Site Map

COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION -- REPORT INTO THE CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF DUBLIN

Chapter 26 Fr Harry Moore Introduction  

26.1 In March 1982, Archbishop Ryan received the following letter:  

“At 4am approx. on Sat., February 27th 1982, I was indecently assaulted by Fr. H. Moore C.C. of St. Josephs parish, Glasthule Co. Dublin. Inquiries subsequently conducted by me lead me to believe that this was by no means an isolated incident. I therefore earnestly request that appropriate action be taken without delay”.  

26.2 The sender of this letter identified himself and his address. However, he did not give his age but he is likely to have been in his late teens. The response of Archbishop Ryan was as follows: “In view of the fact that your letter of the 8th March was marked “Private and Confidential”, there is little I could do about the matter. If, however, you wish to discuss the matter further, I would ask that you get in touch with Monsignor Jerome Curtin, who is a Vicar General of the Diocese”.  

Priest’s history  

26.3 At the time of this complaint Fr Harry Moore was a curate in Glasthule parish and the alleged assault was said to have taken place in the presbytery. Fr Moore was born in 1936 and was ordained in 1960. His first appointment was as chaplain to Artane Industrial School from 1960 - 1967. During his time there he compiled a report at the request of Archbishop McQuaid on the conditions under which the boys lived in Artane. This report was handed over by the current Archbishop of Dublin to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.87  

26.4 His next appointment after Artane was as a curate in Ringsend parish until 1975. He was then sent to Kilquade parish for one year. He asked to be reassigned because of loneliness and he was given a position as assistant priest in a Catholic youth organisation.  

26.5 During this period Fr Moore developed a serious alcohol abuse problem and was admitted to St John of God Hospital in 1977. A comprehensive medical report from this hospital was provided to Archbishop Ryan in March 1977. This report stated that Fr Moore was admitted “ostensibly because he had a problem with alcohol” which he said started about three years earlier and had progressively become worse over the years.

26.6 The report stated that Fr Moore had begun to drink heavily in his early curacy and was consequently sent to a parish in Wicklow for six months where, owing to maladjustment, he was removed to the Catholic youth organisation for another six month stint. This in turn was followed by a year‟s sabbatical to study theology. By this time, the report noted, he had had two hospital stays for alcohol addiction.  

26.7 He underwent various psychiatric and personality tests while in the hospital. The doctor noted that he had real concerns about Fr Moore‟s sexual functioning as he had “difficulty in satisfying his strong affectionate needs because of his inability to establish mature adult relationships”. His was described as a personality with “a very strong element of psychopathy and hysteria”. He recommended Fr Moore for team-based occupations if supervised correctly, but he did not recommend him for parish work.  

26.8 Despite this medical report, Archbishop Ryan returned Fr Moore to active parish ministry, appointing him a curate in Edenmore parish in November 1977.  

26.9 Over the next two years he is recorded as receiving treatment for alcohol dependency. Despite leaving one of the facilities without completing his therapy, he was appointed a curate in Glasthule in February 1980. It is while he was assigned to Glasthule that the complaint of indecent assault noted above was conveyed to the Archdiocese (in March 1982).  

26.10 In August 1982, it was suggested to Archbishop Ryan, by his auxiliary bishop, Bishop Comiskey, that Fr Moore needed treatment in Stroud. Fr Moore himself reacted negatively to that proposition. Within hours of having been informed of this proposal he was reported as having been discovered drunk and “with some young lay men”. He had to be admitted to hospital suffering from an ulcer.  

Treatment  

26.11 In September 1982, Fr Moore was sent to a therapeutic facility in the UK (not Stroud). Archbishop Ryan wrote to the administrator outlining Fr Moore‟s situation. He explained that various attempts had been made to rehabilitate him but all had failed. He stated that in addition to his alcoholism “there is some evidence of sexual indiscretions during Fr Moore‟s drinking bouts but it has been rather difficult to collect evidence concerning the nature and extent of these activities”.  

26.12 Of particular significance is the fact that Archbishop Ryan does not appear to have sent the report from the St John of God‟s doctor although he did send a confidential letter from a friend of Fr Moore.  

26.13 Fr Moore was relieved of his curacy in Glasthule due to ill health. He remained at the UK facility until March 1983. The final report from the facility said that Fr Moore had explored his use of alcohol “as a means of covering his confused sexual identity, his way of evading responsibility…”. Further therapy was advised.  

26.14 In June 1983 Fr Moore was appointed curate in Bayside parish. It was while he was there that he committed a number of very serious sexual assaults, including buggery, on a young teenager. Complaints in relation to these assaults were not received by the Archdiocese until 1999. The Archdiocese was, however, aware of his escalating alcohol problem while in Bayside. In 1985 he had become unmanageable because of his alcoholism and the parish priest had asked for him to be removed. He was then appointed to Francis Street but relapsed again.  

26.15 Despite the 1982 complaint from Glasthule and his prior history, Fr Moore was appointed chaplain to a secondary school for boys in October 1986. He also had an appointment in Cabinteely parish. He complained in 1992 about the lack of an official appointment to the secondary school. It was noted in September 1993 that he was angry, upset and annoyed at having to attend a psychologist for assessment. It was noted by the psychologist, Dr Patrick Walsh, that “he is relieved to have given up his position as chaplain to the school but that he is happy to continue his work of giving school retreats”. In a submission to the Commission, Fr Moore said that he did not give school retreats but gave parish retreats.  

Adverse reports. 1993 and 1995  

26.16 In 1993 and again in 1995 there were adverse reports about Fr Moore‟s behaviour with young adults. There was an allegation of sexual assault. He was allegedly supplying young people with alcohol and hash and allowing them to watch blue movies in his home. There were also complaints of a very unsuitable phrase used in a school homily. The person who made the majority of those complaints stated in 2002 that she felt alienated by diocesan officials who did not “listen or didn‟t hear how serious [it] was”. There was confusion as to whether the 1993 complaint was formally noted at the time.  

26.17 In December 1994, Monsignor Dolan conducted a preliminary review of Fr Moore‟s file in order to assess his suitability for an appointment. He noted that the file contained no reference to the fact that Fr Moore had been chaplain at Artane Industrial School from 1960 to 1967. Monsignor Dolan concluded in his report that “the period 1983 - 89 remains tricky if there was no investigation of the allegation and H. M. had an open-ended unmonitored appointment. This should be reviewed immediately”. The allegation referred to is the Glasthule allegation.  

26.18 In January 1995 Archbishop Connell, finding that circumstances satisfying the requisite “semblance of truth” requirement existed, started a canon law penal process. He appointed Monsignor Alex Stenson as delegate to investigate “both the allegation and the priest‟s imputability”. It is unclear from the documents what allegation was being investigated at the time. Subsequently, it transpired that this process was not proceeded with.  

26.19 In January 1995 Fr Moore‟s situation was discussed by Bishop Murray and the Archbishop. Bishop Murray noted that Fr Moore was looking for a parish and that “we need to give thought to his future”. In March 1995, Dr Patrick Walsh was approached for a further assessment of Fr Moore, after he had been reported to have made inappropriate remarks to parents at a school function.  

26.20 Dr Walsh informed Monsignor Stenson that Fr Moore “shows every sign of gravitating towards young people, especially males, as objects of affection”. He also warned the authorities to be vigilant in their supervision of him and stated “unless he was prepared to engage over a long period of time with a therapeutic programme and with a system of supervision and regular reviews, I believe there are considerable risks of a return to alcohol abuse or to inappropriate behaviour, particularly towards young people”.  

26.21 In May 1995, at a meeting in Archbishop‟s House attended by the auxiliary bishops, the conclusion was reached that the only alternatives left to the Archbishop were:  

a) the complete removal of Fr Moore from ministry for life;  

b) that the Archbishop receive a report that would enable him to give Fr Moore an appointment.  

26.22 In the end, Archbishop Connell terminated Fr Moore‟s tenure in Cabinteely and released him from all priestly duties. Fr Moore was still attending Dr Walsh at this stage and was recorded as making progress.  

26.23 In October 1995, Dr Walsh wrote to Archbishop Connell stating that the medical professionals were more optimistic of a meaningful recovery. He said: “as long as he remains sober, he will not, I believe, act out” and added that Fr Moore was adamant that “he has never sexually abused children or adolescents”. In light of his known history, Fr Moore‟s assertion should have been troubling to the Archdiocese.

26.24 Fr Moore expressed worry about the newly stated policy of the bishops of reporting all cases of child sexual abuse whether current or past. In November 1995, the Archdiocese did report the Glasthule incident to the Gardaí. When contacted by the Gardaí, the complainant did not want to make a formal complaint at that particular time but the matter was left open. Somewhat late in the day, in 2002, the suspicions that arose in 1993 and 1995 were notified to the Gardaí.

26.25 Fr Moore was very annoyed about the reporting to the Gardaí and claimed that his recovery had been sabotaged and retarded by the disclosure. Monsignor Curtin, who had spoken to Fr Moore at the time of the Glasthule complaint and again in May 1995 about the 1995 adverse reports, was also annoyed about the matter, condemning what he saw as “a grave violation of justice and charity”. In February 1996, there was some discussion about whether Fr Moore might have some sort of informal chaplaincy with the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) group, with which he was already involved.  

The advisory panel  

26.26 In April 1996, the file was passed to the recently established advisory panel who noted that the file is “light on certain important facts, particularly the ages of the young people involved”. The panel expressed reservations on the proposed appointment of Fr Moore as chaplain to the AA until there was a comprehensive assessment and treatment programme establishing whether there existed “significant danger of inappropriate behaviour occurring other than in an alcohol related situation”.  

26.27 Fr Moore decided not to be further assessed and to retire on health grounds. He retained his clerical faculties. He was allowed to say mass and hear confessions whenever there was a need, for example, if a priest was sick or on holidays. In April 1997, he signed the following document but it was noted that he expressed “unhappiness in relation to the need for signing the document” and “unhappiness about the manner of the process”. The document reads as follows:  

“DUBLIN DIOCESAN CURIA I, Father Harry Moore, a priest of the Archdiocese of Dublin, now retiring on grounds of health from holding any priestly office in the said Archdiocese, hereby declare in reference to my diocesan faculties which I continue to enjoy: 1. I will confine the exercise of my sacramental ministry within Churches and Oratories; 2. I will not be available for any ministry outside of the above except for the administration of the sacraments of penance and the anointing of sick in situations of grave need. I further declare: 1. I will attend for review meetings with Doctor Walsh on a basis to be agreed with him; 2. I will maintain contact on a regular basis with Monsignor Jerome Curtin and [another named priest] 3. I will maintain my regular involvement with A.A.; 4. To avoid even the suspicion of any possible impropriety, I shall avoid being alone with any person under 18 years of age.” This document is signed by Monsignor John Dolan as a witness and Fr Moore, and is dated 29 April 1997.

 1998  

26.28 In 1998, following a visit to Medjugorje, Fr Moore attempted to book a catholic youth hall for a weekend retreat for a number of adults and young persons whom he had met on that trip. The diocese instructed the youth organisation not to give him the hall. It was pointed out to Fr Moore that this activity was in breach of his contract with the diocese.  

Bayside complaint, 1999  

26.29 In February 1999, a man complained to the Gardaí that, while he was a teenager, he had been sexually abused by Fr Moore while Fr Moore was attached to Bayside parish between 1983 and 1985. The complainant had also complained to a bishop in the UK about this abuse. The UK bishop contacted Archbishop Connell. The complainant travelled to Dublin in March 1999 to make a formal statement to the Gardaí. He told how he and a group of his friends used to drink with Fr Moore. On one occasion he poured out his soul to the priest because he had problems at school and at home. The priest brought him to his own house and plied him with several kinds of drink. He woke from a semi-conscious state to find Fr Moore performing oral sex on him. He alleged that there was anal and oral sex frequently at Fr Moore‟s house during 1983 and 1984.

26.30 When interviewed by the Gardaí, Fr Moore admitted that they had oral and anal sex but said that it was consensual and that it had occurred on only two occasions.  

26.31 In September 1999, the 1997 declaration (see above) was amended and he agreed not to “exercise any public sacramental ministry within churches and oratories”.  

Criminal charges, 2000  

26.32 In 2000, Fr Moore was charged with 18 counts of sexual assault including buggery in respect of the Bayside victim. He sought a judicial review on the grounds of delay and was unsuccessful.  

26.33 The charges were reduced to four and in July 2004, Fr Moore pleaded guilty to two charges of indecent assault and two charges of buggery while a curate in Bayside. Sentencing eventually took place in May 2005 and on that date he was sentenced to seven years in respect of each of the buggery charges and three years in respect of each of the sexual assault charges. These sentences were suspended for a period of ten years and he was put under the supervision of the probation services. He was also ordered to abide by the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This is generally described as "being placed on the sex offenders‟ register‟ – see Appendix 2.  

26.34 While awaiting trial it was reported to Bishop Murray (who was no longer an auxiliary bishop of Dublin) in 2002 that Fr Moore had resumed giving school retreats. Fr Moore told the Commission that this was untrue. Bishop Murray informed the Archdiocese of this report.

26.35 In 2004, the Archdiocese notified the health board about the complaints. Social workers from the area where Fr Moore lived met him to discuss the advisability of refraining from contact with children. This information was not produced in the initial HSE discovery (see Chapter 6) and was brought to the Commission‟s attention only after the HSE received the draft of this chapter. 

The Commission’s assessment Church authorities  

26.36 The reaction of Archbishop Ryan to the 1982 complaint was totally inadequate. The Archbishop had a comprehensive psychiatric report detailing Fr Moore‟s problems with alcohol and with his sexuality. Given that the Archbishop had already ignored the advice of the psychiatrist (in 1977) about not locating Fr Moore in a parish setting, the Archbishop‟s response to the 1982 complaint was inexcusable.  

26.37 Here was a priest whom he knew, from the 1977 psychiatric report, had many problems. There was a complete failure on his part to comprehensively investigate a complaint of actual sexual abuse and possible other incidents of sexual abuse as reported in the letter. His excuse, that there was little he could do since the letter was marked private and confidential, is deemed by the Commission to be unacceptable. Had he acted appropriately in relation to this complaint, it might have prevented the very serious assaults that took place some years later on a teenager for which Fr Moore was convicted.  

26.38 The Archbishop did not forward the 1977 psychiatrist‟s report to the UK therapeutic facility in May 1982, when he sent Fr Moore for treatment there. He did however tell that facility that there had been sexual indiscretions during Fr Moore‟s drinking bouts. He also gave permission to that facility, subject to Fr Moore‟s consent, to contact St John of God Hospital directly.  

26.39 One of the features of the handling of this case was the number of different doctors to whom Fr Moore was sent. There was a failure to coordinate their efforts, diagnoses and recommendations until very late in the day.  

26.40 The Commission‟s view is that it was unacceptable for the Archdiocese to leave Fr Moore unmonitored for a period of six years in the 1980s.  

26.41 There was good communication between the UK bishop (to whose diocese the Bayside complaint was initially made) and the Archdiocese. The English bishop notified the Archdiocese. Archbishop Connell replied promptly that he was nominating Monsignor Dolan to deal with it. The UK bishop met the complainant and told him this. He also notified the Archdiocese that he had done so and told them that the complainant had gone to the police in the UK with his complaint.  

Gardaí  

26.42 The Gardaí handled the case appropriately and their efforts resulted in a successful prosecution.

Chapter 27 Fr Septimus*88

Introduction

27.1 Fr Septimus was ordained in the 1950s. He served in a number of parishes of the Archdiocese and ultimately became a parish priest. In 1997, Archbishop Connell imposed a canonical precept placing certain restrictions on his contact with children and imposing other conditions. His active ministry effectively ended in 2002 when he was forced to step down as a parish priest by Archbishop Connell. He has not resumed ministry since then.  

27.2 The Commission is aware of 17 complaints of child abuse in relation to Fr Septimus. The nature of the abuse alleged against him predominantly involved the administration of severe beatings to boys on their bare buttocks, sometimes using a strap or other implement. Following the beatings, the boys would then be forced to stand facing away from Fr Septimus in a state of undress. Sometimes the beatings resumed. There was one allegation of Fr Septimus masturbating following a beating while the beaten boy was in the room and facing away from him. The Commission is satisfied from the evidence considered that the beatings were for the sexual gratification of Fr Septimus and that the abuse constituted child sexual abuse.  

First complaints, 1982  

27.3 The first recorded allegations to the Archdiocese against Fr Septimus were made in October 1982. A woman contacted Bishop O‟Mahony and reported on behalf of three named people. One was a witness to the beating of altar boys “with their pants down”. Another was a mother whose son was made to remove his underwear for misbehaving and the third was a mother whose son was refusing to serve mass because he did not want the priest “putting his hands up my pants anymore”. In 1983, she reported, on behalf of a mother, about a further incident of a boy being beaten with his pants down. There is no evidence that Bishop O‟Mahony spoke to the named people or made any further inquiries. He did not report the complaints to Archbishop Ryan.

27.4 In February 1983, Fr Septimus was admitted to St John of God hospital in a state of “acute anxiety and depression” which, according to the psychiatrist who treated him there, had been brought on by an allegation that he had assaulted a boy. It seems that this had occurred while on a camp and was not related to the allegations made by the woman to Bishop O‟Mahony. This psychiatrist had treated him 20 years earlier when Fr Septimus had had a breakdown “brought about through intense psychological stress”. In March 1983, Bishop O‟Mahony recorded a discussion between himself and the psychiatrist as follows:  

“The priest has made a very good recovery and has come to terms with his sexuality. Homosexuality is covert rather than overt. The beatings are a moderated manifestation of the tendency. He should be able to minister without too much difficulty. “It is not a very serious problem”. He should avoid boys‟ clubs/camps etc. No change is recommended provided there is no scandal”.  

27.5 All the discussions between Bishop O‟Mahony and the psychiatrist in 1983 are not recorded. However, in a report in 1995, the psychiatrist indicated that he had discussed the matter with Bishop O‟Mahony at the time and had “agreed that it would be best to leave him in the parish but to ensure that he did not continue to work with young boys”.  

27.6 At this stage, Bishop O‟Mahony seems to have made further inquiries about the complaints. There is no evidence that he spoke to the people who had been named by the woman who had approached him. He did speak to the principal of the local school and another person associated with the school. There is no obvious connection between these people and the complaints. They were dismissive of the woman and said she had made a similar complaint against a former principal. Bishop O‟Mahony decided that “the entire matter would be dropped”.  

