Chapter 10: Education and Formation of Priests
Introduction
10.1 The principal college for the education of diocesan priests, or what the Church itself calls “formation”, in the Archdiocese of Dublin during the period under investigation by the Commission, was Holy Cross College, situated at Clonliffe Road in Drumcondra, Dublin and generally known as Clonliffe College. There were a number of alternatives to Clonliffe as a means of achieving admission to diocesan ministry during this period, namely, St Patrick‟s College, Maynooth, Co Kildare; the Irish College in Rome and the Propaganda College in Rome. Clonliffe College was founded in 1859 and ceased operating as a seminary in June 2000. It had two boards, the college council and the college finance committee. The college council was made up of priests appointed to the staff of the college by the Archbishop of Dublin and this council was responsible for advising the college president with regard to policy and its implementation. The college finance committee was made up of the college president, the vice-president, the director of formation, the college bursar, the diocesan financial administrator and a number of other priests of the diocese appointed by the Archbishop. The function of that committee was to advise the college president on financial policy, its implementation and oversight.
10.2 From the 1960s, the programme for a candidate attending Clonliffe consisted of seven years training. The first three years were typically taken up with philosophical studies at University College Dublin, at the conclusion of which the successful student would obtain a Bachelor of Arts degree. The remaining four years of training were taken up with theological studies in Clonliffe College itself. It was also possible to complete the first phase of training in philosophical studies at the Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy, initially by way of the award of a National Diploma in Humanities recognised by the National Council for Education Awards (now the Higher Education and Training Awards Council - HETAC) and, later, by a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy.
Eligibility and application
10.3 Canon 241 of the code of canon law states: ―The diocesan bishop is to admit to the major seminary only those whose human, moral, spiritual and intellectual gifts, as well as physical and psychological health and right intention, show that they are capable of dedicating themselves permanently to the sacred ministries.‖
10.4 Canon 1041 excludes from formation as a priest those suffering from “insanity and psychological infirmity‖, where such infirmity results in the priest being incapable of properly fulfilling his ministry. The faithful are obliged by canon 1043 to reveal to their priest or bishop any irregularities in the make-up of a candidate, so that those irregularities may be properly investigated. Even if those irregularities are discovered after the process of formation commences in a seminary, the bishop retains the discretion to exclude the candidate from continuing his formation for the priesthood.
10.5 A minimum requirement for entry into Clonliffe College was that the candidate had passed the Leaving Certificate and/or Matriculation.
10.6 An application form was completed by the candidate, supported by a letter of recommendation from his parish priest. Clonliffe College then dispatched a questionnaire directly to the parish priest, which sought information on certain aspects of the candidate‟s personality and background, such as his mental health, any history of crime, his general suitability for the priesthood and whether or not he was under any undue influence that led him to his application. At this stage, the director of vocations of the college decided whether or not a candidate was suitable for further assessment by the college.
10.7 The candidate then underwent a medical examination. The next step was an in-depth interview between the candidate and a member of the college staff.
Psychological assessment
10.8 Sometime around the early 1970s, psychological assessments of candidates began. The psychological assessment would typically address such areas as personal background, social background, general intelligence, special aptitudes, vocation interests, personality and sexuality.
10.9 Following the initial assessment, the candidate met his assessors who would provide the candidate with feedback on the outcome of his assessment. The assessors in turn typically met the president of Clonliffe College, the director of formation and the director of vocations, before a final decision was taken on admittance. Monsignor Peter Briscoe, who was first appointed to the college in 1978 and was president from 1989 until its closure in 2000, indicated to the Commission that he had no specific recollection that anyone was ever excluded as a result of concerns arising from the psychological assessment about sexual predilections involving children. Most of the priests in the representative sample had completed their formation before this time period.
Garda vetting
10.10 There was apparently no process whereby potential candidates for the priesthood were vetted by An Garda Síochána. In December 2000, the then director of vocations for the Archdiocese of Dublin, Fr Kevin Doran, commenced correspondence with An Garda Síochána in an attempt to open an avenue to allow the director to have potential candidates screened for any police history. At that time, Fr Doran was informed by An Garda Síochána that it dealt with clearance applications only with respect to prospective full-time employees of certain designated organisations operating within the health board areas, where such employees would have access to children and vulnerable adults. As of 2002, the Catholic Church was not one of those designated agencies. In August 2002, the National Child Protection Office of the Irish Bishops‟ Conference lobbied the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, seeking to have the Church designated as a body that could seek vetting of prospective priests through a priests-clearance procedure. The Commission understands that the current position is that the prospective candidate supplies the diocese with a written authority to An Garda Síochána authorising them to supply the diocese with a note of any criminal convictions recorded against him.
Evaluation during formation
10.11 Bishop Eamonn Walsh was Dean of Clonliffe College from 1977 to 1985. He told the Commission that the college council evaluated the students on an ongoing basis. Monsignor Alex Stenson, who was a member of the staff at Clonliffe College for 25 years, told the Commission that evaluation meetings would occur approximately once a month. The Commission was unable to obtain any records of any evaluations carried out on any of the priests in the representative sample. The absence of this information was in part explained by Bishop Walsh:
―I always recall … Brendan Houlihan, as President saying to me when a priest is ordained he should leave the college with a clean record. If we have approved him for ordination, he should start from scratch and maybe that accounts for the attitude towards records, that once you promoted the person for ordination then he is a graduate and let the file begin from that day forward‖.
Pastoral placement
10.12 During each year of formation, a student was assigned a pastoral placement. In addition, the student was placed in a group which was formed for the purposes of considering the pastoral, social and theological aspects of the placement. These pastoral reflection groups were led either by the director of formation of the college or by someone else with specialist qualifications in this area within the College staff. The student was expected to write a half-yearly report of his progress in the pastoral setting, which would be presented to the director of formation and to his own supervisor.
10.13 Monsignor Briscoe outlined to the Commission the type of pastoral experience that a candidate was likely to attain during his period at Clonliffe College. In his first two years in the seminary, he would typically visit poor and disadvantaged people in special centres. The third year involved youth work and in years four and five, respectively, the candidate would be assigned to work with seriously ill people and in prison chaplaincy. In the final two years at the college, the student was placed in a parish and was usually maintained in the same parish.
10.14 During the first six years in the seminary, pastoral experience typically took place during an afternoon or an evening each week. In his final year, the student would normally be ordained as a deacon and it was also normal for him to spend an extended period of his summer vacation working in a parish in the south of England.
Spiritual director
10.15 Once admitted to the College, all candidates were required to have a spiritual director. It was a matter for the candidate himself to choose his spiritual director, but his choice was subject to ratification by staff at the College. The role of the spiritual director is as a spiritual mentor and as a confessor.
10.16 Canon 246-4 states: “The students are to become accustomed to approach the sacrament of penance frequently. It is recommended that each should have a director of spiritual life, freely chosen, to whom he can trustfully reveal his conscience.‖
Canon 240 states: ―Besides ordinary confessors, other confessors are to come regularly to the seminary; while maintaining seminary discipline, the students are always free to approach any confessor, whether inside or outside the seminary…in deciding about the admission to orders, or their dismissal from the seminary the vote of the spiritual director and the confessors may never be sought.‖
10.17 This canon enshrines a principle in canon law that whatever discussions the candidate has with his spiritual director are absolutely confidential and may not be revealed to anyone other than the candidate. Monsignor Briscoe told the Commission that the spiritual director‟s function was to work exclusively with the students, so that the students gained discernment as to whether they were suitable for a life in the priesthood or not. He confirmed that the work was entirely confidential and that the spiritual director could not breach that seal of confidentiality.
Sexuality, celibacy and child sexual abuse
10.18 Evidence received by the Commission confirmed that during the formation process there was some training in the demands of celibacy. The matter was usually addressed in courses and talks organised by the college. Some of those courses and talks also addressed the issue of sexuality. Monsignor Briscoe indicated to the Commission that the issues of a student‟s own sexuality and celibacy were matters for the student to deal with in conjunction with his spiritual director. From the 1980s onwards, there was a series of sexuality seminars held on an annual basis. The Commission was advised that the purpose behind the seminars was largely to emphasise the importance of the issue of sexuality and to provide a means for the students to reflect upon, and to become aware of, personal issues that they needed to address in this area. The seminars were provided by personnel who were trained as counsellors with expertise in the psycho-sexual area. An extra emphasis was placed on the understanding of celibacy in the final years leading up to ordination.
Training on the issue of child sexual abuse
10.19 The Commission has concluded, on the basis of its investigations, that in the years 1970-1995, there was no structured training on matters concerning child sexual abuse by priests or others. It is not apparent that the issue of child sexual abuse was a matter within the contemplation of the psychological assessors during that time.
10.20 The evidence suggests that the issue of child sexual abuse as a relevant factor in the screening and training of priests became a matter of some relevance in the mid-1990s. The document Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response (generally referred to in this report as the Framework Document – see Chapter 7) was published in 1996. The Commission is of the view that this publication reflected a marked awareness of the existence of the problem of child sexual abuse and, in many ways, was a positive attempt to identify ways in which this problem could be addressed.
10.21 Chapter 8 of the Framework Document deals specifically with the selection and formation for the diocesan priesthood and for religious life. It recommends the screening of candidates, including a full psychological assessment by an experienced psychologist who is well versed in the Church‟s expectations of the candidates, with particular attention to celibacy. Paragraph 8.2.2 of the document states:
“Formation is progressive, and must be evenly balanced between the human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral. The whole process of formation of candidates for the priesthood and religious life should foster an integration of human sexuality and the development of healthy human relationships within the context of celibate living.” 160
10.22 Chapter 8 goes on to recommend that lay men and women should be involved in the training of priests and religious and that those in formation should have reasonable access to counsellors. It cautions that in the pastoral placement of students, the candidates must expect and receive the same formal supervision as other trainee staff in those pastoral settings.
10.23 At paragraph 8.2.6, it is stated:
―Since candidates for priesthood and the religious life are being prepared for ministries in which they will be in a position of sacred trust in regard to children, they must be made aware of what are appropriate boundaries in relating to children and of the absolute importance of respecting these boundaries.‖
10.24 At paragraph 8.3.1, it is stated:
“Since a genuine spirituality is central to all personal life, good spiritual direction and counseling are invaluable for priests and religious. Serious personal inadequacies can hide behind questionable spirituality. Ongoing education promoting psycho-sexual maturity, healthy living and human wholeness is essential. Good practice guidelines should be developed in order to promote awareness of the need for appropriate pastoral boundaries.‖
10.25 In chapter 9, paragraph 9.2.1 states:
―Priests and religious should receive ongoing education and in-service training in regard to the nature and effect of child sexual abuse. This is necessary to ensure that they reach out with competence and compassion to all victims of child sexual abuse whom they may encounter in the course of their ministry. Furthermore, such education and training should help towards ensuring that proper procedures for the protection of children are put in place in respect of all institutions that they are involved in managing – schools, youth facilities, for example.‖
10.26 At paragraph 9.2.2 it is recommended that:
―Information days or seminars on child sexual abuse continue to be arranged for priests and religious. These information days and seminars should be followed up by the provision of new and additional 161
information as and when it becomes available. It would be particularly appropriate if practitioners from the health authorities, the police, and other professional bodies were contributors to this educational process.‖
10.27 Paragraph 9.2.4 states: ―Education in the area of child sexual abuse needs to be provided on an ongoing basis to all involved in the formation of students to the priesthood and religious life.‖
10.28 Paragraph 9.2.5 states:
“Candidates for the priesthood and religious life need to continue to be made aware of the nature of child sexual abuse and its effects on victims and their families. In the course of their future ministry they may well come across situations of child sexual abuse, and so it is important to help them gain knowledge as to how to respond properly to these. Particular attention should be paid to the issue of child sexual abuse by priests and religious. Candidates should be made aware of the implications and consequences of this in civil law and canon law and of the procedures for dealing with it.‖
10.29 The document Our Children, Our Church was published in 2005. The purpose of Our Children, Our Church was stated to be the provision of a set of policies and procedures for those who have responsibility for the protection of children and young people in the life of the Catholic Church in Ireland. In its introduction, it is stated that this document is intended to provide a more comprehensive and unified approach to child protection across the Catholic Church in Ireland than was previously indicated in the Framework Document. Its aim was to bring greater clarity and consistency to the Church‟s procedures in relation to child protection.
10.30 Chapter 5 of Our Children Our Church deals with the selection and formation of candidates for the priesthood and religious life. It recommends that formation personnel are satisfied that the future priest or religious can relate appropriately both to children and adults before presenting him/her for ordination or final vows.
10.31 It is also recommended that those engaged in formation provide comprehensive training in safe and best practice in working with children and young people. There was a recommendation that during formation, essential matters to be addressed should include:
the absolute importance of respecting appropriate boundaries in the interaction with children;
knowledge of the theories associated with sexual abuse;
how abusers operate and the elements of treatment for abusers;
Awareness of the immediate and long term impact of abuse of all kinds;
The pastoral needs of all those affected by child abuse.
Current position
10.32 Since 2000, Clonliffe College has ceased to operate as a seminary. At present, candidates for the diocesan priesthood in Ireland may attend St Patrick‟s College, Maynooth; St Malachy‟s College, Belfast and the Pontifical Irish College in Rome. Today, the sexual history of a candidate is relevant in his assessment for admission to the seminary. The Ferns Report, which was published in 2005, identified areas of sexual history that the Church at that time regarded as necessary to consider when assessing the suitability of seminarians. For convenience, the section of the Ferns Report is reproduced below:
―With regard to sexual history, the following issues are addressed: An applicant who has been in a prior relationship should have concluded that relationship and have allowed for a significant period of time before being accepted by a Diocese. In the case of a candidate who has had a sexual relationship (heterosexual), a substantial period of celibate living should precede entry into the seminary;
In a recently expressed judgement of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, the Cardinal Prefect stated ―The ordination to the Deaconate or to the priesthood of homosexual persons or those with a homosexual tendency is absolutely 163
inadvisable and imprudent and, from a pastoral point of view, very risky… A person who is homosexual or who has homosexual tendencies is not, therefore, suitable to receive the sacrament of sacred orders.‖ (Congregations Bulletin, December 2002). According to Dr Farrell, the College of Maynooth accepts the force of this reasoning and advice; If it becomes known that a seminarian is engaging in physical genital activity with another person while he is in formation, he is asked to leave immediately. Certain other kinds of behaviour are also inconsistent with celibate chastity e.g. engaging in flirtatious or seductive behaviour and dating. It goes without saying that being in possession of, or accessing, pornographic material (whether print, video, electronic, digital etc.) is completely incompatible with being a seminarian. It is also unacceptable to participate in or to advocate the gay subculture by which is meant allowing a seminarian to define his personality, outlook or self-understanding by virtue of same-sex attraction; Insofar as it is possible to determine, the older applicant should have achieved a successful integration of his sexuality and the younger applicant should have the capacity for such integration. Where there are clear contrary indications, the applicant should not be accepted; A competent person should take a full history of the candidate. Particular attention should be paid to the presence of sexual abuse, sexual acting out or sexual orientation problems etc; The child protection policy as set down by the Episcopal Conference should be fully complied with.‖ The Ferns Report concluded:
―Thus, much has changed in the screening process and in the overall formation of seminarians in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. Today a much greater emphasis is placed on screening for men who are able to live a life of chaste celibacy. In order to ensure that candidates possess the psycho-sexual-socio maturity necessary 164
for priests today, Maynooth College has been providing more resources for students, which is a vast contrast to the situation 40 years ago. Celibacy formation is integrated into the entire seminary programme through conferences, formal lectures and advice from formation personnel, spiritual direction and the fulltime availability of professional counselling.‖ ―Whilst the rigorous standards now in place in Maynooth would be of assistance in ensuring that only men who are emotionally, intellectually and sexually mature are admitted for ordination, the reality is that very few diocesan priests are ordained in Ireland in any year. Increasingly, parishes are welcoming priests ordained abroad to replace retiring clergy. Priests who are ordained in seminaries outside Ireland should be subject to the same level of assessment as has been undertaken by seminaries such as Maynooth.‖
10.33 Archbishop Martin confirmed to the Commission that the rector of the Irish College in Rome reports annually to the bishops in Ireland. He confirmed that issues of training and sexuality are managed in a similar way to the current approach in St Patrick‟s College, Maynooth. The Archbishop also receives from St Patrick‟s College twice yearly reports on each student from the Archdiocese of Dublin. Archbishop Martin confirmed to the Commission that a final psychological assessment is carried out on all students in the later part of their studies before ordination.
10.34 This practice and previous psychological testing requirements in Ireland appear to have been adopted independently of any formal directions from Rome on the issue of mandatory testing. The position of the universal Church was clarified on 30 October 2008, when the Congregation for Catholic Education for Seminaries and Educational Institutions (a congregation of the Roman Curia with responsibility, among other matters, for the regulation of seminaries) presented a document entitled Guidelines for the use of psychology in the admission and formation of candidates for the priesthood. This document advises that the early detection of “sometimes pathological” psychological defects of men before they become priests would help avoid tragic experiences. The document recommends that seminary rectors and other officials should use outside experts if they cannot handle the screening themselves. The testing is to be directed at areas of immaturity in development. It states:
"Such areas of immaturity would include strong affective dependencies; notable lack of freedom in relations; excessive rigidity of character; lack of loyalty; uncertain sexual identity; deep-seated homosexual tendencies, etc. If this should be the case, the path of formation will have to be interrupted."
10.35 Vatican officials, when introducing the document to the press, said that the tests would not be obligatory, but would be decided on a case-by-case basis when seminary rectors wanted to be sure that a man was qualified for the priesthood.
The views of others
10.36 Fr Desmond O‟ Donnell, a psychologist who is a diagnostic tester for admission to ministry for the Church of Ireland and the Catholic Church, gave expert evidence to the Commission. He has been carrying out such testing in Ireland for more than ten years. He suggested to the Commission that a practice adopted by the Church of Ireland, in having prospective candidates carry out ministry work in their own parish for a period of three years before application and professional assessment, is a good way of identifying those candidates with personalities inconsistent with ministry.
10.37 Dr Marie Keenan, a lecturer and psychotherapist, who has a particular interest in therapeutic work with victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse, gave expert evidence to the Commission. She believes the system of training currently in place at Maynooth does not achieve openness on the part of seminarians on issues of sexuality. The principal reason why this arises, she articulates, is fear of expulsion arising from disclosures which might be regarded as inconsistent with life in the priesthood. Dr Keenan told the Commission that her experience is that seminarians believe that any disclosures about homosexual ideation would result in the student being required to leave the seminary. Dr Keenan wanted to stress that there are some exceptional bishops and church leaders in the Catholic Church in Ireland who foster opportunities for a true spirit of openness and honesty among their priests by providing true mentoring and honest leadership, despite what she considers to be a closed clerical culture that operates within the Catholic Church on the issues of sexuality and celibacy. Dr Keenan argues that, at the very least, the seminary structure and programme content are in need of serious independent review if the aim is to produce emotionally and sexually healthy men, ready for the challenges involved in the life of dedicated priesthood.
10.38 Monsignor Connolly, the President of St Patrick‟s College, Maynooth is of the view that Dr Keenan‟s assertion that disclosures about homosexual ideation would lead to expulsion is too terse and un-nuanced. He considers that the issue is neither ideation nor orientation but rather is of a tendency to a particular form of sexual behaviour. He points out that the position of the Holy See represents a much more differentiated position than that summarised by Dr Keenan. He describes the approach of the College in the following terms:
―When a candidate is selected as a seminarian for a Diocese, he enters a process of formation at a seminary or a propadeutic50 course of formation elsewhere. In keeping with the Church‘s vision of candidates in this process, the seminary is a formation community where ‗the candidate himself is a necessary and irreplaceable agent of his own formation. Nobody can replace the responsible freedom of individual persons‘ (Pastores dabo vobis no. 69)51. An aim of seminary formation is that the student , by the time he will be ordained for ministry, will have a secure sense of his human and priestly identity; able to hold the ambiguities and complexities of his life in a wholesome tension with Gospel and ministerial values. The formation staff at St. Patrick‘s College Maynooth endeavours to facilitate an environment where that goal can be achieved and the concomitant level of responsibility in the individual can be supported and promoted. In the course of formation, there are a number of fora where, in a confidential way, the seminarian can explore and arrive at a satisfactory resolution of those areas of his life that he discovers present as inconsistent with priestly ministry.
Throughout the entire process of formation for ministry, the Church is moved by two concerns: to safeguard the good of her own mission, and at the same time, the good of the candidates. To this end, one of the necessary aspects of the process of formation is the on-going evaluation of the human and ministerial identity as it takes shape in the candidate. This includes the suitability of a candidate for ministry in an increasingly demanding culture. The seminarian is fully engaged in this process with his Formation Director and any decisions taken in this regard are made with his co-operative collaboration. A man who is wholesome, aware of his strengths and limitations and able to support his commitment with a solid spiritual life is always the best prospect for a fulfilled and effective priestly ministry.
Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Archdi
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:03 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36175
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:05 am
Chapter 11: Introduction to investigation of the 46 priests
Selecting the representative sample
11.1 The Commission received information about complaints, suspicions or knowledge of child sexual abuse in respect of 172 named priests and 11 unnamed priests. (Some or all of the 11 unnamed priests may, of course, be included in the 172 named priests.) After a preliminary examination, the Commission concluded that 102 of these priests were within remit. Of those priests who were not within the Commission‟s terms of reference, two main reasons for their exclusion were identified:
the complaint was made outside the time period 1975 – 2004;
the priest was not operating under the aegis of the Archdiocese of Dublin at the time of the alleged abuse. The priests in question here were mainly priests belonging to religious orders and societies who were working in Dublin but not on behalf of the Archdiocese.
11.2 The Commission decided that the only realistic way in which it could select and report on a representative sample of those complaints and suspicions was to select a representative sample of the priests concerned. Otherwise, the Commission may have had to investigate every priest within remit. The representative sample was chosen from the group of 102 priests who were within remit. The Commission took the view that it was impractical to make two separate samples for those against whom complaints were made and those about whom there were suspicions or concerns. Almost invariably, there were suspicions or concerns expressed about those against whom complaints were made. There was a very small number of priests about whom suspicions or concerns were expressed but about whom no actual complaints were made.
11.3 From the outset, the Commission was of the view that the purpose of sampling was to allow the Commission to examine and report on the complete picture in an efficient and expeditious manner. Accordingly, the sample selected had to ensure coverage of the entire of the relevant period, being January 1975 to May 2004. It had to encompass single abusers and multiple abusers to allow examination of differences in treatment (if any). It had to include instances where there was interaction between Church and State authorities in respect of complaints, knowledge, suspicions or concerns of child sexual abuse so that the Commission could discharge its function of reporting on the levels of communication that prevailed between all relevant authorities and indeed whether there was any evidence of attempts on the part of the Archdiocese or other Church authorities or on the part of public or State authorities to obstruct, prevent or interfere with the proper investigation of such complaints. Another factor to be borne in mind is the volume of information available on each case. This led the Commission to conclude that it should examine every case in which the relevant priest had been convicted in the criminal courts. Furthermore, issues such as confidentiality and damage to reputation or good name are less difficult in such cases.
11.4 While bearing these criteria in mind, the Commission engaged the services of a prominent statistician, Dr Teresa Brannick of University College Dublin to devise the sampling method so as to ensure that the sample selected was genuinely representative. She compiled a list of 47 priests spread over the three decades about whom there had been complaints or suspicions relating to child sexual abuse.
11.5 Documentary research into all priests in the representative sample was completed. As a result of this research one priest was found not to have been within the Commission‟s terms of reference leaving a total of 46 priests to be examined. Later on, the Commission became aware of a small number of other complaints which would have brought the cleric concerned within remit. It would have been impossible for the Commission to revise the representative sample when it became aware of these complaints and, in any event, Dr Brannick was satisfied that the original sample selected was an adequate representative sample even for the larger group.
11.6 The Commission conducted its investigation by means of oral evidence and in-depth analysis of the documentation supplied by all parties. Where gaps in the evidence were apparent, the Commission filled them, where appropriate and possible, with questionnaires and follow up interviews. Follow up was not always possible because a number of the significant participants are dead or too ill to be interviewed.
The priests
11.7 Of the 46 priests in the representative sample, 11 are or were members of religious orders; four of these are dead. One priest belongs to a UK diocese. Of the 34 priests from the Dublin Archdiocese, ten are dead, 20 are out of ministry and four are in ministry. Of the 20 who are out of ministry, 11 are being financially supported by the Archdiocese; nine are laicised.
11.8 Of the 46 priests whose cases were examined by the Commission, 17 were 40 years of age or older when complainants indicated that the first incidence of abuse had taken place. This is a worrying feature in the view of the members of the Commission. Although there is no evidence that any of these priests abused prior to age 40, the Commission, given the evidence it has uncovered, would be reluctant to conclude that no abuse took place prior to the age of 40.
The complaints
11.9 It is important to realise that it was not the function of the Commission to establish whether child sexual abuse actually took place but rather to record the manner in which complaints were dealt with by Church and State authorities. While a significant number of the priests against whom allegations were made admitted child sexual abuse, some denied it. It is also important in the Commission‟s view not to equate the number of complaints with the actual instances of child sexual abuse. Of those investigated by the Commission, one priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another accepted that he had abused on a fortnightly basis during the currency of his ministry which lasted for over 25 years. The total number of documented complaints recorded against those two priests is only just over 70.
11.10 Of the 46 priests surveyed, 11 pleaded guilty to or were convicted in the criminal courts of sexual assaults on children.
11.11 There is one clear case of a false accusation of child sexual abuse – Fr Ricardus*.52 There are two cases where there were suspicions or concerns but no actual complaint of child sexual abuse – Fr Guido* and Fr Magnus*.
11.12 Of the 320 plus complaints that the Commission is aware of from its representative sample the ratio of boys to girls is 2.3 boys: 1 girl.
Personnel in Dublin Archdiocese who dealt with complaints
11.13 The following were the main people in the Dublin Archdiocese who dealt with complaints of child sexual abuse over the period covered by the Commission:
Archbishops Period in Office
Archbishop John Charles McQuaid 1940 – 1972 (deceased) Archbishop Dermot Ryan 1972 – 1984 (deceased) Archbishop Kevin McNamara 1985 – 1987 (deceased) Archbishop Desmond Connell 1988 – 2004 (retired) (Archbishop Connell became a Cardinal in 2001.) Archbishop Diarmuid Martin 2004 – present
Auxiliary bishops Period in Office
Bishop Joseph Carroll 1968 – 1989 (deceased) (Bishop Carroll was Administrator of the Archdiocese from September 1984 when Archbishop Ryan departed for Rome to January 1985 when Archbishop McNamara was appointed and again from the death of Archbishop McNamara in April 1987 to the appointment of Archbishop Connell in March 1988.) Bishop Brendan Comiskey 1980 – 1984 (Bishop Comiskey was appointed bishop of Ferns in April 1984 and resigned from that position in April 2002.) Bishop Martin Drennan 1997 – 2005 (Bishop Drennan is currently bishop of Galway.) Bishop Patrick Dunne 1946 – 1984 (deceased) Bishop Raymond Field 1997 - present Bishop Laurence Forristal 1980 – 1981 (Bishop Forristal was appointed bishop of Ossory in 1981 and retired in 2007.)
Bishop James Kavanagh 1972 - 1998 (deceased)
Bishop James Moriarty 1991 - 2002 (Bishop Moriarty is currently bishop of Kildare & Leighlin.) Bishop Donal Murray 1982 - 1996 (Bishop Murray is currently bishop of Limerick.) Bishop Dermot O‟Mahony 1975 – 1996 (retired) (Bishop O‟Mahony also served as chancellor from 1975 to 1981) Bishop Fiachra Ó Ceallaigh 1994 – present Bishop Eamonn Walsh 1990 – present (Bishop Walsh was dean of Clonliffe College from 1977 to 1985 and also served as priest secretary to the Archbishop from 1985 to 1990; he was Apostolic Administrator of the Ferns diocese from 2002 to 2006.) Bishop Desmond Williams 1984 – 1993 (deceased) Chancellors Period in office Monsignor Gerard Sheehy 1965 –1975 (deceased) Bishop Dermot O‟Mahony 1975 – 1981 (retired) Monsignor Alex Stenson 1981 – 1997 (Monsignor Stenson is now a parish priest in the Archdiocese.) Monsignor John Dolan 1997 - present Director of the Child Protection Service Mr Philip Garland 2003 – present Others A number of senior priests who did not have an official role in the area but who were clearly held in high regard by the Archbishop of the time were asked to help investigate individual complaints of child sexual abuse. They included:
Monsignor Richard Glennon who had been chancellor from 1945 to 1955 and was subsequently a vicar general (deceased);
Monsignor James Ardle MacMahon, who was Archbishop McQuaid‟s secretary from 1954 until 1972 and subsequently an episcopal vicar for religious and a parish priest (retired);
Monsignor Jerome Curtin, who had been an assistant chancellor, a vicar general, the episcopal vicar for religious and a parish priest (retired);
Monsignor John O‟Regan who had been chancellor from 1955 to 1965 and subsequently a vicar general and a parish priest (deceased).
Once their investigations were complete these men did not generally have any further role in dealing with either the priest or the complainants. The various secretaries to the archbishops, while they had no official direct role in dealing with child sexual abuse cases, were frequently the conduit for complaints, for receiving professional reports and for communicating with bishops and priests.
Treatment centres
11.14 Priests were sent for assessment and sometimes for treatment to various psychiatrists and psychologists. Long-term treatment was provided in a number of treatment centres of which the most important for the purposes of this report were the centres run by the Servants of the Paraclete and the Hospitaller Order of St John of God. These two organisations are Church authorities.
11.15 The Servants of the Paracletes is a religious order established in New Mexico, USA in 1947, with a stated mission of ministering to troubled priests. In its early years the order treated priests suffering disorders primarily relating to alcohol, but from the 1970s, it began treating priests who had sexually abused children. Because of the nature of its work, its existence was not widely trumpeted, but was known to Church authorities who needed to avail of its services. The order is affiliated with the Discalced Carmelites. Having been established in Jemez Springs, New Mexico in 1947, it expanded rapidly and within 12 years it had 11 houses around the globe, including houses in England and Scotland. One of those houses was in Stroud. Eight of the priests in the representative sample were sent to Stroud.
11.16 The Granada Institute was established in Dublin in 1994 by the Hospitaller Order of St John of God. Its remit is “to provide assessment and treatment services to those who have committed sexual offences involving children and, where appropriate, to advise on the management of this client population”. It provides services to lay people as well as clerics. It has seen 25 of the priests in the representative sample.
Selecting the representative sample
11.1 The Commission received information about complaints, suspicions or knowledge of child sexual abuse in respect of 172 named priests and 11 unnamed priests. (Some or all of the 11 unnamed priests may, of course, be included in the 172 named priests.) After a preliminary examination, the Commission concluded that 102 of these priests were within remit. Of those priests who were not within the Commission‟s terms of reference, two main reasons for their exclusion were identified:
the complaint was made outside the time period 1975 – 2004;
the priest was not operating under the aegis of the Archdiocese of Dublin at the time of the alleged abuse. The priests in question here were mainly priests belonging to religious orders and societies who were working in Dublin but not on behalf of the Archdiocese.
11.2 The Commission decided that the only realistic way in which it could select and report on a representative sample of those complaints and suspicions was to select a representative sample of the priests concerned. Otherwise, the Commission may have had to investigate every priest within remit. The representative sample was chosen from the group of 102 priests who were within remit. The Commission took the view that it was impractical to make two separate samples for those against whom complaints were made and those about whom there were suspicions or concerns. Almost invariably, there were suspicions or concerns expressed about those against whom complaints were made. There was a very small number of priests about whom suspicions or concerns were expressed but about whom no actual complaints were made.
11.3 From the outset, the Commission was of the view that the purpose of sampling was to allow the Commission to examine and report on the complete picture in an efficient and expeditious manner. Accordingly, the sample selected had to ensure coverage of the entire of the relevant period, being January 1975 to May 2004. It had to encompass single abusers and multiple abusers to allow examination of differences in treatment (if any). It had to include instances where there was interaction between Church and State authorities in respect of complaints, knowledge, suspicions or concerns of child sexual abuse so that the Commission could discharge its function of reporting on the levels of communication that prevailed between all relevant authorities and indeed whether there was any evidence of attempts on the part of the Archdiocese or other Church authorities or on the part of public or State authorities to obstruct, prevent or interfere with the proper investigation of such complaints. Another factor to be borne in mind is the volume of information available on each case. This led the Commission to conclude that it should examine every case in which the relevant priest had been convicted in the criminal courts. Furthermore, issues such as confidentiality and damage to reputation or good name are less difficult in such cases.
11.4 While bearing these criteria in mind, the Commission engaged the services of a prominent statistician, Dr Teresa Brannick of University College Dublin to devise the sampling method so as to ensure that the sample selected was genuinely representative. She compiled a list of 47 priests spread over the three decades about whom there had been complaints or suspicions relating to child sexual abuse.
11.5 Documentary research into all priests in the representative sample was completed. As a result of this research one priest was found not to have been within the Commission‟s terms of reference leaving a total of 46 priests to be examined. Later on, the Commission became aware of a small number of other complaints which would have brought the cleric concerned within remit. It would have been impossible for the Commission to revise the representative sample when it became aware of these complaints and, in any event, Dr Brannick was satisfied that the original sample selected was an adequate representative sample even for the larger group.
11.6 The Commission conducted its investigation by means of oral evidence and in-depth analysis of the documentation supplied by all parties. Where gaps in the evidence were apparent, the Commission filled them, where appropriate and possible, with questionnaires and follow up interviews. Follow up was not always possible because a number of the significant participants are dead or too ill to be interviewed.
The priests
11.7 Of the 46 priests in the representative sample, 11 are or were members of religious orders; four of these are dead. One priest belongs to a UK diocese. Of the 34 priests from the Dublin Archdiocese, ten are dead, 20 are out of ministry and four are in ministry. Of the 20 who are out of ministry, 11 are being financially supported by the Archdiocese; nine are laicised.
11.8 Of the 46 priests whose cases were examined by the Commission, 17 were 40 years of age or older when complainants indicated that the first incidence of abuse had taken place. This is a worrying feature in the view of the members of the Commission. Although there is no evidence that any of these priests abused prior to age 40, the Commission, given the evidence it has uncovered, would be reluctant to conclude that no abuse took place prior to the age of 40.
The complaints
11.9 It is important to realise that it was not the function of the Commission to establish whether child sexual abuse actually took place but rather to record the manner in which complaints were dealt with by Church and State authorities. While a significant number of the priests against whom allegations were made admitted child sexual abuse, some denied it. It is also important in the Commission‟s view not to equate the number of complaints with the actual instances of child sexual abuse. Of those investigated by the Commission, one priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another accepted that he had abused on a fortnightly basis during the currency of his ministry which lasted for over 25 years. The total number of documented complaints recorded against those two priests is only just over 70.
11.10 Of the 46 priests surveyed, 11 pleaded guilty to or were convicted in the criminal courts of sexual assaults on children.
11.11 There is one clear case of a false accusation of child sexual abuse – Fr Ricardus*.52 There are two cases where there were suspicions or concerns but no actual complaint of child sexual abuse – Fr Guido* and Fr Magnus*.
11.12 Of the 320 plus complaints that the Commission is aware of from its representative sample the ratio of boys to girls is 2.3 boys: 1 girl.
Personnel in Dublin Archdiocese who dealt with complaints
11.13 The following were the main people in the Dublin Archdiocese who dealt with complaints of child sexual abuse over the period covered by the Commission:
Archbishops Period in Office
Archbishop John Charles McQuaid 1940 – 1972 (deceased) Archbishop Dermot Ryan 1972 – 1984 (deceased) Archbishop Kevin McNamara 1985 – 1987 (deceased) Archbishop Desmond Connell 1988 – 2004 (retired) (Archbishop Connell became a Cardinal in 2001.) Archbishop Diarmuid Martin 2004 – present
Auxiliary bishops Period in Office
Bishop Joseph Carroll 1968 – 1989 (deceased) (Bishop Carroll was Administrator of the Archdiocese from September 1984 when Archbishop Ryan departed for Rome to January 1985 when Archbishop McNamara was appointed and again from the death of Archbishop McNamara in April 1987 to the appointment of Archbishop Connell in March 1988.) Bishop Brendan Comiskey 1980 – 1984 (Bishop Comiskey was appointed bishop of Ferns in April 1984 and resigned from that position in April 2002.) Bishop Martin Drennan 1997 – 2005 (Bishop Drennan is currently bishop of Galway.) Bishop Patrick Dunne 1946 – 1984 (deceased) Bishop Raymond Field 1997 - present Bishop Laurence Forristal 1980 – 1981 (Bishop Forristal was appointed bishop of Ossory in 1981 and retired in 2007.)
Bishop James Kavanagh 1972 - 1998 (deceased)
Bishop James Moriarty 1991 - 2002 (Bishop Moriarty is currently bishop of Kildare & Leighlin.) Bishop Donal Murray 1982 - 1996 (Bishop Murray is currently bishop of Limerick.) Bishop Dermot O‟Mahony 1975 – 1996 (retired) (Bishop O‟Mahony also served as chancellor from 1975 to 1981) Bishop Fiachra Ó Ceallaigh 1994 – present Bishop Eamonn Walsh 1990 – present (Bishop Walsh was dean of Clonliffe College from 1977 to 1985 and also served as priest secretary to the Archbishop from 1985 to 1990; he was Apostolic Administrator of the Ferns diocese from 2002 to 2006.) Bishop Desmond Williams 1984 – 1993 (deceased) Chancellors Period in office Monsignor Gerard Sheehy 1965 –1975 (deceased) Bishop Dermot O‟Mahony 1975 – 1981 (retired) Monsignor Alex Stenson 1981 – 1997 (Monsignor Stenson is now a parish priest in the Archdiocese.) Monsignor John Dolan 1997 - present Director of the Child Protection Service Mr Philip Garland 2003 – present Others A number of senior priests who did not have an official role in the area but who were clearly held in high regard by the Archbishop of the time were asked to help investigate individual complaints of child sexual abuse. They included:
Monsignor Richard Glennon who had been chancellor from 1945 to 1955 and was subsequently a vicar general (deceased);
Monsignor James Ardle MacMahon, who was Archbishop McQuaid‟s secretary from 1954 until 1972 and subsequently an episcopal vicar for religious and a parish priest (retired);
Monsignor Jerome Curtin, who had been an assistant chancellor, a vicar general, the episcopal vicar for religious and a parish priest (retired);
Monsignor John O‟Regan who had been chancellor from 1955 to 1965 and subsequently a vicar general and a parish priest (deceased).
Once their investigations were complete these men did not generally have any further role in dealing with either the priest or the complainants. The various secretaries to the archbishops, while they had no official direct role in dealing with child sexual abuse cases, were frequently the conduit for complaints, for receiving professional reports and for communicating with bishops and priests.
Treatment centres
11.14 Priests were sent for assessment and sometimes for treatment to various psychiatrists and psychologists. Long-term treatment was provided in a number of treatment centres of which the most important for the purposes of this report were the centres run by the Servants of the Paraclete and the Hospitaller Order of St John of God. These two organisations are Church authorities.
11.15 The Servants of the Paracletes is a religious order established in New Mexico, USA in 1947, with a stated mission of ministering to troubled priests. In its early years the order treated priests suffering disorders primarily relating to alcohol, but from the 1970s, it began treating priests who had sexually abused children. Because of the nature of its work, its existence was not widely trumpeted, but was known to Church authorities who needed to avail of its services. The order is affiliated with the Discalced Carmelites. Having been established in Jemez Springs, New Mexico in 1947, it expanded rapidly and within 12 years it had 11 houses around the globe, including houses in England and Scotland. One of those houses was in Stroud. Eight of the priests in the representative sample were sent to Stroud.
11.16 The Granada Institute was established in Dublin in 1994 by the Hospitaller Order of St John of God. Its remit is “to provide assessment and treatment services to those who have committed sexual offences involving children and, where appropriate, to advise on the management of this client population”. It provides services to lay people as well as clerics. It has seen 25 of the priests in the representative sample.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36175
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:07 am
Chapter 12: Fr James McNamee
Introduction
12.1 “We would always be hovering around the late James McNamee when he arrived at the school because he had this very charismatic presence. I would say he was like St. Francis of Assisi, you know, the kids would come around him like pigeons used to come around”.
12.2 This is how a young man described Fr James McNamee to the Commission.
12.3 Fr McNamee was born in 1917, was ordained in 1942, retired to become a convent chaplain in 1979 and died in 2002.
12.4 At least 21 people have made complaints of sexual abuse against Fr McNamee. These complaints date back to his period as a curate in Rolestown between 1950 and 1952, as a curate in Halston Street and Arran Quay between 1952 and 1960, as a curate in Harrington Street from 1960 to 1968 and in Crumlin, both as a curate between 1968 and 1973 and as parish priest between 1973 and 1979.
Stella Maris Football Club
12.5 The first allegation about Fr McNamee arose in January 1960, when a former altar boy, on the advice of a priest in Rathfarnham, spoke to a priest in relation to Fr McNamee‟s behaviour. The former altar boy informed the priest that he had heard from two former members of a football club with which Fr McNamee was associated, Stella Maris, that Fr McNamee had acted in an inappropriate manner when the boys had showered after returning from a trip to the seaside. The former altar boy also stated that he had witnessed Fr McNamee bathing with naked adolescent boys and placing the boys on his shoulders.
12.6 These matters were investigated by the auxiliary bishop, Bishop Dunne. Fr McNamee denied the allegations and stated that he had merely permitted the boys to use the showers after returning from the seaside. Bishop Dunne believed Fr McNamee‟s version of events, as did Archbishop McQuaid when it was reported to him. The Archbishop noted that “as he is a worthy priest I agree that we could not refuse to accept his word”.
12.7 Fr McNamee informed the Archbishop that he would like to withdraw from the Stella Maris club, the football club from where the allegations emanated, as he was tired, having worked there for a number of years. The Archbishop was willing to let him withdraw but not at once “lest he be defamed”.
12.8 On meeting Fr McNamee, Archbishop McQuaid told him to forget about it. Archbishop McQuaid noted that he himself was convinced that the man was quite without blame.
12.9 Subsequently, there were a number of complaints from members of the Stella Maris football club who recalled Fr McNamee swimming nude with other team members.
Swimming pool complaint, 1978
12.10 The first specific recorded complaint about Fr McNamee and his activities in his home built swimming pool in Crumlin was made in March 1978. However, it is clear that the Archdiocese was aware of suspicions and concerns about his activities before this. A file note of an interview conducted with Bishop Forristal in February 2006 indicated that he remembered a meeting of vicars general in or around the autumn of 1977, at which Archbishop Ryan noted that there had been a lot of incidents involving a swimming pool and Fr McNamee and that consequently Archbishop Ryan expressed the view: “This fellow has to go. He can‟t work in parish work anymore”. Bishop Forristal told the Commission in 2009 that he accepts that he did say this in 2006 but he is now unsure when Archbishop Ryan made that remark. It may have been sometime after the autumn of 1977. The Commission notes that there was a meeting of the vicars general in the winter of 1977.
