BishopAccountability.org
	Church "Willingness" to Co-operate on Cloyne Is News to Many By Patsy Mcgarry Irish Times September 10, 2011 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0910/1224303849309.html IN AN interview with Colm O Mongain on the RTE Radio 1 programme This Week last Sunday, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin said that, following contact by the Murphy commission in September 2006, the Vatican had indicated a willingness to co-operate with it. He said that, following contact by the commission, “the Holy See replied to the Irish ambassador to the Holy See saying it would like this [letter from the commission] to be sent through the diplomatic channels and that it would co-operate”. He said that “very often in the news reporting, that last sentence is left out”. He insisted: “the Vatican did say it would co-operate”. It was news to many. The most detailed account of what took place between the Vatican and the commission was offered by then taoiseach Brian Cowen in an address to the Dail on December 1st, 2009, following publication of the Murphy report. Expressing “regret that the Holy See was not in a position to provide a substantive response to inquiries” from the commission, Mr Cowen outlined what had happened. He recalled that the commission had written to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in September 2006. “The Holy See responded to that request by diplomatic note, sent by the Vatican secretariat of state to the Embassy of Ireland to the Holy See in March 2007. This note made clear the view of the Vatican that, as the commission had been established under the authority of the Government . . . such a communication should be routed through diplomatic channels and in accordance with international laws and customs.” He continued: “This diplomatic note was forwarded . . . to Judge [Yvonne] Murphy of the commission. There does not appear to have been any further communication between the commission and the Holy See after that note was passed.” As explained in the Murphy report, the commission felt constrained from using instruments of the State in its investigation, as it was also investigating the State. In his Dail address, Mr Cowen continued: “I understand, however, that the Holy See sought confirmation that the content of its note had been made known to the commission. That was confirmed to the Holy See and Judge Murphy was informed of the Vatican’s interest in knowing the note had been conveyed to the commission. “The Vatican made clear to the Embassy of Ireland to the Holy See that its concern to confirm that the note had been passed on was to avoid any impression that the correspondence from the commission had been ignored.” Mr Cowen went on to say: “It is not unreasonable to assume the Holy See was open to responding to a further approach through formal diplomatic channels. “Neither is it unreasonable to assume that when the papal nuncio received correspondence from the commission in February 2007 and earlier this year, both the present and previous papal nuncios believed the matter was more properly addressed by the diplomatic note.” He added: “It would not be normal practice for a diplomatic mission to release papers to a body in its country of accreditation without an approach through the host government.” He thought it “regrettable that the failure to acknowledge either letter has given rise to the impression the Holy See was refusing to co-operate with the commission.” This “approach by the Holy See was consistent with international law, according to which dealings between states should be conducted via the diplomatic channel unless other arrangements are made by mutual consent,” he said. The commission and the Holy See, “it appears, acted in good faith in this matter, even if the best outcome was not achieved”. Questioned by Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore, he added: “A diplomatic note was sent to the Murphy commission but it was not followed up thereafter, which is unfortunate. . . . Had the Department of Foreign Affairs or another department been asked to pursue the issue, perhaps a solution to the problem could have been brought about or we would have been able to confirm the necessary information was made available.” Yet, according to US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks last December, requests for information by the commission “offended many in the Vatican” who felt the Irish government had “failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the [commission] investigations”. A cable claimed Vatican officials also believed (then) Irish Opposition politicians were making political hay by publicly urging the government to demand a reply from the Vatican following publication of the Murphy report. The cable said Irish ambassador to the Holy See Noel Fahey told US diplomat Julieta Valls Noyes it was the most difficult crisis he had ever managed. It said Mr Fahey’s deputy, Helena Keleher, felt the Irish government had acceded to Vatican pressure and granted it immunity from testifying. Officials understood that “foreign ambassadors are not required or expected to appear before national commissions”, but Ms Keleher’s opinion was that by ignoring the commission’s requests the clergy had made the situation worse.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.