The Commission of Investigation into Dublin’s Catholic Archdiocese has concluded that there is “no doubt” that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up by the archdiocese and other Church authorities.
The commission’s report covers the period between January 1st 1975 and April 30th 2004. It said there cover-ups took place over much of this period.
In its report, published this afternoon, it has also found that “the structures and rules of the Catholic Church facilitated that cover-up.”
It also found that “the State authorities facilitated the cover-up by not fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that the law was applied equally to all and allowing the Church institutions to be beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes.”
Over the period within its remit “the welfare of children, which should have been the first priority, was not even a factor to be considered in the early stages,” it said.
“Instead the focus was on the avoidance of scandal and the preservation of the good name, status and assets of the institution and of what the institution regarded as its most important members – the priests,” it said.
read more @ irish times
2. Vatican IGNORED commission letters
Letters sent by the Commission of Investigation to the Vatican and to the papal nuncio in Ireland seeking information were ignored, the report has disclosed.
The commission wrote to the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, of which Pope Benedict had been head until April 2005, in September 2006.
It was asking for information on the document `Crimen Solicitationis’, which dealt with clerical sex abuse, as well as information on reports of clerical child sexual abuse conveyed to it by the Dublin archdiocese over the relevant period.
The Vatican did not reply. Instead it contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that the commission had not gone through appropriate diplomatic channels.
The commission said that as a body independent of Government, it did not consider it appropriate for it to use diplomatic channels.
In February 2007, the commission wrote to the papal nuncio in Dublin asking that he forward to it all documents in his possession which might be relevant to it and which had not been or were not produced by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. It also requested that he confirm it if he had no such documents. The papal nuncio did not reply.
Earlier this year, the commission again wrote to the papal nuncio enclosing extracts from its draft report which referred to him and his office, as it was required to do. Again, there was no reply.
Vatican senior spokesman Father Federico Lombardi told The Irish Times today it was a matter for “the local church involved”.
Father Lombardi said diplomatic practice requires that any outside requests made to the governance of the Vatican would pass through diplomatic channels, in this case the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin and the Irish Embassy to the Holy See in Rome.
“It’s obvious, if you are looking for official documents from the Vatican then you have to go through the normal diplomatic channels,” he said.
Vatican observers argue that the same “diplomatic” reasoning would apply to the lack of a reply from the nuncio in Dublin. As the Vatican’s Ambassador in Ireland, he cannot respond directly to a request from an independent Irish body.
As for the overall findings of the report, Fr Lombardi was reluctant to add any further comment. “In all cases like this, it is not appropriate for Rome to comment, rather that is for the local bishop. In the case of Dublin, we have an excellent Archbishop and he knows what has to be said.”
3. church used 'don't tell' approach
The pre-occupations of the Dublin Archdiocese in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the “maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church and the preservation of its assets”, the Murphy commission has said.
It says the American phrase “don’t ask, don’t tell” was appropriate to describe the attitude of the Dublin Archdiocese to clerical sex abuse for most of the period covered by the report.
There was an “obsessive concern with secrecy and the avoidance of scandal” and successive Archbishops and bishops failed to report complaints to the gardai prior to 1996.
Main findings:
- The archdiocese first made inquiries about insurance cover against compensation claims in the mid 1980s and such cover was put in place in 1987.
- The commission said it “did not accept” as true the church’s repeated claims to have been on “a learning curve” in relation to allegations of child sexual abuse.
- In 1981, Archbishop Dermot Ryan “showed a clear understanding of both the recidivist nature of child sexual abusers and the effects of such abuse on children” when he referred a priest to a therapeutic facility in Stroud, in the UK.
- “All the Archbishops of Dublin in the period covered by the Commission were aware of some complaints. This is true of many of the auxiliary bishops also. At the time the Archdiocese took out insurance in 1987, Archbishop Dermot Ryan and Archbishop John Charles McQuaid had had, between them, available information on complaints against at least 17 priests operating under the aegis of the Dublin Archdiocese. The taking out of insurance was an act proving knowledge of child sexual abuse as a potential major cost to the Archdiocese and is inconsistent with the view that Archdiocesan officals were still on a ‘learning curve’ at a much later date, or were lacking in an appreciation of the phenomenon of child sexual abuse.”
- Many of the auxiliary bishops also knew of the fact of abuse as did officials, including Monsignor Gerard Sheehy and Monsignor Alex Stenson who worked in the Chancellery. Bishop James Kavanagh, Bishop Dermot O’Mahony, Bishop Laurence Forristal, Bishop Donal Murray and Bishop Brendan Comiskey were aware for many years of complaints and/or suspicions of clerical child sexual abuse in the Archdiocese. Religious orders were also aware.
- The commission said it found claims of ignorance on the part of the church authorities and the religious orders who were dealing with complaints “very difficult to accept” as they were all “very well educated people”.
read more @ irish times
No comments:
Post a Comment