12.11 In March 1978, a parishioner complained to a nun that her eldest son had reported that Fr McNamee and a number of boys were swimming and exercising in the nude in a swimming pool in the garden of the priest‟s house. It was also alleged that a nude boy sat on the priest‟s knee for a chat.
12.12 The nun told the complainant to get in touch with the Archbishop and not to mention it to anybody else. Archbishop Ryan directed Monsignor O‟Regan, the parish priest of Sandymount and a former chancellor, to conduct an inquiry.
12.13 Monsignor O‟Regan met the mother promptly and took an account of what she had to say. He found her to be a credible witness. He also made inquiries about her two sons and was told that they were truthful boys. His conclusion was that “a possibly explosive situation exists locally, which could be very scandalous indeed”. He also stated that “even now, many innocent boys may be safeguarded, and the whole adult Catholic population spared the hurt of a real scandal in Crumlin”. There is no evidence as to whether or not Monsignor O‟Regan was aware of the 1960 complaint but the Commission considers that he is unlikely to have been told about it. He may, however, have been told of the suspicions and concerns of which the vicars general were aware but this cannot be established.
12.14 Monsignor O‟Regan consulted with the local curate and other priests who knew Fr McNamee. The local curate was full of praise for Fr McNamee, stating that he was a good priest and had a real interest in the boys of the parish. One priest, however, accepted the allegations against Fr McNamee and indicated that they confirmed an unproven suspicion he had in the past. He recommended that Fr McNamee should be made to retire and that the pool should be handed over to a parish organisation.
12.15 Monsignor O‟Regan elicited further disturbing information from the priests he interviewed about Fr McNamee‟s activities. He was told that Fr McNamee had built an outdoor swimming pool himself in 1969 and later built an indoor pool. Adults in general were excluded from using the pool and only a small group of boys were selected to use it. The fact that only selected boys were allowed use the pool was resented locally. Fr McNamee spent school break time holding the hands of young boys in the playground and he took young boys for spins in his car. It had also been noted that he had a total aversion and hostility towards all women.
12.16 Some five weeks after the mother‟s complaint, Monsignor O‟Regan and Monsignor Curtin met Fr McNamee concerning the complaints. Fr McNamee confirmed that he had built the swimming pool himself and acknowledged that adults were excluded from using the pool. He stated that, owing to space constraints, only six boys were permitted in the pool at any one time. He also indicated that, although not common practise, nude bathing did occasionally occur and he did not see anything morally wrong with this.
12.17 Fr McNamee communicated to Monsignor O‟Regan his desire to retire from active ministry but the Monsignor encouraged him to stay for a further six months in order to avoid any damage to his reputation.
12.18 Fr McNamee was allowed to remain in his job as parish priest until May 1979. This was despite the fact that the Archdiocese was aware of complaints made in 1960 and of similar types of complaints made in the 1970s. When Archbishop Ryan went to Crumlin for the confirmation ceremonies in May 1979, a former parish priest spoke to the Archbishop of the increasing rumours and gossip about Fr McNamee, but the Archbishop indicated to him that he should leave the matter rest and gave no indication of what he planned to do.
12.19 A complainant gave evidence to the Commission which shows that, as well as abusing boys in the swimming pool, Fr McNamee also abused in his car. This complainant‟s evidence also illustrates the level of local knowledge and rumours in Crumlin in the 1970s. This complainant told the Commission that between the years 1972 and 1975, Fr McNamee would pick him up from outside the local school. The witness was between the ages of seven and ten at that time. The witness stated that whenever the older boys in the area saw Fr McNamee, they either ran away or started throwing things and shouting insults at Fr McNamee. Apparently he was known as “Father smack my gee”53. The older boys, some of whom later told the witness that they had been abused by Fr McNamee, did not tell their parents or the younger boys what was going on at the time. As a result, Fr McNamee who, as the witness recalled, drove a green Lancia Delta, picked up boys regularly in the car and abused them.
12.20 The existence of a swimming pool in a garden in Crumlin in the 1960s and 1970s must, inevitably, have been the subject of much local discussion.
Delgany, 1979
12.21 In June 1979, Fr McNamee‟s resignation from Crumlin was accepted and in July 1979 he was appointed chaplain to the Carmelite monastery in Delgany, Co Wicklow. The Carmelites were told that he was appointed there for health reasons. Part of his duties in that job was to say mass every morning. While saying mass, he was assisted by various local altar boys. The evidence of a mother of one of the altar boys was that, in fine weather, Fr McNamee would regularly bring a number of the boys to swim at Brittas Bay. When she found out about Fr McNamee and his proclivities, she questioned her son but he said the priest had behaved properly towards them. There was no monitoring of his activities by the Archdiocese and, since the nuns were not told anything of his background, they could not have been expected to take on a monitoring role. The first the nuns knew about concerns relating to Fr McNamee was in 2002, when they were approached by a reporter from RTE who explained that they were investigating Fr McNamee‟s activities while he was in Crumlin and requesting the nuns‟ state of knowledge when he came to stay with them.
1994 – 1995 Complaints
12.22 In 1994, a report was received from a young man that he had been abused by Fr McNamee while in Crumlin parish. This young man did not name Fr McNamee but Monsignor Stenson immediately deduced that it was likely to be Fr McNamee. Archbishop Connell instituted a preliminary investigation in November 1994. In the same year, Monsignor Stenson received reports that Fr McNamee was driving around with young children in his car in the Wicklow area, a fact that was independently confirmed by the mother of an altar boy. Having consulted with Dr Patrick Walsh of the Granada Institute, who had seen the files on Fr McNamee, it was decided that Bishop Donal Murray would speak to Fr McNamee about his behavioural difficulties relating to children in order to assess how he had been dealing with these problems. Bishop Murray‟s purpose would be to inform Fr McNamee that the Archdiocese wished to ensure that there was no “unfinished business”, particularly at this time. (The Fr Brendan Smyth controversy was raging at the time – see Chapter 7). Bishop Murray told the Commission that he was unaware of the 1994 complaint to Monsignor Stenson.
12.23 At this stage Fr McNamee was 77 years of age. Bishop Murray called to see him shortly before Christmas 1994. He inquired with the superior as to Fr McNamee‟s health and general well-being. He failed to mention to the superior the real purpose of his visit and the concerns which the Archdiocese had in regard to Fr McNamee and his behaviour with young people.
12.24 Bishop Murray then saw Fr McNamee and, in the course of a general conversation, asked whether he had any concerns about the recent scandals relating to child sexual abuse. Fr McNamee claimed that he was not personally affected. The bishop said that there had been some things suggested about him in this area in the past but Fr McNamee replied that this was: “just talk, talk, talk. There is a kind of conspiracy going on: people seeing evil where there is none. A lot of what is been [sic] said is evil and mischievous. The people who make false allegations are themselves evil”.
12.25 Bishop Murray accepted Fr McNamee‟s denials that he had young people in the car. This was the extent of his inquiries. The bishop did think that there was some unresolved anger and some denial about the earlier situation, of which Bishop Murray said he had no detailed knowledge. According to Bishop Murray, Archbishop Connell also visited Fr McNamee in December 1994. Archbishop Connell did not inform the nuns about the child sexual abuse concerns even though he had initiated a preliminary investigation into a recent complaint.
12.26 In March 1995, another complainant made an allegation to the Gardaí. This related to the years 1973 – 1975 and concerned nude bathing in the Crumlin swimming pool and handling of the genitalia while drying the young boy off after swimming.
Garda investigation, 1995
12.27 The garda who took the man‟s statement at the central detective unit on 1 March prepared a letter on 21 March requesting that the matter be investigated by “G” division, that is, Crumlin, where the offences had occurred. Unfortunately, Crumlin did not receive the file until 7 July, nearly four months after the complaint was made. There is no explanation on the file for this delay. Once Crumlin received the file, matters were moved along swiftly. On 10 July 1995, the Gardaí contacted Archbishop‟s House and Monsignor Stenson gave them Fr McNamee‟s address. Monsignor Stenson immediately contacted Fr McNamee to advise him that a garda investigation was under way and that he should get legal representation. Fr McNamee was interviewed on 14 July in the presence of his solicitor. He made no response to the allegations at that time but in a subsequent statement delivered on 15 August he categorically denied them.
12.28 The file was then sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who because of the delay between the abuse and the complaint, declined to prosecute. The abuse had occurred between 1973 and 1975 and the complaint was made in 1995.
12.29 The complainant subsequently issued civil proceedings and three years later the priest personally made a substantial settlement with the young man in question.
12.30 Fr McNamee‟s name was one of the names given to the Gardaí by Monsignor Stenson in November 1995 when he handed over the names of 17 priests about whom the Archdiocese had received complaints. Also in November 1995, Archbishop Connell wrote to Fr McNamee relieving him of his duties as chaplain to the Carmelite Sisters.
1995 - 2001
12.31 Fr McNamee was accommodated in a nursing home in Co Meath. He was opposed to any assessment being done on him by any medical advisor and was also opposed to the nursing home being informed of any past allegations. He himself did inform the nursing home sometime in late 1995 of the allegations. Early the following year, the man who had complained to the Archdiocese in 1994 made a formal statement to Monsignor Stenson. The reporting procedures of the Archdiocese had changed in the previous year and accordingly Monsignor Stenson informed the Gardaí immediately. Some two months later, the Gardaí informed the Archdiocese that no formal complaint had been made by the man. No further action was taken in relation to this matter. It is perhaps surprising that the Gardaí did not consider it necessary to make further inquiries, especially in view of the fact that they were aware of previous complaints.
12.32 In March 1997, the case of Fr McNamee was referred to the advisory panel (see Chapter 7). The panel was informed of all the allegations received to date.
12.33 In April and May 1997, two further allegations were made. One was made anonymously and the other was made by a man who at the time was suffering from a psychiatric illness.
12.34 Having examined the case, the view of the advisory panel was that there was enough substance in the allegations to create a strong suspicion that they might be true.
12.35 They recommended that a canonical precept (an order from the Archbishop restricting Fr McNamee‟s ministry) be put in place. In August 1997, the canonical precept was put in place restricting Fr McNamee to celebration of mass at the retirement home in Meath only, forbidding him from visiting his past parishes and forbidding him having any contact with children on his own.
12.36 In 2001, another civil legal action was initiated against Fr McNamee and the Archdiocese. Fr McNamee died in September 2002, just before a number of media reports surfaced regarding allegations of child sexual abuse against him.
Media reports
12.37 In October 2002, following the Prime Time programme Cardinal Secrets, the young man who had settled his case with Fr McNamee in 1998 went on the RTE radio programme Liveline and spoke about his abuse by Fr McNamee. By the end of October, at least eight men had made complaints of abuse using the garda hotline. The alleged abuses dated back to the 1950s. Many included allegations of requiring the boys to swim naked, under the guise of teaching them how to swim, and then touching them inappropriately. Other allegations related to him drying the boys off after swimming, placing them naked on his knee and once again touching their genitalia or digitally penetrating them.
12.38 It should be said that despite Fr McNamee carrying on the type of behaviour which had characterised his time in Crumlin, there are no allegations of child sexual abuse arising from the 16 years he spent in Delgany. When the Carmelite nuns were informed of the allegations against Fr McNamee by an RTE reporter in 2002, the superior made inquiries from a former altar boy as to whether he had any knowledge of impropriety on the part of Fr McNamee and was informed that he did not.
12.39 In addition to the complainants mentioned above, 21 men have come forward claiming abuse by Fr McNamee during his many appointments. The Commission is of the view that many more were abused. A significant number of complainants are claiming civil damages. To date, a number of cases have been settled and at the time of writing this report a further three are outstanding.
12.40 Those complainants who met archdiocesan officials in recent times, including Archbishop Martin, were satisfied with how the Archdiocese dealt with their complaints. Many were relieved to hear from the Archbishop that they were not alone in their complaints, and victims also expressed gratitude for counselling when it was arranged for them.
12.41 Some expressed sadness at the fact that they had not reported matters earlier to the Church, particularly when the priest was alive, as they thought that might have prevented abuse of others.
The Commission’s assessment
12.42 Overall, the case is an example of how, throughout the 1970s, the Church authorities were much more concerned with the scandal that would be created by revealing Fr McNamee‟s abuse rather than any concern for the abused.
12.43 Archbishop McQuaid‟s view, in the early 1960s, that he could not refuse to accept the denials of such a worthy priest was sadly misguided. If action had been taken then, the abuse of a large number of boys could have been prevented. It is quite clear from Bishop Forristal‟s recollections and from the interview that Monsignor O‟Regan conducted with Fr McNamee‟s colleagues that, in the 1970s, there was significant knowledge of the type of activities that Fr McNamee was up to with children in his own swimming pool and elsewhere. However, even though he knew there was a problem, the Archbishop did not take any action.
12.44 When a specific complaint was made in 1978, Monsignor O‟Regan carried out a thorough investigation and came to the clear conclusion that Fr McNamee was a danger to children. Yet again, the emphasis was on the avoidance of scandal and the protection of the priest‟s reputation rather than the protection of children. It is particularly shocking that Fr McNamee was encouraged to stay on in the parish in order to avoid any damage to his reputation. The very idea that a priest should have a private swimming pool to which only young boys had access, even in the mid to late 1970s, coupled with his other actions should have caused the archdiocesan authorities to take action far earlier than they did.
12.45 While Monsignor O‟Regan did state that perhaps further damage to innocent children might be avoided, not once did he or indeed any of the archdiocesan authorities consider the enormous damage that might already have been done to innocent children.
12.46 Archbishop Ryan, when he discovered that there had been many incidents in the swimming pool with Fr McNamee, should have taken immediate action. The fact that the archives contained a report about similar type activities relating to boys attending Stella Maris football club, albeit not believed at the time, should have given rise to the reopening of that investigation and to an investigation of his activities in the intervening years.
12.47 The fact that he allowed Fr McNamee to stay in Crumlin for a further 15 months was wrong. This wrong was compounded by his transfer to a convent where again he was given access to young altar boys.
12.48 The failure to inform the nuns that the reason for his transfer to their convent was because of concerns about his activities in Crumlin was inexplicable and left them in a very difficult situation when they were questioned by RTE many years later. No attempt was made to monitor his activities while he was associated with the convent and the nuns knew of no reason for monitoring.
12.49 Bishop Murray and Archbishop Connell must accept responsibility for not communicating fully with the nuns in Co Wicklow. When complaints surfaced in the 1990s about Fr McNamee, Bishop Murray visited the convent but did not explain fully the circumstances surrounding Fr McNamee‟s placement there. He claims he was not fully informed about the details. However it was clear from his memo of the meeting that he was aware that there was an allegation of child sexual abuse made against Fr McNamee in the late 1970s. It seems incredible to the Commission that, when he was asked in December 1994 to talk to Fr McNamee about behavioural difficulties with children, he was not informed that Archbishop Connell had issued a decree initiating a preliminary investigation into the 1994 allegation on 28 November. Once again this highlights the very poor communication that existed within the Archdiocese. Bishop Murray has pointed out to the Commission that Archbishop Connell visited Delgany on 11 December and did not inform the nuns about Fr McNamee‟s background. This was despite the fact that he had launched a preliminary investigation into a complaint of child sexual abuse against him less than two weeks previously. In the Commission‟s view neither the bishop nor the Archbishop seemed to have given any consideration to the risk Fr McNamee might have posed to the altar boys attending the convent. Both were aware of his abusive past and that no monitoring system had been put in place in relation to him.
12.50 Nearly all the complainants who reported to the Gardaí were happy with the way the Gardaí dealt with the complaints. As many of the complaints arose after the death of Fr McNamee there was no possibility of a prosecution. Nevertheless the complainants reported that the Gardaí had listened sympathetically to them. The Gardaí also took full and comprehensive statements from them.
12.51 The development of the DPP‟s approach to cases involving delay is outlined in Chapter 5.
Introduction
12.1 “We would always be hovering around the late James McNamee when he arrived at the school because he had this very charismatic presence. I would say he was like St. Francis of Assisi, you know, the kids would come around him like pigeons used to come around”.
12.2 This is how a young man described Fr James McNamee to the Commission.
12.3 Fr McNamee was born in 1917, was ordained in 1942, retired to become a convent chaplain in 1979 and died in 2002.
12.4 At least 21 people have made complaints of sexual abuse against Fr McNamee. These complaints date back to his period as a curate in Rolestown between 1950 and 1952, as a curate in Halston Street and Arran Quay between 1952 and 1960, as a curate in Harrington Street from 1960 to 1968 and in Crumlin, both as a curate between 1968 and 1973 and as parish priest between 1973 and 1979.
Stella Maris Football Club
12.5 The first allegation about Fr McNamee arose in January 1960, when a former altar boy, on the advice of a priest in Rathfarnham, spoke to a priest in relation to Fr McNamee‟s behaviour. The former altar boy informed the priest that he had heard from two former members of a football club with which Fr McNamee was associated, Stella Maris, that Fr McNamee had acted in an inappropriate manner when the boys had showered after returning from a trip to the seaside. The former altar boy also stated that he had witnessed Fr McNamee bathing with naked adolescent boys and placing the boys on his shoulders.
12.6 These matters were investigated by the auxiliary bishop, Bishop Dunne. Fr McNamee denied the allegations and stated that he had merely permitted the boys to use the showers after returning from the seaside. Bishop Dunne believed Fr McNamee‟s version of events, as did Archbishop McQuaid when it was reported to him. The Archbishop noted that “as he is a worthy priest I agree that we could not refuse to accept his word”.
12.7 Fr McNamee informed the Archbishop that he would like to withdraw from the Stella Maris club, the football club from where the allegations emanated, as he was tired, having worked there for a number of years. The Archbishop was willing to let him withdraw but not at once “lest he be defamed”.
12.8 On meeting Fr McNamee, Archbishop McQuaid told him to forget about it. Archbishop McQuaid noted that he himself was convinced that the man was quite without blame.
12.9 Subsequently, there were a number of complaints from members of the Stella Maris football club who recalled Fr McNamee swimming nude with other team members.
Swimming pool complaint, 1978
12.10 The first specific recorded complaint about Fr McNamee and his activities in his home built swimming pool in Crumlin was made in March 1978. However, it is clear that the Archdiocese was aware of suspicions and concerns about his activities before this. A file note of an interview conducted with Bishop Forristal in February 2006 indicated that he remembered a meeting of vicars general in or around the autumn of 1977, at which Archbishop Ryan noted that there had been a lot of incidents involving a swimming pool and Fr McNamee and that consequently Archbishop Ryan expressed the view: “This fellow has to go. He can‟t work in parish work anymore”. Bishop Forristal told the Commission in 2009 that he accepts that he did say this in 2006 but he is now unsure when Archbishop Ryan made that remark. It may have been sometime after the autumn of 1977. The Commission notes that there was a meeting of the vicars general in the winter of 1977.
12.11 In March 1978, a parishioner complained to a nun that her eldest son had reported that Fr McNamee and a number of boys were swimming and exercising in the nude in a swimming pool in the garden of the priest‟s house. It was also alleged that a nude boy sat on the priest‟s knee for a chat.
12.12 The nun told the complainant to get in touch with the Archbishop and not to mention it to anybody else. Archbishop Ryan directed Monsignor O‟Regan, the parish priest of Sandymount and a former chancellor, to conduct an inquiry.
12.13 Monsignor O‟Regan met the mother promptly and took an account of what she had to say. He found her to be a credible witness. He also made inquiries about her two sons and was told that they were truthful boys. His conclusion was that “a possibly explosive situation exists locally, which could be very scandalous indeed”. He also stated that “even now, many innocent boys may be safeguarded, and the whole adult Catholic population spared the hurt of a real scandal in Crumlin”. There is no evidence as to whether or not Monsignor O‟Regan was aware of the 1960 complaint but the Commission considers that he is unlikely to have been told about it. He may, however, have been told of the suspicions and concerns of which the vicars general were aware but this cannot be established.
12.14 Monsignor O‟Regan consulted with the local curate and other priests who knew Fr McNamee. The local curate was full of praise for Fr McNamee, stating that he was a good priest and had a real interest in the boys of the parish. One priest, however, accepted the allegations against Fr McNamee and indicated that they confirmed an unproven suspicion he had in the past. He recommended that Fr McNamee should be made to retire and that the pool should be handed over to a parish organisation.
12.15 Monsignor O‟Regan elicited further disturbing information from the priests he interviewed about Fr McNamee‟s activities. He was told that Fr McNamee had built an outdoor swimming pool himself in 1969 and later built an indoor pool. Adults in general were excluded from using the pool and only a small group of boys were selected to use it. The fact that only selected boys were allowed use the pool was resented locally. Fr McNamee spent school break time holding the hands of young boys in the playground and he took young boys for spins in his car. It had also been noted that he had a total aversion and hostility towards all women.
12.16 Some five weeks after the mother‟s complaint, Monsignor O‟Regan and Monsignor Curtin met Fr McNamee concerning the complaints. Fr McNamee confirmed that he had built the swimming pool himself and acknowledged that adults were excluded from using the pool. He stated that, owing to space constraints, only six boys were permitted in the pool at any one time. He also indicated that, although not common practise, nude bathing did occasionally occur and he did not see anything morally wrong with this.
12.17 Fr McNamee communicated to Monsignor O‟Regan his desire to retire from active ministry but the Monsignor encouraged him to stay for a further six months in order to avoid any damage to his reputation.
12.18 Fr McNamee was allowed to remain in his job as parish priest until May 1979. This was despite the fact that the Archdiocese was aware of complaints made in 1960 and of similar types of complaints made in the 1970s. When Archbishop Ryan went to Crumlin for the confirmation ceremonies in May 1979, a former parish priest spoke to the Archbishop of the increasing rumours and gossip about Fr McNamee, but the Archbishop indicated to him that he should leave the matter rest and gave no indication of what he planned to do.
12.19 A complainant gave evidence to the Commission which shows that, as well as abusing boys in the swimming pool, Fr McNamee also abused in his car. This complainant‟s evidence also illustrates the level of local knowledge and rumours in Crumlin in the 1970s. This complainant told the Commission that between the years 1972 and 1975, Fr McNamee would pick him up from outside the local school. The witness was between the ages of seven and ten at that time. The witness stated that whenever the older boys in the area saw Fr McNamee, they either ran away or started throwing things and shouting insults at Fr McNamee. Apparently he was known as “Father smack my gee”53. The older boys, some of whom later told the witness that they had been abused by Fr McNamee, did not tell their parents or the younger boys what was going on at the time. As a result, Fr McNamee who, as the witness recalled, drove a green Lancia Delta, picked up boys regularly in the car and abused them.
12.20 The existence of a swimming pool in a garden in Crumlin in the 1960s and 1970s must, inevitably, have been the subject of much local discussion.
Delgany, 1979
12.21 In June 1979, Fr McNamee‟s resignation from Crumlin was accepted and in July 1979 he was appointed chaplain to the Carmelite monastery in Delgany, Co Wicklow. The Carmelites were told that he was appointed there for health reasons. Part of his duties in that job was to say mass every morning. While saying mass, he was assisted by various local altar boys. The evidence of a mother of one of the altar boys was that, in fine weather, Fr McNamee would regularly bring a number of the boys to swim at Brittas Bay. When she found out about Fr McNamee and his proclivities, she questioned her son but he said the priest had behaved properly towards them. There was no monitoring of his activities by the Archdiocese and, since the nuns were not told anything of his background, they could not have been expected to take on a monitoring role. The first the nuns knew about concerns relating to Fr McNamee was in 2002, when they were approached by a reporter from RTE who explained that they were investigating Fr McNamee‟s activities while he was in Crumlin and requesting the nuns‟ state of knowledge when he came to stay with them.
1994 – 1995 Complaints
12.22 In 1994, a report was received from a young man that he had been abused by Fr McNamee while in Crumlin parish. This young man did not name Fr McNamee but Monsignor Stenson immediately deduced that it was likely to be Fr McNamee. Archbishop Connell instituted a preliminary investigation in November 1994. In the same year, Monsignor Stenson received reports that Fr McNamee was driving around with young children in his car in the Wicklow area, a fact that was independently confirmed by the mother of an altar boy. Having consulted with Dr Patrick Walsh of the Granada Institute, who had seen the files on Fr McNamee, it was decided that Bishop Donal Murray would speak to Fr McNamee about his behavioural difficulties relating to children in order to assess how he had been dealing with these problems. Bishop Murray‟s purpose would be to inform Fr McNamee that the Archdiocese wished to ensure that there was no “unfinished business”, particularly at this time. (The Fr Brendan Smyth controversy was raging at the time – see Chapter 7). Bishop Murray told the Commission that he was unaware of the 1994 complaint to Monsignor Stenson.
12.23 At this stage Fr McNamee was 77 years of age. Bishop Murray called to see him shortly before Christmas 1994. He inquired with the superior as to Fr McNamee‟s health and general well-being. He failed to mention to the superior the real purpose of his visit and the concerns which the Archdiocese had in regard to Fr McNamee and his behaviour with young people.
12.24 Bishop Murray then saw Fr McNamee and, in the course of a general conversation, asked whether he had any concerns about the recent scandals relating to child sexual abuse. Fr McNamee claimed that he was not personally affected. The bishop said that there had been some things suggested about him in this area in the past but Fr McNamee replied that this was: “just talk, talk, talk. There is a kind of conspiracy going on: people seeing evil where there is none. A lot of what is been [sic] said is evil and mischievous. The people who make false allegations are themselves evil”.
12.25 Bishop Murray accepted Fr McNamee‟s denials that he had young people in the car. This was the extent of his inquiries. The bishop did think that there was some unresolved anger and some denial about the earlier situation, of which Bishop Murray said he had no detailed knowledge. According to Bishop Murray, Archbishop Connell also visited Fr McNamee in December 1994. Archbishop Connell did not inform the nuns about the child sexual abuse concerns even though he had initiated a preliminary investigation into a recent complaint.
12.26 In March 1995, another complainant made an allegation to the Gardaí. This related to the years 1973 – 1975 and concerned nude bathing in the Crumlin swimming pool and handling of the genitalia while drying the young boy off after swimming.
Garda investigation, 1995
12.27 The garda who took the man‟s statement at the central detective unit on 1 March prepared a letter on 21 March requesting that the matter be investigated by “G” division, that is, Crumlin, where the offences had occurred. Unfortunately, Crumlin did not receive the file until 7 July, nearly four months after the complaint was made. There is no explanation on the file for this delay. Once Crumlin received the file, matters were moved along swiftly. On 10 July 1995, the Gardaí contacted Archbishop‟s House and Monsignor Stenson gave them Fr McNamee‟s address. Monsignor Stenson immediately contacted Fr McNamee to advise him that a garda investigation was under way and that he should get legal representation. Fr McNamee was interviewed on 14 July in the presence of his solicitor. He made no response to the allegations at that time but in a subsequent statement delivered on 15 August he categorically denied them.
12.28 The file was then sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who because of the delay between the abuse and the complaint, declined to prosecute. The abuse had occurred between 1973 and 1975 and the complaint was made in 1995.
12.29 The complainant subsequently issued civil proceedings and three years later the priest personally made a substantial settlement with the young man in question.
12.30 Fr McNamee‟s name was one of the names given to the Gardaí by Monsignor Stenson in November 1995 when he handed over the names of 17 priests about whom the Archdiocese had received complaints. Also in November 1995, Archbishop Connell wrote to Fr McNamee relieving him of his duties as chaplain to the Carmelite Sisters.
1995 - 2001
12.31 Fr McNamee was accommodated in a nursing home in Co Meath. He was opposed to any assessment being done on him by any medical advisor and was also opposed to the nursing home being informed of any past allegations. He himself did inform the nursing home sometime in late 1995 of the allegations. Early the following year, the man who had complained to the Archdiocese in 1994 made a formal statement to Monsignor Stenson. The reporting procedures of the Archdiocese had changed in the previous year and accordingly Monsignor Stenson informed the Gardaí immediately. Some two months later, the Gardaí informed the Archdiocese that no formal complaint had been made by the man. No further action was taken in relation to this matter. It is perhaps surprising that the Gardaí did not consider it necessary to make further inquiries, especially in view of the fact that they were aware of previous complaints.
12.32 In March 1997, the case of Fr McNamee was referred to the advisory panel (see Chapter 7). The panel was informed of all the allegations received to date.
12.33 In April and May 1997, two further allegations were made. One was made anonymously and the other was made by a man who at the time was suffering from a psychiatric illness.
12.34 Having examined the case, the view of the advisory panel was that there was enough substance in the allegations to create a strong suspicion that they might be true.
12.35 They recommended that a canonical precept (an order from the Archbishop restricting Fr McNamee‟s ministry) be put in place. In August 1997, the canonical precept was put in place restricting Fr McNamee to celebration of mass at the retirement home in Meath only, forbidding him from visiting his past parishes and forbidding him having any contact with children on his own.
12.36 In 2001, another civil legal action was initiated against Fr McNamee and the Archdiocese. Fr McNamee died in September 2002, just before a number of media reports surfaced regarding allegations of child sexual abuse against him.
Media reports
12.37 In October 2002, following the Prime Time programme Cardinal Secrets, the young man who had settled his case with Fr McNamee in 1998 went on the RTE radio programme Liveline and spoke about his abuse by Fr McNamee. By the end of October, at least eight men had made complaints of abuse using the garda hotline. The alleged abuses dated back to the 1950s. Many included allegations of requiring the boys to swim naked, under the guise of teaching them how to swim, and then touching them inappropriately. Other allegations related to him drying the boys off after swimming, placing them naked on his knee and once again touching their genitalia or digitally penetrating them.
12.38 It should be said that despite Fr McNamee carrying on the type of behaviour which had characterised his time in Crumlin, there are no allegations of child sexual abuse arising from the 16 years he spent in Delgany. When the Carmelite nuns were informed of the allegations against Fr McNamee by an RTE reporter in 2002, the superior made inquiries from a former altar boy as to whether he had any knowledge of impropriety on the part of Fr McNamee and was informed that he did not.
12.39 In addition to the complainants mentioned above, 21 men have come forward claiming abuse by Fr McNamee during his many appointments. The Commission is of the view that many more were abused. A significant number of complainants are claiming civil damages. To date, a number of cases have been settled and at the time of writing this report a further three are outstanding.
12.40 Those complainants who met archdiocesan officials in recent times, including Archbishop Martin, were satisfied with how the Archdiocese dealt with their complaints. Many were relieved to hear from the Archbishop that they were not alone in their complaints, and victims also expressed gratitude for counselling when it was arranged for them.
12.41 Some expressed sadness at the fact that they had not reported matters earlier to the Church, particularly when the priest was alive, as they thought that might have prevented abuse of others.
The Commission’s assessment
12.42 Overall, the case is an example of how, throughout the 1970s, the Church authorities were much more concerned with the scandal that would be created by revealing Fr McNamee‟s abuse rather than any concern for the abused.
12.43 Archbishop McQuaid‟s view, in the early 1960s, that he could not refuse to accept the denials of such a worthy priest was sadly misguided. If action had been taken then, the abuse of a large number of boys could have been prevented. It is quite clear from Bishop Forristal‟s recollections and from the interview that Monsignor O‟Regan conducted with Fr McNamee‟s colleagues that, in the 1970s, there was significant knowledge of the type of activities that Fr McNamee was up to with children in his own swimming pool and elsewhere. However, even though he knew there was a problem, the Archbishop did not take any action.
12.44 When a specific complaint was made in 1978, Monsignor O‟Regan carried out a thorough investigation and came to the clear conclusion that Fr McNamee was a danger to children. Yet again, the emphasis was on the avoidance of scandal and the protection of the priest‟s reputation rather than the protection of children. It is particularly shocking that Fr McNamee was encouraged to stay on in the parish in order to avoid any damage to his reputation. The very idea that a priest should have a private swimming pool to which only young boys had access, even in the mid to late 1970s, coupled with his other actions should have caused the archdiocesan authorities to take action far earlier than they did.
12.45 While Monsignor O‟Regan did state that perhaps further damage to innocent children might be avoided, not once did he or indeed any of the archdiocesan authorities consider the enormous damage that might already have been done to innocent children.
12.46 Archbishop Ryan, when he discovered that there had been many incidents in the swimming pool with Fr McNamee, should have taken immediate action. The fact that the archives contained a report about similar type activities relating to boys attending Stella Maris football club, albeit not believed at the time, should have given rise to the reopening of that investigation and to an investigation of his activities in the intervening years.
12.47 The fact that he allowed Fr McNamee to stay in Crumlin for a further 15 months was wrong. This wrong was compounded by his transfer to a convent where again he was given access to young altar boys.
12.48 The failure to inform the nuns that the reason for his transfer to their convent was because of concerns about his activities in Crumlin was inexplicable and left them in a very difficult situation when they were questioned by RTE many years later. No attempt was made to monitor his activities while he was associated with the convent and the nuns knew of no reason for monitoring.
12.49 Bishop Murray and Archbishop Connell must accept responsibility for not communicating fully with the nuns in Co Wicklow. When complaints surfaced in the 1990s about Fr McNamee, Bishop Murray visited the convent but did not explain fully the circumstances surrounding Fr McNamee‟s placement there. He claims he was not fully informed about the details. However it was clear from his memo of the meeting that he was aware that there was an allegation of child sexual abuse made against Fr McNamee in the late 1970s. It seems incredible to the Commission that, when he was asked in December 1994 to talk to Fr McNamee about behavioural difficulties with children, he was not informed that Archbishop Connell had issued a decree initiating a preliminary investigation into the 1994 allegation on 28 November. Once again this highlights the very poor communication that existed within the Archdiocese. Bishop Murray has pointed out to the Commission that Archbishop Connell visited Delgany on 11 December and did not inform the nuns about Fr McNamee‟s background. This was despite the fact that he had launched a preliminary investigation into a complaint of child sexual abuse against him less than two weeks previously. In the Commission‟s view neither the bishop nor the Archbishop seemed to have given any consideration to the risk Fr McNamee might have posed to the altar boys attending the convent. Both were aware of his abusive past and that no monitoring system had been put in place in relation to him.
12.50 Nearly all the complainants who reported to the Gardaí were happy with the way the Gardaí dealt with the complaints. As many of the complaints arose after the death of Fr McNamee there was no possibility of a prosecution. Nevertheless the complainants reported that the Gardaí had listened sympathetically to them. The Gardaí also took full and comprehensive statements from them.
12.51 The development of the DPP‟s approach to cases involving delay is outlined in Chapter 5.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36175
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:10 am
Chapter 13: Fr Edmondus*54
Introduction
13.1 Marie Collins, one of the many people abused by Fr Edmondus, and who was severely affected by the abuse, stated in the documents submitted by her to the Commission:
“Father [Edmondus] betrayed the trust invested in him by his religious superiors. He betrayed the trust of the hospital authorities. He betrayed my parents‟ trust. All had given me into his care. He betrayed my trust and my innocence. He abused his power and used my respect for his religious position to abuse and degrade me - a child - not just a child but a sick child. How much lower than that can you sink? A man like that deserves our prayers but not our protection”. (Emphasis in original)
13.2 The Fr Edmondus case is being dealt with by the Commission because it involves a priest who committed a number of sexual assaults on young patients aged between eight and 11 years in Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Sixteen years later, when he was based in Co Wicklow, he committed a sexual assault on a nine-year-old child.
13.3 The case also falls to be considered by the Commission because, in the 1990s, suspicions about his behaviour while he was a curate in a North Dublin parish were brought to the attention of the Archdiocese.
13.4 Fr Edmondus was born in 1931 and ordained in 1957. He was chaplain to Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children from 1958 to 1960. He subsequently held a number of appointments in the Archdiocese. His faculties were withdrawn in 1997. In that same year, he was convicted of indecent assault against two girls and served a term of nine months imprisonment. He remains a priest but is prohibited from exercising ministry and is not allowed to wear clerical garb. He currently lives in Dublin.
Complaint, 1960
13.5 In August 1960, Archbishop McQuaid was informed that a security officer at a photographic film company in the UK had referred colour film, sent to them for developing by Fr Edmondus, to Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard referred the matter to the Commissioner of the Gardaí. There is no evidence of any Garda investigation. However Garda Commissioner Costigan met Archbishop McQuaid and, according to Archbishop McQuaid‟s note of the meeting, told him that the photographic company had “handed to Scotland Yard a colour film with label Rev. [Edmondus], Childrens Hospital, Crumlin, Dublin, of which 26 transparencies were of the private parts of two small girls, aged 10 or 11 years”. The Garda Commissioner asked Archbishop McQuaid to take over the case because a priest was in question and the Gardaí “could prove nothing”. The Commissioner told Archbishop McQuaid that he would do nothing further. No attempt seems to have been made to establish who the two girls in the photographs were. The Commission would like to point out that neither the Dublin Archdiocese nor the Gardaí made discovery of the colour film so the Commission is not in a position to say what happened to it.
13.6 Archbishop McQuaid immediately referred the case to his auxiliary bishop, Bishop Dunne. It is clear that the Archbishop was using the procedures outlined in the 1922 instruction (see Chapter 4). Bishop Dunne expressed the view that a crimen pessimum (the worst crime, which includes child sexual abuse) had been committed.
13.7 The next day, Archbishop McQuaid met Fr Edmondus who admitted photographing the children in sexual postures alone and in groups. These photographs were taken in Crumlin hospital. The Archbishop recorded as follows:
“The children were playing about, lifting their clothes. He rebuked them. Seeing this was a chance of discovering what the genitals were like, he pretended there was no film in the camera he was carrying and photographed them in sexual postures, alone and seated together, chiefly in a way or posture that opened up the parts. He declared that he had done so, as one would take an art photo., seeing no grave sin at all and suffering no physical disturbance in himself. He was puzzled, though he had seen line drawings, as to structure and functions of female. In questioning, I discovered that he had been 190
reared with brothers,55 had never moved about socially with girls and tended to avoid them as in the hospital with the nurses. I suggested I would get [a doctor] a good Catholic to instruct him and thus end his wonderment.” Archbishop McQuaid also recorded: “I felt that he clearly understood the nature of the sinful act involved and to send him on retreat would defame him”.
13.8 Archbishop McQuaid and Bishop Dunne then agreed that there was not an objective and subjective crime of the type envisaged in the 1922 instruction and consequently that there was no need to refer the matter to the Holy Office in Rome.
13.9 Later, Fr Edmondus saw the doctor on three occasions. There is no report from the doctor on the Church files.
13.10 While Archbishop McQuaid investigated the matter promptly, he limited his activity to dealing with the priest‟s problem. He does not seem to have made any effort to establish who the children involved were, nor did he contact Crumlin hospital nor did he put in place any protocols for future chaplains to the children in that hospital. In view of the fact that he was chairman of the board of directors of the hospital, this was a particular omission. At this stage, Fr Edmondus was no longer the chaplain to the hospital. This failure to contact the hospital or put any protocol in place meant that, when Fr Ivan Payne (see Chapter 24) became chaplain to the same hospital, the hospital had no knowledge of previous wrongdoing by a chaplain. Archbishop Martin, on behalf of the Archdiocese, has suggested to the Commission that what Archbishop McQuaid was trying to establish was whether the subjective and objective elements of a canonical crime had been committed and that he found that no crime had been committed.
13.11 Given that these photographs were taken by deception, when a nurse was absent, given the nature of the photographs and the fact that the film was sent to the UK for development, any reasonable person would imply mens rea or criminal intent from the circumstances. The conclusion of the Archbishop and Bishop Dunne that this was not an objective and subjective crime within the meaning of canon law is, in the Commission‟s view, unreasonable and contrary to common sense now and in 1960. It is totally at variance with Bishop Dunne‟s original opinion as recorded by Archbishop McQuaid a few days earlier. The Commission believes that Archbishop McQuaid acted as he did to avoid scandal in both Ireland and Rome and without regard to the protection of children in Crumlin hospital. Archbishop Martin accepts that the conclusion reached by Archbishop McQuaid and Bishop Dunne was wrong and that the measures taken were inadequate but he does not agree with the Commission‟s conclusion that Archbishop McQuaid acted the way he did to avoid scandal both here and in Rome.
Reporting of abuse, 1985
13.12 Marie Collins, who was one of a number of young people sexually abused by Fr Edmondus at Crumlin hospital, approached her local curate, Fr Eddie Griffin, in November 1985 and told him about her abuse. She had been sexually abused and photographed by Fr Edmondus in Crumlin hospital in 1960 when she was aged 13. The curate indicated to her that he did not want to know the name of her abuser as he would have to do something about it. According to a statement which he gave to the Gardaí in 2004, he said that he explained to Mrs Collins that “I didn‟t want to know the name of the priest. If she told me the name of the priest I had to do something about it”. He went on to say in his Garda statement:
“We as priests had been advised while in college not to seek the name of priests that allegations were being made against. Marie Collins didn't tell me that name of the priest. I told her not to feel any guilt about what had happened and that the priest had done wrong and if she had guilt I could give her absolution." Despite having told Mrs Collins he did not wish to know the name of the priest, he went on to say in his garda statement “when she didn‟t tell me his name I wondered why she was there and thought she might be feeling guilty and I told her I could do away with her guilt by giving her absolution”.
13.13 Although Fr Griffin contends that he was approaching the matter in a "pastoral‟ manner which would not require him to seek the identity of the priest, the fact is that a criminal offence was disclosed to him and his response was, in the Commission‟s view, inadequate. It was to be another ten years before Mrs Collins plucked up the courage to report the matter to Archbishop‟s House.
Suspicions, 1993
13.14 In 1993, while Fr Edmondus was a curate in Edenmore in north Dublin, a complaint was made by a parishioner regarding his contact with young children. This complaint, which appears to have come initially from youth workers, was made to a local priest who reported it to Bishop James Moriarty, who was the auxiliary bishop for that area. Bishop Moriarty summarised the reported inappropriate behaviour of Fr Edmondus as follows:
• young girls driving around in his car and allegations that the girls had sometimes changed in his house before going swimming;
• giving young children money;
• group of youngsters who were very poor attenders at school spending time with him;
• no adults allowed into his house; the only people allowed in were the very old or young.
13.15 Bishop Moriarty discussed the problem with the local priests and with Archbishop Connell. He then warned Fr Edmondus about his behaviour and advised him to desist from the activities mentioned. After this, the parish priest noted a change in his behaviour but others felt he still surrounded himself with children quite a bit. No attempt was made by the archdiocesan authorities to check the archives or other files relating to Fr Edmondus when these complaints were received. Bishop Moriarty pointed out to the Commission that he did not have access to the archives but he could have asked the Archbishop to conduct such a search. Information was also received about Fr Edmondus recording the children‟s voices and he himself admitted to photographing them.
