Site Map

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

Chapter 21 Fr Horatio*75

Introduction   

21.1 Fr Horatio was born in the 1940s and ordained in the 1960s. He served in a number of parishes and eventually became a parish priest. He is now retired from ministry.

First complaint, 1980  

21.2 In 1980 the parents of a 15-year-old boy complained to the Archdiocese that Fr Horatio had abused their son after he had met him in a gay club. Monsignor Glennon and Bishop Forristal met the boy and his parents and subsequently met the priest. Fr Horatio said he had thought the boy was over 18 and that the boy had touched him first. Fr Horatio told them that, two years earlier, he had volunteered to be part of the apostolate of the Church to homosexuals. He had consulted Bishop Kavanagh who had consented. It was through this ministry that he had met the boy. Monsignor Glennon concluded that Fr Horatio spoke “convincingly and with restraint”. He “confessed that he had been foolish on several occasions”. In his covering letter to the Archbishop, Monsignor Glennon said that this “young man” (meaning Fr Horatio) had got a “fright” and that he and Bishop Forristal thought the priest “candid and clear”.  

21.3 At the time of this complaint, Fr Horatio was involved in marriage counselling and in teaching adults. It is clear that Archbishop Ryan consulted the two priests who were Fr Horatio‟s superiors in these activities and he also consulted Bishop O‟Mahony. The marriage counselling superior suggested that Fr Horatio be allowed to continue his marriage counselling work as this would “save him embarrassment and loss of face with counsellor and priest colleagues” as “a sudden change to a curacy in the more immediate future would, I think, raise unhelpful questions and be an occasion for unwelcome comment”. He should also be moved from his present “too easy” chaplaincy which would ensure that he would be “usefully occupied” at weekends and put him in touch with the “mainstream”. On the occasion of his appointment as parish chaplain, the Archbishop should explain to him “how delicate and how very dangerous is the work of counselling homosexuals”. He should be told that a number of priests and laypeople now regarded him as someone “closely associated with the „Gay Rights‟ people. To what extent he is involved, I cannot say, but one must ask the question, „What effect does all this have on his credibility as a marriage counsellor?‟”.  

21.4 Apparently, Fr Horatio had come away from the meeting with Monsignor Glennon and Bishop Forristal with the “impression that what he was doing was all right and he could continue to help „GR‟ as he had been doing. It seems to me that there is need for clarification of his role in respect of „GR‟.”  

21.5 Neither his superior in his teaching position nor Bishop O‟Mahony saw any reason why he should be moved from his teaching position at that stage. He was moved to another chaplaincy.  

1989  

21.6 In 1989, Fr Horatio approached Bishop Murray and told him that he was attracted to a young girl in a family to which he was close. He said there was no physical relationship but he had emotional difficulties. It was decided to move him to another parish. It subsequently became apparent that there was more to this attachment than had been told to Bishop Murray.  

Report to Gardaí, 1995

21.7 In 1995, as a result of the Archdiocesan review of all relevant files, it was decided that the 1980 complaint should be reported to the Gardaí and that Fr Horatio should have a fitness for ministry review. Fr Horatio was named in the first list of priests given to the Gardaí by the Archdiocese in November 1995. The boy was contacted by the Gardaí but he did not wish to make a complaint. A file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for instructions in February 1996. Monsignor Stenson queried with the Gardaí why a file had been sent to the DPP even though there had been no formal complaint. He noted in March 1996 that he had been informed that the Garda procedure in such cases was to complete the file and send it to the DPP, even though no action could be taken, unless the person withdrew the complaint and said there was no substance to it. If the complaint was not withdrawn, it was interpreted as having been lodged but that the party involved did not wish to pursue it at that moment.  

21.8 In March 1996 the DPP stated that directions could not be given regarding prosecution as the question had never been a live issue. They could only “note that there was no evidence against the suspect at present”.  

Anonymous complaint, 1996  

21.9 In January 1996, Archbishop Connell received an anonymous letter alleging that Fr Horatio had had a sexual relationship with the writer when he was 19 years old and that Fr Horatio had also had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old and that he was continuing to have homosexual relationships. Bishop O‟Mahony dealt with the matter. Fr Horatio told Bishop O‟Mahony that he thought this complaint related to the 1980 incident. It is clear to the Commission, from other documentation, that he was correct in his assessment. The complaint did refer to the 1980 incident. Bishop O‟Mahony arranged for an assessment at the Granada Institute.  

21.10 Fr Horatio told Granada that he had had a sexual relationship with a married man. He admitted touching and hugging the 15-year-old who had complained in 1980, whom he had presumed was over 18. In June 1996, Granada concluded that Fr Horatio was predominantly heterosexual but with some capacity to respond emotionally and sexually to adult males. He did not have a high sexual drive and there was no evidence of attraction to children or adolescents. He showed no signs of a “compulsive tendency to act out sexually” and was unlikely to become involved in “homosexual encounters” in the future. From a clinical point of view, there were no substantive reasons to restrict his ministry, other than to the gay community.  

21.11 In July 1996, Dr Patrick Walsh of Granada attended a meeting of the advisory panel to discuss this case. At the start, the chairman of the advisory panel asked Dr Walsh if it were possible to make an informed judgment after three meetings. Dr Walsh replied that he judged Fr Horatio to be very open and honest: “Usually and obviously dealing in this area we get denial and minimalisation but one gets a sense over the course of interviews”. He pointed out that it was critical to have as much information as possible about any complaints or concerns.  

21.12 In terms of treatment and assessment, Dr Walsh said:

“From the beginning of the assessment one is involved in treatment. There is an invitation to individuals to take responsibility for past actions and that is how we try to connect with them. We are surprised by the level of co-operation of clerical abusers. Quite a number of people have been compliant with the process and that is a start. We also take for granted that there is a lot more. It takes time for full openness to develop - but that is down the road in the process”.  

21.13 In relation to Fr Horatio, Dr Walsh told the advisory panel that he had not included in his report the priest‟s admission of a relationship with a woman whom he had wanted to marry. It is clear that the members of the panel had no idea of the woman‟s age at the time the relationship began and assumed that she was in the priest‟s age group. It subsequently became clear that this was not the case. Dr Walsh told the Commission that the priest did not tell him the truth about this relationship. Dr Walsh understood that she was an adult, that the relationship had ended and had been divulged to and dealt with by his bishop.  

21.14 In response to a question from a panel member that, if Fr Horatio was predominantly heterosexual, why his ministry should be confined in relation to homosexuals, Dr Walsh replied that it was “precautionary and to prevent people drawing conclusions”.  

21.15 Dr Walsh recommended that Fr Horatio stay in treatment for 12 months and meet Monsignor Dolan every four months. The panel supported Dr Walsh‟s recommendations and they were accepted by Archbishop Connell. Monsignor Dolan met Fr Horatio and reassured him that he was not considered to be in the child sexual abuse category: “if he was, he might not still be in ministry and there would be a greater level of supervision on him”.  

21.16 In subsequent reports in December 1996 and in April 1997, Dr Walsh said that Fr Horatio was no longer in need of individual therapy. He reported that Fr Horatio remained very aware that he needed to avoid involvement with gay men. However, he had not experienced any need or desire to establish such an involvement or to act out sexually in any way. Dr Walsh concluded that he was stable and conscientious and could continue in his work as a priest without restrictions.  

21.17 In August 1997, Fr Horatio became a parish priest. In September 1997 the advisory panel recommended to the Archbishop that the case should be concluded.  

Adult complainant  

21.18 In November 1997, the previously anonymous complainant, who had contacted Archbishop Connell in January 1996, made a signed complaint that Fr Horatio had sexually assaulted him on several occasions when he was 19 years old. As this is not a complaint of child sexual abuse, the Commission did not examine its handling in detail. However, it was connected to the child sexual abuse complaint which had been made in 1980. Many attempts were made by the Archdiocese to meet the complainant to discuss his allegations but he was reluctant to meet. In 1999, the Archbishop requested the convening of an emergency meeting of the advisory panel to discuss the case. In advance of this, Dr Walsh‟s views were sought and he wrote that there was insufficient reason to remove Fr Horatio from ministry on the basis of the second complainant‟s communications as it appeared that Fr Horatio had resolved the issues that had affected him previously. He did say that it would be useful for the priest to have a review assessment, “to document his current level of functioning and level of risk for acting inappropriately”, but this never occurred. In June 1999, the advisory panel concluded there was no reason to change its conclusions reached in 1996 and 1997 that there was no “substantive risk to minors” if Fr Horatio continued in ministry. However, “with hindsight”, it was “possible that the panel might have had reservations” about appointing Fr Horatio as a parish priest.  

21.19 The panel recommended that Fr Horatio should meet Dr Walsh again with a view to assessing the need for ongoing therapy and that the delegate should explore with him the possibility of voluntary early retirement “both to reduce the risk of scandal and also for his own sake”.  

21.20 Meanwhile, Fr Horatio had told his curate about this complaint. The curate was angry about the situation because he had already been in a parish with an abuser. The curate was not told of the 1980 complaint. In a letter to Monsignor Dolan, the curate said that while he was aware it was not looked upon as a case of child sexual abuse, “even though this may be debated in other circles”, it was inappropriate to appoint him to the same parish as Fr Horatio, given his (the curate‟s) “circumstances in previous appointments”. Monsignor Dolan, of course, was not involved in or consulted about Fr Horatio‟s appointment as a parish priest.  

