Site Map

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

Chapter 6 Health Authorities Introduction  

6.1 Very few of the complaints of clerical child sexual abuse which the Commission has examined were made initially to the health authorities. The vast majority were made, initially, either to the Church authorities or to the Gardaí. The health authorities had relatively little involvement in the complaints which were made prior to the mid 1990s.  

6.2 They did have an involvement in the 1988 complaint in relation to Fr Thomas Naughton. As is noted in Chapter 29, this is one of the few cases examined by the Commission in which the health board personnel took a pro-active role in trying to prevent abuse. Their involvement in subsequent complaints was limited. Other people who were handling complaints, particularly the Archdiocese and the heads of religious orders, were under the impression that the health authorities had a much wider remit than they actually had.  

6.3 The majority of complaints examined by the Commission were made by adults. This meant that, to a large extent, the role of the health authorities has been limited to offering complainants counselling and support services.  

6.4 During the 1970s and 1980s, the government was well aware that the law on child protection was inadequate. The delay in devising and implementing amending legislation is quite extraordinary. When new legislation was finally implemented in 1996, it did not make any significant change in the role the health authorities could play in cases of extra-familial child sexual abuse. Guidelines for dealing with child sexual abuse have existed since 1983 but, again, they are not of major relevance to cases of extra-familial abuse or, indeed, to the reporting by adults of childhood abuse.  

6.5 Major changes to the structure of the health authorities were made in 1970 and again in 2005 when the Health Service Executive (HSE) was established. Child protection services were developed over this period. They were mainly concerned with abuse within families and with trying to prevent children being put into residential care.

6.6 The HSE had considerable difficulties in providing the Commission with information relevant to its remit. This may be explained by the relatively minor role the health authorities played in dealing with clerical child abuse. However, the Commission is concerned that the information available to the HSE is not maintained in a manner which would facilitate a more active role. It is also concerned that other agencies rely on the HSE in circumstances where it does not have the capacity to respond.  

The law on child protection26

6.7 The need to update the law on child protection was clearly recognised well before the start of the period covered by this Commission, that is, 1975. However, no significant change took place until the 1990s. The delay in devising and implementing appropriate legislation, when the need for that legislation was widely recognised, was extraordinary. In the Commission‟s view, the law as it stands at present does not provide adequate powers to the health authorities to promote the welfare of children who are abused, or in danger of being abused, by people outside the family and, in particular, by people who have privileged access to children.

Children Act 1908  

6.8 Until the Child Care Act 1991 was fully implemented in 1996, the main legislation dealing with child protection issues was the Children Act 1908 as amended.27 The Children Acts provided the statutory framework for the industrial and reformatory school system. Under the Acts, the state was responsible for child welfare in cases where the parents or guardians were found not to be providing proper guardianship. This included physical neglect and abuse of children. In 1970, the Committee on Industrial and Reformatory Schools (generally known as the Kennedy Report) recommended, among other things, that a new updated Children Act be introduced but this was not done for over 20 years.  

6.9 The Health Act 1970 introduced changes to the structures for the delivery of health and social services but did not make any substantive change to the law on child protection. It did not set out the powers of the health boards in relation to child protection. It was, wrongly, assumed by government and the boards themselves that they had powers to act as "fit persons‟ for the purposes of taking children into care. It provided that the health boards were to carry out the functions conferred by the Act and the health functions which were formerly carried out by the local authorities but it did not enumerate these functions or the powers available to carry out such functions.  

Attempts to change the law  

6.10 The government was conscious of the need to update the law. The then Minister for Health told the Dáil on 23 October 1974 that the government had recently decided that the Minister for Health should have the main responsibility for children's services. He went on:

“I am immediately setting up a full-time task force, to report to me as soon as possible, on the necessary updating and reform of child care legislation and of the child care services. The group will comprise a number of outside experts and representatives from each of the Government Departments concerned with child care— Health, Education and Justice.”  

6.11 Three years later, that task force had not reported. The Minister for Health, when asked if he intended to amend the Children Act 1908, replied on 5 April 1978 that “The Task Force on Child Care Services will consider the up-dating and modernisation of the law in relation to children. This is likely to lead to new legislation which will involve replacement or amendment of the Children Act, 1908”. The Minister went on to agree that there was a need for a new Act and that there was a degree of urgency about this.  

6.12 On 28 June 1978, the Minister for Health said he was not aware that the validity of the "fit person order‟ procedure under the Children Act 1908 was in doubt. The opposition spokesman outlined the difficulty. Even though the problem was recognised, it was not addressed until 1989.  

6.13 The task force which had been established in 1974 reported in 1980. Its report was published in 1981.  

6.14 On 17 December 1981, the Minister for Health acknowledged to the Seanad that “The Department and the health boards run into difficulties in that the existing legal remedies for protecting children at risk are not entirely satisfactory. We intend to improve this situation under the proposed new children's legislation”.  

6.15 A draft Bill was prepared in 1982/3 which, among other things, proposed to give the health boards clear responsibility for the welfare of children but this was never brought before the Oireachtas.  

6.16 In the 1980s there were two attempts to introduce legislation dealing with child protection. In 1985, the Children (Care and Protection) Bill was published. This Bill proposed a clear obligation on health boards to promote the welfare of children in their area. It included sexual abuse as a criterion for care proceedings. This Bill was at committee stage when the government resigned in 1987. The Child Care Bill 1988 was introduced by the new government. It eventually became the Child Care Act 1991. The main parts of this were not implemented until 1996.  

6.17 While the Child Care Bill 1988 was before the Oireachtas, the Children Act 1989 was passed to deal with the consequences of a Supreme Court decision28 in relation to the powers of health boards to act as "fit persons‟ under the Children Act 1908 – the issue which had been aired in the Dáil in 1978 but on which no action had been taken. The Minister for Health said that the legal advice available to the Department of Health in 1970 was that health boards could act as "fit persons‟ for the purpose of taking deprived children into care.29 According to the minister, it was considered that such work formed an integral part of the community care and social work services that were beginning to be built up under the health boards:  

“Increasingly, health boards got involved in dealing with child abuse and neglect, bringing cases before the court and offering themselves as fit persons. This practice has been endorsed by successive Governments to the extent that the health boards are now recognised, 103

in fact if not in law, as the State's child care and child protection agencies‖.30

6.18 The Minister went on to acknowledge that “doubts were expressed by some lawyers and others about the legal authority of health boards to involve themselves in child care. However, the general view was, and is, that this is essential work which must be done in the interests of the children concerned and that the most appropriate agencies to perform it are the health boards‖.

Children in institutional care  

6.19 A number of children who were abused by the priests investigated by this Commission lived in children‟s residential centres. The Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (The Ryan Report) deals in detail with abuse in such centres. This report is concerned only with a small number of such institutions and the role of the health authorities within them. In 1988, there were 24 residential homes (industrial schools) which were, as the Minister for Health described it, “subject to certain limited controls” under the Children Act 1908 and 17 homes approved under the Health Act 1953. The 17 approved homes were not subject to “specific statutory regulation‖.31 They did not become subject to statutory regulation until the relevant sections of the Child Care Act 1991 were implemented in 1996.32  

6.20 This means that, before 1996, the health board social workers had no statutory responsibility for monitoring residential institutions even though they were placing children in these institutions and the health board was paying for their care. The abuse in the institutions which is relevant to this report all occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. Social workers gave evidence to the Commission that they did try to encourage better standards. Their role was accepted and welcomed by some residential institutions but they were effectively excluded by some other institutions. The health boards did have responsibility for placing many of the children in the institutions and were involved to a considerable extent with these children – see Chapters 28 and 41. The health boards‟ responsibility ended when the child reached the age of 16 but sometimes the social workers remained in contact and helped former residents. The resident managers in the industrial schools and the managers in the other children‟s homes were responsible for the day to day care and management of the residents.

Child Care Act 1991  

6.21 The Child Care Act 1991 was the first Act to place statutory responsibility on the health boards to promote the welfare of children not receiving adequate care and protection. Its only reference to child sexual abuse was to provide that sexual abuse of children would be among the criteria for seeking court orders.  

6.22 The stated purpose of the Child Care Act 1991 is “to provide for the care and protection of children and for related matters‖. Section 3 of the Act places a statutory duty on health boards to promote the welfare of children who are not receiving adequate care and protection. This section came into effect in December 1992.33  

6.23 The main part of Section 3 is as follows:  

―(1) It shall be a function of every health board to promote the welfare of children in its area who are not receiving adequate care and protection.

(2) In the performance of this function, a health board shall—  

(a) take such steps as it considers requisite to identify children who are not receiving adequate care and protection and co-ordinate information from all relevant sources relating to children in its area;  

(b) having regard to the rights and duties of parents, whether under the Constitution or otherwise—  

(i) regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration, and

(ii) in so far as is practicable, give due consideration, having regard to his age and understanding, to the wishes of the child; and 

(c) have regard to the principle that it is generally in the best interests of a child to be brought up in his own family.  

(3) A health board shall, in addition to any other function assigned to it under this Act or any other enactment, provide child care and family support services, and may provide and maintain premises and make such other provision as it considers necessary or desirable for such purposes, subject to any general directions given by the Minister under section 69.”  

6.24 Section 69 provides that “The Minister may give general directions to a health board in relation to the performance of the functions assigned to it by or under this Act and the health board shall comply with any such direction”. No such direction has been issued.  

6.25 As is pointed out in the Ferns Report, this new obligation was not accompanied by new powers to intervene in specific situations. When introducing the Bill in 1988, the Minister for Health talked about the “imaginative use” of the new provisions. Legal provisions need to be clear and unambiguous with little scope for, and no requirement to use, imagination.  

6.26 As already stated, the Health Act 1970 did not enumerate all the functions of the health boards. The Health Act 2004 which established the Health Service Executive (HSE) is drafted in a similar way: it confers on the HSE those functions which were formerly carried out by the health boards. The Commission considers that it would be preferable if there was a clear unambiguous listing of the statutory functions and powers of the HSE so that there could be no doubt about the extent of its power to intervene in child protection issues.  

What is the role of the health authorities in relation to clerical child sex abuse?  

6.27 Under the Child Care Act 1991, the health boards, and now the HSE, have a general duty to promote the welfare of children who are not receiving adequate care and protection. The Commission agrees with the Ferns Report analysis of the powers of the health boards. The Ferns Report takes the view that the powers conferred on the health boards by the 1991 Act are designed to protect a child from an abusive family situation. It is the parents or guardians who are responsible for dealing with the matter in cases of third party or extra-familial abuse. The Ferns Report also points out that the powers available to the health boards under the 1991 Act are not significantly greater than those available under the 1908 Act.  

6.28 Notification to the health board of alleged abuse by priests does not seem to serve any useful purpose if the health boards do not have any power to do anything about it.  

6.29 The method by which the boards recorded such notifications, that is, by the name of the child, while appropriate for family abuse, is not appropriate for extra-familial abuse. There is no point in recording alleged abuse by a person who is in a public position, for example, a priest, a teacher, sports coach, by the name of the abused person. This information needs to be recorded by the name of the alleged abuser and by the school, parish, sports club or other relevant body. The Commission is not aware of any legal reason why this information could not be collated and classified in this way by the HSE. For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission considers that the HSE should be given specific statutory power to maintain such a record.  

6.30 The Commission is not suggesting that it would be appropriate for the HSE to have the power to intervene where the child is being appropriately cared for by parents or guardians. It is concerned about the lack of clear power to collate and maintain relevant information and to share that information with other relevant authorities.  

6.31 In the case of MQ v Robert Gleeson and others,34 Mr Justice Barr took the view that health boards had an implied right and duty to communicate information about a possible child abuser if, by failing to do so, the safety of some children might be put at risk. Before making such a communication, the health boards had certain duties to the alleged perpetrator. This judgement has been viewed quite differently by the Ferns Report and the health boards/HSE. The Ferns Report was clearly concerned about the legislative basis for this wide ranging duty to communicate while the health boards/HSE concerns relate to restrictions on their ability to communicate because of the requirements to inform the perpetrator. The Ferns Report took the view that the only power available to health boards to inform parties that allegations of child sexual abuse have been made against a particular person is “one inferred from the wide ranging objective of child protection” imposed on health boards by the Child Care Act 1991. It went on to express the view that the implication of such a duty on health boards without any express legislative powers is an issue which should be carefully considered by the Legislature. The HSE told the Commission that the judgement in this case (generally known as the Barr judgement) had

“significant implication for the management of child sexual abuse cases by the Health Boards/HSE. It provided that the Health Boards/HSE (except in cases where a child is believed to be at immediate risk of suspected child sexual abuse) before passing on any information with regard to a suspected child abuser to a third party, must give the allegations in writing to the alleged perpetrator. The alleged perpetrator must then be given the opportunity to respond in person to the HSE before the HSE makes its decision on whether or not to pass on the information to a third party. Recent legal advice is that the opportunity to appeal the decision of the HSE to pass on information to a third party must also be given to the alleged perpetrator.‖  

6.32 The Commission considers that the law should be clarified in order to confer on the HSE a duty to communicate to relevant parties, such as schools and sports clubs, concerns about a possible child abuser. The extent of the HSE obligation to notify the alleged perpetrator, if any, should also be clarified.  