Letters of complaint from Marie Collins, 1995
13.16 In October 1995, Marie Collins wrote to Archbishop Connell regarding her abuse by Fr Edmondus. She also told him of her attempts to tell her local curate about the abuse. Around the same time she wrote a letter of complaint to Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin and offered to talk to a secretary/manager about the abuse.
13.17 A few days after her complaint to Archbishop Connell, he initiated a preliminary investigation under canon 1717 and appointed Monsignor Alex Stenson as the delegate. By this time, October 1995, the Church authorities were familiar with many aspects of clerical child abuse. Not only was work on the Framework Document (see Chapter 7) well advanced but several Church personnel had travelled to dioceses in the USA to learn from their experiences. In addition there had been the fall out of the Fr Brendan Smyth case (see Chapter 7) and the Archdiocese itself had received a significant number of complaints of child sexual abuse by priests of the Archdiocese.
13.18 In October 1995, following receipt of Mrs Collins‟s complaint, a trawl was done in the secret archives and the 1960 complaint became known to Archbishop Connell and Monsignor Stenson. Monsignor Stenson, though chancellor of the Archdiocese since 1981, only became aware of the 1993 Edenmore concerns in the course of his investigation. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he referred all complaints of sexual abuse to the chancellor. He did not feel it necessary to refer the concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Fr Edmondus to Monsignor Stenson.
Evidence of Mrs Collins and Fr Norman
13.19 Both Mrs Collins and her support priest, Fr James Norman, gave extensive evidence to the Commission. Her evidence related not only to her complaint against Fr Edmondus but also covered steps taken by her and others to get support services for victims of clerical sex abuse.
13.20 Her evidence was very helpful to the Commission in understanding how the Framework Document was being implemented. It was also helpful in attempting to assess the attitude of Church officials to cases in which they accepted that abuse had taken place.
13.21 Mrs Collins was extremely unhappy with the way her complaint was dealt with by the Church authorities. In addition to writing to Archbishop Connell in October 1995, she had also written to Bishop Forristal (the chair of the committee drafting the Framework Document), Crumlin hospital and the local priest to whom she had earlier complained, to let them know that she was making a complaint to the Archdiocese. Bishop Forristal replied personally and sympathetically. The hospital authorities responded immediately and arranged to meet her. She found them very sympathetic. They offered counselling and told her that they would be reporting the matter to the Gardaí, which they did.
13.22 Archbishop Connell passed the letter from Mrs Collins to Monsignor Stenson and did not reply directly himself. The local priest did not reply at all. Monsignor Stenson replied, apologised on behalf of Archbishop Connell and made arrangements to meet Mrs Collins.
Monsignor Stenson’s meeting with Mrs Collins
13.23 Monsignor Stenson met Mrs Collins in October 1995. He indicated that he would have to notify the Gardaí in relation to her complaints. He noted in the memorandum of their meeting that she had met a representative from Crumlin hospital who had also indicated that the Gardaí would be notified.
13.24 Mrs Collins felt that Monsignor Stenson had listened very sympathetically to her and indeed acknowledged this in a letter to him subsequently. It is very clear that Monsignor Stenson believed Mrs Collins. However, he did not tell her that there were other incidents and concerns in respect of Fr Edmondus‟s time at Crumlin hospital and she was very annoyed about this when she subsequently discovered it. Cardinal Connell has told the Commission that there was no legal obligation on him or the Archdiocese to inform Mrs Collins of other incidents or concerns. While this is true, the Commission believes that Mrs Collins was justified in her annoyance at not being told of the 1960 incidents at her first meeting with Monsignor Stenson. The Commission is aware that Monsignor Stenson told the Gardaí of the 1960 incidents in November 1995 but waited until March 1996 to tell Mrs Collins. Monsignor Stenson has told the Commission that he did not regard himself as free to tell Mrs Collins about the Crumlin incidents. He was constrained by the oath of secrecy which he took when he became chancellor and he could not reveal that information without the consent of Archbishop Connell. He said he made the November 1995 statement to the Gardaí with the permission of Archbishop Connell. He said the same oath of secrecy prevented him from making a further statement to the Gardaí about his preliminary investigation of the Fr Edmondus case.
13.25 As was his practice, Monsignor Stenson made a comprehensive note of the meeting. The note revealed Mrs Collins to have been severely psychologically damaged by the abuse. Except for her revelation to her local curate in 1985, which unfortunately succeeded only in exacerbating the trauma she suffered, it had taken her almost 35 years to summon up the courage to approach the Church authorities and discuss in detail her abuse by Fr Edmondus. She also expressed worry that other children might have been abused by him and wanted reassurance that he was not left in a position to abuse children.
Monsignor Stenson’s meeting with Fr Edmondus
13.26 Shortly after meeting Mrs Collins, Monsignor Stenson met Fr Edmondus. Monsignor Stenson told him that the Gardaí had been in contact and wanted to meet him in relation to the complaint of Mrs Collins. Monsignor Stenson outlined the complaint and Fr Edmondus replied “I cannot place the girl” but he accepted that inappropriate touching could have happened. He was clear that it was a separate allegation from the matters that had been reported to Archbishop McQuaid in 1960. He accepted that a Christmas card which Mrs Collins claimed he had sent her bore his signature. Mrs Collins had given the Christmas card to Monsignor Stenson. Fr Edmondus said that he had no problem with little boys but, “if he had a problem, it was with little girls”. He told Monsignor Stenson that the meeting with Archbishop McQuaid had scared him and had made him very careful.
13.27 Fr Edmondus said that he would have no problem making an apology to Mrs Collins and claimed that nothing of this nature had ever happened in any of his subsequent appointments.
13.28 In November 1995, Monsignor Stenson provided the Gardaí with an address for Fr Edmondus and gave them some information about the 1960 complaint.
Medical assessment
13.29 Fr Edmondus was referred for an assessment to the Granada Institute. A December 1995 report from Granada recommended that he “be removed from ministry as it is presently constituted” even though Fr Edmondus had said that he had very little exposure to children. This assessment was based on “the escalatory nature of the alleged abuse… the alleged abusive pattern started with what appeared to be good natured innocent fun but was then followed by more sinister demands on the child”.
Garda investigation
13.30 In January 1996 a garda report on the complaint by Mrs Collins concluded: “Unfortunately while I would be of the opinion that the events as described by Marie did happen, there is very little evidence available to us to corroborate her allegations apart from Monsignor Stenson‟s statement about the slides. It would be for this reason as well as the considerable time delay in this case that I feel a prosecution against Fr [Edmondus] would be fruitless”.
13.31 This view was shared by the investigating garda, the sergeant, the detective inspector and the detective superintendent. The file was forwarded to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Further meeting with Monsignor Stenson, 1996
13.32 In March 1996, Mrs Collins met Monsignor Stenson again. Mrs Collins was anxious to know whether or not Fr Edmondus had admitted to the allegation which she had made. Monsignor Stenson confirmed that he had. In fact, what Fr Edmondus had said could not be regarded as a clear admission. Monsignor Stenson informed Mrs Collins that Fr Edmondus was not in a parish, was living in a religious house and was receiving therapy. Monsignor Stenson also noted in his record of their meeting that he was “satisfied that she is not out to make difficulties for Fr [Edmondus] or indeed for the Church”.
13.33 Mrs Collins said that at this meeting, Monsignor Stenson indicated that following treatment Fr Edmondus might be returned to a parish. In a subsequent letter, she told Monsignor Stenson that this should not happen. She was also extremely concerned that Monsignor Stenson had not told her earlier that Fr Edmondus had admitted her abuse. She said she should not have been left waiting for five months to find out.
13.34 Fr Edmondus was in fact, contrary to assurances given to Mrs Collins, still a curate in Edenmore and was not immediately removed from ministry. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that
“In the case of [Edmondus] I did not remove him from his parish immediately. I told him he was not to live there and he wasn‟t to minister there. In that sense I took him out of his parish. I left him officially in his position. This gave rise to a lot of trouble from one of the victims there. But the reason I did that of course was because there had been nothing against [Edmondus] for something like 30 years, and it seemed to me a bit too harsh. I did, in the interest of children, I did instruct him not to live there and he was not to minister there”. The "trouble from one of the victims‟ to which the Cardinal referred relates to Mrs Collins‟s campaign to have Fr Edmondus removed from ministry. It should also be noted that it is not correct to say that there had been nothing against Fr Edmondus for 30 years; there had been the concerns expressed in 1993.
13.35 Despite the Archbishop‟s instructions, Fr Edmondus continued to visit the parish frequently and dressed in clerical attire for a number of months. His name remained on the confessional box for a number of months. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he admonished Fr Edmondus for attending at the parish and not obeying his instructions. The Commission could find no evidence of any monitoring of his activities. His faculties were not formally withdrawn by Archbishop Connell until January 1997. His name remained in the Dublin Diocesan Guidebook56 and he was described as a curate in Edenmore throughout 1996 and 1997.
A new complaint, 1996
13.36 In March 1996, a notification was sent from the Eastern Health Board to the local garda superintendent regarding the alleged sexual abuse by Fr Edmondus of a woman in a Co Wicklow parish when she was a nine year old child. This complainant did not complain to the Archdiocese at this time.
13.37 The Gardaí carried out a thorough investigation of her complaints. They took statements from people whom the woman claimed she had told about the abuse many years previously. Fr Edmondus was interviewed about the allegations and he gave the standard reply that, on the advice of his solicitor, he had nothing to say.
13.38 The Gardaí then looked afresh at the Marie Collins case. She had contacted them further about her case. They felt a number of matters would have to be further investigated:
• the question of identification of Fr Edmondus as the person who allegedly assaulted Marie Collins in 1960;
• the question of establishing what was contained in the record of the 1960 complaint;
• re-interviewing Marie Collins regarding the reference in her statement to slides having been processed in the UK;
• putting the claim to Monsignor Stenson that Fr Edmondus admitted the offence to him.
13.39 The Gardaí met Monsignor Stenson in May 1996. They asked him for a copy of the Fr Edmondus file or at least for an opportunity to look at it. He refused stating he would need legal advice first. He said that canon law did not permit him to give permission for the file to be read.
13.40 Monsignor Stenson was also asked about the claim that Fr Edmondus had admitted the offence to him and a letter he wrote to Mrs Collins was shown to him. Monsignor Stenson expressed dismay on seeing the letter, saying that he would not have written that had he known that she would be handing over the letter to the Gardaí.
13.41 Despite having told Mrs Collins that Fr Edmondus had admitted to her abuse Monsignor Stenson refused to make a statement to that effect to the Gardaí.
13.42 In June 1996, Mrs Collins wrote to Archbishop Connell asking him to inform all the parishes in which Fr Edmondus had served that he had admitted child sexual abuse. Nothing was done about this until after his conviction.
Edenmore concerns
13.43 In October 1996, Monsignor Stenson spoke to the priest to whom the original concerns about children in Edenmore had been expressed and which were reported to Bishop Moriarty in 1993. This priest told Monsignor Stenson that Fr Edmondus had an extensive involvement with children and he had a “disastrous” relationship with adults and his fellow priests.
13.44 Monsignor Stenson then interviewed Fr Edmondus about his involvement with these children. Fr Edmondus told him that children aged ten to 12 used to change in his house. He said he did take photographs of them but there was nothing questionable in them. He said that there was absolutely no snooping or touching whatsoever. He said he stopped allowing them to change in his house after Bishop Moriarty spoke to him. It appears that Monsignor Stenson did not ask Fr Edmondus for the photographs.
Health board involvement, 1996
13.45 In November 1996 a meeting between health board officials and Monsignor Stenson took place in Archbishop‟s House. The health board memo notes:
“the meeting was convened by Monsignor Stenson to convey to us concerns he had about children in the Edenmore Parish. Monsignor Stenson did not have hard information on these children, but he wished to share his concerns with us. These concerns centred around possible inappropriate behaviour on behalf of a priest Fr [Edmondus], who used to bring young girls from the Edenmore parish swimming. These girls used to change for swimming in his house and he then brought them swimming…No allegations of any inappropriate behaviour were ever made by these girls or their parents”. These events are said to have happened in the year 1990.
13.46 A number of girls were identified and the health board‟s note stated that: “given the vague nature of this referral, it was agreed that the Eastern Health Board would approach the parents of the girls and make discreet enquiries given the present climate”. However in December 1996 the senior social worker informed Monsignor Stenson that the Eastern Health Board was not able to follow up because of the vagueness of the addresses provided. The girls‟ names were known but their precise addresses were not.
Advisory panel
13.47 In December 1996, the case of Fr Edmondus was referred to the advisory panel. The panel recommended the following:
His faculties should be withdrawn.
All priests who served with him should be sounded out in relation to his past behaviour.
The Archbishop should meet Marie Collins and offer a support person.
The correct addresses for the children in Edenmore were to be sent to the health board when they became available; there should be a further meeting with the health board in January 1997 to discuss communication of information policy between the Archdiocese and the health board.
Meeting with Archbishop
13.48 In December 1996, Archbishop Connell met Mrs Collins and her support priest, Fr James Norman. Mrs Collins had approached this priest herself and he generously and selflessly agreed to assist her without seeking prior approval from the Archbishop and notwithstanding the fact that such assistance might put him in conflict with his diocese. When he first began to assist her he was not aware that the Framework Document provided for the assignment of support priests to those who had been abused. Eventually, in November 1996, he was formally appointed to that role in respect of Mrs Collins.
13.49 During this meeting, Archbishop Connell apologised to Mrs Collins for the hurt caused to her. In addition to giving evidence about that meeting, Fr Norman kept a note of it:
“During the meeting Marie raised a letter she sent to the Archbishop on the 4th of June [1996] concerning [Edmondus‟s] future. The Archbishop failed to give an explanation of why he did not reply to this letter except to say that it had raised very difficult questions.
When Marie asked the Archbishop why he had not given a statement to the Gardai confirming that there was another case on file from the 1960s the Archbishop replied that it would undermine people‟s confidence in the Church if they thought that files were being passed to the Gardai, i.e. annulment cases. He also said that the previous case was not serious as it only involved the taking of photographs. Marie outlined in detail how having that type of photograph taken had hurt and damaged her. The Archbishop was very shocked and upset by the story Marie told him […] One of the matters that upset Marie most was the statement by Cardinal Connell that the Framework document was not binding in canon or civil law57 and that therefore he could follow what parts of it he wanted to follow. He claimed the Cardinal told her he had to protect the good name of the priest who had abused her”. The overall conclusion that Fr Norman reached regarding that meeting was that the Archbishop came across as someone who really cared for the victim but had not “got a clue” about how to go about dealing with the reality of the problem.
13.50 In January 1997, Fr Edmondus‟s faculties were withdrawn and he was formally released from the parish. He became a beneficiary of the Diocesan Clerical Fund (see Chapter 8).
13.51 In the meantime Monsignor Stenson was making further inquiries in the parishes where Fr Edmondus had served. He met the two youth workers who had brought their concerns about the activities of Fr Edmondus in Edenmore to the attention of the local priest in 1993. This priest did report to Bishop Moriarty as described above. The youth workers described children saying how “everyone knew about” Fr Edmondus; he hugged children and gave them money. The youth workers felt that the local priest had been dismissive of them when they went back to him. He had said to them that he had done something and there was nothing more he could do. Monsignor Stenson reported this to the health board in February 1997.
13.52 Mrs Collins continued to write to the Archbishop and Monsignor Stenson seeking to have other parishes informed of the activities of Fr Edmondus. She was concerned about the possibility of other victims.
Criminal charges, 1997
13.53 In March 1997 Fr Edmondus was arrested and charged with offences relating to the abuse of a child in a Co Wicklow parish and also the sexual abuse of Mrs Collins. The advisory panel noted that “In the event that these charges are proven the Panel recommends not only that a public statement be made by the Diocese expressing its regret, but also that a proactive programme be developed to alert the parishes in which [Fr Edmondus] had previously worked”.
13.54 In June 1997, Fr Edmondus pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault on Mrs Collins. Some days later he pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault on the girl in the Co Wicklow parish. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment in respect of the assaults on Mrs Collins and nine months imprisonment to run concurrently in respect of the Co Wicklow assaults. In November 1997 the total sentence was reduced on appeal to nine months. Prior to the court case he had met Mrs Collins and he had apologised to her and offered to make a financial contribution to her.
13.55 Following the conviction, in a statement to the media, Archbishop Connell said that the abuse of a child is wrong and evil. He also said that the diocese had been co-operating with the Gardaí. Fr Norman, Mrs Collins‟s priest advisor, told Gardaí that Monsignor Stenson claimed that the diocese never claimed it had co-operated fully, with the emphasis on the word "fully‟, with the Gardaí.
13.56 There were further meetings between the Archdiocese and the health board in respect of the Edenmore concerns but the relevant families were not contacted by the health board even though the Archdiocese was given the impression that they would be. A social worker explained to the Commission that the health board could not go around the area making inquiries as to whether or not a child had been abused. The Gardaí could do that but “the health board has to be extraordinarily careful about invading people's privacy and having as many facts as you can before you broach anything”. In effect it appears that the health board felt unable to take action at the time it was first reported to them. The social worker did contact the Gardaí involved in the criminal cases and was assured that there were no complaints from this area.
13.57 In January 1998, Archbishop Connell explained to Mrs Collins the procedures and factors to be taken into account by the Archdiocese when deciding what should be done with a priest convicted of child abuse. He explained that:
"as long as a priest who has offended remains incardinated in the Diocese, even if removed from ministry, he can receive the supervision and care which he will need to live a life free from further offence. This supervision would involve conditions regarding residence and life-style which would preclude the danger of relapses. In the case of a priest who is dismissed from the clerical state, that care and supervision is no longer possible".
13.58 Marie Collins replied, thanking Archbishop Connell for his letter and commented that the problem was a great deal more involved than she had first imagined. She stated that the letter had helped to ease her mind.
1998 - 2006
13.59 In May 1998, Fr Edmondus was released from prison. A letter from the Archdiocese to the Granada Institute stated that: “The Archbishop has given clear indication that he does not envisage a return to ministry in this case, and so Fr [Edmondus] will be retired under monitored conditions". It is clear that Fr Edmondus did not return to ministry but it is not clear precisely what the monitored conditions were. He was attending the Granada Institute and he was living with members of his family. According to the Granada Institute, part of the monitored conditions were that he was to continue to attend the Granada Institute on a quarterly basis for review, which he did.
13.60 In February 1999, the health board contacted the Archdiocese regarding Fr Edmondus because it was closing old files. The chancellor, Monsignor Dolan and the social worker agreed that “there was very little to be gained in our pursuit of the people in question".
13.61 In February 2001, the Would You Believe programme on RTE television raised the issue of the handling of Mrs Collins‟s complaint and the current arrangements for monitoring Fr Edmondus. Her priest advisor told the Commission that the Archdiocese had been given every opportunity to have a representative go on the programme but would not do so unless the Archdiocese retained editorial control which was not given to it. It issued no apology on the programme to Mrs Collins. This caused her further upset.
13.62 In June 2001, the Archdiocese asked the Granada Institute for a report on Fr Edmondus. Granada reported that he was to receive therapeutic review sessions. The report also stated that "[o]ccasionally he accompanies his sister on shopping trips. He is very much aware of his need to stay away from contact with children and he is meticulous in observing this". It is not at all clear how Granada could have known this other than by accepting what they were told by Fr Edmondus.
13.63 In July 2002, a health board social worker telephoned the Archdiocese to inquire whether Prime Time had been in contact with the diocese regarding a programme which was to focus on the activities of Fr Edmondus in Edenmore. According to a note of the conversation made by the Archdiocese at the time, the social worker told the Archdiocese that she had told Prime Time that the health board had no contact other than conversations with the diocese. Again, according to the archdiocesan note, she also told the Archdiocese that she "wanted to make sure that the Diocese and the Health Board were singing from the same hymn sheet". She confirmed to the Archdiocese that nothing surfaced from the health board inquiries of that time and nothing had come to their attention since. In fact, no health board inquiries were made at the earlier stage. The social worker concerned emphatically denied, in an affidavit supplied to the Commission, that she had ever used the words quoted. She said the health board file shows that it was intended that she would contact the Archdiocese “to establish the state of information given to Prime Time”.
13.64 At this stage, some five years after they had first been notified, and, it appears to the Commission, solely because of the publicity engendered by the Prime Time programme, the senior officials in the health board decided to write to three girls from Edenmore – all of whom were now adults. One replied and told the health board that she had not been abused. The others did not reply. Again, the social worker has taken issue with the Commission‟s view that the decision to write to the girls was motivated by the publicity. It appears to the Commission that that decision was taken, not by the social worker, but by the health board management.
13.65 It is notable that senior health board managers, including the chief executive of the Northern Area Health Board, only became involved in dealing with the issues in Edenmore after those issues were raised by Prime Time.
13.66 Similarly, after the Prime Time programme, the Gardaí made further inquiries in Edenmore.
Subsequent complaints
13.67 Complaints in relation to Fr Edmondus continued to emerge.
Civil claims
13.68 After a considerable delay and much annoyance to her, Mrs Collins‟s civil claim, which was principally related to medical expenses, was settled by the Archdiocese. A settlement was also reached with the victim from Co Wicklow. Fr Edmondus made a personal contribution to the second settlement.
The Commission’s assessment
The Archdiocese
13.69 This case was very badly handled by Archbishop McQuaid. Archbishop McQuaid‟s conclusion that Fr Edmondus‟s actions arose merely from a “wonderment” about the female anatomy is risible. The Commission considers there are two possible explanations for this stated view. Either Archbishop McQuaid could not deal with the fact that a priest who was in a privileged position of chaplain to a children‟s hospital fundamentally abused that position and sexually exploited vulnerable young children awaiting treatment or he needed an explanation which would deal with Bishop Dunne‟s justifiable concern and which would also justify not reporting the matter to Rome. The Commission considers that the second explanation is the more likely one.
13.70 This case has a special significance because it was one of the earliest in the Commission‟s remit. The apparent cancellation by Archbishop McQuaid of his original plan to pursue the priest through the procedures of canon law was a disaster. It established a pattern of not holding abusers accountable which lasted for decades. Firmer treatment of this priest might have avoided much abuse in the future. The Archbishop and Bishop Dunne had no doubt that a serious crime had been committed but avoided taking any action as that would have involved Rome becoming involved in the case. The Archbishop appointed Bishop Dunne to investigate the case and, in the Commission‟s view, promptly undermined him in his position.
13.71 In the Commission‟s view, Archbishop McQuaid‟s actions fell very short of what should have been done. Given that he was fully aware of the 1922 instruction, there was no justification for his failure to set up a proper canonical process to deal with the matter. In fact, he deliberately manipulated the situation in a manner that did not involve him reporting the matter to Rome. No attempt was made to put protocols in place for chaplains throughout the many hospitals in which they were working in the Dublin Archdiocese and no attempt was made to monitor Fr Edmondus in other placements.
13.72 Archbishop Connell and several other priests also handled the case badly. The reaction of the local curate to the revelation of abuse by Mrs Collins in 1985 was inadequate. How he could have formed a view that she might be feeling guilty and in need of absolution when, in fact, she was disclosing abuse is difficult for the Commission to understand.
13.73 His assertion that, as priests, they had been advised in college not to seek the names of priests against whom allegations were being made in a spiritual or counselling context is a cause of great concern to the Commission. Such an attitude would explain in large measure the many appalling deficiencies in the Church‟s handling of complaints of child sexual abuse over the years. Even if he himself did not wish to hear the full details of her complaint, he should have arranged for her to see his parish priest or another person who was in a position to deal with the complaint.
13.74 When concerns emerged from Edenmore in 1993, Archbishop Connell did not check if there were other complaints. This failure meant that the concerns were not taken as seriously as they should have been. There was no proper investigation of these concerns. For example, the youth workers who first raised them were not even interviewed at the time.
13.75 Archbishop Connell and Monsignor Stenson, while they were personally kind in their dealings with Mrs Collins, were not initially open with her. They failed to tell her that there was a pre-existing complaint and other concerns. Like many of those abused, she was thus isolated and left to believe that she was the only one who had complained.
13.76 Monsignor Stenson‟s failure to disclose all available information to the Gardaí is a cause of concern to the Commission. There was no doubt that Monsignor Stenson believed that Mrs Collins had been abused by Fr Edmondus. In the Commission‟s view, he should have been far more forthright with the Gardaí, but felt precluded from doing so by canon law. He left Mrs Collins in a difficult situation by telling her that the priest had admitted her abuse and then not acknowledging that to the Gardaí.
13.77 The Marie Collins case was reported to the diocese at the same time as the Framework Document was being implemented. The handling of this case by the Archdiocese demonstrates that the church guidelines which were set out in the Framework Document were not being implemented at this time by the Dublin Archdiocese. In particular the Archdiocese failed to notify her of her entitlement to have a support person to assist her in her dealings with the Archdiocese, nor did they provide a support priest for her. It was 11 months after the date for implementing the Framework Document before Fr Norman, whom she herself had approached to help her with her faith, was formally appointed as her priest support. Even when appointed, little information and no training on the role of support priest was given to Fr Norman. Monsignor Stenson points out that the Framework Document was not published until January 1996. He accepts that a support structure was not put in place in accordance with that document until sometime between November 1996 and February 1997. He said he was satisfied from conversations that he had with Fr Norman that he was providing, albeit at an informal level, support for Mrs Collins.
13.78 The Commission is particularly concerned that the Archdiocese seems to have been in breach of the guideline which states: “If the bishop or religious superior is satisfied that child sexual abuse has occurred, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that the accused priest or religious does not remain in any pastoral appointment which affords access to children”. The fact that Fr Edmondus was allowed to wear clerical attire, attend at the parish frequently and fulfil parish functions, despite having been allegedly removed from the parish by the Archbishop, was particularly worrying. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that it was not his fault that Fr Edmondus did not obey instructions. Unfortunately this comment again underlines the failure of the Archdiocese to properly monitor priests who are disciplined.
13.79 Everything that Mrs Collins managed to extract from the Archdiocese over the years in relation to the handling of child sexual abuse was given grudgingly and always after a struggle. Mrs Collins now believes, on the basis of bitter experience, that her Church cannot be trusted to deal properly with complaints of child sexual abuse and that legal measures are required to ensure compliance by the Church with proper standards of child protection. The Commission also notes that, notwithstanding her own reservations in the matter, there is no doubt that Mrs Collins, in her brave and often lonely campaign to show the Archdiocese how it had erred in its handling of child sexual abuse cases, was instrumental in changing the Archdiocese‟s understanding and handling of these cases and of bringing about a far greater atmosphere of openness about the incidence and handling of child sexual abuse.
The Gardaí
13.80 There is no evidence that the Garda Commissioner investigated the initial complaint that was forwarded to him from the UK authorities in 1960. The Commission considers that it was totally inappropriate and a breach of duty for the Garda Commissioner to simply hand over the complaint to Archbishop McQuaid without carrying out any thorough investigation.
13.81 The Gardaí handled the subsequent complaints properly. They took great care and patience with their investigations.
Health board
13.82 The first complaint that came to the attention of the health board was the complaint from Co Wicklow. The health board in that area acted appropriately by reporting the matter to the Gardaí.
13.83 The health board‟s promises to act and subsequent failure to do so in relation to the Edenmore concerns are worrying. The health board may not have had the power to make further inquiries in Edenmore but the impression that further inquiries would be made was undoubtedly given to the Archdiocese. It is extraordinary that the health board did find the will and the capacity to act, and act at the highest level, when the Prime Time programme began to inquire about the matter.
Introduction
13.1 Marie Collins, one of the many people abused by Fr Edmondus, and who was severely affected by the abuse, stated in the documents submitted by her to the Commission:
“Father [Edmondus] betrayed the trust invested in him by his religious superiors. He betrayed the trust of the hospital authorities. He betrayed my parents‟ trust. All had given me into his care. He betrayed my trust and my innocence. He abused his power and used my respect for his religious position to abuse and degrade me - a child - not just a child but a sick child. How much lower than that can you sink? A man like that deserves our prayers but not our protection”. (Emphasis in original)
13.2 The Fr Edmondus case is being dealt with by the Commission because it involves a priest who committed a number of sexual assaults on young patients aged between eight and 11 years in Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Sixteen years later, when he was based in Co Wicklow, he committed a sexual assault on a nine-year-old child.
13.3 The case also falls to be considered by the Commission because, in the 1990s, suspicions about his behaviour while he was a curate in a North Dublin parish were brought to the attention of the Archdiocese.
13.4 Fr Edmondus was born in 1931 and ordained in 1957. He was chaplain to Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children from 1958 to 1960. He subsequently held a number of appointments in the Archdiocese. His faculties were withdrawn in 1997. In that same year, he was convicted of indecent assault against two girls and served a term of nine months imprisonment. He remains a priest but is prohibited from exercising ministry and is not allowed to wear clerical garb. He currently lives in Dublin.
Complaint, 1960
13.5 In August 1960, Archbishop McQuaid was informed that a security officer at a photographic film company in the UK had referred colour film, sent to them for developing by Fr Edmondus, to Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard referred the matter to the Commissioner of the Gardaí. There is no evidence of any Garda investigation. However Garda Commissioner Costigan met Archbishop McQuaid and, according to Archbishop McQuaid‟s note of the meeting, told him that the photographic company had “handed to Scotland Yard a colour film with label Rev. [Edmondus], Childrens Hospital, Crumlin, Dublin, of which 26 transparencies were of the private parts of two small girls, aged 10 or 11 years”. The Garda Commissioner asked Archbishop McQuaid to take over the case because a priest was in question and the Gardaí “could prove nothing”. The Commissioner told Archbishop McQuaid that he would do nothing further. No attempt seems to have been made to establish who the two girls in the photographs were. The Commission would like to point out that neither the Dublin Archdiocese nor the Gardaí made discovery of the colour film so the Commission is not in a position to say what happened to it.
13.6 Archbishop McQuaid immediately referred the case to his auxiliary bishop, Bishop Dunne. It is clear that the Archbishop was using the procedures outlined in the 1922 instruction (see Chapter 4). Bishop Dunne expressed the view that a crimen pessimum (the worst crime, which includes child sexual abuse) had been committed.
13.7 The next day, Archbishop McQuaid met Fr Edmondus who admitted photographing the children in sexual postures alone and in groups. These photographs were taken in Crumlin hospital. The Archbishop recorded as follows:
“The children were playing about, lifting their clothes. He rebuked them. Seeing this was a chance of discovering what the genitals were like, he pretended there was no film in the camera he was carrying and photographed them in sexual postures, alone and seated together, chiefly in a way or posture that opened up the parts. He declared that he had done so, as one would take an art photo., seeing no grave sin at all and suffering no physical disturbance in himself. He was puzzled, though he had seen line drawings, as to structure and functions of female. In questioning, I discovered that he had been 190
reared with brothers,55 had never moved about socially with girls and tended to avoid them as in the hospital with the nurses. I suggested I would get [a doctor] a good Catholic to instruct him and thus end his wonderment.” Archbishop McQuaid also recorded: “I felt that he clearly understood the nature of the sinful act involved and to send him on retreat would defame him”.
13.8 Archbishop McQuaid and Bishop Dunne then agreed that there was not an objective and subjective crime of the type envisaged in the 1922 instruction and consequently that there was no need to refer the matter to the Holy Office in Rome.
13.9 Later, Fr Edmondus saw the doctor on three occasions. There is no report from the doctor on the Church files.
13.10 While Archbishop McQuaid investigated the matter promptly, he limited his activity to dealing with the priest‟s problem. He does not seem to have made any effort to establish who the children involved were, nor did he contact Crumlin hospital nor did he put in place any protocols for future chaplains to the children in that hospital. In view of the fact that he was chairman of the board of directors of the hospital, this was a particular omission. At this stage, Fr Edmondus was no longer the chaplain to the hospital. This failure to contact the hospital or put any protocol in place meant that, when Fr Ivan Payne (see Chapter 24) became chaplain to the same hospital, the hospital had no knowledge of previous wrongdoing by a chaplain. Archbishop Martin, on behalf of the Archdiocese, has suggested to the Commission that what Archbishop McQuaid was trying to establish was whether the subjective and objective elements of a canonical crime had been committed and that he found that no crime had been committed.
13.11 Given that these photographs were taken by deception, when a nurse was absent, given the nature of the photographs and the fact that the film was sent to the UK for development, any reasonable person would imply mens rea or criminal intent from the circumstances. The conclusion of the Archbishop and Bishop Dunne that this was not an objective and subjective crime within the meaning of canon law is, in the Commission‟s view, unreasonable and contrary to common sense now and in 1960. It is totally at variance with Bishop Dunne‟s original opinion as recorded by Archbishop McQuaid a few days earlier. The Commission believes that Archbishop McQuaid acted as he did to avoid scandal in both Ireland and Rome and without regard to the protection of children in Crumlin hospital. Archbishop Martin accepts that the conclusion reached by Archbishop McQuaid and Bishop Dunne was wrong and that the measures taken were inadequate but he does not agree with the Commission‟s conclusion that Archbishop McQuaid acted the way he did to avoid scandal both here and in Rome.
Reporting of abuse, 1985
13.12 Marie Collins, who was one of a number of young people sexually abused by Fr Edmondus at Crumlin hospital, approached her local curate, Fr Eddie Griffin, in November 1985 and told him about her abuse. She had been sexually abused and photographed by Fr Edmondus in Crumlin hospital in 1960 when she was aged 13. The curate indicated to her that he did not want to know the name of her abuser as he would have to do something about it. According to a statement which he gave to the Gardaí in 2004, he said that he explained to Mrs Collins that “I didn‟t want to know the name of the priest. If she told me the name of the priest I had to do something about it”. He went on to say in his Garda statement:
“We as priests had been advised while in college not to seek the name of priests that allegations were being made against. Marie Collins didn't tell me that name of the priest. I told her not to feel any guilt about what had happened and that the priest had done wrong and if she had guilt I could give her absolution." Despite having told Mrs Collins he did not wish to know the name of the priest, he went on to say in his garda statement “when she didn‟t tell me his name I wondered why she was there and thought she might be feeling guilty and I told her I could do away with her guilt by giving her absolution”.
13.13 Although Fr Griffin contends that he was approaching the matter in a "pastoral‟ manner which would not require him to seek the identity of the priest, the fact is that a criminal offence was disclosed to him and his response was, in the Commission‟s view, inadequate. It was to be another ten years before Mrs Collins plucked up the courage to report the matter to Archbishop‟s House.
Suspicions, 1993
13.14 In 1993, while Fr Edmondus was a curate in Edenmore in north Dublin, a complaint was made by a parishioner regarding his contact with young children. This complaint, which appears to have come initially from youth workers, was made to a local priest who reported it to Bishop James Moriarty, who was the auxiliary bishop for that area. Bishop Moriarty summarised the reported inappropriate behaviour of Fr Edmondus as follows:
• young girls driving around in his car and allegations that the girls had sometimes changed in his house before going swimming;
• giving young children money;
• group of youngsters who were very poor attenders at school spending time with him;
• no adults allowed into his house; the only people allowed in were the very old or young.
13.15 Bishop Moriarty discussed the problem with the local priests and with Archbishop Connell. He then warned Fr Edmondus about his behaviour and advised him to desist from the activities mentioned. After this, the parish priest noted a change in his behaviour but others felt he still surrounded himself with children quite a bit. No attempt was made by the archdiocesan authorities to check the archives or other files relating to Fr Edmondus when these complaints were received. Bishop Moriarty pointed out to the Commission that he did not have access to the archives but he could have asked the Archbishop to conduct such a search. Information was also received about Fr Edmondus recording the children‟s voices and he himself admitted to photographing them.
Letters of complaint from Marie Collins, 1995
13.16 In October 1995, Marie Collins wrote to Archbishop Connell regarding her abuse by Fr Edmondus. She also told him of her attempts to tell her local curate about the abuse. Around the same time she wrote a letter of complaint to Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin and offered to talk to a secretary/manager about the abuse.
13.17 A few days after her complaint to Archbishop Connell, he initiated a preliminary investigation under canon 1717 and appointed Monsignor Alex Stenson as the delegate. By this time, October 1995, the Church authorities were familiar with many aspects of clerical child abuse. Not only was work on the Framework Document (see Chapter 7) well advanced but several Church personnel had travelled to dioceses in the USA to learn from their experiences. In addition there had been the fall out of the Fr Brendan Smyth case (see Chapter 7) and the Archdiocese itself had received a significant number of complaints of child sexual abuse by priests of the Archdiocese.
13.18 In October 1995, following receipt of Mrs Collins‟s complaint, a trawl was done in the secret archives and the 1960 complaint became known to Archbishop Connell and Monsignor Stenson. Monsignor Stenson, though chancellor of the Archdiocese since 1981, only became aware of the 1993 Edenmore concerns in the course of his investigation. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he referred all complaints of sexual abuse to the chancellor. He did not feel it necessary to refer the concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Fr Edmondus to Monsignor Stenson.
Evidence of Mrs Collins and Fr Norman
13.19 Both Mrs Collins and her support priest, Fr James Norman, gave extensive evidence to the Commission. Her evidence related not only to her complaint against Fr Edmondus but also covered steps taken by her and others to get support services for victims of clerical sex abuse.
13.20 Her evidence was very helpful to the Commission in understanding how the Framework Document was being implemented. It was also helpful in attempting to assess the attitude of Church officials to cases in which they accepted that abuse had taken place.
13.21 Mrs Collins was extremely unhappy with the way her complaint was dealt with by the Church authorities. In addition to writing to Archbishop Connell in October 1995, she had also written to Bishop Forristal (the chair of the committee drafting the Framework Document), Crumlin hospital and the local priest to whom she had earlier complained, to let them know that she was making a complaint to the Archdiocese. Bishop Forristal replied personally and sympathetically. The hospital authorities responded immediately and arranged to meet her. She found them very sympathetic. They offered counselling and told her that they would be reporting the matter to the Gardaí, which they did.
13.22 Archbishop Connell passed the letter from Mrs Collins to Monsignor Stenson and did not reply directly himself. The local priest did not reply at all. Monsignor Stenson replied, apologised on behalf of Archbishop Connell and made arrangements to meet Mrs Collins.
Monsignor Stenson’s meeting with Mrs Collins
13.23 Monsignor Stenson met Mrs Collins in October 1995. He indicated that he would have to notify the Gardaí in relation to her complaints. He noted in the memorandum of their meeting that she had met a representative from Crumlin hospital who had also indicated that the Gardaí would be notified.
13.24 Mrs Collins felt that Monsignor Stenson had listened very sympathetically to her and indeed acknowledged this in a letter to him subsequently. It is very clear that Monsignor Stenson believed Mrs Collins. However, he did not tell her that there were other incidents and concerns in respect of Fr Edmondus‟s time at Crumlin hospital and she was very annoyed about this when she subsequently discovered it. Cardinal Connell has told the Commission that there was no legal obligation on him or the Archdiocese to inform Mrs Collins of other incidents or concerns. While this is true, the Commission believes that Mrs Collins was justified in her annoyance at not being told of the 1960 incidents at her first meeting with Monsignor Stenson. The Commission is aware that Monsignor Stenson told the Gardaí of the 1960 incidents in November 1995 but waited until March 1996 to tell Mrs Collins. Monsignor Stenson has told the Commission that he did not regard himself as free to tell Mrs Collins about the Crumlin incidents. He was constrained by the oath of secrecy which he took when he became chancellor and he could not reveal that information without the consent of Archbishop Connell. He said he made the November 1995 statement to the Gardaí with the permission of Archbishop Connell. He said the same oath of secrecy prevented him from making a further statement to the Gardaí about his preliminary investigation of the Fr Edmondus case.
13.25 As was his practice, Monsignor Stenson made a comprehensive note of the meeting. The note revealed Mrs Collins to have been severely psychologically damaged by the abuse. Except for her revelation to her local curate in 1985, which unfortunately succeeded only in exacerbating the trauma she suffered, it had taken her almost 35 years to summon up the courage to approach the Church authorities and discuss in detail her abuse by Fr Edmondus. She also expressed worry that other children might have been abused by him and wanted reassurance that he was not left in a position to abuse children.
Monsignor Stenson’s meeting with Fr Edmondus
13.26 Shortly after meeting Mrs Collins, Monsignor Stenson met Fr Edmondus. Monsignor Stenson told him that the Gardaí had been in contact and wanted to meet him in relation to the complaint of Mrs Collins. Monsignor Stenson outlined the complaint and Fr Edmondus replied “I cannot place the girl” but he accepted that inappropriate touching could have happened. He was clear that it was a separate allegation from the matters that had been reported to Archbishop McQuaid in 1960. He accepted that a Christmas card which Mrs Collins claimed he had sent her bore his signature. Mrs Collins had given the Christmas card to Monsignor Stenson. Fr Edmondus said that he had no problem with little boys but, “if he had a problem, it was with little girls”. He told Monsignor Stenson that the meeting with Archbishop McQuaid had scared him and had made him very careful.
13.27 Fr Edmondus said that he would have no problem making an apology to Mrs Collins and claimed that nothing of this nature had ever happened in any of his subsequent appointments.
13.28 In November 1995, Monsignor Stenson provided the Gardaí with an address for Fr Edmondus and gave them some information about the 1960 complaint.
Medical assessment
13.29 Fr Edmondus was referred for an assessment to the Granada Institute. A December 1995 report from Granada recommended that he “be removed from ministry as it is presently constituted” even though Fr Edmondus had said that he had very little exposure to children. This assessment was based on “the escalatory nature of the alleged abuse… the alleged abusive pattern started with what appeared to be good natured innocent fun but was then followed by more sinister demands on the child”.
Garda investigation
13.30 In January 1996 a garda report on the complaint by Mrs Collins concluded: “Unfortunately while I would be of the opinion that the events as described by Marie did happen, there is very little evidence available to us to corroborate her allegations apart from Monsignor Stenson‟s statement about the slides. It would be for this reason as well as the considerable time delay in this case that I feel a prosecution against Fr [Edmondus] would be fruitless”.
13.31 This view was shared by the investigating garda, the sergeant, the detective inspector and the detective superintendent. The file was forwarded to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Further meeting with Monsignor Stenson, 1996
13.32 In March 1996, Mrs Collins met Monsignor Stenson again. Mrs Collins was anxious to know whether or not Fr Edmondus had admitted to the allegation which she had made. Monsignor Stenson confirmed that he had. In fact, what Fr Edmondus had said could not be regarded as a clear admission. Monsignor Stenson informed Mrs Collins that Fr Edmondus was not in a parish, was living in a religious house and was receiving therapy. Monsignor Stenson also noted in his record of their meeting that he was “satisfied that she is not out to make difficulties for Fr [Edmondus] or indeed for the Church”.
