BishopAccountability.org
	Government's Statement Is an Example of How It Should Be Done By Patsy Mcgarry Irish Times September 9, 2011 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0909/1224303759850.html ANALYSIS: BRIEF AND to the point, last night’s statement from the Government on Saturday’s 25-page Vatican response to the Cloyne report was how it should be done. Credible and clear, without footnote or cross- reference, its tone was constructive while it focused on children. It is absolutely correct for it to say that “comments made by the Taoiseach and other political leaders accurately reflect the public anger of the overwhelming majority of Irish people at the failure of the Catholic Church in Ireland and the Holy See to deal adequately with clerical child sexual abuse and those who committed such appalling acts”. That remains the case. And a great number of that “overwhelming majority” are, like the Taoiseach, churchgoing, committed Catholics. It is hardly surprising these are among the most outraged. So often it was the children of such people who were abused by priests. They trusted most and were betrayed most. All our political leaders are also entitled to feel outraged. In its dealings with the Murphy commission, the Vatican’s behaviour showed little respect for this State. Some background may help. In 2001 Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), wrote two letters to every Catholic bishop in the world, both in Latin. One asked that all clerical child sex abuse allegations in the relevant diocese be sent to him and he would decide how these would be dealt with. The second instructed that both letters be kept secret. The Murphy commission wished to see what was forwarded to the CDF by the Dublin archdiocese following that 2001 letter. It wrote to the CDF. As put in the Murphy report: “The CDF did not reply. However, it did contact the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that the commission had not gone through appropriate diplomatic channels. The commission is a body independent of government and does not consider it appropriate for it to use diplomatic channels.” In fact, the commission was also investigating the State’s handling of clerical child sex abuse allegations (by gardai and health authorities) and so felt constrained from using State apparatus to secure information. So, in February 2007 it wrote to the papal nuncio in Dublin requesting that he forward documents relevant to its inquiry. He did not reply. It wrote to him again in early 2009. Again, he did not reply. (In April 2008 a new papal nuncio, Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza, had taken up his appointment to Ireland.) The Murphy report was published at the end of November 2009. Archbishop Leanza was invited before the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs to discuss it. He refused to do so. In January 2009 the remit of the commission was extended to include an investigation of Cloyne diocese. It asked Archbishop Leanza to submit any information he had relevant to its Cloyne inquiry. He replied that he was “unable” to do so. (In February 2009 he had been involved in persuading Bishop John Magee to stand aside in Cloyne). In a Dail debate following publication of the Murphy report then taoiseach Brian Cowen concluded of dealings between the Vatican and the Murphy commission that both “acted in good faith in this matter, even if the best outcome was not achieved.” It was not.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.