Complaints reconsidered, 1995  

27.7 Fr Septimus was appointed a parish priest in the early 1990s and there seems to have been no consideration of the complaints against him at the time of his appointment. In 1995, these issues were addressed again in the context of a general review of all child abuse cases. In April 1995, Bishop O‟Mahony made a note about the case. This note stated that the incidents complained of by the woman had never taken place and “people then saw through her and no longer tolerated her gossip”. It also noted that the complainant was reconciled with the priest and “she is now paying her dues.” The note also stated that the incidents referred to by the psychiatrist took place on a camp. Bishop O‟Mahony had advised Fr Septimus not to go on further camps and he had not done so. Bishop O‟Mahony, in an affidavit provided to the Commission, said that the woman contacted him in April 1995 and “indicated that none of the incidents reported by her” had occurred. Bishop O‟Mahony‟s April 1995 note does not mention that the woman was in contact with him at that stage. His April 1995 note appears to deal only with reports from other people.  

27.8 Bishop O‟Mahony discussed the case with the Granada Institute and, on the basis of that discussion, a report was issued in May 1995. The Granada report expressed the view that the woman‟s complaints on behalf of others related to inappropriate punishment rather than sexual gratification and that there were currently no grounds for believing that Fr Septimus was a danger to others. Interestingly, the Granada Institute, unlike Bishop O‟Mahony, seemed to accept that there was a basis for the woman‟s complaints. Granada recommended that the complainant not be contacted as she might not welcome such an approach and this would place extra stress on Fr Septimus.  

Further complaints, 1995  

27.9 In October 1995, a complaint was received by the Archdiocese from a named woman on behalf of an unnamed woman who alleged that her son had been a victim of buggery 21 years previously, in 1974. Archbishop Connell initiated a preliminary investigation under canon law and appointed Monsignor Alex Stenson as the delegate to investigate. Shortly after that, another complaint was received with an allegation of abuse 35 years previously – in 1960. Monsignor Stenson met this most recent complainant and told him that he might have to report the matter to the Gardaí. The complainant was accompanied by his sister who verified his account of what had happened. The nature of the abuse alleged was similar to that reported in the first complaints made in 1982, namely of being severely beaten while undressed. The severity of the beating was so bad that the child had to stay in bed for three weeks following the assault. He claimed that school mates had suffered similar treatment. The abuse happened in the school, after school hours. Fr Septimus had a key to the school.

27.10 Monsignor Stenson met Fr Septimus in October 1995, as part of his preliminary investigation. Monsignor Stenson made a detailed note of their conversation and this was signed by the priest. Fr Septimus told Monsignor Stenson that the account of the most recent complainant was “highly coloured but basically true”. He said that “I went into a coma for twelve days at the time of the Cuban war … I thought the Atom Bomb had fallen”. It is not clear if this refers to the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 or the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. He offered to pay for counselling “within reason”. He went on to say that he was “rough with kids” during that period of his life but that he was now “great with kids”. He went on to talk about the 1980s complaints and told Monsignor Stenson that he could speak to Bishop O‟Mahony about that. Monsignor Stenson‟s note further records Fr Septimus saying:

“On a few occasions there would have been similar outbursts in the other appointments - always with young boys - never girls. I did get them to take off some of their clothes and would hit them. I usually used my hand. I would place them across my knees and smack them on their naked behinds. … I did this as a form of punishment. It occasionally generated in me a sexual movement. But I never touched them in the private parts nor got them to touch me. Never - that‟s sexual abuse. Sometimes it gave me sexual pleasure. This pattern would have continued elsewhere until I got treatment in St John of Gods. There might have been four boys in each place up to and including [the parish he was in when the 1980s complaints were made]. After my treatment it has never happened again. Some of those boys were altar boys. A lot would happen on Summer Camps - if boys went missing they got a warning and if it happened a second time they had a choice - no pocket money or a spanking and they chose the spanking… Bishop O‟ Mahony knows all about that…

[Fr Septimus] apologises for what happened to [the latest complainant] and asked me to convey this…”  

27.11 Later on, Fr Septimus denied that he had made any of the admissions contained in this statement and alleged that his signature had been forged. Later still, he said that he had signed a blank piece of paper and that the statement was not shown to him or read to him. If either of these allegations were true, one would have expected the priest to have taken vigorous action against the Church authorities either in canon or civil law to vindicate his good name and to ensure that the perpetrators of a most grievous wrong were appropriately punished. Despite some posturing, he did neither. The Commission has absolutely no doubt that the statement is accurate.  

27.12 In November 1995, Monsignor Alex Stenson notified the Gardaí of the most recent complaint (the one relating to the 1960 incident). Fr Septimus was one of the priests named on the first list of priests given to the Gardaí in November 1995 (see Chapter 5). Monsignor Stenson noted “The assault was seen in terms of spanking.”  

Medical opinion  

27.13 Fr Septimus was referred to the psychiatrist who had treated him in the 1980s. The psychiatrist told Monsignor Stenson that the priest would appear to pose no risk as there had been no problems in the last 12 years. He should, however, “maintain a low profile for the moment, not least for his own sake”. The psychiatrist also referred him to the Granada Institute (Granada had reported to Bishop O‟Mahony in May 1995 but had not seen Fr Septimus at that stage.) The psychiatrist issued a written report in November 1995 to the Archdiocese. This report included his own assessment and a summary of the Granada assessment provided by Dr Patrick Walsh. It stated:  

“It should perhaps be stressed that at all times [Fr Septimus] has denied any frank sexual element in his activities and maintains that he was merely being a strict disciplinarian. He now recognises that his behaviour was unwise and open to other interpretations. He insists that he has not engaged in any such activities since 1983 …

I would agree with Dr Walsh that the question of the advisability of allowing him to resume his parochial duties is one which must be made by the Diocesan authorities, taking all the circumstances into account. From the strictly psychiatric viewpoint , and on the strict assumption that there has been no evidence of misconduct since at least 1983, it would be reasonable to allow him to resume his duties with the strict proviso that he does not have unsupervised contact with children or male youths.” Granada‟s report to which the psychiatrist refers was also sent to the Archdiocese.  

27.14 In February 1996, Fr Septimus denied that he had made admissions to Monsignor Stenson as described above. In March 1996, he was instructed by Bishop Ó Ceallaigh not to have any contact with children or young people. The bishop met the senior curate in the parish and arranged a reallocation of responsibilities in order to ensure this. Monsignor Stenson arranged therapy for the complainant.

27.15 Meanwhile, the Gardaí were investigating the October 1995 complaint (the complaint relating to the 1960 incident). They told the Archdiocese in March 1996, as recorded by Monsignor Stenson that: “…the issue seemed to be more corporal punishment and physical assault. Nevertheless, they intend to speak with [Fr Septimus] in the near future. They believe the case will go to the D.P.P. but it is highly unlikely that it will be seen as anything other than physical assault”.  

27.16 The file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in June 1996 and he directed that there should be no prosecution. 

Referral to advisory panel  

27.17 Fr Septimus‟s case was referred to the advisory panel in April 1996. At the request of the panel, Monsignor Stenson sought clarification as to the meaning of “unsupervised contact”, as such a prohibition does not sit easily with the responsibilities of a parish priest. The psychiatrist and Dr Walsh of Granada each provided some clarification – it meant not being alone with children and restricting the priest‟s ministry to children in “substantial” ways to avoid suspicion and this included informal contact such as scouts, home visits and playgrounds.

27.18 The panel made a recommendation in June 1996. Having considered “one specific allegation of extreme physical abuse on a young boy carried out in the early 1960s and two separate accusations of somewhat uncertain reliability”, it considered that Fr Septimus was in the category of people about whom there were insufficient grounds “in justice” to remove from ministry.  

“The Panel has concluded that in justice there is not a case for removing [Fr Septimus] from his present ministry. It does however believe that the restrictions outlined above by Dr Walsh should be enforced and carefully monitored. In addition it is the view of the Panel supported by [an expert] that in the interests of prudence a formal assessment could be conducted to rule out any risk that [Fr Septimus] may be a latent paedophile…”  

27.19 The panel‟s recommendations were accepted. Archbishop Connell met Fr Septimus and outlined the restrictions that were to be observed in relation to children. He also told Fr Septimus that arrangements would be made for a formal assessment.  

27.20 Meanwhile, the Gardaí reported in May 1996 in respect of the complaint made in October 1995 of a severe beating in 1960: “the assaults alleged by [the complainant] do not in my opinion amount to a sexual assault. They amount perhaps if proven to common assault maybe bordering on actual bodily harm. However, they are totally uncorroborated and there is only [the complainant‟s] word that they occurred. [Fr Septimus] did not totally deny that they happened”. The Gardaí recommended that, owing to the time delay in reporting the matter and the differences between the versions of events of the complainant and the school principal, no further action be taken on the file.  

27.21 In January 1997, the curate in Fr Septimus‟s parish who now had responsibility for dealing with any matters involving children, including altar boys, arrived at the church to find Fr Septimus training a number of altar boys. The curate challenged him and he replied that the allegations had come to nothing and that the Archbishop had brought him in more or less to apologise to him. This was not true – the Archbishop brought him in to outline the restrictions. The curate reported the matter to Monsignor Stenson who immediately reported the matter to Bishop Ó Ceallaigh.  

27.22 On a date unknown in 1997, Archbishop Connell imposed a canonical precept on Fr Septimus with the following conditions:  

that he reside in the presbytery;  

that he was forbidden to be alone with children or assume responsibility for assignments that have primary responsibility for them;  

that he continue to see his therapist;  

that he attend weekly group therapy;  

that he maintain regular contact with his spiritual director;  

that he be supervised/ monitored.

Another complaint, 1997  

27.23 Another complainant came forward in August 1997. The type of abuse alleged was of corporal punishment on his bare buttocks. It was decided in the Archdiocese that the nature of the complaint did not involve sexual abuse; consequently it concluded that there was no obligation under Church policy at the time to refer the matter to the Gardaí. The complainant was advised of this view and it was suggested that he might wish to complain directly to the Gardaí. It was however decided to refer the matter to the advisory panel again. Fr Septimus denied this complainant‟s allegations and was reluctant to undergo a formal assessment as requested by the Archdiocese.  

27.24 In December 1997, the Gardaí recommended in relation to the August 1997 complaint:  

“… the Accused‟s conduct in this case was vile, despicable and probably sadistic. It comprised all but the worst elements of a bad assault in that it was brutal and had sado-sexual connotations. By stripping or partially disrobing these children they were made feel dirty, vulnerable and above all extremely ashamed. I also hold the view that the act of disrobing (and thereby indecently exposing) anyone –child or adult- amounts to an indecent assault. … In those circumstances I would recommend a charge (or charges) of indecent assault”.  

27.25 Despite this recommendation, the Commission has not found a record of this file being sent to the DPP.  

Fr Septimus and Monsignor Stenson  

27.26 Fr Septimus expressed his dissatisfaction with how Monsignor Stenson was handling his case. He continued to deny having made the statement in relation to the 1995 complaint. He demanded an apology from Monsignor Stenson which “acknowledges fully and explicitly the injustice he did to me”. Fr Septimus‟s solicitor was in contact with the Archdiocese looking for copies of statements. The priest saw himself as being a “priest-victim”. Eventually, after much discussion, Fr Septimus agreed to go for formal assessment in November 1997.  

27.27 Granada reported in May 1998 that Fr Septimus was so focused on the way he was treated by Monsignor Stenson that it had been unable to carry out the proposed assessment. In September 1998, Granada reported:  

“Difficulties remain in relation to the complaints made against [Fr Septimus], in that, they have been either made anonymously or the people making them have refused to formalise them89. As a result it has not been possible to act on the complaints. Furthermore, [Fr Septimus‟s] own position is that while he acknowledges physical complaints, he has denied sexual abuse. Given this set of circumstances it is concluded that unless the diocese can verify and substantiate the complaints, [Fr Septimus] should remain in ministry. Continuing in ministry, however, should be with the explicit proviso that he has no formal contact with children or young people and that he agrees to avoid informal contact with them also.”

27.28 A further canonical precept was issued by Archbishop Connell in October 1998 which decreed that:  

Fr Septimus was to have neither unsupervised involvement with minors nor any direct ministry to minors except in the public celebration of mass.  

He was to continue to consult with the Granada Institute (or similar institute) on an ongoing basis.  

The curate would have direct responsibility for altar servers in the parish.  

27.29 Fr Septimus wrote to the Archbishop claiming that Monsignor Stenson had defamed him and that under canon law he was entitled to challenge assertions made by him. He rejected any suggestion that he might have been involved in child sexual abuse or that he had “beaten up” anyone, though he found his attendance at the Granada Institute helpful “in assisting me over the traumas imposed on me by Monsignor Stenson…which were inflicted in your name”.90 He took offence at the canonical decree and sought to have it set aside. He continued with this campaign through his solicitors, seeking the destruction of the statement attributed to him which he had said was falsified.  

27.30 Following a meeting in March 1999, Fr Septimus finally agreed to withdraw from ministry involving children by discontinuing his connection with the local national school and agreed that the curate and a lay person would have responsibility for altar servers.  

27.31 There was some monitoring of compliance with the conditions. Monsignor John Dolan met Fr Septimus in October 2001. Monsignor Dolan advised him of the mandatory direction for his continued attendance at Granada with which he had not been complying. By December 2001, he was attending Granada again. The precept was extended for a further period of two years.  

Further complaints, 2002  

27.32 Another complainant emerged in July 2002. This man made his complaint to a priest of the Archdiocese, who brought it to the attention of the archdiocesan authorities. The priest was asked to encourage the man concerned to make a formal complaint about the matter so that the Archdiocese could pursue it and report it to the Gardaí. The complaint was of sexual abuse in the 1970s. The nature of the abuse alleged was similar to that alleged in the other complaints but this time, there was little room for doubt that the acts were carried out for sexual gratification. The complainant said he saw Fr Septimus masturbating immediately after he was beaten.  

27.33 This complainant also informed the Archdiocese about his knowledge of abuse of three other boys. One of these had already complained to the Archdiocese. This complainant said one of the others had since committed suicide. Monsignor Dolan asked this complainant to encourage the third person to contact the Archdiocese. This man did so in August 2002. His complaint was similar to the others in many respects.  

27.34 Fr Septimus denied the allegations made by these two complainants. The Archdiocese informed the Gardaí.  

27.35 Fr Septimus initially declined to resign as parish priest. Subsequently, following a telephone conversation with Archbishop Connell in August 2002, he agreed to retire on the grounds of ill health. The Archdiocese insisted that he move away from the parish and he was not permitted to carry out any public ministry. He was informed that, although he could resign on the grounds of ill health, the Archdiocese would not mislead as to the real reason behind the resignation if it was asked for an explanation.  

27.36 In November 2002, Archbishop Connell revoked the faculties of the Archdiocese from Fr Septimus although he was permitted to continue to say mass privately. The other conditions regarding continued attendance at Granada and a ban on unsupervised contact with children continued to apply. Fr Septimus appealed against the precept to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. The Congregation confirmed the Archbishop‟s decree. It was pointed out by the Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), that the imposition of a precept in canon law was only valid in the short term pending the formal outcome of a canonical process. The type of process envisaged is either a penal process, the outcome of which may lead to laicisation or simply a process seeking to impede the priest from ministry. 

Bishop O’Mahony and the 1980s complaints  

27.37 In March 2003, Bishop O‟Mahony prepared a statement referring to his investigation of this matter in the early 1980s. He stated:  

“To the best of my recollection [Fr Septimus] resumed his ministry at [the parish] following the discharge from hospital. I judged the situation as one in which the information relayed by [the complainant] was not reliable. I believe that I emphasised to [Fr Septimus] the importance of following the advice of [the psychiatrist]. I did not inform Archbishop Dermot Ryan of the complaint. Sensitivity towards [Fr Septimus‟s] mental state, particularly as he recovered from his nervous breakdown caused me to treat the matter as confidential”.  

27.38 In this statement, Bishop O‟Mahony also said that the complainant had returned to him in 2002 and told him that she had since discovered the allegation that she had made was untrue. He did not mention anything about her saying this to him in 1995. He reported that she stated: “She had been ostracised by the community when it became known that she had reported the priest to the Bishop with a false allegation” and he further stated that she had told an investigating Garda of this fact. This 2003 statement does not address the fact that the treating psychiatrist clearly believed that there were sustainable allegations about Fr Septimus in the early 1980s. Bishop O‟Mahony also clearly believed at the time that there were sustainable allegations about beatings on holiday camps. His emphasis, in 2003, on the veracity of this particular complainant neatly allows him to avoid addressing the fact that there were sustainable complaints similar in nature to those reported by this complainant and that child protection measures were not put in place.  

27.39 In August 2003, Cardinal Connell initiated the canonical process to impede Fr Septimus‟s ministry under Canon 1044.91 In October 2004, Archbishop Martin wrote to Fr Septimus telling him that he had witnessed him wearing clerical garb in violation of the precept and warning him to abide by the terms of the precept until the determination of the administrative process.  

27.40 The canonical process was still continuing in 2007.  

27.41 Between 2003 and 2005, five further complaints were made to the Gardaí against Fr Septimus.  

The garda investigations  

27.42 The DPP decided not to prosecute in the case of the 1995 complaint – the complaint that related to the 1960 incident. A file does not appear to have been sent to the DPP in relation to the 1997 complaint.  

27.43 The fact that the files were reviewed in January 2002 suggests that the files were not submitted at the conclusion of the investigations in the late 1990s in relation to the 1997 complaint. The detective inspector who reviewed the files stated: “As I would not deem the assaults as sexual assaults but common assault, I respectfully suggest that no further action be taken in the case”.

27.44 The files were finally submitted to the DPP‟s office in 2005. The DPP directed no prosecution in relation to these complaints or in relation to the two complaints which were made in 2002 or in relation to the five further complaints which emerged between 2003 and 2005. All cases were stated to be compromised because of the lapse of time since the offences allegedly took place (most of the complaints dated back as far as the 1960s), some inconsistencies in relation to statements taken, lack of corroboration, and difficulties which were anticipated because individual complainants had consulted each other prior to making formal complaints to the Gardaí.  

27.45 Two different explanations were offered by Gardaí in 2006 as to why the file in the 1997 complaint was not sent to the DPP much earlier. One explanation was that the decision was deferred pending the outcome of investigations into other complaints. Another explanation was that Fr Septimus had never been interviewed about the complaint.