21.21 Monsignor Dolan had agreed with Fr Horatio that he should meet Dr Walsh annually but this did not happen. The advisory panel‟s suggestion in relation to Fr Horatio, namely that the delegate discuss the possibility of early retirement with him was not pursued. In 2005, in the course of investigating this case, Fr Aquinas Duffy spoke to Bishop Field, the area bishop, who said he was not aware that a formal complaint had been made in 1980. He thought that the only issue was in relation to the adult who had complained. Bishop Field suggested at that stage that Fr Horatio meet Dr Walsh again. In January 2005, Dr Walsh confirmed that he had not seen Fr Horatio since 1999. He stated that the advice he had offered in his 1997 report that Fr Horatio did not require therapy continued to be appropriate. The advisory panel was told this in January 2005 and it agreed that the file on Fr Horatio was closed: “The only issue of concern is always the threat of public scandal”.  

Further complaint, 2005

21.22 In September 2005, Archbishop Martin received a letter from a woman‟s solicitor seeking compensation for “repeated and wanton acts of sexual abuse perpetrated on her as a young girl” by Fr Horatio between 1987 and 1990 when she was aged 16 to 19 years. The alleged abuse was stated to have taken place in a number of locations, including holiday homes which were available to Fr Horatio. The key to one such holiday home was given to him by Fr Sean Fortune, a notorious child sexual abuser from the diocese of Ferns. Fr Horatio said that the only link between him and Fr Fortune was that they both lived in the same area at the time.  

21.23 This woman said that Fr Horatio began to talk of marriage in 1989. Fr Horatio told the Archdiocese that he went to see Bishop Donal Murray in 1989, told him the “whole story” and asked to be released from the priesthood and laicised. He said that Bishop Murray responded that he should take some time to consider it and that he would be moved to another parish. Fr Horatio began to make provision for earning a living. He moved parishes as already described. The relationship continued for some months. He said that the woman ended the relationship in 1990.  

21.24 Bishop Murray‟s evidence to the Commission is that he was not told the whole story (in 1989) about Fr Horatio‟s relationship with the woman. The bishop was not aware that there was a sexual relationship nor was he aware of her age when the relationship began.  

21.25 Archbishop Martin asked Fr Horatio to step down from ministry. The Archdiocese made extensive inquiries. It transpired that a number of priests were aware of the relationship between Fr Horatio and the girl at the time and it was thought that he had intended to leave the priesthood and marry her. There did not seem to be a great awareness of her age at the time.  

21.26 In the course of the inquiries, Fr Horatio admitted for the first time that he had abused a boy of about 15 in 1983/4. He had never told anyone about the incident. He said that he did not tell Dr Walsh about that boy during his assessment in the mid-1990s because he felt he was in enough trouble. He had told Dr Walsh about the woman but did not discuss it fully.  

21.27 The Archdiocese reported to the HSE and the Gardaí in accordance with the procedures. The woman complainant was offered counselling.  

21.28 A draft statement to be read out at Sunday masses in Fr Horatio‟s parish was read to him. He was unhappy about the use of the phrase “child sexual abuse” as people would think he had abused a small child. The statement was re-worded to say that he was temporarily standing aside as parish priest because of an inquiry into an allegation of the “sexual abuse of a minor”. When the statement was being read out, an explanation was given that a minor is a person under the age of 18 and not necessarily a young child. Some weeks later, Bishop Field reported that there was some anger in the parish about the statement and that a nun had told him it should have been made clearer that it was not a case of paedophilia.  

21.29 Fr Horatio was again sent for assessment to the Granada Institute. In October 2005, the advisory panel recommended that a canonical precept be imposed on him and said it did not see “any prospect of a return to ministry” by him. It recommended that he continue therapy on an active basis and that appropriate monitoring be provided. In November 2005, Archbishop Martin accepted his resignation as parish priest and he was nominated as a beneficiary of the Clerical Fund Society. A precept decreed that he was not to celebrate mass in public and that only those who knew the reason for the decree could attend any private mass; he was to have no unsupervised contact with minors, including all informal contact such as being alone with them in their homes or any other setting; he was not to wear clerical garb and he was to continue to consult on an ongoing basis with the Granada Institute.  

21.30 The Archdiocese gave all the information which it had concerning Fr Horatio to the Gardaí.  

The Commission’s assessment  

21.31 Nothing happened as a result of the initial complaint even though Fr Horatio accepted that the incident had occurred, even if he said he thought the complainant was an adult. This follows the usual pattern of such complaints in the 1970s and 1980s. There is one unusual aspect to the handling of this complaint: Archbishop Ryan did tell a number of other people and sought their views on what to do. The apostolate to the gay community seems to have been an informal arrangement. The Commission considers that it is quite appropriate to have such an apostolate but that it should have been more formal and the priests delivering it should have been more carefully chosen and monitored.  

21.32 It is clear that quite a few people knew about the relationship between Fr Horatio and the girl while it was going on. The Commission accepts that they may not have known her age but it is astonished that, in this and many other cases, the Church authorities seem to have turned a blind eye to behaviour by priests which is clearly in breach of its laws, both moral and canonical.  

21.33 The Archdiocese dealt appropriately with the woman‟s complaint in 2005 and followed the agreed procedures. However, the Commission is concerned that the wording of the statement to the parish did try to minimise the seriousness of the allegation. The allegation was of child sexual abuse – the girl was 16 when the sexual activity began. Furthermore, Fr Horatio had also admitted to abusing two 15-year-old boys.

Chapter 22 Fr Donal Gallagher

Introduction  

22.1 Fr Donal Gallagher was a member of the religious order of the Vincentians. He was born in 1936, ordained in 1962 and died in 1994. He served in a parish in the Archdiocese of Dublin, St Peter‟s Phibsborough, from 1975 to 1979. This parish is run by the Vincentians by agreement with the Archdiocese. He was a teacher and chaplain at a secondary school in the Archdiocese from 1980 to 1983 and he served in the parish again from 1983 to 1994.  

22.2 There are 14 complaints of child sexual abuse against Fr Gallagher known to the Commission. It is likely, on the basis of evidence reviewed by the Commission, that he abused many more children.  

22.3 Fr Gallagher was an alcoholic. A letter written by the provincial of his order in 1989 shows that, in 1974, while director of vocations, he was indulging in inappropriate behaviour with seminarians and altar boys. The provincial said that he was shocked at the way Fr Gallagher used his hands on them. There is no evidence that any action was taken by the order at the time this was going on or, indeed, on foot of this letter.  

First complaints  

22.4 The first external complaint of child sexual abuse against Fr Gallagher was made in 1981. Two young boys complained to the order that they had been sexually assaulted while they were attending an international camp for young people in north Dublin. This camp was run by a friend of Fr Gallagher‟s and was not connected with the Vincentians. The order told the Commission that there are no written records of what happened but “it is likely that these complaints were instrumental in his move” from teaching to the parish of St Peter‟s in 1983. Fr Gallagher was not attached to the Archdiocese at the time these complaints were made. There is no evidence that the order told the Archdiocese about these complaints when he returned to parish work. In effect, nothing at all seems to have been done about the complaints other than to move him on.

22.5 Around this time, during the course of a retreat in the school to which Fr Gallagher was attached, a member of the order asked the class in question for their opinion of Fr Gallagher. The boys said they did not have much time for the priest. One of the boys said “If Gallagher was in a room you made sure to keep your back to the wall”.  

22.6 Despite this, Fr Gallagher was allowed to remain as a priest teacher in that school until he was transferred in the summer of 1983 to the parish of St Peter‟s. Extraordinarily, in the circumstances, in September 1983 he was appointed chaplain to St Mary‟s School for the Deaf.  

St Mary’s School for the Deaf  

22.7 Fr Gallagher started abusing girls as soon as he was appointed to St Mary‟s. A report was compiled in April 1985 by another member of the Vincentians who was also a chaplain at the school. This report shows that a complaint was made within a month of Fr Gallagher‟s arrival at the school. In October 1983, in confession, Fr Gallagher embraced a 15 year old girl and started plucking at her bra strap. This came to the attention of the other chaplain who reported it to the principal. She spoke to Fr Gallagher and told him that the pupil was upset by his behaviour. At the same time, some of the senior girls complained to the other chaplain that Fr Gallagher was kissing them in confession. The other chaplain assumed that the warning from the school principal would suffice and took no further action. One complainant told the Commission that Fr Gallagher would abuse her in confession by putting his hand down her trousers. She was nine years old at the time. He would have an altar bowl and a napkin at one side. When he had finished abusing her he would wash his hands in the altar bowl and dry them with the napkin.  

22.8 In December 1984, there was “general fuss and skittishness” when one of the classes in St Mary‟s were going to confession. The principal investigated the cause of this fuss and was told by the girls that Fr Gallagher kissed each of them after confession. What the girls did not tell her at that time was that during confession he used to run his hands all over their bodies inside their clothing and then kissed them all on the lips at the end of confession. The principal again spoke about the matter to Fr Gallagher who said that, if the behaviour offended the girls, he would stop. The principal, incredibly, felt that perhaps Fr Gallagher‟s approach reflected the newer approach to the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) and took the matter no further. The principal told the Commission that, when she read the draft of this section of the report, she wondered how she “could have been so blind. Abuse would not have entered my mind; I could not imagine a priest doing anything like that.”  

22.9 In February 1985, a number of parents complained to the principal about Fr Gallagher‟s behaviour. They urgently requested that he be removed from his chaplaincy. The principal told the Commission that, initially, she had difficulty in believing them. She approached the other chaplain about the problem and he talked to the provincial of the order. An investigation was carried out by another Vincentian, Fr Cleary. He told the parents that Fr Gallagher would be removed from the school and sent to a home in the country. He was not sent to a home in the country. The school principal was not informed about this investigation. In May 1985, Fr Gallagher attended a school play staged by the pupils of St Mary‟s at a venue outside the school. Subsequently, complaints were made by a number of other parents and, in May 1985, a parent complained that her daughter had been sexually abused in the kitchen by Fr Gallagher. The school principal was not aware of this complaint and considers that the incident could not have occurred in the school kitchen. Fr Cleary spoke to the parents who had made new complaints and compiled a report on all the complaints that had emerged.  

22.10 Following Fr Cleary‟s report, it appears that Fr Gallagher may have been sent for some sort of therapy but the Commission has been unable to establish whether this therapy took place, and if it did, the nature of the therapy. In any event, he continued to minister in St Peter‟s and this meant the children in that school had some exposure to him (as, indeed did children of other local schools).  

22.11 One complainant‟s mother, in her evidence to the Commission, stated that, when her daughter made her confirmation a year or two later, Fr Gallagher was one of the priests on the altar and that this upset her greatly. The school principal has told the Commission that the confirmation took place in St Peter‟s, and that Fr Gallagher was the master of ceremonies for the confirmation. This mother also told the Commission that she wrote to Archbishop McNamara in 1985 to complain about Fr Gallagher but there is no record of any such correspondence in either the Archdiocesan or the Vincentian files.  

22.12 In spite of the overwhelming evidence, and the knowledge of his Vincentian superiors, that Fr Gallagher was an abuser, he was allowed to continue as a curate in St Peter‟s for the next four years.  

Stroud, 1989  

22.13 In February 1989, Fr Gallagher was admitted to Stroud. The reasons for his admission are not clear but the emphasis in the correspondence from Stroud is on his alcoholism. A letter written by a parishioner in May 1989 makes it clear that his drinking had become uncontrollable. He would wander the streets at night looking for houses prepared to take him in and offer him drink. He was constantly at the bar of a local football club and quite often had to be taken back to the presbytery by the club members.  

22.14 Stroud asked a number of Fr Gallagher‟s friends to write to him telling him how his behaviour affected them. One letter written by Fr Mark Noonan, who had been appointed provincial of the Vincentians in 1986, detailed a history of abuse going back almost 15 years. In that letter Fr Noonan referred to:

Fr Gallagher using his hands on seminarians and altar boys in a “shocking” manner when he was Director of Vocations;

his consistent drunkenness;  

the view held by the school boys about him;  

the abuse of the girls in the School for the Deaf.  

22.15 He remained in Stroud for almost six months. The correspondence from Stroud made it clear that his problem was not under control. The underlying tone was that alcohol was the primary problem. Nevertheless he was returned to full duties. There is no record that any attempt was made to monitor or control him, but his fellow priests in St Peter‟s were aware of his history. The Archdiocese of Dublin had still not been informed.  

22.16 He returned to Stroud in September 1989. The staff in Stroud at that time were quite alarmed at his attitude and they suggested a further visit.  

22.17 During a further visit in November the staff at Stroud stated: “It is quite essential that he bring his anxieties about his perceived sexual orientation out in the open and on the table”.  

22.18 A behavioural contract was drawn up with him in December 1989. The first four clauses dealt with his alcoholism. In the next three he undertook to avoid all contact with altar boys, to avoid being alone with children and never to touch a child.

22.19 Fr Gallagher returned to St Peter‟s as curate and was allowed to remain there unsupervised for the next four years. His order has confirmed to the Commission that, in all that time, they did nothing to see if he was keeping to the terms of the behavioural contract.

Garda investigation, 1993

22.20 Early in 1993 a social worker was taking a group therapy session for deaf girls in a training centre. Three of the girls who had been pupils in St Mary‟s told her of the abuse. She contacted the Gardaí who initiated an investigation. Statements were taken from the three complainants. No parents were interviewed, and no inquiries were made either at the school or with the Vincentians. The Gardaí interviewed Fr Gallagher who denied the accusation completely. The sergeant who conducted the investigation stated in his report: “Fr Gallagher is a professional man and strikes me as a sincere and genuine individual. I can see no useful purpose to be gained by the prosecution of Fr. Gallagher at this late stage”. It was the view of the sergeant that, due to the passage of time and the fact that the abuse had been disclosed in a group therapy session, the chances of a successful prosecution were slim. Whatever the chances, they were certainly not helped by the decision not to seek any corroborating evidence.  

22.21 A file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who, on the basis of the paucity of the information, the lack of corroboration and the fact that the girls did not have completely accurate recall of events, decided not to prosecute. The DPP went on to say: “I make this decision on the evidence on file, and on the assumption that this is the only available evidence”. The DPP also said that the Superintendent had asked for directions as to how the Gardaí should proceed with the investigation. The DPP said that he would not presume to direct the superintendent in this matter: “… if the Gardaí consider that further investigation is warranted, such investigations should be carried out”.  

22.22 There is no doubt that further investigation was warranted. Corroboration and detail could have been provided by the parents and the school authorities if such had been sought by the Gardaí.  

22.23 The direction of the DPP was sent to the Gardaí in June 1993. Around this time, there were newspaper reports about Fr Gallagher and the way in which the parents who complained had been treated. Fr Gallagher was not named. The head of the order told Archbishop Connell that Fr Gallagher was the person being referred to. This seems to be the first time the order contacted the Archdiocese about Fr Gallagher. In June 1993, a mother contacted the Archdiocese and told them that her daughter was the complainant mentioned in the newspaper reports. She met Monsignor Stenson and the Archbishop. She told the Commission that neither the order nor the Archdiocese had offered her daughter any form of counselling or therapy.  

22.24 Later in June 1993, Fr Noonan asked Fr Gallagher to abstain from all public exercise of his ministry until the DPP had reached a decision. In fact, the DPP had given his direction at this time but clearly Fr Noonan was not aware of this.  

1994  

22.25 There is no evidence that the order to abstain from public ministry was rescinded but it clearly was not being implemented. In May 1994, it was alleged that Fr Gallagher was drunk while officiating at a baptism ceremony and that, at a reception afterwards, he slapped one of the young men attending on the backside and made advances towards two more young men and a young girl. He was then suspended from all duties. Shortly afterwards he was readmitted to Stroud where he died in June 1994.

22.26 The Gardaí revisited the file in 2003. This time, they got a statement from the school authorities which confirmed that the complaints had been made in 1984. Of course, it was now too late to do anything about this.  

The Commission’s assessment Church authorities  

22.27 Fr Gallagher‟s victims were sadly failed by the Vincentians. Despite the fact that there were suspicions about his behaviour as far back as 1974 he continued abusing both boys and girls over the next 20 years and, apart from the period he spent in Stroud, no real efforts were made to curb his behaviour. It appears that his alcoholism was presented as an excuse and accepted.  

22.28 It is astonishing that Fr Gallagher was appointed as a school chaplain in 1983 given what was then known about him.  

22.29 It seems from the files that the Archdiocese was not aware of Fr Gallagher‟s activities before 1993. The letter which the mother wrote in 1985 is not in the files. The Commission finds it surprising that the Archdiocese did not hear something, even on the grapevine, of Fr Gallagher‟s problems given that he was attached to a parish. The Commission is astounded that these problems were not brought to the Archdiocese‟s attention by the Vincentians. The Vincentians communicated with the Archdiocese only when the newspaper reports appeared in 1993.  

22.30 In spite of the knowledge available to both the Archdiocese and the Vincentians, Fr Gallagher seems to have been left in place for a further year.  

Gardaí  

22.31 The investigating garda sergeant accepts that there were shortcomings in the investigation but submits that these arose due to the nature of the offence and the manner of its reporting. The social worker who brought the incidents of abuse in St Mary‟s to the attention of the Gardaí acted promptly and appropriately.

Chapter 23 Fr Hugo*76

Introduction

23.1 Fr Hugo was born in 1909 and ordained in 1935. He died in 1988. He had various appointments throughout the Archdiocese of Dublin, ending up as parish priest in Blessington, following a period as a curate in Drimnagh.  

Complaint, 1981

23.2 There is one complaint of abuse against Fr Hugo. This complaint was initially made to the Archdiocese in 1981 but was not actually investigated until 1995. The complaint relates to Fr Hugo‟s time in Drimnagh. He is alleged to have abused a child from 1959, when the child was about 11 years old, until 1976 when she was in her mid-twenties.  

23.3 In 1978 the complainant told her sister about the abuse. She said that Fr Hugo had been sexually abusing her continuously between 1959 and 1976 and the abuse included full sexual intercourse from the time she was a child. At first she did not know what was happening to her. Fr Hugo sent her to a nun to explain the facts of life. He also told her what to say in confession.  

23.4 Fr Hugo lived alone in Drimnagh. He was very involved with the complainant‟s family and was a regular visitor to their house. He was very popular and used to holiday with the family.  

23.5 In 1981, the complainant‟s sister informed Bishop Forristal who was then an auxiliary bishop of Dublin. A meeting with the bishop was arranged and she was accompanied to that meeting by another priest. At this meeting, the sister gave details of the abuse to Bishop Forristal. There was no follow-up of the complaint which she had made.  

23.6 In evidence, Bishop Forristal agreed that he did meet the sister in 1981. Bishop Forristal said he had passed on the complaint either directly to Archbishop Ryan or to one of his secretaries, but there are no details in the Archdiocesan files of that complaint.  

23.7 In February 1995, the sister wrote to Bishop Forristal referring to the 1981 meeting and asking why there had been no follow-up. She was aware that Bishop Forristal had been the chair of a committee which was responsible for drafting the Framework Document. She was anxious to know why they had been let down and why nothing was done about their complaint.  

23.8 Bishop Forristal replied indicating that he remembered her visit to him in spring or early summer of 1981 and he remembered the priest who had accompanied her. He was certain that he had informed Archbishop Ryan or his secretaries of the complaint. He said that “as Auxiliary Bishop, I would have regarded the Archbishop as the only person in the diocese who was competent to deal with the priest and to pursue the case”. He told her that he had been unable to follow-up the matter as he had been appointed Bishop of Ossory in July 1981 and his jurisdiction in Dublin had ceased. He advised her to contact Archbishop Connell as he could no longer deal with cases outside his diocese.  

23.9 In March 1995, both the sister and Bishop Forristal contacted Archbishop Connell to inform him of the complaints. Archbishop Connell asked Monsignor Stenson to investigate. Bishop Forristal confirmed the fact that he had had the meeting in 1981 and he also said to Monsignor Stenson that he had been told that Bishop O‟Mahony was looking after it.  

23.10 At this stage, the priest who had accompanied the complainant had moved abroad but Monsignor Stenson made contact with him and he confirmed the meeting, and confirmed that Bishop O‟Mahony knew about the complaint. Monsignor Stenson met the sister. She gave him the details of the complaint and she mentioned that her sister had named others whom she suspected had been abused by this priest. Monsignor Stenson checked with Archbishop Ryan‟s secretary but he had no recollection of the 1981 complaint. The investigation did not go any further. In particular, Bishop O‟Mahony does not seem to have been asked about his involvement. Fr Hugo was dead at this stage.  

23.11 Monsignor Stenson and Monsignor Dolan were in touch with the sister on a number of occasions and offered counselling and an apology. The sister was never asked to suggest that the alleged victim make a formal complaint herself and no questions were asked about the others who may have been abused. In response to this criticism, Monsignor Dolan said that, during the course of his work as a delegate, he had gained considerable awareness of the complex and sensitive issues relating to outreach to other possible victims. In particular, he observed that victims have a guilt when they discover that others have been abused. His experience was that, as the abuse involved an uninvited violation of a person, victims were sensitive to unexpected and uninvited approaches from the Church. The Commission could find very little evidence to support this contention by Monsignor Dolan.  

23.12 The sister asked for and got a meeting with Bishop Forristal.  

The Commission’s assessment  

23.13 No attempts were made to deal with the original complaint made in 1981 even though it was made to an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese. Fr Hugo was then occupying a prestigious position as a parish priest and there is no record of him having been spoken to in relation to these matters. He remained in his position as parish priest for a further three years.  

23.14 Efforts were certainly made to deal with the matter when her sister re-activated the complaint in 1995. However, at that stage, Fr Hugo was dead. Counselling was offered to both the complainant and her sister. There was no follow up in respect of the others whom the complainant believed to have been abused. The sister was satisfied with the response she received in 1995/1996. She was satisfied that her assertion that the original complaint was not properly investigated was found to be valid. She felt that, had the matter been more thoroughly investigated in the 1980s, some closure might have been brought earlier to a very painful episode in her and her sister‟s life.  

23.15 There is no record in the garda files of notification of the complaint to them by the victim or the Church authorities.

Chapter 24 Fr Ivan Payne

Introduction  

24.1 Ivan Payne was born in 1942 and ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1967. He was chaplain to Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin77 for a number of years. The Archbishop of Dublin was then, and continues to be, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the hospital. Appointments in the Archdiocese of Dublin are generally clear and well recorded. Priests are notified in writing of new appointments. However, Fr Payne‟s status in relation to Crumlin hospital is not clear for all of the years during which he was associated with it. He was appointed as chaplain to the hospital in February 1968. In October 1970 he started studies in University College Dublin and was appointed as assistant priest in Mourne Road parish. Crumlin hospital is located within the boundaries of that parish. It is not clear if he was meant to continue in his role as chaplain to the hospital but he clearly had access as such until 1974. Hospital records show that he did most of the baptisms there in 1970/71 and continued to do baptisms until 1974. Fr Payne explained to Monsignor Stenson in 1995 that, as there was no residential accommodation for a chaplain in the hospital, he lived with his parents in Drimnagh until appointed to Mourne Road and continued nominally as chaplain while in Mourne Road but the job was shared between the Mourne Road priests. He was appointed curate in Mourne Road in August 1972 and continued his involvement with the hospital. He left there in August 1974 and studied abroad for two years.  

24.2 Fr Payne was appointed to the Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal in 1976 and he remained there until 1995. During this time he was also assigned to parishes and he lived in the parish accommodation. He was appointed as parish chaplain in Cabra in 1976 and subsequently in Sutton in 1983. He was regarded in the Archdiocese as being intellectually capable and was generally held in high regard. Consequently, his case was particularly shocking for the people who worked in Archbishop‟s House.

Extent of abuse  

24.3 Ivan Payne is a convicted serial child sexual abuser. The Commission is aware of a total of 31 people who have made allegations of child sexual abuse against him; 16 of these people allege they were abused during his time as chaplain in Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin and the vast majority are male. There are concerns or suspicions that a number of other children were abused by him. He was convicted of indecent assault in respect of ten victims and he served a prison sentence. Compensation has been paid by the Archdiocese to nine78 of the victims in respect of whom he was convicted and to three other victims. It is likely that some other victims made claims to the Residential Institutions Redress Board79. The Archdiocese first heard a complaint about Fr Payne in 1981. The rest of the victims came forward in the period from 1995 onwards – the majority in the years 1995 and 1996; of these, seven were abused after the first complaint had been made to the Archdiocese.  

First complaint to the Archdiocese  

24.4 The first complaint to the Archdiocese about Fr Payne was made in November 1981. The complaint concerned the abuse of Andrew Madden.80 It was made by Andrew Madden‟s school guidance counsellor to Monsignor Alex Stenson who had been appointed chancellor of the Archdiocese a month earlier. Monsignor Stenson compiled a comprehensive contemporaneous written account of the allegations being made. The abuse took place in the house in which Fr Payne lived while attached to Cabra parish. Fr Payne was also working in the Regional Marriage Tribunal at the time. The abuse started when Andrew Madden was about 12 years old (about 1976) and continued until 1981. Andrew Madden visited Fr Payne‟s house every Saturday. The abuse involved fondling and masturbation. Fr Payne described the abuse (in 1993) as “going as far as was necessary to get satisfied without unnecessary violation”. Andrew Madden also mentioned that there was another boy who seemed to have a relationship with Fr Payne and who was particularly vulnerable because of his home situation.  

24.5 Monsignor Stenson was a part time chancellor. This was his first case of this kind. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he went to Monsignor Gerard Sheehy for advice because Monsignor Sheehy was a former Chancellor and he was the head of the Marriage Tribunal where both Fr Payne and Monsignor Stenson worked at the time. Monsignor Sheehy advised him to make detailed notes and to tell Archbishop Ryan. Monsignor Stenson then told Archbishop Ryan who instructed him to ask Bishop O‟Mahony to deal with it.

Role of Bishop O’Mahony  

24.6 Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that, when he was appointed as an auxiliary bishop (in April 1975), Archbishop Ryan gave him responsibility for the pastoral care of priests, particularly younger priests. This was not a written or formal appointment but it became known over a period of time by the priests of the Archdiocese. He says that this appointment was the “source of my responsibility for the pastoral care of Fr Ivan Payne at a very difficult time in his life”.  

24.7 Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he was contacted by the newly appointed Chancellor, Monsignor Stenson, sometime in November 1981 to say that there was a complaint against Fr Payne. Monsignor Stenson told him that he (Monsignor Stenson) was not the right person to deal with it as he and Fr Payne had been classmates and were currently working together in the Marriage Tribunal. Monsignor Stenson gave Bishop O‟Mahony some background information. Bishop O‟Mahony says that he believed that Archbishop Ryan was aware of and approved of Monsignor Stenson giving him responsibility for the case. However, Bishop O‟Mahony “never received any instructions or brief to act on behalf of Archbishop Ryan other than to deal with Fr Payne”. Bishop O‟Mahony described his role as that of a “priest helper”, that is, he was required to “express the pastoral care of the diocese rather than to be involved in the process of the case either civilly or canonically”.

24.8 This absence of clear lines of authority is one of many reasons why this case was badly handled at the time. Bishop O‟Mahony saw himself as having a pastoral role only. It is not at all clear that this is what Archbishop Ryan meant him to do because Archbishop Ryan did not talk to him about it and did not issue written instructions. The records suggest that Archbishop Ryan did not take an active role in dealing with the complaint but left it largely in the hands of Bishop O‟Mahony.  

24.9 Bishop O‟Mahony met the school guidance counsellor who had made the complaint. He then spoke to Archbishop Ryan who indicated that he was considering removing Fr Payne from the Marriage Tribunal. Bishop O‟Mahony said that he thought it would be appropriate to have an assessment of Fr Payne before that decision was made.  

24.10 Bishop O‟Mahony met Fr Payne in December 1981. Fr Payne admitted guilt. Bishop O‟Mahony was “inclined to accept” that Fr Payne had no other attachments. It is clear that Bishop O‟Mahony knew the extent of the abuse and the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. Fr Payne said in 1993 that he had been assured by Bishop O‟Mahony that prosecution was unlikely.  

24.11 Bishop O‟Mahony went to see Professor Noel Walsh, Professor of Psychiatry in UCD and a consultant psychiatrist, in his rooms in St Vincent‟s Hospital. He told the Commission that he “thoroughly briefed” Professor Walsh about “the nature and circumstances of Andrew Madden‟s allegations against Fr Ivan Payne”. He informed Professor Walsh that the “complainant was male and a minor”.

24.12 Fr Payne was then sent to Professor Walsh for assessment. In his report, Professor Walsh described Fr Payne as having “successfully overcome the crisis in question”. The report identifies this “crisis” as a blurring of the boundaries between pastoral and personal with a 17-year-old boy. The report states:

“His basic psychological difficulties centre around a friendship which developed between himself and a seventeen year old youth in whom Father Payne took an interest, initially in the hope of helping him with his problems. Gradually as the relationship developed it became increasingly difficult to define the pastoral and counselling boundaries and the relationship became more of a special friendship”.  

24.13 Bishop O‟Mahony contends that the report is unclear as to whether the complainant was 17 at the time Professor Walsh saw him or at the time the “friendship” started. The Commission thinks it is quite clear that Professor Walsh thought that the boy was 17 when the “friendship” started.  

24.14 When Bishop O‟Mahony received Professor Walsh‟s report, he informed Archbishop Ryan of its contents, gave his view that the report was positive and recommended that Fr Payne‟s position be kept under review. The report was not sent to Archbishop Ryan nor did he ask to see it. There were no further communications between Archbishop Ryan and Bishop O‟Mahony about Fr Payne. Archbishop Ryan did not consult Bishop O‟Mahony about moving Fr Payne to Sutton. Bishop O‟Mahony did not know that Fr Payne had any involvement with a children‟s holiday home where he had no official appointment. Archbishop Ryan retired as Archbishop in September 1984 in order to take up an appointment in Rome.  

24.15 Bishop O‟Mahony made no contact with Andrew Madden or his family at the time the complaint was made. He described this in 1996 as “a definite pastoral omission and hard to understand as it ran contrary to Diocesan policy even at that time”. Nobody seems to have made any effort to establish who the other boy mentioned by Andrew Madden was.  

Role of Professor Noel Walsh  

24.16 Professor Walsh gave evidence to the Commission in July 2007. He is now retired and he had destroyed the medical notes and records of all his private patients in September 2006 in accordance with legal guidelines on the retention and destruction of medical records.  

24.17 He gave general evidence about his role in dealing with child sexual abuse and then dealt with his involvement with Fr Payne. In general, he made a distinction between clinical psychiatry and forensic psychiatry; he did not regard his role as forensic. He was not there to judge his patient but to see what he could do to help. He “was given no data as far as I can recall by any of the bishops. They didn‟t send me letters from parents who had complained or anything. So I did not have the data which presumably led the bishop or whoever to refer these patients to me”. As far as he can remember, he did not get any written brief. Words like paedophile or child abuser were never used; the priest “might have crossed a boundary” was a likely expression. The priests he saw never admitted sexual activity. They might have said that they had been over affectionate. His task was to determine if they had psychiatric problems (whether they suffered from mental illness or not); he was not there to judge whether or not they had done something wrong.  

24.18 He is adamant that he did not hear the specific allegations against the priests. Bishop O‟Mahony and/or Canon McMahon would say: “we are concerned about this priest, there have been certain complaints against him and we would like you to assess him…[T]he communication to me would have been minimal”… [T]here was no such thing as a specific statement Fr X has been accused of this, that or the other”.  

24.19 Professor Walsh was asked what was the purpose of the psychiatric assessment which he was doing. He said: “It‟s a good question. I mean, you‟d have to really ask the Church or its representatives. I mean, I think at the time there was a sense that perhaps they were mentally disturbed and this is why they were behaving that way. That isn‟t so in fact. The explanation for paedophilia is not a psychiatric one. It may be a factor but only a factor”.  

24.20 Specifically on Fr Payne, Professor Walsh described him as “a very smooth person. I didn‟t believe him, even though he was a very interesting man to talk to and interview”.  

24.21 Bishop O‟Mahony did not “reveal to me the degree of interference with the victims”. Professor Walsh thought that Fr Payne was conducting an inappropriate relationship with a 17 year old. Professor Walsh did not know why Fr Payne was sent to him again in 1991 and 1994. He was not given any extra information on these occasions.  

24.22 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he did not feel well served by the experts, including medical experts. This was put to Professor Walsh by the Commission. Professor Walsh said that the medical or psychiatric element is only one aspect of the problem: “if you say that the psychiatrist is the expert who can give the answer, that is to simplify the nature of paedophilia”. Effectively, he said that the Church put too much faith in psychiatry.  

24.23 Bishop O‟Mahony agreed that psychiatrists were not generally given written briefings. In the case of Fr Payne, he told the Commission that he went to Professor Walsh‟s rooms and briefed him on the “actual nature and circumstances of the case”. He told the Commission that oral briefings were preferable as “I can be much more nuanced”. He imagined that any psychiatrist would have taken notes of what he was being told.  

24.24 It is clear to the Commission that Professor Walsh cannot have been told the precise nature of the complaint against Fr Payne. It is obvious from his report, and he confirmed to the Commission, that he considered that the complainant was 17 years old when some inappropriate relationship was being conducted. (In 1982, all male homosexual relationships were illegal in Ireland but 17 was the age of consent for heterosexual relationships.) The report is clearly based on incorrect information.  

24.25 It seems that Bishop O‟Mahony was the only person who read Professor Walsh‟s 1982 report. It must have been obvious to him that Professor Walsh was making a report based on false information. Such reports are, of course, useless.  

Developments 1982 - 1993  

24.26 In September 1982, Fr Payne was appointed to Sutton parish as parish chaplain. It seems that the other clergy serving there, or subsequently appointed there, were not informed of his background. No supervisory arrangements were put in place. The formal letter of appointment is from Archbishop Ryan with the usual words of thanks for previous service.

24.27 Sometime before September 1984, Monsignor Sheehy asked Archbishop Ryan to appoint Fr Payne as Vice Officialis81. The Archbishop resolutely refused this request. In June 1985, Monsignor Sheehy wrote to Archbishop McNamara, who had succeeded Archbishop Ryan, suggesting that Fr Payne be appointed Vice Officialis. Bishop Eamonn Walsh, who was the Archbishop‟s secretary at the time, gave evidence to the Commission that he did not know if Archbishop McNamara was aware of the complaint against Fr Payne. Fr Payne was appointed as Vice Officialis that month. Monsignor Sheehy said in 1997 that Archbishop McNamara did know of the complaint and further said that Archbishop McNamara had spoken to Bishop O‟Mahony about it.  

24.28 In 1989, Andrew Madden rang Bishop O‟Mahony and asked to meet him. He found the bishop “very personable and very nice and very warm”. He raised the question of Fr Payne‟s presence in Sutton. Bishop O‟Mahony told him that he had no reason to believe Fr Payne was sexually abusing children in Sutton. Mr Madden replied that he (Bishop O‟Mahony) had no reason to believe that Fr Payne had been sexually abusing him (Andrew Madden) in Cabra at the time it was happening. Mr Madden found himself “very un-reassured by his response. I thought it was very casual given the serious nature of the risk to children at the time”. Mr Madden had been refused entry to Clonliffe College to train for the priesthood and was convinced that this was because of his complaint in relation to Fr Payne. Bishop O‟Mahony tried to reassure him that this was not so, but Mr Madden did not believe him. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he subsequently tried to contact Mr Madden a number of times but was unable to do so. He met Mr Madden again in 1995 and it was, according to Bishop O‟Mahony, “a friendly meeting”.  

24.29 Fr Payne first came to the attention of Archbishop Connell in October 1991 when a question arose about promoting him from the Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal to be the President of the National Marriage Appeal Tribunal. Archbishop Connell consulted the auxiliary bishops and was told by Bishop O‟Mahony to look at Fr Payne‟s file in the secret archive. Having discovered what had happened in 1981, Archbishop Connell decided not to agree to his promotion. He satisfied himself that Fr Payne was not a danger to children, but considered he could not agree to the promotion as he would have to inform the other members of the Bishops‟ Conference about the complaint. This would, Cardinal Connell told the Commission, involve “defaming” Fr Payne. He explained that defamation involved both the sin of calumny and the sin of detraction. Calumny is the “unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty”82. Detraction is the “unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer”.83 So, defamation in church law includes both true and untrue statements. Defamation in civil law involves only untrue statements: “Defamation is committed by the wrongful publication of a false statement about a person, which tends to lower that person in the eyes of right-thinking members of society or tends to hold that person up to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or causes that person to be shunned or avoided by right-thinking members of society.”84 Many of the failures to report appalling behaviour by clergy may well be attributable to a wish to avoid committing the sin of detraction.  

24.30 At this stage, Bishop O‟Mahony again sent Fr Payne to Professor Walsh for assessment. There is no written report of this assessment, but it appears from a subsequent report that Professor Walsh considered Fr Payne not to be a risk. This, of course, was still based on Professor Walsh‟s misapprehension about the nature of the complaint.  

24.31 Cardinal Connell was questioned by the Commission on how he reached the conclusion that Fr Payne was not a risk. He said he “relied on Professor Walsh‟s assessment and opinion”. When questioned on this, he clarified that he did not read Professor Walsh‟s reports but instead relied on Bishop O‟Mahony‟s version of Professor Walsh‟s assessment and opinion.  

24.32 Fr Payne became President of the Canon Law Association of Great Britain and Ireland.  

24.33 In March 1992, Mr Madden wrote to Fr Payne looking for compensation; he did not seek compensation from the Archdiocese. Fr Payne seems to have told Bishop O‟Mahony about this. Archbishop Connell first heard of this when Mr Madden wrote to him in April 1993 complaining about the delay in settling his claim. The diocesan solicitors were acting for Fr Payne. They thought that Fr Payne had been referred to them by the Archdiocese. When Archbishop Connell received Mr Madden‟s letter, Monsignor Stenson spoke to Mr Madden and gave him Bishop O‟Mahony‟s phone number. The diocesan solicitors were instructed by Archbishop Connell to offer Fr Payne financial assistance in disposing of the case. Fr Payne was advised to get separate representation. A settlement was reached between Mr Madden and Fr Payne in May 1993. The financing of that settlement was later to prove very controversial and is dealt with further below.

24.34 In the context of these proceedings, Fr Payne admitted that he had experienced sexual desire towards youngsters prior to Mr Madden and had made moves on two boys and these were rejected. He claimed that he had not interfered with children since.  

Public knowledge of complaint, 1994  

24.35 From August 1994, Mr Madden began speaking to a number of journalists and the first media references to the payment began to appear. Mr Madden was angry that the Church continued to deny that anyone had received a payment as a result of clerical child sexual abuse. There were no names in the public domain at this stage.  

24.36 Fr Payne was sent for a third assessment to Professor Walsh. It is clear from his report, issued in September 1994, that Professor Walsh was still operating under a misunderstanding about the nature of the complaint.  

24.37 In November 1994, Mr Madden wrote letters to the papers under a pseudonym describing how his case had been handled. Archbishop Connell discussed this development with Monsignor Sheehy and suggested Fr Payne be sent for treatment. Monsignor Sheehy was the Judicial Vicar and so, was Fr Payne‟s superior, but he had no official role in dealing with priests who were abusing. He had been a close friend of Archbishop Connell since boyhood and was very influential. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that, as knowledge emerged about the wrongdoing of Fr Brendan Smyth in October 1994, he developed a greater understanding of what abusers were capable of. Even though there were no new complaints, he considered that prudence indicated that Fr Payne should be further evaluated. Monsignor Sheehy wrote, unsolicited, what can only be described as a tirade about anonymous letters and the unjust treatment of priests. Monsignor Sheehy‟s concerns, as expressed in letters to Monsignor Stenson and Archbishop Connell, were entirely related to the rights of the priest and the autonomy of the Church. He considered that sending Fr Payne for treatment was unwise and unjust and “a manifest invasion of his rights under the law of the Church”. He believed that Fr Payne had not re-offended (it is not clear what basis he had for this belief) and taking any action against him “could well destroy both him and his priesthood”. He went on to comment generally on the Church‟s approach to clerical child abusers:  

“It is my opinion that there is a gross over-reaction on the part of many of our Church authorities to this whole „paedophile crisis‟. I heard the Cardinal85 on yesterday‟s radio specifically saying that, if there is a reasonable suspicion against a priest in this area, he should be turned over to the police for investigation and for whatever may follow from that. This is panic; it is also wrong. It takes no account whatever of the Church‟s own canonical procedures in dealing with situations of this kind – procedures which long have been acknowledged and accepted by the civil courts. There is, in my view, a real danger in all of this that some of the local churches may, unthinkingly, try to solve their problems at the risk of abandoning the autonomy which the Code of Canon Law, now clearly based on Vatican II, has established for the Church itself”.

1995

24.38 Fr Payne was sent to a therapeutic facility in the USA for a further assessment. Fr Payne told the therapists there Mr Madden was 13 when the abuse first started. A lengthy report was issued in January 1995 which showed, among other things, that Fr Payne:  

“learned about sex in the seminary from the Archbishop of Dublin who called in seminarians for discussions”;  

denied sexual contact with anyone other than Mr Madden;  

was sexually attracted to adolescent boys but was also sexually attracted to adult men and women.  

24.39 The therapeutic facility was inclined to believe that he had not engaged in sexual activity with adolescents other than Mr Madden, but recommended that he should have no unsupervised contact with minors. It also recommended that he undergo residential treatment.  

24.40 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he did read this report. Fr Payne was not sent for residential treatment – it is not clear why. He did start to attend the Granada Institute in Dublin. He was continuing to work in Sutton parish (until June 1995) and in the Marriage Tribunal.  

24.41 Mr Madden told his story on the Gay Byrne Show on RTE Radio 1 in April 1995. There were other media reports about the case. The Archdiocese issued a statement expressing regret and sorrow and a wish to be involved in the healing process. The statement went on to deal with the issues of the continuation in ministry by a priest who has offended and with the financial settlement.  

24.42 The statement said that:  

“While the presumption where child abuse has taken place is that the abuser will be removed and not be re-admitted to parish ministry, situations can arise where ministry may be possible. A core concern in such situations will be an evaluation of the potential risk to children. Decisions of this nature are made on grounds which are carefully considered and with the help of independent professional advice”. On the finance issue, it stated:

“As reported in recent days, a priest settled a claim in respect of such abuse. It has been suggested that this settlement was made by the diocese. Save for assistance as herein described, it was not. It is not and never has been the practice of the diocese to accept responsibility for any such settlement by a priest. The priest did receive financial assistance from the diocese to enable him to meet such claim, on the basis that this would be repaid, and a substantial portion in fact has already been repaid. The amount of the assistance is actually less than amounts donated to the diocese by the Archbishop himself out of his personal resources”.  

24.43 During the early part of 1995, Monsignor Stenson heard reports from Sutton of inappropriate behaviour by Fr Payne and told Bishop O‟Mahony. There is no evidence that this was followed up. In June 1995, Fr Payne was released from Sutton (he had asked for this as he felt he had too much work), with the usual letter of thanks, and appointed chaplain to a convent. He did not in fact move to the convent but moved to a flat in the grounds of Archbishop‟s House instead. He did not get any subsequent appointment but he does not seem to have been formally removed from ministry. It would appear he had an agreement with Bishop O‟Mahony not to say mass in public. However, Monsignor Sheehy said he was doing supply work, including some arranged by Monsignor Sheehy himself. Monsignor Sheehy continued to campaign for him to be appointed to a chaplaincy. Cardinal Connell told the Commission this supply work was not being done with his knowledge or approval.  

24.44 In July 1995, Mr Madden went public under his own name. Another complainant then came forward; he had been speaking to Bishop O‟Mahony since April but only named Fr Payne in July 1995. He claimed to have been abused while in Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin. He was advised by Bishop O‟Mahony to report the matter to the Gardaí. Bishop O‟Mahony explained to him that he could not guarantee confidentiality. The complainant was very unwilling to report to the Gardaí and, in fact, never did. He did not want to be the “cause of further bad publicity for the church”. He did not make a civil claim either. He did not report his complaint to the hospital and the hospital was not told by the Archdiocese even though the Archbishop is the Chairman of its Board of Directors.  

24.45 The second complainant described how he was abused while a patient in Crumlin Hospital. The abuse involved Fr Payne coming to his bed late at night and fondling him while ostensibly checking to see if he was comfortable. Monsignor Stenson interviewed the complainant and compiled a comprehensive report. Monsignor Stenson then met Fr Payne who said he did not remember the alleged incidents but “it‟s not impossible that there was some contact which was misinterpreted”. Later, the second complainant was told that Fr Payne did not deny the possibility that there was truth in the allegation and that Fr Payne was going for therapy. The complainant accepted this as an apology. This was extraordinarily charitable of him since it does not, in the Commission‟s view, constitute even a half hearted apology.  

24.46 Also in July 1995, two boys from Sutton made statements to the Gardaí alleging abuse by Fr Payne. The boys were altar boys and the abuse involved fondling. It occurred in the sacristy. They did not complain to the Archdiocese at this time. The Gardaí conducted an investigation which included interviewing other altar boys from the area. The local priests co-operated by providing lists of altar boys to the Gardaí. The Archdiocese heard about this investigation in August 1995.  

24.47 In August 1995, the meeting of the Archbishop and auxiliary bishops considered removing Fr Payne from the Marriage Tribunal. In letters to Archbishop Connell, Monsignor Sheehy argued strongly against this: “It would be disastrous not only as a public act – which it would obviously be, and at once portrayed to be – but, far worse, as an act which would very likely be the final destruction of a good priest of this diocese”. In September, Fr Payne resigned as Vice Officialis but seems to have remained working for the Marriage Tribunal. From then until the end of the year there was extensive media coverage of the case and of child sexual abuse generally; the allegations of abuse in the diocese of Ferns were also being aired. The issue of the loan to Fr Payne was widely covered in the media – see below. More complainants came forward; most were from Crumlin and some were from Sutton.  

24.48 In September 1995, the father of a boy in Sutton complained to the Archdiocese. The father questioned his son about Fr Payne after the father had got inquiries from a journalist. The father questioned why the Church authorities had not initiated some inquiries in the area. Also in September another man who alleged that he had been abused while a child in Crumlin hospital complained to the Archdiocese. His allegations were similar to those of the second complainant and he did not want to go to the Gardaí either. He did not complain to the hospital.  

24.49 A priest who had served with Fr Payne in Sutton reported to Monsignor Stenson that he had not been aware of the complaints against Fr Payne while he was there. Now, in hindsight, Fr Payne‟s behaviour would give him cause for concern. He specifically mentioned a young foreign student who used to stay with Fr Payne and that this particular friendship gave rise to some critical comments at the time.  

24.50 In October 1995, other former Crumlin patients came forward alleging abuse by Fr Payne. One of these said he had told his parents about the abuse at the time but was told not to be talking like that about a priest. His mother was now very upset when he reminded her that she had been told about it at the time.  

24.51 The Secretary/Manager of Crumlin Hospital told Monsignor Stenson that some nursing people had a problem with Fr Payne while he was there. One complainant told the Commission that she complained to a physiotherapist and a person whom she thinks was a nurse about the abuse at the time.  

24.52 Another complainant from Sutton complained that he had been abused over a number of years by Fr Payne in Sutton and in a children‟s holiday home. Fr Payne did not have an official appointment to this holiday home but, according to this complainant, he used to take care of some boys there. This complainant met Fr Payne in the holiday home and was abused while there and also at Fr Payne‟s house in Sutton. The abuse mainly involved fondling and mutual masturbation. This complainant also alleged that there was oral sex, digital penetration and attempted penile penetration.  

24.53 Monsignor Sheehy continued to support Fr Payne‟s position in the Marriage Tribunal and railed against Archbishop Connell‟s proposal that he be removed: “[I] … could not but regard such a precipitate and so-called „public opinion‟-motivated decision as a grave mistake, pregnant with the possibility of even more grave injustice”. Monsignor Sheehy was very critical of a trip to the USA undertaken by Monsignor Stenson and “some civil-law associates”. This was a trip undertaken in 1994 to find out more about how the American bishops were dealing with cases of child sexual abuse.  

24.54 Fr Payne resigned from the Marriage Tribunal in October following a meeting with Bishop O‟Mahony. It was clear that he felt there was no choice and he stipulated that his resignation was conditional on being given more appropriate accommodation and an assigned place in which to say mass daily.  

24.55 Fr Payne became a beneficiary of the Diocesan Clerical Fund. He was attending the Granada Institute and he continued to attend for the next three years. The Garda investigation was continuing. Initially this was mainly concentrated on Sutton as the first complaints to the Gardaí came from there. The Archdiocese held a public meeting in Sutton to reassure the parishioners there.  

24.56 Another Crumlin patient made a complaint followed soon afterwards by a Cabra complainant It is clear from the various statements made to the Gardaí by children abused in Crumlin that other children may also have been abused in their presence.  

24.57 In November 1995, another person from Crumlin complained to the Archdiocese. Unlike all the other Crumlin complainants to date, he had not been a patient in Crumlin hospital but was an altar boy there and lived locally. He told Monsignor Stenson that it was “common knowledge” what Fr Payne was doing. In December, another former Crumlin hospital patient complained.  

24.58 Monsignor Sheehy continued to argue against the way the Archbishop was handling the allegations. Monsignor Sheehy‟s main concerns were:  

The public naming of priests against whom allegations had been made – he cited Fr Francis McCarthy (see Chapter 41) – when no formal charges had been made either in the ecclesiastical or the civil forum nor had there been any serious inquiry made in the ecclesiastical forum.  

The priest could take an action for defamation against the Church authorities.  

The public impression was that the bishops were being media driven.  

There was a growing impression that the church had no means of dealing with these problems and that the problem could only be handled by the state. This impression had been “fuelled by some episcopal statements and actions”. He cited canons 204, 747, 794.1, and 1254.1 as showing that the canon law recognises the separation of Church and state. The Church should concern itself solely with applying its own law and it was up to the state to act in accordance with its laws. He questioned whether the state was doing that when it, in the case of Fr Payne, was “trawling” the homes of altar boys in the parish.  

24.59 Archbishop Connell replied to Monsignor Sheehy:  

“I am afraid that the „growing impression that the Church has itself no means of dealing seriously with a problem such as the current one‟ is not half so acute as the widespread belief that the means hitherto employed by the Church have failed to deal with the problems. … It is clear to me, for example, that if the recently published allegation against Father Payne is true, the ground upon which I and others have been standing in supporting him – at so terrible a cost – will have completely collapsed”.

More complaints and prosecution, 1996 - 1997

24.60 Fr Payne was questioned by the Gardaí in February 1996. Another former Crumlin hospital patient complained to the Gardaí. In his statement to the Gardaí he said that he told the nurses that he did not want Fr Payne coming near him but they had paid no attention to him. Fr Payne was later convicted in relation to the abuse of this complainant.  

24.61 It is clear that there was no serious monitoring of Fr Payne‟s whereabouts at this time. In February 1996, he was seen in Northern Ireland with “two lads”; when asked, Fr Payne said they were two Austrians and one was a girl – nothing further was done even though concerns had already been expressed about his relationship with an Austrian.

24.62 Archbishop Connell seems to have held the view that Bishop O‟Mahony was responsible for monitoring Fr Payne but it is not clear that this responsibility was ever explicitly given to Bishop O‟Mahony. Bishop O‟Mahony resigned as an auxiliary bishop in 1996; he was ill for much of the period 1996 – 1998 and was abroad for treatment for some of this time.  

24.63 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that, to the best of his recollection, he did not meet Fr Payne until he visited him in prison. There is evidence of an appointment with Fr Payne in the Archbishop‟s diary for 1996; the Cardinal accepts that that meeting took place but he has no recollection of it.  

24.64 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he did not know what was being done about Fr Payne in the period 1996 – 98: “it was a matter for the Chancellery”. It is quite clear that it was not a matter for the chancellor as the chancellor has no powers to reprimand or sanction a priest. Cardinal Connell also said that he was not aware of the ongoing arrangements for Fr Payne‟s financial support during this period.  

24.65 Fr Payne was attending Granada and Bishop O‟Mahony was “very good to him”. Another former Crumlin hospital patient complained in early 1997.  

24.66 The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided to prosecute in respect of some of the complaints. There was no prosecution in respect of several of the cases from Crumlin because the complainants were unable to provide a clear description of Fr Payne.  

24.67 In March 1997, Fr Payne was charged with 13 counts of indecent assault on nine of the complainants. Later he was charged with 29 counts of indecent assault on Andrew Madden. There were a number of court appearances during 1997. His support priest accompanied him to court. He was continuing to attend the Granada Institute. Monsignor Dolan (who was now the chancellor) and Fr Payne‟s support priest attended meetings with Granada. In October 1997, Monsignor Dolan had intended raising the issue of the formal removal of faculties from Fr Payne but did not do so when he was told of Fr Payne‟s non-involvement in pastoral ministry.  

24.68 As part of their ongoing inquiries, the Gardaí made various attempts to interview Bishop O‟Mahony during 1997. Bishop O‟Mahony issued a statement in 1998 saying that the Gardaí had tried to contact him in 1997 but that he was unavailable due to convalescence in the USA.  

Conviction and imprisonment, 1998  

24.69 Fr Payne pleaded guilty in January 1998 to charges of indecent assault on ten victims and was sentenced in June 1998 to six years‟ imprisonment. He remained in prison until October 2002. He was visited in prison by Archbishop Connell in 2000 and 2002. The Commission considers that this is to Archbishop Connell‟s credit. He was visited regularly by his support priest who also brought his (Fr Payne‟s) mother to visit him in prison.  

24.70 Archbishop Connell wrote a kind letter to Fr Payne‟s mother immediately after he was convicted. Fr Payne wrote to the Archbishop just before his sentencing expressing his regret and sorrow for the suffering the Archbishop had endured following the revelation of his abusive behaviour and to thank him for his support.  

24.71 In February 1998, one complainant complained that he never received an apology despite the fact that it had been more than two years since he had met Monsignor Stenson and reported the abuse. He is one of the complainants who did not complain to Gardaí and did not make a civil claim. There does not appear to have been much follow up for this particular complainant. Another complainant complained that there had been no follow up from the diocese. In June 1998, the Archdiocese agreed to pay for therapy for one complainant. The policy was to pay for therapy for six months and then review the situation. Therapy was subsequently provided for a number of the complainants who sought it. Compensation was agreed with those who sought it.

Laicisation

24.72 In 2001, the Archdiocese asked Fr Payne to apply for laicisation. Fr Payne was shocked but eventually agreed. He was laicised in 2002. When he was released from prison, he went to live in the inner city. Some limited arrangements were made for his supervision while there but the local clergy do not seem to have been informed that he was living among them. He was visited by his therapist, his support priest and Monsignor Dolan. Monsignor Dolan told the Commission that he liaised with the Gardaí about the suitability of the accommodation. Fr Payne‟s whereabouts became known and there was a campaign to remove him. He moved to the UK in 2003. He has since moved a few times. At present, the Commission understands that he lives outside Ireland, but he has a convenience address in Ireland.  

24.73 After his release from prison he was supported by the Clerical Fund Society. His entitlement to this support ceased on laicisation. The Archdiocese decided that, in view of his low employment prospects and his risk of becoming destitute, he should be supported at least until he qualified for the State Pension in 2009. This support was provided from the Poor of Dublin Fund (see Chapter 8) for the period until June 2007. He is now supported from the Curial Trust and money paid from the Poor of Dublin Fund has been reimbursed from the Curial Trust.  

24.74 More allegations continued to emerge up to 2008.

The loan  

24.75 The Archdiocese issued a statement about the loan to Fr Payne in 1995. In this, Archbishop Connell said that he had been approached by Fr Payne about a loan. It appears from other evidence that Archbishop Connell instructed the diocesan solicitors to offer Fr Payne a loan. Archbishop Connell said that he was motivated by a desire to see Andrew Madden “recompensed without undue delay” and that Fr Payne was functioning “more than satisfactorily” in his ministry and there was nothing to suggest that children were at risk. 

24.76 In May 1995 Archbishop Connell said on RTE television: “I have compensated nobody. I have paid out nothing whatever in compensation. It is my policy that if a priest is guilty and he wishes to make an out-of-court settlement that is his responsibility. The diocese does not pay for that”.  

24.77 Cardinal Connell told the Commission that Mr Madden was entitled to compensation as Fr Payne had admitted the abuse. His decision to lend money to Fr Payne to pay the compensation was also based on his pastoral concern for Fr Payne as a man who it seemed, on the evidence available to him, “had reformed and would be able to live his life free of all that concern”.  

24.78 The loan was given from money in the Curial Trust. In evidence to the Commission, Cardinal Connell said that he did not know if he was a trustee of the fund: “I would have left all that kind of thing to the Finance Secretariat”. Fr Payne repaid £5,000 in 1994. There is documentary evidence that Archbishop Connell personally paid £3,000 off the loan but he had no recollection of that when giving evidence to the Commission. Clearly, Fr Payne considered that the Archbishop had given a personal loan as he tried to repay £1,500 of this in September 1996. This was treated as a repayment of part of the diocesan loan. During 1996 and 1997, Fr Payne made further repayments. Fr Payne had no income while he was in prison so no further repayments were made. The outstanding loan to Fr Payne – approximately €14,000 – was written off in the accounts in 2004 when Mr Payne, as he then was, was receiving only a charitable donation from the Archdiocese.  

The Commission’s assessment The Archdiocese

24.79 The initial complaint against Fr Payne was handled very badly and, as a result of the failure to deal with it properly, many other children were abused or potentially exposed to abuse. Archbishop Ryan and Bishop O‟Mahony were particularly culpable. Archbishop Ryan did not properly address the complaint at all. He left it to Bishop O‟Mahony but did not specify what was to be done. Bishop O‟Mahony sent Fr Payne for psychiatric assessment but did not brief the psychiatrist properly. He then received a report from which it is clear that the psychiatrist was under a misapprehension about the age of the victim when the abuse occurred and he did nothing to rectify that misapprehension. He reported to Archbishop Ryan that there was a favourable assessment. Archbishop Ryan did not even read the report; if he had, he might have discovered its complete uselessness as it was based on erroneous information. Nobody contacted the victim or made any attempt to find out about the other boy mentioned by the victim. When they eventually met, Andrew Madden thought that Bishop O‟Mahony was sympathetic and generally a nice man but was very clear that the bishop was not really addressing the issue of the safety of children.

24.80 When Archbishop Connell first became aware of the problem, he did not inform himself properly. He took a very hands off approach to this case. The Archbishop seems to have met Fr Payne only once before Fr Payne went to prison. He regarded Bishop O‟Mahony as being in charge even though Bishop O‟Mahony was retired, abroad and ill for some of the relevant time. He nevertheless was financially kind to Fr Payne and visited him in prison. He was also kind to Fr Payne‟s mother. Cardinal Connell disputes the assessment that he took a hands off approach. He points out that he declined to promote Fr Payne in 1991, that he sent him to the USA for an assessment in 1994 and, as a result of that assessment, he removed him from Sutton parish. He argues that he was poorly advised in that he relied on Bishop O‟Mahony‟s report of Professor Walsh‟s assessment and on the report from the USA therapeutic facility which incorrectly concluded that Fr Payne had not offended since his abuse of Andrew Madden. The Commission notes that Fr Payne was not removed from Sutton for six months after the USA report. The USA report also recommended residential treatment and this was not implemented. The Commission agrees that Archbishop Connell was poorly advised but, ultimately, as Archbishop, he had responsibility for the appointment and removal of priests and so should have been more directly involved.  

24.81 Monsignor Sheehy was not directly involved in handling this case but he was an influential background figure. He believed in Fr Payne‟s innocence even when it became abundantly clear that there was no basis for such a belief. He took the view that handing over a priest to the civil authorities for investigation was wrong and was contrary to canon law. The Archdiocese did not “hand over” Fr Payne for investigation by the civil authorities. A complaint was made to the Gardaí and they investigated it as they are required to do. Monsignor Sheehy wrote eloquently on the subject of the rights of priests without ever managing to refer to, or consider, the rights of children. He acted in an entirely irresponsible manner in arranging supply work for Fr Payne when Archbishop Connell had effectively, but not formally, removed him from ministry.

State authorities

24.82 Neither the health board nor the Gardaí was informed of the first complaint at the time. The Gardaí first received a complaint about Fr Payne in 1995 and dealt appropriately with this and subsequent complaints.  

24.83 The health board does not seem to have been formally notified of complaints about Fr Payne at any stage. However, his name was in the public domain from 1994 onwards. It was notified of the fact that he was being released from prison in 2002.

Chapter 25 Fr Donato*86

Introduction

25.1 In July 1995, the Gardaí received a complaint from a young woman who claimed that she had been sexually abused by Fr Donato in the early 1980s when she was a school-girl. She claimed she had been seeing him for some time in relation to some personal problems. On a particular day, he asked her to come and sit on his lap. She claimed he spread her legs apart and then he slowly put one leg over the arm of the chair. She said he put his hand up her skirt and into her pants and, while he was doing this, he asked her had anyone else done it to her.  

25.2 She said she went to see the parish priest that same day in the early 1980s. She claimed that he told her it was her own fault; that she should not dress the way she did and she should not say things about Fr Donato who was one of his best friends.  

25.3 The young girl reported the matter to her teacher. The school principal was informed. The principal spoke to the girl‟s mother.  

25.4 The parents of the young girl went to see the parish priest who told them that Fr Donato was a very affectionate young man. He said he had spoken to him and that he had felt that something had happened. He had warned Fr Donato to stay away from the young girl and assured the parents that it would never happen again. There is no evidence that the parish priest ever reported the matter to the archdiocesan authorities.  

25.5 When the complaint was made to them in 1995, the Gardaí interviewed a number of the young girl‟s friends, her brother and Fr Donato himself in October 1995. Fr Donato recalled embracing her on the last day they had met in order to comfort her but he stated that there was no sexual element to it. He said that any touching that occurred “was done through emotion and care for her and was not of a sexual nature”. He told Gardaí he did recall the parish priest receiving a complaint.  

25.6 The case did not result in a prosecution as the DPP considered there was insufficient evidence.  

Priest’s background  

25.7 Fr Donato was born in 1940 and ordained in 1970 for a foreign diocese. He initially worked in that diocese but, according to his local bishop, he got into difficulty with gambling debts and the bishop advised him to return to Ireland. In 1977, Archbishop Ryan considered his request for a pastoral appointment in Dublin and gave him an appointment in January 1978. Fr Donato‟s gambling difficulties were disclosed to Archbishop Ryan by his previous bishop. In 1981 he was formally incardinated (see Chapter 3) into the Archdiocese of Dublin. The committee which advised the Archbishop on matters of incardination had no reservation about his incardination.  

25.8 In 1983 he was appointed to a new parish. It was during his period in this parish that the alleged indecent assault of the young schoolgirl occurred. He was subsequently appointed to other positions in the Archdiocese.  

25.9 As already stated, a complaint had been made to the parish priest in 1984 but he did not inform the Archdiocesan authorities. The Archdiocese became aware of this complaint when the Gardaí told Monsignor Stenson about it in December 1995.  

Adult complainant  

25.10 The Archdiocese was, however, aware of a different complaint about Fr Donato in October 1992. This did not involve child sexual abuse. The mother of a 20 year old woman complained that her daughter was the victim of very unwelcome attentions from Fr Donato. She threatened to go to the media if nothing was done about him. With great haste a full investigation had been set in motion by the end of October. Canon Ardle McMahon was put in charge of the investigation. By early December, Canon McMahon had concluded his investigation stating that:

Both the priest and the young woman in question denied any sexual irregularity.  

The relationship had lasted less than three months.  

The priest admitted some errors in judgment.  

The situation called for an expeditious solution: the report did not suggest what should be done.  

Even though this was not a case of child sexual abuse, the young woman and her mother were adamant that Fr Donato should be removed. They reported the matter to the Gardaí who investigated whether an offence had been committed. No prosecution ensued.  

25.11 Other problems, apart from the complaint of sexual harassment, arose about Fr Donato‟s ministry. Archbishop Connell met Fr Donato in June 1994 and suggested a sabbatical. In August 1994, he approved a year‟s sabbatical for him. This was to be spent attending a third level course. By the end of 1994 it was clear that Fr Donato was not actually attending the course.  

25.12 In May 1995, Fr Donato stated that he wished to be released from ministerial priesthood. At the end of June, Archbishop Connell released him from ministry. This occurred 14 days before the young woman who had made the 1984 complaint went to the Gardaí. The request to be laicised from the priesthood was left in abeyance until August 1998 when Monsignor Dolan wrote to Fr Donato asking whether he still wished to be laicised. At this stage the Archdiocese had had little or no contact with Fr Donato for over three years. In September 1998, as no response had been received from him, Archbishop Connell withdrew his faculties. In December 1998, Fr Donato wrote to Archbishop Connell and told him that he was married; however, he did not wish to be laicised.  

25.13 On further investigation, it transpired that Fr Donato had commenced a long-term relationship with a woman in or around 1977, the year he was first appointed to a position in Dublin, and they had had a daughter in 1979. They subsequently married in or around 1997. The Archdiocese had not been aware of this relationship.  

The Commission’s assessment  

25.14 The only complaint of child sexual abuse of which the Archdiocese became aware was the one involving the school girl who complained to the parish priest in 1984 and to the Gardaí in 1995. The parish priest was remiss in not reporting the matter to the Archdiocese.

25.15 It would appear that for the entire time this priest was working in the Archdiocese of Dublin, he had a relationship with a woman who bore him a child in 1979 yet the Archdiocese seems to have been totally unaware of this. Although he explained in a letter to Archbishop Connell in December 1998 that he was now married, it appears that he was not laicised until 2007.  

25.16 No one in the Archdiocese knew anything about him for the years between 1995 and 1998 or tried to find out where he was, even though he was still a priest of the diocese and one against whom a complaint of child sexual abuse had been made.  

25.17 The Gardaí carried out the investigations appropriately.

_______________

Notes: 

75 This is a pseudonym. 

76 This is a pseudonym.   

77 This hospital is now called Our Lady‟s Children‟s Hospital, Crumlin.  

78 Including Andrew Madden; technically, this compensation was paid by Fr Payne himself but it was largely financed by the Archdiocese – see below.

79 Our Lady‟s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin is a scheduled institution for the purposes of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. All dealings with the Residential Institutions Redress Board are strictly confidential and it is an offence under Section 28 of the Act to disclose information about claims under the Act.

 80 Andrew Madden has described his experiences in his book Altar Boy: A Story of Life after Abuse (Dublin: Penguin Books, 2004).  

81 In canon law, “Officialis‟ is the title of a diocesan bishop's judicial vicar. The title “Judicial Vicar‟ is now more generally used. The Judicial Vicar shares the bishop's judicial power over the diocese and presides over the diocesan ecclesiastical court. The Vice Officialis is the assistant or associate Judicial Vicar.   

82 Catholic Online: Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia

83 Op cit

84 McMahon and Binchy, Law of Torts, (Dublin: Butterworths, 2000)   

85 Cardinal Daly, Archbishop of Armagh; the Fr Brendan Smyth controversy was raging at this time.   

86 This is a pseudonym.  

Go to Next Page