13.33 Mrs Collins said that at this meeting, Monsignor Stenson indicated that following treatment Fr Edmondus might be returned to a parish. In a subsequent letter, she told Monsignor Stenson that this should not happen. She was also extremely concerned that Monsignor Stenson had not told her earlier that Fr Edmondus had admitted her abuse. She said she should not have been left waiting for five months to find out.
13.34 Fr Edmondus was in fact, contrary to assurances given to Mrs Collins, still a curate in Edenmore and was not immediately removed from ministry. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that
“In the case of [Edmondus] I did not remove him from his parish immediately. I told him he was not to live there and he wasn‟t to minister there. In that sense I took him out of his parish. I left him officially in his position. This gave rise to a lot of trouble from one of the victims there. But the reason I did that of course was because there had been nothing against [Edmondus] for something like 30 years, and it seemed to me a bit too harsh. I did, in the interest of children, I did instruct him not to live there and he was not to minister there”. The "trouble from one of the victims‟ to which the Cardinal referred relates to Mrs Collins‟s campaign to have Fr Edmondus removed from ministry. It should also be noted that it is not correct to say that there had been nothing against Fr Edmondus for 30 years; there had been the concerns expressed in 1993.
13.35 Despite the Archbishop‟s instructions, Fr Edmondus continued to visit the parish frequently and dressed in clerical attire for a number of months. His name remained on the confessional box for a number of months. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he admonished Fr Edmondus for attending at the parish and not obeying his instructions. The Commission could find no evidence of any monitoring of his activities. His faculties were not formally withdrawn by Archbishop Connell until January 1997. His name remained in the Dublin Diocesan Guidebook56 and he was described as a curate in Edenmore throughout 1996 and 1997.
A new complaint, 1996
13.36 In March 1996, a notification was sent from the Eastern Health Board to the local garda superintendent regarding the alleged sexual abuse by Fr Edmondus of a woman in a Co Wicklow parish when she was a nine year old child. This complainant did not complain to the Archdiocese at this time.
13.37 The Gardaí carried out a thorough investigation of her complaints. They took statements from people whom the woman claimed she had told about the abuse many years previously. Fr Edmondus was interviewed about the allegations and he gave the standard reply that, on the advice of his solicitor, he had nothing to say.
13.38 The Gardaí then looked afresh at the Marie Collins case. She had contacted them further about her case. They felt a number of matters would have to be further investigated:
• the question of identification of Fr Edmondus as the person who allegedly assaulted Marie Collins in 1960;
• the question of establishing what was contained in the record of the 1960 complaint;
• re-interviewing Marie Collins regarding the reference in her statement to slides having been processed in the UK;
• putting the claim to Monsignor Stenson that Fr Edmondus admitted the offence to him.
13.39 The Gardaí met Monsignor Stenson in May 1996. They asked him for a copy of the Fr Edmondus file or at least for an opportunity to look at it. He refused stating he would need legal advice first. He said that canon law did not permit him to give permission for the file to be read.
13.40 Monsignor Stenson was also asked about the claim that Fr Edmondus had admitted the offence to him and a letter he wrote to Mrs Collins was shown to him. Monsignor Stenson expressed dismay on seeing the letter, saying that he would not have written that had he known that she would be handing over the letter to the Gardaí.
13.41 Despite having told Mrs Collins that Fr Edmondus had admitted to her abuse Monsignor Stenson refused to make a statement to that effect to the Gardaí.
13.42 In June 1996, Mrs Collins wrote to Archbishop Connell asking him to inform all the parishes in which Fr Edmondus had served that he had admitted child sexual abuse. Nothing was done about this until after his conviction.
Edenmore concerns
13.43 In October 1996, Monsignor Stenson spoke to the priest to whom the original concerns about children in Edenmore had been expressed and which were reported to Bishop Moriarty in 1993. This priest told Monsignor Stenson that Fr Edmondus had an extensive involvement with children and he had a “disastrous” relationship with adults and his fellow priests.
13.44 Monsignor Stenson then interviewed Fr Edmondus about his involvement with these children. Fr Edmondus told him that children aged ten to 12 used to change in his house. He said he did take photographs of them but there was nothing questionable in them. He said that there was absolutely no snooping or touching whatsoever. He said he stopped allowing them to change in his house after Bishop Moriarty spoke to him. It appears that Monsignor Stenson did not ask Fr Edmondus for the photographs.
Health board involvement, 1996
13.45 In November 1996 a meeting between health board officials and Monsignor Stenson took place in Archbishop‟s House. The health board memo notes:
“the meeting was convened by Monsignor Stenson to convey to us concerns he had about children in the Edenmore Parish. Monsignor Stenson did not have hard information on these children, but he wished to share his concerns with us. These concerns centred around possible inappropriate behaviour on behalf of a priest Fr [Edmondus], who used to bring young girls from the Edenmore parish swimming. These girls used to change for swimming in his house and he then brought them swimming…No allegations of any inappropriate behaviour were ever made by these girls or their parents”. These events are said to have happened in the year 1990.
13.46 A number of girls were identified and the health board‟s note stated that: “given the vague nature of this referral, it was agreed that the Eastern Health Board would approach the parents of the girls and make discreet enquiries given the present climate”. However in December 1996 the senior social worker informed Monsignor Stenson that the Eastern Health Board was not able to follow up because of the vagueness of the addresses provided. The girls‟ names were known but their precise addresses were not.
Advisory panel
13.47 In December 1996, the case of Fr Edmondus was referred to the advisory panel. The panel recommended the following:
His faculties should be withdrawn.
All priests who served with him should be sounded out in relation to his past behaviour.
The Archbishop should meet Marie Collins and offer a support person.
The correct addresses for the children in Edenmore were to be sent to the health board when they became available; there should be a further meeting with the health board in January 1997 to discuss communication of information policy between the Archdiocese and the health board.
Meeting with Archbishop
13.48 In December 1996, Archbishop Connell met Mrs Collins and her support priest, Fr James Norman. Mrs Collins had approached this priest herself and he generously and selflessly agreed to assist her without seeking prior approval from the Archbishop and notwithstanding the fact that such assistance might put him in conflict with his diocese. When he first began to assist her he was not aware that the Framework Document provided for the assignment of support priests to those who had been abused. Eventually, in November 1996, he was formally appointed to that role in respect of Mrs Collins.
13.49 During this meeting, Archbishop Connell apologised to Mrs Collins for the hurt caused to her. In addition to giving evidence about that meeting, Fr Norman kept a note of it:
“During the meeting Marie raised a letter she sent to the Archbishop on the 4th of June [1996] concerning [Edmondus‟s] future. The Archbishop failed to give an explanation of why he did not reply to this letter except to say that it had raised very difficult questions.
When Marie asked the Archbishop why he had not given a statement to the Gardai confirming that there was another case on file from the 1960s the Archbishop replied that it would undermine people‟s confidence in the Church if they thought that files were being passed to the Gardai, i.e. annulment cases. He also said that the previous case was not serious as it only involved the taking of photographs. Marie outlined in detail how having that type of photograph taken had hurt and damaged her. The Archbishop was very shocked and upset by the story Marie told him […] One of the matters that upset Marie most was the statement by Cardinal Connell that the Framework document was not binding in canon or civil law57 and that therefore he could follow what parts of it he wanted to follow. He claimed the Cardinal told her he had to protect the good name of the priest who had abused her”. The overall conclusion that Fr Norman reached regarding that meeting was that the Archbishop came across as someone who really cared for the victim but had not “got a clue” about how to go about dealing with the reality of the problem.
13.50 In January 1997, Fr Edmondus‟s faculties were withdrawn and he was formally released from the parish. He became a beneficiary of the Diocesan Clerical Fund (see Chapter 8).
13.51 In the meantime Monsignor Stenson was making further inquiries in the parishes where Fr Edmondus had served. He met the two youth workers who had brought their concerns about the activities of Fr Edmondus in Edenmore to the attention of the local priest in 1993. This priest did report to Bishop Moriarty as described above. The youth workers described children saying how “everyone knew about” Fr Edmondus; he hugged children and gave them money. The youth workers felt that the local priest had been dismissive of them when they went back to him. He had said to them that he had done something and there was nothing more he could do. Monsignor Stenson reported this to the health board in February 1997.
13.52 Mrs Collins continued to write to the Archbishop and Monsignor Stenson seeking to have other parishes informed of the activities of Fr Edmondus. She was concerned about the possibility of other victims.
Criminal charges, 1997
13.53 In March 1997 Fr Edmondus was arrested and charged with offences relating to the abuse of a child in a Co Wicklow parish and also the sexual abuse of Mrs Collins. The advisory panel noted that “In the event that these charges are proven the Panel recommends not only that a public statement be made by the Diocese expressing its regret, but also that a proactive programme be developed to alert the parishes in which [Fr Edmondus] had previously worked”.
13.54 In June 1997, Fr Edmondus pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault on Mrs Collins. Some days later he pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault on the girl in the Co Wicklow parish. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment in respect of the assaults on Mrs Collins and nine months imprisonment to run concurrently in respect of the Co Wicklow assaults. In November 1997 the total sentence was reduced on appeal to nine months. Prior to the court case he had met Mrs Collins and he had apologised to her and offered to make a financial contribution to her.
13.55 Following the conviction, in a statement to the media, Archbishop Connell said that the abuse of a child is wrong and evil. He also said that the diocese had been co-operating with the Gardaí. Fr Norman, Mrs Collins‟s priest advisor, told Gardaí that Monsignor Stenson claimed that the diocese never claimed it had co-operated fully, with the emphasis on the word "fully‟, with the Gardaí.
13.56 There were further meetings between the Archdiocese and the health board in respect of the Edenmore concerns but the relevant families were not contacted by the health board even though the Archdiocese was given the impression that they would be. A social worker explained to the Commission that the health board could not go around the area making inquiries as to whether or not a child had been abused. The Gardaí could do that but “the health board has to be extraordinarily careful about invading people's privacy and having as many facts as you can before you broach anything”. In effect it appears that the health board felt unable to take action at the time it was first reported to them. The social worker did contact the Gardaí involved in the criminal cases and was assured that there were no complaints from this area.
13.57 In January 1998, Archbishop Connell explained to Mrs Collins the procedures and factors to be taken into account by the Archdiocese when deciding what should be done with a priest convicted of child abuse. He explained that:
"as long as a priest who has offended remains incardinated in the Diocese, even if removed from ministry, he can receive the supervision and care which he will need to live a life free from further offence. This supervision would involve conditions regarding residence and life-style which would preclude the danger of relapses. In the case of a priest who is dismissed from the clerical state, that care and supervision is no longer possible".
13.58 Marie Collins replied, thanking Archbishop Connell for his letter and commented that the problem was a great deal more involved than she had first imagined. She stated that the letter had helped to ease her mind.
1998 - 2006
13.59 In May 1998, Fr Edmondus was released from prison. A letter from the Archdiocese to the Granada Institute stated that: “The Archbishop has given clear indication that he does not envisage a return to ministry in this case, and so Fr [Edmondus] will be retired under monitored conditions". It is clear that Fr Edmondus did not return to ministry but it is not clear precisely what the monitored conditions were. He was attending the Granada Institute and he was living with members of his family. According to the Granada Institute, part of the monitored conditions were that he was to continue to attend the Granada Institute on a quarterly basis for review, which he did.
13.60 In February 1999, the health board contacted the Archdiocese regarding Fr Edmondus because it was closing old files. The chancellor, Monsignor Dolan and the social worker agreed that “there was very little to be gained in our pursuit of the people in question".
13.61 In February 2001, the Would You Believe programme on RTE television raised the issue of the handling of Mrs Collins‟s complaint and the current arrangements for monitoring Fr Edmondus. Her priest advisor told the Commission that the Archdiocese had been given every opportunity to have a representative go on the programme but would not do so unless the Archdiocese retained editorial control which was not given to it. It issued no apology on the programme to Mrs Collins. This caused her further upset.
13.62 In June 2001, the Archdiocese asked the Granada Institute for a report on Fr Edmondus. Granada reported that he was to receive therapeutic review sessions. The report also stated that "[o]ccasionally he accompanies his sister on shopping trips. He is very much aware of his need to stay away from contact with children and he is meticulous in observing this". It is not at all clear how Granada could have known this other than by accepting what they were told by Fr Edmondus.
13.63 In July 2002, a health board social worker telephoned the Archdiocese to inquire whether Prime Time had been in contact with the diocese regarding a programme which was to focus on the activities of Fr Edmondus in Edenmore. According to a note of the conversation made by the Archdiocese at the time, the social worker told the Archdiocese that she had told Prime Time that the health board had no contact other than conversations with the diocese. Again, according to the archdiocesan note, she also told the Archdiocese that she "wanted to make sure that the Diocese and the Health Board were singing from the same hymn sheet". She confirmed to the Archdiocese that nothing surfaced from the health board inquiries of that time and nothing had come to their attention since. In fact, no health board inquiries were made at the earlier stage. The social worker concerned emphatically denied, in an affidavit supplied to the Commission, that she had ever used the words quoted. She said the health board file shows that it was intended that she would contact the Archdiocese “to establish the state of information given to Prime Time”.
13.64 At this stage, some five years after they had first been notified, and, it appears to the Commission, solely because of the publicity engendered by the Prime Time programme, the senior officials in the health board decided to write to three girls from Edenmore – all of whom were now adults. One replied and told the health board that she had not been abused. The others did not reply. Again, the social worker has taken issue with the Commission‟s view that the decision to write to the girls was motivated by the publicity. It appears to the Commission that that decision was taken, not by the social worker, but by the health board management.
13.65 It is notable that senior health board managers, including the chief executive of the Northern Area Health Board, only became involved in dealing with the issues in Edenmore after those issues were raised by Prime Time.
13.66 Similarly, after the Prime Time programme, the Gardaí made further inquiries in Edenmore.
Subsequent complaints
13.67 Complaints in relation to Fr Edmondus continued to emerge.
Civil claims
13.68 After a considerable delay and much annoyance to her, Mrs Collins‟s civil claim, which was principally related to medical expenses, was settled by the Archdiocese. A settlement was also reached with the victim from Co Wicklow. Fr Edmondus made a personal contribution to the second settlement.
The Commission’s assessment
The Archdiocese
13.69 This case was very badly handled by Archbishop McQuaid. Archbishop McQuaid‟s conclusion that Fr Edmondus‟s actions arose merely from a “wonderment” about the female anatomy is risible. The Commission considers there are two possible explanations for this stated view. Either Archbishop McQuaid could not deal with the fact that a priest who was in a privileged position of chaplain to a children‟s hospital fundamentally abused that position and sexually exploited vulnerable young children awaiting treatment or he needed an explanation which would deal with Bishop Dunne‟s justifiable concern and which would also justify not reporting the matter to Rome. The Commission considers that the second explanation is the more likely one.
13.70 This case has a special significance because it was one of the earliest in the Commission‟s remit. The apparent cancellation by Archbishop McQuaid of his original plan to pursue the priest through the procedures of canon law was a disaster. It established a pattern of not holding abusers accountable which lasted for decades. Firmer treatment of this priest might have avoided much abuse in the future. The Archbishop and Bishop Dunne had no doubt that a serious crime had been committed but avoided taking any action as that would have involved Rome becoming involved in the case. The Archbishop appointed Bishop Dunne to investigate the case and, in the Commission‟s view, promptly undermined him in his position.
13.71 In the Commission‟s view, Archbishop McQuaid‟s actions fell very short of what should have been done. Given that he was fully aware of the 1922 instruction, there was no justification for his failure to set up a proper canonical process to deal with the matter. In fact, he deliberately manipulated the situation in a manner that did not involve him reporting the matter to Rome. No attempt was made to put protocols in place for chaplains throughout the many hospitals in which they were working in the Dublin Archdiocese and no attempt was made to monitor Fr Edmondus in other placements.
13.72 Archbishop Connell and several other priests also handled the case badly. The reaction of the local curate to the revelation of abuse by Mrs Collins in 1985 was inadequate. How he could have formed a view that she might be feeling guilty and in need of absolution when, in fact, she was disclosing abuse is difficult for the Commission to understand.
13.73 His assertion that, as priests, they had been advised in college not to seek the names of priests against whom allegations were being made in a spiritual or counselling context is a cause of great concern to the Commission. Such an attitude would explain in large measure the many appalling deficiencies in the Church‟s handling of complaints of child sexual abuse over the years. Even if he himself did not wish to hear the full details of her complaint, he should have arranged for her to see his parish priest or another person who was in a position to deal with the complaint.
13.74 When concerns emerged from Edenmore in 1993, Archbishop Connell did not check if there were other complaints. This failure meant that the concerns were not taken as seriously as they should have been. There was no proper investigation of these concerns. For example, the youth workers who first raised them were not even interviewed at the time.
13.75 Archbishop Connell and Monsignor Stenson, while they were personally kind in their dealings with Mrs Collins, were not initially open with her. They failed to tell her that there was a pre-existing complaint and other concerns. Like many of those abused, she was thus isolated and left to believe that she was the only one who had complained.
13.76 Monsignor Stenson‟s failure to disclose all available information to the Gardaí is a cause of concern to the Commission. There was no doubt that Monsignor Stenson believed that Mrs Collins had been abused by Fr Edmondus. In the Commission‟s view, he should have been far more forthright with the Gardaí, but felt precluded from doing so by canon law. He left Mrs Collins in a difficult situation by telling her that the priest had admitted her abuse and then not acknowledging that to the Gardaí.
13.77 The Marie Collins case was reported to the diocese at the same time as the Framework Document was being implemented. The handling of this case by the Archdiocese demonstrates that the church guidelines which were set out in the Framework Document were not being implemented at this time by the Dublin Archdiocese. In particular the Archdiocese failed to notify her of her entitlement to have a support person to assist her in her dealings with the Archdiocese, nor did they provide a support priest for her. It was 11 months after the date for implementing the Framework Document before Fr Norman, whom she herself had approached to help her with her faith, was formally appointed as her priest support. Even when appointed, little information and no training on the role of support priest was given to Fr Norman. Monsignor Stenson points out that the Framework Document was not published until January 1996. He accepts that a support structure was not put in place in accordance with that document until sometime between November 1996 and February 1997. He said he was satisfied from conversations that he had with Fr Norman that he was providing, albeit at an informal level, support for Mrs Collins.
13.78 The Commission is particularly concerned that the Archdiocese seems to have been in breach of the guideline which states: “If the bishop or religious superior is satisfied that child sexual abuse has occurred, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that the accused priest or religious does not remain in any pastoral appointment which affords access to children”. The fact that Fr Edmondus was allowed to wear clerical attire, attend at the parish frequently and fulfil parish functions, despite having been allegedly removed from the parish by the Archbishop, was particularly worrying. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that it was not his fault that Fr Edmondus did not obey instructions. Unfortunately this comment again underlines the failure of the Archdiocese to properly monitor priests who are disciplined.
13.79 Everything that Mrs Collins managed to extract from the Archdiocese over the years in relation to the handling of child sexual abuse was given grudgingly and always after a struggle. Mrs Collins now believes, on the basis of bitter experience, that her Church cannot be trusted to deal properly with complaints of child sexual abuse and that legal measures are required to ensure compliance by the Church with proper standards of child protection. The Commission also notes that, notwithstanding her own reservations in the matter, there is no doubt that Mrs Collins, in her brave and often lonely campaign to show the Archdiocese how it had erred in its handling of child sexual abuse cases, was instrumental in changing the Archdiocese‟s understanding and handling of these cases and of bringing about a far greater atmosphere of openness about the incidence and handling of child sexual abuse.
The Gardaí
13.80 There is no evidence that the Garda Commissioner investigated the initial complaint that was forwarded to him from the UK authorities in 1960. The Commission considers that it was totally inappropriate and a breach of duty for the Garda Commissioner to simply hand over the complaint to Archbishop McQuaid without carrying out any thorough investigation.
13.81 The Gardaí handled the subsequent complaints properly. They took great care and patience with their investigations.
Health board
13.82 The first complaint that came to the attention of the health board was the complaint from Co Wicklow. The health board in that area acted appropriately by reporting the matter to the Gardaí.
13.83 The health board‟s promises to act and subsequent failure to do so in relation to the Edenmore concerns are worrying. The health board may not have had the power to make further inquiries in Edenmore but the impression that further inquiries would be made was undoubtedly given to the Archdiocese. It is extraordinary that the health board did find the will and the capacity to act, and act at the highest level, when the Prime Time programme began to inquire about the matter.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36175
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:11 am
Chapter 14: Fr Phineas*58
Introduction
14.1 Fr Phineas served in the Archdiocese of Dublin in the 1960s and 1970s. He has been laicised for over 20 years. There are two allegations of child sexual abuse against him. These were made in 2005. However, there is evidence that concerns were expressed to the diocesan authorities and to a religious order at the time of the alleged abuse in the 1960s. Fr Phineas strenuously denies the allegations.
The allegations
14.2 Two women together made allegations to a priest in June 2005. These allegations concerned a number of priests. The priest to whom the allegations were reported contacted the Archdiocese.
First complainant
14.3 The allegations made by this complainant are not very clear. She alleged that Fr Phineas “abused all the girls and got a nun pregnant”. She alleged that the then parish priest of the area where the abuse allegedly occurred was aware of her abuse by Fr Phineas and was instrumental in her committal into state care. She also alleged that the nun responsible for sending children to institutional care knew about the abuse. Philip Garland, the director of the Child Protection Service in the Archdiocese met the complainant. She stated that the abuse occurred when she was six years old in the early 1970s.
14.4 The veracity of this complainant was later seriously undermined when it emerged in a later interview with the second complainant, that the first complainant had been pressuring the second complainant to say that they were both in the priest‟s car when the priest abused the second complainant.
Second complainant
14.5 The second complainant alleged that she had been abused by Fr Phineas approximately 40 years previously (in the 1960s). After making her initial complaint in June 2005 she returned to the UK and was not in contact for a number of months. She contacted the Archdiocese again in November 2005. She said that the priest to whom she had reported in June 2005 had given her the number of the Church‟s counselling service, Faoiseamh, but that she was having trouble contacting the organisation. She also said she had made a statement to the Gardaí. Mr Garland maintained contact with her and she told him later that she was now having counselling through Faoiseamh. She also spoke of the abuse which involved touching and said it would have occurred around 1969.
14.6 In April 2006, Mr Garland met this complainant in the UK. She told Mr Garland that she had gone to the Garda Station to make a statement. She had not, in fact, made the statement as she was not ready to do so.
14.7 The Archdiocese reported the case to the Gardaí and the HSE. The matters had not been resolved by the end of 2007.
The Commission’s Assessment
14.8 The priest to whom the allegations were reported and the Archdiocese dealt properly with these complaints.
Introduction
14.1 Fr Phineas served in the Archdiocese of Dublin in the 1960s and 1970s. He has been laicised for over 20 years. There are two allegations of child sexual abuse against him. These were made in 2005. However, there is evidence that concerns were expressed to the diocesan authorities and to a religious order at the time of the alleged abuse in the 1960s. Fr Phineas strenuously denies the allegations.
The allegations
14.2 Two women together made allegations to a priest in June 2005. These allegations concerned a number of priests. The priest to whom the allegations were reported contacted the Archdiocese.
First complainant
14.3 The allegations made by this complainant are not very clear. She alleged that Fr Phineas “abused all the girls and got a nun pregnant”. She alleged that the then parish priest of the area where the abuse allegedly occurred was aware of her abuse by Fr Phineas and was instrumental in her committal into state care. She also alleged that the nun responsible for sending children to institutional care knew about the abuse. Philip Garland, the director of the Child Protection Service in the Archdiocese met the complainant. She stated that the abuse occurred when she was six years old in the early 1970s.
14.4 The veracity of this complainant was later seriously undermined when it emerged in a later interview with the second complainant, that the first complainant had been pressuring the second complainant to say that they were both in the priest‟s car when the priest abused the second complainant.
Second complainant
14.5 The second complainant alleged that she had been abused by Fr Phineas approximately 40 years previously (in the 1960s). After making her initial complaint in June 2005 she returned to the UK and was not in contact for a number of months. She contacted the Archdiocese again in November 2005. She said that the priest to whom she had reported in June 2005 had given her the number of the Church‟s counselling service, Faoiseamh, but that she was having trouble contacting the organisation. She also said she had made a statement to the Gardaí. Mr Garland maintained contact with her and she told him later that she was now having counselling through Faoiseamh. She also spoke of the abuse which involved touching and said it would have occurred around 1969.
14.6 In April 2006, Mr Garland met this complainant in the UK. She told Mr Garland that she had gone to the Garda Station to make a statement. She had not, in fact, made the statement as she was not ready to do so.
14.7 The Archdiocese reported the case to the Gardaí and the HSE. The matters had not been resolved by the end of 2007.
The Commission’s Assessment
14.8 The priest to whom the allegations were reported and the Archdiocese dealt properly with these complaints.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36175
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:12 am
Chapter 15: Fr Vidal*59
Introduction
15.1 Fr Vidal was ordained in the 1960s for a diocese in the UK. He served in the Archdiocese of Dublin for approximately ten years in the 1960s and 1970s. He died in 2004.
15.2 Almost immediately after he was ordained Fr Vidal began to experience problems with celibacy and he had affairs with a number of women. He moved away from the UK diocese apparently to try to escape one of his entanglements. He applied for laicisation in the late 1960s but did not go through with the process. He then decided that he wished to remain a priest.
15.3 He contacted Archbishop McQuaid to see if he could get work as a priest in the Archdiocese of Dublin. His bishop wrote to Archbishop McQuaid saying “As you will appreciate, it will not be advisable for him to work in this diocese again”. He did not elaborate on the reason but it would seem that the Archbishop McQuaid was aware of a problem and the nature of it. It was hoped that he could eventually be incardinated in Dublin but that never happened.
First complaint, 1973
15.4 Fr Vidal began work as a priest in the Dublin Archdiocese in 1968. In 1973, a nun reported to the Archdiocese that Fr Vidal was involved with both an adult woman, who was a teacher, and a girl aged 12 – 14. He had started these relationships sometime between 1968 and 1971. The nun had letters which suggested that the relationship with the young girl was sexual. In an undated letter to another nun, with whom it appears that the priest was also friendly, the girl said she was in love with Fr Vidal. During his laicisation process in 1979, Fr Vidal accepted that there was a physical relationship with this girl from the time she was about 13.
15.5 When this report came to the Archdiocese, the Archbishop‟s secretary, Canon McMahon, correctly noted that “the most serious aspect is the age of [the girl]”. It would appear that Archbishop Ryan asked a parish priest to investigate. In his report, the parish priest said: “Basically, I think we must accept that [Fr Vidal] has been at least guilty of conduct which was indiscreet, improper and open to grave scandal”. He went on to say: “It is not necessary to accept everything that has been said against him – the details are of little account - but there is sufficient evidence to justify a warning to a priest accused of such attitudes and conduct that he would seem to have gravely compromised his priesthood.”
15.6 The parish priest then set out his views as to how the matter should be dealt with. Fr Vidal
“should be seen and informed that His Grace the Archbishop has received a report concerning his conduct with a very young girl. No charge should be made, no details given and the source of the information should not be disclosed… No matter how the interview goes or how he reacts, he needs to be handled firmly, but with kindness and patience…he has been accepted on a temporary basis in this Diocese, which in itself is a great kindness. Finally, he should be instructed 1, not to visit the [young girl‟s] home ever again or to meet [the young girl] and 2, that he must be extremely careful in future with his relations with women.”
15.7 The parish priest then met Fr Vidal. Fr Vidal denied any impropriety. He stated that he was fully aware that the young girl had a crush on him but that it had not been reciprocated and that his relationship with the teacher was entirely platonic. He agreed to keep away from the young girl. The parish priest told him that he expected that his assurances about his future conduct would be accepted by the Archbishop. It does appear that these assurances were accepted as nothing further was done.
Application for laicisation
15.8 In 1977, Fr Vidal was granted leave of absence because of a “growing spiritual and vocational crisis”. About a year later he decided to apply for laicisation. Bishop O‟Mahony sent him for a psychological assessment. This assessment was unequivocal. It recognised that he was promiscuous and that he “never did, never could and never will” sustain a life of celibacy. The psychologist recommended that it would be in the best interests of the Church for him to be laicised.
15.9 Accordingly in 1979 the petition for laicisation was put in motion. The process was handled by Bishop O‟Mahony. During the laicisation process, Fr Vidal admitted to his various relationships with women. He said that he had never ended the relationship with the young girl. She was now in her early 20s and he was planning to marry her. Despite his earlier denials to the Church inquiry, he admitted that they had had a physical relationship since she was about 13.
15.10 The laicisation petition was sent to Rome in October 1980. No decision was made because, when Rome sought further information, the circumstances had changed.
15.11 The couple did marry in 1980. The ceremony was conducted by a priest of the Archdiocese even though it would appear that Fr Vidal was not free to enter into a Catholic marriage. It was, however, a valid civil marriage.
Return to ministry
15.12 In 1985, Fr Vidal contacted Bishop O‟Mahony and told him that the marriage had broken down and that he wished to return to ministry. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he shredded his file on Fr Vidal after the priest‟s death so there is no documentation available about his dealings with Fr Vidal in the 1980s. In 2006, Bishop O‟Mahony recounted what had happened to the priest delegate of the Archdiocese. The bishop said that he sent Fr Vidal to a monastery to consider his situation. After a month there, the monks were supportive of his wish to return to ministry. Bishop O‟Mahony then sent Fr Vidal and his wife for counselling and they formally separated.
Diocese of Sacramento
15.13 Bishop O‟Mahony arranged for Fr Vidal to go to the diocese of Sacramento, California. He wrote a letter of commendation to that diocese. The diocese of Sacramento has confirmed to the Commission that this letter made no mention whatsoever of Fr Vidal‟s previous activities. There is no evidence that Bishop O‟Mahony told anyone else in the Archdiocese of Dublin about the arrangements he had made at the time (1985) nor that he was in contact with Fr Vidal‟s UK diocese. Such evidence may have been in Bishop O‟Mahony‟s shredded file. Subsequent letters from Fr Vidal‟s UK diocese suggest that it was not aware of his going to Sacramento but this is not absolutely certain. The decision to allow him to resume ministry was made in spite of the earlier unequivocal view of the psychologist about his incapacity to maintain celibacy.
15.14 Fr Vidal‟s wife subsequently married another man in a Catholic Church ceremony. In order to allow her to have a church ceremony, she was given a statement in 1991 by Monsignor Stenson that the 1980 marriage was not, in fact, a valid Catholic marriage. She got a divorce from Fr Vidal after the divorce laws were introduced in Ireland in 1996.
15.15 Bishop O‟Mahony remained in contact with Fr Vidal. In 1991, the bishop of the UK diocese was in contact with the Archdiocese because Fr Vidal now sought to be incardinated into the Sacramento diocese. There is a series of correspondence in the archdiocesan files between Sacramento, Dublin and the UK diocese as to how and when Fr Vidal should be incardinated as he had never been incardinated in Dublin. Finally it was decided that the UK diocese would excardinate him and that Sacramento would incardinate him directly. The Archdiocese provided Fr Vidal with a statement outlining his involvement in the Archdiocese. This statement included the information that he had become involved with a girl whom he had civilly married. It did not mention her age when he first became sexually involved with her.
15.16 Fr Vidal got a divorce in California in 1992. The diocese of Sacramento was unaware that he was civilly married when he went there. He continued to minister as a priest in Sacramento. There were no complaints of child sexual abuse against him in this diocese. He retired to Ireland in 2003 and he died in 2004.
Bishop O’Mahony documents
15.17 The Commission‟s analysis of this case was hampered by the absence of records of the communications between Bishop O‟Mahony and Fr Vidal.
15.18 Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he started to shred documents in 2001 when he was ill. These were documents which had arisen while he was dealing with a confidential matter: “Any document that a priest came and spoke to me in a private, confidential capacity, about a spiritual matter of conscience, I felt that no one had a right after I was dead to see those documents. I shred them”.
15.19 He also told the Commission that the only documents in relation to child sexual abuse that he shredded were the documents relating to Fr Vidal. He shredded these because the priest had died:
“I felt that I had a duty to protect his good name and protect the good name of [the girl he married], who had subsequently married. Her marriage is recognised by Church and State. So I regarded the [Fr Vidal] case as very much a good news story. That the priest went back into active ministry and the girl in question, who was a young woman when I met her, married happily and her marriage is recognised civilly and canonically. [This reference is to her second marriage.] So for me that was a good news story”.
The Commission’s assessment
15.20 The Commission does not consider that this is a “good news story”. The Commission finds it extraordinary that nothing was done about Fr Vidal‟s relationship with a teenage girl other than to ask for an assurance that he would end it.
15.21 The Commission is very concerned that Fr Vidal was allowed to return to ministry in spite of his admission of child sexual abuse. It is particularly concerned that Bishop O‟Mahony did not provide the diocese of Sacramento with any information about Fr Vidal‟s adverse history. It also has concerns that little weight seems to have been given to the fact that he was civilly married and had responsibilities associated with that state. The fact that there are no further reports of abuse and that he subsequently divorced his wife without the knowledge of the diocese of Sacramento and reached an amicable settlement with her does not detract from these concerns.
Introduction
15.1 Fr Vidal was ordained in the 1960s for a diocese in the UK. He served in the Archdiocese of Dublin for approximately ten years in the 1960s and 1970s. He died in 2004.
15.2 Almost immediately after he was ordained Fr Vidal began to experience problems with celibacy and he had affairs with a number of women. He moved away from the UK diocese apparently to try to escape one of his entanglements. He applied for laicisation in the late 1960s but did not go through with the process. He then decided that he wished to remain a priest.
15.3 He contacted Archbishop McQuaid to see if he could get work as a priest in the Archdiocese of Dublin. His bishop wrote to Archbishop McQuaid saying “As you will appreciate, it will not be advisable for him to work in this diocese again”. He did not elaborate on the reason but it would seem that the Archbishop McQuaid was aware of a problem and the nature of it. It was hoped that he could eventually be incardinated in Dublin but that never happened.
First complaint, 1973
15.4 Fr Vidal began work as a priest in the Dublin Archdiocese in 1968. In 1973, a nun reported to the Archdiocese that Fr Vidal was involved with both an adult woman, who was a teacher, and a girl aged 12 – 14. He had started these relationships sometime between 1968 and 1971. The nun had letters which suggested that the relationship with the young girl was sexual. In an undated letter to another nun, with whom it appears that the priest was also friendly, the girl said she was in love with Fr Vidal. During his laicisation process in 1979, Fr Vidal accepted that there was a physical relationship with this girl from the time she was about 13.
15.5 When this report came to the Archdiocese, the Archbishop‟s secretary, Canon McMahon, correctly noted that “the most serious aspect is the age of [the girl]”. It would appear that Archbishop Ryan asked a parish priest to investigate. In his report, the parish priest said: “Basically, I think we must accept that [Fr Vidal] has been at least guilty of conduct which was indiscreet, improper and open to grave scandal”. He went on to say: “It is not necessary to accept everything that has been said against him – the details are of little account - but there is sufficient evidence to justify a warning to a priest accused of such attitudes and conduct that he would seem to have gravely compromised his priesthood.”
15.6 The parish priest then set out his views as to how the matter should be dealt with. Fr Vidal
“should be seen and informed that His Grace the Archbishop has received a report concerning his conduct with a very young girl. No charge should be made, no details given and the source of the information should not be disclosed… No matter how the interview goes or how he reacts, he needs to be handled firmly, but with kindness and patience…he has been accepted on a temporary basis in this Diocese, which in itself is a great kindness. Finally, he should be instructed 1, not to visit the [young girl‟s] home ever again or to meet [the young girl] and 2, that he must be extremely careful in future with his relations with women.”
15.7 The parish priest then met Fr Vidal. Fr Vidal denied any impropriety. He stated that he was fully aware that the young girl had a crush on him but that it had not been reciprocated and that his relationship with the teacher was entirely platonic. He agreed to keep away from the young girl. The parish priest told him that he expected that his assurances about his future conduct would be accepted by the Archbishop. It does appear that these assurances were accepted as nothing further was done.
Application for laicisation
15.8 In 1977, Fr Vidal was granted leave of absence because of a “growing spiritual and vocational crisis”. About a year later he decided to apply for laicisation. Bishop O‟Mahony sent him for a psychological assessment. This assessment was unequivocal. It recognised that he was promiscuous and that he “never did, never could and never will” sustain a life of celibacy. The psychologist recommended that it would be in the best interests of the Church for him to be laicised.
15.9 Accordingly in 1979 the petition for laicisation was put in motion. The process was handled by Bishop O‟Mahony. During the laicisation process, Fr Vidal admitted to his various relationships with women. He said that he had never ended the relationship with the young girl. She was now in her early 20s and he was planning to marry her. Despite his earlier denials to the Church inquiry, he admitted that they had had a physical relationship since she was about 13.
15.10 The laicisation petition was sent to Rome in October 1980. No decision was made because, when Rome sought further information, the circumstances had changed.
15.11 The couple did marry in 1980. The ceremony was conducted by a priest of the Archdiocese even though it would appear that Fr Vidal was not free to enter into a Catholic marriage. It was, however, a valid civil marriage.
Return to ministry
15.12 In 1985, Fr Vidal contacted Bishop O‟Mahony and told him that the marriage had broken down and that he wished to return to ministry. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he shredded his file on Fr Vidal after the priest‟s death so there is no documentation available about his dealings with Fr Vidal in the 1980s. In 2006, Bishop O‟Mahony recounted what had happened to the priest delegate of the Archdiocese. The bishop said that he sent Fr Vidal to a monastery to consider his situation. After a month there, the monks were supportive of his wish to return to ministry. Bishop O‟Mahony then sent Fr Vidal and his wife for counselling and they formally separated.
Diocese of Sacramento
15.13 Bishop O‟Mahony arranged for Fr Vidal to go to the diocese of Sacramento, California. He wrote a letter of commendation to that diocese. The diocese of Sacramento has confirmed to the Commission that this letter made no mention whatsoever of Fr Vidal‟s previous activities. There is no evidence that Bishop O‟Mahony told anyone else in the Archdiocese of Dublin about the arrangements he had made at the time (1985) nor that he was in contact with Fr Vidal‟s UK diocese. Such evidence may have been in Bishop O‟Mahony‟s shredded file. Subsequent letters from Fr Vidal‟s UK diocese suggest that it was not aware of his going to Sacramento but this is not absolutely certain. The decision to allow him to resume ministry was made in spite of the earlier unequivocal view of the psychologist about his incapacity to maintain celibacy.
15.14 Fr Vidal‟s wife subsequently married another man in a Catholic Church ceremony. In order to allow her to have a church ceremony, she was given a statement in 1991 by Monsignor Stenson that the 1980 marriage was not, in fact, a valid Catholic marriage. She got a divorce from Fr Vidal after the divorce laws were introduced in Ireland in 1996.
15.15 Bishop O‟Mahony remained in contact with Fr Vidal. In 1991, the bishop of the UK diocese was in contact with the Archdiocese because Fr Vidal now sought to be incardinated into the Sacramento diocese. There is a series of correspondence in the archdiocesan files between Sacramento, Dublin and the UK diocese as to how and when Fr Vidal should be incardinated as he had never been incardinated in Dublin. Finally it was decided that the UK diocese would excardinate him and that Sacramento would incardinate him directly. The Archdiocese provided Fr Vidal with a statement outlining his involvement in the Archdiocese. This statement included the information that he had become involved with a girl whom he had civilly married. It did not mention her age when he first became sexually involved with her.
15.16 Fr Vidal got a divorce in California in 1992. The diocese of Sacramento was unaware that he was civilly married when he went there. He continued to minister as a priest in Sacramento. There were no complaints of child sexual abuse against him in this diocese. He retired to Ireland in 2003 and he died in 2004.
Bishop O’Mahony documents
15.17 The Commission‟s analysis of this case was hampered by the absence of records of the communications between Bishop O‟Mahony and Fr Vidal.
15.18 Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he started to shred documents in 2001 when he was ill. These were documents which had arisen while he was dealing with a confidential matter: “Any document that a priest came and spoke to me in a private, confidential capacity, about a spiritual matter of conscience, I felt that no one had a right after I was dead to see those documents. I shred them”.
15.19 He also told the Commission that the only documents in relation to child sexual abuse that he shredded were the documents relating to Fr Vidal. He shredded these because the priest had died:
“I felt that I had a duty to protect his good name and protect the good name of [the girl he married], who had subsequently married. Her marriage is recognised by Church and State. So I regarded the [Fr Vidal] case as very much a good news story. That the priest went back into active ministry and the girl in question, who was a young woman when I met her, married happily and her marriage is recognised civilly and canonically. [This reference is to her second marriage.] So for me that was a good news story”.
The Commission’s assessment
15.20 The Commission does not consider that this is a “good news story”. The Commission finds it extraordinary that nothing was done about Fr Vidal‟s relationship with a teenage girl other than to ask for an assurance that he would end it.
15.21 The Commission is very concerned that Fr Vidal was allowed to return to ministry in spite of his admission of child sexual abuse. It is particularly concerned that Bishop O‟Mahony did not provide the diocese of Sacramento with any information about Fr Vidal‟s adverse history. It also has concerns that little weight seems to have been given to the fact that he was civilly married and had responsibilities associated with that state. The fact that there are no further reports of abuse and that he subsequently divorced his wife without the knowledge of the diocese of Sacramento and reached an amicable settlement with her does not detract from these concerns.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36175
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:14 am
Chapter 16: Fr Patrick Maguire
Introduction
16.1 Fr Patrick Maguire is a member of the Missionary Society of St Columban (generally known as the Columban Fathers). He was born in 1936 and ordained in 1960. He served in Japan for a number of years between 1961 and 1974. During this time he had lengthy holidays in Ireland. He then worked in the UK and in Ireland, including, for a brief period in 1983/4, as an assistant priest in a parish of the Archdiocese of Dublin.
16.2 Fr Maguire is a convicted serial child sexual abuser. He has been convicted of indecent assault in the UK and in Ireland and has served prison sentences in both countries. In 1997, he admitted to having abused about 70 young boys in a number of countries and he abused at least one young girl as well. When he was subsequently charged he told his Society that about 100 victims might emerge in Ireland when his name became known. His pattern of abuse is such that it is likely that he abused hundreds of children in all parts of Ireland as well as in the UK and Japan. There can be no doubt that he used his position as a priest to access children. He was associated with another serial abuser – Fr Bill Carney (see Chapter 28) – around the time he was working in the Archdiocese. The Society of St Columban has pointed out, and the Commission accepts, that it had no knowledge of Bill Carney or of his association with Patrick Maguire. Fr Maguire was suspended from the clerical state in 2000. He remains a member of the Society and lives within the Society under strict conditions.