The Commission’s assessment  

27.46 The Commission is of the view that, had a thorough investigation of the allegations been undertaken at the time of the first complaints in 1982 and 1983, at the very least by approaching the parents of the children concerned, the truth of the matter could easily have been ascertained. The Commission considers that the purported investigation of these events at the time was inadequate and could never have got to the truth of the matter.

27.47 It is quite astonishing that Bishop O‟Mahony did not report the complaints to Archbishop Ryan.  

27.48 The Commission is concerned that nobody in the Archdiocese, other than Bishop O‟Mahony, contacted the woman who made the 1982 complaints and nobody at all contacted the people whom she alleged were abused.

Chapter 28 Fr William Carney

Introduction  

28.1 William (Bill) Carney was born in 1950 and was ordained for the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1974. He served in the Archdiocese from ordination until 1989. He was suspended from or had restricted ministry during some of this time. He was dismissed from the clerical state in 1992.  

28.2 Bill Carney is a serial sexual abuser of children, male and female. The Commission is aware of complaints or suspicions of child sexual abuse against him in respect of 32 named individuals. There is evidence that he abused many more children. He had access to numerous children in residential care; he took groups of children on holiday; he went swimming with groups of children. He pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault in 1983. The Archdiocese paid compensation to six of his victims. He was one of the most serious serial abusers investigated by the Commission. There is some evidence suggesting that, on separate occasions, he may have acted in concert with other convicted clerical child sexual abusers - Fr Francis McCarthy (see Chapter 41) and Fr Patrick Maguire (see Chapter 16).  

28.3 A number of witnesses who gave evidence to the Commission, including priests of the diocese, described Bill Carney as crude and loutish. Virtually all referred to his crude language and unsavoury personal habits. One parent told the Commission that the family had complained to the parish priest about his behaviour but the parish priest said there was nothing he could do.  

28.4 In 1974, the year Fr Carney was ordained, the President of Clonliffe College, when assessing him for teaching, reported to Archbishop Dermot Ryan that Fr Carney was “very interested in child care” and was “best with the less intelligent”. His first appointment was as a teacher in Ballyfermot Vocational School while also being chaplain to a convent in Walkinstown. The following year, Fr Carney asked Archbishop Ryan to transfer him from Walkinstown (he was living in the convent) to Ballyfermot "to be more available to the boys and their parents” in Ballyfermot school.

Attempts to foster children  

28.5 In 1977/78, Fr Carney made inquiries about fostering children. A social worker in the Eastern Health Board (EHB) told the Commission that she thought the inquiry was odd because “generally priests don‟t parent children”. At the time, single men were not allowed to foster so the inquiry went no further at that stage. Fr Carney discussed the idea with Archbishop Ryan who does not seem to have encouraged him.

28.6 In 1980, Fr Carney again explored the possibility of fostering. He discussed the matter with Bishop James Kavanagh and, according to himself, was told by Bishop Kavanagh that the idea was basically “good and sound”. In a letter to Archbishop Ryan, Fr Carney told him he had had lunch with the Minister for Health, Dr. Michael Woods TD, who, he said, assured him that “as far as he knew there would be no difficulty from the Eastern Health Board”. Dr Woods told the Commission that he has no recollection of meeting Fr Carney but that, if he had been asked about fostering, he would have referred him to the Eastern Health Board. Fr Carney‟s letter was sent to Bishop Dermot O‟Mahony for comment and Bishop Kavanagh for handling but there is no record of their reactions. Around the same time, Fr Carney set out his proposal in writing to the minister following on previous discussions about the matter. He told the minister about his involvement in children‟s homes (see below). He said he had a “housemother” available and that his parish priest was in “full support”. There is no evidence that the proposal progressed any further.  

28.7 Fr Carney specifically inquired about fostering a particular boy from an institution when the Ten Plus92 programme got under way around 1982/3. This boy subsequently alleged that Fr Carney had abused him (see below).  

Children in or from children’s homes  

28.8 During his time in Clonliffe College (1968 – 1974), Bill Carney and a number of other students were regular visitors to a number of children‟s homes. The children‟s homes visited by Bill Carney were St Joseph‟s, Tivoli Road; St Vincent‟s, Drogheda; Lakelands, Sandymount and The Grange, Kill O The Grange. The Clonliffe students took children away for holidays during the summers. Bill Carney‟s involvement with St Joseph‟s and The Grange was more extensive than with the other institutions and continued after his ordination. The Commission is aware of complaints by three former residents of St Vincent‟s, one former resident of St Joseph‟s and one former resident of The Grange that Bill Carney sexually abused them. There is a strong suspicion that one other resident of St Joseph‟s was abused and there are suspicions that other residents of all the institutions he visited were also abused.  

28.9 In the 1970s, care workers in some of the children‟s homes visited by Fr Carney clearly did not regard him as a good influence and there were also concerns among health board social workers. At least one care worker in The Grange seems to have had suspicions of inappropriate behaviour but the Commission was unable to contact this person to verify this. Health board social workers gave evidence to the Commission that they were concerned about Fr Carney‟s influence on some residents of the homes but they did not suspect sexual abuse. Their main concern was that he was creating unrealistic expectations among the children including expectations that he could provide them with a home.  

St Vincent‟s, Drogheda  

28.10 St Vincent‟s was an industrial school and, as such, was governed by the provisions of the Children Acts. Bill Carney and other deacons and/or priests took some of the residents away on holidays. Three boys complained they were abused by Bill Carney on these holidays. Another priest, who accompanied Bill Carney and some boys on holidays in 1973, gave evidence to the Gardaí that, while he never saw any sexual abuse on that holiday, Bill Carney did say to him that “you have to sleep with them because they are insecure”.

St Joseph‟s, Tivoli Rd

28.11 This orphanage was run by the Daughters of the Heart of Mary. It was a private orphanage which received some state support (see Chapter 6) and so was not subject to any statutory rules. The health authorities – the Dublin Health Authority and subsequently the Eastern Health Board - did place some children in the home and these children were visited by social workers.  

28.12 The religious order which ran the orphanage told the Commission that, up until the 1960s, children were not taken outside the home by outsiders. During the 1960s, it became the practice to allow children to be taken to selected family homes for the weekend or on holidays. It was considered that this would be a good experience for children raised in institutions. The order says that the families chosen for this purpose were well known to the order and vetted for suitability.  

28.13 The student priests from Clonliffe - Bill Carney and Francis McCarthy - started to visit this home in 1973. They were deacons at this stage and they approached the home to ask if they could help the children by engaging in activities with them. Their offer was accepted as “they came from Clonliffe College which was highly respected”. They were in the final stage of preparation for priesthood and had skills from which the children could benefit. The visits continued after they were ordained. They took the children on holidays. They were usually accompanied on holidays by members of the order and/or a childcare worker but on one occasion the children were accompanied only by the priests. They were “fully trusted” by the order to take responsibility for the care and safety of the children. Some of the boys were allowed visit one priest in his parish – Fr Francis McCarthy in Dunlavin (see Chapter 41).

Concerns about a girl in St Joseph‟s  

28.14 There are serious suspicions that a girl in St Joseph‟s was abused by Fr Carney but no complaint has been made by her. In 1977, a senior social worker noted, following a discussion with a nun in charge, “[name of girl] fantasy relationship with Fr Bill is still all consuming and I agreed … unhealthy”. The note further states “Her thoughts, conversations and her artistic attempts concern going to bed with Fr. Bill”. This girl was 14 years old at the time and had come to the orphanage with severe behavioural difficulties. She had been placed in the home by the health board and there was quite extensive social worker involvement with her. The order running the home found it very difficult to cope with her. It is clear that Fr Carney was regarded as a significant person in her life as he was invited to a case conference about her.

28.15 This girl‟s social worker gave evidence to the Commission that she had concerns about Fr Carney; she described how the girl was besotted with him. He was always in and out of St Joseph‟s and the social worker felt that his efforts to build up a special trusting relationship with her were inappropriate. She did not take the matter up with the authorities in the home. Her senior social worker did discuss it with the authorities in the home. She never suspected sexual abuse – it never occurred to her at the time (1977).  

28.16 The nun in charge of this girl‟s group also had concerns about this girl‟s behaviour and reported these concerns to her superior. The girl was writing Fr Carney‟s name on walls and was behaving strangely. It was considered that she had a crush on him. The superior spoke to Fr Carney and discouraged him from having any dealings with the girl. The nuns did not suspect child abuse.  

Boy in St Joseph‟s  

28.17 A boy in St Joseph‟s complained that he was abused by Fr Carney while he was a resident in this home. The religious order has told the Commission that it had no knowledge of any allegation or suspicion of abuse in his case. Fr Carney was named as a significant contact in this boy‟s life in a social work report in 1983. In 1982, the nun in charge and a care worker were concerned about the frequency of Fr Carney‟s visits to him. A social worker did have concerns about Fr Carney befriending him and asked Fr Carney to stay away. The concerns did not extend to sexual abuse. Social workers visited this boy monthly. He went to stay with Fr Carney in Ayrfield (the parish to which Fr Carney was appointed in 1977) on a number of occasions and this is where the abuse occurred, according to the boy. A social worker told the Commission that she collected the boy from Fr Carney‟s house and was concerned about the behaviour of Fr Carney towards him – this boy was then 12 years old and Fr Carney seemed to be helping him to dress. She considered that Fr Carney was creating an expectation in the boy of being a parent to him but she did not suspect any sexual abuse. She reported her concerns to her senior social worker. In February 1983, this boy told a care worker that he had been left alone in Fr Carney‟s house until very late or until the morning. The care worker stopped the boy‟s visits at this stage. Fr Carney was very angry with her. Subsequently, she and a social worker met him and it was agreed that he would reduce his contact and that there would be no overnight visits except on special occasions. The care worker felt the relationship was unhealthy but did not suspect abuse.  

The Grange, Kill O The Grange  

28.18 The Grange was run by the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity. It was a private orphanage. The nun in charge of the institution from 1972 to 1980 said, in a statement to the Commission, that Fr Carney was a frequent visitor to the Grange. He took children out for drives and day trips and sometimes children would stay with him for the weekend. He sometimes stayed overnight in the home. She believed his involvement was in the interests of the children as it provided them with an extra means of recreation. There were discussions at the time about getting male staff and having the clerical students/priests was seen as a stepping stone to this. They were regarded as safe and trustworthy. She said that at no time did she have “any cause to be suspicious” of Fr Carney‟s conduct. A girl who subsequently alleged that she had been abused by Fr Carney was described by this nun as being “crazy” about him and he always gave her special attention. This nun said that the children were not regularly visited by social workers. A social worker who was involved with this girl told the Commission that she met or visited the girl several times a year and that there were review meetings involving social workers and the care staff about twice a year. Sometimes the management of the home was involved as well.  

28.19 A staff member told Fr Carney in 1981 to stop seeing this girl. Contact between him and the girl was resumed in 1982 and this caused concern to the home and to the social worker.  

28.20 The social worker spoke to Fr Carney in 1982 and told him she thought he should not have any further contact with the girl as she felt “her expectations of their relationship were inappropriate”. Fr Carney had told this girl that he would look after her if she was pregnant. The social worker thought that this was completely inappropriate. Fr Carney asked if she was telling him not to see this girl and she said "yes‟. Fr Carney subsequently phoned the care worker to ask if he should send roses to this girl for her birthday. The care worker and social worker thought this was inappropriate but did not put it any further than that. The social worker did not suspect sexual abuse.  

28.21 It seems that around 1983, it was decided that the children could not go and stay with Fr Carney, as a care worker had some suspicions about the relationship between a boy and Fr Carney. A nun from The Grange told the canonical church penal process taken against Fr Carney in 1991/92 (see Chapter 4) that people did not specify what the problem was but she understood that he was showing an “unhealthy interest” in young boys.  

28.22 The Grange closed in or around 1982/1983. The girl who later alleged she had been abused by Fr Carney moved to An Grianán (see below) in 1982.  

28.23 In 1989, when she was an adult, this girl told the social worker who had been dealing with her while she was in The Grange that she had been sexually abused by Fr Carney while in The Grange and that the abuse included full intercourse.  

28.24 A nun from The Grange told the church penal process that she was aware of concerns about Fr Carney in The Grange. She did not have direct contact with him there but she reported that former residents of the Grange stayed with him when he was in Clogher Road (the parish to which he was appointed in 1986). She took one of them away from there in 1987 because of the condition of the house – it was full of empty alcohol bottles and was not, in her view, fit to live in.  

An Grianán

28.25 An Grianán was also run by the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity. It catered for girls aged 12 to 18. Both the girl from St Joseph‟s and the girl from The Grange moved to An Grianán when they were aged about 16. The health board was no longer responsible for children in care once they reached 16 but the social worker told the Commission that she did visit the girl from The Grange while she was in An Grianán. The nun in charge said in 1999 that, to the best of her knowledge, Fr Carney did not visit the girl from The Grange in An Grianán. The girl says that he did and that he took her out for the day on a number of occasions. The nun accepted that Fr Carney did call to visit another former resident of The Grange after this particular girl had left. The nun also stated that she heard rumours about Fr Carney in the mid 1980s “that were not positive”. A girl in An Grianán told her that she used to visit Fr Carney in Ayrfield while she was living in a children‟s home and she never wanted to visit him again as he had tried to molest her. The nun does not appear to have done anything about this. It is not clear whether the girl was alleging that this happened when she was underage.  

28.26 The social worker was told by An Grianán that the girl from The Grange was writing to Fr Carney while she was there. She also noted that he had called to see her in An Grianán and did see her there at Christmas 1982. This girl said that she was not abused in An Grianán. She thought the nun in charge suspected Fr Carney and did not like him. It is clear that the nun in charge did not like Fr Carney but it is not clear if she suspected him of abuse while this girl was in An Grianán.  

First recorded complaints to the Archdiocese, 1983  

28.27 Fr Carney was appointed a curate in Ayrfield parish in 1977. At that time he was a regular visitor to various homes and during his time in Ayrfield brought many children from those homes to stay with him. There is a suggestion that the Archdiocese may have had a complaint or suspicions about inappropriate behaviour by Fr Carney as early as 1978 but this cannot now be established.  

28.28 The first documented complaint about Fr Carney was made to the Gardaí in July 1983 by altar boys; the altar boys did not complain to the Archdiocese at this time. Complaints by boys who he took swimming were made to the Archdiocese in September 1983; some of the swimming pool complainants also complained to the Gardaí.  

The altar boy complaints

28.29 In July 1983, two brothers went with their father to a Garda station and complained that they had been abused by Fr Carney. Garda Finbar Garland was a young garda with just under a year‟s experience when this complaint was made to him. He told the Commission that, while he had experience in taking statements, he had no training in taking statements from children. The garda had a clear recollection of the young boys and their father coming to the Garda Station. He said he was shocked and disgusted by what he heard. He consulted his immediate superior, Sergeant Kiernan. Garda Garland went to the boys‟ home later that day to take statements. The boys told him that they were altar boys and had slept in Fr Carney‟s house on a number of occasions and had gone on holidays with him. While in his house, one boy would usually sleep in Fr Carney‟s bed and Fr Carney would fondle him. The boys told the Garda of other boys who had spent time in Fr Carney‟s house. He contacted the parents and took statements from three more boys the next day and from two more boys at a later stage. Some parents whom he contacted told him to go away and not say such things about Fr Carney. In all, he contacted the parents of about 16 boys. Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that he was conscious of the need for a speedy investigation in case anyone would influence what the boys might say or not say.  

28.30 The day after this complaint was made, Fr Carney and the parish priest of Ayrfield, Fr Ó Saorai, called to the Garda Station. Neither had been asked to do so. It seems they had heard about the garda activity. In spite of this, Fr Ó Saorai did not contact Archbishop‟s House. They were met by Inspector Murphy and Sergeant Kiernan. Garda Garland was in the station at the time but does not think he was at the meeting. Fr Carney was cautioned and the boys‟ statements were read to him. He denied the allegations.  

28.31 Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that Fr Carney was “somewhat agitated and indignant” and suggested that there were sinister or vindictive motives behind the complaints and there was no basis for them. When told by the Sergeant that there was more than one complaint, Fr Carney was taken aback. Inspector Murphy said he removed his collar but Sergeant Kiernan does not remember that. At this stage Fr Ó Saorai seemed to be under pressure – Sergeant Kiernan thinks Fr Ó Saorai was not fully aware of the nature of the complaints until he saw the statements made by the boys.  

28.32 Garda Garland took statements from two other boys in August 1983. The criminal investigation into the altar boy complaints was completed on 30 August 1983 and the file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

The swimming pool complaints  

28.33 In September 1983 two sets of parents wrote to the Archbishop to complain that their sons had been abused by Fr Carney in a swimming pool. They went initially to the parish priest, Fr Ó Saorai. Fr Ó Saorai was reluctant to go to the Archbishop even though the parents indicated they were going to the Gardaí and even though Fr Ó Saorai was well aware that there was an existing Garda investigation going on into the altar boy complaints. Fr Ó Saorai told the parents that there were other allegations. The parents were shocked and could not understand why the parish priest would not act. He said that if they went to the Archbishop he would vouch for their truthfulness.  

28.34 One of these parents then contacted Bishop Kavanagh. She described her approach to the Bishop as a waste of time as he never had time and he always ended the conversation with “pray for him”. The parents wrote to the Archbishop asking him to remove Fr Carney from their parish “but not into another parish where he can continue his actions”. The Archbishop‟s secretary acknowledged this letter as the Archbishop was away.  

28.35 One set of parents of the swimming pool complainants made statements to the Gardaí at around this time. The other set of parents did not report to the Gardaí. The mother told the Commission that she was afraid to do so as she was ostracised by some of her neighbours for making a complaint to the Church. In November 1983 this same mother phoned Archbishop‟s House to complain that Fr Carney was still around Ayrfield.  

28.36 Shortly after this, Fr Ó Saorai contacted the Archdiocese when he discovered that money was missing and may have been taken by a boy who was staying with Fr Carney.  

The Church investigation  

28.37 On 12 November 1983, Archbishop Ryan asked Monsignor Alex Stenson and Canon Ardle McMahon to investigate the swimming pool complaints – this was two months after the complaints were received. Monsignor Stenson and Canon McMahon compiled a comprehensive report.  

28.38 Fr John Wilson, the Archbishop‟s secretary, told the Church investigators that he had been approached by a classmate of Fr Carney who was concerned about Fr Carney‟s drinking and his non-attendance at retreats and class gatherings. Fr Ó Saorai had been in touch with Fr Wilson and had indicated that people had complained about Fr Carney. Fr Ó Saorai had interviewed two sets of parents who had complained to him and he was aware that there had been other allegations and that parents had already gone to the Gardaí.  

