Chapter 13 of the Murphy Report deals with the priest known by the pseudonym Fr Edmondus.

Born in 1931, he was ordained in 1957. The following year he was appointed as chaplain to Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children in Crumlin, serving there until 1960, when he moved on to a number of appointments within the Dublin archdiocese before his faculties were withdrawn in 1997, the same year as his conviction for indecent assault against two girls, resulting in nine months imprisonment. He remains a priest, but is prohibited from exercising ministry or wearing clerical garb.

While at Our Lady's, Fr Edmondus committed a number of sexual assaults on patients aged between eight and 11.

One of those victims was Marie Collins who told the Murphy Commission that Fr Edmondus ''betrayed the trust invested in him by his religious superiors. He betrayed the trust of hospital authorities...my parents' trust...my trust and my innocence. He abused his power and used my respect for his religious position to abuse and degrade me - a child - not just a child but a sick child. How much lower can you sink? A man like that deserves our prayers but not our protection''.

Film

The proclivities of Fr Edmondus first surface in August 1960, when Archbishop John Charles McQuaid was informed that a roll of film, sent by the priest to a processor in Britain had been forwarded to Scotland Yard, and in turn to An Garda Síochána. Then-Commissioner Costigan met with Dr McQuaid to reveal that the film contained ''26 transparencies of the private parts of two small girls, aged 10 or 11 years''. (Murphy Report)

Commissioner Costigan asked Dr McQuaid to take over the case as gardai could prove nothing and ''because a priest was in question''. The Murphy team found no evidence of ''any Garda investigation''.

Using the procedures contained in the Vatican's 1922 instruction, Archbishop McQuaid referred the case to his auxiliary, Bishop Dunne, who ''expressed the view that a crimen pessimum (the worst crime, which includes child sexual abuse) had been committed''.

Dr McQuaid subsequently met Fr Edmondus and made a record of that meeting in which he notes: ''He pretended there was no film in the camera he was carrying and photographed them in sexual postures...chiefly in a way that opened up the parts.

He declared that he had done so, as one would take an art photo, seeing no grave sin at all. In questioning, I discovered that he had been reared with brothers, had never moved about socially with girls and tended to avoid them.'' (A Murphy footnote clarifies: ''In fact, Fr Edmondus had a sister so either he was clearly not telling the whole truth to the archbishop or the archbishop chose to ignore it.'')

Dr McQuaid concluded that ''I felt that he clearly understood the nature of the sinful act involved and to send him on retreat would defame him.'' Further, in agreement with Bishop Dunne, it was decided that there was not an objective and subjective crime of the type envisaged in the 1922 instruction and consequently there was no need to refer the matter to Rome.

The stage was now set for all that followed connected with Fr Edmondus.

1985

In November, a Crumlin hospital victim of Fr Edmondus, Marie Collins approached her local curate, Fr Eddie Griffin, to speak about her abuse, when aged 13, in 1960 involving both physical abuse and photographing. By Fr Griffin's own testimony (to gardai in 2004): ''I didn't want to know the name of the priest. If she told me the name, I had to do something about it. We as priests had been advised while in college not to seek the name of priests that allegations were being made against. I told her not to feel any guilt about what had happened and that the priest had done wrong and if she had any guilt I could give her absolution.''

According to Murphy, critical of this response to a ''criminal offence'' as ''inadequate'': ''It was to be another 10 years before Mrs Collins plucked up the courage to report the matter to Archbishop's House.''

1993

A local priest passed to Bishop James Moriarty a complaint made to him of Fr Edmondus's ''contact with young children''. Fr Edmondus was, at the time, curate at Edenmore in north Dublin. Bishop Moriarty discussed the problem with Archbishop Desmond Connell and then warned Fr Edmondus to desist from behaviour, which again involved photographing children.

Murphy: ''No attempt was made to check archives relating to Fr Edmondus when these complaints were received. Bishop Moriarty pointed out that he did not have access to the archives but he could have asked the archbishop to conduct a search.''

1995

In October, Marie Collins wrote both to Dr Connell and Our Lady's Hospital about her abuse. Dr Connell initiated a preliminary investigation under canon 1717 and appointed Msgr Alex Stenson as the delegate. Murphy notes that by now, Church authorities were ''familiar with many aspects of clerical child abuse. The Framework Document was well advanced [and] several Church personnel had travelled to dioceses in the USA to learn from their experiences. In addition there had been fall out of the Fr Brendan Smyth case and the archdiocese had received a significant number of complaints of sexual abuse by priests''.

