Madam,
I started reading the Murphy report at 10am in an office of the Department of Justice last Thursday week and quickly became both very angry and very sad as chapter after chapter revealed sickening details of acts of abuse perpetrated by priests on vulnerable young children. No matter how many other reports I may have read or how easily I recall my own childhood experiences at the hands of former priest Ivan Payne, there is nothing that prepares a decent human being for the details of how any adults, let alone priests, sexually abused young children.
And then there is the cover-up of that abuse. The knowing calculating self-serving cover-up of the sexual abuse of children in order to maintain secrecy, avoid scandal, protect the reputation of the church and preserve its assets. The report is quite clear that these were the preoccupations of the archdiocese in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, adding that the commission of investigation had no doubt that child sexual abuse was covered up by the archdiocese and that the structures and roles of the church facilitated that cover-up.
Bishop Donal Murray’s behaviour is described as inexcusable; he protests that this is not the only description of his behaviour. He is right: the report also says he was aware for many years of complaints and/or suspicions of clerical child sexual abuse, dealt badly with a number of complaints, and he did not deal properly with the suspicions and concerns that were expressed to him. These comments don’t exactly balance out the finding of his actions being inexcusable.
Although Bishop Jim Moriarty told the people in Kildare and Leighlin, he was not directly criticised in the report, in fact he was. He claimed his reason for not properly investigating Fr Edmondus was because he did not have access to the archives, but the report says that he could have asked the archbishop to conduct a search which would have revealed earlier sexual abuse by the priest.
Bishops Drennan, Walsh and Field, were auxiliary bishops of Dublin during some of the period (1975-2004) covered by the commission of investigation. The report tells us that a number of auxiliary bishops were made aware of complaints of child sexual abuse by priests in their geographical areas. Others found out about such priests through the regular monthly meetings involving the archbishop and the auxiliary bishops. It is not believable to me that none of these three, as bishops attending those meetings, were unaware that child sexual abuse was covered up by the archdiocese. They were bishops working in a diocese where children were sexually abused by priests, priests that the diocese knew were dangerous. They were all part of a structure and culture that facilitated the sexual abuse of children.
It is time for Bishops Murray, Moriarty, Drennan, Walsh and Field to resign. Some of them tried to keep a low profile, others are trying to hold onto office in a manner that has become obscene. I would urge them not to hide behind the fact that some of them were not criticised in the report; the report details only a sample of allegations against 46 priests, but it found allegations against 172. There are almost 40 pages missing from the report: what will they reveal when they are published?
For the Murphy report to so conclusively find that child sexual abuse was covered up by the archdiocese at a time when these men were all bishops in the diocese, and for them all to remain in office is to add insult to injury to me, and many people like me, who were sexually abused by priests. It is deeply hurtful and distressing that none of them can see that the hurt and pain caused to so many children in the archdiocese at a time when they were bishops is reason enough for them all to respect those sad experiences and go.
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has told his fellow bishops that they must come out and answer questions raised in the report. But there are no questions raised in the report, each chapter concludes with findings of fact. It doesn’t ask Bishop Murray if he thinks his actions were inexcusable, it tells us they were. It doesn’t accuse him of behaving inexcusably, it tells us he did. Archbishop Martin has no right to tell bishops that they should respond to this report and if their responses are acceptable to him and his priests then maybe things will be okay.
Things are not okay; he is not the one to judge their actions, Judge Yvonne Murphy has done that and on the basis of her findings, the bishops, as named here, should resign. And if they don’t, Archbishop Martin should resign before his meeting with them next week. In the meantime, Archbishop Martin should stop trying to undermine the commission of investigation and its findings. – Yours, etc,
ANDREW MADDEN,
The media are just stirring the pot of the Church, bishops, priests nuns until the public just get sick of the taste, they have the tv shows, radio, newspapers,magazines and everything else but the one ingredient is missing from the pot and that is the truth about how survivors are being treated today, the public have a good idea now what has happened but before the public get sick of it all they should know now how the survivors are being treated today.
Paddy, I received this letter today from Barry Clifford. A man with enough strength for the lot of us!
Also Barry,I shall forward you the letter from Mary McAleese. Sadly there have been no more replies as promised. And none from Diarmuid Martin or Brian Cowan.
HERE WE GO AGAIN This has been an interesting week in regard to my call to fight on yourwebsite Paddy, and the response and feedback has been more than positive. I am saddened thoughto know that so many of us out there feel they have been let down on every levelwith regards to justice that carries with it a feeling of betrayal from inside their own tents. This is no accident but design that preys on the most basic of all emotions, weakness.It was born along side the birth of the so called ‘redress board. In other to minimize victims compensation and truth itself several models were used to divide and conquer and most of them worked. The first one was the scale used to assess damages. The higher the pain the greater the claim as long as it was proved. This of course meant that you had literally to grovel, beg, and foam at the mouth while limping like a performing seal to get attention in that boardroom. There was no room at the inn if you were the strong silent type, or a touch proud with it, and the indignities did not stop there. Then had us elect our own from these wretched institutions and many applied for the job to keep us informed of what was going on. The reality was different and it only takes one to bring down the house. They were keeping the government informed as well.Feted like new found celebrities these Kapos enjoyed the perks and many were applied for and happily given. This was for travel, hotel, pocket money, {a lot of it}dining out, and all carried five star ratings. It would get better. One of our fine reps even had a property to which he received rent from the government for rooms in which we could play tin-whistles and the like and an expense account. The fact that this compromised his position was not noticed by him or related to his moral or legal understanding of the law.The money just kept rolling in as it still does. Then there is the story of cork men by birth or by accident. This one has already hit the headlines with no help from me and it concerns a little man called Noel Barry, a mirror image of many of the reps. This pantomime is playing friendly with the media for the moment and for the present I will enjoy the show.These are the same people that represent you now.There is more, a lot more and I write with controlled anger in giving the reader a mere hint of what is to come. You will be disappointed of that I am sure but itagain will be tempered with more information about their many handlers, for without them it could not have happened. It has a light at the end of the tunnel but it needs you tohelp show the way.I thank all for the valuable information I have received in recent daysthat carried with it the burden of proof and cannot accept anything less. Keep it coming . Forothers who have information, it will carry the stamp of confidentiality until you say otherwise. There is plenty of room at this inn for this is the restroom before the fight. Barry Clifford 0877511113 bgclifford@iol.ie Thank you again Paddy.
Charles, we too thought Diamuid Martin was quite decent. How wrong we were. We wrote to him twice and have never heard a thing from him.
It is beyond words that these monsters cannot see the truth.
Anne.
It must be remembered that the commision only investigated the “Methods” used by the Roman Church in Dublin to cover these most serious crimes, not the actuall children who were ravished. A sample of culprits were investigated not all. This is “One” diocesse and there are 26 diocesses in Ireland.What if all dioceses are investigated and not just their methods.
Andrew, thank you for your fine article and the mere fact that you raise the question of Archbishop Martin’s resignation is electric. I have been thinking the same these last few days witnessing how these bishops value their status and position within the Roman aristocracy with rising bewilderment. All That Martin needs to do is resign and that will be the end of one of the most cunning organisations we have seen in world history. The laity will not follow the bishops, that is for sure.
Yes indeed Archbishop Martin should resign and yes he is one of the few with some sense of what is right and wrong. He should then move to Skellig Michael as a hermit just like the Irish monks did before the Roman Church took control of Ireland. And he should stay there in penance until all bishops and all clergy are brought to book for these most serious crimes. Is there a schism in the Roman Church?, you bet and the sooner the better for the sake of Christianity. Nothing will move these bishops from their palaces which is why the lesson of Skellig Michael is vital to wake the laity from their confusion.