The only bishops who were still in office at the time of the Murphy Report were Bishops Martin Drennan (Galway), James Moriarty (Kildare and Leighlin), Donal Murray (Limerick) Raymond Field and Eamonn Walsh (both auxiliaries in Dublin). At times relevant to the Murphy Report they were all auxiliary bishops. Bishop Murray has resigned, and his resignation has been accepted. Bishops Moriarty, Field and Walsh have tendered their resignations and await a decision from Rome. Bishop Drennan has not done so.
It is fundamentally and critically important to acknowledge the reality of what happened to little children in the Dublin Archdiocese, at the hands of the perpetrators identified in the Murphy Report, and of those who covered up what happened.
Complaints were made in respect of over 320 children during that dark period from 1975 to 2004. There should have been an apology from the Pope, on behalf of the Church, after the Rome meeting with the Irish bishops, even if he were then to apologise again, as Pope, in his forthcoming letter. According to Canon Law the Pope has ''full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church''.
Human gesture
More importantly it would have been a human gesture of great significance had he apologised. The image of men splendidly dressed in silk caps and sashes bowing and kissing the Pope's hand was a cameo of the power of the Church. It was the abuse of that power which facilitated what happened to those little children over decades in Dublin. That is why it would have been important, and it might have helped a little, had the Pope made an apology.
There has also been talk of ''creeping denial'', however, in suggesting that, it is also important to ensure that in dealing as best we can with what happened we should not perpetrate further injustice. I think it is necessary to reiterate the evidence contained in the Murphy Report in relation to Bishop Martin Drennan of Galway, who served in Dublin between 1997and 2005.
Bishop Drennan is mentioned only in the case of Fr Guido. It is stated that he heard reports in 2002 and 2003 of inappropriate behaviour which gave rise to concern. No complaint was made, but Bishop Drennan took immediate action in response to those reports.
The Murphy Report states that: ''The Archdiocese acted correctly in immediately addressing the concerns and suspicions in this case. It did everything possible to assist Fr Guido to address the issues of concern and when it was clear that a limited ministry was not possible it helped him to get started on another career''.
Not mentioned
This is the only reference to Bishop Drennan in the Murphy Report. He was not called to give evidence. He is not mentioned in the list of bishops ''who were aware for many years of complaints and/or suspicions of clerical child sexual abuse in the diocese.''
Nor is he mentioned as one of the bishops who ''dealt badly with complaints,'' or who ''did not report all complaints or gave inaccurate accounts of complaints.'' He is not criticised in the Murphy Report. It is for this reason that I am very clear that there is nothing in the Report which would necessitate his resignation.
There is a description of how Dublin's auxiliary bishops worked during the period covered in the Murphy Report: ''There was no clear job description for auxiliary bishops, they were required to deputise for the Archbishop at ceremonies such as confirmation, but they had no clear delegated authority to deal with specific problem as they arose. They had designated geographical areas of responsibility but no delegated power to make decisions. They were involved in decisions about the appointments of priests but might not be aware of the full background of each priest . . . They appeared to have had a role akin to that of deputy chief executives but they did not have the clarity of responsibility or power that such a position would not normally entail.''
The Murphy Report goes on to say that ''the requirement of secrecy meant that the archbishop communicated with a very small number of people. When complaints were made to the archbishop he frequently told only one other person. This meant that the auxiliary bishop might not know. When another complaint was made a different person might be asked to investigate. People who needed to know were frequently not told.''
As a consequence of this The Murphy Report says ''it was only when they were preparing to give evidence that a number of bishops saw documentation in relation to priests with whom they had dealt.''
Notwithstanding this, the Murphy Report records serious failures in that: ''some bishops did not report all complaints or gave inaccurate accounts of complaints.'' Evidence in relation to such serious failures is reported in the Murphy Report.
Confirm
What the Murphy Report does confirm in the context of the Dublin Archdiocese is that the various archbishops deliberately handled things so as to ensure maximum secrecy within the Church, and to protect the institutional reputation of the Church, and the individual reputations even of those who had admitted their wrongdoing. There was no proper consultation or collegial working. The consequence of all this is that we have three issues with which to deal:
*the care of those who were abused over the years,
* the mending of the broken systems both within the Church's administrative procedures and Canon Law,
* the operation of accountability mechanisms for the current child protection systems to ensure that they achieve the purpose for which they have been established.
Need to be heart
Perhaps the greatest articulated need of those who suffered is still the need to be heard. This should not be the case, so many years on. No matter how hard it may be, the listening must occur, and there must be as much reiteration of the admission of wrong doing, and apology for it, as is necessary in each individual case. For healing will be an individual process. I think that those who suffered particularly need to be heard by the bishops who should, in conjunction with those who seek such meetings, respond in a way which will not cause further trauma but will be respectful and caring.
Reparation must also be made for the wrong done, in so far as that is possible. The focus of this work of healing should be on the restoration of those who have suffered, rather than on the humiliation of the bishops, though there will be great humiliation in listening to the anger and pain and distress of those who were and are the betrayed children of God.
In terms of mending broken systems much has been done. We now have processes for child protection, (in Down and Connor Bishop Noel Treanor has said that there are over 3,100 people involved in these processes). We have national standards which must be adhered to in the delivery of child protection services. There is to be a national audit of adherence to those standards. There is provision for a review of the response to an individual complaint by a National Review Panel and, as the Murphy Report acknowledges, clerical offenders receive better therapeutic provision than non-clerical offenders and there is better monitoring of clerical sex offenders than of non-clerical sex offenders
There are outstanding issues though - Canon Law in relation to such matters requires significant reform to allow fair, open and transparent processes. There must be open and informative reporting on adherence to the national standards for safeguarding children, on the processing of complaints and on the work of the National Review Panel.
Secrecy must never again be an excuse for failure to act, or for acting wrongly. We must have systems which can be seen to be just and we must in building those systems act justly ourselves.
The Murphy Report also illustrates the reason why we need the establishment of the diocesan and parish pastoral councils, which are currently provided for in Canon Law. Such councils would need to be further empowered to operate effectively. They would facilitate a more open, enquiring, transparent Church, capable of befitting from the gifts of all its members. The question I have now is whether there is a will in the Church to carry out the necessary reforms.
