounds for believing that Fr Septimus was a danger to others. Interestingly, the Granada Institute, unlike Bishop O‟Mahony, seemed to accept that there was a basis for the woman‟s complaints. Granada recommended that the complainant not be contacted as she might not welcome such an approach and this would place extra stress on Fr Septimus.
Further complaints, 1995
27.9 In October 1995, a complaint was received by the Archdiocese from a named woman on behalf of an unnamed woman who alleged that her son had been a victim of buggery 21 years previously, in 1974. Archbishop Connell initiated a preliminary investigation under canon law and appointed Monsignor Alex Stenson as the delegate to investigate. Shortly after that, another complaint was received with an allegation of abuse 35 years previously – in 1960. Monsignor Stenson met this most recent complainant and told him that he might have to report the matter to the Gardaí. The complainant was accompanied by his sister who verified his account of what had happened. The nature of the abuse alleged was similar to that reported in the first complaints made in 1982, namely of being severely beaten while undressed. The severity of the beating was so bad that the child had to stay in bed for three weeks following the assault. He claimed that school mates had suffered similar treatment. The abuse happened in the school, after school hours. Fr Septimus had a key to the school.
27.10 Monsignor Stenson met Fr Septimus in October 1995, as part of his preliminary investigation. Monsignor Stenson made a detailed note of their conversation and this was signed by the priest. Fr Septimus told Monsignor Stenson that the account of the most recent complainant was “highly coloured but basically true”. He said that “I went into a coma for twelve days at the time of the Cuban war … I thought the Atom Bomb had fallen”. It is not clear if this refers to the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 or the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. He offered to pay for counselling “within reason”. He went on to say that he was “rough with kids” during that period of his life but that he was now “great with kids”. He went on to talk about the 1980s complaints and told Monsignor Stenson that he could speak to Bishop O‟Mahony about that. Monsignor Stenson‟s note further records Fr Septimus saying:
“On a few occasions there would have been similar outbursts in the other appointments - always with young boys - never girls. I did get them to take off some of their clothes and would hit them. I usually used my hand. I would place them across my knees and smack them on their naked behinds. … I did this as a form of punishment. It occasionally generated in me a sexual movement. But I never touched them in the private parts nor got them to touch me. Never - that‟s sexual abuse. Sometimes it gave me sexual pleasure. This pattern would have continued elsewhere until I got treatment in St John of Gods. There might have been four boys in each place up to and including [the parish he was in when the 1980s complaints were made]. After my treatment it has never happened again. Some of those boys were altar boys. A lot would happen on Summer Camps - if boys went missing they got a warning and if it happened a second time they had a choice - no pocket money or a spanking and they chose the spanking… Bishop O‟ Mahony knows all about that…
[Fr Septimus] apologises for what happened to [the latest complainant] and asked me to convey this…”
27.11 Later on, Fr Septimus denied that he had made any of the admissions contained in this statement and alleged that his signature had been forged. Later still, he said that he had signed a blank piece of paper and that the statement was not shown to him or read to him. If either of these allegations were true, one would have expected the priest to have taken vigorous action against the Church authorities either in canon or civil law to vindicate his good name and to ensure that the perpetrators of a most grievous wrong were appropriately punished. Despite some posturing, he did neither. The Commission has absolutely no doubt that the statement is accurate.
27.12 In November 1995, Monsignor Alex Stenson notified the Gardaí of the most recent complaint (the one relating to the 1960 incident). Fr Septimus was one of the priests named on the first list of priests given to the Gardaí in November 1995 (see Chapter 5). Monsignor Stenson noted “The assault was seen in terms of spanking.”
Medical opinion
27.13 Fr Septimus was referred to the psychiatrist who had treated him in the 1980s. The psychiatrist told Monsignor Stenson that the priest would appear to pose no risk as there had been no problems in the last 12 years. He should, however, “maintain a low profile for the moment, not least for his own sake”. The psychiatrist also referred him to the Granada Institute (Granada had reported to Bishop O‟Mahony in May 1995 but had not seen Fr Septimus at that stage.) The psychiatrist issued a written report in November 1995 to the Archdiocese. This report included his own assessment and a summary of the Granada assessment provided by Dr Patrick Walsh. It stated:
“It should perhaps be stressed that at all times [Fr Septimus] has denied any frank sexual element in his activities and maintains that he was merely being a strict disciplinarian. He now recognises that his behaviour was unwise and open to other interpretations. He insists that he has not engaged in any such activities since 1983 …
I would agree with Dr Walsh that the question of the advisability of allowing him to resume his parochial duties is one which must be made by the Diocesan authorities, taking all the circumstances into account. From the strictly psychiatric viewpoint , and on the strict assumption that there has been no evidence of misconduct since at least 1983, it would be reasonable to allow him to resume his duties with the strict proviso that he does not have unsupervised contact with children or male youths.” Granada‟s report to which the psychiatrist refers was also sent to the Archdiocese.
27.14 In February 1996, Fr Septimus denied that he had made admissions to Monsignor Stenson as described above. In March 1996, he was instructed by Bishop Ó Ceallaigh not to have any contact with children or young people. The bishop met the senior curate in the parish and arranged a reallocation of responsibilities in order to ensure this. Monsignor Stenson arranged therapy for the complainant.
27.15 Meanwhile, the Gardaí were investigating the October 1995 complaint (the complaint relating to the 1960 incident). They told the Archdiocese in March 1996, as recorded by Monsignor Stenson that: “…the issue seemed to be more corporal punishment and physical assault. Nevertheless, they intend to speak with [Fr Septimus] in the near future. They believe the case will go to the D.P.P. but it is highly unlikely that it will be seen as anything other than physical assault”.
27.16 The file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in June 1996 and he directed that there should be no prosecution.
Referral to advisory panel
27.17 Fr Septimus‟s case was referred to the advisory panel in April 1996. At the request of the panel, Monsignor Stenson sought clarification as to the meaning of “unsupervised contact”, as such a prohibition does not sit easily with the responsibilities of a parish priest. The psychiatrist and Dr Walsh of Granada each provided some clarification – it meant not being alone with children and restricting the priest‟s ministry to children in “substantial” ways to avoid suspicion and this included informal contact such as scouts, home visits and playgrounds.
27.18 The panel made a recommendation in June 1996. Having considered “one specific allegation of extreme physical abuse on a young boy carried out in the early 1960s and two separate accusations of somewhat uncertain reliability”, it considered that Fr Septimus was in the category of people about whom there were insufficient grounds “in justice” to remove from ministry.
“The Panel has concluded that in justice there is not a case for removing [Fr Septimus] from his present ministry. It does however believe that the restrictions outlined above by Dr Walsh should be enforced and carefully monitored. In addition it is the view of the Panel supported by [an expert] that in the interests of prudence a formal assessment could be conducted to rule out any risk that [Fr Septimus] may be a latent paedophile…”
27.19 The panel‟s recommendations were accepted. Archbishop Connell met Fr Septimus and outlined the restrictions that were to be observed in relation to children. He also told Fr Septimus that arrangements would be made for a formal assessment.
27.20 Meanwhile, the Gardaí reported in May 1996 in respect of the complaint made in October 1995 of a severe beating in 1960: “the assaults alleged by [the complainant] do not in my opinion amount to a sexual assault. They amount perhaps if proven to common assault maybe bordering on actual bodily harm. However, they are totally uncorroborated and there is only [the complainant‟s] word that they occurred. [Fr Septimus] did not totally deny that they happened”. The Gardaí recommended that, owing to the time delay in reporting the matter and the differences between the versions of events of the complainant and the school principal, no further action be taken on the file.
27.21 In January 1997, the curate in Fr Septimus‟s parish who now had responsibility for dealing with any matters involving children, including altar boys, arrived at the church to find Fr Septimus training a number of altar boys. The curate challenged him and he replied that the allegations had come to nothing and that the Archbishop had brought him in more or less to apologise to him. This was not true – the Archbishop brought him in to outline the restrictions. The curate reported the matter to Monsignor Stenson who immediately reported the matter to Bishop Ó Ceallaigh.
27.22 On a date unknown in 1997, Archbishop Connell imposed a canonical precept on Fr Septimus with the following conditions:
• that he reside in the presbytery;
• that he was forbidden to be alone with children or assume responsibility for assignments that have primary responsibility for them;
• that he continue to see his therapist;
• that he attend weekly group therapy;
• that he maintain regular contact with his spiritual director;
• that he be supervised/ monitored.
Another complaint, 1997
27.23 Another complainant came forward in August 1997. The type of abuse alleged was of corporal punishment on his bare buttocks. It was decided in the Archdiocese that the nature of the complaint did not involve sexual abuse; consequently it concluded that there was no obligation under Church policy at the time to refer the matter to the Gardaí. The complainant was advised of this view and it was suggested that he might wish to complain directly to the Gardaí. It was however decided to refer the matter to the advisory panel again. Fr Septimus denied this complainant‟s allegations and was reluctant to undergo a formal assessment as requested by the Archdiocese.
27.24 In December 1997, the Gardaí recommended in relation to the August 1997 complaint:
“… the Accused‟s conduct in this case was vile, despicable and probably sadistic. It comprised all but the worst elements of a bad assault in that it was brutal and had sado-sexual connotations. By stripping or partially disrobing these children they were made feel dirty, vulnerable and above all extremely ashamed. I also hold the view that the act of disrobing (and thereby indecently exposing) anyone –child or adult- amounts to an indecent assault. … In those circumstances I would recommend a charge (or charges) of indecent assault”.
27.25 Despite this recommendation, the Commission has not found a record of this file being sent to the DPP.
Fr Septimus and Monsignor Stenson
27.26 Fr Septimus expressed his dissatisfaction with how Monsignor Stenson was handling his case. He continued to deny having made the statement in relation to the 1995 complaint. He demanded an apology from Monsignor Stenson which “acknowledges fully and explicitly the injustice he did to me”. Fr Septimus‟s solicitor was in contact with the Archdiocese looking for copies of statements. The priest saw himself as being a “priest-victim”. Eventually, after much discussion, Fr Septimus agreed to go for formal assessment in November 1997.
27.27 Granada reported in May 1998 that Fr Septimus was so focused on the way he was treated by Monsignor Stenson that it had been unable to carry out the proposed assessment. In September 1998, Granada reported:
“Difficulties remain in relation to the complaints made against [Fr Septimus], in that, they have been either made anonymously or the people making them have refused to formalise them89. As a result it has not been possible to act on the complaints. Furthermore, [Fr Septimus‟s] own position is that while he acknowledges physical complaints, he has denied sexual abuse. Given this set of circumstances it is concluded that unless the diocese can verify and substantiate the complaints, [Fr Septimus] should remain in ministry. Continuing in ministry, however, should be with the explicit proviso that he has no formal contact with children or young people and that he agrees to avoid informal contact with them also.”
27.28 A further canonical precept was issued by Archbishop Connell in October 1998 which decreed that:
Fr Septimus was to have neither unsupervised involvement with minors nor any direct ministry to minors except in the public celebration of mass.
He was to continue to consult with the Granada Institute (or similar institute) on an ongoing basis.
The curate would have direct responsibility for altar servers in the parish.
27.29 Fr Septimus wrote to the Archbishop claiming that Monsignor Stenson had defamed him and that under canon law he was entitled to challenge assertions made by him. He rejected any suggestion that he might have been involved in child sexual abuse or that he had “beaten up” anyone, though he found his attendance at the Granada Institute helpful “in assisting me over the traumas imposed on me by Monsignor Stenson…which were inflicted in your name”.90 He took offence at the canonical decree and sought to have it set aside. He continued with this campaign through his solicitors, seeking the destruction of the statement attributed to him which he had said was falsified.
27.30 Following a meeting in March 1999, Fr Septimus finally agreed to withdraw from ministry involving children by discontinuing his connection with the local national school and agreed that the curate and a lay person would have responsibility for altar servers.
