There is clearly a divide in the Dublin diocese among those who accept Archbishop Diarmuid Martin's policy approach to the Murphy Report and those senior clerics in the Archdiocese of Dublin who are disappointed with it.
As the documents published in The Irish Catholic this week show, Bishop Dermot O'Mahony, a retired auxiliary Bishop of Dublin mentioned extensively in the report, has been extremely critical of what he perceives as the archbishop's lack of support for priests. Contrasting Dr Martin's response to the report with that of Justice Minister Dermot Ahern (who moved to defend serving gardai by insisting that the report dealt with an earlier culture within the force), Bishop O'Mahony accuses the archbishop of doing nothing to counteract the view that most priests knew about abuse and did nothing.
He is not alone in his criticism of Archbishop Martin's approach. As reported in this newspaper last week the long-standing former chancellor of the archdiocese, Msgr Alex Stenson, also named extensively in the report, is not happy that the context in which the archdiocese mismanaged clerical abuse has not been explored by the archbishop. It was quite an extraordinary revelation that the archbishop had not spoken to him about his time as chancellor to three archbishops.
Yet those who are close to the archbishop will say that priests will not accept the idea of a cover-up and blandly state 'we did nothing wrong'. They say that priests as a body need to express a sense of responsibility - everybody is prepared to acknowledge what happened in the report - but who is accepting accountability and doing something about it? Arguments can be made by everyone named in the report that they did their best and yet that would leave us with nobody taking responsibility. To date the only person who has been truly accountable has been Bishop Jim Moriarty who said he should have done more to challenge the culture at the time, a culture headed up by Cardinal Connell, a good friend of the current Pope. Will Archbishop Martin finally ask Cardinal Connell to publicly answer the many questions which still remain about his time as archbishop or will Cardinal Connell continue to be protected while the men who had less authority are asked to show accountability?
Clearly many priests in the diocese are at odds with the assertion that there was a culture of cover-up and that they were part of it. It may be, given Andrew Madden's comments that he has no wish to see others such as Alex Stenson resign, that the level of accountability being demanded by the archbishop goes too far.
And it is not just a concern for unity in Dublin, the Irish Bishops themselves are split. A large majority of people polled recently said they believed the Murphy Report was mishandled. How could this have happened as the archdiocese and all those named in the report had drafts long before it was published. The day the report was published, Archbishop Martin was flanked at the press conference by Bishop Eamonn Walsh. Within days, the archbishop was distancing himself from Bishop Walsh and indeed the other serving auxiliary bishop Dr Raymond Field.
In one of the letters published this week, Archbishop Martin accuses Bishop O'Mahony of not expressing any remorse or apology. Yet, weeks earlier, Bishop O'Mahony had provided to the Archbishop's communications director an abject apology which he says he intended them to publish as a public statement. Ms O'Donnell has confirmed to this paper that the Archbishop did see the letter of apology, but her office was not requested to publish it by Bishop O'Mahony. So why did Archbishop Martin take such harsh action against Bishop O'Mahony on the grounds that he had shown no remorse when he knew of the letter of apology?
Clearly figuring out the way forward for the Dublin Diocese and the Irish Church is going to involve people sitting down and talking to each other and trying to find common ground, if it is not too late.
