Msgr Alex Stenson hasn't given any media interviews since the publication of the Murphy Report. However, he has decided to speak to this paper in order to get across what he feels are the key criteria why the Dublin archdiocese got child protection so badly wrong in the past and he feels this context is being overlooked in the public debate. Editor, Garry O'Sullivan reports

Msgr Alex Stenson was Chancellor to three archbishops (1981-1997) and wielded considerable influence and power in the Dublin archdiocese. However, he says that he was middle management, and that he reported to the archbishop who discussed matters with his auxiliaries, occasionally calling Msgr Stenson to report at those meetings, much the same as a manager would report to his board.

He spent five days giving evidence before the Murphy Commission. He was asked about the culture of protecting clergy, but says that he was surprised by this, that the notion of protecting clergy never crossed his mind - ''I was concerned about dealing with accused priests. Protecting them was never a priority in my mind whereas their possible rehabilitation was, a consideration dependant on what the psychiatric experts' diagnosis and opinion were''. He believes there was a difference between what the Commission thought the diocese was doing (ie. Protecting their own) and what in fact the diocese was attempting.

Appreciated

As a canon lawyer, he says he is not sure that the Commission appreciated the differences between the 1918 Code of Canon Law reflecting the Church's understanding of herself at Vatican I and the 1983 code reflecting a much richer Ecclesiology of Vatican II.

''The Church,'' he says ''was and is very much about the salvation of souls and it was this which was its primary consideration in dealing with abused and abusers.'' He quotes the last canon of the 1983 code: ''Keeping in mind that the salvation of souls in the Church must always be the Supreme Law.'' (c.1752) For Christians God is the God of mercy and forgiveness. Pope John Paul II, while stating that there is ''no place in the priesthood for those who would harm children'', continues in the same address ''we cannot forget the power of Christian Conversion, that radical decision to turn away from sin and back to God, which reaches the depths of a person's soul and can work extraordinary change.'' (23-4-02)

Treated

He believes that there is a willingness in society to overlook the fact that someone with paedophile tendencies is a sick person with a illness that needs to be treated.

''What abusers did was wrong. It was dreadful, but was it always sinful? It was always wrong. Sinful? I am not so sure at times. If someone is a paedophile it can have a bearing on their culpability. In Church Law culpability may be reduced depending on the severity of the pathology (cf. Mur. Rep., 4:61). The Criminal Law recognises the possibility of seriously wrong actions (murder) and a verdict of guilty but insane.''

The Commission commented on this saying it was concerned ''about the uncertainty which exists as to whether a person who has been diagnosed as a paedophile could ever be guilty of a canonical offence. If it is to be the case that, because of their psychiatric or psychological condition, paedophiles cannot be guilty of offences, then canon law needs to provide for alternative means of dealing with paedophile priests.'' (Mur Rep 4.93)

What is becoming clear now in the interview is that Msgr Stenson parts company with the Commission on some of its findings so I ask him if he accepts all the findings and conclusions of the Murphy Commission's report? ''By and large yes.'' He is, however, concerned, somewhat understandably, about what the report says about him. The Commission does say that he carried out the investigations superbly, but is somewhat critical of him because he generally did not tell complainants that he believed them, even when he did and when he was aware of other similar complaints about the same person. (M.Rep., 1:61).

Also two victims found him somewhat intimidating but Msgr Stenson believes that he explained adequately to the Commission why this may have appeared so.

So why did he not tell the victims that he believed them or that there were other cases? ''The Commission recognises and accepts that I was bound by secrecy and was not free to divulge these matters.'' (M Rep., 4-82 ff)

Overall, the Commission considers that Msgr Stenson performed his task better than other office holders in the archdiocese.

Secrecy

Msgr Stenson parts company with the Murphy Commission, and the Archbishop of Dublin, on the finding that there was a culture of secrecy. ''There was a Christian culture of confidentiality and respect for people's reputations. What has been lacking with the Church's response to the Murphy Report is that some essential elements have not been addressed.

''We had an over reliance and trust in the expertise of psychiatrists and psychologists.'' To back this up he quotes Tony Bates who spoke to Dublin priests at a City West gathering as recently as December 2009. Mr Bates has worked in mental health for 30 years and worked with boys from Artane for the Ryan Report.