27.31 There was some monitoring of compliance with the conditions. Monsignor John Dolan met Fr Septimus in October 2001. Monsignor Dolan advised him of the mandatory direction for his continued attendance at Granada with which he had not been complying. By December 2001, he was attending Granada again. The precept was extended for a further period of two years.
Further complaints, 2002
27.32 Another complainant emerged in July 2002. This man made his complaint to a priest of the Archdiocese, who brought it to the attention of the archdiocesan authorities. The priest was asked to encourage the man concerned to make a formal complaint about the matter so that the Archdiocese could pursue it and report it to the Gardaí. The complaint was of sexual abuse in the 1970s. The nature of the abuse alleged was similar to that alleged in the other complaints but this time, there was little room for doubt that the acts were carried out for sexual gratification. The complainant said he saw Fr Septimus masturbating immediately after he was beaten.
27.33 This complainant also informed the Archdiocese about his knowledge of abuse of three other boys. One of these had already complained to the Archdiocese. This complainant said one of the others had since committed suicide. Monsignor Dolan asked this complainant to encourage the third person to contact the Archdiocese. This man did so in August 2002. His complaint was similar to the others in many respects.
27.34 Fr Septimus denied the allegations made by these two complainants. The Archdiocese informed the Gardaí.
27.35 Fr Septimus initially declined to resign as parish priest. Subsequently, following a telephone conversation with Archbishop Connell in August 2002, he agreed to retire on the grounds of ill health. The Archdiocese insisted that he move away from the parish and he was not permitted to carry out any public ministry. He was informed that, although he could resign on the grounds of ill health, the Archdiocese would not mislead as to the real reason behind the resignation if it was asked for an explanation.
27.36 In November 2002, Archbishop Connell revoked the faculties of the Archdiocese from Fr Septimus although he was permitted to continue to say mass privately. The other conditions regarding continued attendance at Granada and a ban on unsupervised contact with children continued to apply. Fr Septimus appealed against the precept to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. The Congregation confirmed the Archbishop‟s decree. It was pointed out by the Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), that the imposition of a precept in canon law was only valid in the short term pending the formal outcome of a canonical process. The type of process envisaged is either a penal process, the outcome of which may lead to laicisation or simply a process seeking to impede the priest from ministry.
Bishop O’Mahony and the 1980s complaints
27.37 In March 2003, Bishop O‟Mahony prepared a statement referring to his investigation of this matter in the early 1980s. He stated:
“To the best of my recollection [Fr Septimus] resumed his ministry at [the parish] following the discharge from hospital. I judged the situation as one in which the information relayed by [the complainant] was not reliable. I believe that I emphasised to [Fr Septimus] the importance of following the advice of [the psychiatrist]. I did not inform Archbishop Dermot Ryan of the complaint. Sensitivity towards [Fr Septimus‟s] mental state, particularly as he recovered from his nervous breakdown caused me to treat the matter as confidential”.
27.38 In this statement, Bishop O‟Mahony also said that the complainant had returned to him in 2002 and told him that she had since discovered the allegation that she had made was untrue. He did not mention anything about her saying this to him in 1995. He reported that she stated: “She had been ostracised by the community when it became known that she had reported the priest to the Bishop with a false allegation” and he further stated that she had told an investigating Garda of this fact. This 2003 statement does not address the fact that the treating psychiatrist clearly believed that there were sustainable allegations about Fr Septimus in the early 1980s. Bishop O‟Mahony also clearly believed at the time that there were sustainable allegations about beatings on holiday camps. His emphasis, in 2003, on the veracity of this particular complainant neatly allows him to avoid addressing the fact that there were sustainable complaints similar in nature to those reported by this complainant and that child protection measures were not put in place.
27.39 In August 2003, Cardinal Connell initiated the canonical process to impede Fr Septimus‟s ministry under Canon 1044.91 In October 2004, Archbishop Martin wrote to Fr Septimus telling him that he had witnessed him wearing clerical garb in violation of the precept and warning him to abide by the terms of the precept until the determination of the administrative process.
27.40 The canonical process was still continuing in 2007.
27.41 Between 2003 and 2005, five further complaints were made to the Gardaí against Fr Septimus.
The garda investigations
27.42 The DPP decided not to prosecute in the case of the 1995 complaint – the complaint that related to the 1960 incident. A file does not appear to have been sent to the DPP in relation to the 1997 complaint.
27.43 The fact that the files were reviewed in January 2002 suggests that the files were not submitted at the conclusion of the investigations in the late 1990s in relation to the 1997 complaint. The detective inspector who reviewed the files stated: “As I would not deem the assaults as sexual assaults but common assault, I respectfully suggest that no further action be taken in the case”.
27.44 The files were finally submitted to the DPP‟s office in 2005. The DPP directed no prosecution in relation to these complaints or in relation to the two complaints which were made in 2002 or in relation to the five further complaints which emerged between 2003 and 2005. All cases were stated to be compromised because of the lapse of time since the offences allegedly took place (most of the complaints dated back as far as the 1960s), some inconsistencies in relation to statements taken, lack of corroboration, and difficulties which were anticipated because individual complainants had consulted each other prior to making formal complaints to the Gardaí.
27.45 Two different explanations were offered by Gardaí in 2006 as to why the file in the 1997 complaint was not sent to the DPP much earlier. One explanation was that the decision was deferred pending the outcome of investigations into other complaints. Another explanation was that Fr Septimus had never been interviewed about the complaint.
The Commission’s assessment
27.46 The Commission is of the view that, had a thorough investigation of the allegations been undertaken at the time of the first complaints in 1982 and 1983, at the very least by approaching the parents of the children concerned, the truth of the matter could easily have been ascertained. The Commission considers that the purported investigation of these events at the time was inadequate and could never have got to the truth of the matter.
27.47 It is quite astonishing that Bishop O‟Mahony did not report the complaints to Archbishop Ryan.
27.48 The Commission is concerned that nobody in the Archdiocese, other than Bishop O‟Mahony, contacted the woman who made the 1982 complaints and nobody at all contacted the people whom she alleged were abused.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36171
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:36 am
Part 1 of 2
Chapter 28: Fr William Carney
Introduction
28.1 William (Bill) Carney was born in 1950 and was ordained for the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1974. He served in the Archdiocese from ordination until 1989. He was suspended from or had restricted ministry during some of this time. He was dismissed from the clerical state in 1992.
28.2 Bill Carney is a serial sexual abuser of children, male and female. The Commission is aware of complaints or suspicions of child sexual abuse against him in respect of 32 named individuals. There is evidence that he abused many more children. He had access to numerous children in residential care; he took groups of children on holiday; he went swimming with groups of children. He pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault in 1983. The Archdiocese paid compensation to six of his victims. He was one of the most serious serial abusers investigated by the Commission. There is some evidence suggesting that, on separate occasions, he may have acted in concert with other convicted clerical child sexual abusers - Fr Francis McCarthy (see Chapter 41) and Fr Patrick Maguire (see Chapter 16).
28.3 A number of witnesses who gave evidence to the Commission, including priests of the diocese, described Bill Carney as crude and loutish. Virtually all referred to his crude language and unsavoury personal habits. One parent told the Commission that the family had complained to the parish priest about his behaviour but the parish priest said there was nothing he could do.
28.4 In 1974, the year Fr Carney was ordained, the President of Clonliffe College, when assessing him for teaching, reported to Archbishop Dermot Ryan that Fr Carney was “very interested in child care” and was “best with the less intelligent”. His first appointment was as a teacher in Ballyfermot Vocational School while also being chaplain to a convent in Walkinstown. The following year, Fr Carney asked Archbishop Ryan to transfer him from Walkinstown (he was living in the convent) to Ballyfermot "to be more available to the boys and their parents” in Ballyfermot school.
Attempts to foster children
28.5 In 1977/78, Fr Carney made inquiries about fostering children. A social worker in the Eastern Health Board (EHB) told the Commission that she thought the inquiry was odd because “generally priests don‟t parent children”. At the time, single men were not allowed to foster so the inquiry went no further at that stage. Fr Carney discussed the idea with Archbishop Ryan who does not seem to have encouraged him.
28.6 In 1980, Fr Carney again explored the possibility of fostering. He discussed the matter with Bishop James Kavanagh and, according to himself, was told by Bishop Kavanagh that the idea was basically “good and sound”. In a letter to Archbishop Ryan, Fr Carney told him he had had lunch with the Minister for Health, Dr. Michael Woods TD, who, he said, assured him that “as far as he knew there would be no difficulty from the Eastern Health Board”. Dr Woods told the Commission that he has no recollection of meeting Fr Carney but that, if he had been asked about fostering, he would have referred him to the Eastern Health Board. Fr Carney‟s letter was sent to Bishop Dermot O‟Mahony for comment and Bishop Kavanagh for handling but there is no record of their reactions. Around the same time, Fr Carney set out his proposal in writing to the minister following on previous discussions about the matter. He told the minister about his involvement in children‟s homes (see below). He said he had a “housemother” available and that his parish priest was in “full support”. There is no evidence that the proposal progressed any further.
28.7 Fr Carney specifically inquired about fostering a particular boy from an institution when the Ten Plus92 programme got under way around 1982/3. This boy subsequently alleged that Fr Carney had abused him (see below).
Children in or from children’s homes
28.8 During his time in Clonliffe College (1968 – 1974), Bill Carney and a number of other students were regular visitors to a number of children‟s homes. The children‟s homes visited by Bill Carney were St Joseph‟s, Tivoli Road; St Vincent‟s, Drogheda; Lakelands, Sandymount and The Grange, Kill O The Grange. The Clonliffe students took children away for holidays during the summers. Bill Carney‟s involvement with St Joseph‟s and The Grange was more extensive than with the other institutions and continued after his ordination. The Commission is aware of complaints by three former residents of St Vincent‟s, one former resident of St Joseph‟s and one former resident of The Grange that Bill Carney sexually abused them. There is a strong suspicion that one other resident of St Joseph‟s was abused and there are suspicions that other residents of all the institutions he visited were also abused.
28.9 In the 1970s, care workers in some of the children‟s homes visited by Fr Carney clearly did not regard him as a good influence and there were also concerns among health board social workers. At least one care worker in The Grange seems to have had suspicions of inappropriate behaviour but the Commission was unable to contact this person to verify this. Health board social workers gave evidence to the Commission that they were concerned about Fr Carney‟s influence on some residents of the homes but they did not suspect sexual abuse. Their main concern was that he was creating unrealistic expectations among the children including expectations that he could provide them with a home.
St Vincent‟s, Drogheda
28.10 St Vincent‟s was an industrial school and, as such, was governed by the provisions of the Children Acts. Bill Carney and other deacons and/or priests took some of the residents away on holidays. Three boys complained they were abused by Bill Carney on these holidays. Another priest, who accompanied Bill Carney and some boys on holidays in 1973, gave evidence to the Gardaí that, while he never saw any sexual abuse on that holiday, Bill Carney did say to him that “you have to sleep with them because they are insecure”.
St Joseph‟s, Tivoli Rd
28.11 This orphanage was run by the Daughters of the Heart of Mary. It was a private orphanage which received some state support (see Chapter 6) and so was not subject to any statutory rules. The health authorities – the Dublin Health Authority and subsequently the Eastern Health Board - did place some children in the home and these children were visited by social workers.
28.12 The religious order which ran the orphanage told the Commission that, up until the 1960s, children were not taken outside the home by outsiders. During the 1960s, it became the practice to allow children to be taken to selected family homes for the weekend or on holidays. It was considered that this would be a good experience for children raised in institutions. The order says that the families chosen for this purpose were well known to the order and vetted for suitability.