16.3 Fr Maguire‟s way of operating was described by one of his therapists in the following words:
“PM typically employed an elaborate "planning‟ and "grooming‟ process, involving the children and adults around them, for example; "I thought of ways of meeting boys, engaging in conversation, ways of seeing them with their family and seeing how they related with their parents - I planned ways of seeing them with other boys, and eventually ways of being alone with them in places where they felt safe - I planned ways of getting them alone where no one else could observe and where undressing would not be thought out of place, like bathing together, changing at the pool, showering after a swim, and eventually ways of getting them to spend the night, and sleep with me in bed.‟ […] He employed a well practised "formula‟ to get his victim to comply with what he wanted to do to him, plus the fact that he held a position of authority, making the victim powerless in this situation. […] PM has described abusing his victims, by being naked with them in bed and "touching‟ and "caressing‟ their bodies and genitals.”
History of abuse
16.4 Fr Maguire admitted to a therapist in 1997 that he had abused a child and groomed others before he became a priest. He also told this therapist that he wanted to escape from the sexual confusion he felt by becoming a Roman Catholic missionary priest. He told the Commission that he had reasoned that “since priests don‟t have sex, it wouldn‟t matter whether he was attracted to boys or girls”.
16.5 In 1997, he admitted to the following abuses:
Before he became a priest: one boy; he also admitted to having sex with a boy of his own age while a teenager and to having groomed two other boys.
1963 – 1966: three boys in Japan; he also groomed others.
1967: six or seven boys while in Ireland.
1968 – 1972: two boys.
1973: ten boys in Ireland and ten in Japan.
1974/75: eight boys in Ireland.
1976 – 1979: eight boys and one girl; he also admitted that he set up a network of victims and families where he could abuse.
1984: three boys.
1984 – 1989: two boys; he also continued his relationship with other victims and families.
1992- 1994: a vulnerable adult (21 years old).
1996: grooming.
He told the Commission that this list is not complete.
16.6 In 1998, he described his activities up to 1985 as being “hands-on” with some children while encouraging others to bathe with him or be naked in his presence.
Japan, 1961 – 1974
16.7 Fr Maguire admits that he groomed and abused boys while in Japan in the period 1961 - 1974. He also admits that he abused boys while he was on holidays in Ireland from Japan. There is evidence that the Society had some concerns about him in 1968. The minutes of a meeting of the General Council of the Society record that “The advisability of […] Patrick Maguire returning to Japan was discussed as it was felt that this might prove a danger to them. No decision was made”. The members of the council are all dead so it has not been possible to establish what exactly these concerns were.
16.8 He was sent back to Ireland from Japan in 1974 after a nun there complained to the bishop about his inappropriate conduct with young males. The letter from a member of the Society in Japan to the head of the Society60 in Ireland shows how the issue was viewed at the time:
“I am writing to you about PM who is leaving Japan tomorrow evening for Ireland. Just about a week ago, one of the sisters in the parish where Pat works alerted me to a problem that Pat has. The problem involves young male children. The incidents she quoted weren‟t that serious, but, I felt serious enough to warrant immediate attention. I went down to talk to Pat last week. I talked to Bishop Hirata first, because the sister had been to see him before she came to me. Bishop Hirata was most understanding but said that it would be best that Pat slip out of Japan quietly. There is always a danger that the weekly magazines would latch onto a thing like that and blow it up out of all proportions. The good name of the Church would suffer, not to mention Pat‟s. The Bishop also said that there could be a danger of a law case, as the parents of the children involved know of the incidents. I think that there is hardly any likelihood, as the incidents referred to are three or four months old.
I talked with Pat on Wed. last. He freely admitted to the accusations of the sister, but they didn‟t seem to be quite as serious as the sister painted them, and I believe Pat. However Pat also admitted that he has had this problem or tendency for years, and off and on over the years he had gone to psychiatrists privately about it. Loneliness, he puts down as the root cause of his problem. He had the tendency more or less under control, but is really scared of it himself. I think that it is Divine Providence that the problem came into the open at this stage. If Pat were to stay on until he was due for his next holiday in two years, he, more than likely, would go home a wreck […] Pat is going home, ostensibly, because his mother is sick. It may sound deceitful to you, but it is the only way that I can think of that would release Pat from the obligation of having going away parties and all the attendant publicity”.
16.9 It appears that the real reason for Fr Maguire‟s departure from Japan was known only to a few members of the Society in Ireland. The General Council “Agreed that pro tem Patrick Maguire, Japan, be considered as on compassionate leave in Ireland”. It is not clear that those who did know understood the nature and/or extent of the problem. It was never referred to as child sexual abuse. Nevertheless, they were aware that Fr Maguire‟s problem ought not be widely known or acknowledged.
16.10 On his return from Japan in 1974, Fr Maguire attended a priest for counselling and he also attended a psychiatrist. The Society did not brief the psychiatrist in writing. It is not clear exactly what problem the psychiatrist thought Fr Maguire had but it would appear that either he did not know what had happened or he had no knowledge of child sexual abuse. In his report, the psychiatrist stated that Fr Maguire was a shy man who found himself in a difficult cultural situation and gradually became isolated. The psychiatrist felt that the actual physical manifestation of his problem was related to his isolation and could, in a number of instances, be regarded as almost coincidental. It is clear from later statements to therapists that Fr Maguire considered there was little sexuality in his relationships with children – he liked “physical intimacy” with children. The psychiatrist reported to the Society that he did not think that Fr Maguire “should cut himself off completely from young people…he will begin to relate better with his peers as he grows older”.
(After Fr Maguire‟s conviction in the UK in 1998, the Society issued a statement in which it acknowledged that this advice proved incorrect.)
16.11 Fr Maguire worked in the UK for some months in 1974 and was then assigned to Ireland for a year. His superior wrote to him saying that the Society was very happy with the progress he had made – this was based on the psychiatrist‟s reports. The letter went on to say: “The difficulties that you have encountered in Japan are not that unusual. You have always been an excellent priest, a very capable one and a hard worker. I am confident that given time at home in a more relaxed situation where you can see the results of your priestly activity that you will be all the better for any difficulties that you may have incurred in Japan”.
Diocese of Raphoe, 1974 - 1975
16.12 Fr Maguire was assigned to work in the diocese of Raphoe in September 1974. While there, he requested to say the early morning mass; he then had an excuse for getting the altar boys to stay overnight so they would be in time in the morning. He engaged in his usual practice of grooming children by inviting them to stay in his house and bringing them swimming. One victim said later that “We all had an idea about what went on but none of us spoke”. A priest who served with him stated in 1997 that he thought Fr Maguire had abused about eight or nine boys while there.
16.13 At this stage, Fr Maguire became astonishingly brazen. He reported to the parents of a boy who had stayed overnight in his house that the boy had a problem with his testicles. Not surprisingly, the parents wondered how he had discovered that. The parents of this boy and others complained to the Bishop of Raphoe, Bishop McFeely, who immediately asked the Society to remove Fr Maguire from his diocese. His letter of December 1975 to the Society well illustrates the episcopal thinking of the time:
“Earlier this year I had a well substantiated complaint from one set of parents about PM having homosexual relations with a son of theirs who was an altar server. We agreed not to take any action at that time but to keep a look out for any repetition. I regret to say that another case has cropped up in the past few days. I am fairly certain that the two sets of parents involved are each unaware of the other complaint and I cannot doubt the truth of their report. I do not wish to go into details but briefly PM had these boys in his room all night and would seem to have interfered sexually with them. He informed the parents of one of the boys that the son had an abnormality of the testicles. I intend to speak to PM tomorrow or Sunday and no matter what transpires in my interview with him, I will insist on him leaving here as quickly and as quietly as possible. ... If PM were to remain here even for a short time, there would be grave danger of the affair becoming public. One of the parents has consulted a doctor. If news of PM‟s departure were to leak out, there might well be a proposal to have some kind of send-off for him and that could lead to unforeseen dangers. Of course, I will be as helpful as I can and be as sympathetic as I can. We can easily say that you found it necessary to recall him urgently for other duties and I should think there will be no untoward surprise”.
16.14 Fr Maguire was removed from Raphoe immediately. He attended a psychologist in Dublin who according to Fr Maguire was “very aggressive” with him but who clearly recognised the problem. Fr Maguire was sent to Stroud in February 1976. The head of the Society in Ireland told Stroud that “If people enquire about him I‟m saying that he‟s on a renewal course in England – somewhere in Gloucestershire as Stroud will have connotations for many!”. Fr Maguire spent three months in Stroud. Again, it is not clear what Stroud was told but it is clear that his problem was diagnosed as “paederasty coupled with an almost unbelievable imprudence and lack of understanding of the danger he can be to boys”. Stroud considered that Fr Maguire was in certain respects immature. There was danger but “this does not mean that he cannot practice in the long term as a valuable priest”. It was recognised that he had become “too intimate” with boys but that “can be made too much of as I cannot believe that he was in any way cruel or ruthless with the boys in question”.
16.15 Fr Maguire said later (in 1992) that, other than seeing a psychiatrist on six occasions, he did not receive any specific treatment for his difficulties in Stroud. He said that everyone was treated as an alcoholic and the area of sexuality was denied. It is clearly not the case that the area of sexuality was denied. However, there seems to have been a diagnosis or assessment only and no treatment and there also seems to have been a very limited understanding of the nature and consequences of being “too intimate” with boys. Fr Maguire also said (in evidence to the Church penal process in 2000) that he did supply work locally while he was in Stroud.
16.16 The Society seems to have noted only the optimistic parts of the assessment from Stroud and admitted as much in 1998.
16.17 Fr Maguire started pastoral work in the UK later in 1976. During this time he committed the abuse for which he was subsequently convicted in the UK. This abuse was not reported to the Society at the time.
Mission promotion in Ireland 1976 - 1979
16.18 On the basis that the report from Stroud was “encouraging”, the Society decided that Fr Maguire should go on mission promotion work in Ireland as he would move from parish to parish and would not have enough time to “establish relationships which might be dangerous”. He did this from September 1976 to 1979. This involved preaching at all masses in a parish on a Sunday and spending the weekdays in the schools telling the children about the missions. He would look to the congregation for a place to stay; he seems to have been particularly adept at staying in houses where there were no adult males. At least four of the boys he abused during this period lived in the Archdiocese of Dublin. He also abused in other parts of the country. There seems to have been absolutely no supervision of him during this period. The Society has explained to the Commission that mission promotion work was organised in the following way:
“As a matter of practice each congregation was assigned a diocese. Each year the congregation would be aware of what work was being done by whom in what diocese in general terms but not of the details as to the schedules of any of the individuals carrying out that work. Generally the persons working the diocese would split it up amongst themselves as members of the promotional team. At the same time there would have been direct liaison with individual Parish Priests, in relation to availability etc. Patrick Maguire‟s schedule would have been derived through the process described above. The Society would know which diocese he was attached to but not the details of his schedule”.
16.19 He spent some time doing supply work in the UK during this period. This was unknown to his superior in Ireland until Fr Maguire wrote a letter to him about an unrelated matter.
16.20 A further complaint was made to the Society and it was decided to give Fr Maguire an office job. In May 1979, he was appointed as secretary to the central administration of the Society – this included being the private secretary to the Superior General. He was based in Dublin. While doing this job, he also did what the Society describes as “ad hoc supply as and when requested in different churches. This usually took the form of saying one or two masses usually on weekends when vacancies arose in the local area from time to time”.
First complaint to Archdiocese, 1979
16.21 In 1979, a woman complained to a priest of the Archdiocese that she had found Fr Maguire in bed with her two sons. She had provided Fr Maguire with a bed for the night after he had preached in her local church. She noticed that he was not in the bed allocated and found him in her sons‟ bed. His excuse was that he was cold. She provided him with a hot water bottle and sent him back to his allocated bed. She subsequently found him back in her sons‟ bed. In a statement made in 1997, the priest to whom she reported this allegation at the time said that he had reported it to his parish priest. Unfortunately, the parish priest was dead by then and so could not be asked about it. It seems that nothing further happened.
16.22 There is no doubt that the complaint was made in 1979. The priest‟s description (in 1997) of the complaint he received (in 1979) totally corroborates the statements of the boys and their mother. Neither the Archdiocese nor the Society has a contemporaneous record of this complaint. The Archdiocese did investigate the complaint in 1997 after the boys in question (who were then young adults) made complaints to the Gardaí – see below.
16.23 Fr Maguire went to a treatment centre in the UK for six months in 1982 at his own instigation. He told his therapist that he felt sad and lonely after his mother died and sought therapy. He returned to work as secretary to the Society in September 1982. In January 1983, he was complaining to his superior about lack of support. He saw his current job as “a form of "house arrest‟”. In fact, it was not even remotely akin to house arrest because he continued to do supply work in local churches in Dublin, he was taking children swimming and he also managed to go to the UK and access children whom he had previously abused.
Working in the Archdiocese, 1983 - 1984
16.24 Fr Maguire was appointed to the Archdiocese of Dublin in October 1983. He was appointed to a parish for which the Society had a contract with the Archdiocese – Balcurris, Ballymun. The appointment was to be for two years. The superior of the Society in Ireland wrote a letter to Archbishop Ryan in which he “highly” recommended Fr Maguire. He told the Archbishop that Fr Maguire had served in Japan and more recently as secretary to the central administration. There was no mention of his service in Raphoe or of his missionary promotion work. There was no mention of any problems even though it is clear that the superior did know that there were problems. He may not have known the full extent of the problems but he ought to have mentioned those of which he did have knowledge. Fr Maguire also continued with his job as secretary until a new appointment was made.
16.25 In November 1983, the Archdiocese was investigating a complaint against Fr Bill Carney (see Chapter 28). During the church investigation of this complaint, Fr Carney told Monsignor Alex Stenson and Canon Ardle McMahon that he (Fr Carney) used to bring boys swimming and was accompanied by two adults, one of whom was “a Fr Pat Maguire (a Columban)”. Fr Carney said these adults were prepared to vouch for him if the matter went to court. Neither Monsignor Stenson nor Canon McMahon nor the people to whom they reported, Bishop Kavanagh and Archbishop Ryan, noted that Fr Maguire was, in fact, attached to the Archdiocese of Dublin at this stage. No effort was made to contact Fr Maguire in respect of the Fr Carney complaint. However it must be said that, at this stage, the Archdiocese had no notice that Fr Maguire was a child abuser and there was no reason why Monsignor Stenson or Canon McMahon would have had any suspicions about him.
16.26 In 1984, Fr Maguire was still visiting former victims‟ families in the diocese of Raphoe and officiated at a wedding there. This was known to the Society but they did not do anything about it.
Second complaint to Archdiocese
16.27 In April 1984, Archbishop Ryan‟s secretary informed the head of the Society in Ireland of three complaints about Fr Maguire‟s behaviour with children. The first had been reported to the Archdiocese some time earlier by the parish priest of Ayrfield. He reported a complaint by parents that Fr Maguire was too intimate with their children at a swimming pool. Again, Fr Maguire had told parents that a child had problems with his testicles. It appears that the Archbishop‟s secretary told the Society that the Archbishop did not act on this information because of the “delicate position” of Fr Maguire as the Superior General‟s secretary. Then, an anonymous caller reported similar incidents but, because of the caller‟s wish to remain anonymous, the Archbishop did not pursue the case. The third complaint had been made the day before the secretary reported to the Society. Another parent had complained about Fr Maguire‟s involvement with children. The head of the Society said that there could be substance to these complaints. The Society then contacted the local curate (who was one of its members) and was told that he and the other priests were disturbed by so many youths calling to Fr Maguire‟s room. They had confronted Fr Maguire and advised him to be more prudent, but he defended his position and said he was “showing loving care to those who have been deprived of it”.
16.28 Fr Maguire was withdrawn from the Archdiocese in May 1984. Archbishop Ryan sent him the standard letter of thanks for his service in the Archdiocese.
16.29 There is no record of this complaint in the files of the Archdiocese. When asked about it in 2000, the former secretary remembered that there had been a complaint and that Fr Maguire was removed but did not remember the details. He told the Commission that he did not remember meeting the head of the Society but he accepted that the meeting had taken place. He had not discussed the complaint with Monsignor Alex Stenson who, had he been informed, might have linked it with the earlier Fr Carney complaint. Internal communication within the Archdiocese was clearly inadequate in this case.
UK, 1984 - 1992
16.30 Fr Maguire was sent to the UK for therapy. After some discussion of what form of therapy he would undergo, it was decided that he would have a job as bursar in one of the Society‟s houses in the UK and have therapy at the therapeutic centre which he had attended in 1982. The local head of the Society had reservations about the wisdom of assigning him to the UK. Fr Maguire had reservations about the type of therapy being proposed. The therapeutic facility had reservations about having Fr Maguire because he was likely to re-offend and “the chances of smoothing over such cases in which a clergyman is involved would be much less here than in Ireland”. Fr Maguire then received daily intensive therapy for over two years. He was in touch with his superior in Ireland about his therapy and his progress generally. He was considering leaving the priesthood and marrying. One letter from the superior throws light on the Society‟s views of the role of priests:
“Without in any way impinging on your freedom, I offer the advice that you don‟t surrender that freedom of decision to any therapist. You are a priest and you should not allow any person other than yourself to conclude that you ought not remain in ministry, albeit a limited one. I am distrustful of the capacity of any layman or woman to know what it means to be a priest. A priest counsellor is in a better position to do so. Do you have a spiritual director as well as a therapist? I know that you are probably fed up to the back teeth with the therapy and I don‟t want in any way to throw doubt on what the therapist is finding, but he isn‟t God. Don‟t let him decide for you”. The Society told the Commission that this letter should not be taken as a general comment on the Society‟s views of the role of priests or the nature of a vocation but rather as a specific response to a letter written by Fr Maguire in which he communicated some serious personal problems.
16.31 Fr Maguire left this therapy arrangement in anger as he felt it was not helping him. He was in the USA for six months in 1988/89 pursuing a clinical pastoral education course. The Society considered his situation in 1989 and concluded that they “must be cautious in his appointment but also we have to "take a risk‟ with him at some stage”. He was given a parish and hospital appointment in London. This also involved being a school chaplain. He was involved in a school trip where he supervised boys washing and getting ready for bed. It is not clear what, if anything, members of his Society with whom he was living knew of his background.
16.32 He was asked to leave his parish appointment in May 1992 when the parents of a 21-year-old man complained that Fr Maguire was in an abusive sexual relationship with their son who suffered from a mental illness. A head teacher had already asked that Fr Maguire stay away from the school. He was sent back to the therapeutic facility. The Society had finally reached the conclusion that he could not have public ministry for the foreseeable future. The therapeutic facility was very clear that Fr Maguire posed a danger to any child with whom he came in contact.
16.33 A manager of a pharmacy reported that Fr Maguire had left in photographs to be developed which were a cause of concern as they involved nudity. In the light of all the issues which had arisen, the Society decided to get him out of the UK before he was arrested. He was immediately sent to Ireland.
Ireland, 1992 - 1996
16.34 The superior of the Society in the UK wrote to the Society in Ireland saying that Fr Maguire should be formally suspended in order to remove “the priestly safety net”, that his counsellor described him as a “walking time bomb” and that the Columbans should have a written policy on child sexual abusers. He also said that the family of the children involved in the photographs (who were in Ireland) should be informed. This is the first time in the lengthy dealings with Fr Maguire that some concern is expressed for the safety of children.
16.35 The reports from the therapeutic facility at this stage were very clear that Fr Maguire was a risk to children and should not be allowed any pastoral ministry. It was very clear that he used his pastoral role to gain access to victims and to groom families of potential victims. The therapeutic facility recommended that he be placed in a residential treatment programme.
16.36 The council of the Society in the UK formally recommended to its Irish equivalent that Fr Maguire have residential treatment for his paedophilia and be compulsorily suspended from the priesthood until further notice. The UK Society head noted that:
“As far as I can work out, on three occasions the Society has recommended PM for pastoral work when as a Society we have collectively had sufficient knowledge to have known better and not to have appointed him to a parish or hospital. Maybe for lack of knowledge of all the facts from Japan, Ireland and England, PM was allowed back into ministry, with I am sad to say disastrous consequences, damaging people and leaving us in a delicate situation with both the Archdioceses of Westminster and Birmingham”.
16.37 It is not clear if he was aware that they were also “in a delicate situation” with a number of dioceses in Ireland.
16.38 In December 1992, Fr Maguire was living in one of the Society‟s houses in Ireland and his liturgical and pastoral activity was restricted to there. He could stay a night away from there very occasionally but only with specific permission. He could be away during the day but was required to inform the local superior and to be back by midnight. He could ask for permission to say mass for his family or officiate at funerals or weddings. He was allowed go to his family home for an occasional overnight stay during which his brother was to accept responsibility for him. The local parish priest in his home area was informed and told that Fr Maguire was forbidden to say mass, even in an emergency. Fr Maguire started individual and group therapy in Dublin. The Society in the UK was concerned that he had not been suspended. In general, the head of the Society in the UK seemed to be more conscious of the risk Fr Maguire presented than was his Irish counterpart.
16.39 The local bishop was not told in writing of Fr Maguire‟s problems or of his presence in his diocese but the Society told the Commission that he may have been told informally as he was a regular visitor to this house at the time.
In fact, the local bishop has told the Commission that he was briefed on a number of occasions on developments in the case and on the ongoing arrangements for supervision and monitoring. He said (in 2009) that he was and continues to be satisfied with the arrangements. Neither the Archbishop of Dublin nor the Bishop of Raphoe was informed of the complaints or of Fr Maguire‟s whereabouts.
16.40 The Society developed a Policy on Sexual Abuse of Minors – it got final approval in September 1994. This included provision for on-going education for members on the nature of sexual abuse and its effects on minors and also included a provision that candidates for membership would undergo psychological testing. This would seek to identify tendencies to paedophilia and ephebophilia61.
16.41 In 1994, complaints were made to the Society about abuse which had occurred in Ireland in 1977. The complainants were told that Fr Maguire was no longer in ministry and did not have access to children. They were also encouraged by the Society to lodge a complaint with the Gardaí.
16.42 In 1995, it was clear that Fr Maguire was not abiding by the restrictions imposed. A local priest reported to the Society that he was concerned that Fr Maguire was staying in his own accommodation at his brother‟s place and that he might have a relationship with a 15-year-old boy. The Society forbade Fr Maguire to stay overnight away from the Society house. The Society in the UK expressed concern at the fact that Fr Maguire was celebrating private masses in his home parish and had organised a holiday for a family from the UK including children under 16. The Society in the UK wrote:
“My motives for writing come only from a genuine concern for possible victims as well as for the good name of our Society. If anything serious became public and the Society was found in any way negligent, and in my judgment we have been on various occasions down through the years, then the result, with regard to the financial support given to the Columbans by our benefactors, both in Ireland and Britain, would in my opinion be catastrophic […]”.
16.43 The UK regional director clearly had a good understanding of Fr Maguire‟s methods. Fr Maguire was quite annoyed at what he saw as the unjust assumption that he was abusing the boy. The Society visited the family of the boy who had stayed with Fr Maguire and the family had no complaints. The local health board was informed of the situation by the Society. In September 1995, the restrictions were more stringently imposed.
16.44 In 1996, complaints of abuse from the Raphoe diocese were made to Monsignor Stenson, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Dublin and to the Society. Monsignor Stenson reported the complaints to the Society. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that Fr Maguire‟s name had not registered in his memory and he had made no connection between this complaint and the 1983 Fr Carney complaint. The Society informed the Gardaí and the local bishop.
Further treatment, admissions and arrest, 1997
16.45 The Society started a canon law investigation of the Raphoe complaints. Fr Maguire was placed under further restrictions including being forbidden to drive, to stay away from the Society house or to holiday abroad. He was sent to another therapeutic facility in the UK for assessment and treatment; this went on for over a year and was quite expensive. It was during this treatment that he admitted to the range of child sexual abuse offences which are listed above.
16.46 The Society started to build up a full profile of Fr Maguire. It was recognised that, because he had moved between provinces, no one in the Society seemed to know the full story. In fact, the Society told the Commission that the first time all the documentation which it has in relation to Fr Maguire was brought together in one location was in preparation for the work of this Commission.
16.47 As information was gathered from the various superiors who had dealt with Fr Maguire, it did become clear that none of them had full knowledge of all the complaints and suspicions which had been reported; each had a certain amount of knowledge. A number of members of the Society who were, nominally at least, Fr Maguire‟s superiors, said in 1997 that they were not aware of the problem for which Fr Maguire was being sent for treatment. The general view of the people who did know about some of the complaints was that his behaviour was “imprudent”. The superior who had recommended Fr Maguire to the Archdiocese of Dublin, wrote: “Even in the 1970s it was regarded as contrary to the rule of charity to put in writing details of a member‟s sexual misbehaviour. When there were such incidents they were shared by word-of-mouth between as few as possible in authority”. He said he should not have highly recommended Fr Maguire to the Archbishop of Dublin because he found him difficult and contrary but that he did so because of positive medical reports and not knowing why he had been removed from the diocese of Raphoe. He also said that he did not know about the incidents in Japan, Raphoe, the UK and Dublin until 1995. He also did not know why Fr Maguire had been sent to Stroud, although he was his local superior and visited him there: “since no information was proffered to me, I respected the confidentiality of the case”. Others referred to similar considerations of confidentiality. The Society‟s structure also meant that information was kept in different locations, for example, the central headquarters in Ireland is separate from the Irish regional headquarters and separate files were kept in each place.
16.48 Fr Maguire was arrested while at the therapeutic facility in July 1997 and charged with indecent assault in relation to incidents in 1976 and 1977 in the UK. He remained in the facility while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, a garda investigation had been proceeding in Ireland. Fr Maguire told his superior while he was awaiting trial in the UK in 1997 that 100 cases could be expected if his name became public in Ireland.
16.49 When he was arrested in the UK, the Society informed the dioceses in Ireland in which he had served, including the Archdiocese of Dublin. The Society told the Archdiocese that there had been a complaint in respect of Fr Maguire‟s time in the Archdiocese and that it had documentation about the 1984 meeting.
16.50 The young men, who, as boys, had been involved in the first complaint to the Archdiocese (in 1979) made a complaint to the Gardaí and wrote to the Archdiocese to find out why their mother‟s complaint in 1979 had not been investigated and why no action had been taken in respect of Fr Maguire.
16.51 The Society withdrew Fr Maguire‟s faculties to hear confession, offer a public mass and preach. It contacted all the relevant health boards in Ireland and had meetings with the director of community care and senior social workers in the health board area where he had been recently living.
16.52 The Archdiocese of Dublin tried to establish what had happened in relation to the 1979 and 1984 complaints to them. The chancellor, Monsignor John Dolan, spoke to the priest to whom the 1979 complaint was made and he outlined what he had been told and what he had done. The Columbans told Monsignor Dolan that they had no record of the 1979 complaint. Monsignor Dolan then told the young men involved that there was no record of the complaint. Fr Maguire admitted to abusing the boys involved in the 1979 complaint.
16.53 The Society raised the question of voluntary laicisation with Fr Maguire while he was awaiting his trial in the UK. The Society encouraged him to plead guilty. He was told that the Society had empathy for him but it was being open with the civil authorities and that “there was and will not be any cover-up”. The Society did co-operate with both the UK police and the Gardaí.
16.54 In October 1997, the Society told Fr Dolan that the relevant superior now wished to apologise to Archbishop Connell for highly recommending Fr Maguire to the Archdiocese. Fr Dolan, who knew very little about Fr Maguire‟s activities, assured the Society that there was no need as he considered that the superior had made the original recommendation in good faith. There was extensive communication between the solicitors for the Archdiocese and the solicitors for the Society at this time.
16.55 The Society continued to examine the question of laicisation. They were advised by a canon lawyer that “Compulsory Laicisation is a difficult path to take and Rome are reluctant to go along with it”.
UK conviction 1998
16.56 In June 1998, Fr Maguire pleaded guilty in the UK courts to four counts of indecent assault in 1976 and 1977 on two boys. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment – nine months to be served and nine months on licence.
16.57 When he was convicted, the Society in the UK issued a statement in which it expressed its regret. The statement included the following points:
“(2) In 1974, because of doubts that had arisen about PM, medical assessment and recommendations were sought in Ireland. The advice received was that he seemed to be improving and coming to terms with problems. In the report, future involvement with young people was not seen as a source of concern. With hindsight, this advice proved incorrect and, tragically, the significance of a more pessimistic medical opinion in 1976 was not always appreciated or sufficiently taken into account in the years following. (3) For the greater part of the time since then, PM has been assigned to internal posts which did not involve contact with young people. Because of the confidentiality observed in the handling of personal records, succeeding superiors were not always aware of the medical reports referred to above. As a result, PM was on occasions authorised to engage in pastoral work. In retrospect, the Society should have been more vigilant and we regret those failures in communication. We apologise unreservedly for the mistakes we have made”.
16.58 The Society in Ireland also issued a statement, in which it expressed its regret, reiterated the apology offered by the Society in the UK and gave a helpline number. It stated “For the past six years Patrick Maguire has been suspended from pastoral duties and may not now minister as a priest”.
16.59 In June 1998, Fr Maguire was assessed by the therapeutic facility as being at significant risk of re-offending.
Ireland: conviction and laicisation 1999 - 2008
16.60 Fr Maguire was released from prison in the UK in March 1999. He was immediately arrested and extradited to Ireland on ten charges of indecent assault and two charges of buggery. Two of the indecent assault charges related to the boys whose mother had complained in 1979. The Society provided the surety for bail. One of the conditions of the bail was that Fr Maguire live in a specified Society house. The Society laid down strict conditions which meant that he was not allowed to leave the grounds without being accompanied by another Society member and then only for specific purposes; he could not speak to anyone under the age of 20 and could not celebrate mass either publicly or privately.
16.61 In July 1999, the Society started the formal process of compulsory laicisation. The Society made it clear that it did not want to dismiss Fr Maguire from membership of the Society. It recognised that: “As the priesthood provides the principal access to children we have been advised that his laicisation would not only safeguard possible future victims but may also mean that if PM is found guilty of offences in Ireland he may receive a lighter sentence”. Archbishop Connell was informed and the process was handled by the Dublin Metropolitan Tribunal (see Chapter 4).
16.62 In January 2000, Fr Maguire pleaded guilty to ten charges of indecent assault – assaulting five boys in Sligo, Dublin and Louth from January 1972 to June 1980. The complainant who alleged buggery decided not to give evidence, so those charges were withdrawn. He was convicted in March 2000 and sentenced to six years imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently, with a review after three years with the possibility of release provided there were suitable therapeutic facilities available to receive him.
16.63 Another complaint emerged from Dublin in August 2000. A parent complained to the Gardaí but the young man did not follow up with a statement because he did not believe he could follow through with a prosecution and give evidence in court. The parent contacted the Society and reported that Fr Maguire had become very friendly with the family and particularly the son. The parent said that “comments were made by neighbours to the effect that the relationship was strange and had sexual overtones” but the parent “totally disbelieved this at the time”.
16.64 In September 2000, the Dublin Metropolitan Tribunal decided that Fr Maguire should be dismissed from the clerical state. He appealed to Rome on the grounds that he had not been fully informed of the specific charges against him or given adequate time or opportunity to defend himself. In June 2002, the Roman Rota tribunal decided that, rather than be dismissed from the clerical state, Fr Maguire should be suspended from the priesthood for nine years. The precise meaning of this decision was not totally clear to the Society or, indeed, to canon lawyers. It was not clear, for example, whether he would be allowed say mass privately. One canon lawyer took the view that the Society could still make its own decision about his fitness to exercise ministry. The Society has taken the view that the suspension precludes him from saying private masses. Fr Maguire considers that he is entitled to do so.
16.65 Fr Maguire was released from prison in March 2003 having served half of his sentence. The judge directed that he live in secure accommodation in the Society‟s house. There was some discussion about the conditions imposed by the judge and the conditions that the Society felt it could enforce. There are Church guidelines for religious groups who are accepting convicted sex offenders back into their communities.
16.66 In its report to the court dealing with post release supervision, the Probation and Welfare Service (PWS) reported that, among other things, they had met the superiors of the Society in the house where Fr Maguire was to live. The PWS recommended various supervision conditions including that Fr Maguire live under the care of the Society and that he comply with the directions of the Society.
16.67 The Society set up a circle of support and accountability. The PWS was involved in monitoring him. It was agreed in 2004 that he could work alone anywhere in the grounds and that he could visit Dublin twice a month, having given notice to his superiors. He was allowed to buy a car in February 2005.
16.68 In 2004, two boys from Dublin complained to the Gardaí that they had been abused by Fr Maguire in the late 1970s. Fr Maguire admitted that he had abused them. He was charged with indecent assault and convicted in February 2007. He received a three year sentence which was suspended for six years (until 2013) on condition that he remain under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service.
16.69 The Society of St Columban made civil settlements with a number of complainants in Ireland and the UK. None of these was from the Archdiocese of Dublin.
The Commission’s assessment
Church authorities
16.70 Complaints about Fr Maguire were handled very badly by his Society over a period of about 20 years. Specific complaints to the bishop of Raphoe in 1975, to a priest in the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1979 and to the Archbishop of Dublin in 1984 were also very badly handled. A number of complaints seem to have been largely ignored or avoided; in other cases, the response was to move him somewhere else. The Society knew at a relatively early stage - at least in 1974 - that there was a problem. The Society paid for extensive and expensive assessment and treatment for Fr Maguire between 1974 and 1996. However, for about 20 years, it did absolutely nothing to prevent his access to children. In a particularly disastrous move by the Society, he was assigned to go around Ireland promoting the Columbans. He did this by visiting schools and preaching at masses. This gave him access to every Catholic Church congregation and to every Catholic school in the country, in effect, to virtually every child in the country. He duly took advantage of that access. Several Church authorities in Ireland and the UK including the superiors of the Columbans and a number of bishops knew that he was an abuser but it was more than 20 years after the first complaint that appropriate action was taken to prevent his access to children. In recent years the Society has taken steps to ensure that he does not have access to children and is to be commended for supervising him and not expelling him from the Society.
16.71 The Society told the Commission that it “fully accepts that very serious mistakes were made” in its dealings with Fr Maguire. The Commission accepts that the structure of the Society militated against or, at least, did not facilitate co-ordinated handling of the problem. However, it appears that the culture of confidentiality, the over-arching concern for the welfare of the priest and the avoidance of scandal were the major contributory factors to the quite disastrous way in which this case was handled.
16.72 Archbishop Ryan was negligent in his dealings with Fr Maguire. It is not clear who precisely was at fault for the failure to deal with the first complaint to the Archdiocese in 1979 but it was someone from the Archdiocese. Archbishop Ryan‟s stated reason, as contemporaneously reported to the Society by his secretary, for not following up complaints received in 1984, that is, Fr Maguire‟s delicate position as secretary to the Superior-General, is quite shocking. It appears that Archbishop Ryan got different people within his administration to deal with child sexual abuse complaints as they arose and, as a result, no one person knew the extent of the problem. Bishop McFeely of Raphoe did report the problem accurately but dealt with it by having Fr Maguire removed as quickly as possible.
16.73 It is the Commission‟s view that the Society acted properly in seeking to laicise Fr Maguire while, at the same time, making it very clear that it intended to retain, maintain and supervise him as a member of the Society. The decision of the Roman Rota tribunal to change the decision of the Dublin Metropolitan Tribunal from dismissal from the clerical state to nine years suspension was, to put it at its mildest, unhelpful. It left the Society in a position where his precise status was unclear.
Communication between Church authorities
16.74 Prior to 1997, there was inadequate communication between the different parts of the Society. There was inadequate communication between the Society and the Archdiocese. The bishop of Raphoe, while he immediately removed the problem from his diocese, did clearly and unambiguously tell the Society what the problem was. However, through no fault of his, his letter was not made available to the relevant people in the Society who were supposed to be Fr Maguire‟s superiors.
State authorities
16.75 The Gardaí and the health boards acted appropriately in this case.
Introduction
16.1 Fr Patrick Maguire is a member of the Missionary Society of St Columban (generally known as the Columban Fathers). He was born in 1936 and ordained in 1960. He served in Japan for a number of years between 1961 and 1974. During this time he had lengthy holidays in Ireland. He then worked in the UK and in Ireland, including, for a brief period in 1983/4, as an assistant priest in a parish of the Archdiocese of Dublin.
16.2 Fr Maguire is a convicted serial child sexual abuser. He has been convicted of indecent assault in the UK and in Ireland and has served prison sentences in both countries. In 1997, he admitted to having abused about 70 young boys in a number of countries and he abused at least one young girl as well. When he was subsequently charged he told his Society that about 100 victims might emerge in Ireland when his name became known. His pattern of abuse is such that it is likely that he abused hundreds of children in all parts of Ireland as well as in the UK and Japan. There can be no doubt that he used his position as a priest to access children. He was associated with another serial abuser – Fr Bill Carney (see Chapter 28) – around the time he was working in the Archdiocese. The Society of St Columban has pointed out, and the Commission accepts, that it had no knowledge of Bill Carney or of his association with Patrick Maguire. Fr Maguire was suspended from the clerical state in 2000. He remains a member of the Society and lives within the Society under strict conditions.
16.3 Fr Maguire‟s way of operating was described by one of his therapists in the following words:
“PM typically employed an elaborate "planning‟ and "grooming‟ process, involving the children and adults around them, for example; "I thought of ways of meeting boys, engaging in conversation, ways of seeing them with their family and seeing how they related with their parents - I planned ways of seeing them with other boys, and eventually ways of being alone with them in places where they felt safe - I planned ways of getting them alone where no one else could observe and where undressing would not be thought out of place, like bathing together, changing at the pool, showering after a swim, and eventually ways of getting them to spend the night, and sleep with me in bed.‟ […] He employed a well practised "formula‟ to get his victim to comply with what he wanted to do to him, plus the fact that he held a position of authority, making the victim powerless in this situation. […] PM has described abusing his victims, by being naked with them in bed and "touching‟ and "caressing‟ their bodies and genitals.”
History of abuse
16.4 Fr Maguire admitted to a therapist in 1997 that he had abused a child and groomed others before he became a priest. He also told this therapist that he wanted to escape from the sexual confusion he felt by becoming a Roman Catholic missionary priest. He told the Commission that he had reasoned that “since priests don‟t have sex, it wouldn‟t matter whether he was attracted to boys or girls”.
16.5 In 1997, he admitted to the following abuses:
Before he became a priest: one boy; he also admitted to having sex with a boy of his own age while a teenager and to having groomed two other boys.
1963 – 1966: three boys in Japan; he also groomed others.
1967: six or seven boys while in Ireland.
1968 – 1972: two boys.
1973: ten boys in Ireland and ten in Japan.
1974/75: eight boys in Ireland.
1976 – 1979: eight boys and one girl; he also admitted that he set up a network of victims and families where he could abuse.
1984: three boys.
1984 – 1989: two boys; he also continued his relationship with other victims and families.
1992- 1994: a vulnerable adult (21 years old).
1996: grooming.
He told the Commission that this list is not complete.
16.6 In 1998, he described his activities up to 1985 as being “hands-on” with some children while encouraging others to bathe with him or be naked in his presence.
Japan, 1961 – 1974
16.7 Fr Maguire admits that he groomed and abused boys while in Japan in the period 1961 - 1974. He also admits that he abused boys while he was on holidays in Ireland from Japan. There is evidence that the Society had some concerns about him in 1968. The minutes of a meeting of the General Council of the Society record that “The advisability of […] Patrick Maguire returning to Japan was discussed as it was felt that this might prove a danger to them. No decision was made”. The members of the council are all dead so it has not been possible to establish what exactly these concerns were.
16.8 He was sent back to Ireland from Japan in 1974 after a nun there complained to the bishop about his inappropriate conduct with young males. The letter from a member of the Society in Japan to the head of the Society60 in Ireland shows how the issue was viewed at the time:
“I am writing to you about PM who is leaving Japan tomorrow evening for Ireland. Just about a week ago, one of the sisters in the parish where Pat works alerted me to a problem that Pat has. The problem involves young male children. The incidents she quoted weren‟t that serious, but, I felt serious enough to warrant immediate attention. I went down to talk to Pat last week. I talked to Bishop Hirata first, because the sister had been to see him before she came to me. Bishop Hirata was most understanding but said that it would be best that Pat slip out of Japan quietly. There is always a danger that the weekly magazines would latch onto a thing like that and blow it up out of all proportions. The good name of the Church would suffer, not to mention Pat‟s. The Bishop also said that there could be a danger of a law case, as the parents of the children involved know of the incidents. I think that there is hardly any likelihood, as the incidents referred to are three or four months old.
I talked with Pat on Wed. last. He freely admitted to the accusations of the sister, but they didn‟t seem to be quite as serious as the sister painted them, and I believe Pat. However Pat also admitted that he has had this problem or tendency for years, and off and on over the years he had gone to psychiatrists privately about it. Loneliness, he puts down as the root cause of his problem. He had the tendency more or less under control, but is really scared of it himself. I think that it is Divine Providence that the problem came into the open at this stage. If Pat were to stay on until he was due for his next holiday in two years, he, more than likely, would go home a wreck […] Pat is going home, ostensibly, because his mother is sick. It may sound deceitful to you, but it is the only way that I can think of that would release Pat from the obligation of having going away parties and all the attendant publicity”.
16.9 It appears that the real reason for Fr Maguire‟s departure from Japan was known only to a few members of the Society in Ireland. The General Council “Agreed that pro tem Patrick Maguire, Japan, be considered as on compassionate leave in Ireland”. It is not clear that those who did know understood the nature and/or extent of the problem. It was never referred to as child sexual abuse. Nevertheless, they were aware that Fr Maguire‟s problem ought not be widely known or acknowledged.
16.10 On his return from Japan in 1974, Fr Maguire attended a priest for counselling and he also attended a psychiatrist. The Society did not brief the psychiatrist in writing. It is not clear exactly what problem the psychiatrist thought Fr Maguire had but it would appear that either he did not know what had happened or he had no knowledge of child sexual abuse. In his report, the psychiatrist stated that Fr Maguire was a shy man who found himself in a difficult cultural situation and gradually became isolated. The psychiatrist felt that the actual physical manifestation of his problem was related to his isolation and could, in a number of instances, be regarded as almost coincidental. It is clear from later statements to therapists that Fr Maguire considered there was little sexuality in his relationships with children – he liked “physical intimacy” with children. The psychiatrist reported to the Society that he did not think that Fr Maguire “should cut himself off completely from young people…he will begin to relate better with his peers as he grows older”.
(After Fr Maguire‟s conviction in the UK in 1998, the Society issued a statement in which it acknowledged that this advice proved incorrect.)
16.11 Fr Maguire worked in the UK for some months in 1974 and was then assigned to Ireland for a year. His superior wrote to him saying that the Society was very happy with the progress he had made – this was based on the psychiatrist‟s reports. The letter went on to say: “The difficulties that you have encountered in Japan are not that unusual. You have always been an excellent priest, a very capable one and a hard worker. I am confident that given time at home in a more relaxed situation where you can see the results of your priestly activity that you will be all the better for any difficulties that you may have incurred in Japan”.