Structure of health authorities  

6.33 The structures for the delivery of health and social services have changed considerably during the period covered by this Commission of Investigation. Prior to the establishment of the health boards in the early 1970s, health and personal social services were the responsibility of the local authorities. In Dublin, the Dublin Health Authority constituted the combined health departments of the then Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation. The Dublin Health Authority was dissolved in 1971.35 The Health Act 1970 provided for the establishment of eight health boards. The Eastern Health Board (EHB) covered the counties of Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow. The Archdiocese of Dublin is largely within the area covered by the EHB. There are small parts of the Archdiocese in the South Eastern Health Board region (in counties Carlow and Wexford) and a small part in the Midland Health Board region (Co Laois).  

6.34 In 2000, the Eastern Regional Health Authority (ERHA)36 was established. It was the overarching authority for the three health boards which were formed within the former EHB area. These three boards were the Northern Area Health Board, the East Coast Area Health Board and the South-Western Area Health Board.  

6.35 In January 2005, the Health Services Executive (HSE) was established.37 It took over all the functions of all the health boards.  

6.36 For most of the cases covered by this report, the relevant health authority was either the Eastern Health Board (EHB) or one of the three health boards under the ERHA structure. Other health boards did have some involvement because some of the abuse occurred outside the Archdiocese and because priests moved to live in other health board areas. In general, we refer to the "health board‟ or "health boards‟ throughout the report without always identifying the specific board or boards involved.  

Development of Child Protection Services38  

6.37 At the start of the period covered by this report, the statutory duties of health authorities in relation to children were mainly concerned with the provision of a school medical service, adoption services and residential or foster care for those whose parents or guardians were unable or unwilling to care for them.

6.38 Professionally qualified social workers began to be recruited to work in child care and family work in Ireland in the 1970s. The first professional qualification course for social workers in Ireland was introduced in 1968. Some social workers were being employed in voluntary hospitals - they were known as lady almoners.

6.39 At that time, child protection was generally considered to be the responsibility of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC). The ISPCC did not have statutory responsibility for the protection of children. It did have a role in relation to removing children from their families if they were being abused or neglected and it was regarded as "a fit person‟ under the Children Act 1908. It only started to get state financing in 1963 even though there was statutory provision for such funding at least since the Public Assistance Act 1939. In 1968 the ISPCC decided to recruit qualified social workers.  

Dublin Health Authority 1960 - 1971  

6.40 The Dublin Health Authority had a central Children‟s Section where two children‟s officers (qualified nurses) dealt with statutory child care work such as adoption and fostering and, in particular, the physical health of fostered children. In the early 1960s, the work of the Children‟s Section was broadened in order to address concerns about the number of children being admitted to industrial schools. In 1966, the Dublin Health Authority created a third post of children‟s officer in its children‟s section as well as the country‟s first post of social worker in the statutory health service.  

6.41 In 1968, two further social workers were appointed. They were based in the community. By 1971, there were 11 social workers employed but they did not all have professional qualifications. The central Children‟s Section continued in existence for some time after the establishment of the health boards but the social workers who were employed there were gradually moved to the community care areas as they became established and organised. In 1974 there were just three social workers employed in community services for the EHB area.

Health boards 1972 - 2004  

6.42 The Health Act 1970 provided for the establishment of eight health boards. The operating structure of the health boards was not set out in legislation but was decided after recommendations by management consultants. Each health board had three distinct programmes with a programme manager for each programme. These were the general hospitals programme, the special hospitals programme39 and the community care programme40. The community care programme was delivered through community care areas. There were ten community care areas in the EHB – each had a population of approximately 100,000 in 1972. Each community care area was managed by a director of community care/medical officer of health (DCC) who reported to the programme manager, community care. It was a requirement that the DCC be a medical doctor. When the social work service became established, the senior social worker reported to the DCC and managed a team of social workers.  

6.43 Between 1974 and 1978 community care teams were established in each of the ten community care areas. As each team became established a senior social worker was appointed and the social workers from the central children‟s section were decentralised and reported to the senior social worker. Additional social work posts were also created and filled.  

6.44 In the mid 1980s, and unrelated to the issuing of the 1987 guidelines (see below), a new structure was introduced in the five largest community care areas. This structure involved social workers reporting to a team leader who, in turn, reported to a head social worker who reported to the DCC. In effect, a new layer of management was added. However, there was not a corresponding increase in the number of social workers.  

6.45 In 1995, the EHB41 appointed two directors of childcare and family support services. They each had a strategic planning role42 as well as being line managers for some specific services. Their appointment did not change the management structure for social workers dealing with child abuse.  

6.46 In 1997, the EHB43 appointed a programme manager to deal specifically with children and families. In an unrelated move, the DCC position was phased out, and abolished in 1998, and replaced by general managers who did not have to be doctors.44 From there on the reporting relationship was to the newly appointed general managers (a post open to all disciplines, including social workers, although in practice no social worker held such a post). The general manager in turn reported to the assistant chief executive dealing with community care services. The programme manager for children and families became an assistant chief executive and the general managers reported to her in respect of their activities in relation to services for children and families.  

6.47 Around this time, the position of childcare manager was created in each community care area. This position could be filled by a social worker but this was not a requirement and, in practice, a number of other professionals were appointed. The role of the childcare manager was to co-ordinate child abuse cases and to develop a more strategic approach to childcare planning at local level. All abuse cases were notified to the childcare manager who then co-ordinated the response. The childcare manager had no supervisory role in relation to the social workers.45 The childcare manager reported to the general manager, community care and not to the programme manager/assistant chief executive for children and families.  

6.48 There seems to have been a degree of duplication of, or at least lack of clarity about the role of the childcare manager relative to the senior social worker.  

6.49 Shortly after the establishment of the ERHA (in 2000) and the three area health boards, an assistant chief executive was appointed in each board with responsibility for services for children and families.

6.50 Reporting relationships remained the same within community care areas, with principal social workers reporting to the general manager, who in turn reported to the assistant chief executive.  

HSE 2005  

6.51 When the HSE was established in January 2005, the former community care offices became local health offices (LHOs). One LHO manager in each HSE region had "lead responsibility‟ for childcare.  

Development of awareness of child sexual abuse  

6.52 Initially, the main activity of the social work service was in the area of child protection – specifically cases of physical abuse and neglect of children within their families. The role of the social workers was mainly to support families with problems with the aim of avoiding placing children in care.  

6.53 Social workers told the Commission that awareness and knowledge of child sexual abuse did not emerge in Ireland until about the early 1980s. The HSE told the Commission that ―In the mid 1970s there was no public, professional or Government perception either in Ireland or internationally that child sexual abuse constituted a societal problem or was a major risk to children”.  

6.54 In 1982, some social workers from the EHB area visited California to work with people dealing with sexual abuse there. In 1983 the Irish Association of Social Workers held a conference on child sexual abuse in Dublin. In 1988, child sexual abuse assessment units were established in Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin (the St Louise Unit) and in Children‟s University Hospital, Temple Street (the St Claire‟s Unit).  

How complaints of child abuse were dealt with  

6.55 From the introduction of the 1983 guidelines, cases of alleged child abuse or neglect were reported to the senior social worker who then allocated the case to a social worker and reported it, in writing, to the director of community care (DCC). There were some standard forms for recording allegations and for reporting to the DCC. A similar but informal arrangement (with possibly more oral than written reports) seems to have applied, at least in some areas, prior to the introduction of the guidelines. In some cases, senior social workers developed their own forms and their own recording systems. The Department of Health started to collect statistical data on child abuse and neglect from 1978. This data was provided by the various DCCs. The DCC, or a senior medical officer designated by the DCC, might convene a case conference to discuss a particular child or family. In some cases, the DCC appointed one of the senior medical officers to deal with all child abuse issues. A social work file was created and, in some cases, it appears that the DCC might have had another file.  

6.56 The EHB conducted a review of child abuse procedures in its area in 1993. Among other things, the review noted that there was considerable variation in how the different community care areas liaised with the Gardaí in relation to child sexual abuse. Confirmed cases were referred to the Gardaí; this was frequently done by the assessment units (St Louise‟s Unit, Crumlin and St Claire‟s Unit, Temple Street). These units also notified the community care area of any referrals which came directly to them. Some community care areas notified the Gardaí of suspected cases but Gardaí rarely referred cases to the health board. There were different arrangements for case conferences in the different areas. The report refers to a “severe shortage of appropriate services” for victims, families and perpetrators. The emphasis seemed to be on the investigation/validation of an allegation rather than on providing services. There was also a lack of uniformity in data collection and recording.  

6.57 The HSE told the Commission that, by the late 1990s, health boards experienced serious difficulties in recruiting enough qualified social workers and child care workers.  

―These staff shortages affected the time social workers could spend on training opportunities, the recruitment of foster carers, attending to children in care and court appearances. Social work managers prioritised workloads whereby child protection duties were given top priority.‖  

6.58 This shortage continued into the 2000s and does not seem to have been resolved.

The Commission’s dealings with the HSE  

6.59 The HSE appointed a senior social worker as the liaison person with the Commission on its establishment in March 2006. The Commission wrote formally to the HSE on 2 May requesting copies of all documents held by the HSE which were relevant to the Commission‟s work. A number of informal discussions were held in order to clarify the Commission‟s requirements. The HSE explained that it would have difficulties finding information on clerical child sexual abuse as the social work records were held in the names of the children. The Commission had further correspondence with the HSE‟s legal advisors in relation to the terms of reference and issues of confidentiality.  

6.60 As no documents had been received, the Commission told the HSE, on 4 September 2006, that it intended to issue an Order for Discovery. The HSE legal advisors replied outlining the difficulties being experienced in finding relevant files. The main problems related to:  

the fact that files were kept by the name of the child;  

manual searches were required;  

the size and the various changes in structure of the EHB area;  

the absence of any central filing system, even when files were archived.  

6.61 The HSE asked the Commission to provide a list of alleged victims. The Commission could not do this. The Commission saw its task as establishing the totality of the complaints which had been made to the relevant authorities in the period covered by the Commission‟s remit. Providing the names of alleged victims who were already known to the Commission to the HSE would establish only that the HSE had or had not received a complaint about that victim. The Commission needed to know if the HSE had received complaints from people who were not known to the Commission – people who had not complained to the Archdiocese or the Gardaí or directly to the Commission itself.  

6.62 On 14 September 2006, the Commission itemised a number of documents of a general nature which it wished the HSE to provide. On 4 October 2006, the Commission asked the HSE to nominate people to give evidence on the structures of the health board, the role and functions of the personnel involved in childcare issues, training of such personnel, general procedures for dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse and the liaison arrangements with other authorities. On 27 October, the Commission told the HSE that it was willing to further delay the issuing of an Order for Discovery provided substantive proposals including a time scale for the delivery of documents were put before the Commission by 3 November 2006. The HSE informed the Commission on 3 November 2006 that there were 114,000 social work files covering the period of the Commission‟s remit and that these were in up to 50 different locations. It was estimated that it would take half a day to read and consider each file. The Commission concluded that it would take nearly ten years to complete this process.  

6.63 The HSE liaison person gave evidence to the Commission on 21 November 2006 on how the HSE was endeavouring to find the information which the Commission required. She explained that she had met all the then current managers, principal social workers and child care managers in May 2006 to discuss the best approach to gathering information for the Commission. The major difficulty for the HSE was that records in relation to child abuse were held by victim rather than by perpetrator. She asked the relevant people to make every effort to look within their area for records and to speak to former staff about their recollections of dealing with clerical child sexual abuse.  

6.64 The Commission formed the impression that the HSE was not adopting a systematic approach to locating records. There was an identifiable group in each community care area dealing with child abuse issues and there was, at this stage, no listing of the relevant people or no written reports on what steps had been taken to try to find files.  

6.65 Social workers and managers from the HSE gave evidence to the Commission in late 2006, about health board structures and, in particular, structures for dealing with complaints of child sexual abuse.  

6.66 The Commission issued an Order for Discovery in February 2007 and the affidavit of discovery was delivered in March 2007. This was not complete and further documentation was supplied at later stages as the Commission became aware, through its own investigations, that the health boards had been involved in various cases. Initially, the HSE provided the Commission with documentation in relation to 12 priests in the representative sample. The documentation which had been provided by the Archdiocese of Dublin showed there had been contact with the health boards in relation to eight others. Subsequently, documentation received from the religious orders showed contacts with the health boards in at least three other cases. Some of the documentation received from the HSE was provided as late as 2009 when the Commission forwarded extracts from the draft report to the HSE. Indeed, the Commission heard of a complaint in June 2009 just as this report was being finalised. This complaint was made to the health board in 2002 and reported by the HSE to the Archdiocese in May 2009. The fact of this complaint was not notified by the HSE to the Commission although it was clearly within the Commission‟s remit.  

6.67 In March 2007, the Commission heard evidence from a number of current and former senior social workers about the child protection system generally. From October 2007, they gave evidence in relation to individual cases. The Commission was impressed by the social workers‟ commitment and concern. They were clearly trying to do the best they could in circumstances where their powers were unclear and their resources limited. The Commission did not inquire in any detailed way into the resources available to social workers but it notes that, until the late 1990s, virtually all their notes were handwritten.  

Guidelines for dealing with child sexual abuse  

6.68 Over the period covered by the Commission‟s remit, there have been a number of guidelines issued by the Department of Health and procedures agreed between the health authorities and the Gardaí in relation to suspected child sexual abuse. None of these is legally binding. The Commission examined these guidelines in order to establish how complaints of child sexual abuse were handled and to establish the level of communication that existed between the various authorities. As the Ferns Report has noted, the guidelines “have little application to the case where a person (whether an adult or child) made a specific allegation that he or she was sexually abused as a child other than by, or with the connivance of, his or her parents or guardians”.  