28.39 Bishop Kavanagh was informed of the difficulties and was in touch with Chief Superintendent Maurice O'Connor of Whitehall. Fr Wilson was aware that the accusations were at that stage in the DPP's office. Bishop Kavanagh had recommended that Fr Carney leave the parish for a month; it was also indicated that he should not go back to Ayrfield nor should he have children around the house. In fact, Fr Carney was still around the parish and was involved with young people. It seems that Fr Carney had moved to stay with Fr Francis McCarthy in Enniskerry but returned to Ayrfield frequently.  

28.40 Bishop Kavanagh told the Church investigators that he had been alerted to problems in early September and had spoken to Fr Ó Saorai. The report does not say who first alerted him but the Commission thinks it likely that it was Chief Superintendent O‟Connor. The chief superintendent told the Commission that he considered it his duty to inform Bishop Kavanagh. Fr Ó Saorai told Bishop Kavanagh that he had heard rumours earlier and had received an anonymous call in about 1981 alleging that Fr Carney had invited a young boy to sleep with him. At this stage Fr Carney had a 19-year-old former resident of an institution staying with him. Bishop Kavanagh said he had been in touch with Chief Superintendent O‟Connor who was the senior garda officer in the area. The chief superintendent told him it was unlikely that charges would be brought.  

28.41 Fr Ó Saorai confirmed what Bishop Kavanagh had told the Church investigators and reported on his and Fr Carney‟s visit to the garda station.  

28.42 The parents were also interviewed by the Church investigators. They were angry at the delay in dealing with the matter; they believed the children‟s accounts; they also complained of other aspects of Fr Carney‟s behaviour including foul language, always playing golf, unkempt appearance and inappropriate jokes. One parent asked that Fr Carney not only be removed from the parish but also that no other parish or children be put at risk by his reappointment elsewhere. The parent also asked to be informed of whatever decision was made about Fr Carney. The report remarks about the parents‟ statements: “Allowing for a certain bias in their account in view of what these parents believe had happened to their children there was nevertheless an amount of information forthcoming which was disturbing”.  

28.43 The Church investigators then put the swimming pool allegations to Fr Carney. He denied them. He agreed he got on well with children and did take the two boys (and others) swimming; he was usually accompanied by two adults (one of whom was Fr Patrick Maguire, a Columban priest who was actually serving in the Archdiocese of Dublin at the time but no one in Archbishop‟s House seems to have adverted to this. Fr Maguire is also a convicted serial child sexual abuser – see Chapter 16). In what the investigators described as a “turning point” in the interview, Fr Carney acknowledged “horseplay” in the swimming pool which the children could have misinterpreted. He thought that a recent allegation involving an actor from Coronation Street93 had caused an over reaction among the parents and the children. Fr Carney also told them of a parish meeting held two years earlier where various “wild allegations” were made about him. These included getting the scoutmaster‟s 15-year-old daughter pregnant, assaulting a seven-year-old girl who was treated in intensive care, excessive drinking and always golfing. “Some of these were obviously untrue and had been shown to be”, he claimed. To the surprise of the investigators, Fr Carney raised the question of whether or not he was entitled to the November mass offerings. The investigators said it was their understanding that he was still appointed as curate in Ayrfield and so was entitled to the offerings. They emphasised that his recent visit to the parish had not been welcomed and that he should stay away pending the findings of this inquiry (he had turned up at a school board meeting).  

28.44 Following the formal interview, Fr Carney asked to see Monsignor Stenson. He told Monsignor Stenson that he believed Fr Ó Saorai was prejudiced against him; other people and priests would speak well of him – he cited the names of some who would; he had taken hundreds of children swimming over the years and there were no allegations; the adults who were with him should be approached; he was “slightly less absolute about his vow of obedience” to the Archbishop as he must defend his own personal integrity and reputation.  

28.45 The Church investigators carried out the investigations quickly and thoroughly. They did not interview the children but they were well represented by their parents. They issued their report on 24 November 1983. It concluded:  

“1. We are satisfied that we got as close to the truth as we can. Fr C is sincere and believes what he tells but there seems to be a gap between what he perceives and what in fact the case may be.

2. He did acknowledge “horseplay” and agreed that physical contact occurred which was open to the suggestion of sexual molestation. However, he categorically denied any attempt to sexually interfere with children.  

3. Fr C is in need of guidance, help and education in interpersonal relations. (Perhaps a stay in The Servants of the Paraclete, Stroud, for therapeutic and spiritual renewal might help). At present he is not suitable for Parish; nor should he be appointed to an Institution with children.  

4. Fr Carney has indicated his readiness to obey the Archbishop‟s directives in his regard.  

Recommendations:  

1. Fr Carney should be taken out of Parish ministry for some time until he has sorted out his capacity to relate with respect to others

2. Fr Carney should be given immediate legal advice. Should the DPP proceed might it be advisable to have Fr C out of the jurisdiction?94 Fr C has many friends and the question of financing his legal expenses should be considered. It would be a pity if we were seen to be apparently “washing our hands” in this regard  

3. Action should be taken immediately”.  

28.46 This report was sent to Archbishop Ryan who asked a series of questions for clarification. The replies from Monsignor Stenson reiterated Fr Carney‟s denial of any wrongdoing and his denial that anything could have happened which he could not remember because he was drunk.  

28.47 In December 1983, Monsignor Stenson wrote to the parents of the swimming pool complainants to convey the gratitude of Archbishop Ryan and to assure them “he is taking every measure possible to ensure that there will be no recurrence of the problem”.  

Interaction between Bishop Kavanagh and Chief Superintendent O’Connor  

28.48 As already described, it is clear that Bishop Kavanagh and Chief Superintendent O‟Connor were in touch with each other about the complaints against Fr Carney. The contemporaneous statement of Bishop Kavanagh states that the chief superintendent told him it was unlikely that charges would be brought against Fr Carney. Chief Superintendent O‟Connor told the Commission that he did tell Bishop Kavanagh that the complaints were being investigated; he said that he himself did not read the file and he denied that he told the Bishop that prosecution was unlikely. The Commission finds the contents of the contemporaneous Church documents more persuasive than the evidence of Chief Superintendent O‟Connor.  

28.49 Chief Superintendent O‟Connor told the Commission that Bishop Kavanagh lived up the road from where he had his office (in Whitehall Garda Station) and he (the bishop) used to call into the office “for an ordinary conversation” maybe once or twice a month. The chief superintendent did not find this unusual and did not ask the bishop why he was coming in: “he came in as an ordinary visitor and he‟d come in, walk into my office”. They were not personally friendly. There were no particular purposes for the visits. The Commission finds this strange. People, bishops included, do not normally just walk into garda stations and then into the office of a chief superintendent without some purpose.

Prosecution and court case  

28.50 There might well have been no prosecution if the altar boy complainants had gone to the Archdiocese or, indeed, if Fr Ó Saorai had reported the swimming pool complaints to the Archdiocese when he first knew of them. The file in the case of the altar boy complaints had already gone to the DPP (in August 1983) before the Archdiocese became aware (in September 1983) that there were complaints against Fr Carney.  

28.51 Chief Superintendent O‟Connor was told of the case by Superintendent Byrne. The file was sent to the DPP by Superintendent Byrne in the usual way. The Commission was told by the Gardaí that it would not be normal practice to submit it first to the chief superintendent.  

28.52 The Archdiocese had in its possession a copy of the report prepared for the DPP by Sergeant Kiernan. Inspector Murphy was surprised when this was pointed out to him by the Commission. It is not clear how this was acquired by the Archdiocese. In the events that happened, and given Bishop Kavanagh‟s privileged access to the Gardaí, the Commission considers it reasonable to infer that the Archdiocese received this document from the Gardaí.  

28.53 In November 1983, the DPP issued directions to prosecute in the District Court in respect of six boys. Garda Garland was in touch with the parents to keep them updated about developments. The court date was set for 9 December. The Gardaí did not expect the case to be dealt with on that day as they thought that Fr Carney was going to plead not guilty and the question of whether or not the District Court could deal with it would have been an issue.  

28.54 Bishop Kavanagh continued to be in touch with Chief Superintendent O‟Connor. The Chief Superintendent told him that “as a result of meeting in Swords with Supt Byrne, case will be held on 9 Dec at 2.00 pm in camera”. Monsignor Stenson said in 1991 that “to avoid publicity the Court case was moved from Howth to Sutton Golf Club” and “B Kavanagh did a lot to ensure the matter was kept low key and may have been instrumental in having the court case moved…”.  

28.55 In fact, the case was held at the then regular venue but it is not clear if it was dealt with in a regular manner.

28.56 Monsignor Stenson was under the impression that the court venue was moved from Howth to Sutton Golf Club to avoid publicity and that Bishop Kavanagh may have been instrumental in having it moved. In fact, the normal venue at the time for Howth District Court was Suttonians Rugby Club and this is where the case was held.  

28.57 Garda Garland, Sergeant Kiernan and Inspector Murphy attended the court. One of the mothers was present. There were no other witnesses. Fr Carney was accompanied by a priest friend and a lawyer.  

28.58 The case was held in camera – this was not unusual because it involved a minor. Fr Carney‟s priest friend, who accompanied him to the court, told the Commission that Fr Carney‟s case was set to be heard last thing in the afternoon. He was waiting for it to be held when the judge indicated that he “was finished with all cases for the day. The court was cleared”. This priest was about to leave when a Garda indicated that he should stay. The judge then returned and the case proceeded. It is normal practice in criminal in camera cases to clear the court but the press are allowed to stay. It is not known if any members of the press were present at this case.  

28.59 Fr Carney pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault against the altar boy complainants and the other four charges were withdrawn. The judge granted the Probation Act, having heard evidence that Fr Carney was receiving psychiatric treatment. Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that the court was given a report outlining the treatment which Fr Carney had begun and it was submitted on his behalf that he would not be involved in future ministry with children. The statement from his solicitor that he was receiving medical care seems to have been a major factor in the judge‟s decision. In fact, he had not yet started medical treatment. Garda Garland recalled that the mother who was present was very upset by the leniency of the sentence. The garda was also disappointed.  

28.60 Fr Carney‟s priest friend who was in court said that what saved Fr Carney was a letter from Dr John Cooney of St Patrick‟s Hospital. Afterwards, Fr Carney wanted a celebration with “the lads”. His priest friend stopped this. He told Fr Wilson that Fr Carney should go to St Patrick's immediately; Fr Wilson agreed.  

After the court case

28.61 Bishop Kavanagh wanted to have Fr Carney admitted to St Patrick‟s Hospital immediately but Fr Carney wanted to wait until after Christmas. Bishop Kavanagh told Fr Carney to stay away from the northside.  

28.62 Fr Carney‟s priest friend reported to Fr Wilson that Fr Carney was drinking a lot, was in debt and his car was not taxed. He thought Fr Carney should really be reduced to the lay state because of his behaviour: “Fr C does not seem to realise the seriousness of the situation. He considers himself innocent of the charges”. He said that Fr Carney had to be restrained from visiting a complainant‟s home the night before the court case; he invited people from Ayrfield to the friend‟s house the night before; this priest said he would exercise as much control as he could but could not promise much success.  

28.63 It seems that everyone dealing with Fr Carney at this stage, including Archbishop Ryan, thought he should be in hospital but Bishop Kavanagh seems to have been reluctant to insist and he decided not to take further action until after Christmas.  

28.64 Archbishop Ryan wrote to Fr Carney, ending his appointment at Ayrfield. The letter said “I must ask you to sever all links with the Parish of Ayrfield and avoid those places and persons which have been the occasion of your difficulties”. It also referred to Fr Carney being in Dr Cooney‟s care for treatment (which he was not at that stage). Fr Carney had gone to stay with another priest in spite of the fact that Bishop Kavanagh had specifically forbidden him to stay there.  

28.65 Later in December 1983, Fr Carney wrote to Archbishop Ryan telling him that he had arranged with Dr Cooney to go to St Patrick's Hospital on 6 January 1984. He was going away with a friend for a few days before that. He said he had been “dry” for two weeks and he apologised for the upset he may have caused the Archbishop.  

28.66 Inspector Murphy told the Commission that there were no discussions with other authorities about the danger posed by Fr Carney to children. “I suppose looking at it we depended on the Church authority to deal with that aspect of it”. Sergeant Kiernan told the Commission that he now thinks he should have contacted Archbishop‟s House after the court case to try to ensure that Fr Carney was not ministering to children and that he should have contacted the health board.  

1984  

28.67 Fr Carney was treated in St Patrick‟s Hospital from January 1984 until March 1984. He was then given a temporary assignment in Clonskeagh parish under the direction of Monsignor Michael Browne PP. While in Clonskeagh, Fr Carney was to live with the Marist Fathers in Milltown and from April to July 1984, he was to attend a residential retreat for priests. The Marist Fathers have told the Commission that, even though they asked, they were not made aware of the reason for Fr Carney‟s stay with them.  

28.68 Monsignor Browne was told by Monsignor Jerome Curtin “in outline only” some features of Fr Carney‟s time in Ayrfield; he was given further information by two other priests, one of whom was Fr Francis McCarthy. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he was under the impression Monsignor Browne had been briefed. Monsignor Browne told the Church penal process in 1990 that he was told that Fr Carney had an alcohol problem. He had heard some rumours about complaints in his previous parish. It is clear that Monsignor Browne was not fully informed as he did not make any effort to keep Fr Carney away from children. In April, Monsignor Browne reported to the Archbishop that Fr Carney was “reliable, punctual, always available for more work than he had been assigned”. His celebration of mass was commended; he celebrated class masses in local schools and the teachers felt this was a priest who could “really communicate with the children”. He maintained contact with St Patrick's Hospital and with Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Nothing was done as a result of this report, even though it contained a clear account of Fr Carney‟s continuing involvement with children. In fact, it would appear that it was regarded as a good report.

28.69 At some stage, the head of the Marist house told Monsignor Browne that Fr Carney was not staying there all the time and that he had had to reprimand him for his coarse language.

28.70 It is not clear if Fr Carney ever attended the residential retreat. He certainly did not stay very long, if he attended at all. He told Archbishop Ryan in July that he had told Bishop Kavanagh in advance that he would not be attending – this cannot be established. His non-attendance or partial attendance seems to have come to the attention of the Archbishop only when the retreat was over – in effect, no one was monitoring him for that three month period.

28.71 In July 1984, Archbishop Ryan met Fr Carney who said he had adhered to his doctor‟s instructions and had not consumed alcohol since December 1983.

28.72 There is no written report from Dr Cooney at this stage but he did tell the Archbishop‟s secretary in July that Fr Carney should be given a diocesan appointment but that he would need to be supervised by the parish priest. Dr Cooney requested Fr Carney to report to him on a weekly basis for six to nine months and said that this should be a condition on which Fr Carney was to be offered a pastoral position. While Stroud was a possibility, Dr Cooney felt that, because of the immaturity and vulnerability of Fr Carney, he would be better to remain in his own environment in the conditions outlined. A place which had been booked for Fr Carney in Stroud was cancelled.

28.73 Monsignor Browne was asked to take Fr Carney on the same conditions as before – that is, he had to live in the Marist house and be under supervision. Monsignor Browne expressed every willingness to co-operate but did say he was gravely disappointed with Fr Carney‟s behaviour as he had heard some reports which were not good; these were not specified. Fr Carney was sent to Clonskeagh on the same conditions as before. Bishop Carroll met Fr Carney who was unhappy that he did not get a permanent appointment. Bishop Carroll walked Fr Carney to his car and reported that there was a young boy (he used the Latin word “puer”) in the car.

28.74 A parent of one of the victims wrote to Monsignor Stenson pointing out that it was nine months since their meeting. He had asked then to be kept informed of “ensuing events”, and he had heard nothing. He had had to move his family from Ayrfield out of duty to his children, to get away from Fr Carney who he described as being “free and unbridled” and was seen swimming in Portmarnock Community Centre with children. Monsignor Stenson sent a holding letter to him and then wrote to Archbishop Ryan for advice on how to deal with the letter from the parent. Monsignor Stenson pointed out to Archbishop Ryan that he was “not au fait” with Fr Carney‟s progress or treatment. He was not happy that the parent was setting himself up as “a moral watchdog on this priest‟s future activities and appointments” and did not think he had a right to be kept informed of “ensuing events”. This neatly encapsulates the Church‟s attitude to lay members during this period. In evidence to the Commission, Monsignor Stenson said he regretted the tone of this letter but he thought that the initial complaint had been reasonably well handled and he had written to this parent in December 1983. Monsignor Stenson also asked the Archbishop what person was monitoring Fr Carney's present involvement with youth and whether Fr Carney was still swimming with children.

28.75 In August, the Archbishop‟s secretary asked Monsignor Stenson to see Fr Carney and discuss the allegations made in the letter from the parent. Monsignor Stenson did so immediately and reported as follows:

“I contacted Fr. Carney at the Marists and asked if he would come and see me. He could not come at 2.30 as he had to see Dr. Cooney. I suggested 3.45 and it was agreed. Within a short time he was back on the 'phone indicating that he had cancelled Dr. Cooney and would come to see me immediately. I impressed on him the importance of seeing Dr. Cooney and that our meeting would follow on that.

When he arrived at 3.45 he indicated that he had been to Dr. Cooney and was seeing him twice weekly? I explained that a letter had been received and read it for him but did not reveal where [the parent who had complained] was now living. Fr. Carney admitted that he had been swimming in Portmarnock with a man and his two children - one of whom is Fr. Carney's godchild. This is a different godchild to the one involved in the earlier allegations. He also admitted that he had visited one or two places in Ayrfield. He indicated that he was involved in the Summer Project in Clonskeagh and went swimming with children from there. He was categorical in stating that no untoward incidents had occurred and that he had been "on the dry" since 11th December (with the exception of Christmas Day - 2 drinks), and now saw things far more clearly. With regard to the original allegations in Ayrfield he conceded that "one" incident" may have occurred in the past but if it did he was drunk and could not remember it. He only pleaded 'guilty' in the Court case on legal advice and to avoid embarrassment for the Diocese. I made it clear that my sole purpose in having a word with him was to offer advice - to be prudent in his pastoral and recreational activity. Given the fact that [the parent who was complaining] could or would hear of Fr. Carney's continued involvement with young boys, he could make life very difficult for him if he went public and even if the charges were without foundation. I suggested that for everyone's sake - not least his own - it would be wise for Fr. Carney to steer clear of this type of activity and preclude this possibility. He didn' t quite see the point I was making and countered it by saying "nothing had happened". When I tried to repeat the point he concluded that he would not be allowed have involvement with the Primary School in Clonskeagh nor have Altar Boys for his Mass etc. I pointed out that he owed it to himself not to allow even the suspicion of allegations be made in his regard, and that there was ample scope for his Priestly Ministry even if he avoided specific concentration on young children. He believes that he has a 'gift' - a way with them. He is not pleased that he is living in the Marist house and would prefer his own flat etc. Again I suggested that that decision may have been with a view to helping him - by eliminating the possibility of allegations in his regard. The fact that he has not a permanent appointment also rankles with him.