Mr Bates stated that psychology had some accountability ''because we were leading you'' he told priests. ''We never really appreciated the effect of sexual abuse on others and the extraordinary damage it does.''

Msgr Stenson quotes a conference he was at in the Vatican in April 2003, on Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, Scientific and Legal Perspectives. Msgr Charles Scicluna, who heads the Church's response to Child Sexual Abuse in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes the same point: ''Experts share part of the burden for past mistakes in this area. The transparency expected of the Church concerning decisions taken years back is also to be expected of experts who may have contributed by their advice and backing to decisions taken by Church Authorities. They are also expected to own up to past mistakes''. (p.18)

Msgr Stenson says that the archdiocese over-relied on professional advice.

Complaint

''A person would come to me with a complaint. The accused priest would be referred to a psychiatrist for treatment and we would be dependant on receiving a favourable report before he could be considered for possible re-appointment. The present archbishop seems un-accepting of this position and the resulting impression given is that former archbishops simply moved abusers from place to place with no thought for their possible re-offending. This is simplistic. They were moved on after experts gave their reports. Marie Murray, the psychologist is quoted as saying ''we got it spectacularly wrong'' but if that is so, and I think it is, it was because others who advised the archbishop also got it spectacularly wrong, and we relied too much on their expertise.''

I asked him about the Fr Carney case, where Fr Carney seemed to run rings around the diocese prolonging the time in which he was a real risk to children. ''Kevin McNamara had just become archbishop and Bishop Kavanagh who was dealing with Fr Carney treated him with a lot of kindness.''

Msgr Stenson is of the opinion that Bishop Kavanagh had a lot of time for Fr Carney as he may have been the first priest Bishop Kavanagh ordained. Fr Carney was treated for alcoholism in late 1985-86 and ''we briefed Dr. Lane O'Kelly very fully''.

''It is interesting that the 2003 conference to which I have earlier referred in a paper dealing with Those who engage in Sexual Behaviour with Children states that not all individuals who so engage are paedophiles. They list some alcoholics, drug abusers, psychopaths et al. We were dealing with Fr Carney some 18 years before that Vatican conference.

''In the late 1980s and early 1990s we were in touch with Fr Rossetti who had written about child abuse in America and Mark Chopco who was legal adviser to the United States bishops, so we were keeping abreast of what was going on in other areas where child abuse had surfaced as a real problem. Experts for example, still differ on recidivism/relapsing (cf. Conf. P.186 ff). There is ample literature to show psychologists were and are on a learning curve.''

Damage caused

''Thanks to Marie Collins and Andrew Madden and others, all of us have become much more aware of the damage caused. Even our Civil Courts have only in recent years realised the value of victim impact statements and admit them in some cases.''

Msgr Stenson said that some of the victims of abuse he met were primarily interested in the offending priest and the risks he posed for other children rather than themselves. ''The survivors I met - only one was a child - did not come looking for money. They would ask that the priest be taken out of ministry and that he get the help he needed. Perhaps the survivors themselves didn't know fully the effects of the abuse they had suffered and the damage it caused. Psychology gradually learnt more because of this as did we.''

Amazingly, he tells me that the current archbishop never spoke to him about his time as chancellor or sought to understand what went wrong from Mgsr Stenson's point of view? ''No not really. I believe he left it to the Commission to delve into the past. He is interested in moving forward from its findings. But the context of the time was hugely important and this has been overlooked.''

Watertight

''There was a systemic defect - each office in Archbishop's House was confidentially watertight. That was based on respect and integrity for people's reputations. The Secretariat, Finance, Education - all had their own areas of competence. I used think that anything that did not fit into one of the other offices was passed on to me in the Chancellery! The Dublin diocese's response to the Murphy Report has, I believe left the ordinary faithful deprived of crucial elements of the story which are available, but which haven't featured. Certainly we got it wrong, but so did others on whom we depended for both legal and professional advice.''

He said that Msgr Sheehy was an eminent canon lawyer and Barrister and that some accused priests went to him for advice. He was a formidable force and voice for priests in difficulties.