28.13 The student priests from Clonliffe - Bill Carney and Francis McCarthy - started to visit this home in 1973. They were deacons at this stage and they approached the home to ask if they could help the children by engaging in activities with them. Their offer was accepted as “they came from Clonliffe College which was highly respected”. They were in the final stage of preparation for priesthood and had skills from which the children could benefit. The visits continued after they were ordained. They took the children on holidays. They were usually accompanied on holidays by members of the order and/or a childcare worker but on one occasion the children were accompanied only by the priests. They were “fully trusted” by the order to take responsibility for the care and safety of the children. Some of the boys were allowed visit one priest in his parish – Fr Francis McCarthy in Dunlavin (see Chapter 41).
Concerns about a girl in St Joseph‟s
28.14 There are serious suspicions that a girl in St Joseph‟s was abused by Fr Carney but no complaint has been made by her. In 1977, a senior social worker noted, following a discussion with a nun in charge, “[name of girl] fantasy relationship with Fr Bill is still all consuming and I agreed … unhealthy”. The note further states “Her thoughts, conversations and her artistic attempts concern going to bed with Fr. Bill”. This girl was 14 years old at the time and had come to the orphanage with severe behavioural difficulties. She had been placed in the home by the health board and there was quite extensive social worker involvement with her. The order running the home found it very difficult to cope with her. It is clear that Fr Carney was regarded as a significant person in her life as he was invited to a case conference about her.
28.15 This girl‟s social worker gave evidence to the Commission that she had concerns about Fr Carney; she described how the girl was besotted with him. He was always in and out of St Joseph‟s and the social worker felt that his efforts to build up a special trusting relationship with her were inappropriate. She did not take the matter up with the authorities in the home. Her senior social worker did discuss it with the authorities in the home. She never suspected sexual abuse – it never occurred to her at the time (1977).
28.16 The nun in charge of this girl‟s group also had concerns about this girl‟s behaviour and reported these concerns to her superior. The girl was writing Fr Carney‟s name on walls and was behaving strangely. It was considered that she had a crush on him. The superior spoke to Fr Carney and discouraged him from having any dealings with the girl. The nuns did not suspect child abuse.
Boy in St Joseph‟s
28.17 A boy in St Joseph‟s complained that he was abused by Fr Carney while he was a resident in this home. The religious order has told the Commission that it had no knowledge of any allegation or suspicion of abuse in his case. Fr Carney was named as a significant contact in this boy‟s life in a social work report in 1983. In 1982, the nun in charge and a care worker were concerned about the frequency of Fr Carney‟s visits to him. A social worker did have concerns about Fr Carney befriending him and asked Fr Carney to stay away. The concerns did not extend to sexual abuse. Social workers visited this boy monthly. He went to stay with Fr Carney in Ayrfield (the parish to which Fr Carney was appointed in 1977) on a number of occasions and this is where the abuse occurred, according to the boy. A social worker told the Commission that she collected the boy from Fr Carney‟s house and was concerned about the behaviour of Fr Carney towards him – this boy was then 12 years old and Fr Carney seemed to be helping him to dress. She considered that Fr Carney was creating an expectation in the boy of being a parent to him but she did not suspect any sexual abuse. She reported her concerns to her senior social worker. In February 1983, this boy told a care worker that he had been left alone in Fr Carney‟s house until very late or until the morning. The care worker stopped the boy‟s visits at this stage. Fr Carney was very angry with her. Subsequently, she and a social worker met him and it was agreed that he would reduce his contact and that there would be no overnight visits except on special occasions. The care worker felt the relationship was unhealthy but did not suspect abuse.
The Grange, Kill O The Grange
28.18 The Grange was run by the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity. It was a private orphanage. The nun in charge of the institution from 1972 to 1980 said, in a statement to the Commission, that Fr Carney was a frequent visitor to the Grange. He took children out for drives and day trips and sometimes children would stay with him for the weekend. He sometimes stayed overnight in the home. She believed his involvement was in the interests of the children as it provided them with an extra means of recreation. There were discussions at the time about getting male staff and having the clerical students/priests was seen as a stepping stone to this. They were regarded as safe and trustworthy. She said that at no time did she have “any cause to be suspicious” of Fr Carney‟s conduct. A girl who subsequently alleged that she had been abused by Fr Carney was described by this nun as being “crazy” about him and he always gave her special attention. This nun said that the children were not regularly visited by social workers. A social worker who was involved with this girl told the Commission that she met or visited the girl several times a year and that there were review meetings involving social workers and the care staff about twice a year. Sometimes the management of the home was involved as well.
28.19 A staff member told Fr Carney in 1981 to stop seeing this girl. Contact between him and the girl was resumed in 1982 and this caused concern to the home and to the social worker.
28.20 The social worker spoke to Fr Carney in 1982 and told him she thought he should not have any further contact with the girl as she felt “her expectations of their relationship were inappropriate”. Fr Carney had told this girl that he would look after her if she was pregnant. The social worker thought that this was completely inappropriate. Fr Carney asked if she was telling him not to see this girl and she said "yes‟. Fr Carney subsequently phoned the care worker to ask if he should send roses to this girl for her birthday. The care worker and social worker thought this was inappropriate but did not put it any further than that. The social worker did not suspect sexual abuse.
28.21 It seems that around 1983, it was decided that the children could not go and stay with Fr Carney, as a care worker had some suspicions about the relationship between a boy and Fr Carney. A nun from The Grange told the canonical church penal process taken against Fr Carney in 1991/92 (see Chapter 4) that people did not specify what the problem was but she understood that he was showing an “unhealthy interest” in young boys.
28.22 The Grange closed in or around 1982/1983. The girl who later alleged she had been abused by Fr Carney moved to An Grianán (see below) in 1982.
28.23 In 1989, when she was an adult, this girl told the social worker who had been dealing with her while she was in The Grange that she had been sexually abused by Fr Carney while in The Grange and that the abuse included full intercourse.
28.24 A nun from The Grange told the church penal process that she was aware of concerns about Fr Carney in The Grange. She did not have direct contact with him there but she reported that former residents of the Grange stayed with him when he was in Clogher Road (the parish to which he was appointed in 1986). She took one of them away from there in 1987 because of the condition of the house – it was full of empty alcohol bottles and was not, in her view, fit to live in.
An Grianán
28.25 An Grianán was also run by the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity. It catered for girls aged 12 to 18. Both the girl from St Joseph‟s and the girl from The Grange moved to An Grianán when they were aged about 16. The health board was no longer responsible for children in care once they reached 16 but the social worker told the Commission that she did visit the girl from The Grange while she was in An Grianán. The nun in charge said in 1999 that, to the best of her knowledge, Fr Carney did not visit the girl from The Grange in An Grianán. The girl says that he did and that he took her out for the day on a number of occasions. The nun accepted that Fr Carney did call to visit another former resident of The Grange after this particular girl had left. The nun also stated that she heard rumours about Fr Carney in the mid 1980s “that were not positive”. A girl in An Grianán told her that she used to visit Fr Carney in Ayrfield while she was living in a children‟s home and she never wanted to visit him again as he had tried to molest her. The nun does not appear to have done anything about this. It is not clear whether the girl was alleging that this happened when she was underage.
28.26 The social worker was told by An Grianán that the girl from The Grange was writing to Fr Carney while she was there. She also noted that he had called to see her in An Grianán and did see her there at Christmas 1982. This girl said that she was not abused in An Grianán. She thought the nun in charge suspected Fr Carney and did not like him. It is clear that the nun in charge did not like Fr Carney but it is not clear if she suspected him of abuse while this girl was in An Grianán.
First recorded complaints to the Archdiocese, 1983
28.27 Fr Carney was appointed a curate in Ayrfield parish in 1977. At that time he was a regular visitor to various homes and during his time in Ayrfield brought many children from those homes to stay with him. There is a suggestion that the Archdiocese may have had a complaint or suspicions about inappropriate behaviour by Fr Carney as early as 1978 but this cannot now be established.
28.28 The first documented complaint about Fr Carney was made to the Gardaí in July 1983 by altar boys; the altar boys did not complain to the Archdiocese at this time. Complaints by boys who he took swimming were made to the Archdiocese in September 1983; some of the swimming pool complainants also complained to the Gardaí.
The altar boy complaints
28.29 In July 1983, two brothers went with their father to a Garda station and complained that they had been abused by Fr Carney. Garda Finbar Garland was a young garda with just under a year‟s experience when this complaint was made to him. He told the Commission that, while he had experience in taking statements, he had no training in taking statements from children. The garda had a clear recollection of the young boys and their father coming to the Garda Station. He said he was shocked and disgusted by what he heard. He consulted his immediate superior, Sergeant Kiernan. Garda Garland went to the boys‟ home later that day to take statements. The boys told him that they were altar boys and had slept in Fr Carney‟s house on a number of occasions and had gone on holidays with him. While in his house, one boy would usually sleep in Fr Carney‟s bed and Fr Carney would fondle him. The boys told the Garda of other boys who had spent time in Fr Carney‟s house. He contacted the parents and took statements from three more boys the next day and from two more boys at a later stage. Some parents whom he contacted told him to go away and not say such things about Fr Carney. In all, he contacted the parents of about 16 boys. Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that he was conscious of the need for a speedy investigation in case anyone would influence what the boys might say or not say.
28.30 The day after this complaint was made, Fr Carney and the parish priest of Ayrfield, Fr Ó Saorai, called to the Garda Station. Neither had been asked to do so. It seems they had heard about the garda activity. In spite of this, Fr Ó Saorai did not contact Archbishop‟s House. They were met by Inspector Murphy and Sergeant Kiernan. Garda Garland was in the station at the time but does not think he was at the meeting. Fr Carney was cautioned and the boys‟ statements were read to him. He denied the allegations.
28.31 Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that Fr Carney was “somewhat agitated and indignant” and suggested that there were sinister or vindictive motives behind the complaints and there was no basis for them. When told by the Sergeant that there was more than one complaint, Fr Carney was taken aback. Inspector Murphy said he removed his collar but Sergeant Kiernan does not remember that. At this stage Fr Ó Saorai seemed to be under pressure – Sergeant Kiernan thinks Fr Ó Saorai was not fully aware of the nature of the complaints until he saw the statements made by the boys.
28.32 Garda Garland took statements from two other boys in August 1983. The criminal investigation into the altar boy complaints was completed on 30 August 1983 and the file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The swimming pool complaints
28.33 In September 1983 two sets of parents wrote to the Archbishop to complain that their sons had been abused by Fr Carney in a swimming pool. They went initially to the parish priest, Fr Ó Saorai. Fr Ó Saorai was reluctant to go to the Archbishop even though the parents indicated they were going to the Gardaí and even though Fr Ó Saorai was well aware that there was an existing Garda investigation going on into the altar boy complaints. Fr Ó Saorai told the parents that there were other allegations. The parents were shocked and could not understand why the parish priest would not act. He said that if they went to the Archbishop he would vouch for their truthfulness.
28.34 One of these parents then contacted Bishop Kavanagh. She described her approach to the Bishop as a waste of time as he never had time and he always ended the conversation with “pray for him”. The parents wrote to the Archbishop asking him to remove Fr Carney from their parish “but not into another parish where he can continue his actions”. The Archbishop‟s secretary acknowledged this letter as the Archbishop was away.
28.35 One set of parents of the swimming pool complainants made statements to the Gardaí at around this time. The other set of parents did not report to the Gardaí. The mother told the Commission that she was afraid to do so as she was ostracised by some of her neighbours for making a complaint to the Church. In November 1983 this same mother phoned Archbishop‟s House to complain that Fr Carney was still around Ayrfield.
28.36 Shortly after this, Fr Ó Saorai contacted the Archdiocese when he discovered that money was missing and may have been taken by a boy who was staying with Fr Carney.
The Church investigation
28.37 On 12 November 1983, Archbishop Ryan asked Monsignor Alex Stenson and Canon Ardle McMahon to investigate the swimming pool complaints – this was two months after the complaints were received. Monsignor Stenson and Canon McMahon compiled a comprehensive report.