All in all I think the meeting was helpful and reasonably satisfactory. Bill doesn't see the problem as others see it. He has his own perception and little or no grasp of how others might see his situation. While not drinking, it would seem he still goes in with the lads and they, not he, have a 'few jars'. "Imprudence" would best sum up the picture. He attributes all his earlier failings among which he listed, dipping into Church funds etc. as due to his drinking problem. Now that this has been identified, and he is being treated for it, he believes all the other problem areas have been eliminated. Whether he will curtail his activity as a result of our meeting I do not know. He is clear that I was only offering advice which, given his circumstances and the recent letter, might be useful for him”.

28.76 In September 1984, Fr Carney said he had been asked to help at a children‟s holiday home. Monsignor Browne told him to check with the Archbishop. Bishop Joseph Carroll (who was in charge of the diocese as Archbishop Ryan had resigned on 1 September 1984) told him to cancel any arrangements with the holiday home and to keep to the terms of his appointment in Clonskeagh. Fr Carney‟s situation was discussed by the auxiliary bishops and it was decided that he should remain in his temporary appointment in Clonskeagh.  

28.77 In October, the Archdiocese was informed that Fr Carney rarely stayed at the Marist house. Monsignor Browne wanted a review of his case. He reported that Fr Carney was saying mass in Malahide; Fr Carney told him that he was attending AA regularly and was secretary to the AA group in the Raheny/Baldoyle area. In November, Bishop Kavanagh met Fr Carney and told him that his behaviour was unsatisfactory; his present appointment was to continue for three months‟ probation and he was to report regularly to his medical adviser.

1985

28.78 In January 1985, Fr Carney was interviewed by Monsignor Stenson and Bishops Carroll and Kavanagh. They were appointed by Archbishop Kevin McNamara to look into the various new allegations against Fr Carney. (Archbishop McNamara had become Archbishop on 20 January 1985.) Among other things, there were suggestions that he was frequently in the company of an 18 year old late at night and there was a mention of “possible charges as a result of information made available to the Rape Crisis Centre. The precise details and the source of this information were not clear”. Fr Carney refused to go to Stroud and mentioned the possibility of going to Australia or challenging the allegations made concerning him. He was given 24 hours to consider the Stroud proposal.  

28.79 Soon after this, Archbishop McNamara asked Monsignor Stenson to investigate the possibility of withdrawing Fr Carney‟s faculties in order to put pressure on him to reconsider his position and to accept the offer of help in Stroud or elsewhere.

28.80 About two weeks later (not within the 24 hours specified), Fr Carney wrote to Bishop Carroll saying that all his problems were due to alcohol and that he needed a new diocesan appointment. This is one of many long self-serving letters full of religious sentiment which Fr Carney wrote. It shows that he was then living in Baldoyle, even though his orders were to stay with the Marists and away from the northside.

28.81 The bishops and Monsignor Stenson decided to get a full report from Dr Cooney. It seems that this report was provided orally to one of the bishops (probably Bishop Kavanagh) so its contents are not known but it would appear that residential treatment was recommended. There was further communication between Fr Carney and Monsignor Stenson in which it became obvious that Fr Carney was not recognising his problem and was prevaricating. Among other things, Fr Carney said that he was attending a counsellor and that the counsellor thought his problems were due to alcohol: “she did not believe, no more than I do, that I have any problem in this sexual area”. Monsignor Stenson saw Fr Carney in Clonliffe College. He was accompanied by a youth. Eventually, in late March, Fr Carney informed the diocese that he would not go to Stroud – nearly three months after he had been given 24 hours to make a decision. Two weeks later, Bishops Carroll and Kavanagh met Fr Carney and made it clear to him that there was no place for him in the diocese but it was still possible for him to go to Stroud. He refused to go to Stroud saying: "I do not believe it is what God wants me to do" and "I would be afraid of drinking again. I know A.A. will improve me". Subsequently, he also refused to go to another therapeutic facility in the UK.

28.82 On 19 April 1985, Archbishop McNamara wrote to Fr Carney informing him that he was withdrawing his diocesan faculties. Fr Carney was now effectively suspended but there did not seem to be anyone checking on what he was doing or where he was living. There is no evidence that other priests were informed of his changed status.  

28.83 In July 1985, the parent who had earlier complained of not being informed of developments wrote to point out that he had suffered financial loss because he had had to move house. This letter was acknowledged but no further action was taken.  

28.84 Fr Carney and his solicitor continued to write to the Archbishop looking for his re-instatement. In September, Archbishop McNamara offered Fr Carney the option of going to Belmont Park Hospital, Waterford under the care of Dr Lane O‟Kelly. This was a psychiatric hospital which provided treatment for alcohol problems. (It closed in 1992). There is no evidence that it had any expertise in child sexual abuse. Fr Carney accepted this offer. Dr Lane O‟Kelly was told (in September) that he should contact Dr Cooney to get the background but it is not clear that Dr Cooney knew the full background. There is no evidence that the people who did know the full background actually briefed Dr Lane O‟Kelly at this stage. There is a record from the files in Archbishop‟s House that he was briefed when he visited there in late November. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he provided full information about Fr Carney‟s background to Dr Lane O‟Kelly in November 1985. It is clear that the programme Dr Lane O‟Kelly was implementing was for alcoholism even though Fr Carney himself claimed, and others seemed to believe, that he had not been drinking for two years. Monsignor Stenson accepts that alcoholism “was the focus and, with hindsight, I would say that was a mistake”.  

28.85 Fr Carney was in the hospital for a very short time when he started scheming to be allowed out at weekends. It is clear that he was a less than enthusiastic participant in his treatment. In November, he discharged himself from the hospital and wrote a long letter to the Archbishop seeking clarification about his continuance in hospital and his prospects of operating as a priest again. The Archbishop made it clear that he was to return to the hospital and follow the doctor‟s orders. Dr Lane O‟Kelly came to Archbishop‟s House to meet the Archbishop and Monsignor Stenson and to report on Fr Carney‟s progress. He wanted Fr Carney to spend more time in hospital, with the possibility of a return to ministry in the new year. This would be “in a controlled situation” and subject to “careful monitoring”.  

28.86 In December Fr Carney was allowed to say mass but did not yet have all his faculties restored.  

1986  

28.87 In January 1986, Fr Carney was released from hospital on a trial basis. Dr Lane O‟Kelly suggested an appointment south of the Liffey in order to facilitate his visits to the Waterford hospital. His faculties were restored on condition that he continue to attend Dr Lane O‟Kelly at monthly intervals and that he avoid those areas particularly on the north side of the city, for example, Ayrfield and Donoghmede parishes and Portmarnock Leisure Centre, where his presence “might give rise to unfavourable comment on the Church”. Fr Carney was appointed to the parish of Clogher Road. The parish priest, Fr James Kelly, issued a strong letter of protest. The letter refers to earlier experiences in this and a neighbouring parish and argues that he should have been consulted. It seems that Fr Kelly was aware of the nature of the problem but this is not explicit. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he discovered at a later stage that Fr Kelly had not been as well briefed as he (Monsignor Stenson) had thought at the time. Monsignor Stenson also told the Commission that he was “horrified” when he heard of the appointment; he himself had no involvement in appointments. This parish had already had a number of problem priests –

and there was another priest who had a different problem - and Fr Carney would be living alone.  

28.88 During the year, Dr Lane O"Kelly reported to the Archdiocese that he was satisfied with Fr Carney‟s progress and attendance at the hospital. The Archbishop continued to remind Fr Carney that the appointment was temporary and was conditional on good reports. 

1987  

28.89 In February 1987, the parent who had reported financial problems wrote with information about proceedings for the recovery of possession of his house because he was in default with his payments. He was clearly very angry with the Church. His letter was acknowledged but nothing further was done. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that his reply was “curt” and he did not think much of it as a priest but he was concerned about the possible liability of the Church.

28.90 In November 1987, Monsignor Stenson noted in a memorandum that Bishop Desmond Williams told him that he (Bishop Williams) had been contacted by someone from the health board who was aware of Fr Carney‟s record in relation to children and who was concerned that he was back in ministry. Monsignor Stenson said that Bishop Williams did not tell him who this person was. A number of social workers who were working for the health board at the time told the Commission that they were not aware that Fr Carney had pleaded guilty to indecent assault and, in fact, did not become so aware until this Commission was established and they were preparing to give evidence. The Commission accepts that the social workers were not aware of the guilty plea but it has no reason to doubt that Bishop Williams was contacted by someone in the health board. Clearly, someone in the health board who was in a position to approach Bishop Williams was aware and did not inform his/her colleagues. Monsignor Stenson met Fr Carney and advised him that, given his past record, it was vital that he should not leave himself open to accusations of any kind, least of all from people who might be hostile to him. Fr Carney accepted this reluctantly. At this meeting, Fr Carney admitted that he had not attended the hospital for about a year. Monsignor Stenson said: “We thought that he had been attending Belmont Park on a regular basis but, in fact, he had not”. There was no one specifically mandated to check on this.

28.91 In December 1987, a boy who had been in care in St Joseph‟s told his foster parents that he had been abused by Fr Carney. The parents reported this to their local priest who reported to the Archdiocese and to a social worker. The social worker heard from a nun in the home that there were concerns about former residents who were staying with Fr Carney in Clogher Road. The boy was now aged 16 and he was adamant he did not want to report to the Gardaí.

1988

28.92 The priest to whom the allegation by the former resident of St Joseph‟s was reported and Monsignor Stenson established the following:

Fr Carney lived on his own in Clogher Road.  

Children frequented the house and some children had stayed overnight; a former resident of a care home was currently living there and another former resident used to live there.  

Fr Carney took local children swimming and organised regular outings for children; he was working with the boy scouts.  

He had developed very familiar relationships with a small number of families that had problems and had no father figure, and had holidayed with these families.  

There was “an awareness locally” of his history.  

28.93 The priest to whom the allegation was made expressed concerns that the local priests in Clogher Road had not been consulted when Fr Carney was sent there and that there was no support from the diocese for local priests. He pointed out that “there seems to be nobody responsible” and that the parish priest was under pressure.

28.94 Monsignor Stenson concluded:  

“With hindsight it would appear that:  

i) the appointment to Clogher Road was a mistake - there was a previous history of this problem there;  

ii) residential accommodation on his own is not in Bill's best interest;  

iii) the 'monitoring' has not been as tight as it might have been. Fr. Kelly was hearing nothing from Archbishop's House and we were hearing nothing from him. The other priests in the Parish were aware of some problem but they never discussed it together;  

iv) There was no 'ongoing' monitoring of medical reports - Bill in fact stopped seeing Dr. Lane when he considered he was no longer in need of him. We were unaware of this;  

v) In the light of the above it would be helpful if all Departments co-ordinated information in respect of such cases. This happened with the file. But I gather from [the priest to whom the complaint of the boy from St Joseph‟s was reported] that Father Kelly had written of his concerns to Archbishop's House at some stage. Is this true? I have no record of it”.  

28.95 It seems that nobody had told Fr Carney to stay away from children.  

28.96 The health board offered counselling to the complainant from St Joseph‟s. There is no evidence that it followed up on any children who were in care at the time this abuse occurred or that it checked its own records to see if further information was available on other children. If it had, what were perceived at the time as concerns about crushes and inappropriate expectations would have been seen in a more sinister light. St Joseph‟s was closed at this stage.  

28.97 The bishops decided to remove Fr Carney and provide residential care. Bishop Williams felt that Fr Carney‟s behaviour was inappropriate but did not yet merit a penalty, for example, suspension. They also decided that the priest to whom the allegations were made should be told that something was being done about his representations. Nobody reported back to the foster parents.  

28.98 It is not clear that the allegation of sexual abuse of the boy from St Joseph‟s was ever put to Fr Carney. The other allegations about his activities in Clogher Road were put to him and he accepted that they were true but he was annoyed that what would be acceptable for other priests should be unacceptable from him. He “reacted badly” when told he was being removed. Subsequently his solicitor contacted Bishop Kavanagh requesting details of the complaints which had been made and asking for a meeting. Monsignor Stenson met the solicitor who told him that Fr Carney found the proposal to leave Clogher Road and obtain psychological assessment unacceptable.

28.99 In April 1988, about a month after he was consecrated as Archbishop of Dublin, Archbishop Desmond Connell met Fr Carney. The Archbishop told Fr Carney that he would be allowed to continue in Clogher Road, on a temporary basis, under certain conditions. These included seeing a Dublin based psychologist, being discreet in his behaviour and not having young people stay overnight. Monsignor Stenson raised the matters of monitoring and having some priest live with Fr Carney but these do not seem to have been addressed.

28.100 One of the parents from Ayrfield approached Fr Carney. He was very upset about the damage done to his son and spoke in terms of seeking compensation or writing to the papers. Fr Carney told Monsignor Stenson and his solicitor about this. Fr Carney was negotiating about his future directly with the bishops and indirectly through his solicitor. He wrote long pleading letters to the Archbishop.

28.101 In October 1988, Archbishop Connell met Fr Carney again. Fr Carney told the Archbishop that incidents were occurring in Clogher Road which were drawing attention to him and he wanted to discuss them. He said he took separated wives to Kerry. He felt that he could help some who had alcoholic problems. One of these women had children. Her husband had learned of Fr Carney‟s background and was anxious about the possible implications for the children. Fr Carney, on hearing of this, spoke to the woman in question and told her that he would not be able to continue the counselling arrangement that had existed between them. He also spoke of an incident that had occurred in the yard of the girls' school. The caretaker had said that he had observed an incident taking place between Fr Carney and a group of girls and had spoken to some people of this. Fr Carney said that a teacher in the school was also observing and would back him (Fr Carney) by saying that there was nothing wrong in what happened and the caretaker was wrong in his claims. Fr Carney took a group of the girls bowling on occasion. The Archbishop advised him against this in the future and Fr Carney agreed.

1989

28.102 In February 1989, Fr Carney called to see the Archbishop and informed him that the father of one of the girls in a group with which he was involved told him that he did not want Fr Carney near his daughters. Fr Carney assured the Archbishop that he had "done nothing" to this man's daughter. The Archbishop recommended that he tell the parish priest about this and that he continue working with the group for the rest of the year but remove himself from it after that.  

28.103 In August, the parish priest reported that Fr Carney had been taking boys swimming but not alone. The parish priest thought a change for Fr Carney would be a good idea.

28.104 In August, parents from Ayrfield contacted Bishop O‟Mahony. They were concerned about their sons and about Fr Carney‟s access to children. The mother was looking for pastoral and spiritual help as her husband and sons had stopped practicing their religion. Bishop O‟Mahony reported this to Archbishop Connell. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that Archbishop Connell was “shocked and upset”. Bishop O‟Mahony believes that this was the first time that Archbishop Connell “became fully aware of the serious spiritual harm inflicted on children and young people through clerical sex abuse”. This, according to Bishop O‟Mahony, prompted Archbishop Connell to review Fr Carney‟s position and impose more restrictive conditions on any future appointments. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he rang the mother a few times after this. He did not meet the boys as they did not want to meet him.

28.105 Monsignor Stenson told the Church penal process that it was well known in Ayrfield parish that Fr Carney had problems and there were rumours about his behaviour. He had been seen in the local golf club and he had a young boy caddying for him. This was corroborated by two priests who said it was a constant feature of Fr Carney‟s pattern of behaviour at the golf club.

28.106 Archbishop Connell decided that Fr Carney should be moved and have more stringent conditions attached to his appointment. Monsignor Stenson and Bishop Kavanagh met Fr Carney and told him he was to be removed from Clogher Road, be moved to a shared ministry and was to continue to see the psychologist. Fr Carney regarded this as another proposal. He told them he was going on holidays with women and children.

28.107 The psychologist was asked for a report. He reported that he had seen Fr Carney on four occasions in the period March – May 1988. He said that Fr Carney showed no evidence of psychopathology. Again, it is not clear what the psychologist knew about Fr Carney because the report does not once mention child sexual abuse. It outlines various good and bad aspects of Fr Carney‟s personality and points out that he would deviate considerably from the Church‟s teaching on moral issues. He is “still seeing a married woman and a single girl”. The report states that he did not engage in sexual intercourse with them but did feel free to indulge in a “kiss and a cuddle”. It should be noted that Fr Carney had not actually attended this psychologist since May 1988 and seems to have been assessed but not treated by him. It is clear that nobody in authority in the Archdiocese knew what Fr Carney‟s interaction with the psychologist was for almost a year and a half after he was referred.

28.108 In late August 1989, a young woman who had been a resident in The Grange complained to Monsignor Stenson that she had been abused by Fr Carney while in the care home and subsequently. She alleged that he was the father of her recently born child. She was aware that Fr Carney now had a young boy staying with him and she was concerned about his welfare. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that this was the first time he had met an alleged victim of Fr Carney. He believed what she was telling him and he was horrified by what Fr Carney had done. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he virtually always believed the complainants even though he did not regard it as appropriate to his role to make them aware of that. His task was to record their stories. When confronted by Monsignor Stenson, Fr Carney accepted that he could be the father of the child. Fr Carney wrote to the Archbishop to apologise but said he had since made his peace with God.

28.109 Archbishop Connell told Fr Carney to leave Clogher Road by 30 September and go to live in a diocesan house in Cappaghmore (Clondalkin). Fr Carney, as usual, regarded this as negotiable. He looked for, and got, more time so that he could say goodbye to his old and ill parishioners on the First Friday. This extension was granted, with certain conditions. On 5 October, the Archbishop wrote to Fr Carney and told him to go to Cappaghmore. Although he was asked not to do so, Fr Carney made this public during a mass in Clogher Road shortly before he left, indicating that he was giving his blessing for the last time. This led to a number of letters from parishioners saying that it was most unfair that he should be going as he was a wonderful priest.