Diocese of Raphoe, 1974 - 1975
16.12 Fr Maguire was assigned to work in the diocese of Raphoe in September 1974. While there, he requested to say the early morning mass; he then had an excuse for getting the altar boys to stay overnight so they would be in time in the morning. He engaged in his usual practice of grooming children by inviting them to stay in his house and bringing them swimming. One victim said later that “We all had an idea about what went on but none of us spoke”. A priest who served with him stated in 1997 that he thought Fr Maguire had abused about eight or nine boys while there.
16.13 At this stage, Fr Maguire became astonishingly brazen. He reported to the parents of a boy who had stayed overnight in his house that the boy had a problem with his testicles. Not surprisingly, the parents wondered how he had discovered that. The parents of this boy and others complained to the Bishop of Raphoe, Bishop McFeely, who immediately asked the Society to remove Fr Maguire from his diocese. His letter of December 1975 to the Society well illustrates the episcopal thinking of the time:
“Earlier this year I had a well substantiated complaint from one set of parents about PM having homosexual relations with a son of theirs who was an altar server. We agreed not to take any action at that time but to keep a look out for any repetition. I regret to say that another case has cropped up in the past few days. I am fairly certain that the two sets of parents involved are each unaware of the other complaint and I cannot doubt the truth of their report. I do not wish to go into details but briefly PM had these boys in his room all night and would seem to have interfered sexually with them. He informed the parents of one of the boys that the son had an abnormality of the testicles. I intend to speak to PM tomorrow or Sunday and no matter what transpires in my interview with him, I will insist on him leaving here as quickly and as quietly as possible. ... If PM were to remain here even for a short time, there would be grave danger of the affair becoming public. One of the parents has consulted a doctor. If news of PM‟s departure were to leak out, there might well be a proposal to have some kind of send-off for him and that could lead to unforeseen dangers. Of course, I will be as helpful as I can and be as sympathetic as I can. We can easily say that you found it necessary to recall him urgently for other duties and I should think there will be no untoward surprise”.
16.14 Fr Maguire was removed from Raphoe immediately. He attended a psychologist in Dublin who according to Fr Maguire was “very aggressive” with him but who clearly recognised the problem. Fr Maguire was sent to Stroud in February 1976. The head of the Society in Ireland told Stroud that “If people enquire about him I‟m saying that he‟s on a renewal course in England – somewhere in Gloucestershire as Stroud will have connotations for many!”. Fr Maguire spent three months in Stroud. Again, it is not clear what Stroud was told but it is clear that his problem was diagnosed as “paederasty coupled with an almost unbelievable imprudence and lack of understanding of the danger he can be to boys”. Stroud considered that Fr Maguire was in certain respects immature. There was danger but “this does not mean that he cannot practice in the long term as a valuable priest”. It was recognised that he had become “too intimate” with boys but that “can be made too much of as I cannot believe that he was in any way cruel or ruthless with the boys in question”.
16.15 Fr Maguire said later (in 1992) that, other than seeing a psychiatrist on six occasions, he did not receive any specific treatment for his difficulties in Stroud. He said that everyone was treated as an alcoholic and the area of sexuality was denied. It is clearly not the case that the area of sexuality was denied. However, there seems to have been a diagnosis or assessment only and no treatment and there also seems to have been a very limited understanding of the nature and consequences of being “too intimate” with boys. Fr Maguire also said (in evidence to the Church penal process in 2000) that he did supply work locally while he was in Stroud.
16.16 The Society seems to have noted only the optimistic parts of the assessment from Stroud and admitted as much in 1998.
16.17 Fr Maguire started pastoral work in the UK later in 1976. During this time he committed the abuse for which he was subsequently convicted in the UK. This abuse was not reported to the Society at the time.
Mission promotion in Ireland 1976 - 1979
16.18 On the basis that the report from Stroud was “encouraging”, the Society decided that Fr Maguire should go on mission promotion work in Ireland as he would move from parish to parish and would not have enough time to “establish relationships which might be dangerous”. He did this from September 1976 to 1979. This involved preaching at all masses in a parish on a Sunday and spending the weekdays in the schools telling the children about the missions. He would look to the congregation for a place to stay; he seems to have been particularly adept at staying in houses where there were no adult males. At least four of the boys he abused during this period lived in the Archdiocese of Dublin. He also abused in other parts of the country. There seems to have been absolutely no supervision of him during this period. The Society has explained to the Commission that mission promotion work was organised in the following way:
“As a matter of practice each congregation was assigned a diocese. Each year the congregation would be aware of what work was being done by whom in what diocese in general terms but not of the details as to the schedules of any of the individuals carrying out that work. Generally the persons working the diocese would split it up amongst themselves as members of the promotional team. At the same time there would have been direct liaison with individual Parish Priests, in relation to availability etc. Patrick Maguire‟s schedule would have been derived through the process described above. The Society would know which diocese he was attached to but not the details of his schedule”.
16.19 He spent some time doing supply work in the UK during this period. This was unknown to his superior in Ireland until Fr Maguire wrote a letter to him about an unrelated matter.
16.20 A further complaint was made to the Society and it was decided to give Fr Maguire an office job. In May 1979, he was appointed as secretary to the central administration of the Society – this included being the private secretary to the Superior General. He was based in Dublin. While doing this job, he also did what the Society describes as “ad hoc supply as and when requested in different churches. This usually took the form of saying one or two masses usually on weekends when vacancies arose in the local area from time to time”.
First complaint to Archdiocese, 1979
16.21 In 1979, a woman complained to a priest of the Archdiocese that she had found Fr Maguire in bed with her two sons. She had provided Fr Maguire with a bed for the night after he had preached in her local church. She noticed that he was not in the bed allocated and found him in her sons‟ bed. His excuse was that he was cold. She provided him with a hot water bottle and sent him back to his allocated bed. She subsequently found him back in her sons‟ bed. In a statement made in 1997, the priest to whom she reported this allegation at the time said that he had reported it to his parish priest. Unfortunately, the parish priest was dead by then and so could not be asked about it. It seems that nothing further happened.
16.22 There is no doubt that the complaint was made in 1979. The priest‟s description (in 1997) of the complaint he received (in 1979) totally corroborates the statements of the boys and their mother. Neither the Archdiocese nor the Society has a contemporaneous record of this complaint. The Archdiocese did investigate the complaint in 1997 after the boys in question (who were then young adults) made complaints to the Gardaí – see below.
16.23 Fr Maguire went to a treatment centre in the UK for six months in 1982 at his own instigation. He told his therapist that he felt sad and lonely after his mother died and sought therapy. He returned to work as secretary to the Society in September 1982. In January 1983, he was complaining to his superior about lack of support. He saw his current job as “a form of "house arrest‟”. In fact, it was not even remotely akin to house arrest because he continued to do supply work in local churches in Dublin, he was taking children swimming and he also managed to go to the UK and access children whom he had previously abused.
Working in the Archdiocese, 1983 - 1984
16.24 Fr Maguire was appointed to the Archdiocese of Dublin in October 1983. He was appointed to a parish for which the Society had a contract with the Archdiocese – Balcurris, Ballymun. The appointment was to be for two years. The superior of the Society in Ireland wrote a letter to Archbishop Ryan in which he “highly” recommended Fr Maguire. He told the Archbishop that Fr Maguire had served in Japan and more recently as secretary to the central administration. There was no mention of his service in Raphoe or of his missionary promotion work. There was no mention of any problems even though it is clear that the superior did know that there were problems. He may not have known the full extent of the problems but he ought to have mentioned those of which he did have knowledge. Fr Maguire also continued with his job as secretary until a new appointment was made.
16.25 In November 1983, the Archdiocese was investigating a complaint against Fr Bill Carney (see Chapter 28). During the church investigation of this complaint, Fr Carney told Monsignor Alex Stenson and Canon Ardle McMahon that he (Fr Carney) used to bring boys swimming and was accompanied by two adults, one of whom was “a Fr Pat Maguire (a Columban)”. Fr Carney said these adults were prepared to vouch for him if the matter went to court. Neither Monsignor Stenson nor Canon McMahon nor the people to whom they reported, Bishop Kavanagh and Archbishop Ryan, noted that Fr Maguire was, in fact, attached to the Archdiocese of Dublin at this stage. No effort was made to contact Fr Maguire in respect of the Fr Carney complaint. However it must be said that, at this stage, the Archdiocese had no notice that Fr Maguire was a child abuser and there was no reason why Monsignor Stenson or Canon McMahon would have had any suspicions about him.
16.26 In 1984, Fr Maguire was still visiting former victims‟ families in the diocese of Raphoe and officiated at a wedding there. This was known to the Society but they did not do anything about it.
Second complaint to Archdiocese
16.27 In April 1984, Archbishop Ryan‟s secretary informed the head of the Society in Ireland of three complaints about Fr Maguire‟s behaviour with children. The first had been reported to the Archdiocese some time earlier by the parish priest of Ayrfield. He reported a complaint by parents that Fr Maguire was too intimate with their children at a swimming pool. Again, Fr Maguire had told parents that a child had problems with his testicles. It appears that the Archbishop‟s secretary told the Society that the Archbishop did not act on this information because of the “delicate position” of Fr Maguire as the Superior General‟s secretary. Then, an anonymous caller reported similar incidents but, because of the caller‟s wish to remain anonymous, the Archbishop did not pursue the case. The third complaint had been made the day before the secretary reported to the Society. Another parent had complained about Fr Maguire‟s involvement with children. The head of the Society said that there could be substance to these complaints. The Society then contacted the local curate (who was one of its members) and was told that he and the other priests were disturbed by so many youths calling to Fr Maguire‟s room. They had confronted Fr Maguire and advised him to be more prudent, but he defended his position and said he was “showing loving care to those who have been deprived of it”.
16.28 Fr Maguire was withdrawn from the Archdiocese in May 1984. Archbishop Ryan sent him the standard letter of thanks for his service in the Archdiocese.
16.29 There is no record of this complaint in the files of the Archdiocese. When asked about it in 2000, the former secretary remembered that there had been a complaint and that Fr Maguire was removed but did not remember the details. He told the Commission that he did not remember meeting the head of the Society but he accepted that the meeting had taken place. He had not discussed the complaint with Monsignor Alex Stenson who, had he been informed, might have linked it with the earlier Fr Carney complaint. Internal communication within the Archdiocese was clearly inadequate in this case.
UK, 1984 - 1992
16.30 Fr Maguire was sent to the UK for therapy. After some discussion of what form of therapy he would undergo, it was decided that he would have a job as bursar in one of the Society‟s houses in the UK and have therapy at the therapeutic centre which he had attended in 1982. The local head of the Society had reservations about the wisdom of assigning him to the UK. Fr Maguire had reservations about the type of therapy being proposed. The therapeutic facility had reservations about having Fr Maguire because he was likely to re-offend and “the chances of smoothing over such cases in which a clergyman is involved would be much less here than in Ireland”. Fr Maguire then received daily intensive therapy for over two years. He was in touch with his superior in Ireland about his therapy and his progress generally. He was considering leaving the priesthood and marrying. One letter from the superior throws light on the Society‟s views of the role of priests:
“Without in any way impinging on your freedom, I offer the advice that you don‟t surrender that freedom of decision to any therapist. You are a priest and you should not allow any person other than yourself to conclude that you ought not remain in ministry, albeit a limited one. I am distrustful of the capacity of any layman or woman to know what it means to be a priest. A priest counsellor is in a better position to do so. Do you have a spiritual director as well as a therapist? I know that you are probably fed up to the back teeth with the therapy and I don‟t want in any way to throw doubt on what the therapist is finding, but he isn‟t God. Don‟t let him decide for you”. The Society told the Commission that this letter should not be taken as a general comment on the Society‟s views of the role of priests or the nature of a vocation but rather as a specific response to a letter written by Fr Maguire in which he communicated some serious personal problems.
16.31 Fr Maguire left this therapy arrangement in anger as he felt it was not helping him. He was in the USA for six months in 1988/89 pursuing a clinical pastoral education course. The Society considered his situation in 1989 and concluded that they “must be cautious in his appointment but also we have to "take a risk‟ with him at some stage”. He was given a parish and hospital appointment in London. This also involved being a school chaplain. He was involved in a school trip where he supervised boys washing and getting ready for bed. It is not clear what, if anything, members of his Society with whom he was living knew of his background.
16.32 He was asked to leave his parish appointment in May 1992 when the parents of a 21-year-old man complained that Fr Maguire was in an abusive sexual relationship with their son who suffered from a mental illness. A head teacher had already asked that Fr Maguire stay away from the school. He was sent back to the therapeutic facility. The Society had finally reached the conclusion that he could not have public ministry for the foreseeable future. The therapeutic facility was very clear that Fr Maguire posed a danger to any child with whom he came in contact.
16.33 A manager of a pharmacy reported that Fr Maguire had left in photographs to be developed which were a cause of concern as they involved nudity. In the light of all the issues which had arisen, the Society decided to get him out of the UK before he was arrested. He was immediately sent to Ireland.
Ireland, 1992 - 1996
16.34 The superior of the Society in the UK wrote to the Society in Ireland saying that Fr Maguire should be formally suspended in order to remove “the priestly safety net”, that his counsellor described him as a “walking time bomb” and that the Columbans should have a written policy on child sexual abusers. He also said that the family of the children involved in the photographs (who were in Ireland) should be informed. This is the first time in the lengthy dealings with Fr Maguire that some concern is expressed for the safety of children.
16.35 The reports from the therapeutic facility at this stage were very clear that Fr Maguire was a risk to children and should not be allowed any pastoral ministry. It was very clear that he used his pastoral role to gain access to victims and to groom families of potential victims. The therapeutic facility recommended that he be placed in a residential treatment programme.
16.36 The council of the Society in the UK formally recommended to its Irish equivalent that Fr Maguire have residential treatment for his paedophilia and be compulsorily suspended from the priesthood until further notice. The UK Society head noted that:
“As far as I can work out, on three occasions the Society has recommended PM for pastoral work when as a Society we have collectively had sufficient knowledge to have known better and not to have appointed him to a parish or hospital. Maybe for lack of knowledge of all the facts from Japan, Ireland and England, PM was allowed back into ministry, with I am sad to say disastrous consequences, damaging people and leaving us in a delicate situation with both the Archdioceses of Westminster and Birmingham”.
16.37 It is not clear if he was aware that they were also “in a delicate situation” with a number of dioceses in Ireland.
16.38 In December 1992, Fr Maguire was living in one of the Society‟s houses in Ireland and his liturgical and pastoral activity was restricted to there. He could stay a night away from there very occasionally but only with specific permission. He could be away during the day but was required to inform the local superior and to be back by midnight. He could ask for permission to say mass for his family or officiate at funerals or weddings. He was allowed go to his family home for an occasional overnight stay during which his brother was to accept responsibility for him. The local parish priest in his home area was informed and told that Fr Maguire was forbidden to say mass, even in an emergency. Fr Maguire started individual and group therapy in Dublin. The Society in the UK was concerned that he had not been suspended. In general, the head of the Society in the UK seemed to be more conscious of the risk Fr Maguire presented than was his Irish counterpart.
16.39 The local bishop was not told in writing of Fr Maguire‟s problems or of his presence in his diocese but the Society told the Commission that he may have been told informally as he was a regular visitor to this house at the time.
In fact, the local bishop has told the Commission that he was briefed on a number of occasions on developments in the case and on the ongoing arrangements for supervision and monitoring. He said (in 2009) that he was and continues to be satisfied with the arrangements. Neither the Archbishop of Dublin nor the Bishop of Raphoe was informed of the complaints or of Fr Maguire‟s whereabouts.
16.40 The Society developed a Policy on Sexual Abuse of Minors – it got final approval in September 1994. This included provision for on-going education for members on the nature of sexual abuse and its effects on minors and also included a provision that candidates for membership would undergo psychological testing. This would seek to identify tendencies to paedophilia and ephebophilia61.
16.41 In 1994, complaints were made to the Society about abuse which had occurred in Ireland in 1977. The complainants were told that Fr Maguire was no longer in ministry and did not have access to children. They were also encouraged by the Society to lodge a complaint with the Gardaí.
16.42 In 1995, it was clear that Fr Maguire was not abiding by the restrictions imposed. A local priest reported to the Society that he was concerned that Fr Maguire was staying in his own accommodation at his brother‟s place and that he might have a relationship with a 15-year-old boy. The Society forbade Fr Maguire to stay overnight away from the Society house. The Society in the UK expressed concern at the fact that Fr Maguire was celebrating private masses in his home parish and had organised a holiday for a family from the UK including children under 16. The Society in the UK wrote:
“My motives for writing come only from a genuine concern for possible victims as well as for the good name of our Society. If anything serious became public and the Society was found in any way negligent, and in my judgment we have been on various occasions down through the years, then the result, with regard to the financial support given to the Columbans by our benefactors, both in Ireland and Britain, would in my opinion be catastrophic […]”.
16.43 The UK regional director clearly had a good understanding of Fr Maguire‟s methods. Fr Maguire was quite annoyed at what he saw as the unjust assumption that he was abusing the boy. The Society visited the family of the boy who had stayed with Fr Maguire and the family had no complaints. The local health board was informed of the situation by the Society. In September 1995, the restrictions were more stringently imposed.
16.44 In 1996, complaints of abuse from the Raphoe diocese were made to Monsignor Stenson, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Dublin and to the Society. Monsignor Stenson reported the complaints to the Society. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that Fr Maguire‟s name had not registered in his memory and he had made no connection between this complaint and the 1983 Fr Carney complaint. The Society informed the Gardaí and the local bishop.
Further treatment, admissions and arrest, 1997
16.45 The Society started a canon law investigation of the Raphoe complaints. Fr Maguire was placed under further restrictions including being forbidden to drive, to stay away from the Society house or to holiday abroad. He was sent to another therapeutic facility in the UK for assessment and treatment; this went on for over a year and was quite expensive. It was during this treatment that he admitted to the range of child sexual abuse offences which are listed above.
16.46 The Society started to build up a full profile of Fr Maguire. It was recognised that, because he had moved between provinces, no one in the Society seemed to know the full story. In fact, the Society told the Commission that the first time all the documentation which it has in relation to Fr Maguire was brought together in one location was in preparation for the work of this Commission.
16.47 As information was gathered from the various superiors who had dealt with Fr Maguire, it did become clear that none of them had full knowledge of all the complaints and suspicions which had been reported; each had a certain amount of knowledge. A number of members of the Society who were, nominally at least, Fr Maguire‟s superiors, said in 1997 that they were not aware of the problem for which Fr Maguire was being sent for treatment. The general view of the people who did know about some of the complaints was that his behaviour was “imprudent”. The superior who had recommended Fr Maguire to the Archdiocese of Dublin, wrote: “Even in the 1970s it was regarded as contrary to the rule of charity to put in writing details of a member‟s sexual misbehaviour. When there were such incidents they were shared by word-of-mouth between as few as possible in authority”. He said he should not have highly recommended Fr Maguire to the Archbishop of Dublin because he found him difficult and contrary but that he did so because of positive medical reports and not knowing why he had been removed from the diocese of Raphoe. He also said that he did not know about the incidents in Japan, Raphoe, the UK and Dublin until 1995. He also did not know why Fr Maguire had been sent to Stroud, although he was his local superior and visited him there: “since no information was proffered to me, I respected the confidentiality of the case”. Others referred to similar considerations of confidentiality. The Society‟s structure also meant that information was kept in different locations, for example, the central headquarters in Ireland is separate from the Irish regional headquarters and separate files were kept in each place.
16.48 Fr Maguire was arrested while at the therapeutic facility in July 1997 and charged with indecent assault in relation to incidents in 1976 and 1977 in the UK. He remained in the facility while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, a garda investigation had been proceeding in Ireland. Fr Maguire told his superior while he was awaiting trial in the UK in 1997 that 100 cases could be expected if his name became public in Ireland.
16.49 When he was arrested in the UK, the Society informed the dioceses in Ireland in which he had served, including the Archdiocese of Dublin. The Society told the Archdiocese that there had been a complaint in respect of Fr Maguire‟s time in the Archdiocese and that it had documentation about the 1984 meeting.
16.50 The young men, who, as boys, had been involved in the first complaint to the Archdiocese (in 1979) made a complaint to the Gardaí and wrote to the Archdiocese to find out why their mother‟s complaint in 1979 had not been investigated and why no action had been taken in respect of Fr Maguire.
16.51 The Society withdrew Fr Maguire‟s faculties to hear confession, offer a public mass and preach. It contacted all the relevant health boards in Ireland and had meetings with the director of community care and senior social workers in the health board area where he had been recently living.
16.52 The Archdiocese of Dublin tried to establish what had happened in relation to the 1979 and 1984 complaints to them. The chancellor, Monsignor John Dolan, spoke to the priest to whom the 1979 complaint was made and he outlined what he had been told and what he had done. The Columbans told Monsignor Dolan that they had no record of the 1979 complaint. Monsignor Dolan then told the young men involved that there was no record of the complaint. Fr Maguire admitted to abusing the boys involved in the 1979 complaint.
16.53 The Society raised the question of voluntary laicisation with Fr Maguire while he was awaiting his trial in the UK. The Society encouraged him to plead guilty. He was told that the Society had empathy for him but it was being open with the civil authorities and that “there was and will not be any cover-up”. The Society did co-operate with both the UK police and the Gardaí.
16.54 In October 1997, the Society told Fr Dolan that the relevant superior now wished to apologise to Archbishop Connell for highly recommending Fr Maguire to the Archdiocese. Fr Dolan, who knew very little about Fr Maguire‟s activities, assured the Society that there was no need as he considered that the superior had made the original recommendation in good faith. There was extensive communication between the solicitors for the Archdiocese and the solicitors for the Society at this time.
16.55 The Society continued to examine the question of laicisation. They were advised by a canon lawyer that “Compulsory Laicisation is a difficult path to take and Rome are reluctant to go along with it”.
UK conviction 1998
16.56 In June 1998, Fr Maguire pleaded guilty in the UK courts to four counts of indecent assault in 1976 and 1977 on two boys. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment – nine months to be served and nine months on licence.
16.57 When he was convicted, the Society in the UK issued a statement in which it expressed its regret. The statement included the following points:
“(2) In 1974, because of doubts that had arisen about PM, medical assessment and recommendations were sought in Ireland. The advice received was that he seemed to be improving and coming to terms with problems. In the report, future involvement with young people was not seen as a source of concern. With hindsight, this advice proved incorrect and, tragically, the significance of a more pessimistic medical opinion in 1976 was not always appreciated or sufficiently taken into account in the years following. (3) For the greater part of the time since then, PM has been assigned to internal posts which did not involve contact with young people. Because of the confidentiality observed in the handling of personal records, succeeding superiors were not always aware of the medical reports referred to above. As a result, PM was on occasions authorised to engage in pastoral work. In retrospect, the Society should have been more vigilant and we regret those failures in communication. We apologise unreservedly for the mistakes we have made”.
16.58 The Society in Ireland also issued a statement, in which it expressed its regret, reiterated the apology offered by the Society in the UK and gave a helpline number. It stated “For the past six years Patrick Maguire has been suspended from pastoral duties and may not now minister as a priest”.
16.59 In June 1998, Fr Maguire was assessed by the therapeutic facility as being at significant risk of re-offending.
Ireland: conviction and laicisation 1999 - 2008
16.60 Fr Maguire was released from prison in the UK in March 1999. He was immediately arrested and extradited to Ireland on ten charges of indecent assault and two charges of buggery. Two of the indecent assault charges related to the boys whose mother had complained in 1979. The Society provided the surety for bail. One of the conditions of the bail was that Fr Maguire live in a specified Society house. The Society laid down strict conditions which meant that he was not allowed to leave the grounds without being accompanied by another Society member and then only for specific purposes; he could not speak to anyone under the age of 20 and could not celebrate mass either publicly or privately.
16.61 In July 1999, the Society started the formal process of compulsory laicisation. The Society made it clear that it did not want to dismiss Fr Maguire from membership of the Society. It recognised that: “As the priesthood provides the principal access to children we have been advised that his laicisation would not only safeguard possible future victims but may also mean that if PM is found guilty of offences in Ireland he may receive a lighter sentence”. Archbishop Connell was informed and the process was handled by the Dublin Metropolitan Tribunal (see Chapter 4).
16.62 In January 2000, Fr Maguire pleaded guilty to ten charges of indecent assault – assaulting five boys in Sligo, Dublin and Louth from January 1972 to June 1980. The complainant who alleged buggery decided not to give evidence, so those charges were withdrawn. He was convicted in March 2000 and sentenced to six years imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently, with a review after three years with the possibility of release provided there were suitable therapeutic facilities available to receive him.
16.63 Another complaint emerged from Dublin in August 2000. A parent complained to the Gardaí but the young man did not follow up with a statement because he did not believe he could follow through with a prosecution and give evidence in court. The parent contacted the Society and reported that Fr Maguire had become very friendly with the family and particularly the son. The parent said that “comments were made by neighbours to the effect that the relationship was strange and had sexual overtones” but the parent “totally disbelieved this at the time”.
16.64 In September 2000, the Dublin Metropolitan Tribunal decided that Fr Maguire should be dismissed from the clerical state. He appealed to Rome on the grounds that he had not been fully informed of the specific charges against him or given adequate time or opportunity to defend himself. In June 2002, the Roman Rota tribunal decided that, rather than be dismissed from the clerical state, Fr Maguire should be suspended from the priesthood for nine years. The precise meaning of this decision was not totally clear to the Society or, indeed, to canon lawyers. It was not clear, for example, whether he would be allowed say mass privately. One canon lawyer took the view that the Society could still make its own decision about his fitness to exercise ministry. The Society has taken the view that the suspension precludes him from saying private masses. Fr Maguire considers that he is entitled to do so.
16.65 Fr Maguire was released from prison in March 2003 having served half of his sentence. The judge directed that he live in secure accommodation in the Society‟s house. There was some discussion about the conditions imposed by the judge and the conditions that the Society felt it could enforce. There are Church guidelines for religious groups who are accepting convicted sex offenders back into their communities.
16.66 In its report to the court dealing with post release supervision, the Probation and Welfare Service (PWS) reported that, among other things, they had met the superiors of the Society in the house where Fr Maguire was to live. The PWS recommended various supervision conditions including that Fr Maguire live under the care of the Society and that he comply with the directions of the Society.
16.67 The Society set up a circle of support and accountability. The PWS was involved in monitoring him. It was agreed in 2004 that he could work alone anywhere in the grounds and that he could visit Dublin twice a month, having given notice to his superiors. He was allowed to buy a car in February 2005.
16.68 In 2004, two boys from Dublin complained to the Gardaí that they had been abused by Fr Maguire in the late 1970s. Fr Maguire admitted that he had abused them. He was charged with indecent assault and convicted in February 2007. He received a three year sentence which was suspended for six years (until 2013) on condition that he remain under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service.
16.69 The Society of St Columban made civil settlements with a number of complainants in Ireland and the UK. None of these was from the Archdiocese of Dublin.
The Commission’s assessment
Church authorities
16.70 Complaints about Fr Maguire were handled very badly by his Society over a period of about 20 years. Specific complaints to the bishop of Raphoe in 1975, to a priest in the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1979 and to the Archbishop of Dublin in 1984 were also very badly handled. A number of complaints seem to have been largely ignored or avoided; in other cases, the response was to move him somewhere else. The Society knew at a relatively early stage - at least in 1974 - that there was a problem. The Society paid for extensive and expensive assessment and treatment for Fr Maguire between 1974 and 1996. However, for about 20 years, it did absolutely nothing to prevent his access to children. In a particularly disastrous move by the Society, he was assigned to go around Ireland promoting the Columbans. He did this by visiting schools and preaching at masses. This gave him access to every Catholic Church congregation and to every Catholic school in the country, in effect, to virtually every child in the country. He duly took advantage of that access. Several Church authorities in Ireland and the UK including the superiors of the Columbans and a number of bishops knew that he was an abuser but it was more than 20 years after the first complaint that appropriate action was taken to prevent his access to children. In recent years the Society has taken steps to ensure that he does not have access to children and is to be commended for supervising him and not expelling him from the Society.
16.71 The Society told the Commission that it “fully accepts that very serious mistakes were made” in its dealings with Fr Maguire. The Commission accepts that the structure of the Society militated against or, at least, did not facilitate co-ordinated handling of the problem. However, it appears that the culture of confidentiality, the over-arching concern for the welfare of the priest and the avoidance of scandal were the major contributory factors to the quite disastrous way in which this case was handled.
16.72 Archbishop Ryan was negligent in his dealings with Fr Maguire. It is not clear who precisely was at fault for the failure to deal with the first complaint to the Archdiocese in 1979 but it was someone from the Archdiocese. Archbishop Ryan‟s stated reason, as contemporaneously reported to the Society by his secretary, for not following up complaints received in 1984, that is, Fr Maguire‟s delicate position as secretary to the Superior-General, is quite shocking. It appears that Archbishop Ryan got different people within his administration to deal with child sexual abuse complaints as they arose and, as a result, no one person knew the extent of the problem. Bishop McFeely of Raphoe did report the problem accurately but dealt with it by having Fr Maguire removed as quickly as possible.
16.73 It is the Commission‟s view that the Society acted properly in seeking to laicise Fr Maguire while, at the same time, making it very clear that it intended to retain, maintain and supervise him as a member of the Society. The decision of the Roman Rota tribunal to change the decision of the Dublin Metropolitan Tribunal from dismissal from the clerical state to nine years suspension was, to put it at its mildest, unhelpful. It left the Society in a position where his precise status was unclear.
Communication between Church authorities
16.74 Prior to 1997, there was inadequate communication between the different parts of the Society. There was inadequate communication between the Society and the Archdiocese. The bishop of Raphoe, while he immediately removed the problem from his diocese, did clearly and unambiguously tell the Society what the problem was. However, through no fault of his, his letter was not made available to the relevant people in the Society who were supposed to be Fr Maguire‟s superiors.
State authorities
16.75 The Gardaí and the health boards acted appropriately in this case.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36175
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:16 am
Chapter 17: Fr Ioannes*62
Introduction
17.1 Fr Ioannes was born in 1927 and ordained in June 1953. He served in parishes in the Archdiocese from 1953 to 1988. He was in the USA from 1988 until 1993 when he was summoned home to deal with a complaint of child sexual abuse. He has not been in ministry since then.
17.2 The Commission is aware of three complaints of child sexual abuse and one of physical abuse against Fr Ioannes. These complaints all relate to incidents in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. He has admitted to sexually abusing three others but it is likely that there are more victims of both sexual and physical abuse. In 2009, he pleaded guilty to a number of charges. The Archdiocese has made a civil settlement with one victim and Fr Ioannes personally paid compensation to another.
First Complaint, 1974
17.3 The first complaint against Fr Ioannes was made in 1974. There are no records in the archdiocesan files about this complaint but there is no doubt that it was made. The complaint was made by the parents of a young boy.
17.4 The mother of the boy told the Commission that she and her husband discussed reporting the matter to the Gardaí at the time but decided against it in their son‟s interest. “It would have been better not to go to the guards because we never heard of anything like that before, neither of us and we thought that we were the only ones”. They also wanted to protect the priest: “in case it was scandal I suppose. That's the way we were instructed in those days, you didn't give scandal and we went out of our way not to let anybody know who it was”. They then decided that they had to report it to the Church in the interest of other children.
17.5 The parents complained to a local priest who wrote a letter to the Archbishop. This letter is not in the files of the Archdiocese but it was seen by the complainant‟s father. Monsignor Glennon was asked to investigate the matter. Monsignor Glennon met the boy‟s father. He then met Fr Ioannes.
He met the boy‟s father again and told him that Fr Ioannes admitted the allegations and wanted to meet the family. The parents did not want to meet him. Monsignor Glennon also told the parents that Fr Ioannes was being sent for treatment. The mother thinks this did not happen as she saw him locally very soon after. She did not tell anyone else about what had happened.
17.6 In fact, Fr Ioannes had been sent for a psychiatric assessment by Monsignor Glennon, but not for treatment. The psychiatrist was told that the allegation against Fr Ioannes was that he had taken an altar boy to the pictures and later to his room where he was alleged to have indulged in indecent behaviour and to have taken photographs. Monsignor Glennon had spoken to Fr Ioannes who had admitted that there had been some “handling of the organ”. Fr Ioannes told the psychiatrist that he had had no previous difficulties in his relationships with altar boys and “did not think anything like this could happen to me”. (This subsequently transpired to be untrue and Fr Ioannes later admitted that he had misled the psychiatrist). Based on what he was told and on his own evaluation, the psychiatrist reported that he could not find any evidence of serious psychiatric disorder or of any serious psycho-sexual maladjustment. He was of the opinion that the incident appeared to have been an isolated aberration.
Complaints of physical abuse, 1978
17.7 Sometime in 1978, complaints about Fr Ioannes behaving in a violent or aggressive manner were made to his parish priest. In one incident Fr Ioannes had knocked a young boy unconscious. The parish priest reported to the Archbishop who asked Bishop O‟Mahony to deal with the matter. The parish priest said that he thought that Fr Ioannes was subject to an uncontrollable impulse and had psychotic tendencies. He was aware of other incidents of violent/aggressive behaviour.
17.8 Bishop O‟Mahony sent Fr Ioannes back to the psychiatrist who had assessed him in 1974. Fr Ioannes attended the psychiatrist on several occasions between September and December 1978. Fr Ioannes assured him that there had not been any sexual problems since they had last met in 1974. The psychiatrist reported to Archbishop Ryan that Fr Ioannes had a tendency to act impulsively but, after acting impulsively, he recognised his aberration and tried to make amends. The psychiatrist was satisfied that “it should therefore be safe and in fact advisable” to leave Fr Ioannes where he was.
17.9 In 1979, Archbishop Ryan made inquiries about Fr Ioannes. His parish priest expressed concern that he was still behaving in an aggressive manner. Bishop O‟Mahony met Fr Ioannes and it was agreed that he would go back to the psychiatrist. Fr Ioannes saw the psychiatrist twice in 1980. It is clear from the reports that the issue being addressed was his aggressive behaviour and not child sexual abuse. There was further correspondence between the parish priest and the Archbishop over the next few years. In 1985, it seems that the parish priest thought that Fr Ioannes no longer had a major problem with aggression. Fr Ioannes expressed his disappointment at not being made a parish priest and he began to look for an appointment in the USA. He had done holiday work in the USA a few times.
17.10 In October 1986, his parish priest prepared a draft reference for use by the Archdiocese. This included information on his problems with aggression but did not mention the admitted incident of child sexual abuse in 1974. There is no evidence that the parish priest had any knowledge of the 1974 complaint, although it was known to the Archdiocese. The reference was sent by Archbishop McNamara to an American diocese. Fr Ioannes was not offered a position by this diocese.
San Diego, 1988
17.11 In June 1988, the Bishop of San Diego wrote to Archbishop Connell asking him for a reference in respect of Fr Ioannes. The reference which was sent described Fr Ioannes as “an excellent priest in many ways”. It did not mention the allegation of child sexual abuse or, indeed, the problems with aggressive behaviour. In a later letter about the practical details of the arrangements, the Archbishop recommended Fr Ioannes as “a priest in good standing.”
17.12 Fr Ioannes worked in San Diego from 1988 to 1992. On his return, Monsignor Stenson made inquiries about how he had fared in San Diego. The report was less than flattering but there was no suggestion of any child sexual abuse or aggressive behaviour. The Bishop of San Diego did not want him back.
Seattle
17.13 Fr Ioannes then sought an appointment in the archdiocese of Seattle. This diocese asked the Archdiocese of Dublin for a comprehensive letter of recommendation indicating, among other things, that he “is a priest in good standing, and there has never been any charge of misconduct against him. Please also indicate that you do not know of any behaviour on his part that could cause scandal in your diocese, or in the Archdiocese of Seattle, if it were to become publicly known”.
17.14 In June 1992, Monsignor Stenson replied to the Archbishop of Seattle stating that Fr Ioannes was a priest in good standing but there was no mention of misconduct or scandal. A further letter from Seattle in July 1992 asked for a description and some examples of Fr Ioannes‟s “relationships with others: men, women, youth, children”. The letter continued: “Did you ever hear any criticism about the way he relates with others? Have questions, rumor regarding celibacy or his relationship with others been raised? If so please explain”. In reply, Monsignor Stenson said that, in the past, there had been some outbursts of temper with altar boys but “there has never been any suggestion whatever of improper or immoral behaviour”.
Civil claim, 1993
17.15 In March 1993, the boy involved in the 1974 complaint, who was now a young man, started a civil claim against the Archdiocese and Fr Ioannes. He alleged that the sexual abuse he suffered had included buggery. Fr Ioannes was asked to come home from Seattle to deal with the allegation. He was referred to Dr Patrick Walsh, director of psychological services, Hospitaller Order of St John of God. In his letter to Dr Walsh, Monsignor Stenson said:
“It appears now that he has had a history of paedophilia, beginning when a curate in […] with one boy. Subsequently, he had involvement with boys in [three other parishes]. As far as can be determined there have been five or six boys in all. All that was known to us up to very recently was one incident involving unseemly photographs of a boy and occasional outbursts of physical violence with altar boys.”
17.16 Monsignor Stenson had discovered this information when he attended a meeting with Fr Ioannes and the Archdiocesan solicitors. Fr Ioannes had told them that the first abuse had occurred around 1961 and the last abuse in 1986. He admitted that he had abused the 1974 complainant but denied that this had involved buggery. He had not told the psychiatrist about the pre-1974 incidents, either when being assessed in relation to that incident or when being assessed in respect of his unduly aggressive behaviour.
17.17 Fr Ioannes did not have an appointment in Dublin at this time. He was living with a religious order. He was removed from ministry and was made a beneficiary of the Clerical Fund Society (see Chapter 8).
17.18 Dr Walsh issued a report in June 1993. Fr Ioannes had admitted abusing four boys. Dr Walsh considered that, because of his tendency to deny and minimise, it was safer to leave open the possibility that he may have abused others. He concluded that Fr Ioannes would require a therapeutic programme which would need to involve some residential component and eventually a long term plan for the future.
17.19 Fr Ioannes continued to live with the religious order. Suggestions that he be appointed to a limited ministry were rejected by Archbishop Connell.
17.20 Fr Ioannes paid compensation to the 1974 complainant in July 1993. The claim against the Archdiocese was withdrawn.
Garda investigation, 1994
17.21 In March 1994 the young man who had first complained in 1974 and who had reached the civil settlement in 1993 made a complaint to the Gardaí. He described how the complaint had been made in 1974 and his subsequent dealings with Fr Ioannes and the Archdiocese. He also complained that he had been indecently assaulted by a priest who his family thought was involved in investigating the complaint against Fr Ioannes. This priest was Fr Dominic Savio Boland (see Chapter 32).
17.22 The Gardaí contacted Monsignor Stenson who gave them Fr Ioannes‟s address. Fr Ioannes was arrested in May 1994. He declined to comment on the allegations. The Gardaí interviewed Monsignor Stenson who told them that he “was not at liberty as Chancellor to disclose what files we may or may not have on individual priests”. The garda investigations concluded that the complainant was genuine and sincere in his complaint. It was noted by the Gardaí that Fr Ioannes and the Church authorities had offered little or no assistance to the Garda investigation. In August 1994, the DPP decided not to prosecute. The DPP‟s office stated that “This Office is not prepared to look beyond the delay aspect” in the case. The complainant was described as being “guilty of wholly unjustified and excessive delay as far as a criminal charge is concerned and his allegations cannot now be considered”.
17.23 Meanwhile, Fr Ioannes was attending Dr Walsh for individual therapy. Dr Walsh reported in December 1994 that it might be possible for Fr Ioannes to be appointed to a chaplaincy under certain conditions. Consideration was again given to finding a limited ministry for Fr Ioannes. In February 1995 Monsignor Stenson consulted Dr Walsh about a possible appointment to a parish. Dr Walsh did not think this was advisable. Before any decision was made on an appointment to a convent or hostel, another complaint was received.
Second complaint, 1995
17.24 Another young man made a complaint to the Gardaí in October 1995. His initial statement was misplaced or lost. He alleged that he had been sexually abused by Fr Ioannes during the late 1970s/early 1980s.
17.25 Around this time there was media coverage of the civil settlement which Fr Ioannes had made in 1993. Both Fr Ioannes and the complainant were named in the media. The Archdiocese issued a statement explaining that the settlement had been paid by the priest and not by the Archdiocese. It seems that Fr Ioannes moved out of the religious order‟s house where he was living when the story broke.
17.26 The Gardaí were unable to contact Fr Ioannes. They were told – it is not clear by whom – that he had been sent to live in St John of God‟s. This was not the case. According to the Garda files, they contacted St John of God‟s and were told that Fr Ioannes had gone to the USA for treatment. St. John of God‟s was requested to contact the Gardaí when Fr Ioannes returned from the USA. St John of God‟s has no record of this interaction with the Gardaí and told the Commission that this request was “not formalised to the superior of the house”.
17.27 Fr Ioannes had admitted to abusing the young man who made this criminal complaint when he made admissions to Monsignor Stenson and the archdiocesan legal advisors in 1993. Nothing further happened.
17.28 In late 2002, the complainant looked for information on the state of the investigation. As the original statement had been mislaid, a new statement of complaint was taken in January 2003. He stated that there were about six incidents of abuse over a three-year period when he was between 11 and 14 years old. The abuse involved fondling of the genitals.
17.29 In November 1995, Fr Ioannes‟s name was one of the 17 given to the Gardaí by the Archdiocese (see Chapter 5).
1996
17.30 From November 1995 to May 1996, Fr Ioannes was in a therapeutic facility in the USA. In February 1996, this facility reported that Fr Ioannes was “making excellent progress” and “possesses a good level of insight to have realized these psychological dynamics”. It was recommended that he remain in treatment so as not to lose “his current therapeutic momentum”. In March 1996, Fr Ioannes wrote to Archbishop Connell asking questions about his future. He said that he wished to serve as chaplain to a nursing home and suggested that he remain in the therapeutic facility to prepare for retirement. In March 1996, the facility said that Fr Ioannes continued to make progress and had been encouraged to write and seek a limited ministry.
17.31 The second complainant, whose complaint to the Gardaí ran into the sand when the Gardaí were told that Fr Ioannes had been transferred to a therapeutic centre in the USA, began a civil claim against the Archdiocese in April 1996. The Archdiocese told the therapeutic facility that “it would be very unwise to give [Fr Ioannes] any kind of limited pastoral assignment on his return”.
17.32 In June 1996, the therapeutic facility, in a somewhat surprising development, having regard to its earlier reports, stated that Fr Ioannes was a “fixated pedophile” and recommended that he attend individual therapy once a week for some time. The Archbishop was advised to identify someone from his office to whom Fr Ioannes would be accountable. The conclusion was that, if his internal work was supported by external supports, the likelihood of his re-offending “is almost nil”.