28.38 Fr John Wilson, the Archbishop‟s secretary, told the Church investigators that he had been approached by a classmate of Fr Carney who was concerned about Fr Carney‟s drinking and his non-attendance at retreats and class gatherings. Fr Ó Saorai had been in touch with Fr Wilson and had indicated that people had complained about Fr Carney. Fr Ó Saorai had interviewed two sets of parents who had complained to him and he was aware that there had been other allegations and that parents had already gone to the Gardaí.
28.39 Bishop Kavanagh was informed of the difficulties and was in touch with Chief Superintendent Maurice O'Connor of Whitehall. Fr Wilson was aware that the accusations were at that stage in the DPP's office. Bishop Kavanagh had recommended that Fr Carney leave the parish for a month; it was also indicated that he should not go back to Ayrfield nor should he have children around the house. In fact, Fr Carney was still around the parish and was involved with young people. It seems that Fr Carney had moved to stay with Fr Francis McCarthy in Enniskerry but returned to Ayrfield frequently.
28.40 Bishop Kavanagh told the Church investigators that he had been alerted to problems in early September and had spoken to Fr Ó Saorai. The report does not say who first alerted him but the Commission thinks it likely that it was Chief Superintendent O‟Connor. The chief superintendent told the Commission that he considered it his duty to inform Bishop Kavanagh. Fr Ó Saorai told Bishop Kavanagh that he had heard rumours earlier and had received an anonymous call in about 1981 alleging that Fr Carney had invited a young boy to sleep with him. At this stage Fr Carney had a 19-year-old former resident of an institution staying with him. Bishop Kavanagh said he had been in touch with Chief Superintendent O‟Connor who was the senior garda officer in the area. The chief superintendent told him it was unlikely that charges would be brought.
28.41 Fr Ó Saorai confirmed what Bishop Kavanagh had told the Church investigators and reported on his and Fr Carney‟s visit to the garda station.
28.42 The parents were also interviewed by the Church investigators. They were angry at the delay in dealing with the matter; they believed the children‟s accounts; they also complained of other aspects of Fr Carney‟s behaviour including foul language, always playing golf, unkempt appearance and inappropriate jokes. One parent asked that Fr Carney not only be removed from the parish but also that no other parish or children be put at risk by his reappointment elsewhere. The parent also asked to be informed of whatever decision was made about Fr Carney. The report remarks about the parents‟ statements: “Allowing for a certain bias in their account in view of what these parents believe had happened to their children there was nevertheless an amount of information forthcoming which was disturbing”.
28.43 The Church investigators then put the swimming pool allegations to Fr Carney. He denied them. He agreed he got on well with children and did take the two boys (and others) swimming; he was usually accompanied by two adults (one of whom was Fr Patrick Maguire, a Columban priest who was actually serving in the Archdiocese of Dublin at the time but no one in Archbishop‟s House seems to have adverted to this. Fr Maguire is also a convicted serial child sexual abuser – see Chapter 16). In what the investigators described as a “turning point” in the interview, Fr Carney acknowledged “horseplay” in the swimming pool which the children could have misinterpreted. He thought that a recent allegation involving an actor from Coronation Street93 had caused an over reaction among the parents and the children. Fr Carney also told them of a parish meeting held two years earlier where various “wild allegations” were made about him. These included getting the scoutmaster‟s 15-year-old daughter pregnant, assaulting a seven-year-old girl who was treated in intensive care, excessive drinking and always golfing. “Some of these were obviously untrue and had been shown to be”, he claimed. To the surprise of the investigators, Fr Carney raised the question of whether or not he was entitled to the November mass offerings. The investigators said it was their understanding that he was still appointed as curate in Ayrfield and so was entitled to the offerings. They emphasised that his recent visit to the parish had not been welcomed and that he should stay away pending the findings of this inquiry (he had turned up at a school board meeting).
28.44 Following the formal interview, Fr Carney asked to see Monsignor Stenson. He told Monsignor Stenson that he believed Fr Ó Saorai was prejudiced against him; other people and priests would speak well of him – he cited the names of some who would; he had taken hundreds of children swimming over the years and there were no allegations; the adults who were with him should be approached; he was “slightly less absolute about his vow of obedience” to the Archbishop as he must defend his own personal integrity and reputation.
28.45 The Church investigators carried out the investigations quickly and thoroughly. They did not interview the children but they were well represented by their parents. They issued their report on 24 November 1983. It concluded:
“1. We are satisfied that we got as close to the truth as we can. Fr C is sincere and believes what he tells but there seems to be a gap between what he perceives and what in fact the case may be.
2. He did acknowledge “horseplay” and agreed that physical contact occurred which was open to the suggestion of sexual molestation. However, he categorically denied any attempt to sexually interfere with children.
3. Fr C is in need of guidance, help and education in interpersonal relations. (Perhaps a stay in The Servants of the Paraclete, Stroud, for therapeutic and spiritual renewal might help). At present he is not suitable for Parish; nor should he be appointed to an Institution with children.
4. Fr Carney has indicated his readiness to obey the Archbishop‟s directives in his regard.
Recommendations:
1. Fr Carney should be taken out of Parish ministry for some time until he has sorted out his capacity to relate with respect to others
2. Fr Carney should be given immediate legal advice. Should the DPP proceed might it be advisable to have Fr C out of the jurisdiction?94 Fr C has many friends and the question of financing his legal expenses should be considered. It would be a pity if we were seen to be apparently “washing our hands” in this regard
3. Action should be taken immediately”.
28.46 This report was sent to Archbishop Ryan who asked a series of questions for clarification. The replies from Monsignor Stenson reiterated Fr Carney‟s denial of any wrongdoing and his denial that anything could have happened which he could not remember because he was drunk.
28.47 In December 1983, Monsignor Stenson wrote to the parents of the swimming pool complainants to convey the gratitude of Archbishop Ryan and to assure them “he is taking every measure possible to ensure that there will be no recurrence of the problem”.
Interaction between Bishop Kavanagh and Chief Superintendent O’Connor
28.48 As already described, it is clear that Bishop Kavanagh and Chief Superintendent O‟Connor were in touch with each other about the complaints against Fr Carney. The contemporaneous statement of Bishop Kavanagh states that the chief superintendent told him it was unlikely that charges would be brought against Fr Carney. Chief Superintendent O‟Connor told the Commission that he did tell Bishop Kavanagh that the complaints were being investigated; he said that he himself did not read the file and he denied that he told the Bishop that prosecution was unlikely. The Commission finds the contents of the contemporaneous Church documents more persuasive than the evidence of Chief Superintendent O‟Connor.
28.49 Chief Superintendent O‟Connor told the Commission that Bishop Kavanagh lived up the road from where he had his office (in Whitehall Garda Station) and he (the bishop) used to call into the office “for an ordinary conversation” maybe once or twice a month. The chief superintendent did not find this unusual and did not ask the bishop why he was coming in: “he came in as an ordinary visitor and he‟d come in, walk into my office”. They were not personally friendly. There were no particular purposes for the visits. The Commission finds this strange. People, bishops included, do not normally just walk into garda stations and then into the office of a chief superintendent without some purpose.
Prosecution and court case
28.50 There might well have been no prosecution if the altar boy complainants had gone to the Archdiocese or, indeed, if Fr Ó Saorai had reported the swimming pool complaints to the Archdiocese when he first knew of them. The file in the case of the altar boy complaints had already gone to the DPP (in August 1983) before the Archdiocese became aware (in September 1983) that there were complaints against Fr Carney.
28.51 Chief Superintendent O‟Connor was told of the case by Superintendent Byrne. The file was sent to the DPP by Superintendent Byrne in the usual way. The Commission was told by the Gardaí that it would not be normal practice to submit it first to the chief superintendent.
28.52 The Archdiocese had in its possession a copy of the report prepared for the DPP by Sergeant Kiernan. Inspector Murphy was surprised when this was pointed out to him by the Commission. It is not clear how this was acquired by the Archdiocese. In the events that happened, and given Bishop Kavanagh‟s privileged access to the Gardaí, the Commission considers it reasonable to infer that the Archdiocese received this document from the Gardaí.
28.53 In November 1983, the DPP issued directions to prosecute in the District Court in respect of six boys. Garda Garland was in touch with the parents to keep them updated about developments. The court date was set for 9 December. The Gardaí did not expect the case to be dealt with on that day as they thought that Fr Carney was going to plead not guilty and the question of whether or not the District Court could deal with it would have been an issue.
28.54 Bishop Kavanagh continued to be in touch with Chief Superintendent O‟Connor. The Chief Superintendent told him that “as a result of meeting in Swords with Supt Byrne, case will be held on 9 Dec at 2.00 pm in camera”. Monsignor Stenson said in 1991 that “to avoid publicity the Court case was moved from Howth to Sutton Golf Club” and “B Kavanagh did a lot to ensure the matter was kept low key and may have been instrumental in having the court case moved…”.
28.55 In fact, the case was held at the then regular venue but it is not clear if it was dealt with in a regular manner.
28.56 Monsignor Stenson was under the impression that the court venue was moved from Howth to Sutton Golf Club to avoid publicity and that Bishop Kavanagh may have been instrumental in having it moved. In fact, the normal venue at the time for Howth District Court was Suttonians Rugby Club and this is where the case was held.
28.57 Garda Garland, Sergeant Kiernan and Inspector Murphy attended the court. One of the mothers was present. There were no other witnesses. Fr Carney was accompanied by a priest friend and a lawyer.
28.58 The case was held in camera – this was not unusual because it involved a minor. Fr Carney‟s priest friend, who accompanied him to the court, told the Commission that Fr Carney‟s case was set to be heard last thing in the afternoon. He was waiting for it to be held when the judge indicated that he “was finished with all cases for the day. The court was cleared”. This priest was about to leave when a Garda indicated that he should stay. The judge then returned and the case proceeded. It is normal practice in criminal in camera cases to clear the court but the press are allowed to stay. It is not known if any members of the press were present at this case.
28.59 Fr Carney pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault against the altar boy complainants and the other four charges were withdrawn. The judge granted the Probation Act, having heard evidence that Fr Carney was receiving psychiatric treatment. Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that the court was given a report outlining the treatment which Fr Carney had begun and it was submitted on his behalf that he would not be involved in future ministry with children. The statement from his solicitor that he was receiving medical care seems to have been a major factor in the judge‟s decision. In fact, he had not yet started medical treatment. Garda Garland recalled that the mother who was present was very upset by the leniency of the sentence. The garda was also disappointed.
28.60 Fr Carney‟s priest friend who was in court said that what saved Fr Carney was a letter from Dr John Cooney of St Patrick‟s Hospital. Afterwards, Fr Carney wanted a celebration with “the lads”. His priest friend stopped this. He told Fr Wilson that Fr Carney should go to St Patrick's immediately; Fr Wilson agreed.
After the court case
28.61 Bishop Kavanagh wanted to have Fr Carney admitted to St Patrick‟s Hospital immediately but Fr Carney wanted to wait until after Christmas. Bishop Kavanagh told Fr Carney to stay away from the northside.
28.62 Fr Carney‟s priest friend reported to Fr Wilson that Fr Carney was drinking a lot, was in debt and his car was not taxed. He thought Fr Carney should really be reduced to the lay state because of his behaviour: “Fr C does not seem to realise the seriousness of the situation. He considers himself innocent of the charges”. He said that Fr Carney had to be restrained from visiting a complainant‟s home the night before the court case; he invited people from Ayrfield to the friend‟s house the night before; this priest said he would exercise as much control as he could but could not promise much success.
28.63 It seems that everyone dealing with Fr Carney at this stage, including Archbishop Ryan, thought he should be in hospital but Bishop Kavanagh seems to have been reluctant to insist and he decided not to take further action until after Christmas.
28.64 Archbishop Ryan wrote to Fr Carney, ending his appointment at Ayrfield. The letter said “I must ask you to sever all links with the Parish of Ayrfield and avoid those places and persons which have been the occasion of your difficulties”. It also referred to Fr Carney being in Dr Cooney‟s care for treatment (which he was not at that stage). Fr Carney had gone to stay with another priest in spite of the fact that Bishop Kavanagh had specifically forbidden him to stay there.