28.110 Fr Carney told the Archdiocese that the young woman had made a statement saying that matters had been resolved between herself and Fr Carney (this was clearly not so as subsequent events showed). Fr Carney then wrote to the Archbishop saying that the “agreement is done”, there is no possibility of scandal so his position should be reconsidered.

28.111 The young woman told the social worker with whom she had been dealing while she was in the institutions that she had been abused as a child by Fr Carney. The social worker told the Commission that, while she had not suspected sexual abuse at the time, the revelation did not surprise her. The social worker accompanied the young woman to the Garda station to make a complaint. The social worker notified her superiors in accordance with the normal reporting mechanisms. She offered counselling and gave ongoing support to the young woman. The Grange had been closed at this stage.

28.112 In October 1989, Monsignor Stenson wrote to Fr Carney stating that, given his stated preference to stay in the priesthood, the Archbishop and Auxiliary Bishops were asking him to consider living out his priestly life in a monastic setting or, if this were not acceptable and given the impossibility of appointing him to pastoral ministry in the Archdiocese, to consider retraining for the lay state. While his faculties were not formally removed, Fr Carney had no diocesan appointment. He was getting a monthly allowance of £500. He engaged in lengthy exchanges with Monsignor Stenson about the support he would get if laicised, the availability of a canon lawyer and the fact that he prayed for Monsignor Stenson.

28.113 Meanwhile, the young woman was pursuing her claim for maintenance of the child and the case went to court. Fr Carney wanted the Archdiocese to pay for the blood test to establish if he was the father. The blood tests established that he was not, in fact, the father. The Gardaí sent their file to the DPP but did not recommend prosecution.  

1990  

28.114 In February 1990, the Archbishop and Monsignor Stenson met Fr Carney and the Archbishop told him that he was not prepared to give him a diocesan appointment at that time or in the future. He asked him to consider applying for laicisation and asked for a response by 1 March; the only alternative open to him was for the Church to institute a penal process to dismiss him from the clerical state. Fr Carney looked for an extension and got one until Easter. There were numerous pleading letters but he was told that the process would start in May 1990.

28.115 Meanwhile, it was discovered that Fr Carney was still going to Clogher Road and he was instructed to cease this. The Archdiocese wanted him to move out of Cappaghmore; he was offered money to pay for alternative accommodation. He was very reluctant to move out. There was further correspondence between Fr Carney and Monsignor Stenson. Fr Carney started work as a taxi driver and was looking for money to buy a taxi plate. The Gardaí were investigating the allegations made by the young woman and Monsignor Stenson provided the Gardaí with an address for Fr Carney.  

28.116 The tribunal to hear the penal process was set up in December 1990. Penal proceedings are described in Chapter 4.  

1991  

28.117 Fr Carney continued to write long self-serving letters looking to be restored to ministry. He was still living in Cappaghmore. He eventually said he would voluntarily seek laicisation. The Archdiocese decided not to bargain and to await the outcome of the penal process.

28.118 The penal process continued during 1991. A number of complainants and parents of complainants gave evidence. One complainant mentioned, in the course of his evidence, that he was in a holiday caravan with Fr Carney and there was another priest there with a boy. (In later civil proceedings, he named this priest as Fr Francis McCarthy). He also mentioned other teenage boys who were in Fr Carney‟s house in Ayrfield. Evidence was also given by a nun from one of the institutions and by a social worker.

28.119 During the church penal process, the Director of Psychological Services for the Hospitaller Order of St John of God was asked to study the file of evidence that was being presented to the Church court. He did not see Fr Carney nor did he see the previous psychological and psychiatric reports. He stated that once a pattern of paedophile activity was established it did not depend on alcohol for its expression. He identified Fr Carney as having a serious personality disorder the features of which are frequently associated with paedophilia. He noted that he had consistently denied the extent of his problems and the seriousness of his actions. Given the above characteristics, he believed that Fr Carney must be diagnosed as having a psychopathic personality disorder and was homosexually paedophile. As such, the prognosis for Fr Carney was very poor and it was the psychologist‟s view that he should not be given any status as a representative of the Church. He noted the arguments advanced in some quarters that paedophilia was a psychiatric disorder and included compulsive behaviour over which the sufferer had no control and could therefore plead insanity or diminished responsibility. His own view was that if society took such behaviour as Fr Carney‟s as meriting a judgment of insanity or diminished responsibility in circumstances where the perpetrator showed foresight and knowledge there would be no basis for moral or legal behaviour in society.  

1992  

28.120 Fr Carney himself did not participate in the church penal process but was represented by a canon lawyer. The penal process was completed and, on 9 March 1992, Fr Carney was dismissed from the clerical state. The judgment of the tribunal was unequivocal. Fr Carney was guilty of child sexual abuse and there was no basis for mitigating the penalty. The members of the tribunal were very clear about the damage caused by Fr Carney to the victims, his denial of wrongdoing, his total absence of remorse, the enduring and habitual nature of his offences and his failure to abide by the instructions of his superiors.

28.121 The judgment did not refer at all to the evidence given by one complainant about the presence of another priest in a caravan where this complainant was abused. This matter was not followed up by anyone in authority (see Chapter 41).

28.122 In June 1992, the judges of the tribunal wrote to Archbishop Connell with comments about the handling of the case. Their letter shows that they had a good understanding of the issues involved but they did not mention the risk posed by the other priest. They pointed out that “Paedophilia is a very special kind of deviancy and requires special vigilance”. They then went on to make the following points:  

“In the Carney case we feel that a penal process should have been initiated earlier than was done in this case. The accused in that case accepted treatment for his alcoholism but refused to go to Stroud to get treatment specific to his complaint. Like Alcoholism there is no hope of cure for the paedophile unless he comes to terms with his complaint. To this day the accused has refused (despite a civil court case and much other evidence) to admit that he suffers from this paraphilia. Treatment for concomitant alcoholism is not a substitute for a recognition of and specific treatment for paedophilia. Even with special treatment the prognosis for the paedophile is generally rather bleak. A refusal to undergo such special treatment should be taken as proof of contumacy. When a priest like the accused is committed to a prudent parish priest for a period of trial it is important that the parish priest be made aware of the reason why the accused is committed to his care. This is more important in cases of paedophilia than, perhaps, any other. It seems that the parish priests to whom the accused was committed had no inkling of the precise reason as to why he was there. Paedophilia can wear a deceptive mask. Parishioners are easily fooled by the interest a priest shows in their children. Children are unable to tell their parents. There is abundant evidence of this in the present case. A Parish priest may easily suspect drink, or a liaison with a woman when a fellow priest is committed to his corrective care. He is less likely to suspect paedophilia. Again, it disguises itself as an interest in the altar boys or the youth of the parish. It is only when irreparable damage has been done that the parish priest realizes.

In the recent case it seems that monitoring of the accused was not helped by the fact that he had a house all to himself in Clogher Road, and again in Clondalkin. The evidence shows that he used these houses as he had used the house in Ayrfield. It is true that this was praeter intentionem”95.

28.123 Mr Carney‟s monthly allowance was stopped in April 1992. The Archdiocese was still trying to get him to leave the house in Cappaghmore. There were discussions between Mr Carney and Monsignor Stenson and then between Mr Carney and Monsignor Wilson about financial matters. It seemed as if a settlement was reached in November 1992.

1993 to date

28.124 There were further financial negotiations between the Archdiocese and Mr Carney. Mr Carney was, as described by Monsignor Wilson, constantly changing the goalposts. He eventually left the house in January 1994 – about four years after he was first asked to leave. He received a lump sum of £30,000 from the Archdiocese.

28.125 In July 1994, the two complainants in respect of whom Fr Carney had pleaded guilty sued the Archdiocese. The young woman also started proceedings. Her story began to appear in the newspapers and coverage continued throughout 1995.  

28.126 Another complainant came forward in December 1994. Archbishop Connell and Monsignor Stenson met him in February 1995 and apologised to him. He was offered counselling. A number of other people made complaints in 1995. One complainant alleged that he was abused by both Fr Carney and Fr Francis McCarthy – see Chapter 41. He also complained to the Gardaí. The young man who had been in St Josephs‟s complained to the Gardaí and started civil proceedings. Monsignor Stenson made a statement to the Gardaí about his involvement with this case. Other complainants came forward in subsequent years. They were met by the chancellor and/or by the delegates. The procedures set out in the Framework Document were being followed.

28.127 In 1998, steps were taken to contact affected families in Ayrfield. The Archdiocesan records suggest that the parish priest visited one family and got a “cold reception”. This family told the Commission that they were not visited at that time. Archbishop Connell was particularly anxious to contact the family who had had to leave Ayrfield and had suffered financially as a result. Contact was eventually made after a series of errors about addresses. The delegate tried to keep in contact with a number of the complainants. Further complainants continued to come forward. It is likely that some made complaints to the Residential Institutions Redress Board.96 There was no further prosecution mainly because the DPP took the view that the delay in making the complaints was too great. A family told the Commission that one complainant had committed suicide.  

28.128 Archbishop Martin met a number of the complainants after he was appointed as Archbishop and they generally found him sympathetic. The Child Protection Service continues to be in contact with those who want that contact.  

28.129 Mr Carney had been a taxi driver for a time after his laicisation. By a remarkable coincidence, one of the complainants actually got into his taxi inadvertently. Mr Carney seems to have left Ireland sometime in the mid 1990s. He was known to be living in Scotland but his current whereabouts are not known.  

The Commission’s assessment

Archdiocese  

28.130 The handling by the Archdiocese of the large number of allegations and suspicions in relation to Fr Carney is nothing short of catastrophic. The Archdiocese, in its handling of the case, was inept, self-serving and, for the best part of ten years, displayed no obvious concern for the welfare of children. This had appalling consequences for all the complainants and their families, not least for those people who were abused after the Church had knowledge of Fr Carney‟s extensive history of abuse as, with appropriate handling, their abuse could possibly have been prevented.  

28.131 In evidence to the Commission, a number of senior churchmen acknowledged that this case was very badly handled. Monsignor Stenson said that Fr Carney should not have been ordained. He went on to say that when problems arose “the nettle should have been grabbed much quicker and, if he didn‟t resign from the priesthood, he should have been thrown out much sooner”. He said the case was handled very poorly and with a lack of decisiveness. The Commission agrees.  

28.132 There is a consistent pattern of failure by the Church authorities to address the problem of Fr Carney. Several people who knew Fr Carney testified that he was crude, loutish and constantly used foul language. This, of course, is not a crime but it is surprising that the issue was not addressed by his superiors while he was in the seminary or subsequently.  

28.133 It is astonishing that Fr Carney‟s suggestion that he foster children was even considered in view of the Church‟s stated position in respect of priests having any family responsibilities, yet it seems he may have been encouraged by Bishop Kavanagh.  

28.134 Fr Carney‟s ease of access to, and his degree of involvement with children in care was extraordinary. He was able to take children to his home for weekends whenever he wanted and this was encouraged by the authorities. While it may be understandable that the authorities in the homes did not even contemplate the possibility of sexual abuse, there is no evidence that anyone in authority asked basic questions relating to the care and safety of children such as who was going to look after the children while he was saying Sunday mass or if he had to leave the house at night to administer the last rites. There is evidence that children were left alone at night.  

28.135 There is no evidence of any attempt at serious management of Fr Carney as the problems unfolded. There was no one in the Archdiocese who was in charge of monitoring him. No one person had full knowledge of the extent of the problem. It is clear that Monsignor Stenson was conscious of this lack of management but he did not have the power to do anything about it. He told the Commission that different files were kept in the different departments – a personnel file, a chancery file, a financial file - and the full picture was not available to anyone dealing with it. This was done in the interests of confidentiality. It became clear to him that “somebody had to manage the case and have all the information, otherwise disastrous decisions were going to happen and have happened”.  

28.136 Even if the Church‟s main intention was to avoid scandal, the complete lack of competence in handling Fr Carney is remarkable. There is no doubt that Fr Carney was manipulative, not just in his abuse of children but also in his dealings with his superiors. His clear unambiguous refusal to follow orders does not seem to have been addressed by the archdiocesan authorities. He treated orders from his superiors as proposals for discussion rather than as orders and he was allowed to get away with this.  

28.137 The archdiocesan authorities either did not understand the threat posed by Fr Carney to children generally or understood it but did not regard it as a significant consideration.  

28.138 The Commission considers that the Church authorities did not exercise sufficient authority over Fr Carney. It accepts that the Church cannot restrict a priest‟s liberty in general but it can restrict his liberty to exercise ministry. No attempt seems to have been made to deal with other, less serious but unacceptable, aspects of Fr Carney‟s behaviour such as his foul language, loutish behaviour and too frequent appearances on the golf course.  

28.139 It seems that the treatment for Fr Carney was focused largely on his alcohol problem. In fact, he was sent to an alcohol treatment facility in Ireland at a time when he said, and people seemed to believe, that he had not been drinking for a year. 

28.140 The refusal of Fr Ó Saorai to report the parents‟ complaints to Archbishop‟s House is inexcusable. He knew of actual complaints of child sexual abuse from parents, he believed the parents, he had heard other rumours, he had received complaints of loutish behaviour by Fr Carney, yet he reported to Archbishop‟s House only because money went missing. However, it must be said that if he had reported when he should have, it is unlikely that there would have been a criminal prosecution of Fr Carney.

28.141 It was suggested to the Commission that Bishop Kavanagh had a “soft spot” for Fr Carney. He clearly did but the Commission does not think that this in any way excuses the lengths to which he went to protect him. It appears to the Commission that Bishop Kavanagh tried to prevent the prosecution of Fr Carney and, when the prosecution went ahead, tried to ensure that it was kept as quiet as possible. The Commission takes the view that there is evidence that Bishop Kavanagh, in the words of its terms of reference, did attempt to obstruct or interfere with the proper investigation of the complaints.

28.142 No attempt was made by the Archdiocese to provide help or counselling to the victims who were known and no attempt was made to establish if there were any other victims. (The Archdiocese must have known that there were likely to be other victims).  

Health authorities  

28.143 The question of how institutions cared for the children in their care has been examined in depth by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Ryan Commission). This Commission accepts that, in general, the authorities in the children‟s homes did not suspect that Fr Carney was abusing the children who were befriended by him. However, it is a matter of serious concern that they allowed children stay with him without ensuring that there were appropriate arrangements for their supervision.  

28.144 The Commission also accepts that the health board social workers who dealt with the children in the institutions did not suspect sexual abuse. However, it is surprising that, in one case at least, a 14 year old girl‟s obsession with him was not viewed in a more sinister light than merely a crush or a fantasy.  

28.145 There does not seem to have been any shared knowledge in the health board about perpetrators. For example, when the case of the young woman from the children‟s home was being dealt with in 1989, one section of the health board did not know that Fr Carney was known to another section as an abuser of the young man from another children‟s home, so no pattern of abuse in the institutions was recognised.  

28.146 It is acknowledged that there was no statutory duty on health boards to promote the welfare of all children at that stage (see Chapter 6) but, nevertheless it is surprising to the Commission that no attempts were made to contact other residents in the children‟s homes in which these two complainants had lived.  

The Gardaí  

28.147 The Commission was impressed by the efficiency and speed with which Garda Finbarr Garland investigated the complaints from the young boys in Ayrfield in 1983 and the manner in which he and his immediate superior officers pursued the prosecution of Fr Carney. However, the Commission considers that Chief Superintendent O‟Connor had inappropriate dealings with Bishop Kavanagh.  

28.148 It appears that Bishop Kavanagh tried to influence the conduct of the investigation and clearly did his best to ensure that there would be no publicity. His attempts to influence the process were unsuccessful because the lower ranking Gardaí had done their job properly. However, Chief Superintendent O‟Connor cannot take any credit for this. Chief Superintendent O‟Connor‟s description of how Bishop Kavanagh dropped into his office regularly for a chat does not seem plausible.  

Communication between authorities  

28.149 Neither the Church nor the Garda authorities made any effort to ensure that relevant people were made aware of the danger which Fr Carney posed to children. The health board social workers in the area where the offences occurred or in the areas to which Fr Carney was subsequently sent were not told.

Chapter 29 Fr Tom Naughton

Introduction  

29.1 Fr Naughton was ordained in 1963 for St Patrick‟s Missionary Society, Kiltegan, Co. Wicklow (commonly known as the Kiltegan Fathers) and after his ordination he spent time in Africa and the West Indies. He left the West Indies following a disagreement with another teacher and the bishop and sought a position in the Archdiocese of Dublin.  

29.2 He was first appointed to Aughrim Street parish in April 1976 and then to Valleymount parish in 1980. While working there, he was incardinated (see Chapter 3) into the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1981.  

29.3 The Commission is aware of complaints of child sexual abuse against Fr Naughton by more than 20 named people. There are suspicions in respect of many more. He has twice been convicted of child sexual abuse.  

Valleymount  

29.4 In 1983, two parishioners from Valleymount expressed concerns to Bishop Donal Murray about Fr Naughton‟s behaviour. They claimed he was “too close to the altar boys”. Bishop Murray told the Commission that the two men wanted Fr Naughton removed from the parish. He said that the men refused to be specific with him and that they were not suggesting that there was anything wrong going on. The bishop told the Commission that he was uneasy and was afraid that it could involve inappropriate or even abusive activity with children. The parish priest at the time investigated the complaints and concluded that they were unfounded.  

29.5 The type of investigation carried out is not chronicled in the files and would appear to have been totally inadequate even by the standards of the time. It can be compared unfavourably with the excellent investigations carried out in 1977 by Canon Ardle McMahon into complaints and in 1983 by Canon McMahon and Monsignor Stenson in the Fr Bill Carney case (see Chapter 28). Bishop Murray considers that this comparison is unfair as there was no specific complaint of child sexual abuse in Valleymount.  

29.6 Bishop Murray did interview Fr Naughton about the behaviour but he denied any wrongdoing. Bishop Murray said he told Archbishop Ryan of the allegations. The Commission accepts that he did tell Archbishop Ryan even though there is no contemporaneous record of this on the files. Monsignor Stenson was under the impression that Archbishop Ryan had been informed.

