BishopAccountability.org
	Rome Meeting on Sex Abuse a Strong Test of Martin's Mettle By Patsy McGarry The Irish Times February 13, 2010 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0213/1224264351328.html?via=rel Archbishop Diarmuid Martin is heading to the Vatican to the certain derision of some Irish clerics unhappy with his unequivocal approach THERE IS among Dublin’s Catholic priests an element which has never accepted Diarmuid Martin as archbishop. Nor are they likely to. He just does not fit the template of what they expect a bishop, never mind an archbishop, to be. For instance – and unlike his predecessors Archbishops Ryan, McNamara or Cardinal Connell – he did not arrive in Drumcondra trailing a litany of academic qualifications. Dermot Ryan had been professor of oriental languages at UCD before his ordination as Archbishop of Dublin in 1972. Kevin McNamara had been professor of dogmatic theology in Maynooth before becoming Bishop of Kerry in 1976 and Archbishop of Dublin in 1984. Cardinal Connell was dean of the faculty of philosophy and sociology at UCD before he was ordained Archbishop of Dublin in 1988. However, the Murphy commission found that all three had “handled child sex abuse complaints badly” and that “not one of them reported his knowledge of child sexual abuse to the gardai . . . until November 1995.” In that month, Cardinal Connell allowed the names of 17 priests to be given to gardai. But the Murphy commission found that, at the time, the archdiocese knew at least 28 priests faced allegations. It seems academic achievement was no help to Archbishop Martin’s predecessors in addressing the clerical child sex abuse issue. Meanwhile, Archbishop Martin’s achievements at the Vatican do not rate with this recalcitrant element among his priests. In his 31 years there, he distinguished himself as secretary to the Council for Justice and Peace and even helped draft Pope John Paul’s 1991 encyclical Centessimus Annus. He represented Rome at various UN international conferences as well as to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. So, it came as no surprise then in 2001 when he was appointed the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN in Geneva. It came as no surprise then either to hear he resisted when asked to return to Dublin as Co-adjutor Archbishop in 2003. Nor was it any surprise that such publicly acknowledged resistance by him should be met with displeasure by an element among priests in Dublin. To them it was demeaning of an office of which, in their immediate lives, there is none greater. That the man who should look askance at such greatness had once been a boy from Ballyfermot did not encourage their sympathy either. On top of which he had been educated by the Oblates in Inchicore as well as the De La Salle and Christian Brothers, for God’s sake. An element among Dublin priests has always felt there was “too much of the street” about him. They point to his very “Dub” sense of humour and how well he gets on with ordinary people. Let’s face it, they intimate, he’s not like any other Irish bishop. There is little about him of the soft ways of those farmers, or small town shopkeepers’ sons, who make up the majority of his brother bishops. He is brusque where they are indulgent, impatient where they have all the time in the world, and tough on abuse allegations where others hasten ever so slowly. On top of which he relates to media with ease. Could anything be more suspect? So he was excoriated at that meeting of about 25 Dublin priests at the Manresa Centre in Clontarf on January 18th. They were so angry at him for not standing by auxiliary bishops Eamonn Walsh and Ray Field following publication of the Murphy report, and at his stopping retired Auxiliary Bishop Dermot O’Mahony from attending confirmations. “Ruthless” was a word used. Others were “Bully” and that phrase, “a source of division”. One priest there said of the auxiliaries: “That they should have resigned is not disputed, it’s the heartless manner in which they were treated that causes the anger.” The same priest said “the Murphy report cannot be taken as the fifth gospel; and while its core revelations are beyond doubt substantially true and shame all the men in black, it also deserves a considered professional analysis of its methodology and content. “This is not denial – it is the response of mature men anxious for justice for all implicated whether ‘by association’ or commission. DM sees such an approach as tantamount to denial and it sends him into a frenzied attack on its proponents.” This priest also believes the mentality of protecting the church “has not gone away. It has risen again in the person of DM who is willing to sacrifice anyone and anything to appear as the knight in shining armour.” However, to a man and woman, those abuse victims who have had dealings with Archbishop Martin only praise him, as do those who work in child protection and as did the Murphy commission. He may not play the clerical club game but his unequivocal approach to the child sex abuse issue is increasingly seen as the only hope the Irish Catholic Church has of a healthy future on this island, whatever his detractors may say. And they say plenty.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.