28.65 Later in December 1983, Fr Carney wrote to Archbishop Ryan telling him that he had arranged with Dr Cooney to go to St Patrick's Hospital on 6 January 1984. He was going away with a friend for a few days before that. He said he had been “dry” for two weeks and he apologised for the upset he may have caused the Archbishop.
28.66 Inspector Murphy told the Commission that there were no discussions with other authorities about the danger posed by Fr Carney to children. “I suppose looking at it we depended on the Church authority to deal with that aspect of it”. Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that he now thinks he should have contacted Archbishop‟s House after the court case to try to ensure that Fr Carney was not ministering to children and that he should have contacted the health board.
1984
28.67 Fr Carney was treated in St Patrick‟s Hospital from January 1984 until March 1984. He was then given a temporary assignment in Clonskeagh parish under the direction of Monsignor Michael Browne PP. While in Clonskeagh, Fr Carney was to live with the Marist Fathers in Milltown and from April to July 1984, he was to attend a residential retreat for priests. The Marist Fathers have told the Commission that, even though they asked, they were not made aware of the reason for Fr Carney‟s stay with them.
28.68 Monsignor Browne was told by Monsignor Jerome Curtin “in outline only” some features of Fr Carney‟s time in Ayrfield; he was given further information by two other priests, one of whom was Fr Francis McCarthy. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he was under the impression Monsignor Browne had been briefed. Monsignor Browne told the Church penal process in 1990 that he was told that Fr Carney had an alcohol problem. He had heard some rumours about complaints in his previous parish. It is clear that Monsignor Browne was not fully informed as he did not make any effort to keep Fr Carney away from children. In April, Monsignor Browne reported to the Archbishop that Fr Carney was “reliable, punctual, always available for more work than he had been assigned”. His celebration of mass was commended; he celebrated class masses in local schools and the teachers felt this was a priest who could “really communicate with the children”. He maintained contact with St Patrick's Hospital and with Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Nothing was done as a result of this report, even though it contained a clear account of Fr Carney‟s continuing involvement with children. In fact, it would appear that it was regarded as a good report.
28.69 At some stage, the head of the Marist house told Monsignor Browne that Fr Carney was not staying there all the time and that he had had to reprimand him for his coarse language.
28.70 It is not clear if Fr Carney ever attended the residential retreat. He certainly did not stay very long, if he attended at all. He told Archbishop Ryan in July that he had told Bishop Kavanagh in advance that he would not be attending – this cannot be established. His non-attendance or partial attendance seems to have come to the attention of the Archbishop only when the retreat was over – in effect, no one was monitoring him for that three month period.
28.71 In July 1984, Archbishop Ryan met Fr Carney who said he had adhered to his doctor‟s instructions and had not consumed alcohol since December 1983.
28.72 There is no written report from Dr Cooney at this stage but he did tell the Archbishop‟s secretary in July that Fr Carney should be given a diocesan appointment but that he would need to be supervised by the parish priest. Dr Cooney requested Fr Carney to report to him on a weekly basis for six to nine months and said that this should be a condition on which Fr Carney was to be offered a pastoral position. While Stroud was a possibility, Dr Cooney felt that, because of the immaturity and vulnerability of Fr Carney, he would be better to remain in his own environment in the conditions outlined. A place which had been booked for Fr Carney in Stroud was cancelled.
28.73 Monsignor Browne was asked to take Fr Carney on the same conditions as before – that is, he had to live in the Marist house and be under supervision. Monsignor Browne expressed every willingness to co-operate but did say he was gravely disappointed with Fr Carney‟s behaviour as he had heard some reports which were not good; these were not specified. Fr Carney was sent to Clonskeagh on the same conditions as before. Bishop Carroll met Fr Carney who was unhappy that he did not get a permanent appointment. Bishop Carroll walked Fr Carney to his car and reported that there was a young boy (he used the Latin word “puer”) in the car.
28.74 A parent of one of the victims wrote to Monsignor Stenson pointing out that it was nine months since their meeting. He had asked then to be kept informed of “ensuing events”, and he had heard nothing. He had had to move his family from Ayrfield out of duty to his children, to get away from Fr Carney who he described as being “free and unbridled” and was seen swimming in Portmarnock Community Centre with children. Monsignor Stenson sent a holding letter to him and then wrote to Archbishop Ryan for advice on how to deal with the letter from the parent. Monsignor Stenson pointed out to Archbishop Ryan that he was “not au fait” with Fr Carney‟s progress or treatment. He was not happy that the parent was setting himself up as “a moral watchdog on this priest‟s future activities and appointments” and did not think he had a right to be kept informed of “ensuing events”. This neatly encapsulates the Church‟s attitude to lay members during this period. In evidence to the Commission, Monsignor Stenson said he regretted the tone of this letter but he thought that the initial complaint had been reasonably well handled and he had written to this parent in December 1983. Monsignor Stenson also asked the Archbishop what person was monitoring Fr Carney's present involvement with youth and whether Fr Carney was still swimming with children.
28.75 In August, the Archbishop‟s secretary asked Monsignor Stenson to see Fr Carney and discuss the allegations made in the letter from the parent. Monsignor Stenson did so immediately and reported as follows:
“I contacted Fr. Carney at the Marists and asked if he would come and see me. He could not come at 2.30 as he had to see Dr. Cooney. I suggested 3.45 and it was agreed. Within a short time he was back on the 'phone indicating that he had cancelled Dr. Cooney and would come to see me immediately. I impressed on him the importance of seeing Dr. Cooney and that our meeting would follow on that.
When he arrived at 3.45 he indicated that he had been to Dr. Cooney and was seeing him twice weekly? I explained that a letter had been received and read it for him but did not reveal where [the parent who had complained] was now living. Fr. Carney admitted that he had been swimming in Portmarnock with a man and his two children - one of whom is Fr. Carney's godchild. This is a different godchild to the one involved in the earlier allegations. He also admitted that he had visited one or two places in Ayrfield. He indicated that he was involved in the Summer Project in Clonskeagh and went swimming with children from there. He was categorical in stating that no untoward incidents had occurred and that he had been "on the dry" since 11th December (with the exception of Christmas Day - 2 drinks), and now saw things far more clearly. With regard to the original allegations in Ayrfield he conceded that "one" incident" may have occurred in the past but if it did he was drunk and could not remember it. He only pleaded 'guilty' in the Court case on legal advice and to avoid embarrassment for the Diocese. I made it clear that my sole purpose in having a word with him was to offer advice - to be prudent in his pastoral and recreational activity. Given the fact that [the parent who was complaining] could or would hear of Fr. Carney's continued involvement with young boys, he could make life very difficult for him if he went public and even if the charges were without foundation. I suggested that for everyone's sake - not least his own - it would be wise for Fr. Carney to steer clear of this type of activity and preclude this possibility. He didn' t quite see the point I was making and countered it by saying "nothing had happened". When I tried to repeat the point he concluded that he would not be allowed have involvement with the Primary School in Clonskeagh nor have Altar Boys for his Mass etc. I pointed out that he owed it to himself not to allow even the suspicion of allegations be made in his regard, and that there was ample scope for his Priestly Ministry even if he avoided specific concentration on young children. He believes that he has a 'gift' - a way with them. He is not pleased that he is living in the Marist house and would prefer his own flat etc. Again I suggested that that decision may have been with a view to helping him - by eliminating the possibility of allegations in his regard. The fact that he has not a permanent appointment also rankles with him.
All in all I think the meeting was helpful and reasonably satisfactory. Bill doesn't see the problem as others see it. He has his own perception and little or no grasp of how others might see his situation. While not drinking, it would seem he still goes in with the lads and they, not he, have a 'few jars'. "Imprudence" would best sum up the picture. He attributes all his earlier failings among which he listed, dipping into Church funds etc. as due to his drinking problem. Now that this has been identified, and he is being treated for it, he believes all the other problem areas have been eliminated. Whether he will curtail his activity as a result of our meeting I do not know. He is clear that I was only offering advice which, given his circumstances and the recent letter, might be useful for him”.
28.76 In September 1984, Fr Carney said he had been asked to help at a children‟s holiday home. Monsignor Browne told him to check with the Archbishop. Bishop Joseph Carroll (who was in charge of the diocese as Archbishop Ryan had resigned on 1 September 1984) told him to cancel any arrangements with the holiday home and to keep to the terms of his appointment in Clonskeagh. Fr Carney‟s situation was discussed by the auxiliary bishops and it was decided that he should remain in his temporary appointment in Clonskeagh.
28.77 In October, the Archdiocese was informed that Fr Carney rarely stayed at the Marist house. Monsignor Browne wanted a review of his case. He reported that Fr Carney was saying mass in Malahide; Fr Carney told him that he was attending AA regularly and was secretary to the AA group in the Raheny/Baldoyle area. In November, Bishop Kavanagh met Fr Carney and told him that his behaviour was unsatisfactory; his present appointment was to continue for three months‟ probation and he was to report regularly to his medical adviser.
Chapter 28: Fr William Carney
Introduction
28.1 William (Bill) Carney was born in 1950 and was ordained for the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1974. He served in the Archdiocese from ordination until 1989. He was suspended from or had restricted ministry during some of this time. He was dismissed from the clerical state in 1992.
28.2 Bill Carney is a serial sexual abuser of children, male and female. The Commission is aware of complaints or suspicions of child sexual abuse against him in respect of 32 named individuals. There is evidence that he abused many more children. He had access to numerous children in residential care; he took groups of children on holiday; he went swimming with groups of children. He pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault in 1983. The Archdiocese paid compensation to six of his victims. He was one of the most serious serial abusers investigated by the Commission. There is some evidence suggesting that, on separate occasions, he may have acted in concert with other convicted clerical child sexual abusers - Fr Francis McCarthy (see Chapter 41) and Fr Patrick Maguire (see Chapter 16).
28.3 A number of witnesses who gave evidence to the Commission, including priests of the diocese, described Bill Carney as crude and loutish. Virtually all referred to his crude language and unsavoury personal habits. One parent told the Commission that the family had complained to the parish priest about his behaviour but the parish priest said there was nothing he could do.
28.4 In 1974, the year Fr Carney was ordained, the President of Clonliffe College, when assessing him for teaching, reported to Archbishop Dermot Ryan that Fr Carney was “very interested in child care” and was “best with the less intelligent”. His first appointment was as a teacher in Ballyfermot Vocational School while also being chaplain to a convent in Walkinstown. The following year, Fr Carney asked Archbishop Ryan to transfer him from Walkinstown (he was living in the convent) to Ballyfermot "to be more available to the boys and their parents” in Ballyfermot school.
Attempts to foster children
28.5 In 1977/78, Fr Carney made inquiries about fostering children. A social worker in the Eastern Health Board (EHB) told the Commission that she thought the inquiry was odd because “generally priests don‟t parent children”. At the time, single men were not allowed to foster so the inquiry went no further at that stage. Fr Carney discussed the idea with Archbishop Ryan who does not seem to have encouraged him.
28.6 In 1980, Fr Carney again explored the possibility of fostering. He discussed the matter with Bishop James Kavanagh and, according to himself, was told by Bishop Kavanagh that the idea was basically “good and sound”. In a letter to Archbishop Ryan, Fr Carney told him he had had lunch with the Minister for Health, Dr. Michael Woods TD, who, he said, assured him that “as far as he knew there would be no difficulty from the Eastern Health Board”. Dr Woods told the Commission that he has no recollection of meeting Fr Carney but that, if he had been asked about fostering, he would have referred him to the Eastern Health Board. Fr Carney‟s letter was sent to Bishop Dermot O‟Mahony for comment and Bishop Kavanagh for handling but there is no record of their reactions. Around the same time, Fr Carney set out his proposal in writing to the minister following on previous discussions about the matter. He told the minister about his involvement in children‟s homes (see below). He said he had a “housemother” available and that his parish priest was in “full support”. There is no evidence that the proposal progressed any further.