29.7 In a statement to Gardaí in 2003 another parishioner stated that she had been informed in 1983 by two children that they had been abused by Fr Naughton. She said she had told the parish priest of the abuse on two separate occasions and in response he had told her “to pray for the victims”. She stated that she and her husband approached another priest who took their complaints seriously. That priest‟s recollection was that he reported the matter to an auxiliary bishop. He thought it was Bishop Murray but Bishop Murray denies that it was he. The parishioner stated that she also tried to talk to Bishop Murray when she was attending a confirmation service in 1984 but that “he dismissed me and pretended he didn‟t hear me, and walked away”. There was no record of these complaints on the files of the Archdiocese until the mid 1990s. Bishop Murray told the Commission that he does recall a woman speaking to him after confirmation but said it was about Fr Naughton‟s difficult attitude and that sexual assault was not mentioned. The Commission considers that Bishop Murray should have pursued the matter with the woman since he was already aware that there were some problems with Fr Naughton.  

29.8 In April 1984, Bishop Murray also received a letter from another parishioner proposing an investigation into “a less than satisfactory situation” in the parish. Bishop Murray told the Commission that this letter referred to financial matters.  

29.9 Within six weeks Fr Naughton was transferred to Donnycarney parish.  

29.10 At least four complainants have come forward from Valleymount but it is suspected that many more children were abused. As recently as February 2006, the local parish priest, a different person to the parish priest who was there in 1983, sought information on counselling services for those who had been affected by Fr Naughton‟s behaviour. He expressed the opinion that there might be a lot more people in the parish who may have been abused but who had not come forward. He put the number at between ten and twelve. He was encouraged by the Archdiocese‟s Child Protection Service to try and persuade anyone who might have been affected to come forward.  

29.11 In June 2009, just as this report was being finalised, Fr Naughton pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault in relation to a complainant from Valleymount.  

29.12 In a statement regarding the Valleymount situation, issued in 2002, Bishop Murray stated that he was very aware that if he had derived “more information from the various interviews I conducted, it might have been possible to prevent some of the dreadful suffering of child abuse. I very much wish that I had been able to do so. It is a matter of the greatest regret to me that I did not manage at that time to get to the root of the problem”. No attempt was made by Bishop Murray to revisit these concerns even after he became aware of Fr Naughton‟s abusive behaviour in Donnycarney and Ringsend (see below). Bishop Murray told the Commission that, when the Donnycarney complaint was raised at an Auxiliary Bishops‟ meeting with Archbishop McNamara in November 1985, he mentioned the concerns of the two men who had approached him in Valleymount. At this stage the concerns about Valleymount were known to two Archbishops and several auxiliary bishops and none of these men thought of revisiting the issue.  

Donnycarney, 1984-1986  

29.13 One of the more serious sexual assaults committed by Fr Naughton was against an 11 year old altar boy from Donnycarney Parish, Mervyn Rundle. The assaults took place on a number of occasions in 1984/85. The young boy told his mother about the assaults.  

29.14 The Rundle family sought the help of a family friend and in November 1985 they (Mervyn, his father and the family friend) met the chancellor, Monsignor Stenson, at Archbishop‟s House. Archbishop McNamara had replaced Archbishop Ryan as Archbishop. At that stage the family, who were a religious family, were not anxious to report to the Gardaí as they felt the church would take steps to solve the problem. The father told Monsignor Stenson at that meeting that a number of other children might also have been abused by Fr Naughton. He named one other possible victim and said that there might be five. Monsignor Stenson then interviewed Mervyn on his own. Mervyn Rundle told the Commission that Monsignor Stenson questioned him closely about his account and he found this an intimidating experience.  

Meeting with Fr Naughton  

29.15 The very next day, Monsignor Stenson met Fr Naughton who categorically denied all the allegations against him. He stated that there may have been an incident of horseplay which may have been misinterpreted and that he had since apologised to the family for any misunderstanding. He did, however, tell Monsignor Stenson about the fact that he had been confronted by Bishop Murray in relation to an allegation. He said that the bishop had told him that it was nothing to worry about and that “cranks97 often make allegations”. He agreed with Monsignor Stenson to seek a transfer and gave an undertaking that he would withdraw from his responsibilities for the altar boys.  

29.16 Ten days later Fr Naughton did admit to abusing Mervyn Rundle on six different occasions but denied any other incidents of abuse. The reaction of the Archdiocese was that he should take a break from the scene for a few days at least. In a January 1986 memo, Monsignor Stenson indicated that Fr Naughton had withdrawn from his involvement with the altar boys and was happy to remain in Donnycarney “now that some of the dust has settled”.  

Medical report  

29.17 Fr Naughton was referred to a consultant psychiatrist in relation to the abuse of Mervyn Rundle. The psychiatrist‟s conclusions were that the abuse was a manifestation of Fr Naughton‟s overwhelming loneliness and was merely a misguided attempt to establish a relationship. He contrasted it with other cases that they (meaning himself and the Church authorities) had had in the past where, unfortunately, there had been a long history of similar episodes. He said he was basing his analysis on the view that this was a once-off event and stated: “I take it you have no evidence to the contrary”.  

29.18 He had not been informed that there might have been other children involved in Donnycarney, nor was he informed that there were suspicions about Fr Naughton while he was in Valleymount. The Archdiocese should have provided a full account to the psychiatrist in order to ensure that he could issue a meaningful report. The Archbishop thanked him for his report but did not address the fact that he, the Archbishop, did know that this was not a once-off event.  

29.19 In February 1986, Fr Naughton was still living in the parish and the Rundle parents and their friend were annoyed by the lack of action and threatened to take the matter to the Gardaí. Their friend wrote the following letter to Monsignor Stenson. It clearly sets out how the matter had been handled to date:  

“Following our meeting in your office on Fri 29th Nov. 1985 and the resulting lack of action it is now necessary to put details of the whole matter on paper for the record. On Nov. 29th 1985 at 10:15am a very serious charge of child abuse was made against a priest in a Donnycarney parish. One case in particular was brought to your attention, that of young Mervyn Rundle, although there were others that were known of. Having given you a copy of the notes I myself had made after talking to the child, I arranged at your request to bring the child and his father to see you that afternoon at 2:15pm. In the meantime you said you would consult with the Archbishop who was in the house at the time. That afternoon the child and his father came to your office. You questioned the child yourself and he confirmed what you had been told that morning by me. You assured us that immediate action would be taken. On December 3rd 1985 Mr. Rundle telephoned you about the matter of going to the parish priest for confession. In the course of the conversation you told Mr. Rundle that Fr. Naughton wished to tell the parish priest himself about the matter of child abuse. You had said that the charges had not been denied. Mr. Rundle left the matter in your hands assured by you that positive action would be taken.

However, when the parish priest came to the Rundle home on Friday the 6th Dec he was shocked to hear, for the first time, that one of his priests was involved in child abuse in the parish. He had not been informed by Fr. Naughton, he had not been informed by the Archbishop and he had not been informed by you yourself. This raises several very disturbing points of a very serious nature.  

1 That a priest who had been charged with and had not denied child abuse was called to Archbishop‟s House and was allowed to leave at once to return to the same parish.  

2 That both you and Dr. McNamara knew about the matter and yet a week later you did not see fit or think the matter of child abuse serious enough to see if the parish priest knew about it.  

3 Knowing that child abuse is a very serious crime you allowed the priest to return to the same parish where the same children were.  

4 That the Roman Catholic Church which claims to be the moral guardians of the people treat child abuse in such an off-hand manner calls into question the Church‟s ability to govern anything.  

The way the whole matter has been handled by Archbishop‟s House has made the Rundle family feel very guilty and angry, as I do, by the manner in which they have been let down. The only reason that you were informed was to allow you to deal with the matter with as little fuss as possible. In this we were wrong not to have contacted the Gardai first. This mistake will now be rectified. The very least that was expected was that the priest would have been removed from the parish. Today, 11 weeks later the priest is still in the parish. This goes against all the medical information I have. In fact it seems nothing at all has been done.

I can see no defence for your lack of action and the matter must now be taken up at another level and because of the Church‟s lack of interest in the problem of its priests being involved in child abuse it will have to be brought out openly. There is now the additional fact that both Dr. McNamara and you knew about the child abuse and did what appears to be nothing. I would also have to question the matter of other priests who “were” involved in child abuse and you claim were treated. The whole thing takes on very sinister tones. Before any other action is taken by me, I would like to discuss the matter with you to make sure there is no misunderstanding.” Monsignor Stenson disagreed with the conclusions reached and, in reply to this letter, stated: “That is simply not true as action was taken at parochial level and professional help and guidance obtained for the priest concerned. You will appreciate that I am not at liberty to divulge the precise details of this help”.  

29.20 At this stage Monsignor Stenson was aware of the existence of another allegation. A complaint had been made to a local priest by the parents of another altar boy.  

29.21 Monsignor Stenson informed Archbishop McNamara of the complaints, both about inaction in relation to the Mervyn Rundle complaint and the new complaint. Monsignor Stenson met Mr and Mrs Rundle in February 1986 and explained what steps the Church had taken, including a psychiatric evaluation, in relation to Fr Naughton. He did not inform them about the suspicions that had been raised about Fr Naughton‟s time in Valleymount. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that, for reasons of confidentiality, he did not consider that he was free to tell them about the other complaints.  

29.22 Monsignor Stenson advised Fr Naughton to tell his psychiatrist about all the allegations against him. It is not known if this happened.  

Stroud, 1986  

29.23 Eventually, in August 1986, Fr Naughton was relieved of his curacy and sent to Stroud for a course of therapy with the promise of a further placement in the Archdiocese on receipt of a favourable report from there.  

29.24 In September 1986, the director of Stroud indicated to the Archbishop that he did not believe Fr Naughton was in touch with the gravity of the situation and expressed the view that it was difficult to believe that the problem was only surfacing now.  

29.25 The director of Stroud noted, in October 1986, that he was more optimistic that things could work out for Fr Naughton. However, he warned that Fr Naughton would need further support when he returned to Dublin. He also advised that the parish priest in his new placement should be informed of the situation.  

Ringsend, 1986  

29.26 Fr Naughton was appointed in December 1986 to the parish of Ringsend and despite his background, was given responsibility for some work in schools. He told Stroud in a follow-up meeting that this was not a problem for him given his background. Stroud expressed concern that he had ended his relationship with his counsellor. The Archdiocese arranged for him to see yet another counsellor but, in June 1988, the headmistress of the local girl‟s primary school expressed concerns about Fr Naughton engaging in horseplay and failing to desist when brought to his attention. She had heard about the complaints from Donnycarney and Co Wicklow.  

29.27 By September 1988, complaints about Fr Naughton‟s inappropriate behaviour and the fact that children were often visiting his house were known to the Archdiocese.  

29.28 A specific complaint was made by a young boy who had accompanied Fr Naughton to a funeral. The boy said he was inappropriately touched by him in the car on the way to the graveyard. He ran home and complained to his parents who reported it to the principal of the school. The principal reported it to the health board and the director of community care reported the matter to the Gardaí.  

29.29 By early October 1988, Fr Naughton had been relieved of his duties in Ringsend. The Archdiocese thought a further period in Stroud would refocus him. However, he did not return to Stroud immediately but was placed under the care of yet another doctor in Dublin. This doctor stated that Fr Naughton should be given another chance with as many precautions as possible put in place. He suggested a position as a chaplain in a hospital. He expressed himself doubtful about the Stroud techniques and the possibility of a fundamental change or transformation in Fr Naughton‟s behaviour. Fr Naughton did return to Stroud in December 1988 and remained there for five months.  

29.30 It should be noted that the situation regarding Fr Naughton was quite well known in the parish of Ringsend. A local chaplain and teacher told the Commission that, on the day after Fr Naughton was removed from his duties in the parish of Ringsend, one of the girls in his class told him that the priest had been removed because “he was messing with altar boys”. This suggests that the situation regarding Fr Naughton was being spoken about in the parish of Ringsend. This chaplain also told the Commission that this was the first he had heard of the reasons surrounding Fr Naughton‟s removal. Later that week he met the local public health nurse and told her that he knew nothing of the circumstances surrounding Fr Naughton‟s removal. The nurse was dealing with the complaints and she briefed him on the situation. He also told the Commission that, when Fr Naughton was appointed to Ringsend in December 1986, and despite the fact that he was to share a house with the incoming Fr Naughton, he was not informed by the Archdiocese of complaints about Fr Naughton.  

29.31 Bishop Kavanagh spoke to the St Patrick‟s Missionary Society about Fr Naughton‟s position in January 1989. The Society told the bishop that it was not aware of any similar complaints about Fr Naughton before his appointment to the Archdiocese of Dublin. The Society was clear that the Archdiocese, not the Society, was now responsible for Fr Naughton.  

29.32 Fr Naughton was not given any further appointments by the Archdiocese.  

29.33 Further complaints emerged from Ringsend at a later stage.  

Health board response  

29.34 Following notification from the school principal, health board personnel including the acting director of community care, the social work services and the public health nurse immediately responded to the complaints. At this stage the 1987 guidelines on child abuse had been issued by the Department of Health (see Chapter 6) so the acting director of community care, on hearing of the allegation, informed the Gardaí at Ringsend of the complaint.

She also convened a case conference to which the social workers, the Gardaí and the public health nurse were invited. The Gardaí sent their apologies. It was decided at that conference that the public health nurse should approach the parents of all the altar boys and also the parents of those boys involved in Fr Naughton‟s garden project. This was a project in which Fr Naughton encouraged young boys to assist him growing vegetables.

29.35 The public health nurse told the Commission that it was decided that the parents should speak with their own children to see whether there had been any inappropriate behaviour by Fr Naughton and if so, that they should come back to her and seek advice on how they could handle it. She also told them that if a subsequent disclosure was made, they could come back at any time and seek either counselling or advice. She gave evidence that the school principal had a very good relationship with the boys and that she encouraged the families that, if they did not want to communicate with her, they should communicate with him or any other person in the health board they thought might be appropriate.  

29.36 The acting director of community care followed up matters by contacting Stroud. She expressed her concern that Fr Naughton had received treatment in the past but had subsequently re-offended. She was assured by Stroud that provision had been made for Fr Naughton under strict supervision outside the Dublin area and that he would not be receiving a further diocesan appointment. She also contacted her health board counterpart on the north side of the city to ensure that her counterpart was aware that there had been incidents in Donneycarney and subsequent incidents in Ringsend. In May 1989 she contacted Monsignor Stenson in order to get further information about Fr Naughton‟s current whereabouts.  

Return to Kiltegan, 1989  

29.37 In May 1989, St Patrick‟s Missionary Society agreed, at the request of the Dublin Archdiocese, to give accommodation to Fr Naughton at their headquarters at Kiltegan where work was provided for him. An attempt was made to excardinate him from the Archdiocese of Dublin but, as the St Patrick‟s Missionary Society was unable or unwilling to readmit him to the order, he remained and still remains a priest of the Dublin Archdiocese. The Archdiocese paid an allowance towards his upkeep in Kiltegan even though the Society did not think this was necessary. He attended a support group and he carried out some limited ministry. There was extensive communication between the Archdiocese and the Society in relation to him in the period 1989 – 1992.  

Aughrim Street complaints  

29.38 In the mid to late 1990s, a number of complaints of sexual assault were made to Gardaí by men who claimed they were abused by Fr Naughton while he was a curate in Aughrim Street between 1976 and 1980. The Gardaí followed up these complaints but the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) directed that no prosecution should take place due to the lapse of time.  

Prosecution  

29.39 A number of complainants who were already known to the Archdiocese made complaints to the Gardaí in 1995 and 1996. Fr Naughton was prosecuted in relation to sexual assaults on three boys. In May 1998, he pleaded guilty to six counts of indecent assault on Mervyn Rundle, the other altar boy from Donnycarney and the boy from Ringsend. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment by the Dublin Circuit Court. This was reduced on appeal to two and a half years.  

29.40 The only incidents of abuse which Fr Naughton had admitted to archdiocesan officials were those relating to Mervyn Rundle.  

Follow-up by the Archdiocese  

29.41 In October 1995, Archbishop Connell met the Rundles and apologised to them. Counselling was offered to all the complainants. In the course of making inquiries about these complaints, the Archdiocese was told of a suspicion that Fr Naughton may have abused while he was in the West Indies.

29.42 After his conviction, a letter from the Archbishop expressing his sorrow and offering pastoral outreach was circulated to the parishes where Fr Naughton had served.  

29.43 There was again extensive communication between the Archdiocese and St Patrick‟s Missionary Society about what was to happen when Fr Naughton was released from prison. He was released in June 2000. He was accommodated in a number of religious residences and eventually, the Society agreed that it would look after him under strict conditions.  

29.44 The Archdiocese and the Society discussed the monitoring arrangements and who would be liable for any further offending by Fr Naughton. He was receiving therapy but he was a reluctant participant.  

29.45 A report from Granada in June 2000 stated that Fr Naughton was unlikely to re-offend and had not abused in many years. It was stated that he would not require stringent monitoring or restrictions. It was recommended that he be placed in a religious community setting.

29.46 He returned to Kiltegan in January 2001, initially on a six month trial basis. He was forbidden from engaging in ministry and was not allowed to have any unsupervised contact with children. An agreement was signed between the Archdiocese and the Society which stipulated that Fr Naughton was to remain the responsibility of the Archdiocese and the Archdiocese was responsible for his supervision. This agreement has been renewed every six months since then. Fr Naughton became a beneficiary of the Clerical Fund Society (see Chapter 8).  

29.47 He is visited regularly by his priest advisor who is very kind to him.  

29.48 The health board was informed of his living arrangements and was satisfied with the measures adopted by the Archdiocese.  

29.49 In spite of some difficulties and his desire to take on ministry, the arrangements seem to be working out reasonably well. He continues to be monitored by the Granada Institute. The delegate visits regularly to check that he is keeping to the restrictions that have been imposed.  

29.50 Civil claims have been settled with a number of complainants.  

Other complaints  

29.51 During the currency of the Commission a number of other complaints have been received and are in the process of being investigated.

29.52 Following the Prime Time programme Cardinal Secrets in 2002, the Gardaí conducted an inquiry as to whether there was sufficient evidence to mount a case of misprision of felony against any Church official (see Chapter 5). They concluded there was not: “with the exception of this apathetic attitude in relation to this [the Mervyn Rundle] incident there does not appear to be any other evidence of knowledge by the Church as to Tom Naughton‟s catalogue of abuse”.  

The Commission’s assessment The Archdiocese  

29.53 In the Commission‟s view, Bishop Murray must take some responsibility for the very poor handling of complaints against this priest. The Commission believes it is to his credit that he recognised this when he issued his statement admitting his failure to follow up properly the complaints he had received from Valleymount.  

