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.