28.7 Fr Carney specifically inquired about fostering a particular boy from an institution when the Ten Plus92 programme got under way around 1982/3. This boy subsequently alleged that Fr Carney had abused him (see below).
Children in or from children’s homes
28.8 During his time in Clonliffe College (1968 – 1974), Bill Carney and a number of other students were regular visitors to a number of children‟s homes. The children‟s homes visited by Bill Carney were St Joseph‟s, Tivoli Road; St Vincent‟s, Drogheda; Lakelands, Sandymount and The Grange, Kill O The Grange. The Clonliffe students took children away for holidays during the summers. Bill Carney‟s involvement with St Joseph‟s and The Grange was more extensive than with the other institutions and continued after his ordination. The Commission is aware of complaints by three former residents of St Vincent‟s, one former resident of St Joseph‟s and one former resident of The Grange that Bill Carney sexually abused them. There is a strong suspicion that one other resident of St Joseph‟s was abused and there are suspicions that other residents of all the institutions he visited were also abused.
28.9 In the 1970s, care workers in some of the children‟s homes visited by Fr Carney clearly did not regard him as a good influence and there were also concerns among health board social workers. At least one care worker in The Grange seems to have had suspicions of inappropriate behaviour but the Commission was unable to contact this person to verify this. Health board social workers gave evidence to the Commission that they were concerned about Fr Carney‟s influence on some residents of the homes but they did not suspect sexual abuse. Their main concern was that he was creating unrealistic expectations among the children including expectations that he could provide them with a home.
St Vincent‟s, Drogheda
28.10 St Vincent‟s was an industrial school and, as such, was governed by the provisions of the Children Acts. Bill Carney and other deacons and/or priests took some of the residents away on holidays. Three boys complained they were abused by Bill Carney on these holidays. Another priest, who accompanied Bill Carney and some boys on holidays in 1973, gave evidence to the Gardaí that, while he never saw any sexual abuse on that holiday, Bill Carney did say to him that “you have to sleep with them because they are insecure”.
St Joseph‟s, Tivoli Rd
28.11 This orphanage was run by the Daughters of the Heart of Mary. It was a private orphanage which received some state support (see Chapter 6) and so was not subject to any statutory rules. The health authorities – the Dublin Health Authority and subsequently the Eastern Health Board - did place some children in the home and these children were visited by social workers.
28.12 The religious order which ran the orphanage told the Commission that, up until the 1960s, children were not taken outside the home by outsiders. During the 1960s, it became the practice to allow children to be taken to selected family homes for the weekend or on holidays. It was considered that this would be a good experience for children raised in institutions. The order says that the families chosen for this purpose were well known to the order and vetted for suitability.
28.13 The student priests from Clonliffe - Bill Carney and Francis McCarthy - started to visit this home in 1973. They were deacons at this stage and they approached the home to ask if they could help the children by engaging in activities with them. Their offer was accepted as “they came from Clonliffe College which was highly respected”. They were in the final stage of preparation for priesthood and had skills from which the children could benefit. The visits continued after they were ordained. They took the children on holidays. They were usually accompanied on holidays by members of the order and/or a childcare worker but on one occasion the children were accompanied only by the priests. They were “fully trusted” by the order to take responsibility for the care and safety of the children. Some of the boys were allowed visit one priest in his parish – Fr Francis McCarthy in Dunlavin (see Chapter 41).
Concerns about a girl in St Joseph‟s
28.14 There are serious suspicions that a girl in St Joseph‟s was abused by Fr Carney but no complaint has been made by her. In 1977, a senior social worker noted, following a discussion with a nun in charge, “[name of girl] fantasy relationship with Fr Bill is still all consuming and I agreed … unhealthy”. The note further states “Her thoughts, conversations and her artistic attempts concern going to bed with Fr. Bill”. This girl was 14 years old at the time and had come to the orphanage with severe behavioural difficulties. She had been placed in the home by the health board and there was quite extensive social worker involvement with her. The order running the home found it very difficult to cope with her. It is clear that Fr Carney was regarded as a significant person in her life as he was invited to a case conference about her.
28.15 This girl‟s social worker gave evidence to the Commission that she had concerns about Fr Carney; she described how the girl was besotted with him. He was always in and out of St Joseph‟s and the social worker felt that his efforts to build up a special trusting relationship with her were inappropriate. She did not take the matter up with the authorities in the home. Her senior social worker did discuss it with the authorities in the home. She never suspected sexual abuse – it never occurred to her at the time (1977).
28.16 The nun in charge of this girl‟s group also had concerns about this girl‟s behaviour and reported these concerns to her superior. The girl was writing Fr Carney‟s name on walls and was behaving strangely. It was considered that she had a crush on him. The superior spoke to Fr Carney and discouraged him from having any dealings with the girl. The nuns did not suspect child abuse.
Boy in St Joseph‟s
28.17 A boy in St Joseph‟s complained that he was abused by Fr Carney while he was a resident in this home. The religious order has told the Commission that it had no knowledge of any allegation or suspicion of abuse in his case. Fr Carney was named as a significant contact in this boy‟s life in a social work report in 1983. In 1982, the nun in charge and a care worker were concerned about the frequency of Fr Carney‟s visits to him. A social worker did have concerns about Fr Carney befriending him and asked Fr Carney to stay away. The concerns did not extend to sexual abuse. Social workers visited this boy monthly. He went to stay with Fr Carney in Ayrfield (the parish to which Fr Carney was appointed in 1977) on a number of occasions and this is where the abuse occurred, according to the boy. A social worker told the Commission that she collected the boy from Fr Carney‟s house and was concerned about the behaviour of Fr Carney towards him – this boy was then 12 years old and Fr Carney seemed to be helping him to dress. She considered that Fr Carney was creating an expectation in the boy of being a parent to him but she did not suspect any sexual abuse. She reported her concerns to her senior social worker. In February 1983, this boy told a care worker that he had been left alone in Fr Carney‟s house until very late or until the morning. The care worker stopped the boy‟s visits at this stage. Fr Carney was very angry with her. Subsequently, she and a social worker met him and it was agreed that he would reduce his contact and that there would be no overnight visits except on special occasions. The care worker felt the relationship was unhealthy but did not suspect abuse.
The Grange, Kill O The Grange
28.18 The Grange was run by the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity. It was a private orphanage. The nun in charge of the institution from 1972 to 1980 said, in a statement to the Commission, that Fr Carney was a frequent visitor to the Grange. He took children out for drives and day trips and sometimes children would stay with him for the weekend. He sometimes stayed overnight in the home. She believed his involvement was in the interests of the children as it provided them with an extra means of recreation. There were discussions at the time about getting male staff and having the clerical students/priests was seen as a stepping stone to this. They were regarded as safe and trustworthy. She said that at no time did she have “any cause to be suspicious” of Fr Carney‟s conduct. A girl who subsequently alleged that she had been abused by Fr Carney was described by this nun as being “crazy” about him and he always gave her special attention. This nun said that the children were not regularly visited by social workers. A social worker who was involved with this girl told the Commission that she met or visited the girl several times a year and that there were review meetings involving social workers and the care staff about twice a year. Sometimes the management of the home was involved as well.
28.19 A staff member told Fr Carney in 1981 to stop seeing this girl. Contact between him and the girl was resumed in 1982 and this caused concern to the home and to the social worker.
28.20 The social worker spoke to Fr Carney in 1982 and told him she thought he should not have any further contact with the girl as she felt “her expectations of their relationship were inappropriate”. Fr Carney had told this girl that he would look after her if she was pregnant. The social worker thought that this was completely inappropriate. Fr Carney asked if she was telling him not to see this girl and she said "yes‟. Fr Carney subsequently phoned the care worker to ask if he should send roses to this girl for her birthday. The care worker and social worker thought this was inappropriate but did not put it any further than that. The social worker did not suspect sexual abuse.
28.21 It seems that around 1983, it was decided that the children could not go and stay with Fr Carney, as a care worker had some suspicions about the relationship between a boy and Fr Carney. A nun from The Grange told the canonical church penal process taken against Fr Carney in 1991/92 (see Chapter 4) that people did not specify what the problem was but she understood that he was showing an “unhealthy interest” in young boys.
28.22 The Grange closed in or around 1982/1983. The girl who later alleged she had been abused by Fr Carney moved to An Grianán (see below) in 1982.
28.23 In 1989, when she was an adult, this girl told the social worker who had been dealing with her while she was in The Grange that she had been sexually abused by Fr Carney while in The Grange and that the abuse included full intercourse.
28.24 A nun from The Grange told the church penal process that she was aware of concerns about Fr Carney in The Grange. She did not have direct contact with him there but she reported that former residents of the Grange stayed with him when he was in Clogher Road (the parish to which he was appointed in 1986). She took one of them away from there in 1987 because of the condition of the house – it was full of empty alcohol bottles and was not, in her view, fit to live in.
An Grianán
28.25 An Grianán was also run by the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity. It catered for girls aged 12 to 18. Both the girl from St Joseph‟s and the girl from The Grange moved to An Grianán when they were aged about 16. The health board was no longer responsible for children in care once they reached 16 but the social worker told the Commission that she did visit the girl from The Grange while she was in An Grianán. The nun in charge said in 1999 that, to the best of her knowledge, Fr Carney did not visit the girl from The Grange in An Grianán. The girl says that he did and that he took her out for the day on a number of occasions. The nun accepted that Fr Carney did call to visit another former resident of The Grange after this particular girl had left. The nun also stated that she heard rumours about Fr Carney in the mid 1980s “that were not positive”. A girl in An Grianán told her that she used to visit Fr Carney in Ayrfield while she was living in a children‟s home and she never wanted to visit him again as he had tried to molest her. The nun does not appear to have done anything about this. It is not clear whether the girl was alleging that this happened when she was underage.
28.26 The social worker was told by An Grianán that the girl from The Grange was writing to Fr Carney while she was there. She also noted that he had called to see her in An Grianán and did see her there at Christmas 1982. This girl said that she was not abused in An Grianán. She thought the nun in charge suspected Fr Carney and did not like him. It is clear that the nun in charge did not like Fr Carney but it is not clear if she suspected him of abuse while this girl was in An Grianán.
First recorded complaints to the Archdiocese, 1983
28.27 Fr Carney was appointed a curate in Ayrfield parish in 1977. At that time he was a regular visitor to various homes and during his time in Ayrfield brought many children from those homes to stay with him. There is a suggestion that the Archdiocese may have had a complaint or suspicions about inappropriate behaviour by Fr Carney as early as 1978 but this cannot now be established.
28.28 The first documented complaint about Fr Carney was made to the Gardaí in July 1983 by altar boys; the altar boys did not complain to the Archdiocese at this time. Complaints by boys who he took swimming were made to the Archdiocese in September 1983; some of the swimming pool complainants also complained to the Gardaí.
The altar boy complaints
28.29 In July 1983, two brothers went with their father to a Garda station and complained that they had been abused by Fr Carney. Garda Finbar Garland was a young garda with just under a year‟s experience when this complaint was made to him. He told the Commission that, while he had experience in taking statements, he had no training in taking statements from children. The garda had a clear recollection of the young boys and their father coming to the Garda Station. He said he was shocked and disgusted by what he heard. He consulted his immediate superior, Sergeant Kiernan. Garda Garland went to the boys‟ home later that day to take statements. The boys told him that they were altar boys and had slept in Fr Carney‟s house on a number of occasions and had gone on holidays with him. While in his house, one boy would usually sleep in Fr Carney‟s bed and Fr Carney would fondle him. The boys told the Garda of other boys who had spent time in Fr Carney‟s house. He contacted the parents and took statements from three more boys the next day and from two more boys at a later stage. Some parents whom he contacted told him to go away and not say such things about Fr Carney. In all, he contacted the parents of about 16 boys. Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that he was conscious of the need for a speedy investigation in case anyone would influence what the boys might say or not say.
