BishopAccountability.org
	Church Not the Only Loser in Fallout from Tragic Limerick Man's Death By Ronan Mullen Irish Examiner April 19, 2006 http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/opinion/ Full_Story/did-sggu9Pv7v7-CMsgDQQ5wn3uAIg.asp IT would be outrageous to suggest that the behaviour of One in Four, the advocacy group for victims of sexual abuse, contributed to a client's death. But some people see nothing wrong in making just such a suggestion to Bishop Donal Murray and the diocese of Limerick. RTÉ's flagship current affairs programme Prime Time has no qualms either. And One in Four itself has no problem about trying to put the diocese in the dock. Last Thursday night, Prime Time told the tragic story of a man who approached the diocese of Limerick in 2002 with an allegation that he had been abused by a priest in 1981. The priest, by then deceased, had returned from serving as a priest in Australia and worked in Limerick from 1981 until shortly before his death in 1987. The Church in Ireland had no record of any impropriety in his past. They sought to investigate the allegation by contacting the archdiocese of Sydney and the New South Wales police. The research didn't produce anything conclusive. There was evidence that the priest had problems of various kinds, including alcohol-related issues, and there was a reference to a 'moral lapse' on Church files, but there was nothing anywhere to suggest that such a lapse involved improper behaviour towards a minor. Whether or not that information was helpful, the Church did not pass it on to the victim. The Church's child protection officer in Maynooth, Paul Bailey, believed that what he had been told by Australian Church authorities was for his information only. When the victim decided to go to Australia himself, to see what he could find out about his abuser, he informed Mr Bailey, who arranged for him to meet the relevant Church official in Australia. The result was that the victim was devastated by the information he got from Church authorities in Australia. He was further upset to discover that the Child Protection Office in Ireland had the information already. The Church perhaps erred, but was it covering up? Clearly not. After all, the Irish Child Protection Office set up the very meeting at which the victim got the information. The situation then got worse. Some weeks ago, mediation talks to establish ongoing financial support for the victim's family and a suitable acknowledgment of what he had suffered broke down. Before matters could reconvene, the victim died in tragic circumstances. Somehow it was brought to Prime Time's attention. And, despite the enormous sensitivities of the situation, they pressed ahead with their programme within weeks of the victim's tragic death. Prime Time seemed to be in no doubt about whom to blame. They acknowledged that the victim was "mentally vulnerable", but his "untimely death", they said, "does raise questions about the Church's sensitivities when handling allegations of clerical abuse". There is a serious implication behind that comment. Perhaps RTÉ felt encouraged by the remarks of Deirdre Fitzpatrick, the One in Four official advising the victim. She claimed that the first, surprising, response from the Limerick diocese to the victim's allegation was to advise him to get a solicitor. But that was not true. It was from the victim's solicitor that the Church first heard of the allegation. Ms Fitzpatrick also asked viewers to consider how the victim must have felt "knowing the clear knowledge the Church had" about the abuser and nobody responding to the victim "in a humane way". This negative assessment of the diocese's response has now found its way into a statement released by the deceased man's mother through One in Four. She blames the Church for her son's death. She claims that the Church knew for 30 years of the abuser's propensity. But the Church insists otherwise. They had no evidence at all about this abuser until they were approached in 2002. The Bishop of Limerick believes that he and his staff acted in a sympathetic and appropriate way at all times in their handling of this matter. Here's what they did. They received an allegation about a man who was now dead. Their investigations threw up nothing to corroborate the allegation. From the beginning they provided and paid for pastoral and professional support for the victim. That's probably a much higher standard than we would expect from other organisations, but it's no more than we should expect from those who preach the gospel. Second, the Church never disbelieved the victim. Yes, there were legal teams involved, but why shouldn't there be? Should the Church concede whatever is demanded whenever these situations arise? Suppose it is €10 million, or €100m, that is being sought in compensation? Or the breach of somebody else's personal or property rights? Lawyers may well need to be involved. But the important point is that the Church should offer support without prejudice to any legal negotiations taking place. According to the diocese of Limerick, it stressed at all stages that there would, and should, be a satisfactory settlement simply that the details had to be worked out. Furthermore, there was actually an attempt here to bypass normal of legal negotiation through the gentler process of mediation. When that process broke down the Church team was quick to seek the resumption of the process and they emphasised that nothing previously on the table would be withdrawn. It is, of course, understandable that, in a tragic situation like this, some family members of the deceased may say harsh things now. But RTÉ and One in Four have a different responsibility. And the approach of both these organisations to this case raises some very serious questions. First, by asking, directly or by implication, if the Church is responsible for this death, RTÉ is at risk of legitimising a tragic and inappropriate response to a bad situation. How could normal pastoral care, or even everyday civic life, be carried out under the threat of such a response? Secondly, RTÉ made matters worse by getting some important facts wrong. The Prime Time programme claimed that another person made an allegation against the same priest back in 1957, that there was a settlement by the Church, and that the victim found all this out during his visit to Australia. In fact there was no such new allegation until several months after the victim returned from Australia in 2004, when a man came forward with a claim dating back to 1957. Thirdly, the public utterances of One in Four nearly always display a reflex of suspicion towards the Church. It is no different in this case. But does their approach rob some already vulnerable people of the real spiritual consolation of the gospel? Did they help to extinguish the only real light in a very dark landscape? They also appear to think that the Church has no right at all to use lawyers when dealing with allegations of abuse and negotiating settlements. Yet they are quick to adopt an adversarial approach themselves. And the media is quick to fan the flames, as Prime Time has shown. The Church, in this case, was doing its level best to keep parties in dialogue. Yet it finds itself the target of some very unseemly suggestions because a very wounded man did a very tragic thing. No victim of abuse is well served by such recriminations The Church is not the only loser.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.