29.54 It is unacceptable that, when the Donnycarney complaints were being discussed by the bishops, he, they and Archbishop McNamara did not return to the Co Wicklow parish and carry out further investigations. This was despite the fact that Bishop Murray told the Commission that he informed the meeting about the two men‟s complaints about Fr Naughton.  

29.55 The archdiocesan authorities were wrong not to inform all priests in Ringsend that there had been a serious complaint about Fr Naughton while he worked in Donnycarney.  

29.56 Overall, in their handling of the complaints against Fr Naughton, archdiocesan authorities, particularly Bishop Murray, the Valleymount parish priest and Archbishops Ryan and McNamara let down those families who, because they were good Catholics, trusted the Church to do something about this man. Archbishop McNamara was slow to respond to the complaint from the Rundles despite the priest admitting sexual abuse. As a result, Fr Naughton was allowed to continue his abusive behaviour for several years thereby severely damaging more victims. It was only when they went to the Gardaí that they finally received satisfaction.  

29.57 The Archdiocese was, at best, evasive in its referrals of Fr Naughton for medical treatment in Ireland. Nowhere was there a full revelation of its concerns or its knowledge. In particular, following the first report from the first psychiatrist who saw him, which was clearly based on wrong information, the Archbishop‟s response was merely to write a note thanking the psychiatrist for his most helpful report. Fr Naughton was then going to be retained in his ministry. It was not until the next complaint surfaced, which in fact happened the following month, that he was sent to Stroud to which a full report was provided.  

29.58 The Archdiocese did, however belatedly, act correctly in the view of the Commission, in arranging for Fr Naughton to live with his former Society when the Ringsend complaints were made. Dismissing him then would have led to a situation where he could have continued his activities unsupervised. Returning him to live with his former Society meant that his activities could be strictly monitored and controlled. Indeed, his former Society is to be commended for accepting him.  

29.59 Fr Naughton‟s case is symptomatic of the Dublin Archdiocese‟s attitude to child sexual abuse in the 1980s. Until the problem became so great it could not be hidden, the archdiocesan procedure was to do all in its power to protect the wrongdoer, while almost completely ignoring the effect of this abuse on the victims. Monsignor Stenson states that the aim was to rehabilitate the wrongdoer rather than to protect him. Regardless of the aim in respect of the wrongdoer, the welfare of the children was not addressed. As a result Fr Naughton was allowed to continue his abuse for several years after legitimate concerns were first raised. This would not have happened if the Archdiocese had fulfilled its duty to the children in the first instance.

29.60 There was good communication between the Archdiocese and St Patrick‟s Missionary Society throughout.  

The Garda response  

29.61 Once formal complaints were made to Gardaí they responded positively. The Commission considers that it was unfortunate that they failed to attend the meeting arranged by the acting director of community care following complaints about Fr Naughton‟s behaviour in Ringsend. Had they attended they would have been alerted earlier to the fact that these south Dublin complaints were not the only ones against Fr Naughton.  

29.62 The Commission acknowledges that the Rundles and the mother of one Ringsend complainant did not want the Gardaí involved initially, believing that the Church authorities would handle matters.  

Health board  

29.63 The health board staff – the acting director of community care, the social workers and the public health nurse – acted with commendable speed and courage in dealing with this case. It is one of the very few cases examined by the Commission where the health authorities were proactive in trying to prevent abuse. The Commission recognises that the health authorities are often constrained by resources and their legal remit in taking such action (see Chapter 6).

Chapter 30 Fr Cicero*98

Introduction

30.1 Fr Cicero was born in 1939 and ordained in 1963 for the diocese of Ossory. He died in 2002. He was intellectually clever and was an expert in canon law. He was given many appointments in the Ossory diocese but none was successful as he was totally disorganised and chaotic in dealing with everyday matters. In the early 1970s he was appointed to the Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal on a part time basis. This involved travelling to Dublin two days a week. He continued to work in Ossory on the other days.  

30.2 In early summer 1981, two priests called to Fr Cicero‟s house to try and sort out what officials from the diocese of Ossory regarded as an administrative mess. As well as finding a very substantial amount of paperwork not dealt with, they discovered what Bishop Forristal, the bishop of Ossory, described in evidence to the Commission as “lurid magazines”. In September 1981 Fr Cicero was called to a meeting with Bishop Forristal. Bishop Forristal has stated that he, the bishop, was not aware of the existence of lurid magazines at the time of this meeting. The meeting was concerned with an appointment in which Fr Cicero‟s lack of organisation would not be such a problem. His chaotic approach to practical matters eventually led to a conviction for having no tax and insurance on his car and he was banned from driving. In June 1985, following a request from the Moderator of the Regional Marriage Tribunal, it was decided that he would be transferred to Dublin to work in the tribunal. He remained incardinated in the diocese of Ossory.  

Dublin appointment  

30.3 As well as working in the tribunal, Fr Cicero was appointed as a chaplain in an inner city parish. It was here that the first allegations of child sexual abuse surfaced.  

30.4 In late 1986, his parish priest was approached by the mother of a girl who had called to collect her daughter at Fr Cicero‟s house. Fr Cicero had taken to inviting young girls back to his house to play with or use his computer. He had a personal computer and was an expert programmer.  

(Personal computers were quite rare in the mid 1980s). When the mother called, the daughter was upstairs and the mother heard her say: “will we come down as we are or will we put our clothes on?”. The mother wrote a letter of complaint to the parish priest. The parish priest showed the letter to Fr Cicero. The parish priest‟s recollection at a later date was that Fr Cicero went white when he read the letter. Fr Cicero put the letter in his pocket and the parish priest thought that was the end of the matter.  

30.5 In March 1987, two women reported their concerns about Fr Cicero and his computer to the local curate. They explained that their two eight-year -old daughters had told them of playing games in his house. The games involved a computer program to command the removal of socks and tops, kissing each other and kissing the priest. It later transpired that a number of other young girls were involved as well. The matter was also reported by the parents to the parish priest. Both the parish priest and the curate reported the complaint to their local bishop, Bishop Williams, and the parish priest also reported the 1986 complaint. The curate wrote a detailed letter outlining the complaints. These incidents were not reported to the Gardaí or any other appropriate authorities.  

Medical report  

30.6 Bishop Williams referred Fr Cicero to a psychiatrist, Professor Noel Walsh, who saw him on two occasions. Professor Walsh stated that there was some “substance to the complaints which were made against him”. Professor Walsh appeared to be under the impression that all that had happened was engaging in undressing games in Fr Cicero‟s presence. His report stated that there was no physical contact. He concluded that Fr Cicero was involved in “a form of compulsive voyeurism which had emerged as a problem for him in recent years”. Professor Walsh stated that Fr Cicero had no major psychiatric problem and that he was quite distressed by the problem he did have. Professor Walsh recommended that he return to work with the marriage tribunal and be relocated in part-time pastoral work. He also recommended that Fr Cicero return for some further sessions but he did not do so.  

30.7 As with a number of other cases that were referred to Professor Walsh, the whole story does not appear to have been given to him. The local curate who had received the complaints had written a letter to Bishop Williams outlining in detail what he had been told and this account was supported by the parish priest. This letter does not appear to have been given to Professor Walsh. It is highly unlikely that Professor Walsh would state in his report that there had been no physical contact if the allegation of kissing Fr Cicero, as had been reported in the letter, had been known to him.  

30.8 Fr Cicero was removed from the parish. The parents did not pursue the matter.  

Supervision  

30.9 Monsignor Sheehy, who was the judicial vicar and Fr Cicero‟s superior in the marriage tribunal, stated that he was prepared to have the priest continue as a full-time member of the tribunal on the basis that:  

Fr Cicero knew that Monsignor Sheehy was aware of his difficulties;  

he would work solely in accordance with the policy and practice of the tribunal;  

any further aberration would inevitably mean his dismissal from the tribunal and accordingly his return to the diocese of Ossory;  

some appropriate accommodation together with some kind of convent chaplaincy be found for him which would be supervised.

It is interesting to note that there is no mention of any possible civil or criminal sanction being applied against Fr Cicero for any past or future breaches.  

30.10 A good deal of manoeuvring took place with the knowledge of Bishop Forristal, Bishop Williams and Monsignor Sheehy as the following communication, in May 1987, from Bishop Williams to Monsignor Sheehy illustrates:  

“Bishop Carroll would be very grateful if you would quietly arrange for [Fr Cicero] to resume his duties in the Tribunal and to take up residence in [a convent] until the end of June. I would suggest that this could be arranged quietly through Bishop Forristal and that no formal appointment, or reappointment, to either Tribunal or chaplaincy, is necessary”.

30.11 In July 1987, Fr Cicero was appointed chaplain to a convent. It is surprising that, although the convent is a self-contained unit, no one appears to have considered its suitability in light of its proximity to a girls‟ school. The superior of the convent was made aware of his activities by Monsignor Sheehy and was instructed to maintain a watchful eye on him.  

30.12 He remained in the convent until 1991 when the mother superior‟s term of office came to an end. He was then appointed as a parish chaplain with a self-contained residence. Monsignor Sheehy outlined the supervisory regime in a letter to Bishop Forristal. This involved a housekeeper attending Fr Cicero‟s apartment two days a week and regular visits by Monsignor Sheehy‟s secretary. There is a further letter early in 1992 indicating the regime was being maintained.  

1995  

30.13 The Dublin Archdiocese reviewed Fr Cicero‟s file in 1995 as part of its review of all cases involving child sexual abuse. Monsignor Stenson commented:  

“by Framework standards it would appear that child-care issues would have arisen in respect of the children in [the parish] and this was never addressed at the time. It is clear that there was no question of the matter being reported to the Gardaí even though it would probably fall under the definition of child sexual abuse in the Framework document”. Some correspondence ensued between Monsignor Stenson and Bishop Forristal. In 1997, a number of options were given to Bishop Forristal. Bishop Forrestal had asked his own delegate (in the diocese of Ossory) whether the matter should be referred to the Gardaí; whether an investigation should be conducted internally; and whether the matter would be referred to the advisory panel. However, it seems that Bishop Forristal and Monsignor Sheehy agreed to let matters continue as they were, on the basis that there had been no incidents for many years, but that Fr Cicero should be referred for assessment.

1997-1999  

30.14 Between 1997 and 1999 there was a series of letters from the Archdiocese to Bishop Forristal demanding that Fr Cicero be sent for assessment. Nothing was done until November 1999. Bishop Forristal told the Commission that he was “very slow in progressing the various steps which ought to have been taken”. While he did not regard it as an excuse, he told the Commission that both he and Fr Cicero had extremely serious health problems around this time. The Commission is satisfied that these health problems may have contributed to the delay and that there was no active conspiracy to prevent Fr Cicero having the assessment and treatment, but it still regards the delay as unacceptable.  

30.15 Finally, after what could be described as a stern letter from Archbishop Connell to Bishop Forristal in November 1999, Fr Cicero was assessed at the Granada Institute.  

30.16 Granada had knowledge of all the complaints. It also had Professor Walsh‟s report of 1987. Fr Cicero told Granada that he had been involved in sexually touching young girls when he was a teenager and had been interested sexually in young girls ever since. He said that the incidents reported in 1987 were the only other times he had acted on these impulses. He admitted that he played the games described by the girls but he denied touching any of the victims. He described his activities as largely voyeuristic. He estimated that there were approximately 12 victims dating from his 40s. He believed that what he was doing did not harm the girls.  

30.17 Granada concluded that:  

Fr Cicero urgently required a specialised therapy programme.  

He could continue his work in the marriage tribunal while engaging in therapy.  

He would likely require a life long programme of after care and support.  

2000 - 2002  

30.18 In June 2000 one of his victims attempted to make contact with Fr Cicero. She did not attend the arranged appointment. Fr Cicero told the Archdiocese about this. Discussions took place between the Archdiocese and the diocese of Ossory. During this time Fr Cicero was attending counselling sessions in Granada which he stated were beneficial. There was a review meeting at Granada involving Bishop Forristal, Fr Cicero and Granada staff. Granada now advised that Fr Cicero should cease ministry in the marriage tribunal and in his chaplaincy. It would appear that there was confusion in the Archdiocese because Archbishop Connell had been told that Granada was recommending that he could remain in the tribunal (which it did in November 1999) and Monsignor Dolan was aware that Granada was recommending that he be removed from the tribunal (which it did in August 2000). There was also some doubt about who was entitled to remove him from the marriage tribunal. The Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal deals with a number of dioceses including Ossory. Bishop Forristal had nominated Fr Cicero to the tribunal but, theoretically at least, he was appointed by all the relevant bishops. The issue then arose as to whether the other bishops needed to be told of the circumstances.  

30.19 One thing is clear however - the Archdiocese wanted to sever Fr Cicero‟s connection with Dublin. In November 2000, it was decided that he would withdraw from the marriage tribunal and return to Ossory. He was removed from his parish chaplaincy position but he did not return to Ossory.  

30.20 In December 2000, Monsignor Sheehy described Fr Cicero‟s departure as “a shattering blow” to the marriage tribunal. He also had “a distinct anxiety as to the canonical validity of the procedure” but saw no point in pursuing that. In January 2001, Bishop Forristal met Fr Cicero and it appears that they and Monsignor Sheehy reached agreement that Fr Cicero would be allowed to remain in Dublin doing unofficial work for the marriage tribunal. Bishop Forristal told the Commission that this was a compromise which allowed Fr Cicero to carry out largely academic work which had no ministry with children. It appears that Monsignor Dolan was not aware of this agreement until about a year later.

30.21 The Commission considers that Monsignor Sheehy manipulated the situation in order to keep Fr Cicero as part of his team. As in other cases in which he had a less than helpful or constructive involvement, Monsignor Sheehy did not seem ever to consider the question of the protection of children. Bishop Forristal clearly felt that Monsignor Sheehy was always in the background when he was talking to Fr Cicero: he said he always “felt that when I was talking to him, whether it was in person or on the phone, that everything we discussed was discussed elsewhere and he was getting further advice”. The Commission is in no doubt that both Monsignor Sheehy and Fr Cicero used their extensive knowledge of the canon law as a means of avoiding a forced return to Ossory.  

30.22 A series of correspondence then ensued between the Archdiocese, its legal advisers and Ossory in order to ascertain Fr Cicero‟s exact status. In the course of this correspondence, Fr Cicero, who had been suffering from ill health, died suddenly in August 2002. The first statement to the Gardaí by one of his victims was made in September 2002. The Archdiocese has made a civil settlement with one complainant.  

30.23 In a statement to the Commission, Bishop Forristal very fairly accepted responsibility for the delays in dealing with Fr Cicero in the late 1990s. He said that, on reviewing the history of his dealings with Fr Cicero: “I have been deeply disturbed by my own delays and failures in applying the principles of our Church Guidelines, particularly that of the paramountcy of the safety of children”. He went on to say that Archbishop Connell and his chancellors were continually urging him to take action. “Any delay was my doing and was in no way due to the Archbishop of Dublin or his staff.”  

The Commission’s assessment  

30.24 The parish priest who did not immediately report the 1986 complaint is the same priest who discovered a person whom he described as a woman in her thirties in Fr Noel Reynolds‟s bed– see Chapter 35. As is pointed out in that chapter, “the woman” was more than likely to have been a young teenager. He also failed to report that discovery to archdiocesan officials. The Commission considers that the young curate acted responsibly by writing an account of complaints to his bishop.

30.25 The Archdiocese acted correctly in removing Fr Cicero from the parish. However, notwithstanding that the mother superior in the convent was aware of his history, there were undoubtedly dangers attached to giving him an appointment to a convent which bordered a girls‟ school.

30.26 It appears that, to a certain extent, everybody, including bishops, felt in awe of Fr Cicero‟s intellect. Most of the people with whom he dealt regarded him as intellectually superior to them and it appears that he concurred fully with this assessment. He undoubtedly had a powerful ally in Monsignor Sheehy. Monsignor Sheehy used the confusion which seemed to exist between the Archdiocese of Dublin and the diocese of Ossory to get the outcome he wanted. However, the Commission does recognise that Monsignor Sheehy put a monitoring system in place.  

30.27 When the Dublin Archdiocese decided to review matters in 1995 and took the decision to return Fr Cicero to Ossory, they found themselves stymied. Bishop Forristal, as he himself admits, was mainly responsible for the delays in having the priest assessed. The bishop told the Commission that his exercise of responsibility over Fr Cicero was “severely hampered by the vigour with which Monsignor Sheehy acted to preserve [Fr Cicero‟s] unofficial working function at the Tribunal and to defend his position generally”. The bishop said that, ultimately, he was persuaded by Monsignor Sheehy‟s view that Fr Cicero‟s “mental and physical wellbeing were being assured through his continuance in that role”. The Commission finds it extraordinary that Bishop Forristal and the Archdiocese allowed Monsignor Sheehy to have such influence as they had the power to have their wishes in respect of Fr Cicero implemented.

30.28 The matter was not reported to the Gardaí until April 2002 and was never reported to the health board. This was in breach of the Church‟s own guidelines.  

30.29 The files do not contain any account of how the Church dealt with the parents of the children who were abused. Bishop Forristal requested the Commission to note that, as bishop of Ossory, he was not in a position to respond directly to the parents who had not approached him. He did meet pastorally with one of the victims. The fact that Fr Cicero was moved from the parish appears to have satisfied the parents.

_______________

Notes: 

87 The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was established under the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 to investigate abuse in residential institutions for children. It issued its report in May 2009.

88 This is a pseudonym.  

89 It is not clear to the Commission that the relevant people were ever contacted.  

90 The Granada Institute has pointed out to the Commission that it never assumed that Fr Septimus‟s accusations against Monsignor Stenson were valid.   

91 This canon refers to a priest being impeded by reason of insanity or some other psychological infirmity.  

92 This was a programme to encourage the fostering of children over the age of ten. 

93 Apparently there were allegations about an actor in Coronation Street that he had abused young girls in a swimming pool.   

94 Monsignor Stenson has asked the Commission to point out that the question of sending Fr Carney to Stroud was being considered and there were concerns about whether or not this would be appropriate as a DPP decision was pending.   

95 Praeter intentionem literally means beyond the intention; it is a philosophical term used to distinguish between an intended consequence and an unintended consequence.   

96 The Residential Institutions Redress Board was established under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 to award redress to people who had been abused in children‟s homes. The proceedings of the board are entirely confidential.  

97 Fr Naughton‟s words

98 This is a pseudonym.  

Go to Next Page