28.30 The day after this complaint was made, Fr Carney and the parish priest of Ayrfield, Fr Ó Saorai, called to the Garda Station. Neither had been asked to do so. It seems they had heard about the garda activity. In spite of this, Fr Ó Saorai did not contact Archbishop‟s House. They were met by Inspector Murphy and Sergeant Kiernan. Garda Garland was in the station at the time but does not think he was at the meeting. Fr Carney was cautioned and the boys‟ statements were read to him. He denied the allegations.
28.31 Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that Fr Carney was “somewhat agitated and indignant” and suggested that there were sinister or vindictive motives behind the complaints and there was no basis for them. When told by the Sergeant that there was more than one complaint, Fr Carney was taken aback. Inspector Murphy said he removed his collar but Sergeant Kiernan does not remember that. At this stage Fr Ó Saorai seemed to be under pressure – Sergeant Kiernan thinks Fr Ó Saorai was not fully aware of the nature of the complaints until he saw the statements made by the boys.
28.32 Garda Garland took statements from two other boys in August 1983. The criminal investigation into the altar boy complaints was completed on 30 August 1983 and the file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The swimming pool complaints
28.33 In September 1983 two sets of parents wrote to the Archbishop to complain that their sons had been abused by Fr Carney in a swimming pool. They went initially to the parish priest, Fr Ó Saorai. Fr Ó Saorai was reluctant to go to the Archbishop even though the parents indicated they were going to the Gardaí and even though Fr Ó Saorai was well aware that there was an existing Garda investigation going on into the altar boy complaints. Fr Ó Saorai told the parents that there were other allegations. The parents were shocked and could not understand why the parish priest would not act. He said that if they went to the Archbishop he would vouch for their truthfulness.
28.34 One of these parents then contacted Bishop Kavanagh. She described her approach to the Bishop as a waste of time as he never had time and he always ended the conversation with “pray for him”. The parents wrote to the Archbishop asking him to remove Fr Carney from their parish “but not into another parish where he can continue his actions”. The Archbishop‟s secretary acknowledged this letter as the Archbishop was away.
28.35 One set of parents of the swimming pool complainants made statements to the Gardaí at around this time. The other set of parents did not report to the Gardaí. The mother told the Commission that she was afraid to do so as she was ostracised by some of her neighbours for making a complaint to the Church. In November 1983 this same mother phoned Archbishop‟s House to complain that Fr Carney was still around Ayrfield.
28.36 Shortly after this, Fr Ó Saorai contacted the Archdiocese when he discovered that money was missing and may have been taken by a boy who was staying with Fr Carney.
The Church investigation
28.37 On 12 November 1983, Archbishop Ryan asked Monsignor Alex Stenson and Canon Ardle McMahon to investigate the swimming pool complaints – this was two months after the complaints were received. Monsignor Stenson and Canon McMahon compiled a comprehensive report.
28.38 Fr John Wilson, the Archbishop‟s secretary, told the Church investigators that he had been approached by a classmate of Fr Carney who was concerned about Fr Carney‟s drinking and his non-attendance at retreats and class gatherings. Fr Ó Saorai had been in touch with Fr Wilson and had indicated that people had complained about Fr Carney. Fr Ó Saorai had interviewed two sets of parents who had complained to him and he was aware that there had been other allegations and that parents had already gone to the Gardaí.
28.39 Bishop Kavanagh was informed of the difficulties and was in touch with Chief Superintendent Maurice O'Connor of Whitehall. Fr Wilson was aware that the accusations were at that stage in the DPP's office. Bishop Kavanagh had recommended that Fr Carney leave the parish for a month; it was also indicated that he should not go back to Ayrfield nor should he have children around the house. In fact, Fr Carney was still around the parish and was involved with young people. It seems that Fr Carney had moved to stay with Fr Francis McCarthy in Enniskerry but returned to Ayrfield frequently.
28.40 Bishop Kavanagh told the Church investigators that he had been alerted to problems in early September and had spoken to Fr Ó Saorai. The report does not say who first alerted him but the Commission thinks it likely that it was Chief Superintendent O‟Connor. The chief superintendent told the Commission that he considered it his duty to inform Bishop Kavanagh. Fr Ó Saorai told Bishop Kavanagh that he had heard rumours earlier and had received an anonymous call in about 1981 alleging that Fr Carney had invited a young boy to sleep with him. At this stage Fr Carney had a 19-year-old former resident of an institution staying with him. Bishop Kavanagh said he had been in touch with Chief Superintendent O‟Connor who was the senior garda officer in the area. The chief superintendent told him it was unlikely that charges would be brought.
28.41 Fr Ó Saorai confirmed what Bishop Kavanagh had told the Church investigators and reported on his and Fr Carney‟s visit to the garda station.
28.42 The parents were also interviewed by the Church investigators. They were angry at the delay in dealing with the matter; they believed the children‟s accounts; they also complained of other aspects of Fr Carney‟s behaviour including foul language, always playing golf, unkempt appearance and inappropriate jokes. One parent asked that Fr Carney not only be removed from the parish but also that no other parish or children be put at risk by his reappointment elsewhere. The parent also asked to be informed of whatever decision was made about Fr Carney. The report remarks about the parents‟ statements: “Allowing for a certain bias in their account in view of what these parents believe had happened to their children there was nevertheless an amount of information forthcoming which was disturbing”.
28.43 The Church investigators then put the swimming pool allegations to Fr Carney. He denied them. He agreed he got on well with children and did take the two boys (and others) swimming; he was usually accompanied by two adults (one of whom was Fr Patrick Maguire, a Columban priest who was actually serving in the Archdiocese of Dublin at the time but no one in Archbishop‟s House seems to have adverted to this. Fr Maguire is also a convicted serial child sexual abuser – see Chapter 16). In what the investigators described as a “turning point” in the interview, Fr Carney acknowledged “horseplay” in the swimming pool which the children could have misinterpreted. He thought that a recent allegation involving an actor from Coronation Street93 had caused an over reaction among the parents and the children. Fr Carney also told them of a parish meeting held two years earlier where various “wild allegations” were made about him. These included getting the scoutmaster‟s 15-year-old daughter pregnant, assaulting a seven-year-old girl who was treated in intensive care, excessive drinking and always golfing. “Some of these were obviously untrue and had been shown to be”, he claimed. To the surprise of the investigators, Fr Carney raised the question of whether or not he was entitled to the November mass offerings. The investigators said it was their understanding that he was still appointed as curate in Ayrfield and so was entitled to the offerings. They emphasised that his recent visit to the parish had not been welcomed and that he should stay away pending the findings of this inquiry (he had turned up at a school board meeting).
28.44 Following the formal interview, Fr Carney asked to see Monsignor Stenson. He told Monsignor Stenson that he believed Fr Ó Saorai was prejudiced against him; other people and priests would speak well of him – he cited the names of some who would; he had taken hundreds of children swimming over the years and there were no allegations; the adults who were with him should be approached; he was “slightly less absolute about his vow of obedience” to the Archbishop as he must defend his own personal integrity and reputation.
28.45 The Church investigators carried out the investigations quickly and thoroughly. They did not interview the children but they were well represented by their parents. They issued their report on 24 November 1983. It concluded:
“1. We are satisfied that we got as close to the truth as we can. Fr C is sincere and believes what he tells but there seems to be a gap between what he perceives and what in fact the case may be.
2. He did acknowledge “horseplay” and agreed that physical contact occurred which was open to the suggestion of sexual molestation. However, he categorically denied any attempt to sexually interfere with children.
3. Fr C is in need of guidance, help and education in interpersonal relations. (Perhaps a stay in The Servants of the Paraclete, Stroud, for therapeutic and spiritual renewal might help). At present he is not suitable for Parish; nor should he be appointed to an Institution with children.
4. Fr Carney has indicated his readiness to obey the Archbishop‟s directives in his regard.
Recommendations:
1. Fr Carney should be taken out of Parish ministry for some time until he has sorted out his capacity to relate with respect to others
2. Fr Carney should be given immediate legal advice. Should the DPP proceed might it be advisable to have Fr C out of the jurisdiction?94 Fr C has many friends and the question of financing his legal expenses should be considered. It would be a pity if we were seen to be apparently “washing our hands” in this regard
3. Action should be taken immediately”.
28.46 This report was sent to Archbishop Ryan who asked a series of questions for clarification. The replies from Monsignor Stenson reiterated Fr Carney‟s denial of any wrongdoing and his denial that anything could have happened which he could not remember because he was drunk.
28.47 In December 1983, Monsignor Stenson wrote to the parents of the swimming pool complainants to convey the gratitude of Archbishop Ryan and to assure them “he is taking every measure possible to ensure that there will be no recurrence of the problem”.
Interaction between Bishop Kavanagh and Chief Superintendent O’Connor
28.48 As already described, it is clear that Bishop Kavanagh and Chief Superintendent O‟Connor were in touch with each other about the complaints against Fr Carney. The contemporaneous statement of Bishop Kavanagh states that the chief superintendent told him it was unlikely that charges would be brought against Fr Carney. Chief Superintendent O‟Connor told the Commission that he did tell Bishop Kavanagh that the complaints were being investigated; he said that he himself did not read the file and he denied that he told the Bishop that prosecution was unlikely. The Commission finds the contents of the contemporaneous Church documents more persuasive than the evidence of Chief Superintendent O‟Connor.
28.49 Chief Superintendent O‟Connor told the Commission that Bishop Kavanagh lived up the road from where he had his office (in Whitehall Garda Station) and he (the bishop) used to call into the office “for an ordinary conversation” maybe once or twice a month. The chief superintendent did not find this unusual and did not ask the bishop why he was coming in: “he came in as an ordinary visitor and he‟d come in, walk into my office”. They were not personally friendly. There were no particular purposes for the visits. The Commission finds this strange. People, bishops included, do not normally just walk into garda stations and then into the office of a chief superintendent without some purpose.
Prosecution and court case
28.50 There might well have been no prosecution if the altar boy complainants had gone to the Archdiocese or, indeed, if Fr Ó Saorai had reported the swimming pool complaints to the Archdiocese when he first knew of them. The file in the case of the altar boy complaints had already gone to the DPP (in August 1983) before the Archdiocese became aware (in September 1983) that there were complaints against Fr Carney.
28.51 Chief Superintendent O‟Connor was told of the case by Superintendent Byrne. The file was sent to the DPP by Superintendent Byrne in the usual way. The Commission was told by the Gardaí that it would not be normal practice to submit it first to the chief superintendent.
28.52 The Archdiocese had in its possession a copy of the report prepared for the DPP by Sergeant Kiernan. Inspector Murphy was surprised when this was pointed out to him by the Commission. It is not clear how this was acquired by the Archdiocese. In the events that happened, and given Bishop Kavanagh‟s privileged access to the Gardaí, the Commission considers it reasonable to infer that the Archdiocese received this document from the Gardaí.
28.53 In November 1983, the DPP issued directions to prosecute in the District Court in respect of six boys. Garda Garland was in touch with the parents to keep them updated about developments. The court date was set for 9 December. The Gardaí did not expect the case to be dealt with on that day as they thought that Fr Carney was going to plead not guilty and the question of whether or not the District Court could deal with it would have been an issue.
28.54 Bishop Kavanagh continued to be in touch with Chief Superintendent O‟Connor. The Chief Superintendent told him that “as a result of meeting in Swords with Supt Byrne, case will be held on 9 Dec at 2.00 pm in camera”. Monsignor Stenson said in 1991 that “to avoid publicity the Court case was moved from Howth to Sutton Golf Club” and “B Kavanagh did a lot to ensure the matter was kept low key and may have been instrumental in having the court case moved…”.
28.55 In fact, the case was held at the then regular venue but it is not clear if it was dealt with in a regular manner.
28.56 Monsignor Stenson was under the impression that the court venue was moved from Howth to Sutton Golf Club to avoid publicity and that Bishop Kavanagh may have been instrumental in having it moved. In fact, the normal venue at the time for Howth District Court was Suttonians Rugby Club and this is where the case was held.
