The Irish Times – Saturday, January 2, 2010
PATSY McGARRY, Religious Affairs Correspondent
INTERVIEW: Bishop Martin Drennan responds to questions concerning his time in the Dublin Archdiocese
BISHOP MARTIN Drennan of Galway replied yesterday to four questions posed to him by this newspaper last Tuesday concerning the handling of allegations of child sex abuse made against the late Fr Noel Reynolds.
The allegations were made to the archdiocese after Bishop Drennan was ordained an Auxiliary Bishop of Dublin in September 1997 and also affected his areas of responsibility in the archdiocese, which were south Dublin and north Wicklow.
The questions and responses follow.
Was he aware of information available to the archdiocese about Fr Reynolds while he was chaplain at the National Rehabilitation Institute in Dún Laoghaire up to July 1998 and which was located within his area of the archdiocese? If so did he do anything about this?
“I took up duty in Dublin diocese in late September 1997 at which time Fr Reynolds was already appointed to the National Rehabilitation Institute. I would have understood this appointment to be part of the normal summer appointments, which the Archbishop always made. I was not told about Fr Reynolds’s history nor was it indicated that there was something unusual about his transfer to the National Rehabilitation Institute.
“Bishop Moriarty. He was to deal with whatever issues and questions would arise.”
Was he aware of the meeting attended by priests* of his own area of the archdiocese concerning Fr Reynolds? If so, did he do anything relevant following that meeting?
“What the report says is that priests in all the places where Fr Reynolds worked were brought together (cf 35.43), not all the priests of my area of responsibility. They were told about the allegations against Fr Reynolds. I did not attend that meeting, but I did have a meeting with the then parish priest of Glendalough, because of the implications for a parish and especially for a school in my area and because of the possibility of other victims coming forward.”
*The reference in the question is to priests of Glendalough parish.
Was he aware of the legal stance* adopted by the archdiocese against Martha and Mary after they initiated legal action in 2001? If so, did he do anything about it?
“I was not aware of the legal stance taken . . . The Murphy report draws attention to breakdown in communication in the archdiocese. At the time of my appointment, I was not furnished with information concerning priests working in my pastoral area.
“During the period covered by the Murphy report, when I was an auxiliary bishop in the archdiocese, the Archbishop made all major decisions, which was his responsibility by virtue of his office.”
*In opposing a legal action by Martha and Mary the archdiocese argued that, as it was not a legal entity, no claims could be made against it where allegations of abuse by Fr Reynolds of Martha and Mary were concerned. It denied it was the priest’s employer or had any supervisory role in relation to him. It claimed Cardinal Connell was not responsible in law for any alleged wrongdoings by the priest. It said the wrongs alleged against Fr Reynolds were criminal acts and were not a part of his duties.
FYI
Portia on January 2nd said:
“archdiocese argued that, as it was not a legal entity, no claims could be made against it where allegations of abuse by Fr Reynolds of Martha and Mary were concerned.”
My understanding of the above is that the legal entity – at least for insurance and other similar purposes is the Lawrence O’Toole Trust – or some similarly named vehicle.
I am sure that this or a similar vehicle is used to ensure that their tax situation is ensured and maintained.
MM
Semantics and syntax will not be the cover under which they hide. We are a more enlightened populace and as such are not frightened by men in frocks and silly hats, nor men in wigs and gowns. These cross dressers have to do their jobs and have to bow to the law of the land before all else, because no matter what their elevation in life coupled with their fancy titles, they are first and foremost men and women!
Where’s the moral fibre of these lily livered perverts?
“archdiocese argued that, as it was not a legal entity, no claims could be made against it where allegations of abuse by Fr Reynolds of Martha and Mary were concerned.”
Once again, it is clear how men of god made laws to cover their own evil doings.
The archdiocese is not a legal entity- but the CHURCH IS A CORPORATION..and corporations are accountable.
Anyway, Universal Law prevails..
It is a simple law of one line- no legal jargon and messing with words.
The law of the Universe is.
DO NO HARM TO ANY LIVING BEING.
See how simple it all really is- no acts to play with, no man made alws to suit the rich and powerful and demonise the innocent and the poor.
If they did follow Jesus- he said simply too.
LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF.
I cringe at the use of SELECTIVE MEMORY of the men of god.
It is so convenient at times.