Damaging

He believes that the lack of context or interest in exploring context is very damaging to ordinary people trying to grasp why catastrophic errors were made by seemingly good people. ''Victim impact statements are only a recent phenomenon. The context is hugely important. The lack of context in the current debate is seriously troubling.

It is as though we are being asked to play on a media pitch of sound bites such as 'cover up', ''guilt by association'', 'mental reservation', etc. Is 'guilt by association' a moral principle and if so where do you draw the line? Is confidentiality and respect for the right of a person to their good name, a form of 'cover up'?'' he asks.

''I would hope that this whole experience may give society the courage to face sexual abuse at large. The Church is somewhat like the prow of a ship meeting this evil and perhaps in a prophetic way preparing and enabling society to learn from our sad experience to face and tackle with courage the ramifications of this evil even in family life,'' says Msgr Stenson.

Speaking of context, lots of people have asked why he and others did not simply go to the Garda? ''Some people did not want to go to the gardaí. They wanted the priest taken out of ministry. In other cases they went to the gardai before they came to us. But at no stage did we ever prohibit anyone from reporting to the gardaí. The survivors were adults (with one exception) when they chose to come to us. They were perfectly free to go to the gardaí also if they so wished.''

Policy

''The 1996 Framework Document introduced a reporting policy which, as I have indicated above 'hiccupped' in Rome! Rome was not helpful when we published the Framework Document in January 1996 and the authorities did not grant it the recognitio it required, for whatever reason. My own belief is that the reporting policy it contained was perhaps a step too far at that time.''

Again, we're back to Canon Law and its interpretation which seems to have hamstrung the Dublin diocese in dealing with errant priests. ''Canon 1722 states you can only remove a priest after a penal process has been initiated. Some bishops in an effort to get round this difficulty, tried invoking Canon 223 par. 2 to justify a form of administrative leave by restricting the rights of an accused priest. As recently as 2008 Rome made it clear that such an interpretation of Canon 223 is a misuse of the law.''

Given the view emanating from Archbishop's House is that those who were part of what they feel was a culture of secrecy should take responsibility and be accountable, will you resign? ''From what? The priesthood? As Parish Priest of Killester and all it entails, such as Chairman of Board of Management of the Boys' School? No, I do not intend to. There is no question mark over my integrity. According to the Murphy Report I was a 'scourge of paedophile priests'. I was appointed by the Archbishop and I will stay where I am until the Archbishop decides otherwise. The report clears me and in no way impugns my integrity in relation to children.

''On the contrary it commends me for my investigations. One survivor, who was a child when I met him, has a recollection of our meeting which is very different to my own. The contemporaneous notes of my interview with him and my own clear recollection would not tally with the memory he has of our meeting. The last thing in the world I would have done was to set out to intimidate a young boy. I believe that did not happen.''

I ask several questions about the auxiliary bishops, Archbishop Martin, but Msgr Stenson suggests I ask them myself. Yet while he doesn't comment on the calls for Bishop Drennan to step down, he does point to the fact that after 1996, Cardinal Connell was advised by prominent lay-people on child protection. ''The decision making process of Cardinal Connell since 1996 was aided by many eminent lay people. The Advisory Board, as recommended by the Framework Document, consisted of at least nine lay people, like for example T K Whittaker, Dr Patricia Casey, its chairman David Kennedy. The cardinal always accepted their recommendations, so lay people were very involved in much of the decision-making.'' Bishop Drennan, the implication goes, is being asked to step aside, having been appointed in 1997, for decisions made by Cardinal Connell based on advice from highly regarded lay people, against whom no accusations of being part of a cover-up have been made.

What Msgr Stenson keeps repeating to me is the need to understand the context and believes that people (including priests) deserve fuller information than has been made available to them so far. ''Taken out of its context - some of these incidents go back 25 years - they can appear disastrously incompetent if measured by today's standard. Seen through today's prism many of the decisions made in good faith by well-intentioned people with hind-sight can be seen to have been wrong. I am reminded of former President Mary Robinson's recent comments in relation to climate change when she recalls that decisions made some 20 years ago are now seen to be disastrous but at the time people were doing their best with the knowledge available to them.''