17.33 Fr Ioannes returned from the USA in June 1996 and, at the request of the Archdiocese, was given temporary accommodation in the St John of God‟s community house in the hospital grounds. The Gardaí were not notified by St John of God‟s. The Archdiocese did not know the Gardaí were looking for him at this stage. The advisory panel advised the Archbishop that Fr Ioannes should be requested to maintain a low profile. When it came to the attention of the advisory panel later that month that Fr Ioannes had left his supervised accommodation and that his whereabouts were unknown, it advised that the Gardaí be notified immediately. Fr Ioannes wrote to Archbishop Connell in respect of his hasty departure and requested leave of absence for a year. It appears that efforts were being made by the Archdiocese to contact Fr Ioannes. In early July 1996, the Gardaí were notified that he had left Ireland. The Archdiocese withdrew his financial support in August 1996.
1997
17.34 In July 1997 Fr Ioannes contacted Monsignor Stenson setting out his reasons for fleeing and promising to return and co-operate fully. When he returned to Ireland he again lived at the community centre in St John of God‟s. It was decided that Dr Walsh of the Granada Institute would resume responsibility for his therapy and that Fr Ioannes himself would contact the Gardaí to advise of his return. Monsignor Dolan wrote to the Gardaí to tell them of his return. Unfortunately, the Gardaí did not pursue their inquiries into the second complainant‟s complaint at this time. It appears that the original investigating garda had retired and, somehow, the file on the complaint was lost. The Archdiocese reinstated financial support for Fr Ioannes in August 1997.
17.35 In October 1997, the issue of Fr Ioannes‟s aftercare was discussed. He was adamant that it was within the remit of the USA therapeutic facility but the Archdiocese had made a decision to put the Granada Institute in charge. This meeting became fraught and ended with an agreement that Monsignor Dolan would contact the USA facility to indicate what the Archdiocese had decided and to request their help. Accommodation was found for Fr Ioannes in an apartment which was previously occupied by Fr Ivan Payne (see Chapter 24). When Fr Ioannes found out that the furniture in the apartment had been previously owned by Fr Payne, he demanded that it be removed and fresh furniture obtained. The Archdiocese agreed to this request. He lived alone in the apartment. A support team was put in place and he was to remain in touch with the Archdiocese. He was treated as a retired priest. He remained there until October 2002.
17.36 In April 2002, the diocese of San Diego issued a statement to RTE in which it quoted Archbishop Connell‟s 1988 recommendation of Fr Ioannes. In October 2002, the Archdiocese issued a statement about this. The Archdiocese said that when Archbishop Connell gave the recommendation to the diocese of San Diego in 1988, he had no knowledge of the 1974 complaint. There was no record of such a complaint in the Archdiocesan files. The statement accepted that the absence of a record was a serious deficiency. The Prime Time programme Cardinal Secrets was transmitted in October 2002 and featured the story of Fr Ioannes. Fr Ioannes left the country just before the programme was transmitted.
Physical abuse complaint
17.37 In November 2002, another complaint was made. This time the complainant was the young man who had been seriously physically assaulted by Fr Ioannes in 1978 and about whom the parish priest had reported to the Archdiocese. The young man said that the incident occurred around March or April 1978. Fr Ioannes had kicked and punched him causing him to lose consciousness. He was seen by his GP at the time and was off school for a week. The parish priest had visited him. His father had gone to the garda station to make a complaint but, having had a conversation with a sergeant he knew there, it was decided not to pursue the matter.
17.38 Once again, the Gardaí could not contact Fr Ioannes because he had left the country. Various attempts were made by the Archdiocese to try to find him. His diocesan allowance was cut off in January 2003.
17.39 In January 2003, the second complainant made a fresh statement to the Gardaí as his original statement could not be found. His brother also made a statement alleging that he had been sexually abused by Fr Ioannes.
17.40 Fr Ioannes returned to Dublin in August 2003 and took up residence at his previous accommodation. He agreed to be interviewed by the Gardaí but did not turn up. He went to Bundoran towards the end of August 2003 and then went abroad again.
17.41 He returned to Dublin in 2008. In May 2009, just as this report was being finalised, he pleaded guilty to a number of charges of sexual assault.
The Commission’s assessment
Archdiocese
17.42 The handling of the initial complaint in 1974 was quite simply disastrous and typical of its time. Nothing was done even though Fr Ioannes admitted his guilt. He was free to commit other offences and this he duly did. The failure to do anything was compounded by the failure to maintain any proper record of the complaint.
17.43 All of the letters recommending Fr Ioannes to dioceses in the USA in the 1980s either do not mention or gloss over the problem of his violence and aggression.
17.44 Cardinal Connell has stated that he had no knowledge of the 1974 complaint when he wrote the reference for the bishop of San Diego in 1988. The Commission accepts that this is so. The details of that complaint and the report of the psychiatrist were not in the archives. A copy of the psychiatrist‟s report was provided to the Archdiocese in 1993.
17.45 The Commission also accepts that Monsignor Stenson had no knowledge of the 1974 complaint when he wrote to the Archbishop of Seattle. It is notable that the diocese of Seattle was, in 1992, diligent in looking for detailed information about priests coming to work there. Effectively, that diocese did force the Dublin Archdiocese to admit the problems about physical aggression.
Gardaí
17.46 The Gardaí dealt properly with the 1994 complaint. However, the Garda handling of the 1995 complaint was most unsatisfactory. The prosecution of the investigation was haphazard and desultory. The statement made by the complainant appears to have been lost and no attempt to redress the situation was made until the complainant returned to the Gardaí to inquire as to the status of the investigation in 2002. No steps were taken on either of the occasions when Fr Ioannes returned to the country, even though the Gardaí were notified of his presence by the Archdiocese. Despite the re-activation of the complaint in 2002/2003, Fr Ioannes lived in Ireland untroubled by the law for a considerable period before he left the jurisdiction.
Introduction
17.1 Fr Ioannes was born in 1927 and ordained in June 1953. He served in parishes in the Archdiocese from 1953 to 1988. He was in the USA from 1988 until 1993 when he was summoned home to deal with a complaint of child sexual abuse. He has not been in ministry since then.
17.2 The Commission is aware of three complaints of child sexual abuse and one of physical abuse against Fr Ioannes. These complaints all relate to incidents in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. He has admitted to sexually abusing three others but it is likely that there are more victims of both sexual and physical abuse. In 2009, he pleaded guilty to a number of charges. The Archdiocese has made a civil settlement with one victim and Fr Ioannes personally paid compensation to another.
First Complaint, 1974
17.3 The first complaint against Fr Ioannes was made in 1974. There are no records in the archdiocesan files about this complaint but there is no doubt that it was made. The complaint was made by the parents of a young boy.
17.4 The mother of the boy told the Commission that she and her husband discussed reporting the matter to the Gardaí at the time but decided against it in their son‟s interest. “It would have been better not to go to the guards because we never heard of anything like that before, neither of us and we thought that we were the only ones”. They also wanted to protect the priest: “in case it was scandal I suppose. That's the way we were instructed in those days, you didn't give scandal and we went out of our way not to let anybody know who it was”. They then decided that they had to report it to the Church in the interest of other children.
17.5 The parents complained to a local priest who wrote a letter to the Archbishop. This letter is not in the files of the Archdiocese but it was seen by the complainant‟s father. Monsignor Glennon was asked to investigate the matter. Monsignor Glennon met the boy‟s father. He then met Fr Ioannes.
He met the boy‟s father again and told him that Fr Ioannes admitted the allegations and wanted to meet the family. The parents did not want to meet him. Monsignor Glennon also told the parents that Fr Ioannes was being sent for treatment. The mother thinks this did not happen as she saw him locally very soon after. She did not tell anyone else about what had happened.
17.6 In fact, Fr Ioannes had been sent for a psychiatric assessment by Monsignor Glennon, but not for treatment. The psychiatrist was told that the allegation against Fr Ioannes was that he had taken an altar boy to the pictures and later to his room where he was alleged to have indulged in indecent behaviour and to have taken photographs. Monsignor Glennon had spoken to Fr Ioannes who had admitted that there had been some “handling of the organ”. Fr Ioannes told the psychiatrist that he had had no previous difficulties in his relationships with altar boys and “did not think anything like this could happen to me”. (This subsequently transpired to be untrue and Fr Ioannes later admitted that he had misled the psychiatrist). Based on what he was told and on his own evaluation, the psychiatrist reported that he could not find any evidence of serious psychiatric disorder or of any serious psycho-sexual maladjustment. He was of the opinion that the incident appeared to have been an isolated aberration.
Complaints of physical abuse, 1978
17.7 Sometime in 1978, complaints about Fr Ioannes behaving in a violent or aggressive manner were made to his parish priest. In one incident Fr Ioannes had knocked a young boy unconscious. The parish priest reported to the Archbishop who asked Bishop O‟Mahony to deal with the matter. The parish priest said that he thought that Fr Ioannes was subject to an uncontrollable impulse and had psychotic tendencies. He was aware of other incidents of violent/aggressive behaviour.
17.8 Bishop O‟Mahony sent Fr Ioannes back to the psychiatrist who had assessed him in 1974. Fr Ioannes attended the psychiatrist on several occasions between September and December 1978. Fr Ioannes assured him that there had not been any sexual problems since they had last met in 1974. The psychiatrist reported to Archbishop Ryan that Fr Ioannes had a tendency to act impulsively but, after acting impulsively, he recognised his aberration and tried to make amends. The psychiatrist was satisfied that “it should therefore be safe and in fact advisable” to leave Fr Ioannes where he was.
17.9 In 1979, Archbishop Ryan made inquiries about Fr Ioannes. His parish priest expressed concern that he was still behaving in an aggressive manner. Bishop O‟Mahony met Fr Ioannes and it was agreed that he would go back to the psychiatrist. Fr Ioannes saw the psychiatrist twice in 1980. It is clear from the reports that the issue being addressed was his aggressive behaviour and not child sexual abuse. There was further correspondence between the parish priest and the Archbishop over the next few years. In 1985, it seems that the parish priest thought that Fr Ioannes no longer had a major problem with aggression. Fr Ioannes expressed his disappointment at not being made a parish priest and he began to look for an appointment in the USA. He had done holiday work in the USA a few times.
17.10 In October 1986, his parish priest prepared a draft reference for use by the Archdiocese. This included information on his problems with aggression but did not mention the admitted incident of child sexual abuse in 1974. There is no evidence that the parish priest had any knowledge of the 1974 complaint, although it was known to the Archdiocese. The reference was sent by Archbishop McNamara to an American diocese. Fr Ioannes was not offered a position by this diocese.
San Diego, 1988
17.11 In June 1988, the Bishop of San Diego wrote to Archbishop Connell asking him for a reference in respect of Fr Ioannes. The reference which was sent described Fr Ioannes as “an excellent priest in many ways”. It did not mention the allegation of child sexual abuse or, indeed, the problems with aggressive behaviour. In a later letter about the practical details of the arrangements, the Archbishop recommended Fr Ioannes as “a priest in good standing.”
17.12 Fr Ioannes worked in San Diego from 1988 to 1992. On his return, Monsignor Stenson made inquiries about how he had fared in San Diego. The report was less than flattering but there was no suggestion of any child sexual abuse or aggressive behaviour. The Bishop of San Diego did not want him back.
Seattle
17.13 Fr Ioannes then sought an appointment in the archdiocese of Seattle. This diocese asked the Archdiocese of Dublin for a comprehensive letter of recommendation indicating, among other things, that he “is a priest in good standing, and there has never been any charge of misconduct against him. Please also indicate that you do not know of any behaviour on his part that could cause scandal in your diocese, or in the Archdiocese of Seattle, if it were to become publicly known”.
17.14 In June 1992, Monsignor Stenson replied to the Archbishop of Seattle stating that Fr Ioannes was a priest in good standing but there was no mention of misconduct or scandal. A further letter from Seattle in July 1992 asked for a description and some examples of Fr Ioannes‟s “relationships with others: men, women, youth, children”. The letter continued: “Did you ever hear any criticism about the way he relates with others? Have questions, rumor regarding celibacy or his relationship with others been raised? If so please explain”. In reply, Monsignor Stenson said that, in the past, there had been some outbursts of temper with altar boys but “there has never been any suggestion whatever of improper or immoral behaviour”.
Civil claim, 1993
17.15 In March 1993, the boy involved in the 1974 complaint, who was now a young man, started a civil claim against the Archdiocese and Fr Ioannes. He alleged that the sexual abuse he suffered had included buggery. Fr Ioannes was asked to come home from Seattle to deal with the allegation. He was referred to Dr Patrick Walsh, director of psychological services, Hospitaller Order of St John of God. In his letter to Dr Walsh, Monsignor Stenson said:
“It appears now that he has had a history of paedophilia, beginning when a curate in […] with one boy. Subsequently, he had involvement with boys in [three other parishes]. As far as can be determined there have been five or six boys in all. All that was known to us up to very recently was one incident involving unseemly photographs of a boy and occasional outbursts of physical violence with altar boys.”
17.16 Monsignor Stenson had discovered this information when he attended a meeting with Fr Ioannes and the Archdiocesan solicitors. Fr Ioannes had told them that the first abuse had occurred around 1961 and the last abuse in 1986. He admitted that he had abused the 1974 complainant but denied that this had involved buggery. He had not told the psychiatrist about the pre-1974 incidents, either when being assessed in relation to that incident or when being assessed in respect of his unduly aggressive behaviour.
17.17 Fr Ioannes did not have an appointment in Dublin at this time. He was living with a religious order. He was removed from ministry and was made a beneficiary of the Clerical Fund Society (see Chapter 8).
17.18 Dr Walsh issued a report in June 1993. Fr Ioannes had admitted abusing four boys. Dr Walsh considered that, because of his tendency to deny and minimise, it was safer to leave open the possibility that he may have abused others. He concluded that Fr Ioannes would require a therapeutic programme which would need to involve some residential component and eventually a long term plan for the future.
17.19 Fr Ioannes continued to live with the religious order. Suggestions that he be appointed to a limited ministry were rejected by Archbishop Connell.
17.20 Fr Ioannes paid compensation to the 1974 complainant in July 1993. The claim against the Archdiocese was withdrawn.
Garda investigation, 1994
17.21 In March 1994 the young man who had first complained in 1974 and who had reached the civil settlement in 1993 made a complaint to the Gardaí. He described how the complaint had been made in 1974 and his subsequent dealings with Fr Ioannes and the Archdiocese. He also complained that he had been indecently assaulted by a priest who his family thought was involved in investigating the complaint against Fr Ioannes. This priest was Fr Dominic Savio Boland (see Chapter 32).
17.22 The Gardaí contacted Monsignor Stenson who gave them Fr Ioannes‟s address. Fr Ioannes was arrested in May 1994. He declined to comment on the allegations. The Gardaí interviewed Monsignor Stenson who told them that he “was not at liberty as Chancellor to disclose what files we may or may not have on individual priests”. The garda investigations concluded that the complainant was genuine and sincere in his complaint. It was noted by the Gardaí that Fr Ioannes and the Church authorities had offered little or no assistance to the Garda investigation. In August 1994, the DPP decided not to prosecute. The DPP‟s office stated that “This Office is not prepared to look beyond the delay aspect” in the case. The complainant was described as being “guilty of wholly unjustified and excessive delay as far as a criminal charge is concerned and his allegations cannot now be considered”.
17.23 Meanwhile, Fr Ioannes was attending Dr Walsh for individual therapy. Dr Walsh reported in December 1994 that it might be possible for Fr Ioannes to be appointed to a chaplaincy under certain conditions. Consideration was again given to finding a limited ministry for Fr Ioannes. In February 1995 Monsignor Stenson consulted Dr Walsh about a possible appointment to a parish. Dr Walsh did not think this was advisable. Before any decision was made on an appointment to a convent or hostel, another complaint was received.
Second complaint, 1995
17.24 Another young man made a complaint to the Gardaí in October 1995. His initial statement was misplaced or lost. He alleged that he had been sexually abused by Fr Ioannes during the late 1970s/early 1980s.
17.25 Around this time there was media coverage of the civil settlement which Fr Ioannes had made in 1993. Both Fr Ioannes and the complainant were named in the media. The Archdiocese issued a statement explaining that the settlement had been paid by the priest and not by the Archdiocese. It seems that Fr Ioannes moved out of the religious order‟s house where he was living when the story broke.
17.26 The Gardaí were unable to contact Fr Ioannes. They were told – it is not clear by whom – that he had been sent to live in St John of God‟s. This was not the case. According to the Garda files, they contacted St John of God‟s and were told that Fr Ioannes had gone to the USA for treatment. St. John of God‟s was requested to contact the Gardaí when Fr Ioannes returned from the USA. St John of God‟s has no record of this interaction with the Gardaí and told the Commission that this request was “not formalised to the superior of the house”.
17.27 Fr Ioannes had admitted to abusing the young man who made this criminal complaint when he made admissions to Monsignor Stenson and the archdiocesan legal advisors in 1993. Nothing further happened.
17.28 In late 2002, the complainant looked for information on the state of the investigation. As the original statement had been mislaid, a new statement of complaint was taken in January 2003. He stated that there were about six incidents of abuse over a three-year period when he was between 11 and 14 years old. The abuse involved fondling of the genitals.
17.29 In November 1995, Fr Ioannes‟s name was one of the 17 given to the Gardaí by the Archdiocese (see Chapter 5).
1996
17.30 From November 1995 to May 1996, Fr Ioannes was in a therapeutic facility in the USA. In February 1996, this facility reported that Fr Ioannes was “making excellent progress” and “possesses a good level of insight to have realized these psychological dynamics”. It was recommended that he remain in treatment so as not to lose “his current therapeutic momentum”. In March 1996, Fr Ioannes wrote to Archbishop Connell asking questions about his future. He said that he wished to serve as chaplain to a nursing home and suggested that he remain in the therapeutic facility to prepare for retirement. In March 1996, the facility said that Fr Ioannes continued to make progress and had been encouraged to write and seek a limited ministry.
17.31 The second complainant, whose complaint to the Gardaí ran into the sand when the Gardaí were told that Fr Ioannes had been transferred to a therapeutic centre in the USA, began a civil claim against the Archdiocese in April 1996. The Archdiocese told the therapeutic facility that “it would be very unwise to give [Fr Ioannes] any kind of limited pastoral assignment on his return”.
17.32 In June 1996, the therapeutic facility, in a somewhat surprising development, having regard to its earlier reports, stated that Fr Ioannes was a “fixated pedophile” and recommended that he attend individual therapy once a week for some time. The Archbishop was advised to identify someone from his office to whom Fr Ioannes would be accountable. The conclusion was that, if his internal work was supported by external supports, the likelihood of his re-offending “is almost nil”.
17.33 Fr Ioannes returned from the USA in June 1996 and, at the request of the Archdiocese, was given temporary accommodation in the St John of God‟s community house in the hospital grounds. The Gardaí were not notified by St John of God‟s. The Archdiocese did not know the Gardaí were looking for him at this stage. The advisory panel advised the Archbishop that Fr Ioannes should be requested to maintain a low profile. When it came to the attention of the advisory panel later that month that Fr Ioannes had left his supervised accommodation and that his whereabouts were unknown, it advised that the Gardaí be notified immediately. Fr Ioannes wrote to Archbishop Connell in respect of his hasty departure and requested leave of absence for a year. It appears that efforts were being made by the Archdiocese to contact Fr Ioannes. In early July 1996, the Gardaí were notified that he had left Ireland. The Archdiocese withdrew his financial support in August 1996.
1997
17.34 In July 1997 Fr Ioannes contacted Monsignor Stenson setting out his reasons for fleeing and promising to return and co-operate fully. When he returned to Ireland he again lived at the community centre in St John of God‟s. It was decided that Dr Walsh of the Granada Institute would resume responsibility for his therapy and that Fr Ioannes himself would contact the Gardaí to advise of his return. Monsignor Dolan wrote to the Gardaí to tell them of his return. Unfortunately, the Gardaí did not pursue their inquiries into the second complainant‟s complaint at this time. It appears that the original investigating garda had retired and, somehow, the file on the complaint was lost. The Archdiocese reinstated financial support for Fr Ioannes in August 1997.
17.35 In October 1997, the issue of Fr Ioannes‟s aftercare was discussed. He was adamant that it was within the remit of the USA therapeutic facility but the Archdiocese had made a decision to put the Granada Institute in charge. This meeting became fraught and ended with an agreement that Monsignor Dolan would contact the USA facility to indicate what the Archdiocese had decided and to request their help. Accommodation was found for Fr Ioannes in an apartment which was previously occupied by Fr Ivan Payne (see Chapter 24). When Fr Ioannes found out that the furniture in the apartment had been previously owned by Fr Payne, he demanded that it be removed and fresh furniture obtained. The Archdiocese agreed to this request. He lived alone in the apartment. A support team was put in place and he was to remain in touch with the Archdiocese. He was treated as a retired priest. He remained there until October 2002.
17.36 In April 2002, the diocese of San Diego issued a statement to RTE in which it quoted Archbishop Connell‟s 1988 recommendation of Fr Ioannes. In October 2002, the Archdiocese issued a statement about this. The Archdiocese said that when Archbishop Connell gave the recommendation to the diocese of San Diego in 1988, he had no knowledge of the 1974 complaint. There was no record of such a complaint in the Archdiocesan files. The statement accepted that the absence of a record was a serious deficiency. The Prime Time programme Cardinal Secrets was transmitted in October 2002 and featured the story of Fr Ioannes. Fr Ioannes left the country just before the programme was transmitted.
Physical abuse complaint
17.37 In November 2002, another complaint was made. This time the complainant was the young man who had been seriously physically assaulted by Fr Ioannes in 1978 and about whom the parish priest had reported to the Archdiocese. The young man said that the incident occurred around March or April 1978. Fr Ioannes had kicked and punched him causing him to lose consciousness. He was seen by his GP at the time and was off school for a week. The parish priest had visited him. His father had gone to the garda station to make a complaint but, having had a conversation with a sergeant he knew there, it was decided not to pursue the matter.
17.38 Once again, the Gardaí could not contact Fr Ioannes because he had left the country. Various attempts were made by the Archdiocese to try to find him. His diocesan allowance was cut off in January 2003.
17.39 In January 2003, the second complainant made a fresh statement to the Gardaí as his original statement could not be found. His brother also made a statement alleging that he had been sexually abused by Fr Ioannes.
17.40 Fr Ioannes returned to Dublin in August 2003 and took up residence at his previous accommodation. He agreed to be interviewed by the Gardaí but did not turn up. He went to Bundoran towards the end of August 2003 and then went abroad again.
17.41 He returned to Dublin in 2008. In May 2009, just as this report was being finalised, he pleaded guilty to a number of charges of sexual assault.
The Commission’s assessment
Archdiocese
17.42 The handling of the initial complaint in 1974 was quite simply disastrous and typical of its time. Nothing was done even though Fr Ioannes admitted his guilt. He was free to commit other offences and this he duly did. The failure to do anything was compounded by the failure to maintain any proper record of the complaint.
17.43 All of the letters recommending Fr Ioannes to dioceses in the USA in the 1980s either do not mention or gloss over the problem of his violence and aggression.
17.44 Cardinal Connell has stated that he had no knowledge of the 1974 complaint when he wrote the reference for the bishop of San Diego in 1988. The Commission accepts that this is so. The details of that complaint and the report of the psychiatrist were not in the archives. A copy of the psychiatrist‟s report was provided to the Archdiocese in 1993.
17.45 The Commission also accepts that Monsignor Stenson had no knowledge of the 1974 complaint when he wrote to the Archbishop of Seattle. It is notable that the diocese of Seattle was, in 1992, diligent in looking for detailed information about priests coming to work there. Effectively, that diocese did force the Dublin Archdiocese to admit the problems about physical aggression.
Gardaí
17.46 The Gardaí dealt properly with the 1994 complaint. However, the Garda handling of the 1995 complaint was most unsatisfactory. The prosecution of the investigation was haphazard and desultory. The statement made by the complainant appears to have been lost and no attempt to redress the situation was made until the complainant returned to the Gardaí to inquire as to the status of the investigation in 2002. No steps were taken on either of the occasions when Fr Ioannes returned to the country, even though the Gardaí were notified of his presence by the Archdiocese. Despite the re-activation of the complaint in 2002/2003, Fr Ioannes lived in Ireland untroubled by the law for a considerable period before he left the jurisdiction.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36175
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Commission of Investigation: Report Into the Catholic Ar
by admin » Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:17 am
Chapter 18: Fr Tyrus*63
Introduction
18.1 Fr Tyrus was ordained in the 1960s and had a problem with celibacy from the start of his priesthood. He sought laicisation in the 1970s due to his inability to adhere to the obligations of celibacy.
Psychological report
18.2 Fr Tyrus was interviewed by a priest psychologist in the 1970s. The psychologist sent a report to Bishop O‟Mahony. The psychologist concluded:
“It would seem to me that [Fr Tyrus] has not at this time any final and total commitment to celibacy. It is also my opinion that his undertaking of celibacy in the first instance was in some sense, perhaps even unconsciously, a conditional undertaking… He told me that he was reprimanded by the Principal of a school in which he was teaching for his relationship with a seventeen year old, and he is currently deeply involved with a twenty-one year old. There were apparently other liaisons also. The most surprising aspect of his own accounts of these matters is his apparent lack of concern for the girls involved.” The psychologist expressed the view that the priest would not be able to sustain celibacy because of almost nine years of “rather frequent breaches”.
18.3 Following this meeting Fr Tyrus applied for and was given a year‟s leave of absence. During this time he applied for a job as a youth worker. In order to obtain this job he needed a reference and he approached Bishop O‟Mahony for this. Bishop O‟Mahony gave him one in which he said:
“I am happy to recommend [Fr Tyrus] as a person suitable for appointment; [Fr Tyrus] has wide experience in dealing with young people. I have no doubt he possesses the requisite qualities and personality for youth work. He should prove particularly successful in coping with young persons with serious behavioural and/or relationship problems”.
18.4 Subsequently, in April 1978 a public sector organisation wrote to Archbishop Ryan regarding Fr Tyrus‟s suitability to work in an area of the public services that was not related to youth work. The organisation supplied the Archbishop with a questionnaire to be completed. Bishop O‟Mahony advised the Archbishop to return the questionnaire unfilled and to inform the organisation that a reference would be supplied by him. Subsequently, Fr Tyrus was employed by this organisation.
18.5 In July 1978, Fr Tyrus sought to be laicised. His request for laicisation referred to his difficulty in keeping the vow of celibacy. One of his witnesses who gave evidence in the laicisation process referred to his relationship with girls. In 1980 his petition for laicisation was granted.
18.6 In 2007 the Child Protection Service notified the Gardaí and the HSE of Fr Tyrus‟s background. The Gardaí indicated that there was no evidence of behaviour of a criminal nature.
The Commission’s assessment
18.7 The Commission has grave concerns about the fact that Bishop O‟Mahony gave a reference about Fr Tyrus when he sought a job working with young people at a time when Bishop O‟Mahony was aware that Fr Tyrus had had a relationship with a 17-year-old girl when he was a teacher. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that there was nothing to indicate that the relationship with the 17 year old was a sexual one. The Commission considers that the description provided by the priest psychologist makes it abundantly clear that the relationship was sexual.
Chapter 19 64
19.1
19.2
19.3
19.4
19.5
19.6
19.7
19.8
19.9
19.10
19.11
19.12
19.13
19.14
19.15
19.16
19.17
19.18
19.19
19.20
19.21
19.22
19.23
19.24
19.25
19.26
19.27
19.28
19.29
19.30
19.31
19.32
19.33
19.34
19.35
19.36
19.37
19.38
19.39
19.40
19.41
19.42
19.43
19.44
19.45
19.46
19.47
19.48
19.49
19.50
19.51
19.52
19.53
19.54
19.55
19.56
19.57
19.58
19.59
19.60
19.61
19.62
19.63
19.64
19.65
19.66
19.67
19.68
19.69
19.70
19.71
19.72
19.73
19.74
19.75
19.76
19.77
19.78
19.79
19.80
19.81
19.82
19.83
19.84
19.85
19.86
19.87
19.88
19.89
19.90
19.91
19.92
19.93
19.94
19.95
19.96
19.97
19.98
19.99
19.100
19.101
19.102
19.103
19.104
19.105
19.106
19.107
19.108
19.109
19.110
19.111
19.112
19.113
19.114
19.115
19.116
19.117
19.118
19.119
19.120
19.121
19.122
19.123
19.124
19.125
19.126
19.127
19.128
Introduction
18.1 Fr Tyrus was ordained in the 1960s and had a problem with celibacy from the start of his priesthood. He sought laicisation in the 1970s due to his inability to adhere to the obligations of celibacy.
Psychological report
18.2 Fr Tyrus was interviewed by a priest psychologist in the 1970s. The psychologist sent a report to Bishop O‟Mahony. The psychologist concluded:
“It would seem to me that [Fr Tyrus] has not at this time any final and total commitment to celibacy. It is also my opinion that his undertaking of celibacy in the first instance was in some sense, perhaps even unconsciously, a conditional undertaking… He told me that he was reprimanded by the Principal of a school in which he was teaching for his relationship with a seventeen year old, and he is currently deeply involved with a twenty-one year old. There were apparently other liaisons also. The most surprising aspect of his own accounts of these matters is his apparent lack of concern for the girls involved.” The psychologist expressed the view that the priest would not be able to sustain celibacy because of almost nine years of “rather frequent breaches”.
18.3 Following this meeting Fr Tyrus applied for and was given a year‟s leave of absence. During this time he applied for a job as a youth worker. In order to obtain this job he needed a reference and he approached Bishop O‟Mahony for this. Bishop O‟Mahony gave him one in which he said:
“I am happy to recommend [Fr Tyrus] as a person suitable for appointment; [Fr Tyrus] has wide experience in dealing with young people. I have no doubt he possesses the requisite qualities and personality for youth work. He should prove particularly successful in coping with young persons with serious behavioural and/or relationship problems”.
18.4 Subsequently, in April 1978 a public sector organisation wrote to Archbishop Ryan regarding Fr Tyrus‟s suitability to work in an area of the public services that was not related to youth work. The organisation supplied the Archbishop with a questionnaire to be completed. Bishop O‟Mahony advised the Archbishop to return the questionnaire unfilled and to inform the organisation that a reference would be supplied by him. Subsequently, Fr Tyrus was employed by this organisation.
18.5 In July 1978, Fr Tyrus sought to be laicised. His request for laicisation referred to his difficulty in keeping the vow of celibacy. One of his witnesses who gave evidence in the laicisation process referred to his relationship with girls. In 1980 his petition for laicisation was granted.
18.6 In 2007 the Child Protection Service notified the Gardaí and the HSE of Fr Tyrus‟s background. The Gardaí indicated that there was no evidence of behaviour of a criminal nature.
The Commission’s assessment
18.7 The Commission has grave concerns about the fact that Bishop O‟Mahony gave a reference about Fr Tyrus when he sought a job working with young people at a time when Bishop O‟Mahony was aware that Fr Tyrus had had a relationship with a 17-year-old girl when he was a teacher. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that there was nothing to indicate that the relationship with the 17 year old was a sexual one. The Commission considers that the description provided by the priest psychologist makes it abundantly clear that the relationship was sexual.
Chapter 19 64
19.1
19.2
19.3
19.4
19.5
19.6
19.7
19.8
19.9
19.10
19.11
19.12
19.13
19.14
19.15
19.16
19.17
19.18
19.19
19.20
19.21
19.22
19.23
19.24
19.25
19.26
19.27
19.28
19.29
19.30
19.31
19.32
19.33
19.34
19.35
19.36
19.37
19.38
19.39
19.40
19.41
19.42
19.43
19.44
19.45
19.46
19.47
19.48
19.49
19.50
19.51
19.52
19.53
19.54
19.55
19.56
19.57
19.58
19.59
19.60
19.61
19.62
19.63
19.64
19.65
19.66
19.67
19.68
19.69
19.70
19.71
19.72
19.73
19.74
19.75
19.76
19.77
19.78
19.79
19.80
19.81
19.82
19.83
19.84
19.85
19.86
19.87
19.88
19.89
19.90
19.91
19.92
19.93
19.94
19.95
19.96
19.97
19.98
19.99
19.100
19.101
19.102
19.103
19.104
19.105
19.106
19.107
19.108
19.109
19.110
19.111
19.112
19.113
19.114
19.115
19.116
19.117
19.118
19.119
19.120
19.121
19.122
19.123
19.124
19.125
19.126
19.127
19.128
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36175
- 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 1 of 3
Chapter 20: Fr
Introduction
20.1 65
20.2 66
Pro-Cathedral, 1971 - 1978
20.3 Fr served in a number of parishes and was a curate in the Pro-Cathedral at the time of the first formal complaint.
20.4 The Commission has received information from non-Church sources alleging that he sexually abused at least one altar boy prior to this complaint being received. In very recent years, two men have come forward to both the Church and the Gardaí complaining of having been singled out, groomed and sexually assaulted, in one instance to the extent of buggery, by him in the presbytery and the altar boys‟ changing rooms during his time as curate in the Pro-Cathedral.
20.5 Initially Fr lived in the main presbytery attached to the Pro-Cathedral. He shared this house with the Diocesan Administrator and other priests. Later he moved into a presbytery where he had his own self-contained accommodation. While there he installed an oratory on the ground floor at the back of the house. During his time in the Pro-Cathedral, Fr was in charge of the altar boys, a task which he had also performed in his previous parishes. The Pro-Cathedral is the diocesan Church. Because of the volume and complexity of services in the Pro-Cathedral, it needed a large number of altar boys and those selected tended to stay on for longer than most altar boys did in other parishes. Fr held prayer meetings with altar boys in the oratory which he had installed and boys frequently visited him in the presbytery
20.6 A former altar boy from the Pro-Cathedral gave the Commission the following description of Fr activities with altar boys:
"I suppose there were about 20 of us as altar boys, and I don't think it's exaggerated to say that for the most part we loved Fr . He just seemed to be a great priest, very interested in young people - this all sounds very sinister looking back now - whereas the other priests - there were some priests we liked, some we didn't. He organised games. He organised holidays. And I suppose a lot of boys who were there would have been from the inner city. I lived in the Pro-Cathedral Parish at the time. ... a lot of the kids would never have had a holiday and most people around there wouldn't have had a car.
Fr. kept his connection to Eadestown67 where he seemed to be very friendly with many families there, and often on Sundays he'd take a combination of the altar boys and some of the local kids from the parish beagling - I presume you know what beagling is, running after an unfortunate hare with hounds. But it was great exercise. It was getting into the country for kids who some of them would never have been out of the city before. So he was in charge of the altar boys, as I said, and I suppose there would have been a group of us who were older than the younger ones and I never was aware at that time of anything untoward. He certainly was never in any way inappropriate in his behaviour towards me. I have asked one of my brothers and apart from now looking back ,as I look back as an adult, I would say that he spent an inappropriate amount of his time with children most definitely ... But to us as boys it seemed, it really seemed wonderful actually…
My memory is, and he'd do it, people would get a turn at going beagling so he was very fair in that way. But I remember in our house 284
it would mean having early lunch on Sunday and being in a rush to get out by maybe 1:00 o'clock down to the beagling, which was always around Punchestown, Eadestown. Maybe five or six children, they were children that would probably be from about eight or nine to maybe 16. The beagling would happen and then it would be back to some of his former parishioners' houses, a change of clothes and I'd say now that he imposed on some of those people to feed all these kids from the city. So that's what it was, that's my memory of it… I would have been on one holiday in Kerry, which would have been his first from the Pro-Cathedral, his first to organise. So that was probably 1972. He had an arrangement with …there was a farm …near Tralee. A lady there […] and she had, I think it was a bungalow on her farm and she rented it out as a holiday home. would have had a committee of people from Palmerstown. He was in Palmerstown in a previous appointment and there was […] a married couple...There was somebody else […] from Palmerstown and I can't remember his first name. And they would have helped - they would have accompanied and they would have run the kind of catering side of the holiday. I think it was for a week and I don't know how many years but Fr would have done that over a number of years… Fr always had kind of somewhere outside the Pro-Cathedral to [go to]; at one stage he had a caravan, at another stage he had a trailer tent."
20.7 The same witness recalled a number of incidents some of which were reported to him by others and which in hindsight struck him as strange or odd.
" at one stage a number of the boys, I think it was to Brittas Bay they went, and it was around the time when streaking was fairly common at football matches… Fr. said at midnight come on let's have a midnight streak. But, again, that was it and none of the boys at the time paid too much attention to it."
20.8 He spoke of another occasion when his brother and his brother's friend were on holiday with Fr :
"they would have been probably 12 or 13 at the time, they shared a room and after they went to bed, they left the light on and they were talking and messing. And he said just at one stage they saw Fr looking in the window and wondered how long he had been there… he just thought that that was a bit kind of weird. Then there was another time when I think it was a group of them together and Fr started to wrestle with them and he thought that there was something just not quite right about it. But it didn't go any - it was some kind of wrestling or tickling or something."
First formal complaint
20.9
20.10
20.11
20.12
20.13
Second complaint, 1978
20.14 The following year, 1978, there was another complaint. This complaint was handled on behalf of the Archdiocese by Bishop James Kavanagh. The only evidence available to the Commission is Bishop Kavanagh‟s handwritten memo of his interview with the young complainant.
20.15 The memo records that the young boy came from another parish to take part in the Easter ceremonies as an altar server. He was abused while taking part in practice for the ceremonies. The boy described how he was separated from his friends and brought to the priest‟s room. The abuse followed a very similar pattern to that which occurred to the first complainant.
20.16 Afterwards, Fr invited the boy to be an altar boy in the Pro-Cathedral. He told him about hunting and catching hares and rabbits with beagle hounds. He took his photograph and his contact details. All the boy‟s friends had left the church by the time he left the priest‟s room and he went back to school alone.
20.17 It is not clear how this matter came to the notice of the Archdiocese but it is likely that the boy reported the incident to someone in his school. There is much in the boy‟s account which was capable of independent verification:
the fact of his attendance on the particular day in the Pro-Cathedral;
his late and lone return to his school;
his presence in Fr private quarters;
the piece of paper on which Fr noted his details;
the taking of his photograph.
There is no evidence that any such inquiries were undertaken. Indeed the documents suggest that Fr was not even questioned about the matter at that time. The boy‟s account was forwarded to Archbishop Ryan by Bishop Kavanagh with the comment, “I presume we can have a word about this sometime”.
Third complaint, 1978
20.18 The third complaint came to the Archdiocese by a somewhat circuitous route. In late 1977, a woman phoned Dr Maurice Reidy, a former staff member of Clonliffe College, and told him that an unnamed priest had sexually assaulted her six-year-old son. Dr Reidy‟s recollection, when asked about the matter a year after the complaint was made, was that her complaint was that the priest had lain with her son and there was heavy breathing. Dr Reidy‟s explanation for his failure to do anything about the complaint at the time he received it was that he had reservations about the woman‟s capability as a witness. She was, in his estimation, nervous, highly strung, and very innocent of sexual matters for a married woman. He told the Archdiocese in November 1978 that he advised the woman not to let the priest into her home again. As the woman did not mention the matter to him on two subsequent occasions when he met her, he considered the matter at an end.
20.19 Contrary to Dr Reidy‟s assumptions, the woman continued to have concerns and, in July 1978 and again in September 1978, she confided in a female friend the nature of the complaint. Fr had visited her home on a number of occasions. The last time he was in her home, a female helper employed in the house entered her six-year-old son‟s bedroom and found Fr lying on the child who was naked on his bed. Fr tried to pass it off as a game. It was reported that the little boy later remarked that Fr ..............was choking him and that he thought priests were holy.
20.20 It is not clear from the papers precisely how the Archdiocesan authorities came to investigate this incident; perhaps the second woman had more standing within the Church hierarchy than the woman about whom Dr Reidy was so dismissive. In any event, in November 1978, Canon McMahon was once again sent out to inquire. Interestingly, he did not interview either the boy or his mother or indeed the female employee who had witnessed the event. He did interview Dr Reidy to whom the complaint had first been made and the woman to whom the complaint had subsequently been made, but not those who had direct knowledge of the incident. Canon McMahon reported to Archbishop Ryan:
20.21
20.22
20.23
20.24 Canon McMahon assured Fr that the Archbishop was anxious to help him. He advised him that he should see a psychiatrist who would forward a report to Archbishop Ryan. Fr was not enthusiastic about the prospect of attending a psychiatrist. He mentioned that he had had a previous unhelpful meeting with a psychiatrist. In the circumstances, it was strange that he was not asked about the context in which he had had a previous need to see a psychiatrist. He suggested to Canon McMahon that he would ask the unnamed priest psychologist to furnish a report to the Archbishop. On Canon McMahon‟s insistence he agreed to see a psychiatrist. Canon McMahon arranged for Fr to see Professor Noel Walsh, Consultant Psychiatrist, at St Vincent‟s Hospital. Canon McMahon called on Professor Walsh to fill him in on the background.
20.25 Professor Walsh‟s report to Canon McMahon makes no reference to a history of events given to him by Canon McMahon. The history given by Fr X was of the onset of a problem three years earlier, which would indicate 1975 or 1976.
Professor Walsh characterised the history given by Fr as “an atypical factor in this man‟s history in that patients who present with this problem usually do so much earlier in their lives and they tend to have a persistent pattern”. The incidents were attributed to depression. Professor Walsh concluded that Fr should be allowed to continue in pastoral work and to continue to attend him at six-to-eight-weekly intervals on a follow-up basis for six months to a year. The contents of Professor Walsh‟s report raise the question, once more, as to whether or not Fr was telling the truth about his history of offending, yet there is no evidence that this question was ever asked. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that Fr continued to attend Professor Walsh as recommended.
20.26
20.27
20.28
20.29
20.30 68
20.31
20.32
Stroud, 1981
20.33 It took a complaint from the parents of one boy to the Gardaí in March 1981 to bring matters to a head. The Commission has not been able to locate any of the details of this complaint in either garda or archdiocesan files. However Archbishop Ryan records that Bishop Kavanagh called to the parents and asked them not to press charges against Fr on the basis that he would be withdrawn from the parish to get treatment. Apparently, the parents eventually agreed to this and the complaint to the Gardaí was not pursued.
20.34 Archbishop Ryan then did withdraw Fr from the parish. He asked Bishop Brendan Comiskey to make contact with the Servants of the Paraclete.
20.35 Bishop Comiskey believes he became involved in the Fr case because he knew something about the Servants of the Paraclete‟s house in Stroud in England from his previous position as secretary general of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, (now known as the Conference of Religious of Ireland - CORI), a position which he held until his appointment as auxillary bishop of Dublin in 1979. Though Bishop Comiskey knew that there were serious allegations being made against Fr , he told the Commission that he was not told the details or the extent of the problem. The discrete task given to Bishop Comiskey was to find out from Stroud whether or not they would be able to treat this man and if so, what they would require in order to accept him. Bishop Comiskey established that there were three preconditions to Fr acceptance by the Servants of the Paraclete:
They required a “letter of support” from the Archdiocese stating that Fr .................was a priest of the diocese and that the Archdiocese would be willing to receive him back as soon as he was judged fit to resume ministry.