A trawl of secret archives now revealed the 1960 photography complaint to Dr Connell and Mgsr Stenson. Though chancellor of Dublin since 1981, Mgsr Stenson only became aware of the 1993 complaint in the course of his investigation. Cardinal Connell would later state that ''he did not feel it necessary to refer the concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Fr Edmondus to Msgr Stenson''.

He did, however, pass the Marie Collins letter to the monsignor, who made arrangements to meet her and apologised on behalf of Dr Connell. When that meeting took place, Msgr Stenson indicated he would have to notify gardai of her complaints. Murphy: ''It is very clear that Msgr Stenson believed Mrs Collins.'' However, Murphy also notes: ''He did not tell her that there were other incidents and concerns'' relating to Fr Edmondus while at Our Lady's.

In November, with the permission of Archbishop Connell, Msgr Stenson informed An Garda of the 1960 incidents. (He waited until March 1996 to share the information with Marie Collins, stating that he did not feel free to do so as he was ''constrained by [his] oath of secrecy'' as chancellor)

Msgr Stenson then met with Fr Edmondus, who in response to the Marie Collins' complaint said: ''I cannot place the girl.'' He did, however, acknowledge that inappropriate touching could have happened, and that a Christmas card sent to Marie (in the possession of Msgr Stenson) contained his signature. Msgr Stenson subsequently supplied gardai with an address for Fr Edmondus.

In December, following assessment, the Grenada Institute recommended that Fr Edmondus ''be removed from ministry'' based on ''the escalatory nature of the alleged abuse''.

1996

An Garda ruled that while holding the opinion that ''the events described by Marie Collins did happen'' lack of evidence and the considerable time delay made any prosecution ''fruitless''.

In March, Marie Collins met again with Msgr Stenson, who confirmed that Fr Edmondus had admitted his abuse, though as Murphy notes: ''What Fr Edmondus had said could not be regarded as a clear admission.'' Msgr Stenson also informed Mrs Collins the priest ''was not in a parish''.

Fr Edmondus was, in fact, still a curate in Edenmore.

Cardinal Connell later said: ''I did not remove him immediately. I told him he was not to live there and he wasn't to minister there. In that sense I took him out of his parish.''

Despite such instruction, Fr Edmondus continued to visit the parish and his name remained on the confessional for a number of months. The Murphy team found no evidence of monitoring, and the priest's faculties were not formally withdrawn until January 1997.

Also in March, the Eastern Health Board notified An Garda of alleged abuse by Fr Edmondus on a nine-year-old child in Co. Wicklow. Interviewed by gardai on this, Fr Edmondus ''had nothing to say''.

Legal advice

In May, having decided to revisit the Marie Collins case, gardai met with Msgr Stenson and requested a copy of Fr Edmondus's file. The monsignor refused, citing the need to gain legal advice and the lack of permission contained in canon law for the move. When presented with a letter he had written to Marie Collins on the issue to Fr Edmondus's admission to him, Msgr Stenson expressed dismay that the letter had been handed to An Garda, and refused to make a statement to officers on the admission.

In June, in a letter, Marie Collins asks Archbishop Connell to inform all parishes linked with Fr Edmondus of his admission. Murphy notes that ''nothing was done about this until after his conviction''.

In October, Msgr Stenson spoke with the priest who was first made aware of the concerns at Edenmore parish reported to Bishop Moriarty in 1993. He tells of Edmondus's ''extensive involvement with children'' and his '''disastrous' relationship with adults and fellow priests''.

Meeting once again with Msgr Stenson, Fr Edmondus admits taking photographs of children at his home, ''but there was nothing questionable in them . . . there was no snooping or touching whatsoever''.

In November, Msgr Stenson convened a meeting at Archbishop's House with Health Board officials, at which he conveyed his concerns about children in Edenmore parish and possible inappropriate behaviour on the part of a priest in the year 1990. Despite giving assurances that the Health Board would ''make discreet enquiries'', a senior social worker reported to Msgr Stenson in December that the Board was not able to follow-up ''because of the vagueness of the addresses provided''.

Also in December, the case of Fr Edmondus was referred to the diocesan advisory panel which made a number of recommendations, including withdrawing the priest's faculties, a meeting of the archbishop with Marie Collins and the passing of the correct Edenmore addresses to the Health Board when they became available.

Dr Connell met with Marie Collins and her support priest, Fr James Norman that same month and apologised ''for the hurt caused to her''. However, when she raised the issue of her June letter, Dr Connell did not explain why he did not reply but said ''it had raised very difficult questions''. On the issue of his not giving a statement to gardai confirming a 1960 complaint against Fr Edmondus, Dr Connell said ''it would undermine people's confidence in the Church if they thought files were being passed to gardaí''. Dr Connell explained to Mrs Collins ''that the Framework document was not binding in canon or civil law and therefore he could follow what parts of it he wanted''. (Murphy)

Fr Norman concluded after the meeting that ''the archbishop came across as someone who really cared for the victim, but had not 'got a clue' about how to go about dealing with the reality of the problem''. (Murphy)

1997

In January, Fr Edmondus's faculties were withdrawn.

In March, the priest was arrested and charged with offences relating to abuse of a child in Co. Wicklow and also the sexual abuse of Marie Collins.

Fr Edmondus pleaded guilty to these charges in June and was sentenced to 18 months in prison (reduced on appeal to nine months in November).

Archbishop Connell made a statement to the media after the conviction, describing the abuse of a child as ''wrong and evil'' and stating that the ''diocese had been co-operating with the gardai'', though Fr Norman told gardai that ''Msgr Stenson claimed that the diocese never claimed it had cooperated fully, with the emphasis on the word 'fully'''.

1998

May saw the release of Fr Edmondus. A letter from Dr Connell to the Grenada Institute stated: ''The archbishop has given clear indication that he does not envisage a return to ministry in this case, and so Fr Edmondus will be retired under monitored conditions.'' The Murphy Report notes: ''It is not precisely clear what the monitored conditions were.''

1999

The Health Board closes its file on Fr Edmondus, and contacts the archdiocese to inform that ''there was very little to be gained in our pursuit of the people in question''.

2001

In February RTÉ's Would You Believe raises the case of Marie Collins and Fr Edmondus. Mrs Collins's priest advisor later tells the Murphy Commission that ''the archdiocese had been given every opportunity to have a representative go on the programme, but would not do so unless [it] retained editorial control which was not given. It issued no apology on the programme to Mrs Collins. This caused her further upset''.

In June, asked for a report on Fr Edmondus, the Grenada Institute states: ''He is very much aware of his need to stay away from contact with children and he is meticulous in observing this.'' Murphy noted: ''It is not at all clear how Grenada could have known this other than by accepting what they were told by Fr Edmondus.''

Summing up the ''disaster'' that was Fr Edmondus, the Murphy Report states that Archbishop Connell ''handled the case badly'', noting that his failure to check on previous complaints against the priest meant ''concerns were not taken as seriously as they should have been''.

''Msgr Stenson's failure to disclose all available information to gardai,'' meanwhile, ''is a cause for concern. He should have been far more forthright with gardaí, but felt precluded from doing so by canon law.''

Inadequate

The reaction of the curate whose response to Marie Collins was to offer her absolution was ''inadequate''. ''His assertion that, as priests, they had been told in college not to seek the names of priests against whom allegations were being made . . . is a cause for great concern. Such an attitude would explain in large measure the many appalling deficiencies in the Church's handling of complaints of child sexual abuse over the years.''

Murphy notes, in relation to Dr Connell's period leading Dublin, the handling of Edmondus demonstrates that Framework document guidelines ''were not being implemented''.

Giving voice to Marie Collins, Murphy states she ''now believes, on the basis of bitter experience, that her Church cannot be trusted to deal properly with complaints of child sexual abuse and that legal measures are required to ensure compliance by the Church with proper standards of child protection''.

Above all, and as with other Murphy-named priests, the report notes a missed opportunity at the very earliest stages.

''The apparent cancellation by Archbishop McQuaid of his original plan to pursue the priest through the procedures of canon law was a disaster [and] established a pattern of not holding abusers accountable which lasted for decades.''