1977 – 1983: Guidelines on non accidental injury to children  

6.69 The Department of Health issued a Memorandum on Non Accidental Injury to Children in 1977. This set out the procedures to be followed and provided guidance for social workers and others on the identification, monitoring, management of cases and co-ordination and exchange of information on cases of neglect or non accidental injury to children. It did not mention child sexual abuse. It recommended that the Gardaí be informed in cases where a criminal offence might have been committed.  

6.70 In 1980, the 1977 guidelines were replaced by more specific guidelines - Guidelines on the Identification and Management of Non-Accidental Injury to Children 1980 - but, again, there was no mention of child sexual abuse. The Guidelines on Procedures for Identification and Investigation on Non-Accidental Injury to Children 1983 do refer to child sexual abuse.  

1987 Child Abuse Guidelines  

6.71 The Child Abuse Guidelines issued in 1987 include a section on child sexual abuse. The guidelines set out procedures for validation and management of allegations of child sexual abuse. Among other things, they provided that, if the Gardaí were not already involved, they should be notified by the director of community care where there were reasonable grounds for suspecting child sexual abuse. They also provided that cases of child sexual abuse which came to the attention of the Gardaí should be reported to the local director of community care.  

1995 Notification of Suspected Cases between health boards and Gardaí  

6.72 This set out the procedures to be followed by the health boards and the Gardaí in cases of physical and sexual abuse of children. It provided that each was obliged to notify the other of such cases.  

1999 Children First Guidelines  

6.73 These guidelines set out new definitions for each category of abuse including sexual abuse and provided how different agencies such as health boards, hospitals, voluntary agencies and the Gardaí should respond to complaints. They provided for specific arrangements for exchange of information between the health boards and the Gardaí.  

6.74 The Children First guidelines provide for a Child Protection Notification System (CPNS). This is a record of every child about whom, following a preliminary assessment, there is a child protection concern. At present, names are placed on the CPNS list held by the child care manager in each local health area following a multidisciplinary discussion between the principal professionals involved. Names remain on the list with the file marked as open or closed.  

6.75 Our Duty to Care was published by the Department of Health and Children in 2002. It provides guidance to voluntary and community organisations that offer services to children on the promotion of child welfare and the development of safe practices in work with children. Many of these organisations come under the broad description of Catholic Church authorities.  

6.76 Trust in Care was published in 2005. It is a policy for health service employers on, among other things, managing allegations of abuse against staff. Again, many health service employers are Catholic Church authorities.

Chapter 7 The Framework Document Introduction  

7.1 Under canon law, a bishop has full power of governance in his diocese; ultimately it is he who must take responsibility for the future ministry of all priests under his care. As outlined in Chapter 4, during the time period covered by this report there was considerable confusion over exactly what powers, particularly under canon law, bishops had when it came to disciplining priests against whom credible allegations of clerical child sexual abuse had been made.  

7.2 According to Monsignor Dolan, the present chancellor, by September 1990 the Irish bishops decided that a small group would prepare guidelines about procedures which bishops might follow in particular instances. The document was to be ready for the March 1991 general meeting of the Irish Catholic Bishops‟ Conference. Despite a number of meetings, nothing of note happened and in 1993 a re-formed group was asked to investigate the possibility of drawing up a series of draft guidelines for the bishops. This group was known as the Irish Catholic Bishops‟ Advisory Committee on Child Sexual Abuse by Priests and Religious. It convened for the first time in April 1994 under the chairmanship of Bishop Laurence Forristal.  

7.3 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that perhaps a major catalyst for developing guidelines for dealing with clerical child sexual abuse was the Fr Brendan Smyth case. Fr Smyth was a Norbertine priest who, in 1994, pleaded guilty to 74 charges of indecent and sexual assault and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. This case caused a major political controversy in Ireland which resulted in a change of government in December 1994. According to research published in 200346: “The case focused public attention on the relationship between the Catholic Church and the State and on the protection seen to be afforded to the Church when one of its representatives was accused of serious crimes".  

7.4 Another factor in precipitating action was that Andrew Madden, who had been abused by Fr Payne in 1981, had gone public with details of his abuse – see Chapter 24.  

7.5 Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response, the report of the Advisory Committee, was published in 1996. It is commonly referred to as the “1996 Guidelines” or the “Framework Document” or the “Green Book”. In this report, we refer to it as the “Framework Document”. The document provided a framework within which the bishops could fulfil their canon law obligations but it was not mandatory.  

7.6 The Framework Document recognised the evils of child sexual abuse and the serious damage it causes. It set out eight guidelines which should underline the response of Church authorities to allegations of child sexual abuse. Those guidelines are:  

The safety and welfare of children should be the first and paramount consideration following an allegation of child sexual abuse.  

A prompt response should be given to all allegations of child sexual abuse.  

In all instances where it is known or suspected that a priest or religious has sexually abused a child, the matter should be reported to the civil authorities.  

Care should be given to the emotional and spiritual well-being of those who have suffered abuse and their families.  

There should be immediate consideration, following a complaint, of all child protection issues which arise, including whether the accused priest or religious should continue in ministry during the investigation.  

The rights under natural justice, civil law and canon law of an accused priest or religious should be respected.  

An appropriate pastoral response to the parish and wider community should be provided, with due regard to the right of privacy of those directly involved, and to the administration of justice.  

Adequate positive steps should be taken to restore the good name and reputation of a priest or religious who has been wrongly accused of child sexual abuse.

Reporting policy  

7.7 The Framework Document sets out the recommended reporting policy as follows:  

―In all instances where it is known or suspected that a child has been, or is being, sexually abused by a priest or religious the matter should be reported to the civil authorities. Where the suspicion or knowledge results from the complaint of an adult of abuse during his or her childhood, this should also be reported to the civil authorities; The report should be made without delay to the senior ranking police officer for the area in which the abuse is alleged to have occurred. Where the suspected victim is a child, or where a complaint by an adult gives rise to child protection questions the designated person within the appropriate health board […] should also be informed. A child protection question arises in the case of a complaint by an adult, where an accused priest or religious holds or has held a position which has afforded him or her unsupervised access to children.‖  

7.8 The advisory committee recognised that this recommended reporting policy could cause difficulties if people who were complaining of child sexual abuse sought undertakings of confidentiality. It was recognised that some people come forward, not primarily to report their own abuse, but to warn Church authorities of a priest or religious who is a risk to children. Nevertheless, the policy is clear that undertakings of absolute confidentiality should not be given and the information should be received on the basis that only those who need to know would be told.

Structures and procedures  

7.9 The Framework Document set out in detail the recommended structure and procedures for dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse. Each bishop (or religious superior) should make the following appointments:  

a delegate and deputy delegate to oversee and implement the procedures for handling the allegations. It was specifically mandated that every complaint be recorded and carefully examined. The duty of promoting awareness and understanding of child sexual abuse among the priests of the diocese was expressly conferred on the delegate;  

a support person to assist and advise victims or persons who made complaints;  

an advisor to a priest accused of sexual abuse;  

an advisory panel would include lay people with relevant qualifications and expertise to offer their advice on a confidential basis to the bishop or religious superior.  

7.10 The manner in which each of the people appointed was to carry out his or her task is outlined in detail.  

Status of the Framework Document  

7.11 The Framework Document was launched in January 1996 by the Irish Bishops‟ Conference and the Conference of Religious of Ireland. Meetings were held with priests and details of the document were circulated.  

7.12 Training days took place during 1996. Monsignor Dolan told the Commission: “The personnel involved were at this time trying to learn about child sexual abuse and the process of response; at the same time, they were at the heart of responding to emerging complaints”.  

7.13 Monsignor Dolan went on to say that understanding behind the Framework Document, was that each diocese or religious institute would enact its own particular protocol for dealing with complaints. This in fact never took place because of the response of Rome to the Framework Document. According to Monsignor Stenson, Rome had reservations about its policy of reporting to the civil authorities. The basis of the reservation was that the making of a report put the reputation and good name of a priest at risk. Monsignor Dolan told the Commission that the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome had studied the document in detail and emphasised to the Irish bishops that it must conform to the canonical norms in force. The congregation indicated that “the text contains procedures and dispositions which are contrary to canonical discipline. In particular ‗mandatory reporting‘ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature”. Monsignor Dolan said that the congregation regarded the document as “merely a study document”.  

7.14 Monsignor Dolan‟s view was that this placed the bishops in an invidious position because, if they did seek to operate the Framework Document, then any priest against whom disciplinary or penal measures were taken had a right of appeal to Rome and was most likely to succeed. The bishops, on the other hand, were not in a position to strengthen the Framework Document by enacting it into law. It was his view that the only way a bishop could properly proceed canonically was with the accused priest‟s co-operation.

Implementation by the Dublin Archdiocese  

7.15 Despite the fact that the Framework Document did not receive recognition from Rome, Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he made the guidelines the policy of his Archdiocese. He said that there was no tradition prior to 1995 of the Archdiocese notifying the civil authorities of any complaints of child sexual abuse. He said that the civil authorities, insofar as one could gather, were not in particular instances anxious about receiving this kind of information.  

7.16 He said that, in late 1995, he did give the names of 17 priests against whom complaints had been received by the Archdiocese to the Gardaí.  

7.17 During the 1996 - 1997 period, the Dublin Archdiocese operated the Framework Document mainly through Monsignor Alex Stenson and Monsignor John Dolan. Monsignor Stenson left the positions of chancellor and delegate in the summer of 1997. Monsignor Dolan was subsequently appointed chancellor. He was provided with no full time assistant. Fr Paul Churchill was appointed assistant chancellor and Fr Paddy Gleeson and Fr Cyril Mangan were appointed as part time assistant delegates.  

7.18 There were concerns within the chancellery at this time. Monsignor Dolan told the Commission that, in the course of investigating complaints and trying to respect the rights of both the complainant and the accused, it was inevitable that from time to time tensions and difficulties arose. Victims have told the Commission that they felt very much left out of the whole process and that those to whom they complained failed to understand the nature of their abuse. Both Monsignor Stenson and Monsignor Dolan have acknowledged to this Commission that the Dublin Archdiocese‟s response to victims was inadequate at this time.  

7.19 There was also concern among victims at the potential conflict of roles of the small number of priests who worked within the chancellery. Monsignor Dolan accepts that this was a legitimate concern of victims and has told the Commission that those working within the chancellor‟s office were also concerned about this conflict of roles. This, he felt, was resolved only with the establishment of the Dublin Archdiocese Child Protection Service in 2002.  

7.20 Towards the end of 1999, the Dublin Archdiocese became part of the Faoiseamh Helpline and that became an invaluable source of competent counsellors for the Archdiocese. At times, the Archdiocese provided financial assistance for private counsellors for victims.  

The advisory panel  

7.21 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that the appointment of an advisory panel for the Dublin Archdiocese was an important innovation from his point of view. The panel‟s role included advising on how a bishop or religious superior should consider the following:

the complaint itself;  

the appropriateness of providing help, if needed, to a person making a complaint and the family of the person;  

the appropriateness of the accused priest or religious continuing his or her present pastoral assignment having regard to the paramount need to protect children; care needed to be taken that a decision by a priest or religious to take leave of absence from a ministry would not be construed as denoting guilt on his or her part;  

how the right of the accused priest or religious to a fair trial on any criminal charge could be preserved and his or her good name and reputation appropriately safeguarded;

whether a specialist professional evaluation of an accused priest or religious should be sought at this stage;  

the needs of a parish or other community where an accused priest or religious has served;  

the needs of the wider community including the appropriateness or timing of any public statement.

7.22 The inaugural meeting of the Dublin Archdiocese"s advisory panel took place in April 1996. The Archbishop had invited Mr David Kennedy, a prominent businessman, to chair the panel. The panel included men and women from the psychiatric, social work, legal and business communities. Membership also included three clerical representatives: the assistant chancellor at the time, Fr Paul Churchill, an auxiliary bishop, Bishop Eamonn Walsh and one other. The panel was divided evenly between men and women. The majority of the lay members were parents and all members gave their service on a voluntary basis. The panel met on a monthly basis in 1996 and 1997 and slightly less frequently thereafter, averaging about eight to ten meetings every year.  

7.23 Mr Kennedy emphasised, in evidence to the Commission, that the role of the panel was advisory, rather than judicial. He told the Commission that the panel had considered 50 cases by 2007. The panel considered 27 of the cases in the Commission‟s representative sample.  

Advisory panel procedure  

7.24 Each case of alleged or suspected child sexual abuse which came to the attention of the Archdiocese was presented to the panel by an official of the diocese who was appointed by the Archbishop to oversee and implement the various protocols recommended in the 1996 guidelines. The panel then reviewed the case and, when necessary, made a written recommendation to the Archbishop on any aspect of the case on which it wished to comment.  

7.25 The main principle guiding the panel‟s recommendations was the safety and welfare of children. The panel was required to strike a balance in forming judgements which would minimise the risk of future offending while at the same time not infringing on the individual‟s natural rights. To ensure the achievement of this the panel committed itself to the following tasks:  

a prompt investigation of all allegations;  

careful, confidential and professional attention to each case;  

implementation of the guidelines approved by the Bishops‟ Conference;  

reviewing of diocesan procedures and protocols in relation to the issue of child sexual abuse.  

Advisory panel guidelines  

7.26 As already noted, the Advisory Panel guidelines stated that  

“in all instances where it is known or suspected that a child has been, or is being, sexually abused by a priest or religious, the matter should be reported to the civil authorities. Where the suspicion or knowledge results from the complaint of an adult of abuse during his or her childhood, this should also be reported to the civil authorities‖.  

7.27 The identity of the priest against whom an allegation had been made was not made known to the panel members. Mr Kennedy told the Commission that a system of pseudonyms was used as far as practical, to protect the confidentiality both of the priest and the complainant. He said he felt this was also necessary to protect the impartiality and independence of the panel‟s deliberations.  

7.28 From the beginning, a protocol was reached with the Archbishop that he would respond formally to every recommendation made by the panel. These recommendations were communicated directly to the Archbishop.  

7.29 Cardinal Connell said that every case that came to him from 1996 onwards was sent to the panel and that he accepted and implemented every recommendation. The chairman of the panel supported Cardinal Connell‟s evidence in this respect. The Commission agrees that he did so in respect of the cases it has examined.  

7.30 Cardinal Connell stated that the way the process worked in practice was that, if a complaint came to his attention, he would refer it to the chancellor whom he had appointed the delegate at that time. The delegate would then prepare a report for the advisory panel. When assistant delegates were appointed, they usually prepared the reports.  

7.31 The Archdiocese was slow to let victims know of the existence of the advisory panel or its membership. This was unfortunate as it created a climate of mistrust among victims about its activities. Their complaints and the responses of the accused priests were presented to the panel by a priest delegate. One of the victims who gave evidence to the Commission expressed concerns that the delegate presenting the case to the panel was a member of the panel. In fact that was not the case.  

Guidelines for possible re-admission to limited ministry  

7.32 The key determining factor in the panel‟s decision-making process was the potential future risk to children. However, the panel recognised that an important element in the prevention of abuse and the protection of children is a process of renewal and reform of the offender. It advocated that an offender should be supported in whatever efforts he makes to change his behaviour so that he can live a life free of abusive behaviour. The offering of therapeutic help is considered vital in respect of this process.  

7.33 The options outlined by the panel for a priest who has offended are: retirement under monitored conditions, laicisation, a penal process with a view to dismissal from the clerical state or assignment to an appointment of limited ministry that does not involve unsupervised contact with children. These options were developed from the following concerns:  

The responsibility for decision making in this area rests solely with the Archbishop, irrespective of the panel‟s recommendations.  

The panel recognises that there will always be severe practical limitations to any possible return to ministry and despite not adopting an absolute position that no form of ministry can ever be possible for a priest who has offended, the reality is that a return to ministry will not normally be considered as a realistic option by the panel.  

Apart from future risk, the other issues for consideration are the interest of the victim(s), the good of the Church, the good of the priest concerned and the expectations of the faithful.

In reviewing the possibility of a return to ministry the Advisory Panel must consider the following information: statements of evidence, penalties imposed by the court (if any), any civil proceedings pending or settled in relation to the offender and, finally, any penalties imposed under canon law.  

A return to ministry will require all of the following conditions to be met:  

Ø completion of an appropriate investigation of the issues and allegations leading to virtual certainty that all possible allegations are known;  

Ø psychological assessment that reveals minimal or no risk;  

Ø full compliance and co-operation on the part of the priest throughout the process;  

Ø openness on the part of the priest to disclose information to those who need to know including, but not limited to, those in a position of responsibility over him;  

Ø the passage of sufficient time since the offence occurred, to permit a mature judgment about the priest‟s disposition;  

Ø introduction of a constant monitoring programme including an after-care programme as prescribed by a professional adviser.  

Ø no outstanding criminal charge or period of suspended sentence.  

Ø the panel must also consider the nature and frequency of any offences, the appropriateness of the offender‟s response to the allegations, the age of the victim(s), the clinical diagnosis of sexual orientation towards children and whether there are ongoing civil actions.  

7.34 A crucial condition for re-admission is a full and comprehensive psychological assessment whose primary focus is risk assessment. Unless such an assessment indicates minimal or no risk, then a priest will never be in a position to exercise publicly any priestly ministry. When such concerns continue to exist the following options are available: retirement, laicisation or dismissal.  

7.35 If a priest has been assessed as posing minimal or no risk then this must be verified through the experience of the advisory panel and the delegate, particularly in respect of compliance and co-operation in the process. He is also required to show compliance with any process prescribed as well as continuing to show a manifest spiritual dimension.  

7.36 Practical implications of a return to work are broken into three phases:  

Phase 1 - Generally the priest will not have a sacramental ministry of any kind but may be engaged in some administration work on behalf of the diocese;  

Phase 2 - When there is no pending criminal action then in time the priest may be allowed engage in limited sacramental ministry, such as to a convent of retired nuns;  

Phase 3 – The priest may be allowed a limited parish chaplaincy or full chaplaincy to a retirement home or nursing home.  

7.37 There is an onus on any priest in this situation to find identifiable employment or constructive work. Inability to do so may result in him having to consider laicisation.  

7.38 It is essential to ensure that an appropriate monitoring programme is put in place including continued psychological assessment, spiritual support and vigilance on the part of those in a position of responsibility, which will have to continue as long as the priest remains in the clerical state. Victims would also need to be advised of the priest‟s possible return to ministry.  

7.39 Laicised priests should not be in a position to misrepresent their status as a means of relating to young people.  

7.40 In the Commission‟s view, while recognising that the advisory panel was not totally independent in that its members were appointed by the Archbishop, it did a great deal of valuable work. Not only did it advise on what should be done initially following the referral of a complaint but it also sought regular updates on the implementation of its recommendations. What it did not appreciate, and the Commission would not expect it to do so given the voluntary and part-time nature of its role, was that the monitoring system for many of the abusing priests was very poor.  

7.41 It was unfortunate, in the view of the Commission, that the panel did not have an opportunity to hear from some of the individual complainants early on in its activities. While the Commission is satisfied from documents it has seen that support for victims was a major concern of the panel, nevertheless, it seemed to some complainants who gave evidence to the Commission that the whole focus of the panel was on the accused priest with little or no consideration being given to the suffering of victims. An opportunity was given to two complainants to speak at a one-day seminar which the panel members attended and that appeared to be the extent of the panel‟s involvement with victims. This encounter did not take place until 2003. Mr Kennedy told the Commission that the meeting with victims “confirmed our views that, insofar as providing an adequate service to victims, there were a number of things that could be done better and should be improved…the diocese was not delivering all that it should under this heading‖.  

7.42 The Commission is aware that the panel recommended to the Archdiocese that it should avail of the helpline and counselling service provided by Faoiseamh and that its use of Faoiseamh as a referral agency should be publicised in future media briefings.  

7.43 Monsignor Dolan‟s analysis that the establishment of an independent Child Protection Service for the Archdiocese, with a victim support person in place, was a very necessary step in gaining victim confidence was correct. His analysis was supported by the advisory panel who also recommended an independent Child Protection Service for the Archdiocese.  

Other initiatives by Church authorities  

7.44 During the process of attempting to implement the Framework Document a number of other initiatives were undertaken by the Irish Bishops‟ Conference around the issue of child sexual abuse.  

Committee on child abuse  

7.45 In 1999, a committee on child abuse was established under the chairmanship of Bishop Eamonn Walsh. Its principal role was to liaise with the government‟s Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (the Laffoy Commission, subsequently the Ryan Commission). Members of the committee included representatives from the professions of psychology, canon law, counselling, education, clergy and religious.

Research into child abuse  

7.46 In 2001, the committee on child abuse commissioned an independent research study on child sexual abuse by clergy. The Health Services Research Centre of the Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland conducted the study.47  

7.47 The overall aim of the study was twofold. First, since this was an issue with international relevance, an important aim was to extend scientific knowledge about the impact of child sexual abuse by clergy beyond the individual in order to assess its impact on all of those likely to be affected. These range from the family of the abused, convicted members of the clergy and their families and colleagues, clergy and church personnel and the wider church community. Secondly, the broad aim was to understand clerical child sexual abuse in the Irish context: what were the salient factors concerning its occurrence and management and how can this information be used to inform practice in the future. This study was published in December 2003. In the Commission‟s view this was a very valuable contribution to the debate on child sexual abuse by clergy.  

7.48 The Bishops‟ Conference and two religious orders have also contributed some funding towards research being carried out by UCD university lecturer Marie Keenan into why priests abuse.  

Child protection office  

7.49 In July 2001 the child protection office of the Irish Bishops‟ Conference was established. This served all the dioceses of Ireland and is not to be confused with the Dublin Archdiocese‟s Child Protection Service – see Chapter 3.  

Independent audit  

7.50 In April 2002, the Irish Bishops‟ Conference announced a nationwide independent audit into the handling of all complaints of child sexual abuse by diocesan priests or religious in diocesan appointments dating back to 1940. Judge Gillian Hussey was appointed to chair the audit. In December 2002, Judge Hussey decided to cease work on this audit as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had announced that he was preparing legislation which would provide a statutory basis for a new mechanism for investigating matters of significant and urgent public importance and it was his intention that such a scheme would include the handling of clerical sexual abuse. Judge Hussey believed her audit would be duplicating the work of the state.  

7.51 The Commission believes that it is unlikely that this initiative by church authorities would have succeeded since some bishops claimed in 2008/9 that, for legal reasons, they were unable to comply with the Health Services Executive audit.  

Child protection trainers  

7.52 The Bishops‟ child protection office in conjunction with St Patrick‟s College, Maynooth commenced a national training initiative. The first 19 graduates received their certificates in December 2005. Following their accreditation they were to act as training facilitators in their own dioceses and provide information and support in developing safe practices and procedures for dealing with young people in parishes. A further group of 25 students were in training during the currency of the Commission. One of the purposes of the training was to prepare for the introduction of Our Children Our Church (see below).  

New guidelines for dealing with child sexual abuse  

7.53 The Framework Document was subsequently reviewed and replaced by a document entitled Our Children Our Church.48 This was published amid controversy in late 2005. The Committee charged with developing it had been abandoned in 2005 as it failed to reach agreement on the contents of the document. This was because some of the groups who were represented on the committee were unhappy with some proposals being made. Eventually a document was put together by the former chairperson of the Committee with the assistance of two child protection experts.  

7.54 The Commission‟s terms of reference do not extend to examining the application of the policies set out in Our Children Our Church by the Dublin Archdiocese. The Commission will examine them in the context of its inquiry into the diocese of Cloyne.  

7.55 New guidelines were introduced in 2009 by the National Board for Safeguarding Children. This board was set up in 2006 and replaced the bishops‟ child protection office. Mr Ian Elliot, the chief executive of the National Board which covers all 32 dioceses in the island of Ireland, told the Commission that all dioceses, religious congregations and other parts of the Church that wish to be part of a new child protection policy will have to sign a commitment to implement the policy.  

7.56 The names of those church authorities who fail to sign will be made known to the public.  

7.57 Again, the Commission will examine these guidelines in the course of its inquiry into the diocese of Cloyne.

Chapter 8 The Finances of the Archdiocese Introduction  

8.1 The finance secretariat of the Archdiocese deals with two main areas - finance and building. Bishop Desmond Williams was episcopal vicar for finance and pastoral development from 1972 until 1990. During most of that time, he was also head of finance. Fr Patrick Carroll worked with him from 1979 to 1987 and was head of finance from 1985 to 1987. For the bulk of the period under investigation by the Commission, Monsignor John Wilson worked in the finance secretariat. In 1988, he was appointed head of the finance secretariat. From September 1990 he succeeded Bishop Williams under the new title of financial administrator. He left that position in February 2005 and he became a parish priest in 2006. The current financial administrator and most of the staff of the finance secretariat are lay people.  

8.2 Fr Carroll and Monsignor Wilson gave evidence to the Commission about those aspects of the finances of the Archdiocese which are relevant to the Commission‟s terms of reference. The Commission was particularly interested in how the Archdiocese financed the following:  

compensation awards to victims of child sexual abuse;  

support services for victims of child sexual abuse;  

income and other support for those priests who were laicised, dismissed or had their faculties removed as a result of complaints of clerical child sexual abuse.  

Compensation to victims  

8.3 The first compensation payment which was made directly to a victim of clerical child sexual abuse was made by the Archdiocese in 1998. The payment made to Andrew Madden in 1993 was made directly by Fr Payne with the help of a loan from the Archdiocese – this is described in Chapter 24. Prior to 1998, there were some payments made by individual priests and financed directly by them and not by the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese arranged insurance cover against such claims in the 1980s – the history of this cover is outlined in Chapter 9. As described there, the lump sums paid by the insurance company to the bishops of Ireland under the 1996 and 2001 agreements were placed in the Stewardship Trust. From 1998 until 2005, compensation payments by the Archdiocese to victims of clerical child sexual abuse were paid from the Curial Trust and partial reimbursement of those payments was received from the Stewardship Trust. A small number of individual priests paid some or all of the compensation personally. Since 2005, the Archdiocese has funded all of such compensation from the Curial Trust unless the claims are covered by the 1996 insurance policy.  

8.4 Compensation was paid to a total of 77 complainants in respect of 16 priests in the representative sample. (Of the total of 46 priests in the representative sample, 34 are priests of the Archdiocese, 11 are members of religious orders and one belongs to a UK diocese.) The total paid to the complainants up to July 2008 was just under €7 million. In addition, legal costs were just under €3 million. The net cost to the Archdiocese, taking account of contributions to, and reimbursements from, the Stewardship Trust, was €7 million.  

The Stewardship Trust  

8.5 The Stewardship Trust was established in 1996 utilising, in the first instance, the lump sum received from the insurance company under the 1996 agreement with the bishops, together with annual subscriptions from each of the dioceses. The proceeds of the 2001 agreement with the insurance company were also placed in the trust. The objects of the trust are:  

to fund and enable protection measures against child sexual abuse in the individual dioceses;  

to assist the health and wellbeing of people who have been the victims of child sexual abuse;  

to assist bishops with the liabilities incurred by their dioceses as a result of child sexual abuse.  

8.6 The trustees of the fund are the four archbishops of Ireland.  

The Stewardships Trust‘s interaction with the Archdiocese of Dublin  

8.7 Claims by complainants were almost always made against the individual priest, the Archbishop personally and the Archdiocese. The handling of these claims was dealt with by the Archdiocese‟s solicitors. In the vast majority of cases, the individual priests had no assets with which to meet any claims. When a case was settled, the solicitors presented the case to the claims advisory committee of the trust. That committee then recommended to the trustees of the Stewardship Trust whether or not to refund the Archdiocese. In every instance known to the Commission, the recommendation was positive. The Stewardship Trust had no role in determining whether or not compensation would be paid to the complainant or the amount of that compensation. 

8.8 The Archdiocese of Dublin was both the largest contributor to, and beneficiary of, the Stewardship Trust. The contribution of each diocese to the trust was assessed on the basis of population. The Dublin Archdiocese has, by far, the largest population of any diocese. It also had the greatest number of claims related to child sexual abuse and was also, therefore, the greatest beneficiary of the Stewardship Trust. Between 1997 and 2005, the Archdiocese of Dublin made contributions of approximately €2.5 million to the Stewardship Trust. The Trust reimbursed the Archdiocese almost €5.5 million in order to pay compensation to the victims of child sexual abuse. In most of the cases, it appears that 90% of the compensation and the legal fees associated with individual cases came from the Stewardship Trust. All the money paid by the Archdiocese of Dublin into the Stewardship Trust came from the Curial Trust (see below). The balance of the compensation payments also came from the Curial Trust.  

8.9 The existence of the Stewardship Trust did not in general become known to the public until the Archdiocese issued a press release in 2003. It would appear that the bishops were concerned that publicity about the existence of the trust would result in more claims against dioceses.  

8.10 From December 2005, the Stewardship Trust ceased to provide financial support to dioceses with their compensation payments. The Archdiocese independently funds claims which arise unless they are covered by insurance (see Chapter 9). The compensation payments are made from the Curial Trust.  

Support services for victims  

8.11 The Child Protection Service of the Dublin Archdiocese was established in 2002. It is funded from the Pastoral Services Fund which in turn receives its funds through the Share collection. This is one of the collections taken up at Sunday masses throughout the Dublin Archdiocese.

In its first full year of operation, 2003/2004, the expenditure on the Child Protection Service was just over €164,000. It currently costs about €260,000 a year.  

8.12 The Curial Trust funds payments for the treatment of victims of child sexual abuse. Between 1996 and 2008, almost €700,000 had been spent on such treatment. This includes the Archdiocese‟s contribution to Faoiseamh. Faoiseamh is an organisation which provides telephone counselling and a counselling and psychotherapy referral service for people who have been sexually, physically or emotionally abused by priests or religious. It is funded by the Conference of Religious of Ireland (CORI) and by a number of Catholic dioceses including the Archdiocese of Dublin.  

Supports for priests General Income of priests - the Common Fund  

8.13 Priests who are working in the Archdiocese receive their individual income (called a common stipend) from the Common Fund. This is a central diocesan fund which was established in 1967 to:  

equalise the incomes of priests who are working in the parishes of the Archdiocese;  

pay priests who hold diocesan appointments but who are not attached to any particular parish;  

assist the Dublin Diocesan Clerical Fund Society which looks after sick and retired priests.  

8.14 The fund receives its money from the collections which are made at weekend masses, from Christmas, Easter and other dues, from stole fees (that is, contributions at events such as weddings and funerals) and from other income generated in the parishes. Costs such as the support grant to the Clerical Fund Society, administration and the costs of private health insurance premiums for all the priests are taken into account. The amount which is paid to the individual priest is dependent on the income from all these sources less the costs. Priests are paid the same basic payment with an increment based on years of service. The standard stipend for a curate in 2008 was €27,000.

8.15 Priests are liable to pay tax and PRSI and are eligible for social welfare pensions such as the State Pension (Contributory) in the same way as other residents of Ireland.  

Termination payments  

8.16 A number of priests who have left the priesthood have received a lump sum termination payment from the Common Fund. At present (2009), the amount of the lump sum is calculated on the basis of a number of weeks‟ income per year of service; this is similar to the statutory redundancy payments scheme. Such payments are not confined to priests who leave for reasons associated with child sexual abuse.  

8.17 Three priests in the representative sample (two of whom were convicted of clerical child sex abuse) received lump sums from the Common Fund. The Common Fund has been reimbursed from the Curial Trust in respect of the two convicted priests.  

Dublin Diocesan Clerical Fund Society  

8.18 The Dublin Diocesan Clerical Fund Society was established in 1861 to support priests who are unable to hold an appointment due to illness and priests who are retired. As already stated, it receives a support grant from the Common Fund and it also has income from some investments. It pays ill and retired priests a monthly grant which is equivalent to the stipend paid to curates in active service. As already noted, the Archdiocese also pays private health insurance premiums for its priests. Any priest who incurs medical costs of a significant nature not covered by private health insurance is supported by the Clerical Fund in meeting the costs involved.  

8.19 The Clerical Fund Society has also supported priests who are accused of child sexual abuse. When such a priest was removed from office and/or was undergoing treatment, the income support payments to him were in general made from the Clerical Fund Society. The amount paid was broadly similar to the income of active priests.  

8.20 The costs of treatment courses undertaken by priests who were accused or convicted of child sexual abuse were also paid by the Clerical Fund Society. Eight priests in the representative sample are currently being supported by this fund; three of these are convicted child sexual abusers.  

8.21 In November 2007, Archbishop Martin asked the management committee of this fund to examine the grants being given to priests who had been convicted of child sexual abuse or who had admitted to such behaviour. The committee expressed concern that priests in this category were receiving the same charitable grant as priests in good standing. It was agreed that such individuals would be approached by a competent assessor and someone who knew their child sexual abuse history to invite them to make a contribution to ameliorate the damage caused to the Archdiocese. If they had the means, the assessor could determine that a reduced amount should be paid to them in future.  

The Curial Trust  

8.22 The Curial Trust resulted from a merger in 1986 of the Archbishop McQuaid Curial Trust, the Archbishop McQuaid Charitable Trust, the Archbishop Walsh Charitable Trust, the General Charities Fund and the Education Fund. This trust receives funding from a number of sources, including from individual archbishops, but in the main is composed of bequests and donations which were or are given to the Church, not for a specified purpose, but for the general charitable purposes of the diocese and charitable purposes at the Archbishop‟s discretion.  

8.23 The Archdiocesan contribution to the Stewardship Trust came from the Curial Trust. This trust also funded the part of the compensation payments to victims which was not financed by the Stewardship Trust. In addition, this trust was used to make payments to individual priests in order to enable them to reintegrate into society after laicisation. The Curial Trust also funded payments for the treatment of victims of child sexual abuse.  

8.24 It was from this fund that the loan to Fr Payne was made in 1993 (see Chapter 24).  

8.25 Two convicted clerical sex abusers are currently being supported from this fund.

The Poor of Dublin Fund  

8.26 The Poor of Dublin Fund is a fund accumulated from bequests to Archbishops of Dublin for relief of the poor of the diocese. It was used to provide an income for Fr Ivan Payne when he was laicised in 2004. The fund has now been reimbursed from the Curial Trust – see Chapter 24 for details.

The Post Graduate Fund  

8.27 The Post Graduate Fund was established for the purposes of paying the fees and expenses incurred by priests in undertaking further courses of study. It has been diocesan policy that, if it is considered likely to be beneficial, priests who resign from ministry are offered the possibility of the diocese paying the fees of courses that they may wish to undertake in order to prepare them for transition to lay life.

8.28 This policy has also been applied to priests accused of or convicted of child sexual abuse. Such opportunities are funded by the Post Graduate Fund.  

8.29 Ten diocesan priests in the representative sample received money from the Post Graduate Trust. Most of the amounts were modest; the highest was just over €18,000 but most were between €1,000 and €3,000. One priest also received €10,000 from the Clerical Fund for educational purposes.  

Legal fees  

8.30 Priests who are accused of child sexual abuse have legal representation of their choice. Legal fees were paid on behalf of 16 diocesan priests by the Archdiocese. The total cost of this to July 2008 was just over €77,000. It is the policy of the Archdiocese that priests pay their own legal fees if they are charged with an offence. Some priests were granted criminal legal aid by the courts.  

Treatment costs  

8.31 The Archdiocese spent almost €564,000 on the treatment of diocesan priests. Up to July 2008, over €340,000 of this was spent on the 34 diocesan priests in the representative sample. In some cases where the Archdiocese referred priests for treatment, the Archdiocese did not receive bills – it could be that these were paid by way of private health insurance or were paid directly by the priests themselves. The amount spent on each priest varied hugely. It is difficult to provide meaningful comparisons as the value of money changed considerably over the time period covered. The largest amount, in absolute terms, was the €85,000 spent on Fr Guido*49 between 2003 and 2005. The largest, in real terms, was probably the £29,000 (€37,000) spent on Fr between 1981 and 1987.  

Summary of current financial provisions for priests in the representative sample

There are 46 priests in the representative sample. The following is the position as of July 2008: Eleven are or were members of religious orders; four of these are dead; the others are being supported by their orders. One priest belongs to a UK diocese. Of the 34 priests from the Dublin Archdiocese:  

ten are dead;  

eight are supported by the Clerical Fund Society; three of these are convicted child sex abusers. One, Fr Naughton, is not being directly supported; a payment is made to St Patrick‟s Missionary Society in respect of him (see Chapter 29);  

two are supported by the Curial Trust; both have been laicised and both are convicted child sex abusers;  

nine are not supported by the Archdiocese and are not in ministry; five of these are laicised; two are convicted child abusers;  

five are supported by the Common Fund; four are in ministry in parishes and one is not in ministry. 

Chapter 9 Insurance Introduction  

9.1 The principal insurers for the Archdiocese of Dublin and most, if not all, parishes and Catholic schools in Ireland during the period under investigation by this Commission was Church & General Insurance Company. The company was originally formed principally to provide insurance cover for parishes, religious orders and Catholic schools. It was initially named the Irish Catholic Property Insurance Company Limited and was founded by the Catholic Hierarchy in 1902. The business of the company developed so that, by the 1960s, it had begun to underwrite mainstream general insurance business. In order to accommodate this development, the company changed its name to Church & General Insurance Company (in this report referred to as Church & General). In 1998, the company became part of the Allianz Group.  

The need for insurance  

9.2 The evidence reviewed by the Commission suggests that serious consideration was first given in 1986 to obtaining specific insurance cover for the benefit of the Archdiocese of Dublin for any potential liability falling upon it arising out of child sexual abuse by a priest of the Archdiocese. The timing is significant because the date of seeking insurance cover is clearly a date by which the Archdiocese had developed a realisation that child sexual abuse was a serious problem for it.  

9.3 A central consideration in determining the necessity for obtaining such cover was an exploration by the Archdiocese of its potential vicarious liability for the actions of its priests. A legal opinion on the law of Ireland at the time was obtained by the Archdiocese from a senior counsel.  

9.4 Following a brief period of consultation, an approach was made on behalf of the Archdiocese to Church & General with a view to securing insurance cover for liability arising out of claims against the Archdiocese alleging child sexual abuse by priests. Church & General understood that the impetus for this approach came from a visit by Archbishop Kevin McNamara to the USA where he learned of difficulties in an American diocese arising from allegations of sexual abuse by priests of that diocese. It need hardly be pointed out by this Commission that the Archbishop‟s understanding of the need for insurance came from events much closer to home than the USA. At this time, the Archdiocese had knowledge of approximately 20 priests against whom allegations of child sexual abuse had been made, or about whom there were suspicions or concerns.  

9.5 At that time, consideration was also given to obtaining a policy that would provide insurance cover for criminal defence costs arising from the prosecution of priests for alleged child sexual abuse. In the end, this additional cover was not sought.  

The first special policy  

9.6 On 2 March 1987, Church & General issued a policy for the benefit of the Archdiocese of Dublin (in this report referred to as "the special policy‟). The stated insured was Archbishop McNamara and “his predecessors or successors in that office”. The initial premium was £515, with a limit on any single claim of £50,000. There was a stated limit of aggregate cover of £200,000 for all claims during the period of cover. The first period of cover was between 2 March 1987 and 1 March 1988. The then general insurance manager in Church & General told the Commission that he did not believe that he would have offered this type of cover to the general market at the time.  

9.7 The policy mandated that immediately the insured (the Archbishop) became aware of a priest behaving in such a way as would be likely to give rise to a claim under the policy, or immediately an investigation revealed substantial grounds for believing that a priest was behaving in such a way as would be likely to give rise to a claim under the policy, the Archbishop was required to:  

remove that priest from the duty in the course of which the misconduct occurred and from all other duties as appropriate having regard to the misconduct;  

arrange for medical treatment;  

not permit such an individual to resume duty without professional opinion that the resumption was appropriate and timely.  

9.8 The former general manager told the Commission that no proposal form was completed by the Archdiocese of Dublin before the inception of this policy. There was no questionnaire completed nor was any form of risk assessment undertaken by Church & General of the possible financial exposure that such a policy might bring. The evidence given to the Commission was that there was no indication given by the Archdiocese during the negotiations for the policy of any facts that would indicate that the Archdiocese had any prior experience of allegations of child sexual abuse by priests. The former general manager stated that he had no specific recollection of asking the Archdiocese specific questions about its knowledge of the possibility of such claims against it. He did indicate that he would have been interested in receiving “any information which would have had relevance to the policy‖.  

9.9 The indemnity was provided by Church & General was on the basis of "claims made‟ and/or "claims notified‟ during the period of insurance cover. This was the first policy written by Church & General on a "claims made‟ basis. This meant that the insurance cover was provided for the date when the claim was made to the Archdiocese and notified to Church & General rather than for the date of the alleged occurrence of the abuse. An exclusion clause provided that cover would not extend to: ―any claim arising from circumstances which at the inception of the policy were known to the Insured and might reasonably be expected to give rise to a claim‖.  

9.10 The former general manager told the Commission that the decision to insure on a "claims made‟ basis was his and did not arise out of any request by the Archdiocese.  

Information known to the Archdiocese  

9.11 At the time of the inception of the policy, the authorities within the Archdiocese were aware of child abuse allegations involving about 20 priests. Information such as this would undoubtedly have led to difficulties in seeking to recover funds by way of indemnity from Church & General with respect to some of these cases, arising from the wording of the exclusion clause previously referred to. 

Policy limits and wording  

9.12 On the first renewal of the policy, the limit of liability cover on any one claim was increased from £50,000 to £125,000, with an annual aggregate cover not exceeding £250,000. The annual premium was increased to £800. The special policy was made available to all dioceses in Ireland. All but one of the dioceses purchased special policy cover. Premiums in the range of £35,000 - £40,000 were collected by Church & General from dioceses in 1989 and 1990 with respect to special policies. After 1990, no renewal notices were issued and no premiums were collected.  

The parish protection policies  

9.13 Church & General, prior to offering the various dioceses the special policy, had for a considerable period of time looked after the public liability requirements of most of the parishes in Ireland by way of a "general‟ insurance policy known as the "parish protection policies‟. These policies provided that “in the event of any accident happening‖ the insured was indemnified “against liability at law for damages in respect of accidental bodily injury or illness to any person”. There was no mention of child abuse in this policy.  

9.14 Shortly after the inception of the first special policy for the Archdiocese of Dublin, Church & General was contemplating a specific exclusion of liability for sexual abuse from the general parish protection policies. This was not pursued by Church & General, at least in part because of a fear that such an action might raise the profile of the issue and might ―innocently or maliciously be construed as a response to a proliferation of claims‖. However, without mentioning child sexual abuse, an amendment was made in 1989 to the parish protection policies by way of the incorporation of criminal act exclusion. The effect of this exclusion was such that Church & General was protected against the possibility of any liability to indemnify parishes arising from the criminal acts of priests. As child sexual abuse is punishable under the criminal laws, this exclusion operated to insulate Church & General from liability under the parish protection policies from 1989 onwards with respect to any claims arising from child sexual abuse.  

9.15 In 1989, Church & General issued a circular to the bishops in Ireland (other than Dublin) which, firstly, warned that then existing parish insurances did not provide cover for child molestation by a priest and, secondly, announced the availability of a special policy that provided that type of indemnity. The circular cautioned that the existence of such a policy ought to be revealed only on a need to know basis lest its existence give rise to a proliferation of claims.  

9.16 Church & General did not collect premiums due from the Archdiocese of Dublin in the years 1991 or 1992, apparently because of an internal review by Church & General into the nature of the cover that it would continue to provide. The Chancellor of the Archdiocese, Monsignor Alex Stenson, did, however, seek and obtain an assurance from the company that cover was still in place during this period of review in the absence of payment.  

Church & General reassessment  

9.17 By 1993, the position of Church & General regarding exclusions in the wording of policies was becoming more robust. An internal memorandum recommended:  

―In the past we have stood back from issuing ‗excluding‘ endorsements on all liability policies and sections, except in the case of the parish protection policy which, when drafted and reissued in 1989, included what Senior Counsel believes to be an effective exclusion without actually mentioning sexual abuse. At this stage, I think it is imperative and probably ‗politically‘ acceptable to add specific exclusion to all liability policies/sections. In issuing endorsements for attachment to existing covers, we probably need to make the point that the introduction of endorsement does not imply that coverage previously existed.‖  

9.18 The evidence suggests that, by 1994, Church & General was becoming concerned about its financial exposure arising from civil claims against the various dioceses by people alleging child abuse by priests.  

9.19 In February 1995, Church & General prepared a discussion paper which was used for the purposes of negotiating, without prejudice to the legal rights of Church & General, the extent of the liability of Church & General to indemnify the Church for child sexual abuse claims. The document proposed the establishment by the bishops of a global fund that would meet any such claims and, among other things, that Church & General would contribute a “sizable opening contribution”. The discussion paper contained the following paragraph:  

―One option open to the Company is to specifically exclude all cover for future claims arising from sexual abuse and to deny any entitlement to indemnity in respect of claims arising out of past events. However we do not believe that such an action would be in the interests of the Company or it‘s policyholders. Since it‘s foundation in 1902 the Company has forged close working relationships with ‗the Church‘ and is universally recognised as the ‗Church Insurer‘. Over the years we have developed products matching the unique insurance needs of a Diocese. The current crisis presents a new challenge which we are totally committed to meeting. However we can only do so on terms which reflect the exposure. In an effort to assist you we have looked at every possible alternative and we feel the setting up of a fund in the manner suggested hereafter will help to resolve your past and future problems in dealing with the issue of sexual abuse and it will also remove the uncertainty and potential cover disputes in many individual cases. That being said it will be appreciated that insurance cannot provide the total answer to the problems which a Diocese faces in the area under review‖.  

9.20 Representatives of Church & General met a special sub-committee of the Irish hierarchy‟s finance and general purposes committee which was established in March 1995. The view within Church & General in September 1995 was that ―a number of the high profile cases are not covered by the special policy because of prior knowledge on the part of the diocese concerned‖. This comment is not confined to the Archdiocese of Dublin but it did have a number of high profile cases at the time.  

9.21 Church & General was trying to introduce a new version of the special policy that would be more restricted in its cover. Due to delays in reaching an agreement with the sub-committee, Church & General told the Archdiocese of Dublin that it would formally cancel the special policy from 31 January 1996. The proposed cancellation date was subsequently extended while negotiations proceeded between representatives of the bishops and Church & General. Those negotiations centred on the establishment of a central fund to cater for civil claims arising out of child molestation by priests throughout the island of Ireland. It was envisaged that the money to be paid into the proposed central fund was to come from both Church funds and Church & General.  

Lump sum agreement  

9.22 Eventually an agreement was reached and executed on 2 July 1996, whereby Church & General agreed to pay to the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland the sum of £3.4 million in settlement of any indemnity under any of its policies throughout the island of Ireland for all child sexual abuse claims arising from instances of abuse prior to 1996. The essential terms of the agreement are summarised as follows:  

All outstanding premiums were waived.  

Church & General agreed to provide a claims advisory service for all child sexual abuse cases for a period of five years, free of charge, which service would exclude the provision of legal services.  

Church & General would have no further liability under the special policy or under the general parish protection policies in respect of child sexual abuse by priests.  

Disputes under the agreement would be resolved by an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Law Society.  

A confidentiality provision stated: ―the contents of this agreement shall be confidential as between the parties hereto and none of the parties shall disclose the existence of or the contents hereof to any third party save as may be required by law.‖  

9.23 Arising from the resolution of issues with Church & General, any civil claim for damages against any of the dioceses that relate to incidences of child abuse (as defined in that agreement) which occurred prior to 1996 would be satisfied out of this new central fund which was managed by the Church, without recourse to Church & General.

Negotiations reopened  

9.24 Claims for compensation for child sexual abuse started to be received by the Archdiocese in the mid 1990s. There was considerable publicity about the loan provided by Archbishop Connell to Fr Ivan Payne to facilitate a settlement with Andrew Madden – see Chapter 24. Clearly, the Archdiocese of Dublin and the other dioceses were concerned about future liabilities.  

9.25 In March 1999, the Archdiocese‟s legal representatives sought to re-open negotiations with Church & General based on perceived differences between a memorandum furnished to bishops in 1995 by the former general manager of Church & General and an earlier memorandum also produced by him to the bishops in 1987 which, it was claimed, affected the agreement concluded in 1996. The 1987 memorandum was important in that it had been circulated to the Irish bishops in the Episcopal Conference of 1987 and was stated by the Church advisors to be contradictory to the subsequent one of 1995 in terms of the understanding as to the liability of Church & General to indemnify the various dioceses under the parish protection policies. The 1987 memorandum stated:  

―It is not the intention of the policy to deny an insured indemnity for deliberate acts by a person for whose actions the insured might be responsible. Without a specific ‗sexual abuse exclusion‘ our policies provide indemnity to the employer/principal…for claims arising out of actions committed by employees or agents‖.  

9.26 That 1987 memorandum went on to consider whether, in the provision of certain policies, liability arising from sexual abuse by the insured‟s employees ought to be specifically excluded. The 1987 memorandum also noted that in the USA, there was a specific exclusion of such cover, because no reinsurance cover was available in that jurisdiction. As previously mentioned in this chapter, the suggested specific exclusion of indemnity cover for liability arising as a result of sexual abuse by priests was not, as events transpired, incorporated into the parish protection policies at that time.  

9.27 In a letter from the Archdiocese‟s solicitors to Church & General, the writer put the matter as follows:

―Our clients were not aware of the 1987 memorandum when considering your 1995 memorandum. They were not aware of the 1987 memorandum when instructing this firm and others about the request from Church & General to them to enter negotiations about the totality of the insurance arrangements then in place against the risk of child sexual abuse claims. Had they been aware of the 1987 memorandum our clients would not have commenced negotiations about the parish policies and would not have entered the 1996 Agreement.‖  

9.28 Church & General strongly countered any suggestion that they had misrepresented, innocently or otherwise, matters in the 1995 memorandum. The solicitors for Church & General wrote:  

―We do not know how you can assert this proposition on behalf of your clients. The fact is that the July 1987 memorandum was addressed to your clients, was circulated at the Episcopal Conference in November 1987 and was therefore at all material times known to your clients. It is absurd to suggest that your clients only learned of something in 1998 when in fact they have had the 1987 Memorandum since July 1987. Secondly, your letter states that had the 1987 memorandum not defined the extent of the cover under the parish protection policies, your clients would have put in place insurance cover against the risk. The fact is that your clients did put in place special policies dealing with these risks because of the doubt and confusion concerning the extent of the cover provided by the Parish Protection Policies. Thirdly, your letter overlooks the fact that the specific purpose of the 1996 Agreement was to compromise the parties‘ assertions in relation to their respective rights and liabilities pursuant to the 1996 Agreement. Indeed, the record of the negotiations leading up to the 1996 agreement demonstrates that your clients asserted that they had very significant entitlements under the Parish Protection Policies‖.  

9.29 Despite the strong position adopted in this correspondence, negotiations were reopened between the bishops and Church & General.

These negotiations resulted in a further agreement between the bishops and Church & General which was executed in July 2000. There is no doubt that commercial forces played a significant role in the outcome of those negotiations as Church & General was anxious to ensure that it retained as much of the general Church insurance business as it could.  

9.30 The main provisions of this second agreement were as follows:  

The claims advisory service was extended for a further period of ten years from April 2001.  

The liabilities of Church & General were crystallized so that, if the aggregate cost of child sexual abuse claims (including legal and other costs) was greater than £7.5 million, Church & General would contribute 50% of the costs between £7.5 million and £13.5 million and 33.33% of the costs between £13.5 million and £19.5 million.  

The payments between the limits of £7.5 million and £13.5 million were conditional on Church & General retaining all of the general insurance business of the Church (excluding motor insurance) between 2001 and 2004. The payments in excess of the £13.5 million threshold were conditional on Church & General retaining 50% of the general insurance business of the Church.  

Three "donations‟ of £120,000, £60,000 and £60,000 were made by Church & General to “A Trust nominated by the Archbishops and Bishops”. The Commission considers that the word "donations‟ is a misnomer as the three payments were negotiated as a payback to the Church arising from profits made by Church & General from premiums collected from Church-related policies.  

9.31 The bulk of the money received from Church & General was placed in a trust fund called the Stewardship Trust. The trustees of the Stewardship Trust were the four Archbishops of Ireland. The manner of operation and funding of the Stewardship Trust is considered in more detail in Chapter 8.  

9.32 Church & General was under no illusion at the time of this second agreement that it would be called upon to pay its contribution on the band between £13.5 million and £19 million. A former claims director of Church & General told the Commission: ―We had resigned ourselves and the money was set aside in our accounts from the time of the agreement…it was just a question of when it was going to be paid after that‖.  

Cover for liability arising from 1996 onwards  

9.33 Following the conclusion of negotiations between Church & General and the bishops in Ireland, each diocese sought its own policy of insurance with respect to liability in law arising for damages caused by incidents of child sexual abuse occurring after 1996 perpetrated by priests about whom the insured had no knowledge or suspicion of such wrongdoing prior to the incident giving rise to the claim. It is understood by the Commission that the premiums payable with respect to this policy were substantially greater than the premium payable for the first policy. The premium currently (2009) paid by the Archdiocese is €53,371.  

9.34 Following the settlement with the Church in 1996, Church & General shredded all of its files relating to the notification of claims in order to ensure that confidentiality was preserved and to avoid the possibility of any leaking of information into the public domain. Church & General had no further need to refer to the material contained in those files by virtue of the terms of the settlement.  

The Commission’s assessment  

9.35 The early consideration by the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1986 of the matter of obtaining insurance indemnity signalled a significant realisation at that time of the potential exposure of the Archdiocese to civil claims arising from the abuse of children by priests. At that stage, there were no actual claims, but there was knowledge within the Archdiocese of about 20 priests against whom child abuse allegations had been made or about whom there were suspicions or concerns.  

9.36 The Archdiocese of Dublin and Church & General agreed a policy of insurance in 1987 (the "special policy‟) without most of the normal commercial requirements for insurance policies – there was no proposal form nor risk assessment and the policy was on a "claims made‟ basis. This policy was subsequently made available to the other dioceses on the same basis. No renewal notices were issued in respect of this policy after 1990 and no premiums were paid. This policy, and the subsequent agreements in 1996 and 2000, proved to be extraordinarily good value for the Church. In return for trivial premiums amounting to £40,000 (approximately €50,800) the dioceses of Ireland received approximately €12.9 million by way of indemnity.  

9.37 Church & General‟s actual liability under the 1987 insurance policy was reduced because the Archdiocese had, at the time of the inception of the policy, significant information concerning the actions of certain priests. That information, in certain cases, would have been sufficient to permit Church & General to deny liability to indemnify the Archdiocese under the special policy with respect to certain claims arising from child sexual abuse by priests of the Archdiocese.  

9.38 Notwithstanding the above, Church & General still had potentially significant exposure to the various dioceses in Ireland, including the Archdiocese of Dublin, under its parish protection policy, because of the absence of an exclusion of indemnity for sexual abuse by priests, together with significant exposure under the terms of the special policy agreed in 1987.  

9.39 The Catholic Church in Ireland, including the Archdiocese of Dublin, is a major client of Church & General. Church & General representatives told the Commission that it was a commercial decision to extend this level of indemnity, having regard to the overall value of the Church‟s business.

Chapter 10 Education and Formation of Priests Introduction  

10.1 The principal college for the education of diocesan priests, or what the Church itself calls “formation”, in the Archdiocese of Dublin during the period under investigation by the Commission, was Holy Cross College, situated at Clonliffe Road in Drumcondra, Dublin and generally known as Clonliffe College. There were a number of alternatives to Clonliffe as a means of achieving admission to diocesan ministry during this period, namely, St Patrick‟s College, Maynooth, Co Kildare; the Irish College in Rome and the Propaganda College in Rome. Clonliffe College was founded in 1859 and ceased operating as a seminary in June 2000. It had two boards, the college council and the college finance committee. The college council was made up of priests appointed to the staff of the college by the Archbishop of Dublin and this council was responsible for advising the college president with regard to policy and its implementation. The college finance committee was made up of the college president, the vice-president, the director of formation, the college bursar, the diocesan financial administrator and a number of other priests of the diocese appointed by the Archbishop. The function of that committee was to advise the college president on financial policy, its implementation and oversight.  

10.2 From the 1960s, the programme for a candidate attending Clonliffe consisted of seven years training. The first three years were typically taken up with philosophical studies at University College Dublin, at the conclusion of which the successful student would obtain a Bachelor of Arts degree. The remaining four years of training were taken up with theological studies in Clonliffe College itself. It was also possible to complete the first phase of training in philosophical studies at the Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy, initially by way of the award of a National Diploma in Humanities recognised by the National Council for Education Awards (now the Higher Education and Training Awards Council - HETAC) and, later, by a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy.  

Eligibility and application  

10.3 Canon 241 of the code of canon law states: ―The diocesan bishop is to admit to the major seminary only those whose human, moral, spiritual and intellectual gifts, as well as physical and psychological health and right intention, show that they are capable of dedicating themselves permanently to the sacred ministries.‖  

10.4 Canon 1041 excludes from formation as a priest those suffering from “insanity and psychological infirmity‖, where such infirmity results in the priest being incapable of properly fulfilling his ministry. The faithful are obliged by canon 1043 to reveal to their priest or bishop any irregularities in the make-up of a candidate, so that those irregularities may be properly investigated. Even if those irregularities are discovered after the process of formation commences in a seminary, the bishop retains the discretion to exclude the candidate from continuing his formation for the priesthood.  

10.5 A minimum requirement for entry into Clonliffe College was that the candidate had passed the Leaving Certificate and/or Matriculation.

10.6 An application form was completed by the candidate, supported by a letter of recommendation from his parish priest. Clonliffe College then dispatched a questionnaire directly to the parish priest, which sought information on certain aspects of the candidate‟s personality and background, such as his mental health, any history of crime, his general suitability for the priesthood and whether or not he was under any undue influence that led him to his application. At this stage, the director of vocations of the college decided whether or not a candidate was suitable for further assessment by the college.  

10.7 The candidate then underwent a medical examination. The next step was an in-depth interview between the candidate and a member of the college staff.  

Psychological assessment  

10.8 Sometime around the early 1970s, psychological assessments of candidates began. The psychological assessment would typically address such areas as personal background, social background, general intelligence, special aptitudes, vocation interests, personality and sexuality.

10.9 Following the initial assessment, the candidate met his assessors who would provide the candidate with feedback on the outcome of his assessment. The assessors in turn typically met the president of Clonliffe College, the director of formation and the director of vocations, before a final decision was taken on admittance. Monsignor Peter Briscoe, who was first appointed to the college in 1978 and was president from 1989 until its closure in 2000, indicated to the Commission that he had no specific recollection that anyone was ever excluded as a result of concerns arising from the psychological assessment about sexual predilections involving children. Most of the priests in the representative sample had completed their formation before this time period.  

Garda vetting  

10.10 There was apparently no process whereby potential candidates for the priesthood were vetted by An Garda Síochána. In December 2000, the then director of vocations for the Archdiocese of Dublin, Fr Kevin Doran, commenced correspondence with An Garda Síochána in an attempt to open an avenue to allow the director to have potential candidates screened for any police history. At that time, Fr Doran was informed by An Garda Síochána that it dealt with clearance applications only with respect to prospective full-time employees of certain designated organisations operating within the health board areas, where such employees would have access to children and vulnerable adults. As of 2002, the Catholic Church was not one of those designated agencies. In August 2002, the National Child Protection Office of the Irish Bishops‟ Conference lobbied the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, seeking to have the Church designated as a body that could seek vetting of prospective priests through a priests-clearance procedure. The Commission understands that the current position is that the prospective candidate supplies the diocese with a written authority to An Garda Síochána authorising them to supply the diocese with a note of any criminal convictions recorded against him.  

Evaluation during formation  

10.11 Bishop Eamonn Walsh was Dean of Clonliffe College from 1977 to 1985. He told the Commission that the college council evaluated the students on an ongoing basis. Monsignor Alex Stenson, who was a member of the staff at Clonliffe College for 25 years, told the Commission that evaluation meetings would occur approximately once a month. The Commission was unable to obtain any records of any evaluations carried out on any of the priests in the representative sample. The absence of this information was in part explained by Bishop Walsh:  

―I always recall … Brendan Houlihan, as President saying to me when a priest is ordained he should leave the college with a clean record. If we have approved him for ordination, he should start from scratch and maybe that accounts for the attitude towards records, that once you promoted the person for ordination then he is a graduate and let the file begin from that day forward‖. Pastoral placement  

10.12 During each year of formation, a student was assigned a pastoral placement. In addition, the student was placed in a group which was formed for the purposes of considering the pastoral, social and theological aspects of the placement. These pastoral reflection groups were led either by the director of formation of the college or by someone else with specialist qualifications in this area within the College staff. The student was expected to write a half-yearly report of his progress in the pastoral setting, which would be presented to the director of formation and to his own supervisor.  

10.13 Monsignor Briscoe outlined to the Commission the type of pastoral experience that a candidate was likely to attain during his period at Clonliffe College. In his first two years in the seminary, he would typically visit poor and disadvantaged people in special centres. The third year involved youth work and in years four and five, respectively, the candidate would be assigned to work with seriously ill people and in prison chaplaincy. In the final two years at the college, the student was placed in a parish and was usually maintained in the same parish.  

10.14 During the first six years in the seminary, pastoral experience typically took place during an afternoon or an evening each week. In his final year, the student would normally be ordained as a deacon and it was also normal for him to spend an extended period of his summer vacation working in a parish in the south of England.

Spiritual director  

10.15 Once admitted to the College, all candidates were required to have a spiritual director. It was a matter for the candidate himself to choose his spiritual director, but his choice was subject to ratification by staff at the College. The role of the spiritual director is as a spiritual mentor and as a confessor.  

10.16 Canon 246-4 states: “The students are to become accustomed to approach the sacrament of penance frequently. It is recommended that each should have a director of spiritual life, freely chosen, to whom he can trustfully reveal his conscience.‖  

Canon 240 states: ―Besides ordinary confessors, other confessors are to come regularly to the seminary; while maintaining seminary discipline, the students are always free to approach any confessor, whether inside or outside the seminary…in deciding about the admission to orders, or their dismissal from the seminary the vote of the spiritual director and the confessors may never be sought.‖  

10.17 This canon enshrines a principle in canon law that whatever discussions the candidate has with his spiritual director are absolutely confidential and may not be revealed to anyone other than the candidate. Monsignor Briscoe told the Commission that the spiritual director‟s function was to work exclusively with the students, so that the students gained discernment as to whether they were suitable for a life in the priesthood or not. He confirmed that the work was entirely confidential and that the spiritual director could not breach that seal of confidentiality.  

Sexuality, celibacy and child sexual abuse

10.18 Evidence received by the Commission confirmed that during the formation process there was some training in the demands of celibacy. The matter was usually addressed in courses and talks organised by the college. Some of those courses and talks also addressed the issue of sexuality. Monsignor Briscoe indicated to the Commission that the issues of a student‟s own sexuality and celibacy were matters for the student to deal with in conjunction with his spiritual director. From the 1980s onwards, there was a series of sexuality seminars held on an annual basis. The Commission was advised that the purpose behind the seminars was largely to emphasise the importance of the issue of sexuality and to provide a means for the students to reflect upon, and to become aware of, personal issues that they needed to address in this area. The seminars were provided by personnel who were trained as counsellors with expertise in the psycho-sexual area. An extra emphasis was placed on the understanding of celibacy in the final years leading up to ordination.  

Training on the issue of child sexual abuse  

10.19 The Commission has concluded, on the basis of its investigations, that in the years 1970-1995, there was no structured training on matters concerning child sexual abuse by priests or others. It is not apparent that the issue of child sexual abuse was a matter within the contemplation of the psychological assessors during that time.

10.20 The evidence suggests that the issue of child sexual abuse as a relevant factor in the screening and training of priests became a matter of some relevance in the mid-1990s. The document Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response (generally referred to in this report as the Framework Document – see Chapter 7) was published in 1996. The Commission is of the view that this publication reflected a marked awareness of the existence of the problem of child sexual abuse and, in many ways, was a positive attempt to identify ways in which this problem could be addressed.  

10.21 Chapter 8 of the Framework Document deals specifically with the selection and formation for the diocesan priesthood and for religious life. It recommends the screening of candidates, including a full psychological assessment by an experienced psychologist who is well versed in the Church‟s expectations of the candidates, with particular attention to celibacy. Paragraph 8.2.2 of the document states:

“Formation is progressive, and must be evenly balanced between the human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral. The whole process of formation of candidates for the priesthood and religious life should foster an integration of human sexuality and the development of healthy human relationships within the context of celibate living.” 160

10.22 Chapter 8 goes on to recommend that lay men and women should be involved in the training of priests and religious and that those in formation should have reasonable access to counsellors. It cautions that in the pastoral placement of students, the candidates must expect and receive the same formal supervision as other trainee staff in those pastoral settings.  

10.23 At paragraph 8.2.6, it is stated:  

―Since candidates for priesthood and the religious life are being prepared for ministries in which they will be in a position of sacred trust in regard to children, they must be made aware of what are appropriate boundaries in relating to children and of the absolute importance of respecting these boundaries.‖  

10.24 At paragraph 8.3.1, it is stated:  

“Since a genuine spirituality is central to all personal life, good spiritual direction and counseling are invaluable for priests and religious. Serious personal inadequacies can hide behind questionable spirituality. Ongoing education promoting psycho-sexual maturity, healthy living and human wholeness is essential. Good practice guidelines should be developed in order to promote awareness of the need for appropriate pastoral boundaries.‖  

10.25 In chapter 9, paragraph 9.2.1 states:  

―Priests and religious should receive ongoing education and in-service training in regard to the nature and effect of child sexual abuse. This is necessary to ensure that they reach out with competence and compassion to all victims of child sexual abuse whom they may encounter in the course of their ministry. Furthermore, such education and training should help towards ensuring that proper procedures for the protection of children are put in place in respect of all institutions that they are involved in managing – schools, youth facilities, for example.‖  

10.26 At paragraph 9.2.2 it is recommended that:  

―Information days or seminars on child sexual abuse continue to be arranged for priests and religious. These information days and seminars should be followed up by the provision of new and additional 161

information as and when it becomes available. It would be particularly appropriate if practitioners from the health authorities, the police, and other professional bodies were contributors to this educational process.‖  

10.27 Paragraph 9.2.4 states: ―Education in the area of child sexual abuse needs to be provided on an ongoing basis to all involved in the formation of students to the priesthood and religious life.‖  

10.28 Paragraph 9.2.5 states:  

“Candidates for the priesthood and religious life need to continue to be made aware of the nature of child sexual abuse and its effects on victims and their families. In the course of their future ministry they may well come across situations of child sexual abuse, and so it is important to help them gain knowledge as to how to respond properly to these. Particular attention should be paid to the issue of child sexual abuse by priests and religious. Candidates should be made aware of the implications and consequences of this in civil law and canon law and of the procedures for dealing with it.‖  

10.29 The document Our Children, Our Church was published in 2005. The purpose of Our Children, Our Church was stated to be the provision of a set of policies and procedures for those who have responsibility for the protection of children and young people in the life of the Catholic Church in Ireland. In its introduction, it is stated that this document is intended to provide a more comprehensive and unified approach to child protection across the Catholic Church in Ireland than was previously indicated in the Framework Document. Its aim was to bring greater clarity and consistency to the Church‟s procedures in relation to child protection.  

10.30 Chapter 5 of Our Children Our Church deals with the selection and formation of candidates for the priesthood and religious life. It recommends that formation personnel are satisfied that the future priest or religious can relate appropriately both to children and adults before presenting him/her for ordination or final vows.  

10.31 It is also recommended that those engaged in formation provide comprehensive training in safe and best practice in working with children and young people. There was a recommendation that during formation, essential matters to be addressed should include:  

the absolute importance of respecting appropriate boundaries in the interaction with children;  

knowledge of the theories associated with sexual abuse;  

how abusers operate and the elements of treatment for abusers;  

Awareness of the immediate and long term impact of abuse of all kinds;  

The pastoral needs of all those affected by child abuse.  

Current position  

10.32 Since 2000, Clonliffe College has ceased to operate as a seminary. At present, candidates for the diocesan priesthood in Ireland may attend St Patrick‟s College, Maynooth; St Malachy‟s College, Belfast and the Pontifical Irish College in Rome. Today, the sexual history of a candidate is relevant in his assessment for admission to the seminary. The Ferns Report, which was published in 2005, identified areas of sexual history that the Church at that time regarded as necessary to consider when assessing the suitability of seminarians. For convenience, the section of the Ferns Report is reproduced below:  

―With regard to sexual history, the following issues are addressed: An applicant who has been in a prior relationship should have concluded that relationship and have allowed for a significant period of time before being accepted by a Diocese. In the case of a candidate who has had a sexual relationship (heterosexual), a substantial period of celibate living should precede entry into the seminary;

In a recently expressed judgement of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, the Cardinal Prefect stated ―The ordination to the Deaconate or to the priesthood of homosexual persons or those with a homosexual tendency is absolutely 163

inadvisable and imprudent and, from a pastoral point of view, very risky… A person who is homosexual or who has homosexual tendencies is not, therefore, suitable to receive the sacrament of sacred orders.‖ (Congregations Bulletin, December 2002). According to Dr Farrell, the College of Maynooth accepts the force of this reasoning and advice; If it becomes known that a seminarian is engaging in physical genital activity with another person while he is in formation, he is asked to leave immediately. Certain other kinds of behaviour are also inconsistent with celibate chastity e.g. engaging in flirtatious or seductive behaviour and dating. It goes without saying that being in possession of, or accessing, pornographic material (whether print, video, electronic, digital etc.) is completely incompatible with being a seminarian. It is also unacceptable to participate in or to advocate the gay subculture by which is meant allowing a seminarian to define his personality, outlook or self-understanding by virtue of same-sex attraction; Insofar as it is possible to determine, the older applicant should have achieved a successful integration of his sexuality and the younger applicant should have the capacity for such integration. Where there are clear contrary indications, the applicant should not be accepted; A competent person should take a full history of the candidate. Particular attention should be paid to the presence of sexual abuse, sexual acting out or sexual orientation problems etc; The child protection policy as set down by the Episcopal Conference should be fully complied with.‖ The Ferns Report concluded:

―Thus, much has changed in the screening process and in the overall formation of seminarians in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. Today a much greater emphasis is placed on screening for men who are able to live a life of chaste celibacy. In order to ensure that candidates possess the psycho-sexual-socio maturity necessary 164

for priests today, Maynooth College has been providing more resources for students, which is a vast contrast to the situation 40 years ago. Celibacy formation is integrated into the entire seminary programme through conferences, formal lectures and advice from formation personnel, spiritual direction and the fulltime availability of professional counselling.‖ ―Whilst the rigorous standards now in place in Maynooth would be of assistance in ensuring that only men who are emotionally, intellectually and sexually mature are admitted for ordination, the reality is that very few diocesan priests are ordained in Ireland in any year. Increasingly, parishes are welcoming priests ordained abroad to replace retiring clergy. Priests who are ordained in seminaries outside Ireland should be subject to the same level of assessment as has been undertaken by seminaries such as Maynooth.‖  

10.33 Archbishop Martin confirmed to the Commission that the rector of the Irish College in Rome reports annually to the bishops in Ireland. He confirmed that issues of training and sexuality are managed in a similar way to the current approach in St Patrick‟s College, Maynooth. The Archbishop also receives from St Patrick‟s College twice yearly reports on each student from the Archdiocese of Dublin. Archbishop Martin confirmed to the Commission that a final psychological assessment is carried out on all students in the later part of their studies before ordination.  

10.34 This practice and previous psychological testing requirements in Ireland appear to have been adopted independently of any formal directions from Rome on the issue of mandatory testing. The position of the universal Church was clarified on 30 October 2008, when the Congregation for Catholic Education for Seminaries and Educational Institutions (a congregation of the Roman Curia with responsibility, among other matters, for the regulation of seminaries) presented a document entitled Guidelines for the use of psychology in the admission and formation of candidates for the priesthood. This document advises that the early detection of “sometimes pathological” psychological defects of men before they become priests would help avoid tragic experiences. The document recommends that seminary rectors and other officials should use outside experts if they cannot handle the screening themselves. The testing is to be directed at areas of immaturity in development. It states:  

"Such areas of immaturity would include strong affective dependencies; notable lack of freedom in relations; excessive rigidity of character; lack of loyalty; uncertain sexual identity; deep-seated homosexual tendencies, etc. If this should be the case, the path of formation will have to be interrupted."  

10.35 Vatican officials, when introducing the document to the press, said that the tests would not be obligatory, but would be decided on a case-by-case basis when seminary rectors wanted to be sure that a man was qualified for the priesthood.  

The views of others  

10.36 Fr Desmond O‟ Donnell, a psychologist who is a diagnostic tester for admission to ministry for the Church of Ireland and the Catholic Church, gave expert evidence to the Commission. He has been carrying out such testing in Ireland for more than ten years. He suggested to the Commission that a practice adopted by the Church of Ireland, in having prospective candidates carry out ministry work in their own parish for a period of three years before application and professional assessment, is a good way of identifying those candidates with personalities inconsistent with ministry.  

10.37 Dr Marie Keenan, a lecturer and psychotherapist, who has a particular interest in therapeutic work with victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse, gave expert evidence to the Commission. She believes the system of training currently in place at Maynooth does not achieve openness on the part of seminarians on issues of sexuality. The principal reason why this arises, she articulates, is fear of expulsion arising from disclosures which might be regarded as inconsistent with life in the priesthood. Dr Keenan told the Commission that her experience is that seminarians believe that any disclosures about homosexual ideation would result in the student being required to leave the seminary. Dr Keenan wanted to stress that there are some exceptional bishops and church leaders in the Catholic Church in Ireland who foster opportunities for a true spirit of openness and honesty among their priests by providing true mentoring and honest leadership, despite what she considers to be a closed clerical culture that operates within the Catholic Church on the issues of sexuality and celibacy. Dr Keenan argues that, at the very least, the seminary structure and programme content are in need of serious independent review if the aim is to produce emotionally and sexually healthy men, ready for the challenges involved in the life of dedicated priesthood.  

10.38 Monsignor Connolly, the President of St Patrick‟s College, Maynooth is of the view that Dr Keenan‟s assertion that disclosures about homosexual ideation would lead to expulsion is too terse and un-nuanced. He considers that the issue is neither ideation nor orientation but rather is of a tendency to a particular form of sexual behaviour. He points out that the position of the Holy See represents a much more differentiated position than that summarised by Dr Keenan. He describes the approach of the College in the following terms:  

―When a candidate is selected as a seminarian for a Diocese, he enters a process of formation at a seminary or a propadeutic50 course of formation elsewhere. In keeping with the Church‘s vision of candidates in this process, the seminary is a formation community where ‗the candidate himself is a necessary and irreplaceable agent of his own formation. Nobody can replace the responsible freedom of individual persons‘ (Pastores dabo vobis no. 69)51. An aim of seminary formation is that the student , by the time he will be ordained for ministry, will have a secure sense of his human and priestly identity; able to hold the ambiguities and complexities of his life in a wholesome tension with Gospel and ministerial values. The formation staff at St. Patrick‘s College Maynooth endeavours to facilitate an environment where that goal can be achieved and the concomitant level of responsibility in the individual can be supported and promoted. In the course of formation, there are a number of fora where, in a confidential way, the seminarian can explore and arrive at a satisfactory resolution of those areas of his life that he discovers present as inconsistent with priestly ministry.

Throughout the entire process of formation for ministry, the Church is moved by two concerns: to safeguard the good of her own mission, and at the same time, the good of the candidates. To this end, one of the necessary aspects of the process of formation is the on-going evaluation of the human and ministerial identity as it takes shape in the candidate. This includes the suitability of a candidate for ministry in an increasingly demanding culture. The seminarian is fully engaged in this process with his Formation Director and any decisions taken in this regard are made with his co-operative collaboration. A man who is wholesome, aware of his strengths and limitations and able to support his commitment with a solid spiritual life is always the best prospect for a fulfilled and effective priestly ministry.

_______________

Notes: 

26 A comprehensive description of the development of policy in relation to child protection is given in O‟Sullivan Eoin, “Residential Child Welfare in Ireland 1965 – 2008” in Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Dublin: Stationery Office, 2009) (The Ryan Report).

27 It was amended by the Children Acts of 1910, 1929, 1934, 1941 and 1957.  

28 The State (D and D) v G and others [1990] IRLM 130.

29 Minister for Health, 2nd stage speech, Children Bill 1989; Dáil Reports, 7 November 1989. 

30 Ibid

31 Minister for Health, 2nd Stage speech, Child Care Bill 1988; Dáil Reports 14 June 1988

32 Statutory Instrument 397/1996   

33 Statutory Instrument 349/1992  

34 [1997] IEHE 26 107   

35 Statutory Instrument 117/1971.

36 Health (Eastern Regional Health Authority) Act 1999; Statutory Instrument 68/2000.

37 Health Act 2004; the relevant parts came into effect on 1 January 2005.

38 The HSE provided the Commission with a very helpful Report on the Context of Development and Operation of Social Work Services in Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow. This description is based on that report and on evidence given to the Commission by a number of social workers.  

39 This mainly dealt with psychiatric hospitals.

40 Community care covered a range of services including child developmental health services, immunisation, school health services, the Public Health Nursing service, Home Helps, community services for older people and people with disabilities as well as social work services.

41 This did not happen in other health board areas.

42 One of the managers told the Commission that, in practice, they spent more time on urgent matters relating to individual cases.  

43 This did not happen in other health board areas; child abuse continued to be the responsibility of the programme manager, community care in the other seven health boards.

44 This happened throughout the country.

45 The Commission understands that the Southern Health Board adopted a different practice; childcare managers there did manage social workers.   

46 Goode, McGee, O‟Boyle: Time To Listen: Confronting Child Sexual Abuse by Catholic Clergy in Ireland (Dublin: The Liffey Press, 2003) 120  

47 Goode, McGee, O‟Boyle: Time To Listen: Confronting Child Sexual Abuse by Catholic Clergy in Ireland (Dublin: The Liffey Press, 2003).  

48 The Irish Bishops‟ Conference, The Conference of Religious of Ireland, The Irish Missionary Union: Our Children, Our Church: Child Protection Policies and Procedures for the Catholic Church in Ireland; (Dublin: Veritas Publications, 2005)  

49 * Names marked with an asterisk are pseudonyms.  

50 Providing preparatory or introductory teaching.

51 Apostolic Exhortation on the Formation of Priests in the Circumstances of the Present Day promulgated in March 1992 by Pope John Paul II.

Go to Next Page