They required a description of his difficulties with some emphasis on “external damage” done in his ministry. The purpose of this document was to enable them to confront Fr with tangible evidence of the effect of his misconduct on his ministry.
They required the name, address and telephone number of his psychiatrist so as to enable their psychiatrist to make contact with him.
20.36 Archbishop Ryan met Fr and told him that he was being withdrawn from ministry and being sent to Stroud. Archbishop Ryan sent a “letter of support” to Stroud as requested. He also sent a three-page confidential memo setting out Fr difficulties, as Archbishop Ryan saw them, as well as the “external damage” caused by his misconduct. This reveals that Archbishop Ryan was fully aware, at that time, of the criminal nature of Fr misconduct and, further, he was aware that such misconduct was damaging to children. He summarised the damage done as follows:
“1. The most distressing feature of Father failures is the effect they are likely to have on the young people involved. Apparently their ages range, in so far as I know, from 6 – 16.
2. The parents involved have, for the most part, reacted with what can only be described as incredible charity. In several cases, they were quite apologetic about having to discuss the matter and were as much concerned for the priest‟s welfare as for their child and other children.
3. A particularly disconcerting feature was that access to the families was usually through acquaintanceship based on a variety of good works, whether of the parents or the children in question, e.g., altar boys; one or other parent involved in the management of a school (a father felt bound to withdraw his children from the local school because of what happened to one of his children); in another case, the mother was involved in charitable work in the parish. Having got access to the home through this acquaintanceship, Father abused a young son of six years of age.”
20.37 The Archdiocese provided Stroud with the name of the psychologist. Stroud asked him for a report which he provided. Fr left his house in at the end of March 1981. Another curate working in at the time gave evidence to the Commission. He said he helped Fr to pack. Fr told this curate that he was being sent away and that he felt he was being badly treated.
20.38 Archbishop Ryan told this curate that Fr was being taken out of the parish because of his activities. The Archbishop was not specific but the curate was left in no doubt that it had something to do with child sexual abuse. The removal of Fr meant that this priest was now alone in the parish as the parish priest was away. When the parish priest returned, he was met by his young curate, who told him of the events which in the curate‟s view, were “a real bombshell”. The parish priest‟s main reaction was one of relief. He told the curate that he had had complaints about Fr and his behaviour with young people. There were no names mentioned but he had referred them to a vicar general of the diocese, Monsignor Glennon. The parish priest did not say what, if anything, had been done as a result of that, but he said that he had received another complaint or complaints, and, on that second occasion, he had gone to Bishop Kavanagh.
20.39 The Archdiocese told those who inquired about Fr sudden disappearance that he had gone away for treatment for throat cancer and to ask for prayers for him. This was a plausible explanation as Fr had had problems with throat polyps which frequently led him to interrupt his celebration of mass to drink water.
20.40 Fr was brought to Stroud by his brother, Fr in April 1981. He spent four months there. The programme undertaken was apparently designed to enable him to come to understand the factors which led to his sexual abuse of boys so as to enable him to control his urges. In the early part of his course, his doctors were of the view that he was merely going through the motions so as to get out of Stroud and back to Dublin as soon as possible. His problem was identified as being a need to dominate and control, particularly at times when he had been put down or made to feel inferior and useless in his work. In an interim report sent to Archbishop Ryan in July 1981, Stroud summarised the position: “In conclusion I would say that Fr. shows a marked improvement over the time he came here. His self-possession and sensitivity has increased and he seems far more mature in his relationships with others. He is much more aware of his weakness and its power over him and wants very much to learn increasing control over it. The extent to which this is still a cerebral understanding and control and to what extent it is a real deep realisation and commitment only time will show.”
20.41 During his period in Stroud, Fr wrote on three occasions to Archbishop Ryan. The letters do not show any remorse for the damage he had inflicted on numerous children as well as on his Church. The over-familiarity in tone and the self-serving pieties are striking. For example, he addressed the Archbishop as "Dermot‟ which is very unusual. In one letter he compares his experience in Stroud to “Christ‟s victimhood experience”. He also tellingly refers to his stay in Stroud as a “retreat” rather than a course of treatment.
20.42 Following four months of treatment, a final report was issued by Stroud in July 1981. It stated:
“We feel reasonably confident that he now has the necessary awareness of his particular difficulty and both the knowledge of himself and the resources necessary to make a new and fruitful start on his priestly ministry. He will undoubtedly need a support system to enable him to continue and deepen the growth that he has begun here, and a work environment that does not pose too much of a stress in terms of his particular weakness. While not wanting to appear over confident with regards to this, we do feel that Fr. has shown a real desire and determination to take the necessary steps to ensure that it will not continue to pose a real threat to his carrying out of his priestly ministry to which he is clearly deeply committed and called.”
Clogher Road, 1981 - 1983
20.43 In September 1981, Archbishop Ryan appointed Fr as curate in Clogher Road parish. This letter of appointment, like the letter in respect of, makes no reference to his previous difficulties or to his recent treatment for them. Fr thanked the Archbishop for his appointment and for his “kindness to me when I was sick”. Once again, there is nothing to indicate that Fr had any insight into his condition nor was there any discernible "firm purpose of amendment‟, to use the Church‟s own words in relation to remorse and contrition.
20.44 This time, however, his new parish priest was given some limited information about his problems. Archbishop Ryan told Fr James Kelly that, while Fr was in the Pro-Cathedral, he was in the habit of inviting young boys into his private oratory. Fr Kelly was not told anything about his recent misbehaviour in . Fr Kelly told the Commission that the instructions given to him by Archbishop Ryan were:
to ensure that Fr did not create an oratory in his house in Clogher Road, and
to contact the Archbishop immediately in the event that Fr
stepped out of line in any respect. 299
20.45 No other steps appear to have been put in place for the monitoring of Fr . While he maintained he had a support team in place consisting of a spiritual advisor, a psychiatrist and two priest friends, he was never required to identify these people to the Archdiocese. He was once again allowed to occupy a house on his own. His parish priest specifically told the Commission that he did not consider it his duty to monitor who was going in and out of the house. stepped into the role of the previous curate and in that capacity was given free access to the schools of the parish. No information was given to the three other priests who were ministering in the parish. Fr was given charge of the confirmation class in one of the schools and it was from that source that the next official complaint arose.
20.46 Before that formal complaint was made in or about May 1982, there was a series of events in January and February 1982 which should have caused serious concern, if not alarm, within the Church authorities. Fr was due to return to Stroud for an up-to-date assessment. He decided not to go and it took strenuous efforts by a number of people, including the Archbishop, to persuade him to go for a few days. Stroud considered a longer stay was needed.
20.47 The report from Stroud must have been a source of worry for Archbishop Ryan because, notwithstanding the four months of treatment that he had undergone in 1981, Fr now, in early 1982, was showing resentment at having to attend Stroud and was intent on presenting the best possible picture of himself rather than facing the problems which he had. Stroud‟s overall impression was that Fr did not want any long term supervision over him. He was in fact working for effect, attempting to give the right impression, rather then being honest about where he was. He was asked to give the team in Stroud the names of his psychiatrist and spiritual director and a release of information so that they could forward to his psychiatrist a copy of the report and other information that they felt might be necessary to assist him in his work. Fr refused to divulge their names ostensibly because he was not sure that they would be willing to have their names known to Stroud. It is a remarkable fact that throughout this period Fr was never obliged to disclose to anyone the identities of the support team which he claimed to have put in place.
20.48 Stroud drew up a contract for Fr to sign which detailed the sort of provisions that they felt were necessary “to enable him to function fully and happily as a priest and to grow and develop as a person”. It was planned that the contract would be signed on Fr next visit to Stroud which was due to take place in April 1982. The contract was never signed. The draft contract had five main provisions; the two which were always likely to cause most difficulty for Fr were those which required that the two priest friends who were to supervise his adherence to the contract were to be identified to the Archdiocese and that any group of priests with whom he worked would be required to be made aware of his weakness so as to assist him in avoiding what might be termed "occasions of sin‟.
20.49 As the time approached for his return visit to Stroud in April 1982, Fr again tried to avoid returning despite having agreed to do so in February 1982. He told Archbishop Ryan:
“I have a support team set up here since October. I frequently visit a very well qualified, compassionate and helpful psychiatrist. Also frequently I visit a highly trained and spiritual, spiritual director. Both of them know each other and live within fifteen minutes of me, and they have read my case history which I gave them in October. I have a few priests who keep constant contact with me. I feel that these people understand the scene in which I live. I have trust in them. They are challenging and helpful. My English therapist and lecturer helped me to come to the stage where I am at now. I must be grateful to them for that. I feel that the people who can help me best now are the team that I refer to. Thank you for your trust.”
20.50 Once again, Fr failed to name the people who he claims constitute his support team. In this connection, the Commission questioned all living priests known to have been friendly with Fr during this time, and each of them denied being a member of his support team. Each of them also denied any knowledge of the identity of any priest who might have been a member of that team. The unnamed psychiatrist was never asked for a report.
20.51 There is no evidence that Fr was instructed to attend or did, in fact, attend Stroud as planned in April 1982.
20.52 Within weeks there was another complaint. The complaint was of sexual interference with a boy in the confirmation class. According to Fr Kelly, following the confirmation ceremony, Fr invited a young lad into his house and “seemingly handled his clothes and straightened his tie and all that and the parents obviously were a bit annoyed and a bit worried when they heard this, so much so that they decided they‟d have a word with me ”. While the parents, according to Fr Kelly, never mentioned the phrase sexual abuse, Fr Kelly was clear that their annoyance stemmed from the intimate handling by Fr of their son.
20.53 Fr Kelly told Archbishop Ryan about the complaint. Fr Kelly stated that Archbishop Ryan remarked that the incident was “more or less the same as what used to happen in the Pro-Cathedral”. Fr Kelly got the impression that Archbishop Ryan was troubled by his report on Fr . He recalls the Archbishop musing out loud: “In the name of God, what does one do with a man like that? And to suggest sending him away, he‟s quite liable to say no. And what does one do then?”.
20.54 The Archbishop met Fr immediately and then formally removed his faculties to preach, hear confessions or celebrate mass in public. He told him that Bishop Comiskey would make arrangements for him and he was to follow the bishop‟s instructions.
20.55 The new arrangement was to send Fr to the Servants of the Paraclete at Jemez Springs, New Mexico where, since the 1970s, they had been running “a renewal program” in respect of priests who had sexually abused. The primary inquiries and the arrangements once again appear to have been made by Bishop Comiskey. According to Bishop Comiskey, Archbishop Ryan may not have had any great belief that the Servants of the Paraclete in New Mexico could achieve what their brethren in Stroud had failed to achieve, namely, the rehabilitation of Fr , but in deference to the great friendship and respect he had for Fr brother, he was willing to allow him to undergo a further course of treatment.
Jemez Springs, 1982
20.56 Fr was extremely reluctant to go to New Mexico and made every effort to avoid going. He pleaded inability to get a visa, which in 1982 was a credible excuse as visas for a stay in the USA were difficult to obtain. Bishop Comiskey, as an American citizen, liaised with the US embassy and a visa for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment in the US was obtained. Fr continued to prevaricate. He pleaded lack of funds and was advanced £500. In a last ditch effort to avoid the inevitable, he claimed to have lost the visa, that it had gone in his clothing to the dry cleaners. To ensure that he arrived at his destination his brother, Fr , accompanied him to New Mexico.
20.57 The cover story in Fr personnel file in the Archdiocese recorded that “with effect from May 26th 1982, Father has transferred to study further in U.S.A”.
20.58 The course in Jemez Springs, which is in a fairly remote rural part of New Mexico, was of a different order both in intensity and indeed in expense. (The Archdiocese spent a total of about £29,000 (€37,000) in treatment and ancillary costs for Fr between the years 1981 and 1987). The programme at Foundation House, Jemez Springs was a 20 week programme with a follow up programme designed to reintegrate the client with the significant people in his life so as to facilitate his re-entry into the Archdiocese. It involved physical, psychological, spiritual, psycho-sexual, intellectual and social modules.
20.59 Fr started the programme in July 1982 and completed it in December 1982. Archbishop Ryan wrote to the director of the programme and enclosed the February 1982 report from Stroud. Unfortunately, the Commission did not receive a copy of Archbishop Ryan‟s letter and so is not aware of what other information was supplied to them. The first detailed report from Jemez Springs was sent in August 1982. It is noticeable that the report identifies many of the traits that had been earlier identified by Stroud.
20.60 By November 1982, Fr was coming towards the end of his treatment. A decision needed to be taken as to what was to happen next. He wanted to return to Ireland, but the psychiatrist in charge of his treatment had reservations because “he only feels 70% sure that will not get sexually involved with children again. The recidivism rate for people involved with children is very high and also recidivism history is not good”.
20.61 The course director was of the view that Fr should stay in the USA for another six months in an extended care facility. In a report in November 1982 he stated:
“Basically, Archbishop, it seems to me that does need to remain here for a period of time after completing the program. Since the recidivism rate for people involved with children is very high, we would feel much more comfortable if could be involved with some halfway setting whereby he could also meet with a therapist to discuss experience that he has, particularly around young children. We have several possibilities in mind for this, including our house in Cherry Valley, California or our house in St. Louis Missouri. In addition it might also be possible for to remain here in Albuquerque and participate in a halfway program… In the beginning of June, 1983, will be expected to return here to Foundation House for a follow up workshop. At that time, we could reevaluate his situation and I feel that this might be a better time for him to return to Ireland. After an experience in a halfway setting, we would have a better handle on experiences in ministry and could be able to determine whether or not he has a grip on his problem.”
20.62 Archbishop Ryan accepted this recommendation. In November 1982, Jemez Springs wrote to the Archbishop of Santa Fe seeking permission to have Fr work with priests who knew his history in a parish in Alameda, a suburb of Albuquerque. Archbishop Ryan formally wrote to the Archbishop of Santa Fe giving permission for Fr to pursue a six month ministry in Alameda parish.
Christmas, 1982
20.63 Meanwhile, Fr came back to Ireland for his Christmas holidays. He was not placed under any supervision during his stay. He had access to a car and frequented a number of his old haunts in Palmerstown and Clogher Road.
20.64 On 20 December he is alleged to have made sexual advances to a sixteen-year-old boy whom he had sought out and to whom he had offered a lift in his car.
The following day, the boy‟s parents complained to the parish priest, Fr Con Curley. Apparently Fr Curley explained to the parents that Fr.............. was a sick man and had been away for treatment. The Archbishop‟s memo of these events notes that the parents did not make any reference to civil proceedings. Fr Curley offered to see the boy.
20.65 On 21 December 1982, Fr , presumably having learned of the complaint, called to see the boy‟s parents and tried to explain the incident away by saying that this was the way it happened in America, where the men kiss one another. Archbishop Ryan‟s memo of these events also records that Fr wrote a personal letter to Fr Curley to assure him that there was nothing wrong. It appears that the Archbishop learned of the incident in a telephone call from Bishop Comiskey on the evening of 21 December 1982. He appears to have discussed the problem with Monsignor Gerard Sheehy, one of the foremost canon lawyers in the Archdiocese and the judicial vicar at the time. The following day, Monsignor Sheehy wrote to the Archbishop:
“I do not know anything like all the facts about yesterday evening‟s problem. So, for the moment, I can advise only tentatively. But I did think about it anxiously, last night. My one clear thought is that, whatever the immediate action (and I agree that some positive action has to be taken) it must not be suspension. Suspension would bring you straight into the realm of penal law, with all it‟s implications of crime, and culpability. From what you told me, my strong impression is that one is dealing with a very sick man, not with a “criminal”. I do think it is possible to work out another solution, allowing that the Archbishop must take firm action. I am sorry that, on the eve of Christmas you should be saddled with this anxiety. If I can help in any way, I most certainly shall.”
20.66 On the morning of Christmas Eve, Archbishop Ryan first met Fr Curley and later met Fr and his brother Fr . More than one witness told the Commission that the Archbishop, who was usually very punctual, was so exhausted by the end of that Christmas Eve that he fell asleep at home and was late for midnight mass in the Pro-Cathedral.
Chapter 20: Fr
Introduction
20.1 65
20.2 66
Pro-Cathedral, 1971 - 1978
20.3 Fr served in a number of parishes and was a curate in the Pro-Cathedral at the time of the first formal complaint.
20.4 The Commission has received information from non-Church sources alleging that he sexually abused at least one altar boy prior to this complaint being received. In very recent years, two men have come forward to both the Church and the Gardaí complaining of having been singled out, groomed and sexually assaulted, in one instance to the extent of buggery, by him in the presbytery and the altar boys‟ changing rooms during his time as curate in the Pro-Cathedral.
20.5 Initially Fr lived in the main presbytery attached to the Pro-Cathedral. He shared this house with the Diocesan Administrator and other priests. Later he moved into a presbytery where he had his own self-contained accommodation. While there he installed an oratory on the ground floor at the back of the house. During his time in the Pro-Cathedral, Fr was in charge of the altar boys, a task which he had also performed in his previous parishes. The Pro-Cathedral is the diocesan Church. Because of the volume and complexity of services in the Pro-Cathedral, it needed a large number of altar boys and those selected tended to stay on for longer than most altar boys did in other parishes. Fr held prayer meetings with altar boys in the oratory which he had installed and boys frequently visited him in the presbytery
20.6 A former altar boy from the Pro-Cathedral gave the Commission the following description of Fr activities with altar boys:
"I suppose there were about 20 of us as altar boys, and I don't think it's exaggerated to say that for the most part we loved Fr . He just seemed to be a great priest, very interested in young people - this all sounds very sinister looking back now - whereas the other priests - there were some priests we liked, some we didn't. He organised games. He organised holidays. And I suppose a lot of boys who were there would have been from the inner city. I lived in the Pro-Cathedral Parish at the time. ... a lot of the kids would never have had a holiday and most people around there wouldn't have had a car.
Fr. kept his connection to Eadestown67 where he seemed to be very friendly with many families there, and often on Sundays he'd take a combination of the altar boys and some of the local kids from the parish beagling - I presume you know what beagling is, running after an unfortunate hare with hounds. But it was great exercise. It was getting into the country for kids who some of them would never have been out of the city before. So he was in charge of the altar boys, as I said, and I suppose there would have been a group of us who were older than the younger ones and I never was aware at that time of anything untoward. He certainly was never in any way inappropriate in his behaviour towards me. I have asked one of my brothers and apart from now looking back ,as I look back as an adult, I would say that he spent an inappropriate amount of his time with children most definitely ... But to us as boys it seemed, it really seemed wonderful actually…
My memory is, and he'd do it, people would get a turn at going beagling so he was very fair in that way. But I remember in our house 284
it would mean having early lunch on Sunday and being in a rush to get out by maybe 1:00 o'clock down to the beagling, which was always around Punchestown, Eadestown. Maybe five or six children, they were children that would probably be from about eight or nine to maybe 16. The beagling would happen and then it would be back to some of his former parishioners' houses, a change of clothes and I'd say now that he imposed on some of those people to feed all these kids from the city. So that's what it was, that's my memory of it… I would have been on one holiday in Kerry, which would have been his first from the Pro-Cathedral, his first to organise. So that was probably 1972. He had an arrangement with …there was a farm …near Tralee. A lady there […] and she had, I think it was a bungalow on her farm and she rented it out as a holiday home. would have had a committee of people from Palmerstown. He was in Palmerstown in a previous appointment and there was […] a married couple...There was somebody else […] from Palmerstown and I can't remember his first name. And they would have helped - they would have accompanied and they would have run the kind of catering side of the holiday. I think it was for a week and I don't know how many years but Fr would have done that over a number of years… Fr always had kind of somewhere outside the Pro-Cathedral to [go to]; at one stage he had a caravan, at another stage he had a trailer tent."
20.7 The same witness recalled a number of incidents some of which were reported to him by others and which in hindsight struck him as strange or odd.
" at one stage a number of the boys, I think it was to Brittas Bay they went, and it was around the time when streaking was fairly common at football matches… Fr. said at midnight come on let's have a midnight streak. But, again, that was it and none of the boys at the time paid too much attention to it."
20.8 He spoke of another occasion when his brother and his brother's friend were on holiday with Fr :
"they would have been probably 12 or 13 at the time, they shared a room and after they went to bed, they left the light on and they were talking and messing. And he said just at one stage they saw Fr looking in the window and wondered how long he had been there… he just thought that that was a bit kind of weird. Then there was another time when I think it was a group of them together and Fr started to wrestle with them and he thought that there was something just not quite right about it. But it didn't go any - it was some kind of wrestling or tickling or something."
First formal complaint
20.9
20.10
20.11
20.12
20.13
Second complaint, 1978
20.14 The following year, 1978, there was another complaint. This complaint was handled on behalf of the Archdiocese by Bishop James Kavanagh. The only evidence available to the Commission is Bishop Kavanagh‟s handwritten memo of his interview with the young complainant.
20.15 The memo records that the young boy came from another parish to take part in the Easter ceremonies as an altar server. He was abused while taking part in practice for the ceremonies. The boy described how he was separated from his friends and brought to the priest‟s room. The abuse followed a very similar pattern to that which occurred to the first complainant.
20.16 Afterwards, Fr invited the boy to be an altar boy in the Pro-Cathedral. He told him about hunting and catching hares and rabbits with beagle hounds. He took his photograph and his contact details. All the boy‟s friends had left the church by the time he left the priest‟s room and he went back to school alone.
20.17 It is not clear how this matter came to the notice of the Archdiocese but it is likely that the boy reported the incident to someone in his school. There is much in the boy‟s account which was capable of independent verification:
the fact of his attendance on the particular day in the Pro-Cathedral;
his late and lone return to his school;
his presence in Fr private quarters;
the piece of paper on which Fr noted his details;
the taking of his photograph.
There is no evidence that any such inquiries were undertaken. Indeed the documents suggest that Fr was not even questioned about the matter at that time. The boy‟s account was forwarded to Archbishop Ryan by Bishop Kavanagh with the comment, “I presume we can have a word about this sometime”.
Third complaint, 1978
20.18 The third complaint came to the Archdiocese by a somewhat circuitous route. In late 1977, a woman phoned Dr Maurice Reidy, a former staff member of Clonliffe College, and told him that an unnamed priest had sexually assaulted her six-year-old son. Dr Reidy‟s recollection, when asked about the matter a year after the complaint was made, was that her complaint was that the priest had lain with her son and there was heavy breathing. Dr Reidy‟s explanation for his failure to do anything about the complaint at the time he received it was that he had reservations about the woman‟s capability as a witness. She was, in his estimation, nervous, highly strung, and very innocent of sexual matters for a married woman. He told the Archdiocese in November 1978 that he advised the woman not to let the priest into her home again. As the woman did not mention the matter to him on two subsequent occasions when he met her, he considered the matter at an end.
20.19 Contrary to Dr Reidy‟s assumptions, the woman continued to have concerns and, in July 1978 and again in September 1978, she confided in a female friend the nature of the complaint. Fr had visited her home on a number of occasions. The last time he was in her home, a female helper employed in the house entered her six-year-old son‟s bedroom and found Fr lying on the child who was naked on his bed. Fr tried to pass it off as a game. It was reported that the little boy later remarked that Fr ..............was choking him and that he thought priests were holy.
20.20 It is not clear from the papers precisely how the Archdiocesan authorities came to investigate this incident; perhaps the second woman had more standing within the Church hierarchy than the woman about whom Dr Reidy was so dismissive. In any event, in November 1978, Canon McMahon was once again sent out to inquire. Interestingly, he did not interview either the boy or his mother or indeed the female employee who had witnessed the event. He did interview Dr Reidy to whom the complaint had first been made and the woman to whom the complaint had subsequently been made, but not those who had direct knowledge of the incident. Canon McMahon reported to Archbishop Ryan:
20.21
20.22
20.23
20.24 Canon McMahon assured Fr that the Archbishop was anxious to help him. He advised him that he should see a psychiatrist who would forward a report to Archbishop Ryan. Fr was not enthusiastic about the prospect of attending a psychiatrist. He mentioned that he had had a previous unhelpful meeting with a psychiatrist. In the circumstances, it was strange that he was not asked about the context in which he had had a previous need to see a psychiatrist. He suggested to Canon McMahon that he would ask the unnamed priest psychologist to furnish a report to the Archbishop. On Canon McMahon‟s insistence he agreed to see a psychiatrist. Canon McMahon arranged for Fr to see Professor Noel Walsh, Consultant Psychiatrist, at St Vincent‟s Hospital. Canon McMahon called on Professor Walsh to fill him in on the background.
20.25 Professor Walsh‟s report to Canon McMahon makes no reference to a history of events given to him by Canon McMahon. The history given by Fr X was of the onset of a problem three years earlier, which would indicate 1975 or 1976.
Professor Walsh characterised the history given by Fr as “an atypical factor in this man‟s history in that patients who present with this problem usually do so much earlier in their lives and they tend to have a persistent pattern”. The incidents were attributed to depression. Professor Walsh concluded that Fr should be allowed to continue in pastoral work and to continue to attend him at six-to-eight-weekly intervals on a follow-up basis for six months to a year. The contents of Professor Walsh‟s report raise the question, once more, as to whether or not Fr was telling the truth about his history of offending, yet there is no evidence that this question was ever asked. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that Fr continued to attend Professor Walsh as recommended.
20.26
20.27
20.28
20.29
20.30 68
20.31
20.32
Stroud, 1981
20.33 It took a complaint from the parents of one boy to the Gardaí in March 1981 to bring matters to a head. The Commission has not been able to locate any of the details of this complaint in either garda or archdiocesan files. However Archbishop Ryan records that Bishop Kavanagh called to the parents and asked them not to press charges against Fr on the basis that he would be withdrawn from the parish to get treatment. Apparently, the parents eventually agreed to this and the complaint to the Gardaí was not pursued.
20.34 Archbishop Ryan then did withdraw Fr from the parish. He asked Bishop Brendan Comiskey to make contact with the Servants of the Paraclete.
20.35 Bishop Comiskey believes he became involved in the Fr case because he knew something about the Servants of the Paraclete‟s house in Stroud in England from his previous position as secretary general of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, (now known as the Conference of Religious of Ireland - CORI), a position which he held until his appointment as auxillary bishop of Dublin in 1979. Though Bishop Comiskey knew that there were serious allegations being made against Fr , he told the Commission that he was not told the details or the extent of the problem. The discrete task given to Bishop Comiskey was to find out from Stroud whether or not they would be able to treat this man and if so, what they would require in order to accept him. Bishop Comiskey established that there were three preconditions to Fr acceptance by the Servants of the Paraclete:
They required a “letter of support” from the Archdiocese stating that Fr .................was a priest of the diocese and that the Archdiocese would be willing to receive him back as soon as he was judged fit to resume ministry.
They required a description of his difficulties with some emphasis on “external damage” done in his ministry. The purpose of this document was to enable them to confront Fr with tangible evidence of the effect of his misconduct on his ministry.
They required the name, address and telephone number of his psychiatrist so as to enable their psychiatrist to make contact with him.
20.36 Archbishop Ryan met Fr and told him that he was being withdrawn from ministry and being sent to Stroud. Archbishop Ryan sent a “letter of support” to Stroud as requested. He also sent a three-page confidential memo setting out Fr difficulties, as Archbishop Ryan saw them, as well as the “external damage” caused by his misconduct. This reveals that Archbishop Ryan was fully aware, at that time, of the criminal nature of Fr misconduct and, further, he was aware that such misconduct was damaging to children. He summarised the damage done as follows:
“1. The most distressing feature of Father failures is the effect they are likely to have on the young people involved. Apparently their ages range, in so far as I know, from 6 – 16.
2. The parents involved have, for the most part, reacted with what can only be described as incredible charity. In several cases, they were quite apologetic about having to discuss the matter and were as much concerned for the priest‟s welfare as for their child and other children.
3. A particularly disconcerting feature was that access to the families was usually through acquaintanceship based on a variety of good works, whether of the parents or the children in question, e.g., altar boys; one or other parent involved in the management of a school (a father felt bound to withdraw his children from the local school because of what happened to one of his children); in another case, the mother was involved in charitable work in the parish. Having got access to the home through this acquaintanceship, Father abused a young son of six years of age.”
20.37 The Archdiocese provided Stroud with the name of the psychologist. Stroud asked him for a report which he provided. Fr left his house in at the end of March 1981. Another curate working in at the time gave evidence to the Commission. He said he helped Fr to pack. Fr told this curate that he was being sent away and that he felt he was being badly treated.
20.38 Archbishop Ryan told this curate that Fr was being taken out of the parish because of his activities. The Archbishop was not specific but the curate was left in no doubt that it had something to do with child sexual abuse. The removal of Fr meant that this priest was now alone in the parish as the parish priest was away. When the parish priest returned, he was met by his young curate, who told him of the events which in the curate‟s view, were “a real bombshell”. The parish priest‟s main reaction was one of relief. He told the curate that he had had complaints about Fr and his behaviour with young people. There were no names mentioned but he had referred them to a vicar general of the diocese, Monsignor Glennon. The parish priest did not say what, if anything, had been done as a result of that, but he said that he had received another complaint or complaints, and, on that second occasion, he had gone to Bishop Kavanagh.
20.39 The Archdiocese told those who inquired about Fr sudden disappearance that he had gone away for treatment for throat cancer and to ask for prayers for him. This was a plausible explanation as Fr had had problems with throat polyps which frequently led him to interrupt his celebration of mass to drink water.
20.40 Fr was brought to Stroud by his brother, Fr in April 1981. He spent four months there. The programme undertaken was apparently designed to enable him to come to understand the factors which led to his sexual abuse of boys so as to enable him to control his urges. In the early part of his course, his doctors were of the view that he was merely going through the motions so as to get out of Stroud and back to Dublin as soon as possible. His problem was identified as being a need to dominate and control, particularly at times when he had been put down or made to feel inferior and useless in his work. In an interim report sent to Archbishop Ryan in July 1981, Stroud summarised the position: “In conclusion I would say that Fr. shows a marked improvement over the time he came here. His self-possession and sensitivity has increased and he seems far more mature in his relationships with others. He is much more aware of his weakness and its power over him and wants very much to learn increasing control over it. The extent to which this is still a cerebral understanding and control and to what extent it is a real deep realisation and commitment only time will show.”
20.41 During his period in Stroud, Fr wrote on three occasions to Archbishop Ryan. The letters do not show any remorse for the damage he had inflicted on numerous children as well as on his Church. The over-familiarity in tone and the self-serving pieties are striking. For example, he addressed the Archbishop as "Dermot‟ which is very unusual. In one letter he compares his experience in Stroud to “Christ‟s victimhood experience”. He also tellingly refers to his stay in Stroud as a “retreat” rather than a course of treatment.
20.42 Following four months of treatment, a final report was issued by Stroud in July 1981. It stated:
“We feel reasonably confident that he now has the necessary awareness of his particular difficulty and both the knowledge of himself and the resources necessary to make a new and fruitful start on his priestly ministry. He will undoubtedly need a support system to enable him to continue and deepen the growth that he has begun here, and a work environment that does not pose too much of a stress in terms of his particular weakness. While not wanting to appear over confident with regards to this, we do feel that Fr. has shown a real desire and determination to take the necessary steps to ensure that it will not continue to pose a real threat to his carrying out of his priestly ministry to which he is clearly deeply committed and called.”
Clogher Road, 1981 - 1983
20.43 In September 1981, Archbishop Ryan appointed Fr as curate in Clogher Road parish. This letter of appointment, like the letter in respect of, makes no reference to his previous difficulties or to his recent treatment for them. Fr thanked the Archbishop for his appointment and for his “kindness to me when I was sick”. Once again, there is nothing to indicate that Fr had any insight into his condition nor was there any discernible "firm purpose of amendment‟, to use the Church‟s own words in relation to remorse and contrition.
20.44 This time, however, his new parish priest was given some limited information about his problems. Archbishop Ryan told Fr James Kelly that, while Fr was in the Pro-Cathedral, he was in the habit of inviting young boys into his private oratory. Fr Kelly was not told anything about his recent misbehaviour in . Fr Kelly told the Commission that the instructions given to him by Archbishop Ryan were:
to ensure that Fr did not create an oratory in his house in Clogher Road, and
to contact the Archbishop immediately in the event that Fr
stepped out of line in any respect. 299
20.45 No other steps appear to have been put in place for the monitoring of Fr . While he maintained he had a support team in place consisting of a spiritual advisor, a psychiatrist and two priest friends, he was never required to identify these people to the Archdiocese. He was once again allowed to occupy a house on his own. His parish priest specifically told the Commission that he did not consider it his duty to monitor who was going in and out of the house. stepped into the role of the previous curate and in that capacity was given free access to the schools of the parish. No information was given to the three other priests who were ministering in the parish. Fr was given charge of the confirmation class in one of the schools and it was from that source that the next official complaint arose.
20.46 Before that formal complaint was made in or about May 1982, there was a series of events in January and February 1982 which should have caused serious concern, if not alarm, within the Church authorities. Fr was due to return to Stroud for an up-to-date assessment. He decided not to go and it took strenuous efforts by a number of people, including the Archbishop, to persuade him to go for a few days. Stroud considered a longer stay was needed.
20.47 The report from Stroud must have been a source of worry for Archbishop Ryan because, notwithstanding the four months of treatment that he had undergone in 1981, Fr now, in early 1982, was showing resentment at having to attend Stroud and was intent on presenting the best possible picture of himself rather than facing the problems which he had. Stroud‟s overall impression was that Fr did not want any long term supervision over him. He was in fact working for effect, attempting to give the right impression, rather then being honest about where he was. He was asked to give the team in Stroud the names of his psychiatrist and spiritual director and a release of information so that they could forward to his psychiatrist a copy of the report and other information that they felt might be necessary to assist him in his work. Fr refused to divulge their names ostensibly because he was not sure that they would be willing to have their names known to Stroud. It is a remarkable fact that throughout this period Fr was never obliged to disclose to anyone the identities of the support team which he claimed to have put in place.
20.48 Stroud drew up a contract for Fr to sign which detailed the sort of provisions that they felt were necessary “to enable him to function fully and happily as a priest and to grow and develop as a person”. It was planned that the contract would be signed on Fr next visit to Stroud which was due to take place in April 1982. The contract was never signed. The draft contract had five main provisions; the two which were always likely to cause most difficulty for Fr were those which required that the two priest friends who were to supervise his adherence to the contract were to be identified to the Archdiocese and that any group of priests with whom he worked would be required to be made aware of his weakness so as to assist him in avoiding what might be termed "occasions of sin‟.
20.49 As the time approached for his return visit to Stroud in April 1982, Fr again tried to avoid returning despite having agreed to do so in February 1982. He told Archbishop Ryan:
“I have a support team set up here since October. I frequently visit a very well qualified, compassionate and helpful psychiatrist. Also frequently I visit a highly trained and spiritual, spiritual director. Both of them know each other and live within fifteen minutes of me, and they have read my case history which I gave them in October. I have a few priests who keep constant contact with me. I feel that these people understand the scene in which I live. I have trust in them. They are challenging and helpful. My English therapist and lecturer helped me to come to the stage where I am at now. I must be grateful to them for that. I feel that the people who can help me best now are the team that I refer to. Thank you for your trust.”
20.50 Once again, Fr failed to name the people who he claims constitute his support team. In this connection, the Commission questioned all living priests known to have been friendly with Fr during this time, and each of them denied being a member of his support team. Each of them also denied any knowledge of the identity of any priest who might have been a member of that team. The unnamed psychiatrist was never asked for a report.
20.51 There is no evidence that Fr was instructed to attend or did, in fact, attend Stroud as planned in April 1982.
20.52 Within weeks there was another complaint. The complaint was of sexual interference with a boy in the confirmation class. According to Fr Kelly, following the confirmation ceremony, Fr invited a young lad into his house and “seemingly handled his clothes and straightened his tie and all that and the parents obviously were a bit annoyed and a bit worried when they heard this, so much so that they decided they‟d have a word with me ”. While the parents, according to Fr Kelly, never mentioned the phrase sexual abuse, Fr Kelly was clear that their annoyance stemmed from the intimate handling by Fr of their son.
20.53 Fr Kelly told Archbishop Ryan about the complaint. Fr Kelly stated that Archbishop Ryan remarked that the incident was “more or less the same as what used to happen in the Pro-Cathedral”. Fr Kelly got the impression that Archbishop Ryan was troubled by his report on Fr . He recalls the Archbishop musing out loud: “In the name of God, what does one do with a man like that? And to suggest sending him away, he‟s quite liable to say no. And what does one do then?”.
20.54 The Archbishop met Fr immediately and then formally removed his faculties to preach, hear confessions or celebrate mass in public. He told him that Bishop Comiskey would make arrangements for him and he was to follow the bishop‟s instructions.
20.55 The new arrangement was to send Fr to the Servants of the Paraclete at Jemez Springs, New Mexico where, since the 1970s, they had been running “a renewal program” in respect of priests who had sexually abused. The primary inquiries and the arrangements once again appear to have been made by Bishop Comiskey. According to Bishop Comiskey, Archbishop Ryan may not have had any great belief that the Servants of the Paraclete in New Mexico could achieve what their brethren in Stroud had failed to achieve, namely, the rehabilitation of Fr , but in deference to the great friendship and respect he had for Fr brother, he was willing to allow him to undergo a further course of treatment.
Jemez Springs, 1982
20.56 Fr was extremely reluctant to go to New Mexico and made every effort to avoid going. He pleaded inability to get a visa, which in 1982 was a credible excuse as visas for a stay in the USA were difficult to obtain. Bishop Comiskey, as an American citizen, liaised with the US embassy and a visa for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment in the US was obtained. Fr continued to prevaricate. He pleaded lack of funds and was advanced £500. In a last ditch effort to avoid the inevitable, he claimed to have lost the visa, that it had gone in his clothing to the dry cleaners. To ensure that he arrived at his destination his brother, Fr , accompanied him to New Mexico.
20.57 The cover story in Fr personnel file in the Archdiocese recorded that “with effect from May 26th 1982, Father has transferred to study further in U.S.A”.
20.58 The course in Jemez Springs, which is in a fairly remote rural part of New Mexico, was of a different order both in intensity and indeed in expense. (The Archdiocese spent a total of about £29,000 (€37,000) in treatment and ancillary costs for Fr between the years 1981 and 1987). The programme at Foundation House, Jemez Springs was a 20 week programme with a follow up programme designed to reintegrate the client with the significant people in his life so as to facilitate his re-entry into the Archdiocese. It involved physical, psychological, spiritual, psycho-sexual, intellectual and social modules.
20.59 Fr started the programme in July 1982 and completed it in December 1982. Archbishop Ryan wrote to the director of the programme and enclosed the February 1982 report from Stroud. Unfortunately, the Commission did not receive a copy of Archbishop Ryan‟s letter and so is not aware of what other information was supplied to them. The first detailed report from Jemez Springs was sent in August 1982. It is noticeable that the report identifies many of the traits that had been earlier identified by Stroud.
20.60 By November 1982, Fr was coming towards the end of his treatment. A decision needed to be taken as to what was to happen next. He wanted to return to Ireland, but the psychiatrist in charge of his treatment had reservations because “he only feels 70% sure that will not get sexually involved with children again. The recidivism rate for people involved with children is very high and also recidivism history is not good”.
20.61 The course director was of the view that Fr should stay in the USA for another six months in an extended care facility. In a report in November 1982 he stated:
“Basically, Archbishop, it seems to me that does need to remain here for a period of time after completing the program. Since the recidivism rate for people involved with children is very high, we would feel much more comfortable if could be involved with some halfway setting whereby he could also meet with a therapist to discuss experience that he has, particularly around young children. We have several possibilities in mind for this, including our house in Cherry Valley, California or our house in St. Louis Missouri. In addition it might also be possible for to remain here in Albuquerque and participate in a halfway program… In the beginning of June, 1983, will be expected to return here to Foundation House for a follow up workshop. At that time, we could reevaluate his situation and I feel that this might be a better time for him to return to Ireland. After an experience in a halfway setting, we would have a better handle on experiences in ministry and could be able to determine whether or not he has a grip on his problem.”
20.62 Archbishop Ryan accepted this recommendation. In November 1982, Jemez Springs wrote to the Archbishop of Santa Fe seeking permission to have Fr work with priests who knew his history in a parish in Alameda, a suburb of Albuquerque. Archbishop Ryan formally wrote to the Archbishop of Santa Fe giving permission for Fr to pursue a six month ministry in Alameda parish.
Christmas, 1982
20.63 Meanwhile, Fr came back to Ireland for his Christmas holidays. He was not placed under any supervision during his stay. He had access to a car and frequented a number of his old haunts in Palmerstown and Clogher Road.
20.64 On 20 December he is alleged to have made sexual advances to a sixteen-year-old boy whom he had sought out and to whom he had offered a lift in his car.
The following day, the boy‟s parents complained to the parish priest, Fr Con Curley. Apparently Fr Curley explained to the parents that Fr.............. was a sick man and had been away for treatment. The Archbishop‟s memo of these events notes that the parents did not make any reference to civil proceedings. Fr Curley offered to see the boy.
20.65 On 21 December 1982, Fr , presumably having learned of the complaint, called to see the boy‟s parents and tried to explain the incident away by saying that this was the way it happened in America, where the men kiss one another. Archbishop Ryan‟s memo of these events also records that Fr wrote a personal letter to Fr Curley to assure him that there was nothing wrong. It appears that the Archbishop learned of the incident in a telephone call from Bishop Comiskey on the evening of 21 December 1982. He appears to have discussed the problem with Monsignor Gerard Sheehy, one of the foremost canon lawyers in the Archdiocese and the judicial vicar at the time. The following day, Monsignor Sheehy wrote to the Archbishop:
“I do not know anything like all the facts about yesterday evening‟s problem. So, for the moment, I can advise only tentatively. But I did think about it anxiously, last night. My one clear thought is that, whatever the immediate action (and I agree that some positive action has to be taken) it must not be suspension. Suspension would bring you straight into the realm of penal law, with all it‟s implications of crime, and culpability. From what you told me, my strong impression is that one is dealing with a very sick man, not with a “criminal”. I do think it is possible to work out another solution, allowing that the Archbishop must take firm action. I am sorry that, on the eve of Christmas you should be saddled with this anxiety. If I can help in any way, I most certainly shall.”
20.66 On the morning of Christmas Eve, Archbishop Ryan first met Fr Curley and later met Fr and his brother Fr . More than one witness told the Commission that the Archbishop, who was usually very punctual, was so exhausted by the end of that Christmas Eve that he fell asleep at home and was late for midnight mass in the Pro-Cathedral.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36175
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests