Guide to the Report

(Note: this is additional material related to “Government Publishes Ferns Inquiry.

Important Note:

The Inquiry has not adjudicated on the truth or otherwise of the allegations made.

Also “No allegations were made and no evidence was placed before the Inquiry suggesting the operation or the organisation of a paedophile ring in the Diocese of Ferns or any clerical institution within that Diocese.”

Background

On 28 March, 2003 the Minister announced the establishment of the Inquiry into the handling of allegations of child sex abuse in the Diocese of Ferns following the Government Decision of 19 September, 2002 (S180/20/10/0270B). This followed the report of Mr. George Birmingham, SC, who advised on the most effective way of conducting the Inquiry. It was a non-statutory informal Inquiry as recommended by Mr. Birmingham as the Church authorities had indicated to him that co-operation would be forthcoming and that documentation would be provided without the need for Orders for Discovery.The Inquiry was chaired by the retired Supreme Court Judge, Mr. Frank Murphy and, in line with the recommendations contained in Mr. Birmingham´s report, two other specialist members were appointed to assist the Inquiry. Dr. Helen Buckley, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Studies, Trinity College, was appointed as a specialist in child protection issues. Dr. Laraine Joyce, Deputy Director of the Office for Health Management, was appointed to assist in reviewing the structures and management of the organizations coming within the scope of the Inquiry.

Anonymity

The complainants who appeared before the Inquiry are given fictitious Christian names to preserve their anonymity. This has also been extended to members of the clergy but it has not been possible to do this in all cases because of the unique or distinguished positions held by some or as a result of convictions in a criminal court.

Work of the Inquiry

The Inquiry undertook its work in four stages.

Allegations of Abuse

Details of the alleged abuse are contained in Chapter 4 of the report and is quite graphic. These allegations numbering 100 relate to 21 priests. The number of allegations against individual priests range from single complaints against 9 priests to 26 complaints against one individual. These allegations were made between 1966 and 2005 and each statement is synopsised in the report.

The Diocesan Response

Chapter 5 of the Report (pages 124 to 206) outlines the Diocesan response to the allegations made. Again this response is given on a priest by priest basis which mirrors the approach in the chapter on the allegations. The Inquiry’s views of the handling by the Diocese of each priest’s case is summarised at the end of each section. The nature of the response on receipt of allegations evolved over a 40 year period. In 1966 Bishop Herlihy removed a priest from his post and sent him to the Diocese of Westminster which was not informed of the reason behind this. The priest received no treatment and returned after two years. In 1973 another priest against whom allegations were made was also sent to Westminster, which on this occasion was informed of the reason. Again no assessment or treatment was provided and he was appointed to chaplaincy and managerial roles in local schools. In the early 1980s the Bishop sent two priests to a Professor in UCD for assessment. Unfavourable reports were provided but both were appointed as curates without any monitoring or controls.Bishop Comiskey was of the view that when allegations were made the proper response was to remove the priest from active ministry. However, although he received allegations against 10 living priests and 4 others who had died no priest was stood aside from active ministry during his episcopacy. “Priests were moved out of the diocese in some cases but no child protection measures were put in place to ensure that children in the Diocese to which the accused priest was sent were not placed in danger.” On foot of the allegations the Bishop either conducted inquiries or sought to have them instituted but these were protracted and inconclusive. Financial assistance was provided to complainants if the priest was deceased.Bishop Walsh requested six priests to stand down pending determination of the matter, each of which did so without any proof or admission of guilt. In addition, three priests have been excluded from the priesthood.

The Inquiry's View on the Adequacy of the Church's response to the Allegations

Bishop Herlihy (Bishop of Ferns 1964 – 1983) The Inquiry is critical of Bishop Herlihy and was of the view that his failure to take even basic precautions to protect children was an inadequate and inappropriate response. Furthermore, he does seem to have recognised that child sexual abuse is a serious criminal offence. The restoration of two priests to their former positions was ill-advised and, again, was “neither adequate nor appropriate”. The referral of two priests for professional assessment was the considered appropriate. However, the failure of the Bishop to act on the unfavourable reports on these two priests is “inexplicable” and represented a “wholly inappropriate and inadequate response”.

Bishop Comiskey (Bishop of Ferns 1984 – 2002)The Inquiry is also critical of Bishop Comiskey. His request to priests to attend for assessment and, if necessary, to undergo treatment was an appropriate response in the view of the Inquiry. However, he was “unable or unwilling”to implement the advice received and the Inquiry has some evidence that he may not have passed a full history to the medical experts. He also consistently failed to have priests step aside because he considered it unjust as the allegations were not corroborated or substantiated. “The particular and inconclusive investigations conducted by Bishop Comiskey were an inappropriate and inadequate response to serious allegations. The bishop was rightly conscious of the need to protect the good name and reputation of his clergy but he failed to recognise the paramount need to protect children as a matter of urgency, from potential abusers.”

Bishop Eamonn Walsh (Apostolic Administrator of Ferns 2002 – Present) “Bishop Eamonn Walsh has told the Inquiry that he would be prepared to require a priest to step aside from active ministry where he had a “reasonable suspicion” that the offence of child sexual abuse had been committed.” The Inquiry states that the approach by Bishop Walsh has been both adequate and appropriate in relation to allegations of child abuse.

The South Eastern Health Board Response (Chapter 6)

Chapter 6 (pages 206 to 221) outlines the response by the South Eastern Health Board. The Inquiry addresses the response by the Health Board to the cases of abuse involving 6 priests. Of these cases, the Inquiry is of the view that they acted appropriately in the cases of 4 priests. In a case involving one priest the Diocesan authorities did not inform the Board of the name of complainant. In the final case the Inquiry states that the Community Child Care assessment unit was in the early stages of development and “that in those circumstances, it provided an effective response for the children at that time.”The Inquiry considered that the responses made by the Health Board to allegations were not consistent in all cases. In 1988 allegations by 10 children in Monageer were forwarded to the Gardai and church authorities and 7 of the children were interviewed together. Counselling and support was only offered in 1995 through a public statement, 7 years after the alleged incident.On notification of another allegation some support was offered to both the child and the family but this support was discontinued after the conclusion of the criminal trial.The Health Board carried out a risk assessment when it received evidence of possible danger to children by a priest who was the subject of a Garda investigation.

The Inquiry's View on the Adequacy of the South Eastern Health Board's response to Allegations

The provision of counselling and support by the Health Board was considered appropriate. However, in some cases such support was not made available. The issue of how the Health Board notified third parties of allegations against individuals has been raised by the Inquiry. The Inquiry also questions the Health Board’s statutory powers to act in third party abuse.

The Response of An Garda Siochana (Chapter 7)

Chapter 7 (pages 221 to 245) outlines the response of An Garda Siochana. In the 1970s and 1980s informal complaints were made to individual members but no record of these complaints were found “on the Garda files or elsewhere”. When a complaint was made in relation to the parish priest in Monageer relating to 10 children both the children and the priest were contacted by different Gardai but it appears no further investigation took place. Between 1990 and 1995 complaints against three priests were carefully investigated with two successful prosecutions. The third case was struck out following the suicide of the accused. Four further cases have been investigated but the DPP has not instigated proceedings.

The Inquiry's View on the Adequacy of An Garda Siochana's response to Allegations

Prior to 1990 there appears to have been a reluctance by individual members to properly investigate according to the Inquiry. Since 1990 the institution of proceedings indicates that the Gardai are not deterred or hampered by the status of the accused and these investigations were efficient and considered an adequate and appropriate response. The Inquiry is of the view that the investigation of allegations made by 10 children in Monageer, in line with the findings of the internal Garda investigation, was neither adequate nor appropriate.

Criminal Proceedings

The Director of Public Prosecutions instituted criminal proceedings in respect of 4 complaints made against Fr. Donal Collins and 1 complaint made against Fr. James Doyle and convictions were obtained. Proceedings were also instituted against Fr. Sean Fortune in respect of 66 charges which were struck out following his suicide.Six other priests against whom allegations were made were deceased at the time of the complaint and three priests have since died. The DPP decided not to institute proceedings against 4 priests in view of the evidence presented to date. Two further cases which were notified to the Gardai were not passed to the DPP and in the remaining three cases no formal complaint was made.

Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 8)

In the Executive Summary the Inquiry comments as follows.“With the benefit of hindsight it is possible to see that the Church authorities, the medical profession and society generally failed to appreciate the horrendous damage which the sexual abuse of children can and does cause. The Inquiry was struck by the hurt still borne by mature and fair minded victims who gave evidence before it. The Oireachtas has fixed a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the more serious offences involving child sexual abuse. The Inquiry is of the view that the severity of that penalty is fully justified….The members of the Inquiry would express the hope that should the type of abuse chronicled in this Report ever occur again, there will be mechanisms and procedures in place which will enable victims promptly to report the abuse in the confidence that they would be believed and the certainty that appropriate action would be taken to terminate the wrongdoing.”The conclusions and recommendations of the Inquiry are set out in Chapter 8 of the Report pages 246 to 267. The principal recommendations relating to the Diocese, Department of Health and Children, Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform, and the Gardai are set out under E, F and G (of the terms of reference) in pages 262 to 267.

Cost of the Inquiry

To date the Inquiry has cost €1.868m. This is made up of €914,000 for the Inquiry’s legal expenses, €728,000 in expenses such as rent etc., €50,000 on advertising and €121,000 on staff costs for researchers and receptionist.