28.57 Garda Garland, Sergeant Kiernan and Inspector Murphy attended the court. One of the mothers was present. There were no other witnesses. Fr Carney was accompanied by a priest friend and a lawyer.
28.58 The case was held in camera – this was not unusual because it involved a minor. Fr Carney‟s priest friend, who accompanied him to the court, told the Commission that Fr Carney‟s case was set to be heard last thing in the afternoon. He was waiting for it to be held when the judge indicated that he “was finished with all cases for the day. The court was cleared”. This priest was about to leave when a Garda indicated that he should stay. The judge then returned and the case proceeded. It is normal practice in criminal in camera cases to clear the court but the press are allowed to stay. It is not known if any members of the press were present at this case.
28.59 Fr Carney pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault against the altar boy complainants and the other four charges were withdrawn. The judge granted the Probation Act, having heard evidence that Fr Carney was receiving psychiatric treatment. Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that the court was given a report outlining the treatment which Fr Carney had begun and it was submitted on his behalf that he would not be involved in future ministry with children. The statement from his solicitor that he was receiving medical care seems to have been a major factor in the judge‟s decision. In fact, he had not yet started medical treatment. Garda Garland recalled that the mother who was present was very upset by the leniency of the sentence. The garda was also disappointed.
28.60 Fr Carney‟s priest friend who was in court said that what saved Fr Carney was a letter from Dr John Cooney of St Patrick‟s Hospital. Afterwards, Fr Carney wanted a celebration with “the lads”. His priest friend stopped this. He told Fr Wilson that Fr Carney should go to St Patrick's immediately; Fr Wilson agreed.
After the court case
28.61 Bishop Kavanagh wanted to have Fr Carney admitted to St Patrick‟s Hospital immediately but Fr Carney wanted to wait until after Christmas. Bishop Kavanagh told Fr Carney to stay away from the northside.
28.62 Fr Carney‟s priest friend reported to Fr Wilson that Fr Carney was drinking a lot, was in debt and his car was not taxed. He thought Fr Carney should really be reduced to the lay state because of his behaviour: “Fr C does not seem to realise the seriousness of the situation. He considers himself innocent of the charges”. He said that Fr Carney had to be restrained from visiting a complainant‟s home the night before the court case; he invited people from Ayrfield to the friend‟s house the night before; this priest said he would exercise as much control as he could but could not promise much success.
28.63 It seems that everyone dealing with Fr Carney at this stage, including Archbishop Ryan, thought he should be in hospital but Bishop Kavanagh seems to have been reluctant to insist and he decided not to take further action until after Christmas.
28.64 Archbishop Ryan wrote to Fr Carney, ending his appointment at Ayrfield. The letter said “I must ask you to sever all links with the Parish of Ayrfield and avoid those places and persons which have been the occasion of your difficulties”. It also referred to Fr Carney being in Dr Cooney‟s care for treatment (which he was not at that stage). Fr Carney had gone to stay with another priest in spite of the fact that Bishop Kavanagh had specifically forbidden him to stay there.
28.65 Later in December 1983, Fr Carney wrote to Archbishop Ryan telling him that he had arranged with Dr Cooney to go to St Patrick's Hospital on 6 January 1984. He was going away with a friend for a few days before that. He said he had been “dry” for two weeks and he apologised for the upset he may have caused the Archbishop.
28.66 Inspector Murphy told the Commission that there were no discussions with other authorities about the danger posed by Fr Carney to children. “I suppose looking at it we depended on the Church authority to deal with that aspect of it”. Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that he now thinks he should have contacted Archbishop‟s House after the court case to try to ensure that Fr Carney was not ministering to children and that he should have contacted the health board.
1984
28.67 Fr Carney was treated in St Patrick‟s Hospital from January 1984 until March 1984. He was then given a temporary assignment in Clonskeagh parish under the direction of Monsignor Michael Browne PP. While in Clonskeagh, Fr Carney was to live with the Marist Fathers in Milltown and from April to July 1984, he was to attend a residential retreat for priests. The Marist Fathers have told the Commission that, even though they asked, they were not made aware of the reason for Fr Carney‟s stay with them.
28.68 Monsignor Browne was told by Monsignor Jerome Curtin “in outline only” some features of Fr Carney‟s time in Ayrfield; he was given further information by two other priests, one of whom was Fr Francis McCarthy. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he was under the impression Monsignor Browne had been briefed. Monsignor Browne told the Church penal process in 1990 that he was told that Fr Carney had an alcohol problem. He had heard some rumours about complaints in his previous parish. It is clear that Monsignor Browne was not fully informed as he did not make any effort to keep Fr Carney away from children. In April, Monsignor Browne reported to the Archbishop that Fr Carney was “reliable, punctual, always available for more work than he had been assigned”. His celebration of mass was commended; he celebrated class masses in local schools and the teachers felt this was a priest who could “really communicate with the children”. He maintained contact with St Patrick's Hospital and with Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Nothing was done as a result of this report, even though it contained a clear account of Fr Carney‟s continuing involvement with children. In fact, it would appear that it was regarded as a good report.
28.69 At some stage, the head of the Marist house told Monsignor Browne that Fr Carney was not staying there all the time and that he had had to reprimand him for his coarse language.
28.70 It is not clear if Fr Carney ever attended the residential retreat. He certainly did not stay very long, if he attended at all. He told Archbishop Ryan in July that he had told Bishop Kavanagh in advance that he would not be attending – this cannot be established. His non-attendance or partial attendance seems to have come to the attention of the Archbishop only when the retreat was over – in effect, no one was monitoring him for that three month period.
28.71 In July 1984, Archbishop Ryan met Fr Carney who said he had adhered to his doctor‟s instructions and had not consumed alcohol since December 1983.
28.72 There is no written report from Dr Cooney at this stage but he did tell the Archbishop‟s secretary in July that Fr Carney should be given a diocesan appointment but that he would need to be supervised by the parish priest. Dr Cooney requested Fr Carney to report to him on a weekly basis for six to nine months and said that this should be a condition on which Fr Carney was to be offered a pastoral position. While Stroud was a possibility, Dr Cooney felt that, because of the immaturity and vulnerability of Fr Carney, he would be better to remain in his own environment in the conditions outlined. A place which had been booked for Fr Carney in Stroud was cancelled.
28.73 Monsignor Browne was asked to take Fr Carney on the same conditions as before – that is, he had to live in the Marist house and be under supervision. Monsignor Browne expressed every willingness to co-operate but did say he was gravely disappointed with Fr Carney‟s behaviour as he had heard some reports which were not good; these were not specified. Fr Carney was sent to Clonskeagh on the same conditions as before. Bishop Carroll met Fr Carney who was unhappy that he did not get a permanent appointment. Bishop Carroll walked Fr Carney to his car and reported that there was a young boy (he used the Latin word “puer”) in the car.
28.74 A parent of one of the victims wrote to Monsignor Stenson pointing out that it was nine months since their meeting. He had asked then to be kept informed of “ensuing events”, and he had heard nothing. He had had to move his family from Ayrfield out of duty to his children, to get away from Fr Carney who he described as being “free and unbridled” and was seen swimming in Portmarnock Community Centre with children. Monsignor Stenson sent a holding letter to him and then wrote to Archbishop Ryan for advice on how to deal with the letter from the parent. Monsignor Stenson pointed out to Archbishop Ryan that he was “not au fait” with Fr Carney‟s progress or treatment. He was not happy that the parent was setting himself up as “a moral watchdog on this priest‟s future activities and appointments” and did not think he had a right to be kept informed of “ensuing events”. This neatly encapsulates the Church‟s attitude to lay members during this period. In evidence to the Commission, Monsignor Stenson said he regretted the tone of this letter but he thought that the initial complaint had been reasonably well handled and he had written to this parent in December 1983. Monsignor Stenson also asked the Archbishop what person was monitoring Fr Carney's present involvement with youth and whether Fr Carney was still swimming with children.
28.75 In August, the Archbishop‟s secretary asked Monsignor Stenson to see Fr Carney and discuss the allegations made in the letter from the parent. Monsignor Stenson did so immediately and reported as follows:
“I contacted Fr. Carney at the Marists and asked if he would come and see me. He could not come at 2.30 as he had to see Dr. Cooney. I suggested 3.45 and it was agreed. Within a short time he was back on the 'phone indicating that he had cancelled Dr. Cooney and would come to see me immediately. I impressed on him the importance of seeing Dr. Cooney and that our meeting would follow on that.
When he arrived at 3.45 he indicated that he had been to Dr. Cooney and was seeing him twice weekly? I explained that a letter had been received and read it for him but did not reveal where [the parent who had complained] was now living. Fr. Carney admitted that he had been swimming in Portmarnock with a man and his two children - one of whom is Fr. Carney's godchild. This is a different godchild to the one involved in the earlier allegations. He also admitted that he had visited one or two places in Ayrfield. He indicated that he was involved in the Summer Project in Clonskeagh and went swimming with children from there. He was categorical in stating that no untoward incidents had occurred and that he had been "on the dry" since 11th December (with the exception of Christmas Day - 2 drinks), and now saw things far more clearly. With regard to the original allegations in Ayrfield he conceded that "one" incident" may have occurred in the past but if it did he was drunk and could not remember it. He only pleaded 'guilty' in the Court case on legal advice and to avoid embarrassment for the Diocese. I made it clear that my sole purpose in having a word with him was to offer advice - to be prudent in his pastoral and recreational activity. Given the fact that [the parent who was complaining] could or would hear of Fr. Carney's continued involvement with young boys, he could make life very difficult for him if he went public and even if the charges were without foundation. I suggested that for everyone's sake - not least his own - it would be wise for Fr. Carney to steer clear of this type of activity and preclude this possibility. He didn' t quite see the point I was making and countered it by saying "nothing had happened". When I tried to repeat the point he concluded that he would not be allowed have involvement with the Primary School in Clonskeagh nor have Altar Boys for his Mass etc. I pointed out that he owed it to himself not to allow even the suspicion of allegations be made in his regard, and that there was ample scope for his Priestly Ministry even if he avoided specific concentration on young children. He believes that he has a 'gift' - a way with them. He is not pleased that he is living in the Marist house and would prefer his own flat etc. Again I suggested that that decision may have been with a view to helping him - by eliminating the possibility of allegations in his regard. The fact that he has not a permanent appointment also rankles with him.
All in all I think the meeting was helpful and reasonably satisfactory. Bill doesn't see the problem as others see it. He has his own perception and little or no grasp of how others might see his situation. While not drinking, it would seem he still goes in with the lads and they, not he, have a 'few jars'. "Imprudence" would best sum up the picture. He attributes all his earlier failings among which he listed, dipping into Church funds etc. as due to his drinking problem. Now that this has been identified, and he is being treated for it, he believes all the other problem areas have been eliminated. Whether he will curtail his activity as a result of our meeting I do not know. He is clear that I was only offering advice which, given his circumstances and the recent letter, might be useful for him”.
28.76 In September 1984, Fr Carney said he had been asked to help at a children‟s holiday home. Monsignor Browne told him to check with the Archbishop. Bishop Joseph Carroll (who was in charge of the diocese as Archbishop Ryan had resigned on 1 September 1984) told him to cancel any arrangements with the holiday home and to keep to the terms of his appointment in Clonskeagh. Fr Carney‟s situation was discussed by the auxiliary bishops and it was decided that he should remain in his temporary appointment in Clonskeagh.
28.77 In October, the Archdiocese was informed that Fr Carney rarely stayed at the Marist house. Monsignor Browne wanted a review of his case. He reported that Fr Carney was saying mass in Malahide; Fr Carney told him that he was attending AA regularly and was secretary to the AA group in the Raheny/Baldoyle area. In November, Bishop Kavanagh met Fr Carney and told him that his behaviour was unsatisfactory; his present appointment was to continue for three months‟ probation and he was to report regularly to his medical adviser.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36171
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests