SUMMARY: The Cloyne report is not convinced that
State laws and guidelines on the protection of children are sufficiently
strong and clear.
THE RESPONSE of the Cloyne diocese to complaints
and allegations of clerical child sexual abuse from 1996 to 2009 was
“inadequate and inappropriate”, the report by the Commission of
Investigation into the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne has found.
The
response of the Garda was, with a few exceptions, adequate and
appropriate, as was the response of the health authorities “given the
information available to them and limited powers which they have”.
The
commission says the primary responsibility for the protection of
children rests with the State and adds that it is not convinced the
State’s laws and guidelines are sufficiently strong and clear for this
task.
The Bishop of Cloyne, Dr John Magee, was ineffective and
appeared to take little real interest in the implementation of existing
church guidelines on child sexual abuse for 12 years, according to the
341-page report.
It says the man he allowed to exercise the
authority of the diocese in this area, Msgr Denis O’Callaghan, was
“uncommitted” to the guidelines, he frustrated their implementation and
acted in what he perceived were the best interests of the church.
“The
commission accepts that he was personally kind in many respects to some
complainants but kindness is not enough when dealing with criminal
activity or with people who have been abused.”
The report blames
Bishop Magee for allowing Msgr O’Callaghan to be in charge of the
diocesan policy on child sexual abuse for many years without
supervision. “The extent of the inertia of the bishop which made these
things possible is remarkable.”
The report describes the handling
of “allegations, complaints, suspicions and concerns” about child sexual
abuse in respect of 19 clerics. One of these, and the only person who
is named, is Bishop Magee.
Although the Cloyne inquiry grew out of
an original investigation into clerical sexual abuse in the archdiocese
of Dublin, the report makes its clear that the context differs
significantly.
The Cloyne report deals with allegations made from
1996, the year the Catholic Church put in place detailed procedures for
handling child sexual abuse allegations. It was also two years after the
Fr Brendan Smyth case.
“This meant that the so-called ‘learning
curve’ which it was claimed excused very poor handling of complaints in
other dioceses in the past could not have had any basis or relevance in
Cloyne,” the report states.
The commission received complaints
about 32 named clerics and one unnamed cleric in Cloyne and proceeded to
investigate 19 of these cases. Eleven of the clerics are dead while a
number of others have retired.
IT SAYS ITS main task was to
consider whether the diocese responded adequately or appropriately to
allegations of child sexual abuse, judged by the high standards of the
church’s policy set out in a “framework document” in 1996.
The
guidelines in this document were not fully or consistently implemented
during the period 1996 to 2009, it finds. The primary responsibility for
this failure rests with Bishop Magee.
“It is a remarkable fact
that Bishop Magee took little or no active interest in the management of
clerical sexual abuse cases until 2009, 12 years after the framework
document was adopted,” the report finds.
As a result of this
“vacuum”, the handling of cases was carried out by others, principally
Msgr O’Callaghan, who did not approve of the procedures set out in the
framework document.
Describing the reaction of the Vatican to the
framework document as “entirely unhelpful”, the report claims this gave
individual Irish bishops the freedom to ignore the procedures which they
had agreed. It also gave “comfort and support” to those, like Msgr
O’Callaghan, who dissented from official church policy.
Bishop
Magee told the commission he was shocked to discover in 2009 that the
document was not being implemented.
However, the report says this
response was totally inadequate.
“Bishop Magee was the head of the
diocese and cannot avoid his responsibility by blaming subordinates whom
he wholly failed to supervise.”
Although ultimate responsibility
lay with the bishop, in practice the implementation of the framework
document was “stymied” by Msgr O’Callaghan, whose compliance was
“limited and incomplete”.
The report rejects the contention of the
diocese that it did implement the church procedures for dealing with
abuse allegations. Its “greatest failure” was to not report complaints
to the Garda.
Between 1996 and 2005, 15 complaints were made which
should have been reported to the Garda; of these, nine were not
reported. Two of the unreported cases involved minors and in another
case, Msgr O’Callaghan reported the complainant’s name but not that of
the perpetrator.
The diocese also failed to report complaints against deceased priests until 2009, in contravention of the church’s rules.
Between
1996 and 2009, just one complaint was reported to the health
authorities.
The diocese is also faulted for not appointing separate
support people for complainants and for not setting up an advisory panel
that was independent.
THE REPORT POINTS out that the diocese was
told in 2004 that it was not implementing the framework document
properly.
An independent expert, Dr Kevin McCoy, examined eight cases
and found that reporting obligations were fully complied with in only
one case.
Msgr O’Callaghan said he did not see the full McCoy
report until 2009 but the commission says it is astonishing that he did
not look for a copy. The failure to read and take heed of this report is
“quite extraordinary”.
The commission says one of the ironies of
Msgr O’Callaghan’s position was that it was clear from the evidence that
he believed the complainants. This made his failure to implement his
own church’s policy all the more surprising.
The report is also
critical of the recording of information about abuse complaints by the
diocese, some of which was undated or handwritten and difficult to read,
and of its failure to carry out proper canonical investigations.
One
priest in the diocese tried to report to Bishop Magee about complaints
but was discouraged. Five more failed to pass on the information they
had received.
There was no case in which the diocese moved priests against whom allegations had been made; a number of priests were retired.
The commission, while praising most of the gardaí who handled abuse complaints, expresses concern about three cases.
In
the first, an investigation was not started. In another case, a
statement taken from a young man was put in a drawer and forgotten
about, while in the third, the evidence given by a garda differed from
the statements he made to earlier Garda investigations.
The
commission says it was not its task to establish whether or not child
sexual abuse occurred or whether or not there was a basis for the
suspicions and concerns expressed.
It says it has done its utmost
to preserve the anonymity of complainants and of clerics but regrets
that it was not possible to report the case involving concerns about
Bishop Magee without identifying him.